NEW ZEALAND RED CROSS EVALUATION OF THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE APPEAL & RECOVERY PROGRAMME RESEARCH REPORT Scarlett Moody Liz Morley Carl Davidson February 2017 LEAD RESEARCHER SENIOR RESEARCHER DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH Preface I would like to acknowledge those who have gone before us, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the those who lost their lives, those injured and those who lost New Zealand Red Cross volunteers, members and staff their communities, places of work, play, learning and living that have given so generously of their time, knowledge, following the Canterbury earthquake sequence. experience and skills. I would also like to acknowledge the significant contribution of New Zealand Red Cross National It is a privilege to share with you the findings of the formal Board and the members of the Earthquake Commission, and independent evaluation of the New Zealand Red Cross who have served to provide steadfast direction and Earthquake Recovery Programme for greater Christchurch. governance to this programme of work. The leadership This evaluation brings to a close this significant programme and support of the National Society office in Wellington of work. The programme commenced following the 7.1 has been unwavering in their commitment to greater magnitude earthquake in September 2010 and the 6.3 Christchurch. We owe a debt of gratitude to so many for magnitude aftershock six months later on 22 February the care and support and commitment to these recovery 2011. Since then greater Christchurch has been subject to efforts. thousands of aftershocks making the recovery process challenging and complex. New Zealand Red Cross will The journey of recovery will continue in greater continue to support communities in greater Christchurch Christchurch for many years to come. This report captures through the Canterbury West Coast Service Centre and a snapshot of the impact of the work of New Zealand Red network of members in these communities. Cross in the community and also some of the lessons we learned. New Zealand Red Cross was entrusted by those who generously supported the appeal and our deepest thanks I would also sincerely encourage readers to also take a few are extended to all those who supported this appeal. moments to watch some of the real-life stories we have Therefore a comprehensive evaluation is not only necessary been able to capture (See link: https://www.redcross.org.nz/ to measure the impact of the work and report back to our about-us/here-good/ten-good-stories/) and acknowledge donors, it also allows us all to learn from this experience some of the amazing members of the community with and to pass on our learnings. The lessons we have learned whom it has been our pleasure to walk alongside. have come at such a high cost; personally, socially and economically. It is imperative that we learn from what has happened. Michael Donoghue To this end we have prepared a suite of three reports Recovery Manager (based on the full independent technical evaluation report) Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Programme to provide ease of access to the findings for different New Zealand Red Cross audiences: 1. Evaluation of New Zealand Red Cross Canterbury Earthquake Appeal Recovery Programme - detailed report 2. Lessons for practitioners, agencies and communities 3. Executive summary 2 NZ RED CROSS | EVALUATION OF THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE APPEAL www.researchfirst.co.nz & RECOVERY PROGRAMMES 3 NZ RED CROSS | EVALUATION OF THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE APPEAL www.researchfirst.co.nz & RECOVERY PROGRAMMES Contents Acknowledgements 2 Evaluation 1 Summary of Findings 6 of the 1.1 About the Evaluation 6 Canterbury 1.2 How Much Did NZRC Do? 6 1.3 What Impact Did NZRC Have? 6 Earthquake 1.4 How Well Was CEARP Conducted and What Can Be Appeal & Learned for Next Time? 8 Recovery 1.5 Key Recommendations 10 Programme 1.6 Conclusion 12 2 Introduction 13 2.1 The Christchurch Earthquake 13 2.2 The Personal Impacts of the Earthquakes 14 2.3 The NZRC Response 18 2.4 Other Organisations and Institutions Involved in Response & Recovery 21 2.5 Evaluation Context, Purpose & Scope 22 A Note on ‘Recovery’ and ‘Earthquake Assistance’ 25 3 How Much Did NZRC Do and What Was Its Impact? 26 3.1 Scope of Assistance 26 3.2 Awareness of NZRC’s Assistance 35 3.3 Impact of Assistance 40 3.4 Impact on NZRC's Brand 55 4 How Well Did NZRC Do and What Can Be Improved Next Time? 66 4.1 Overview 66 4.2 The Basis and Administration of CEARP 67 4.3 Assistance for Population Groups 88 4.4 Providing Psychosocial Support 104 4.5 Communication and Channels 112 5 Appendix One: List of Participating Organisations 116 6 Appendix Two: Technical Report 117 Disclaimer 6.1 Research Context 117 Research First notes that the 6.2 Research Objectives 117 views presented in the report 6.3 Research Method 118 do not necessarily represent 6.4 Analysis 131 the views of NZ Red Cross. In addition, the information in this 6.5 Caveats and Limitations 132 report is accurate to the best 7 Appendix Three: Topline Findings 133 of the knowledge and belief 7.1 Sample Demographics 133 of Research First Ltd. While Research First Ltd has exercised 7.2 Tables by Location 138 all reasonable skill and care in 7.3 Tables by Residency 148 the preparation of information 7.4 Tables by Physical Vulnerability 157 in this report, Research First Ltd accepts no liability in contract, 7.5 Tables by Household Impact 167 tort or otherwise for any loss, 7.6 Tables by Age 179 damage, injury or expense, 7.7 Tables by Household Income 189 whether direct, indirect or consequential, arising out of the 7.8 Tables by Ethnicity 199 provision of information in this 7.9 Tables by Home Ownership 209 report. 7.10 Tables by Assistance 219 4 NZ RED CROSS | EVALUATION OF THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE APPEAL www.researchfirst.co.nz & RECOVERY PROGRAMMES 8 Appendix Four: Annotated Bibliography of the Literature 224 8.1 Overview 224 8.2 Bibliography Directory 225 8.3 Diverse Impacts of Canterbury Earthquakes on Community Well-being 226 8.4 Changes in Well-being Since the Earthquakes 248 8.5 Recovery Efforts 253 9 Appendix Five: List of Activities and Interventions 266 9.1 Response 266 9.2 Outreach and Community Transport 267 9.3 Children and Young People 268 9.4 Disaster Preparedness 269 9.5 Housing 270 9.6 Psychosocial 271 9.7 Partnerships (not falling under other categories) 272 9.8 Grants (not falling under other categories) 273 10 Appendix Six: References 275 5 NZ RED CROSS | EVALUATION OF THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE APPEAL www.researchfirst.co.nz & RECOVERY PROGRAMMES 1 Summary of Findings 1.1 About the Evaluation This document reports the results of an evaluation of the New Zealand Red Cross’ (NZRC) Canterbury Earthquake Appeal Recovery Programme (CEARP) completed by Research First Ltd. The evaluation involved a seven-stage mixed method data collection process, conducted between September 2016 and February 2017. This approach was designed to combine both qualitative and quantitative research, and garner insights from a number of stakeholder groups. Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Stage 7 2 workshops 8 focus groups 71 in-home CAPI and Workshop with NZRC Systematic with service interviews 15 community CATI survey with NZRC staff and review providers and with recipi- focus groups (n=3,048) staff alumni partners ents 1.2 How Much Did NZRC Do? What this evaluation makes clear is that NZRC’s CEARP had a widely- experienced and deeply-felt impact on the well-being of greater Christchurch residents. In a survey of 3,048 people, approximately one-in-five (22%) of nd greater Christchurch’s residents as at February 22 2011 drew on NZRC assistance, with the majority of these drawing on more than one kind of assistance. 1.3 What Impact Did NZRC Have? The evidence from this evaluation is clear that NZRC’s CEARP had a substantial and lasting impact on residents. In addition to the direct, or tangible, assistance provided through CEARP, NZRC’s activities also had important indirect, or intangible, benefits for residents. These benefits resulted from a combination of factors, including: # n the perception that NZRC brought expertise to the response and recovery; n validation of recipients’ needs through the provision of cash grants; 1 n empathy of NZRC staff; NZRC first most n and the sense of care provided through outreach and door-knocking. commonly mentioned Cash grants were the type of assistance most frequently received (70% overall). organisation helping This makes sense given that cash grants were the largest activity supported with EQ response and by CEARP. While cash grants were therefore the most impactful activity, the recovery fact that CEARP provided a suite of interventions has also been beneficial to recipients. 6 NZ RED CROSS | EVALUATION OF THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE APPEAL www.researchfirst.co.nz & RECOVERY PROGRAMMES Of respondents who received assistance from NZRC: 90% 91% 70% Thought it was helpful or Thought it was effective Thought it had at least very helpful or very effective as much impact as assistance provided by their friends and family Of all respondents who were aware that NZRC provided assistance: 88% 85% 85% Thought it was helpful or Thought it was effective Thought it was fair or very helpful or very effective very fair This evaluation used the concept of ‘ontological security’ to capture the indirect or intangible benefits. This describes the sense of security that people derive from a sense of continuity in regard to the events in their lives. In many ways, NZRC’s CEARP provided a sense of this continuity when little else at the time did.