California State University, Northridge

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

Personal Preparedness for Disasters Approach to Best Practices Among Vulnerable Communities in the City of Los Angeles

A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Public Administration in Public Sector Management and Leadership

By Diego Valenzuela

August 2020

The graduate project of Diego Valenzuela is approved:

______Dr. Elizabeth Trebow Date

______Dr. Ariane David Date

______Dr. Anais Valiquette L’ Heureux, Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

iii

Table of Contents

Signature Page iii

Abstract vi

Introduction 1

Literature Review 3

Introduction 3

Coordination and Collaboration 3

Lessons of Hurricane Katrina 5

Evidence-Based Management 6

Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 7

Organizational Leadership 8

Emergency Planning 9

Section Summary 10

Limitations of Previous Research 11

Research Question and Aim 12

Research Design 13

Introduction 13

General Approach 13

Sampling and Recruitment 14

Research Protocol 15

Quantitative Data Gathering 15

Quantitative Data Analysis 16

Cross-Sectional Study Measurement 16

Discussion 18

Science and Evidence Base of Disaster Responses 18

Emergency Policy Analysis 19

Limitations and Ethical Considerations 20

Conclusion 23

References 26

Appendix I 32

Appendix II 33

Abstract

Personal Preparedness for Disasters

Approach to Best Practices Among Vulnerable Communities in the City of Los Angeles

Diego Valenzuela

Master of Public Administration in Public Sector Management and Leadership

Disaster preparedness requires local managers to collaborate with emergency personnel, including fire, police, and other agencies. It involves many topics, including lessons of previous disasters, collaboration with other government officials, mitigation, recovery, leadership, and emergency planning. This paper examines things Los Angeles Emergency Management can do to prepare communities that are adversely affected or live in vulnerable situations.

Evidence points to discrepancies in level of education and preparedness between low- and high-income communities. A disproportionate number of minorities residing in both are unprepared for natural disasters. These communities suffer and will continue to do so. Los

Angeles City Emergency Management teams, together with nonprofit organizations such as the

American Red Cross and local police and fire departments, must continue their efforts to educate these communities that are likely to be affected.

Introduction

A disaster is an unplanned event in which vulnerable communities are at a higher risk of being affected, and therefore more resources are needed. Disasters occur around the globe daily, but major catastrophes are categorized by scope, size, and context. Specified well-publicized disasters include the September 11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, the

Boston Marathon bombing, and the coronavirus pandemic, all of which have increased public attention to disaster planning and preparedness. According to Henstra (2010), “Disasters like

Hurricane Katrina periodically emphasize the critical importance of emergency management, which involves detailed planning and organization to deal with emergencies and their impacts.”

(236).

There is much-needed attention being given to vulnerable communities threatened by natural disasters, and much attention is required for community resilience. One lesson of

Hurricane Katrina was the importance of strong emergency management and of educating vulnerable cities before disaster strikes. Hurricane Katrina also revealed the need for intake assistance, especially for families with low incomes or people suffering from chronic illness.

During the hurricane, many first responders were recognized by for giving aid to displaced residents during a very difficult time. After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, investigators found that many residents suffered from home damage, so they examined the evidence of underlying vulnerability through a series of case studies.

Emergency management can include such entities as the American Red Cross and the

Salvation Army. According to Waugh and Streib (2006), “At the professional level, the critical tasks leading up to, during, and following a disaster involve coordinating multiorganization, intergovernmental, and intersectional response and recovery operations.”(134). Emergency

management today involves collaboration with many local government agencies such as police and fire, and medical responders. It can train local partners before a disaster strikes and educating the public. Collaboration with state and federal agencies can be helpful for sharing resources when a disaster strikes and developing a sound incident command system, external relations, or logistic departments. Emergency management can create better preparedness programs by providing recovery tools to community members, educating them, and building technological systems that respond to needs and provide funds when a disaster strikes. However, increased attention will help agencies invest and disseminate information to reduce the risk of catastrophes and reinforce strategies and coordination.

Vulnerable areas have low socioeconomic statuses and high criminality, which negatively affects society. Other factors associated with sensitive areas are low levels of education and people with disabilities. Vulnerable areas can also be in geographical regions that are prone to natural disasters such earthquakes, diseases, and hurricanes.

This project examines the awareness campaigns offered in vulnerable areas and municipalities to reduce the harm caused by all hazards, including disasters, and the measures public management agencies can take to increase public preparedness for disasters.

Literature Review

Introduction

Disaster preparedness is crucial for people around the world, as disasters can happen anywhere. It has saved many lives and protected many vulnerable communities. The goal is to return affected areas to normal. After a disaster, emergency management collaborates with state, federal, and local officials or the nonprofit sector to save as many lives as possible and provide other aid. The chaos and destruction of Hurricane Katrina taught the Emergency Management

Department to cultivate coordination and collaboration skills. Disaster preparation requires strong communication skills, government partners, and proper tools. There are many ways of preparing for any type of disaster before it becomes stressful.

Coordination and Collaboration

Coordination is essential for continuance and requires the Emergency Management

Agency to work with states, local, and federal authorities. In the last five years, the agency has promoted well-being by minimizing property damage across the country (Hodges, 2000). The most important aspects of disaster preparedness are intersectoral and intergovernmental. When a disaster strikes, emergency managers face many problems, demands, and stress. Emergency management requires diligent work among many groups and across boundaries to communicate and complete the mission (Mcguire, Brudney, & Gazley, 2010).

At the local level, collaboration has proven to be essential in disasters because it increases community engagement and voluntarism. The Salvation Army and the American Red

Cross are the primary resources for disaster victims (Weigh & Streib, 2006). Collaborating on everything may seem difficult. Professional emergency management operates in many areas, but fortunately it is generally collaborative. The highest priority of emergency management today is

3 education and training (Mcguire, 2009). Networks are used for coordination. Many researchers have used the framework of partnerships and collaborations to define intergovernmental efforts in response to disasters. Similarly, networks and organizations have addressed ways to respond to any type of disaster. Many states interact in their disaster responses (Kapucu, Augustin, &

Garaguv, 2009).

Integrated, interdependent collaborations are relationships in which agencies work together efficiently (Kapucu, Augustin, & Garaguv, 2009). In many areas, emergency management operates vertically with a hierarchical command structure and other departments.

Vertical and horizontal operations are important in emergency management because they establish positive and efficient relationships (Mcguire & Silvia 2009). As revealed in disasters such as Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the Northridge earthquake in 1994, there is a need for improved coordination between private and public agencies in response to large catastrophes

(Haggerty, 1994). Although improving coordination networks for disasters is not new, national and international improvements to disaster response require a reasonable coordination in cases of emergencies such as earthquakes, tsunamis, or epidemics that can produce chronic problems

(Nolte, Martin, & Boenigk, 2012).

Collaboration is a formal process of information and resource sharing and cooperating among public agencies and other organizations to save as many lives and as much property as possible. Attempts have been to aid disaster relief by sharing information through the software

Leverage 2.0 in order to collect phone, web, e-mail, Twitter, and Facebook data, among others, and provide updates to the public on ongoing crises (Huiji, Xufei, Geoffrey, & Huan 2011).

Disasters can overwhelm many relief workers, but collaboration can help through vertical work with local, state, and federal agencies and minimize the impact.

Lessons of Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina is the most prominent disaster in recent history and is an example of a catastrophic event that devastated humanity. Many people who responded to it are still coping with the trauma and sharing memories of painful experiences. Many communities near the levees were affected (Kapucu, Augustin, & Garagov 2009). More recent media coverage of the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina have highlighted the importance of training and of strategic tools for preparing for future disasters (Bonfield & Kemp, 1983). Experience has revealed ways of dealing with large disasters and the best ways of responding quickly and effectively (Bonfield &

Kemp, 1983).

Many emergency management programs have grown significantly in the last decade. The most recent research by emergency management officials after the 9/11 attacks acknowledged the incident, and as a result the government created the Department of Homeland Security to combat terrorism. Because the entire agency cohort was redesigned there was a poor response to

Hurricane Katrina (Kapucu, 2006). Emergency managers tend to react more quickly in severe emergencies (Kapucu, 2006). Many researchers have pointed to lessons learned from response efforts for intergovernmental, inter-organizational, local, state, and other platforms.

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina led to the Emergency Management Department sharing information, predicting the locations of disasters and resources, and having emergency responders on-site with knowledge to share with law enforcement and disaster-relief workers

(Banipal, 2006). The response’s failure extended into several dimensions, including politics leadership, management, and organizational and governmental decision making (Farazmand,

2009). The lesson learned was community preparedness, which was lacking before the hurricane.

White House reports concluded that community preparedness differs from jurisdiction to

5 jurisdiction, depending on the threat of disaster for the population in each area (Menzel, 2006).

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the Northridge earthquake of 1994 will be used as examples to examine emergency response times and show the lack of preparedness at the time.

During Hurricane Katrina, there was an apparent lack of coordination and communication, and response times were slow (www.hurricanescience.org). Katrina was the deadliest disaster in U.S. history, as nearly 1,800 people died because affected communities had no access to emergency preparedness kits. People were displaced, and thousands became homeless as a result.

Evidence-Based Management

Emergencies and crises can pose an immediate risk to the public, and that requires quick attention. Emergency managers must act quickly under high pressure in response to high-risk situations (Kapucu, 2006). The Kentucky snowstorm of 2008 was the worst natural disaster in the state’s history. In 2008, Hurricanes Ike and Gustav were catastrophic and more extensive than category 2 hurricanes, affecting many Texas and Louisiana communities. In 2003, the

Columbia space shuttle disaster left significant debris in Texas and Louisiana. Similarly, wildfires have destroyed many homes and other structures in seven counties of Southern

California. Many researchers selected the Kentucky storm and the California wildfires to conduct research on public health and emergency management officials. This research has allowed for more academic, better contextualized response efforts (Isakov, 2009).

Contrasting the many levels of response to floods, earthquakes, and dam failures can influence emergency responses (May, 2014), and disaster research can help emergency management personnel avoid common errors. Scholars have explored areas such as dispatchers being alerted of incidents, emergency personnel arriving on the scene, the training of emergency personnel in search and rescue, and on-site triage to help people with primary or minor injuries

(Heide, 2006). They have shown that rapid, evidence-based response minimizes losses and damage and builds community resilience.

Mobile phones may be the first devices used by citizens to communicate about an impact zone and to gather data through apps or SMS. Such apps are available for all types of mobile phones and have a wide range of characteristics, including features that may be essential for emergency disaster management (Cinnamon, Jones, & Adger, 2006). Evidence-based management allows emergency management leaders to research past disasters and manage responses in a timely and proper manner.

Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery

Two approaches to mitigation and response highlight a more significant impact of natural disasters. Relief can include actions taken before, during, or after an accident. Reduction consists of avoiding dangers, for instance by placing evacuation signs in a tsunami zones or rigid fault zones such as the San Andreas fault, which can produce significant earthquakes. A response involves using emergency personnel to assist in a disaster. Mitigation should be planned carefully, for instance by educating target populations in vulnerable communities. This can have a significant impact, such as in the case of a house fire (Science, 1961).

Whether a disaster is of a more a local or national scale, people suffer consequences such as primary home damage. To mitigate the damage from a flood, the community must use coping and survival techniques before the arrival of government agencies such as the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The primary goals in a disaster are mitigation, response, and recovery to ensure that people do not lose health services and hospitals remain open. Patient care is a priority as disaster victims arrive (Blake, Wilson, & Meyer, 2019).

Brushfire disaster recovery is unrealistic for many victims, so the main tasks are to support the

7 people most affected by it, ensure public safety in the affected zone, and disseminate general information about recovery phases, and community resilience (Potts, Bennett, Rajabiford, &

Abbas, 2013).

The coordination after disasters such as Hurricane Harvey demonstrates the improvement in effectiveness and efficiency, and data have enabled further improvement in recovery and preparedness for future disasters (Harney et al., 2019). The covid-19 pandemic has created a significant threat around the world and infected millions. China influenced the best mitigation efforts in many countries, as demonstrated through voluntary and mandated health guidelines such as quarantine, social distancing, stopping of mass gatherings, and isolation (Anderson,

Heesterbeck, Klinkenberg, & Hollingsworth 2020). However, mitigation and recovery efforts help many communities prepare for future disasters and develop the best recovery strategies.

Organizational Leadership

Preparation is crucial for many officials and communities, but ultimately what matters is how cities and officials respond to emergencies. It is the collective responsibility of emergency officials to take a long-term perspective (Sommers & Savara, 2009). The primary purpose of the planning assessment phase is to strengthen leaders responses to bioterrorism, infectious disease, or any other public health emergency (Potter et al., 1974). Managing a natural disaster is difficult and highly stressful and can be a second-level administrative task in the field of public management and administration (Farazmand, 2009).

By contrast, public emergency management can be involved in a variety of disasters, ranging from floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes to terrorism. Emergency management can involve working horizontally, vertically, or intergovernmentally. Primary leaders need to plan and organize to anticipating disasters. And as new generations emerge, it is

8 imperative to train all actors in emergency management locally. Finally, it is vital to have a strong, reliable command center that can send messages and allocate resources (Siegel, 2019).

Management of any emergency requires specialized skills and other functions of public management. Training covers planning and mitigation, mental health interventions, coordination, collaboration, and recovery efforts (Farazmand, 2009). Leadership is crucial in the success or failure of an agency (Wilderman, 2013), and it is essential in emergency management to help vulnerable communities avoid physical hazards when a disaster approaches.

Emergency Planning

Humans are affected by catastrophes that require changes of behavior and attitude. But there will always be solutions. By concentrating local emergency planning, officials cannot prevent floods, earthquakes, or forest fires, but they can provide warning signs. Tornadoes happen every year, but many communities have lobbied governments to build signage paths for areas with dangerous and severe winds. As the country neglects its school system, school administrators can influence many people in emergencies (Cigler, Murphy, & Adkins 1983).

There are many areas and scales of emergencies, including terrorist attacks, severe flooding, and epidemics such as the H1N1 virus. They can involve many agencies, such as police and fire, environmental organizations, and local charities (Sommerville, Storer, & Lock 2009).

They may make arrangements with meteorologists credentialed by the American Meteorological

Society to provide information and forecasts of possible thunderstorms. The Environmental

Protection Agency is mainly responsible for delivering information to city officials to predict severe flooding (Sommerville, Storer, & Lock 2009). Emergency planning considers who needs protections and who is worthy of it in moments of crisis (Leonard & Scammon, 2007).

During Hurricane Katrina, emergency plans were not organized, which led to government

9 scrutiny. Government and the media designated minimal plans with shortcomings, which resulted in death and property damage. Those who were responsible were held accountable for legal claims and class lawsuits by those who suffered property damage (Nicholson, 2007). After the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration focused its efforts on homeland security and intelligence agencies. It gave state and local governments more responsibility for planning and building major infrastructure, as the new emphasis on terrorism provided additional information to state and local officials, which led to confusion and poor planning (Sievers, 2015). Emergency managers were known for emphasizing recovery from natural disasters and giving less attention to them. Emergency managers include police chiefs, fire officials, and the like. But this changed dramatically during the Cold War (Gazley, 2010).

Thirty-eight percent of small businesses have a formal manual that outlines emergency responses or disaster preparedness for a designated area, according to a 2012 article in

Accountancy. Extensive support promotes success in emergency preparedness and quality improvement. The next major step is to extend awareness campaigns in all major organizations and to create plans in case of fire, earthquake, or active shooters (Henaghan, 2015). Today, many people can access building diagrams provided by organizations and use contact calling through the software on mobile devices (Keating, 2014). Emergency planning addresses guidelines for workplaces, families, and schools to help them prepare for disasters and respond afterward.

Section Summary

This literature review highlighted the importance of emergency managers before, during, and after a disaster. The first included disasters in any region where emergency managers face heavy demands. They must communicate and work with many agencies, within many boundaries, to complete their mission (Mcguire, Brudney, & Gazley, 2010). The second part

10 included the redesign of Homeland Security after the 9/11 attacks. The lack of response efforts during Hurricane Katrina led to the delay of aid to victims in southeastern New Orleans. As a result, emergency managers now tend to respond more quickly (Kapucu, 2009). The third notion mentioned was essential: creating awareness campaign about potential disasters in people’s working or living areas (Henaghan, 2015).

Limitations of Previous Research

There is insufficient research into how local agencies (e.g., L.A. City Emergency

Management) invest in disaster preparation among vulnerable and underserved communities.

Vulnerable communities are those with poor health and barriers to social, political, economic, and environmental resources. According to the Health and Resource Service Administration, undocumented communities have too few primary care providers, large elderly populations, and high infant mortality rates.

Research Question and Aim

This project asks how effective community outreach efforts are at building awareness and disaster preparedness in vulnerable communities, and analyzes the Los Angeles Fire

Department’s communication campaign by comparing the preparedness of local communities in

Los Angeles, specifically in the San Fernando Valley and South Los Angeles. The study examines mitigation efforts and plans to raise awareness among people in these vulnerable areas.

These will provide an example of public emergency management vision that can reduce the risk of threats to communities. The report will include an educational emergency preparedness program for integrating the exceptional Los Angeles City Emergency Management program on preparedness, response, and recovery.

Research Design

Introduction

This study describes areas where the Los Angeles Emergency Management and Fire

Departments have purposely sampled community outreach campaigns to vulnerable communities: San Fernando Valley and South Los Angeles. Both organizations have jurisdiction over these two communities within the city of Los Angeles. Quantitative data will be used to analyze the above agencies, and compare demographics, community outreach, community resilience, and recovery from a disaster. These two communities have faced similar small- and large-scale disasters. For people in these vulnerable populations and the city’s emergency management services, a survey will be used to determine whether disaster preparedness is supplied through collaboration between the local government and the communities.

The research will examine both of these areas because they are prone to similar disasters.

Quantitative data will be gathered to measure disaster preparedness. These will be done by assisting the population of minorities and people with physical disabilities in preparing for a massive or small-scale disaster.

General Approach

The purpose of this study is to describe the preparedness of these two communities. The research takes a quantitative approach. The primary data are gathered comprehensively, and secondary data are collected from government records. Therefore, the hypothesis will determine how effective community outreach efforts are at building awareness of disaster preparedness in vulnerable communities. To obtain quantitative data, the researcher will use newsletters, articles, and other public reports by the city of Los Angeles. Secondary data will be gathered through a survey using closed-ended questions to rate the awareness in the two communities; the questions

13 will have a yes-or-no format. A review will be administered to local volunteers, such as the Los

Angeles American Red Cross Region, the Los Angeles Fire Department, Los Angeles

Emergency Management Community Preparedness, and the Los Angeles CERT programs. A survey will also be administered to residents living in the precinct exiting the grocery store or attending community meetings sponsored by a Los Angeles senior lead officer. The survey is attached to this document as an appendix.

Sampling and Recruitment

As the Los Angeles Fire Department responds to calls from these communities, the researcher will select a number of residents who are likely to be affected by small- or large-scale disasters and collect data to determine whether any disaster-preparedness materials are being delivered to these communities. The data will be analyzed to determine whether the best efforts are being made in community engagement. Therefore, the research will take a descriptive approach using survey methods. To gather information, the researcher will contact the communities and emergency leaders in the San Fernando Valley and South Los Angeles.

The study will be analyzed by the Los Angeles Emergency Management Department and the Los Angeles Fire Department. The surveys will show whether the communities and emergency leaders prevent efforts in communities that are likely to be affected by disasters. The

Emergency Management Department administers an annual household survey that allows researchers to support the growth of communities by identifying areas of preparedness, measuring public awareness, and measuring the potential danger posed by a crisis. These will provide a clear picture together with information provided by a local government official. The participants were selected from agencies assigned to the South or Valley bureaus; the American

Red Cross oversees these communities.

Research Protocol

• Phase 1: A survey questionnaire will be sent to vulnerable populations to explore factors

in the abundance of concerns of people affected by a disaster.

• Phase 2: A survey questionnaire will be sent to local organizations and agencies to

identify the populations at risk during a disaster.

• Phase 3: Data will be collected from selected participants in the vulnerable communities.

• Phase 4: Data will be analyzed to find the best intervention for increasing awareness in

vulnerable communities.

The goal is to determine what emergency managers can do to increase disaster preparedness and in the community?

Quantitative Data Gathering

A questionnaire was designed for Los Angeles Emergency Management, the Los Angeles

Fire Department, and the Los Angeles American Red Cross by measuring awareness levels. The survey was also designed for residents of the vulnerable communities, to analyze how well agencies can prepare for disaster workforce engagement and mitigation by examining the risk, reducing it, and insuring against it. Thanks to these mitigation efforts, high-risk communities can make better decisions based on disaster plans before, during, and after a disaster. The survey questions will ask for yes-or-no responses: for instance, whether the participant has a smoke detector in their home, or if they have ever been evacuated.

As previously mentioned, the agencies’ and nonprofit organization’s responsibility is to campaign for awareness. The stratified sampling method can be used to effectively measure the two communities. The sociodemographic measured include education level, size of household, income, ethnicity, age, and outcomes of underlying health conditions. The internal reliability will

15 be ensured by providing questionnaires to both residents and agencies measuring the same concept. External safety will be verified by comparison with the same inquiries in other published reports. Data will be collected from various public-domain reports by two agencies that oversee the jurisdictions of South Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley, in electronic form. Data will also be collected from the Los Angeles Fire Department and the Los Angeles

City Emergency Management’s online database, city records, and city public affairs reports. The survey will give result based on its internal reliability. The results for the two communities will then be compared.

Quantitative Data Analysis

Data will be gathered from news articles and published reports that show the level of awareness in the two communities. These data will involve the number of fire stations and personnel in both areas, the types of disaster calls received, the level of awareness, and details on ethnicity, age, race, and estimated budgets. The data will use different measures and will be analyzed and compared between the two communities. Therefore, city personnel in the areas will contact the communities to develop disaster plans and hazard-mitigation plans.

Data will be collected from city agencies and translated into simple bar graphs to examine the demographics, level of awareness, and results of other programs offered to participants in the study. The comparison will identify differences in demographics, such as age range or population with physical disabilities. These will be used to explain the educational materials received by the agencies and nonprofit organizations.

Cross-Sectional Study Measurement

A cross-sectional study analyzes data from a population at a specific point in time. In this study, the populations are the communities of the San Fernando Valley and the neighborhood of

South Los Angeles. The quantitative variables used will measure the following: income levels, minority groups, people with disabilities, the absence of household smoke alarms, education, emergency response times, and emergency preparedness plans. The organizations involved include the American Red Cross Los Angeles Region, the Los Angeles Fire Department, and the

Los Angeles City Emergency Management Department. These organizations are essential to the study because they will show the importance of the above variables and are responsible for enforcement.

Discussion

Science and Evidence Base of Disaster Responses

Although the resiliency of the vulnerable communities is adequate, the researcher explores primary findings through cross-sectional analysis of levels of awareness and the best strategic management policies. The researcher encourages the Los Angeles Fire Department and the Los Angeles Emergency Management Agency to educate communities on disaster preparedness that could affect the vulnerable populations and establish a safety practice for community risk reduction; the goal is simple. The literature review highlights how the city can develop a hazard mitigation plan to reduce the risk of large- or small-scale disasters. The researchers also shows that having a mitigation plan technique such as, Prevention, Property

Protection, Public Education and Awareness, Natural Resources, Emergency Services, Structural

Protection, leads to building a more reliable and safer community to reduce future accidents and injuries.

A dialogue with Los Angeles’s public safety bureau, public services department, and nonprofit sector, including labor and education bodies, will be necessary to fulfil the responsibilities of this research. The study requires the collection of vast amounts of data from a large number of people in two communities. Most of the survey questions focus on preparedness among residents and agencies; answers will be mostly yes or no. A few questions are multiple- choice, asking respondents’ ethnicity, age, gender, or income level. For the study to be completed efficiently, the public agencies and other participants must understand its importance.

It is directed to the benefit of society, so the researcher will pay attention to what data are collected and analyzed. However, the affected communities can be a great asset to the research by supplying knowledge and skills. Thus, the survey is provided in the appropriate languages,

18 which can strengthen the data collection. Even so, the questions are not exhaustive.

Because the areas lack effective awareness campaigns, there could be more devastation, like the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the Saddleridge fire, or the Creek Fire, in which many residents had no access to emergency plans. Emergency plans, or indeed any knowledge of mitigation, preparedness, or responses, is likely to reduce devastation and improve recovery efforts after a disaster. Communities like South LA and the San Fernando Valley must become more aware of safety protocols and adopt more effective strategies to prepare for natural disasters. The community as a whole and its citizens will fare better in emergencies if they are more prepared to handle such events. Better city and family planning are necessary to mitigate future disasters and help communities recover and rebuild. Communities are resilient, however, especially the Los Angeles communities studied here.

Emergency Policy Analysis

John Kingdom’s multiple-streams models can be used to develop the most efficient disaster plans (Howlett & Beland 2016). The city of Los Angeles is prone to many natural disasters. For instance, residents residing within the geographic city limits are vulnerable to types of disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, home fire, and mudslides. Los Angeles City

Emergency Management Department created a new window of opportunity. These types of disasters drew the focus of many city officials to their public policy agenda, which led to the formulation of a better policy on response times and disaster awareness in vulnerable communities.

Three streams of the political system help public policymakers form independent decisions. A focusing event signals the problem to many lawmakers: for instance, a large-scale disaster such as the Northridge earthquake, the Saddleridge fire, or the Creek fire. These attract

19 media attention and become significant for the public. In the aftermath of these events, many

Angelenos provided feedback that prompted federal policy makers to find a better solutions for communities in high-risk areas.

Second, policy streams help public policymakers find alternative solutions. Ideas for public are drawn from many channels, such as public hearings or community conferences.

Events can help many public policies gain attention, such as the Porter Ranch gas leak, which left many communities devastated and with chronic health problems. Proposed solutions will take these into consideration. Disasters raise an abundance of concerns about planning, response, and recovery. They are also associated with many physical injuries and long-term disabilities

(Ruthkow, Reiser, & Burnett, 2017). The 1994 Northridge earthquake affected a whole community (Encyclopedia Britannica). There were 60 to 70 confirmed deaths, and 10,000 buildings were damaged. The emergency responders were overwhelmed with rescue efforts. It is important to learn from such experiences; the best strategic management recommendation for similar future disasters is to create a unified command structure for deploying emergency responders to affected communities promptly. Emergency management agencies can then use any available healthcare resources and provide triage to people suffering from major or minor injuries. Many Los Angeles city managers have given attention to these types of disaster, which nearly affected the San Fernando Valley community. Therefore, this research can prepare many city leaders and communities for accidents.

Limitations and Ethical Considerations

One significant limitation of this study is the lack of available data. Although researchers have collected data from primary and secondary sources, there is a lack of interviews and observations among them. When dealing with such a large city as Los Angeles, it is easy for

20 information to be lost in translation or go unreported during a disaster. Because there are so many people in the city and it covers such a large area, it is nearly impossible for emergency medical teams and the police and fire departments to attend to every disaster. This is a considerable limitation because the available resources can be quickly exhausted, and there is a constant need for more help. Those responders are constantly overworked trying to save lives under difficult conditions, and with few resources.

A second limitation is the self-reporting bias. When researchers collect data from programs, participants may exaggerate or not want to respond. Self-reporting bias occurs when individuals report first- or secondhand recollections of events. People tend to be honest and accurate in their self-reporting, but they sometimes exaggerate events because they are experiencing trauma. Therefore, many answers to fixed-choice questions are inaccurate, and extra precaution must be taken with civilians’ self-reports.

Another limitation is bias: San Fernando Valley is one of the safest communities in Los

Angeles. University students who experienced the 1994 Northridge earthquake were asked a week afterward about their optimistic bias concerning the magnitude of the event. Many students were also followed for two weeks or five months after the quake. The respondents did not show any bullish bias, but contrary to this research, some experienced injury or monetary loss (Larsen,

1999).

A fourth limitation is access. Working with Los Angeles Emergency Management and the Los Angeles Fire Department for a research study can be complicated. Because both agencies are large bureaucracies, the study must be approved by supervisors.

A final limitation is the sample, which compares the numbers of personnel of the Los

Angeles Fire Department in the South Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley communities. The

21 sample may not be reflective of the city of Los Angeles.

These limitations are relatively significant, but should undermine the findings, as the survey is not likely to be harmful. The review is simple and researches Los Angeles Emergency

Management’s handling of previous disasters and the best approaches to response. Secondly, the data allow the researcher to collect published reports, but the external validity undergirds the project’s findings. Self-reporting bias should not undermine the study because the surveys do not let participants exaggerate or appeal to memory loss.

Ethical considerations for the study include informed consent. The researcher will provide instructions before administering the survey and explain the purpose of the research. The researcher will collect data from many people in vulnerable communities. All participants will agree to participating in the research voluntarily. The survey will not be harmful in any way, as only simple questions will be asked. Respondent will answer the questions in a private setting, and all items will be given codes. A survey will also be administered to agencies such as the Los

Angeles Fire Department, the Los Angeles Emergency Management Department, and the

American Red Cross. Respondents will be kept strictly confidential, and all coded answers will remain anonymous.

Conclusion

This study describes a need for increased awareness and preparedness in two communities of Los Angeles. It demonstrates the unmet needs and low level of awareness after large and small disasters. The previous literature has gap in information about increasing awareness among citizens to mitigate emergencies.

Los Angeles has faced a number of problems during large-scale disasters, depending on the personnel and funding available. The city has created an excellent disaster response plan, which includes the “Ready Your L. A. Neighborhood” (RYLAN) program, and has developed an app, “Shake Alert LA.” RYLAN involves mapping neighborhoods so communities have access to response plans when a disaster strikes. Because the city’s fire and police departments will be overwhelmingly responding to the most affected areas, RYLAN will allow Angelenos to engage their communities and aid one another. The Shake Alert app will notify Angelenos when a strong earthquake strikes in the city. It contains many tools, such as preparations for earthquakes, that will help citizens plan and build readiness kits, and recovery tools for tasks such as finding shelter or access to help after an earthquake. Therefore, the city has implemented the best strategic tools for awareness and for aiding first responders.

A second key element will be to educate vulnerable populations specifically in the San

Fernando Valley and South Los Angeles communities on disaster preparedness, according to

(Benthall 2006). “As frequently happens after a major disaster, sensational rumors were spreading, and some of these were picked up amplified by the media” (21). The author argues that when a disaster strikes, it contagiously spreads nationally and globally, and allows ambitious organizations to work towards recovery relief efforts during the time of crisis. For instance, when the Mexico magnitude 8.1 Earthquake occurred in September 2017, many people feared a

23 potential earthquake could result in Southern California since it is firmly next to our home continentally. During the event of a massive magnitude earthquake, we can potentially see many powerlines collapsing, fires, explosions, cracks on surface streets, and bridges collapsing on the interstate highway. Importantly, the role of public affairs functions to educate the public, but foremost, the demographic population of low-income families since they do not have access to a substantial public organization firm. To ensure public health, the primary tool of education centers on having a disaster kit such as food, water, radio, currency bills, radio, and batteries for at least several days. According to (Mushkatel and Weschler 1985) , “Preparedness entails..the activities closest to the onset of a disaster which minimizes disaster damage and enhances disaster response operation.” (52). They described that preparedness could be an essential tool that will minimize a disaster response. Importantly, many public organizations must provide adequate safety tips on emergency preparedness during community events. For instance, the nonprofit organization, the American Red Cross, annually sponsors a home fire campaign. The campaign aims to educate many vulnerable areas that may be at risk for a home fire. The mission of the event is canvassing neighborhoods and installing smoke alarms. As the American Red

Cross installs free smoke alarms, the priority is to educate families with an escape plan and install smoke alarms on significant hot spots such as the ceilings, hallways, stairways, bedrooms, and kitchens. By installing smoke alarms, the organization responsibility is to inform the public about the potential causes of a house fire. These efforts represent an excellent resilience for the community preventing a disaster.

The community has identified many hazards, and RYLAN allows them to prepare for and respond to emergencies. This project can benefit many towns across the country, now that we

24 have learned from previous failures. The most crucial aspect of disaster management is that responses begin at the local level. Therefore, preparation should mostly occur at this level, and emergency managers must provide the best possible mitigation and preparedness materials to the communities most likely to be affected during a crisis, generally the underserved communities.

Emergency management personnel are some of the most undervalued members of our society; many people are unaware of how hard they work to make society safer. More effort must be made to develop fast, reliable disaster responses. California is prone to devastating earthquakes and raging wildfires, so the community must be more educated and prepared for these disasters.

References

Adkins, K., Cigler, B., & Murphy, K. (1983). School emergency planning: Early lessons. The

Clearing House, 57(2), 82–85. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu

/stable/30186257

Anderson, R. M., Heesterbeek, H., Klinkenberg, D., & Hollingsworth, T. D. (2020). How will

country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? The

Lancet, 395(10228), 931–34.

Banipal, K. (2006). Strategic approach to disaster management: Lessons learned from Hurricane

Katrina. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15(3), 484-494. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy

.csun.edu/10.1108/09653560610669945

Béland, D., & Howlett, M. (2016). The role and impact of the multiple-streams approach in

comparative policy analysis.

Blake, N., Wilson, E., & Meyer, K. (2019). Disaster preparedness: Mitigation, response, and

recovery to ensure staffing excellence in Los Angeles County. Nursing Economics, 37(5),

231–40. Retrieved from http://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.libproxy.csun.edu/docview/2304942593?accountid=7285

Cinnamon, J., Jones, S. K., & Adger, W. N. (2016). Evidence and future potential of mobile

phone data for disease disaster management. Geoforum, 75, 253–64.

Der Heide, E. A. (2006). The importance of evidence-based disaster planning. Annals of

Emergency Medicine, 47(1), 34–49.

Emergency management. In O’Leary R. & Bingham L. (Eds.), The collaborative public

manager: New ideas for the twenty-first century (pp. 71–94). Georgetown University

Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/j.ctt2tt4xg.10em.

Emergency planning and public health. (1961). Canadian Journal of Public Health, 52(9), 397–

98. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/41982696

Farazmand, A. (2009). Hurricane Katrina, the crisis of leadership, and chaos management: Time

for trying the ‘surprise management theory in action.’ Public Organization Review, 9(4),

399–412. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.csun.edu/10.1007/s11115-009-0099-2

Gao, H., Wang, X., Barbier, G., & Liu, H. (2011) Promoting coordination for disaster relief:

From crowdsourcing to coordination. In J. Salerno, S. J. Yang, D. Nau, & S. K. Chai

(Eds.), Social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction. Berlin and

Heidelberg: Springer.

Haggerty, A. G. (1994). Better public-private disaster coordination urged: An insurance

newspaper. National Underwriter, 98(23), 49. Retrieved from http://libproxy.csun.edu

/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.csun.edu/docview/228450419?accountid

=7285

Helweg-Larsen, M. (1999). (The lack of) optimistic biases in response to the 1994 Northridge

earthquake: The role of personal experience. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(2),

119–29.

Heneghan, T. (2015). Ensuring success with emergency planning. EHS Today. Retrieved from

http://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.csun.edu

/docview/1710906493?accountid=7285

Henstra, D. (2010). Evaluating local government emergency management programs: What

framework should public managers adopt? Public Administration Review, 70(2), 236–46.

Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40606375

Hilliard, L. (1986). Local government, civil defence and emergency planning: Heading for

disaster? Modern Law Review, 49(4), 476–88. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org

.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/1095944

Hodges, A. (2000). Emergency risk management. Risk Management, 2(4), 7–18. Retrieved from

www.jstor.org/stable/3867920

Horney, J. A., Rios, J., Cantu, A., Ramsey, S., Montemayor, L., Raun, L., & Miller, A. (2019).

Improving Hurricane Harvey disaster research response through academic–practice

partnerships. American Journal of Public Health, 109(9), 1198–1201. http://dx.doi.org

.libproxy.csun.edu/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305166

Hurricanes: Science and Society Retrieved from 15, July 2020

http://www.hurricanescience.org/history/studies/katrinacase/impacts/

Kapucu, N., Augustin, M., & Garayev, V. (2009). Interstate partnerships in emergency

management: Emergency management assistance compact in response to catastrophic

disasters. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 297–313. Retrieved from www.jstor.org

/stable/27697865

Keating, M. (2014). Emergency planning tool aims to speed response times. The American City

& County. Retrieved from http://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.libproxy.csun.edu/docview/1626183313?accountid=7285

Leonard, H., & Scammon, D. (2007). No pet left behind: Accommodating pets in emergency

planning. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(1), 49–53. Retrieved from

www.jstor.org/stable/30000817

McGuire, M. (2009). The New Professionalism and Collaborative Activity in Local Emergency

Management. In O’Leary R. & Bingham L. (Eds.), The Collaborative Public Manager:

New Ideas for the Twenty-first Century (pp. 71-94). Georgetown University Press.

Retrieved July 16, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2tt4xg.10

McGuire, M., Brudney, J., & Gazley, B. (2010). The “New Emergency Management”: Applying

the Lessons of Collaborative Governance to Twenty-First-Century Emergency Planning.

In O’LEARY R., VAN SLYKE D., & KIM S. (Eds.), The Future of Public

Administration around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective (pp. 117-128).

Georgetown University Press. Retrieved July 16, 2020, from

www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2tt4cr.20

McLoughlin, D. (1985). A framework for integrated emergency management. Public

Administration Review, 45, 165–72. doi:10.2307/3135011

Menzel, D. C. (2006). The Katrina aftermath: A failure of federalism or leadership? Public

Administration Review, 66(6), 808–12. Retrieved from http://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url

=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.csun.edu/docview/197175966?accountid=7285

Mushkatel, A., & Weschler, L. (1985). Emergency management and the intergovernmental

System. Public Administration Review, 45, 49–56. doi:10.2307/3134997

Nicholson, W. C. (2007). Emergency planning and potential liabilities for state and local

governments. State & Local Government Review, 39(1), 44–56. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/4355440

Nolte, I. M., Martin, E. C., & Boenigk, S. (2012). Cross-sectoral coordination of disaster relief.

Public Management Review, 14(6), 707. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.csun.edu/10.1080

/14719037.2011.642629

Northridge Earthquake of 1994. (2020, January 20). Retrieved July 15, 2020, from

https://www.britannica.com/event/Northridge-earthquake-of-1994

O’Leary, R., Van Slyke, D., & Kim, S. (Eds.), The future of public administration around the

world: The Minnowbrook perspective. Georgetown University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/j.ctt2tt4cr.20

Perry, R., & Nigg, J. (1985). Emergency management strategies for communicating hazard

information. Public Administration Review, 45, 72–77. doi:10.2307/3135000

Potter, M., Burns, H., Barron, G., Grofebert, A., & Bednarz, G. (2005). Cross-sector leadership

development for preparedness. Public Health Reports (1974–), 120, 109–115. Retrieved

from www.jstor.org/stable/20056900

Potts, K. E., Bennett, R. M., & Rajabifard, A. (2013). Spatially enabled bushfire recovery.

GeoJournal, 78(1), 151–63. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.csun.edu/10.1007/s10708-011-

9437-3

Rutkow, L., Mitrani-Reiser, J., & Barnett, D. J. (2017). Promoting comprehensive disaster policy

through interdisciplinary collaboration. Injury prevention, 23(3), 195–96.

Sievers, J. (2015). Embracing crowdsourcing: A strategy for state and local governments

approaching “whole community” emergency planning. State & Local Government

Review, 47(1), 57–67. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/24638842

Sommerville, I., Storer, T., & Lock, R. (2009). Responsibility modelling for civil emergency

planning. Risk Management, 11(3/4), 179–207. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org

.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/40468440

Wilderman, C. G. (2013). Government emergency managers’ leadership styles (Order No.

3594090). Available from ABI/INFORM Global. (1439143680). Retrieved from

http://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.csun.edu

/docview/1439143680?accountid=7285

Waugh, W. L. Jr., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency

30 management. Public Administration Review, 66, 131–40. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/4096577

Appendix I

Level of Preparedness of Residents of San Fernando and South Los Angeles

Please circle the following:

Gender: M / F

Ethnicity: Hispanic Native American Caucasian African-American

Age: 18–25 26–30 31–39 40–50 51–64 65+

Are you disabled: Y / N

How many people in the household? ______

Level of income: 10,000–15,000 16,000–28,000 29,000–40,000 41,000–56,000

57,000–75,000 76,000 +

Respondent Questionnaire Yes No

Do you own a forty-eight-hour emergency kit?

Do you have smoke alarms installed in your household?

Are you familiar with the Ready L.A. Neighborhood program, offered by the city of Los Angeles? Have you been evacuated during a disaster inside your home and been notified of the nearest shelter in your community? Have you ever received any type of training for disaster preparedness in your local neighborhood? Does the Los Angeles Fire Department and nonprofit organizations canvass the neighborhood and provide you with adequate information of a potential disaster in your neighborhood? Have you had first aid training experience?

In the event of a disaster in the future, are you prepared?

Do you know where the nearest disaster relief shelter is located?

Appendix II Level of Awareness of Agencies and Non-Profit Organizations

Name of Agency or Organization:

Survey Questionnaire Yes No Are you aware of any problems that may affect the community in vulnerable areas? Are sources such as FEMA mitigation being used to prepare the vulnerable communities in which you serve? Is your brand being used effectively to reach the community and build awareness of your services? Do you believe your citizens are being reached and are using mobile emergency preparedness apps, such as the Red Cross app or Shake Alert L.A.? Are you satisfied with your level of social media outreach? Do you believe the communities you represent are educated enough to make smart decisions when a disaster occurs? In the face of an emergency, do you believe it is possible for citizens to be better prepared?