[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CARING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS DURING DISASTERS: WHAT'S BEING DONE FOR
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS,
PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 15, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-69
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-092 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Peter T. King, New York
Jane Harman, California Lamar Smith, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Daniel E. Lungren, California
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Zoe Lofgren, California Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Henry Cuellar, Texas Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Pete Olson, Texas
Laura Richardson, California Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona Steve Austria, Ohio
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey Vacancy
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
Al Green, Texas
James A. Himes, Connecticut
Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio
Dina Titus, Nevada
William L. Owens, New York
Vacancy
Vacancy
I. Lanier Avant, Staff Director
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
Laura Richardson, California, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia Pete Olson, Texas
Henry Cuellar, Texas Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Emmanuel Cleaver, Missouri Peter T. King, New York (ex
Dina Titus, Nevada officio)
William L. Owens, New York
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex
officio)
Stephen Vina, Staff Director
Ryan Caldwell, Clerk
Amanda Halpern, Minority Subcommittee Lead
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response........... 1
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response..................... 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 4
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida:
Prepared Statement............................................. 38
WITNESSES
Panel I
Ms. Marcie Roth, Senior Advisor on Disability Issues, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Mr. Jonathan M. Young, Chairman, National Council on Disability:
Oral Statement................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Mr. Carmen J. Spencer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army--
Elimination of Chemical Weapons, United States Army:
Oral Statement................................................. 28
Prepared Statement............................................. 30
Mr. James Kish, Director--Technological Hazards Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 31
Prepared Statement............................................. 33
Panel II
Mr. Jon R. Gundry, Deputy Superintendent of Schools, Los Angeles
County Office of Education:
Oral Statement................................................. 50
Prepared Statement............................................. 53
Ms. Diana Rothe-Smith, Executive Director, National Voluntary
Organizations Active in Disasters:
Oral Statement................................................. 55
Prepared Statement............................................. 56
APPENDIX
Questions From Chairwoman Laura Richardson for Marcie Roth....... 73
CARING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS DURING DISASTERS: WHAT'S BEING DONE FOR
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS?
----------
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness,
and Response,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Laura Richardson
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Richardson, Thompson, Cuellar,
Cleaver, Rogers, and Cao.
Ms. Richardson [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on
caring for the special needs during disasters. What is being
done for vulnerable populations is the key question before us.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Good morning. I would like to welcome all of our witnesses
today to our hearing to address the needs of all populations
during disasters.
As we approach the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina
and move into hurricane season, we must heed the lessons of
past failures and look to engage in integrated preparedness
planning that meets the needs of all of our citizens,
including: The mentally ill, physically impaired, the poor, the
elderly, children, individuals with limited English
proficiency, and culturally diverse communities, to name a few.
When it comes to disaster planning, our most vulnerable
populations should no longer be left as a secondary
consideration or an annex to an Emergency Operations Plan. This
hearing provides an opportunity to hear what steps have been
taken by FEMA and others to ensure that we keep moving forward.
The Post-Hurricane Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
of 2006 included many reforms to provide FEMA with the
necessary tools and leadership to ensure integration of needs-
related issues. For example, the Act directed the FEMA
administrator to appoint a disability coordinator to ensure
that the needs of individuals with disabilities are being
properly addressed in emergency preparedness and disaster
relief.
I am pleased that Ms. Roth has taken on this role
temporarily and was selected to lead the Office of the
Disability Integration and Coordination. But with $150,000
budget request for fiscal year 2011, it is difficult to believe
that your office will have the funding necessary to fulfill
your mission.
We cannot allow these reforms to be considered as simply
window dressing, but rather they must be real and able to
ensure that people with disabilities or that need assistance
have an empowered advocate and the right tools to get the job
done.
Additionally, the Act requires that FEMA coordinate many of
its efforts with the National Council on Disability. In August
2009, NCD released a report which provided several
recommendations for making improvements to further integrate
our efforts. Dr. Young serves as the chairman of NCD, and we
would like to hear what steps FEMA has taken to coordinate with
the council and to implement the report's recommendations.
The Post-Katrina Act also requires that FEMA provide
guidance to States and localities on how to implement
disability integration into emergency planning. We would like
to learn the status of the guidance of documents for States and
localities and the NCD's role in developing them.
Our other two panelists will discuss the collaborative work
of FEMA and the U.S. Army in preparing the communities
surrounding the Army's chemical warfare and agent stockpiles.
Our second panel will continue to discuss the unique needs
of children, culturally diverse communities, and citizens who
are economically disadvantaged. I understand Dr. Robles, the
superintendent of the Los Angeles County Office of Education,
which is actually the largest county in the United States,
could not be here today to discuss needs specific to
schoolchildren, but I would like to extend a warm welcome to
her deputy, Dr. Jon Gundry. He will discuss how L.A. school
emergency plans are developed to meet the unique challenges of
preparing children for disasters.
I have also introduced H.R. 4898, the Elementary and
Secondary School Emergency Preparedness Planning Act, which
would address some of the challenges associated with preparing
our children and their parents, should a disaster occur.
I would like to thank all the Members who have supported
that so far in this committee and urge others as we look at
this discussion to join on, as well.
Finally, our second witness, Ms. Rothe-Smith of the
National VOAD, will discuss the experiences of nonprofit and
faith-based organizations in providing an all-community
approach to disaster response and recovery. We have often heard
that that has been one of the faults of bureaucracy, of failing
to utilize our other partners.
Preparedness planning for all citizens has evolved with
progress, but it is clear that much more work needs to be done
to integrate fully our plans to include the needs of all
persons.
I look forward to hearing how our Federal agencies are
ensuring that this occurs and about the unique approaches and
experiences that our local and nonprofit partners can bring to
the table.
Thanks again to all of you, all of our witnesses for being
here today.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the Ranking Member from the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
calling this hearing.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being with us today.
I know you are busy and this is an inconvenience, but it does
help us do our job, and I appreciate your time and effort in
preparing for this hearing.
This hearing presents a timely opportunity to examine the
level of progress that has been made in planning for and
addressing the needs of individuals with disabilities, both
before and after a disaster takes place.
Given that we are in the midst of a hurricane season right
now, we are all mindful of the importance of preparedness and
the critical mission FEMA has to promote preparedness for any
type of major disaster within our local communities.
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
required FEMA to establish the position of disability
coordinator in order to ensure that the needs of individuals
with disabilities are addressed in emergency preparedness and
disaster relief.
Among her responsibilities, the disability coordinator is
charged with ensuring dissemination of the best practices and
models for evacuation plans for individuals with disabilities
and ensuring the development of training materials on special
needs.
I want to stress the coordinator's role in disseminating
best practices and hope this hearing will provide the
opportunity to discuss how FEMA can build--can begin to build
on the best practices, particularly in looking at the Chemical
Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program, or CSEPP, which has
helped communities that surround U.S. chemical stockpile sites
address special needs and establish a higher level of
preparedness.
I would like to extend a special welcome to Mr. Spencer and
Mr. Kish and thank them for being here to discuss the excellent
work they have done together through CSEPP in Anniston,
Alabama, my hometown.
Thanks to the determination of State and county officials
in Alabama, CSEPP has established an exemplary special needs
program in Anniston to maintain a high level of awareness and
preparedness for the unlikely event of a chemical agent
emergency.
I have heard that 1,000 times, the ``unlikely event.'' It
is in my hometown. We hear it constantly. Thank goodness it is
an unlikely event.
Among the many positive developments that arise out of
CSEPP, local emergency management officials have provided
equipment and training to individuals with special needs in
Anniston and have sponsored training for professional
caregivers and published a quarterly newsletter for the special
needs population.
The strong coordination between the U.S. Army officials and
FEMA under CSEPP, and with State and local and private-sector
partners, has led to a successful special needs program which
can benefit State and local emergency managers around the
country through the tools that have been developed and all of
the lessons learned.
I am pleased to know that CSEPP is working closely with the
disability coordinator to introduce special aspects of the
program into the special needs-related initiatives at FEMA. I
look forward to discussing these developments with the
witnesses in more detail today.
Once again, I want to thank you all for being here.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Ms. Richardson. The Chairwoman now recognizes the Chairman
of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from
Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for an opening statement. I would
say that--talk about the right man for the right time for the
right job, who has had plenty of disasters to deal with himself
very personally in his district, and we are so glad to have our
Chairman.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Richardson,
for calling this important hearing and for our witnesses being
here today.
We are here to discuss what is being done to ensure that
needs of all persons are considered before, during, and after a
disaster. To this end, the committee has been closely following
the development and work of the disability coordinator at FEMA.
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
required FEMA to appoint a disability coordinator and tasked
him/her with coordinating with the National Council on
Disability.
I am pleased to see Ms. Roth from FEMA's Office of
Disability Integration and Coordination and Dr. Young of NCD
sitting together at this table with a commitment to
collaborate. I look forward to working with you both to ensure
that you are provided the tools and resources necessary to
carry out your mission.
While a strong disability coordinator is needed at FEMA's
headquarters, I also believe each region should have similar
positions. As Administrator Fugate continues to shift greater
responsibility to the regional offices, he should also look to
facilitate better coordination on disability issues across the
country. Whether conducted at FEMA's headquarters or in the
regions, emergency management planning must be inclusive of the
needs of all people.
Hurricane Katrina showed us that we must ensure that those
persons most vulnerable during disasters receive additional
attention and resources.
I might just, Madam Chairwoman, put a caveat here, that I
understand we have developed a plan for pets during disasters.
Now, I want us to put a pin in the plan for pets and make sure
we produce this plan for persons with disabilities next. Pets
are absolutely important, but obviously people are absolutely
important, also.
As the Chairwoman rightly has pointed out, the children,
the elderly, the poor, and the disabled, among others, must
become part of the planning process. For many of them and their
families, there are and must be a matter of life or death.
Consequently, I am disappointed that at this point FEMA has
not yet released its updated Comprehensive Planning Guidance
with the anticipated new language on all-needs disaster
management. I look forward today to hearing when we can expect
the release of that document.
More importantly, I would like to hear how we are moving
beyond plans to actual implementation.
Again, thank you for being here today. I look forward to
this very important hearing and the testimony.
I yield back.
Ms. Richardson. As standard with this Homeland Security
Committee, other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that
under the committee rules opening statements may be submitted
for the record.
I welcome our first panel of witnesses today. Our first
witness, Ms. Marcie Roth, was appointed by President Obama in
June 2009 as senior adviser on disability issues on FEMA. Once
at FEMA, she developed the new Office of Disability Integration
and Coordination, where she now serves as director and acting
disability coordinator.
In this capacity, Ms. Roth leads the agency's commitment to
meet the needs of children, adults with disabilities, and
emergency and disaster preparedness response, recovery, and
mitigation.
Our second witness, Dr. Jonathan Young, serves as the
chairman of the National Council on Disability, an independent
Federal agency. In this role, he is responsible for leading the
NCD's effort to provide advice to the President, to Congress,
and to the Executive branch on policies and procedures that
guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with
disabilities.
Our third witness, Mr. Carmen Spencer, was designated
deputy assistant secretary of the Army, Elimination of Chemical
Weapons. Mr. Spencer provides Executive-level policy and
oversight of the chemical demilitarization program projects,
including the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness
Program.
Our fourth and final witness of the first panel, Mr. Jim
Kish, serves as FEMA's representative to the Chemical Stockpile
Emergency Preparedness Program, which is a partnership between
FEMA and the United States Army that provides emergency
preparedness assistance and resources to communities
surrounding the Army's chemical warfare agent stockpiles.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted into the record, and I now ask each witness to
summarize your statement for 5 minutes, beginning with Ms.
Roth.
STATEMENT OF MARCIE ROTH, SENIOR ADVISOR ON DISABILITY ISSUES,
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Ms. Roth. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Rogers, Chairman Thompson, and distinguished Members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for convening this important hearing. I
am honored to appear before you today.
I am Marcie Roth. In June 2009, President Obama appointed
me as senior adviser for disability issues at the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
In February 2010, after a careful review of FEMA's progress
in serving children and adults with disabilities, FEMA
Administrator Craig Fugate established the Office of Disability
Integration and Coordination, or ODIC. Organizationally located
directly under his office, it is a great honor to serve as its
director.
My office plays a lead role in promoting a paradigm shift
in the way we think about children and adults with access and
functional needs in our National emergency management approach.
This shift is away from an approach that views people with
disabilities as separate from the general population and
towards one that integrates all members of American society in
our preparedness initiatives.
As we approach the 20th anniversary of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, I am proud of FEMA's role in reinforcing the
importance of the ADA's integration mandate into our Nation's
emergency management policies and practices. The name of my
Office of Disability Integration and Coordination reinforces
this point and shapes the work that we do.
ODIC is not a siloed office. Rather, we exist to provide
support across the agency and in support of our partners.
Let me give you a personal example of how the lack of an
integrated approach led to an unnecessary death during
Hurricane Katrina. Prior to my appointment at FEMA, I served
for many years as the CEO of the National Spinal Cord Injury
Association and co-chair of the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities Emergency Management Task Force, representing over
100 National organizations, serving millions of people with
disabilities.
On the morning of August 29, 2005, when Hurricane Katrina
was making landfall in the gulf, I received a call from a
colleague whose sister-in-law, Benilda Caixeta, was trapped in
her home in New Orleans. Benilda was quadriplegic, paralyzed
from the shoulders down, and she had been trying to evacuate
from her Upper Ninth Ward New Orleans apartment to the
Superdome for 3 days.
There had only been minimal pre-planning for a person who
uses a wheelchair to be evacuated during an emergency. The
local paratransit system designed to serve the accessible
transportation needs of people with disabilities never arrived,
despite Benilda's repeated calls. Even her pleas to 9-1-1 had
been fruitless, so she was still in her home that morning.
As I learned of her situation, I thought I could use my
connections to help get--to get help to her. I was wrong. It
was too late to evacuate, so I did the next best thing. I
stayed on the phone with Benilda for most of the day, assuring
her that help would come as soon as possible.
I was on the phone with her that afternoon when she told
me, with panic in her voice, ``The water is rushing in,'' and
then her phone went dead. We learned 5 days later that she had
been found in her apartment dead, floating next to her
wheelchair.
Knowing that this death and countless other unnecessary
tragedies could have been averted is why I came to FEMA and why
we are working so hard to implement comprehensive strategies
for inclusive emergency planning.
When I began to address this process of integrating the
needs of the whole community, the first obstacle I encountered
was to explain what we mean by people with access and
functional needs.
Historically, emergency management has planned primarily
for easy, individuals with their own resources, rather than
real, including people requiring assistance with physical,
programmatic, or communications access needs.
Mindful of the hard lessons of the past and our National
mandates regarding the integration of children and adults with
disabilities, I am faced with continual references to people
with ``special needs.'' The problem with this nomenclature is
that it leads to segregation and unequal services for people
with disabilities.
No one wants to be special during an emergency. They want
to receive the same services as everyone else, and they should.
In addition, the term ``access and functional needs'' is
much more useful as a description, because it describes
everyone who may require accommodations throughout the life
cycle of a disaster. This includes elders, people with language
and communication access needs, pregnant women, people with
mental health needs, and others who may be anticipate--who must
be anticipated and accommodated in Federal, State, Tribal, and
local emergency plans.
Over the past 11 months, we have already begun to make
significant progress. Our accomplishments include our new
document, ``Guidance on Planning for Integration of Functional
Needs Support Services in General Population Shelters.'' This
guidance will help municipalities comply with Federal laws
designed to assist people with disabilities, to maintain their
independence, health, and functioning. Training will be
provided in each FEMA region, beginning on July 19.
Other accomplishments include integrating the access and
functional needs of children and adults with disabilities and
to preparedness initiatives, including CPG 101, and our role as
co-sponsor for the 20th anniversary celebration of the
Americans with Disabilities Act with the National Council on
Disability. Administrator Fugate and other senior leaders will
participate.
Another upcoming initiative is an intensive capacity-
building conference between FEMA's regional offices, State
emergency managers, and members of the disability community to
focus on disability integration in planning policies and
operations.
Ultimately, FEMA and all of our partners must be driven by
a commitment to inclusive practices that bring disability
community leaders to the table, along with the rest of the
team, as we bake the needs of children and adults with
disabilities into all we do.
We are determined to learn from the mistakes of the past
and to deliver a better future to all who may be affected by
disasters. We must not stand by and allow what happened to
Benilda Caixeta to happen again.
In the face of a disaster, we are all vulnerable, we are
all at risk. The needs of our communities will be best served
by planning and practices that are inclusive. We will all be
stronger as we succeed.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and distinguished Members of
the subcommittee, for the opportunity to share FEMA's progress
with disability integration and coordination with you. I stand
ready to answer your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Roth follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marcie Roth
June 15, 2010
Good morning Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member Rogers and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. I am honored to appear
before you today. I am Marcie Roth. I have served since June 2009 as
the Senior Advisor for Disability Issues at the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). I
am here today to speak about the strong emphasis this administration
has placed on providing people with disabilities and those with access
and functional needs the necessary support in times of disaster. I also
want to share with you FEMA's work as a result of this emphasis.
Prior to my appointment, I served for many years as the Executive
Director and CEO of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association
(NSCIA), where one of our duties was working on disaster relief efforts
on behalf of all people with disabilities. I also co-chaired the
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Emergency Management Task
Force, which represents over 100 National disability organizations.
On the morning of August 29, 2005, I received a call that I will
never forget and once I tell you about it, I hope you will never forget
it either. My friend and colleague called to enlist my help because her
sister-in-law, Benilda Caixeta, a New Orleans resident who was
quadriplegic, paralyzed from the shoulders down, had been trying to
evacuate from her Upper 9th Ward New Orleans apartment to the Superdome
for 3 days.
Despite repeated requests to be evacuated, in her power wheelchair,
which is a vital tool for mobility and independence, the paratransit
system that serves the transportation needs of people with disabilities
never showed up. Even calls to 911 had been fruitless. She was still in
her home, she had not been able to evacuate, despite her very best
efforts. I thought a few phone calls to the ``right'' people would
help, and I was sure I knew who to call. I was wrong. After many calls
to the ``right'' people, it was clear that Benny was not being
evacuated.
I stayed on the phone with Benny for most of the day, assuring her
that I was doing all I could to make sure help would be coming as soon
as possible. She kept telling me she had been calling for a ride to the
Superdome for 3 days, but, despite promises, no one came. I was on the
phone with her that afternoon when she told me, with panic in her
voice, ``the water is rushing in'' and then her phone went dead. We
learned 5 days later that she had been found in her apartment, dead,
floating next to her wheelchair. Sometimes things like this can't be
prevented. Despite the magnitude of the catastrophe, this was not one
of those times. Benilda did not have to drown.
In 2005, as many as 54.4 million people, or 18.7 percent of the
population at that time, were people with disabilities. As it happens,
the areas most severely impacted by the 2005 hurricanes were also those
with especially high percentages of people with disabilities living in
the community. Because a disproportionate number of people with
disabilities live below the poverty line, frequently have less mobility
than the general population, and are often more dependent on external
assistance, this population felt the impact of Hurricane Katrina quite
severely.
In October 2006, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
of 2006 (PKEMRA) provided a much-needed mandate to integrate the needs
of people with disabilities and those with access and functional needs,
into general emergency management planning, response, and recovery.
However, despite the numerous new requirements on planning for and
meeting the disaster-related needs of children and adults with
disabilities, many of the same problems were seen again during
Hurricanes Gustav and Ike just a few years later. Many people were
still turned away from shelters, information was inaccessible to
individuals who were deaf or blind, services required under disability
rights laws were not being provided, and catastrophic but preventable
health impacts were felt by previously stable and independent evacuees
with disabilities.
However, with some responsible planning and smart investments,
people with disabilities can begin to trust that their needs will be
better met in future disasters. In addition, taxpayers, generous
donors, and the general public can rest assured that we are maximizing
our limited resources and minimizing any unnecessary waste in moving
forward with this effort.
INTEGRATED PLANS
All successful actions start with planning. As FEMA's administrator
Craig Fugate said, at the Inclusive Hurricane Conference in Biloxi,
Mississippi, ``My experience tells me if we wait and plan for people
with disabilities after we write the basic plan, we fail.'' The
administrator is challenging the emergency management community to not
just plan for easy scenarios, but to plan for all who may be impacted
by a disaster or emergency.
The DHS Nationwide Plan Review (NPR).--The DHS Nationwide Plan
Review (NPR) revealed major inconsistencies in the definition of the
term special needs, including the current National Response Framework
(NRF) terminology.
The consistent yet vague references to special needs lack the
guidance to put direct community-wide planning tasks into actions that
will fully support people with disabilities. When people with
disabilities are thought of as ``special,'' they are often thought of
as marginal individuals who have needs, not rights. People with that
label appear to need things done for them as recipients, not
participants. If people with disabilities are more thoroughly
integrated in local planning, their participation will help ensure that
misleading stereotypes do not dilute the effectiveness of emergency
plans.
National Response Framework (NRF).--The NRF definition of special
needs is, ``populations whose members may have additional needs before,
during, and after an incident in functional areas, including but not
limited to: maintaining independence, communication, transportation,
supervision, medical care. Individuals in need of additional response
assistance may include; those who have disabilities; who live in
institutionalized settings; who are elderly; who are children; who are
from diverse cultures; who have limited English proficiency or are non-
English speaking; or who are transportation disadvantaged.''
Researchers have pointed out that this definition actually
describes almost 50 percent of the population,\1\ and yet, until now,
``special needs'' planning has been handled as a separate activity,
rather than as a central element of the planning required in every
community to prepare for vital emergency management needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kailes, J. (2005). Disaster Services and ``Special Needs:''
Term of Art or Meaningless Term? Kailes-Publications, 6201 Ocean Front
Walk, Suite 2, Playa del Rey, California 90293-7556, http://
www.jik.com/resource.html, [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A better way to plan for the needs of people with disabilities and
activity limitations is to use an orientation that considers major
functional needs as vital to protecting life and safety, maximizing
limited resources and promoting maintenance of independence and health.
Functional Needs Support Services (FNSS) are defined as ``services that
are provided to individuals during an emergency in general population
shelters or other integrated community facilities to enable them to
maintain their independence in such settings''. FNSS includes
reasonable modifications to shelter practices and procedures such as
the planning for the inclusion of service animals, and also may include
the acquisition or use of durable medical equipment (DME), consumable
medical supplies (CMS), personal assistance services (PAS), and other
goods and services as needed.
Children and adults requiring FNSS may have physical, sensory,
mental health, cognitive, and/or intellectual disabilities affecting
their ability to function independently without assistance. Others that
may benefit from FNSS include women in late stages of pregnancy,
elders, and people needing bariatric equipment or communications
assistance. Acute medical needs, not regularly addressed in the
individual's daily life, however, are not a part of FNSS and are
addressed under activities conducted through medical facilities
(hospitals, hospices, etc.).
Since Katrina, there have been significant changes in the NRF's
Mass Care Emergency Support Function-6 (ESF-6). FEMA is now the lead
agency, with other Federal agencies and the American Red Cross in a
supporting role. FEMA's Mass Care ESF-6 planning includes all
activities needed to meet the access and functional needs of people
impacted by a disaster. FEMA's ESF-6 staff is working with FEMA's
Office of Disability Integration and Coordination (ODIC) to ensure that
all planning meets compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, and other disability
rights laws, not only in sheltering, but also in evacuation, housing,
and recovery efforts.
Comprehensive Preparedness Guideline (CPG 101).--FEMA is updating
its CPG 101 to integrate the Comprehensive Preparedness Guideline 301
for Special Needs Planning, which will result in a single all-inclusive
planning document. This is meant to provide clear and efficient
guidance for State, territorial, Tribal, and local emergency managers
with one integrated plan--rather than a base general plan and
secondary, auxiliary guidance on people with disabilities. The revised
document is expected to be finalized soon.
FEMA's National Disaster Recovery Framework and National Disaster
Housing Strategy.--These are being drafted to incorporate the needs of
people with disabilities and access and functional needs, so they can
more easily transition back into the community following a disaster.
OFFICE OF DISABILITY INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION
PKEMRA also required FEMA to appoint a Disability Coordinator. I
have been serving as the acting Disability Coordinator since 2009. In
February 2010, after a careful review of FEMA's progress in serving
children and adults with disabilities and responding to the National
imperative for an inclusive approach to emergency management, FEMA
administrator Craig Fugate established the ODIC, with me as director.
Mindful of the hard lessons of the past, as well as our National
mandates regarding the integration of children and adults with
disabilities, ODIC has played a lead role in promoting a shift in our
National emergency management approach. This represents a shift away
from a paradigm that views people with disabilities and other access
and functional needs as separate or apart from the general population,
and towards a notion that all segments of American society will be
integrated and served through a single and inclusive emergency
management approach.
Partnerships, Technical Assistance and Information Dissemination
In order to maximize FEMA's capacity to serve individuals with
disabilities and other access and functional needs in disaster
situations, ODIC has worked actively to engage the many stakeholders
involved in inclusive emergency management.
This work includes coordination with both internal FEMA program
offices and relevant external parties. The vast spectrum of
coordination projects include: Forming new partnerships and
relationships, providing technical assistance and information
dissemination, incorporating disability considerations into emergency
communications, evacuation, transportation, sheltering, medical supply
plans, Disaster Recovery Centers, and registration needs. Some recent
ODIC projects include:
Established regular meetings with the National Council on
Disability, the National Council on Independent Living, the DHS
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and others.
Provided technical assistance and expert guidance on
disability integration in multiple venues, including: FEMA
Regional Offices, FEMA National Advisory Council, the National
Disaster Housing Taskforce, the Pandemic Planning Guidance
Workgroup, the Long Term Disaster Recovery Initiative, and the
National Exercise Program's National Level Exercise 2011, which
will include the National Council on Disability and State
representatives.
Engaged in an on-going series of trainings, presentations,
and meetings with Government and private entities in order to
get the word out about disability integration in emergency
management, building capacity, and developing networks.
Selected venues include: The Federal Communications Commission
Broadband Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities
Initiative; the U.S. Department of Labor Perspectives on the
Employment of Persons with Disabilities Conference; the
Wireless Emergency Communications 2009 Conference; the
International Association of Emergency Management Special Needs
Subcommittee; The Iowa Special Needs Symposium; the National
Council on Community Preparedness; the National Organization on
Disability; the Access to Readiness Coalition; and the Citizens
with Disabilities Emergency Management Taskforce.
Utilized and reviewed disability related emergency
preparedness guidance, such as the Framework of Guidelines:
Preparing the Workplace for Everyone, developed by the
Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness for
Individuals with Disabilities, Workplace Subcommittee, which is
coordinated by the Office of Disability Employment Policy at
the Department of Labor.
Provided 600 disability and emergency management stakeholder
organizations and entities with updates on a variety of FEMA
efforts such as: The disability response during the American
Samoa Tsunami, H1N1 preparedness and response, earthquakes in
Haiti and Chile (supporting USAID), and more.
Began efforts to develop a cadre of disability subject
matter experts who can assist in disaster response activities
across the country.
Participated in FEMA conferences related to logistics, mass
care, and external affairs, providing counsel and expertise on
disability integration into these FEMA programs.
Established a Citizen Corps partnership with the National
Council on Disability, and held a Citizen Corps Disability Law
webinar on April 10, 2010.
Participated in the creation of a FEMA Children's Working
Group, and established a focus within that group on children
with disabilities. ODIC is participating in a summer 2010
Children's Summit.
Facilitated the development of a partnership between FEMA
and the Department of Education so we can focus on inclusive
preparedness curriculums for children in schools.
In addition, FEMA has collaborated with the National Commission on
Children and Disasters to further identify and address the needs of
children during a disaster, including children with disabilities. Thus
far, FEMA has updated its fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Grant
Program guidance to include how grant dollars may be used to support
preparedness and planning activities for children. The guidance
provides resources for grantees to incorporate children into their
planning and purchase of equipment and supplies, and provides training
to a broad range of child-specific providers, and exercise capabilities
relating to children. In addition, FEMA's Children's Working Group
collaborated with the American Red Cross, the Commission, and other
pediatric experts to develop a shelter supply list which identifies the
basic items necessary to sustain infants and toddlers in mass care
shelters and emergency congregate care environments. That list has been
integrated into numerous planning and guidance documents. FEMA signed
an agreement with Health and Human Services to provide for the rapid
deployment of case managers when requested by the State during a
Presidentially declared disaster. FEMA's Public Assistance Division has
clarified certain child care services and facilities are eligible for
reimbursement under the Stafford Act and a Fact Sheet has been
disseminated to the Regions.
Emergency Communications
ODIC and FEMA's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS)
Program Office are collaborating to identify key resources and
stakeholders that can facilitate improved emergency communications such
as alerts and warnings. Examples of key ODIC and IPAWS Program Office
stakeholder collaborations include:
Developing a burgeoning relationship with WGBH-TV's National
Center for Accessible Media (NCAM) in our efforts to identify
key industry contacts, and available resources currently being
used to alert people with disabilities.
Leveraging Gallaudet University's research on new technology
for Emergency Alerting Systems. IPAWS and Gallaudet University
have jointly participated in collaborative technology
demonstrations featuring the ALERTUS Alert Beacon System,
currently in use at Gallaudet University.
Coordinating with the National Council on Disability to
gather Commercial Mobile Alerting System requirements
pertaining to the disability community as well as identifying
educational and training strategies on disabilities for
emergency managers.
Evacuation and Transportation
Federal mass evacuation planning requires a coordinated concept of
operations and a command and control system that provides Federal
support to State, local, or Tribal authorities. FEMA's Planning
Division in the Response Directorate has recently begun to discuss with
ODIC how to create regional and State response plans that better
integrate the needs of all populations, including transportation during
emergencies.\2\ NORTHCOM and NORAD are assisting FEMA with planning and
resources for the potential evacuation of people with disabilities and
access and functional needs. FEMA has assisted State and local
evacuation-specific planning for people with disabilities, access, or
functional needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mass Evacuation Plans are implanted within the framework and
operating principles of the National Response Framework (NRF) and are
pursuant to authorities including: Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act; Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform
Act of 2006; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990; Executive
Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited
English Proficiency; Executive Order 13347, Individuals with
Disabilities in Emergency Preparedness; The Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (ATSA), 2007; The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient,
Transportation Equity Act, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal support may be required when people with medical needs must
move to a facility with an appropriate care level. Various modes of
transportation may be implemented to safely and effectively transport
individuals with acute medical needs and people with mobility
disabilities including emergency medical services (EMS), paratransit
services, surface marine vessels, and rotary-wing and fixed-wing
aircraft. FEMA's ambulance contract remains fully mission-capable,
including providing services to people with disabilities.
PKEMRA, by amending sections 501, 503, and 512 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, assigned FEMA the responsibility of supporting
State mass evacuation operations. To meet this requirement, FEMA
created the National Mass Evacuation Tracking Systems (NMETS) expected
to roll out this summer. NMETS is composed of both manual and computer-
based systems that are designed to assist States in tracking the
movement of transportation-assisted evacuees, their household pets,
luggage, and medical equipment during evacuations. The system can
operate independently or be used to support multi-State, State-managed
or local level evacuation operations. The systems are compliant with
the Mass Evacuation Incident Annex to the National Response Framework
(NRF).
Medical Supplies
FEMA is developing consumable medical supplies (CMS) capabilities
to support people with functional support needs in general population
shelters across all FEMA regions. ODIC supported Mass Care's ``just-in-
time'' capacity so FEMA could provide durable medical equipment and
consumable medical supplies upon request by a State. With input from
disability subject matter experts, FEMA developed and implemented
mechanisms to obtain durable medical equipment (DME) to support people
with disabilities in shelters and other integrated congregate care
environments.
Administrator Fugate directed the agency to identify a universal
cot that could accommodate people with functional needs. As part of the
process, FEMA held an ``Industry Day'' on June 14, 2010 for U.S.
manufacturers of cots to provide specifications for a universal cot
that can be used by people with functional support needs as well as the
other residents of a shelter. Instead of purchasing separate items, we
hope to move forward with one item that fits the needs of most
individuals impacted by a disaster.
Sheltering
FEMA, together with a host of partners, is developing Guidance for
Integration of Functional Needs Support Service in General Population
Shelters. The guidance was created with the Department of Justice, the
DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the National Council
on Disability, the Department of Health and Human Services, the
American Red Cross, the National Council on Independent Living, State
emergency management officials, and FEMA's Office of Disability
Integration and Coordination, among others. The group continues to
examine and re-evaluate ways that FEMA's disaster assistance programs
can meet the needs of individuals with disabilities and others with
access and functional needs, at all levels of service delivery.
FEMA is developing the FNSS guidance to States as well as Guidance
for Personal Assistance Services (PAS) in General Population Shelters.
The guidance also has a training curriculum that is being scheduled for
all ten FEMA Regions in the coming months. The guidance will provide
States and territories with more information on how to comply with
Federal laws regarding people with disabilities and the integration of
people with disabilities into general population shelters. ODIC also
partnered with FEMA's Mass Care Section to develop a multi-agency
shelter assessment tool that incorporates disability considerations.
Over the past 4 years, FEMA has collaborated with the U.S. Access
Board, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and DHS' Office
of Health Affairs to revise FEMA specifications to meet Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards (UFAS) for Accessible Temporary Housing. FEMA
has provided UFAS-compliant temporary housing directives for all Direct
Housing Missions since 2007.
FEMA's current target baseline temporary housing inventory is
established at 4,000 units, of which 10 percent are targeted as UFAS-
compliant. This target baseline inventory is being re-evaluated in
consideration of production contracts that allow FEMA to produce
additional UFAS-compliant units as needed.
FEMA's indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts
allow for rapid ramp-up of temporary housing unit (THU) production.
Each of the five contractors has the capability to produce 150 units
per week within 3 weeks of a request by FEMA. Units produced under the
contracts may be all UFAS-compliant if disaster housing needs require a
large number of such units. FEMA's IDIQ contracts for THU installation
and the template statements of work for local contractors to install
THUs have specific language requiring the installation of accessible
ramps and platform stairs. All FEMA contracts for the design and
construction of group sites have UFAS requirements ensuring
accessibility and integration and not segregation of applicants with
disabilities.
Further, FEMA Interim Policy 9452.1 directs that housing group
sites constructed, altered by, or altered on behalf of FEMA will
include accessible routes and elements for common use areas. Moreover,
this policy mandates that at least 15 percent of individual lots within
any such site constructed or managed by or on behalf of FEMA must be
designed to accommodate accessible units for eligible disaster
survivors with a disability and or access and functional needs.
Disaster Recovery Centers (DRCs)
As part of the Disaster Recovery Center Services and Providers
Policy (DAP 9430.1), FEMA established a DRC Access Agreement for the
Agency's National Disaster Assistance Partners--non-governmental
entities that offer services FEMA does not provide. These ``Partners''
have seamless access to all of FEMA's DRCs. Currently, FEMA is working
on DRC Access Agreements with two additional disability groups, the
National Council on Independent Living and National Disability Rights
Network.
Communications Equipment
FEMA purchased equipment for its Regions to use in communicating
emergency and disaster assistance information to persons with hearing
limitations. This assistive technology equipment is for use by the
Regions in Disaster Recovery Centers, congregate shelters, and other
areas where disaster victims may gather. The equipment is sent in a
waterproof storage case for durable use after a disaster. Additional
items to assist with access for applicants with disabilities have been
selected by each Region.
Registration
FEMA uses Teletypewriter (TTY) to take Registration Intake and
Helpline calls from disaster survivors with hearing disabilities. The
TTY is answered by a live agent during the hours of operation. When the
1-800 number is not manned by a live operator, the caller can leave a
message and a Customer Service Representative will quickly return the
call.
Disaster survivors who are unable to register with FEMA over the
phone can register for disaster assistance on-line at
www.disasterassistance.gov. FEMA's applicant guide, Help After a
Disaster (FEMA Publication 545), is available in Braille and large
print. Additionally, the applicant guide is available for download at
www.fema.gov, and in the text version, which can be used in Acrobat
ADOBE reader.
The disaster applicant guide has been translated into 20 languages
and translated documents will be posted, in an accessible format, at
www.fema.gov for public access. The registration intake interview
includes question regarding the applicant's access and functional needs
that may require FEMA's attention as a result of the disaster.
Staffing
Meeting the regional staffing needs for successfully achieving
disability integration is complex, and involves budget decisions made
some time ago. The regional administrators were presented with staffing
options that included a variety of job titles including disability
coordinator. It appears that most of the regions chose to incorporate
the tasks of a disability coordinator into positions that already exist
and work with individuals on disaster assistance.
There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. If we
aspire to integrate disability into the entire emergency management
process, then it would be ideal to have staff members working on
general population needs while incorporating important disability
issues. On the other hand, if these individuals do not have disability
subject matter expertise, this may not be effective.
Alternatively, if we identify one position as a permanent
disability coordinator, they may be ``stove-piped'' into disability
topics and individual case management and away from integrating the
needs of every individual into the whole. At this point, those staffing
decisions are in the hands of the regional administrators and we will
work with their designated staff.
One way we intend to assist those regional staff working with
disability integration issues is by providing training, capacity
building, and the opportunity to share ideas. ODIC is planning a
National conference to be held in Washington, DC in the early fall of
this year that will bring these regional staff members together with
their State counterparts and relevant subject matter experts to provide
a strong beginning to this collaborative National effort.
NEXT STEPS: THE WORK AHEAD
While we are very proud of FEMA's and our partners' achievements in
a short period of time, more needs to be done to incorporate disability
and other access and functional needs considerations into all FEMA
operations.
One of our upcoming initiatives will be a National Capacity
Building Training Conference at the end of the summer, co-sponsored by
the National Preparedness Directorate, Citizen Corps, and the DHS
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. During this training,
members of the disability and emergency management communities will
participate jointly in an intensive cross-training and bridge-building
conference. Participants will have post-training responsibilities to
educate others in their communities about emergency preparedness that
is inclusive of children and adults with disabilities and others with
access and functional needs.
Additionally, ODIC plans to co-sponsor 20th Anniversary
Celebrations with the National Council on Disability in order to get
the word out about FEMA's emphasis on disability integration. ODIC
welcomes the opportunity to work with the National Council on
Disability in this and many venues as we move forward together.
Ultimately, FEMA and all of our partners must be driven by the
determination to learn from the mistakes of the past and to deliver a
better future to all those affected by disasters. We must not stand by
and allow what happened to Benilda Caixeta to happen again to those who
need and trust us for support in the face of disaster.
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Rogers and distinguished Members
of the subcommittee, I thank you again for the opportunity to share
with you FEMA's work on disability integration and coordination, and
stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Dr. Young to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN M. YOUNG, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COUNCIL ON
DISABILITY
Mr. Young. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Rogers, Chairman Thompson. Thank you for the opportunity to be
here today. I commend the work of your subcommittee and this
committee.
I am always pleased when a dialogue begins with all the
participants, largely on the same page, as certainly appears to
be the case with your opening remarks.
Fortunately, I have never been part of a National disaster,
but I have been a part of my own personal disaster of sorts. As
I described in my written testimony, I broke my neck in a
wrestling match in 1986 as a senior in high school.
Fortunately, my father, who is here with me today, who was
then-chairman of--commissioner of the Food and Drug
Administration, an MD/PhD, was there at my side, was able to
make sure that I got all the proper care, made sure that no one
touched me to make sure that more damage wasn't caused, ensure
that I was transferred to the MedStar trauma center.
Unfortunately, in the midst of National disasters, people
don't get that kind of attention. As Ms. Roth described just a
moment ago, there are too many stories of people like Benilda
Caixeta, who instead of having personalized attention to make
sure that they are brought to safety and brought to the best
care that they deserve, end up being casualties in the midst of
disasters.
Ranking Member Rogers, I appreciate your sentiments about
calling us all here today, but it is no inconvenience for me to
be here. I embrace my obligations and responsibilities as the
chairman of the National Council on Disability, and our job is
to ensure that we do everything that we can so that Americans
around the country are not inconvenienced any more than they
need to be in the midst of National disasters.
I don't have time today to review my vision for the
National Council on Disability, but what I am going to
emphasize here in just a couple moments about my three points
here is very part and parcel of where I would like to take the
National Council on Disability.
Chairman Thompson, you talked about moving beyond plans and
toward implementation. I am delighted to acknowledge that the
first correspondence that I received as chairman was a letter
from you, addressed to Administrator Fugate, copying me,
bidding us to meet. We met for an hour in April. It was a
phenomenal meeting, along with Ms. Roth and my executive
director, Joan Durocher.
I was anticipating sort of a confrontation, perhaps, of
sorts, but was struck with how incredibly Administrator Fugate
understood all of the issues in a way that I couldn't even
quite express at the time. We have committed to meeting on a
monthly basis until we can show signs of progress.
My vice chair, Fernando Torres-Gil, has a long experience
in emergency planning. He is going to be joining us in those
meetings, as--as he can.
I have here with me our most recent report on the subject,
effective emergency management in 2009. That is what NCD has
most been known for in recent years. While this is an
appropriate and useful compendium of knowledge as it described,
in NCD at this point, I really want to move toward the focus on
implementation, developing reports where necessary, but looking
at where we can be engaged in a collaborative process to
implement these recommendations in a very real-time way.
For instance, Ms. Roth and I met on Friday with the
exercise division, preparing for NLE 11 for the New Madrid
Seismic Zone, and we are exploring the possibility of having
advisory committee and action-oriented advisory committee to be
engaged in the planning process over the next 11 months leading
up to that exercise.
Ms. Richardson, you talked about in your opening remarks,
you know, all populations having integrated planning, not
having mere window dressing, and I think that is very much what
I would like to emphasize here. Ms. Roth talked about this,
also.
I think if we set up a framework of general planning and
then special needs planning, we are setting ourselves up for
failure at the outset. Of course, there is an appropriate role
to have attention to particular issues, but when we talk about
vulnerable populations, there are no clear divisions. Whether
somebody is pregnant or has recently had surgery, they might
not think of themselves as a person with a disability, but in
the moment when a disaster strikes, they might need a level of
attention that they had not maybe 6 months previously.
So if we approach planning and preparedness in a holistic
way, trying to anticipate all the kinds of needs that are sort
of chronic and on-going, as well as immediately circumstantial,
I think we will be in a better place to move forward.
A number of comments have been made about the idea for
regional coordinators. Certainly, if we are focusing everything
here in Washington, we are not going to get the job done. We
need to be in a real-time way in communities around the
country.
The final point that I want to make--and I have said this
in more detail in my prepared testimony--but we need to work
across silos. Particularly, I would like to talk about the need
for accessible infrastructure.
We are going to be maximally prepared for disasters if our
communities are already accessible. If our communities'
infrastructures for transportation and housing or the
communications systems are inaccessible anyway, it is going to
be that much more difficult when a disaster strikes.
I know there are definite problems and challenges with
committees' jurisdictions, but if we can try to coordinate your
efforts with other committees, with other agencies around our
infrastructures, I think we will be better served and better
capable to address your particular needs around emergency
planning.
Again, thank you. I am excited about the collateral that
Ms. Roth and I have already struck up. We have known each other
for a dozen years. I pledge my personal commitment to you. We
are just beginning. I welcome any of your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan M. Young
June 15, 2010
INTRODUCTION
Ms. Chairwoman, and Members of the House Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit for the record this written
testimony about the critical importance of ensuring that our emergency
management infrastructures meaningfully afford all Americans, including
Americans with disabilities, an opportunity to be prepared for and
survive emergencies, and to resume and rebuild productive lives after
them.
This is my first occasion to provide Congressional testimony as
chairman of the National Council on Disability. Accordingly, by way of
introduction, I would like to provide some personal background. I broke
my neck in during a wrestling match as a senior at Walt Whitman High
School in Bethesda in 1986. Initially paralyzed from the neck down, I
was fortunate that my spinal cord was compressed and bruised but not
severed, enabling a partial recovery from paralysis. Like many people
who acquire disabilities later in life, my initial impulse was to
disassociate from disability. I viewed disability as debilitating, and
my injury as an enemy. I was only vaguely aware of the Americans with
Disabilities Act in 1990, and it did not occur to me then that it had
anything to do with me. I had broken my neck in a wrestling match and
had a pronounced limp. But I did not view myself as a ``person with a
disability'' nor as part of a ``disability community.''
I would not be here today absent the extraordinary impact of the
National Council on Disability on my life. I refer not to my current
role as chairman but rather the opportunity afforded me in 1996 to
write a history of the Americans with Disabilities Act on a contract
through what was then the National Rehabilitation Hospital Research
Center. At the time I was a Ph.D. student in American history at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill writing a dissertation
about the slavery debates, and I had recently endured a difficult bout
of depression related to my injury. In fact, I had reached a point
where I did not think I would ever be able to hold a meaningful job.
Depression can cast long shadows.
Writing about the history of the ADA transformed my personal and
professional identity. As I interviewed dozens of leaders in the
disability community I was riveted by the power of their story and the
gravity of the change wrought through the ADA. I began to view
disability as a source of power and pride rather than debilitating
stigma. With NCD's 1997 publication of Equality of Opportunity: The
Making of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I became a person with a
disability, and part of the disability community.
I also became employable. My opportunity to write about the ADA's
history for NCD restored the confidence in myself that I had lost in
the darkness of depression. As a direct result of my NCD ADA history
project, I was nominated for and later became Associate Director for
Disability Outreach in the White House Office of Public Liaison in 1998
and served through the end of the Clinton Administration. Thereafter I
completed my Ph.D. with a dissertation on the disability rights
movement in 2002 and went on to obtain my J.D. from Yale Law School in
2005. I also got married and am the proud father of three beautiful
daughters, ages 3, 5, and 7.
Serving as NCD Chairman thus completes a circle for me. NCD was my
gateway to the disability community. It is thus a profound and humbling
honor to serve as chairman of this important agency.
My remarks today reflect several years of important work led by the
National Council on Disability and documented in a series of reports
beginning in April 2005 with the pre-Katrina report, Saving Lives:
Including People with Disabilities in Emergency Planning, and two
reports in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. NCD's leadership in
highlighting the importance of people with disabilities in emergency
response and preparedness had a direct impact on the provisions of the
2006 Homeland Security Appropriations bill's Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act (PKEMRA). Among other things, PKEMRA required
FEMA to create and hire a National Disability Coordinator and to
interact, consult, and coordinate with NCD on a list of activities.
Congress's fiscal year 2007 appropriations enabled NCD to undertake and
complete its most recent report on the subject, the 2009 Effective
Emergency Management: Making Improvements for Communities and People
with Disabilities report.
These reports, which have helped to create awareness of the breadth
of concerns facing people with disabilities during all phases of a
disaster, have played an important role. Of course, reports alone are
not enough. What is critical is taking these reports' findings and
drilling down into the day-to-day decision-making and relationship
building required to effect the change that these reports have
indicated is so direly needed. We should never find ourselves
exchanging business cards for the first time at the moment of a
disaster. When that happens, people become statistics instead of
stories of successfully saved lives. Consider the tragic story of
Benilda Caixeta. She was on the phone with Marcie Roth during Hurricane
Katrina and pleading for transportation from her home. Benilda reported
that water was gushing in shortly before the phone died. Five days
later her body was recovered floating next to her wheelchair.\1\ Each
of the cold casualty statistics represents the loss of a lifetime of
potential to contribute to our country's well-being. We can, and must,
do better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Council on Disability, Emergency Management and People
with Disabilities: Hill Briefing, (November 10, 2005), http://
www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/transcript_emergencymgt.htm
(last visited June 10, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, there are three main points I would like to make:
(1) First, it is time to focus on implementation. It is time to
move beyond identification and deliberation of issues and
recommendations, and beyond dense reports that state and restate
problems. We must shift our focus to active implementation of evidence-
based successful practices in areas of known need. NCD is committed to
joining our Federal partners, including Congress and FEMA, in shifting
focus toward implementation and determining how to allocate scarce
resources to meet a plethora of acute challenges.
(2) Second, we must insist on integrated emergency planning. We
cannot divide emergency planning into two distinct frameworks--one for
``general'' preparedness and one for ``special needs'' preparedness.
This division is particularly problematic when, as now, it results in
devoting a miniscule portion of overall resources to ``special needs''
that are too often disproportionately more costly and resource
intensive. Being well-prepared for emergencies means addressing ALL
peoples' diverse needs, including the needs of people with
disabilities, in a single, integrated, and unified approach to
emergency preparedness. Vastly more important than a ``Special Needs
Plan'' is the meaningful inclusion of people with diverse disabilities
in every phase of disaster management planning, in all communities.
Emergency preparedness planning must be informed at every juncture by
the experiences and inputs of people with disabilities.
(3) Third, we need to collaborate across silos to build accessible
infrastructures. So long as we continue to work in agency silos, State,
and Federal silos, individuals and nonprofits and Government silos, and
Congressional committee silos, our progress will be halting and
scattered. We need to think creatively about how to replicate exemplary
and successful collaborations and continue to insist upon working
across silos to effect positive change for people with disabilities.
In addition to the amplification of these points that follows,
attached to this testimony is a summary document of key recommendations
and findings from our Effective Emergency Management report germane to
this hearing, which is meant to supplement my testimony. (See
attachment).
IT IS TIME TO FOCUS ON IMPLEMENTATION
I am proud of the extraordinary role NCD has played prior to my
tenure as chairman in drawing attention to the needs of people with
disabilities in emergency planning. As an independent agency charged
with making recommendations to the President and to Congress, our work
on emergency management is a prime example of NCD's critical role in
helping to ensure that we hold true to our Nation's disability policy
goals of equality of opportunity, full participation, independent
living, and economic self-sufficiency.
To date, NCD is probably best known for its substantive and lengthy
reports, including its reports on emergency management. While NCD will
continue to develop reports when warranted or requested by Congress and
the President, I am persuaded that NCD has reached a critical juncture
that requires us to focus less on generating high-level recommendations
encased in lengthy prose and focus more on rapid and responsive advice
and guidance about effective implementation. This conclusion is
informed substantially by comments I have received from Congressional
staff and other key Federal stakeholders. Accordingly, NCD is currently
undertaking a strategic planning process in coordination with the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management to determine how best to equip NCD to
fulfill a new and more actively-engaged role in helping to implement
critical recommendations about disability policies and programs.
This shift in NCD's emphasis forms a backdrop for my testimony
today. At this point, there is little mystery about the scope of
actions needed to ensure that people with disabilities are not the
first to be sacrificed when disaster strikes. We have enumerated,
justified, and detailed our recommendations in several reports. Of
course, we all agree that we need to implement solutions rather than
crystallize with increasing clarity the scope of the problem. It is now
time for us to support active implementation of these recommended
actions in areas of known need.
With regard to emergency preparedness, NCD is prepared, and has in
fact begun, to make this transition toward implementation of
recommended actions. One example is a need identified by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to improve the coordination and
collaboration between NCD and FEMA. I am pleased to report to this
subcommittee that FEMA Administrator Fugate and I had an excellent
first meeting on April 23, 2010. I am also pleased to report that
Marcie Roth, Director of FEMA's new Office of Disability Integration
and Coordination, and I enjoy a strong working relationship rooted in
our collaborations in various contexts over the past 12 years.
Administrator Fugate has suggested that he and I meet regularly until
we can point to tangible signs of progress. Toward that end, I have
charged NCD Vice Chair Fernando Torres-Gil with a lead responsibility
for the Council and plan to have him join me in meeting with
Administrator Fugate whenever possible. Dr. Torres-Gil brings a wealth
of emergency preparedness experience and will be an extraordinary asset
as NCD and FEMA deepen our collaboration.
As Assistant Secretary for Aging during the Clinton administration,
Dr. Torres-Gil worked closely in assisting elderly and disabled persons
to recover from the Midwest floods of 1993 and the Northridge
earthquake of 1994. He directed the aging network of area and State
units on aging to give particular attention to the needs of older
adults with disabilities. As a current board member of The California
Endowment and the Los Angeles Airport Commission, he continues to
advocate for people with disabilities and older adults and is helping
to bridge the communication gaps between disability and aging
communities whose needs clearly overlap, even if both groups have a
tendency to disassociate from one another for fear of the stigma of
being viewed as ``old'' or ``disabled.''
Historically, our work on emergency management has come in the form
of Council oversight of outside contractors producing reports for NCD.
This type of reporting has played an important role in the past, and we
have targeted our lump-sum emergency management appropriation for
financing contract research. However, if one agrees that most of the
issue identification has been accomplished and one concurs with the
general scope of NCD's prior recommendations, I would contend that
NCD's greatest value in the years ahead will come from a more resource-
intensive process of being far more directly engaged with decision-
makers in actualizing the recommendations.
Dr. Torres-Gil and I pledge our commitment and that of the Council
to aggressive implementation of our emergency management
recommendations and look forward to providing this subcommittee with an
update on our progress in the future. One of the obvious challenges is
how best to allocate our agency's limited financial and human
resources. NCD has a $3.2 million annual lump sum appropriation (along
with a one-time, $300,000 appropriation for emergency preparedness) to
support a mission of advising the President and Congress on the entire
sweep of disability programs and policies, including every type of
disability and every conceivable disability issue. At present, nine
full-time staff supports the work of a 15-member, Presidentially-
appointed, and Senate-confirmed part-time Council. Most Council
members, including myself, balance their service on NCD with full-time
careers. We embrace the breadth of our mission even as we acknowledge
that difficult choices must be made about priorities.
As I mentioned previously, NCD is undergoing a strategic planning
process to optimize our allocation of resources, and as the chairman of
the Council, I am committed to including emergency management
activities as a discreet item in our strategic planning process. We
welcome an opportunity to strategize with our Congressional partners
about how best to marshal the resources necessary to fulfill Congress'
charge to NCD. I will turn now to discussing two of the highest
priority areas in need of aggressive implementation.
WE MUST INSIST ON INTEGRATED PREPAREDNESS PLANNING
Winston Churchill once said, ``However beautiful the strategy, you
should occasionally look at the results.'' I respectfully urge this
subcommittee to apply the sentiment behind that quote to its work
involving ``caring for special needs.'' Reference to the unique
considerations of people with disabilities in disasters is often termed
``special needs.'' While some people would certainly prefer the label
of ``people with special needs'' over ``people with disabilities,'' NCD
embraces the view of the disability advocacy community that ``special
needs'' connotes separateness and tends to reinforce debilitating
stigma. People with disabilities are people first, and if we truly
believe that disability is a natural part of the human experience,
labeling the work done to address its implications for emergency
planning should not be referred to as ``special.''
As people with disabilities, we may have various physical, sensory,
and/or psychiatric limitations, but our needs and wants are
fundamentally the same as all other Americans--to live, to learn, and
to earn. Furthermore, while recognizing that many people with
disabilities are uniquely vulnerable in times of emergency and
disaster, we need to focus greater energy on empowering people with
disabilities to act responsibly and appropriately at such times, rather
than default with the suggestion that they should wait to receive care.
Although identifying and focusing on ``caring for special needs'' is no
doubt well-intentioned, such a focus can have the unintentional,
deleterious impact of segregating, isolating, and thereby failing to
address adequately the actual needs of people with disabilities. People
with disabilities have long been marginalized by the emergency
management community. Instructions relating to the unique needs of
people with disabilities have typically been limited to a few lines in
an emergency plan, if they are mentioned at all. ``Disabilities'' have
generally been placed into one large category, often labeled ``special
needs,'' without genuine consideration for the unique circumstances of
different disabilities. Emergency planners have often decided what
people with disabilities need without consulting them. This practice
further alienates people with disabilities and increases their
vulnerability during disasters.
I often say that there is no such thing as ``disability policy.''
Rather, when we say ``disability policy,'' we are actually simply
thinking about all policies through a lens of consideration of its
impact on people with disabilities. This perspective is no less
relevant in emergency planning. We cannot divide emergency planning
into distinct frameworks for ``general'' preparedness and ``special
needs'' preparedness. What we need to do is ensure that all aspects of
emergency preparedness planning always integrate and fully incorporate
the unique life experiences of people with disabilities. This goes for
responses to disasters, as well.
Given the diversity of disability experiences and the highly
variable progress toward accessibility in communities across the
country, the most effective way to ensure that the needs of people with
disabilities are taken into account during emergencies and disasters is
to have people with disabilities be an integral part of the planning
process from start to finish--equal partners. President Eisenhower once
said, ``Planning is essential; plans are worthless.'' I am grateful to
FEMA Administrator Fugate for calling my attention to this idea. It has
helped give shape to my vision for the future of NCD and is certainly a
central principle in understanding how NCD views effective emergency
preparedness for people with disabilities.
Many of NCD's prior recommendations get to the heart of this need
for participation in the planning process. NCD has, for instance,
recommended that there be a network of regional coordinators across the
country. My good friend Marcie Roth is doing an extraordinary job as
Director of FEMA's Office of Disability Integration and Coordination.
However, despite my highest confidence in her abilities and dedication
to these issues, I am deeply concerned about her ability as one
individual to shoulder the enormous task laid before her. I am
heartened to be confident, based on my on-going dialogue with
Administrator Fugate, that he understands these weighty concerns, like
few people outside the disability community. I believe Administrator
Fugate, Ms. Roth, and I all agree that an important indicator of
success will be when all people engaged in emergency management work
have disability toward the center of their radar screens rather than
expecting that the concerns of people with disabilities are the job of
only a few individuals--whatever their rank may be.
Regional Coordinators Could Create Crucial Linkages
PKEMRA established the National Disability Coordinator position at
FEMA, which marked a critical step in institutionalizing staff
positions representing disability interests. Despite encouraging work
seen to date from the National coordinator (a position that is,
regrettably, currently unfilled), the frequency and geographic
dispersion of disasters annually underscores that regional replication
of the National coordinator position is vital. Regional coordinators
similar to the National coordinator's position, set up in each regional
FEMA office, could enhance the effectiveness of the National
coordinator by drilling down on local disability issues to more
aggressively and timely respond to the needs of people with
disabilities. Regional coordinators could liaise between voluntary
agency liaisons and voluntary organizations that function in the
National Response Framework, as well as oversee disability task forces.
Such actions would go a long way in shoring up communication linkages
between local disability communities and emergency managers.
Meaningful involvement of people with disabilities in emergency
management planning must happen across the country, not just here in
Washington between NCD and FEMA. Success will be marked by the
education of and enhanced awareness among all stakeholders in the
business of emergency management--which is to say, albeit in varying
ways, each and every American. And we have a long way to go.
People with Disabilities are Routinely Excluded from Preparedness
Activities
People with disabilities are routinely excluded from preparedness
exercises, drills, and other planning processes. As noted in one study
of 30 disaster sites, only 27 percent of emergency managers had
completed available training on disabilities, and fully 66 percent of
the counties had ``no intention of modifying their guidelines to
accommodate the needs of persons with mobility impairments'' because of
problems stemming from costs, the availability of staff, awareness,
etc.\2\ This lack of involvement in disaster planning also compromises
emergency planners' credibility to people with disabilities when hazard
and preparedness information is disseminated. The likeliest solution a
partnership approach to planning that brings disability organizations,
with which people with disabilities may already be familiar, to the
table with emergency planners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Fox, M.H., White, G.W., Rooney, C., & Rowland, J.L. (2007).
Disaster preparedness and response for persons with mobility
impairments. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17(4), 196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-Size-Fits-All Approaches Do Not Work
People with disabilities are often grouped together as a homogenous
unit when considering preparedness provisions, which does not
adequately account for the range of differences that exist between
disabilities or the accompanying range of issues for which emergency
managers must prepare to successfully respond to this diverse
population. Generic, one-size-fits-all approaches to disaster planning
do not work. Each type of disability presents its own unique set of
barriers during disasters. For example, people with hearing
disabilities may not receive weather warnings that broadcast only over
audible technologies, whereas the most urgent concern of people with
mobility disabilities may be negotiating the stairs of a fire escape
during evacuation. Addressing barriers created by the unique needs of
people with disabilities can serve to better protect all people during
times of disaster. Children, seniors, and people with disabilities all
benefit from an expanded set of options to support those at risk during
an event.
People with Disabilities as Active Participants in Preparedness
Planning
People with disabilities must be involved in emergency planning for
several reasons:
First, their knowledge of potential barriers is invaluable.
People with disabilities make excellent consultants or advisors
during emergency plan development;\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Loy, B., & Batiste, L.C. (2004). Evacuation preparedness:
Managing the safety of employees with disabilities. Occupational Health
and Safety, 73(9), 112-117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, their personal experience in overcoming these
barriers adds tremendous validity to plan solutions; and
Third, the empowerment experienced through participation may
prompt people with disabilities to take preemptive actions and
encourage others to follow suit.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Wisner, B. (2002). Disability and disaster: Victimhood and
agency in earthquake risk reduction. In C. Rodrigue & E. Rovai (eds.),
Earthquakes. London: Routledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invited participants must be representative of all types of
disabilities. Equal representation is imperative, as each disability
can present unique challenges to consider during emergency plan
development. For example, people with only mobility disabilities can
receive warnings via ordinary technology, but they may not be able to
self-evacuate; whereas people with hearing disabilities may be able to
self-evacuate, if they are properly notified. Advocacy groups that work
for and with people with disabilities should also receive an invitation
to the planning table. The collective knowledge gained by including
these individuals and organizations is invaluable to plan development.
In addition, the individuals or groups responsible for implementing the
plan, such as first responders, should also be involved in the
process.\5\ The insight gained through working side by side with people
with disabilities during the plan development process will enhance
everyone's understanding of the plan's purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ May, P.J. (1985). Recovering from catastrophes: Federal
disaster relief policy and politics. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
we need to collaborate across silos to build accessible infrastructures
We need to think creatively about how to work across silos,
including Congressional committee jurisdiction. If our communities'
housing, communications, transportation and related infrastructures are
not accessible now, our response to emergencies will be impaired from
the start. Therefore, even though housing, communications, and
transportation may not fall within a single committee's jurisdiction,
all the committees who do have distinct jurisdiction over those topics
will only achieve shared overarching objectives if they coordinate
efforts. While we mourn the tragic loss of life and destruction of
buildings in the wake of major disasters, built in the tragedy is the
opportunity to improve lives by rebuilding our society more
inclusively. We can only do this if we collaborate and coordinate
across all varieties of silos.
Problems Posed by the Built Environment
As I mentioned briefly before, historically, society has viewed
disability through a medical model, which explains disability as one's
personal, biologically-understood limitation, rather than through a
socio-political model, which views disability as a consequence of
faulty assumptions within the broader social, economic, and political
environments.\6\ (The landmark civil rights law, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), was written and is premised on the latter
model.) Relying on the medical model to understand disability has had
the consequence of deemphasizing examination of the built environment
and social responsibility to create a safe setting for everyone. One
research team remarked, ``Traditional perspectives, based on
assumptions of individual limitation, have shaped the construction of
disabled people's vulnerability to natural hazards as tragic yet
unavoidable.''\7\ This is simply untrue. However, by ignoring the built
environment, people with disabilities are further alienated and the
safety of everyone who responds to an emergency or disaster is
jeopardized. Contributing to concerns is the fact that ``the most
accessible entrances tend to be the best route out of the building for
everyone; nondisabled people head there first in an emergency, thus
clogging those exits intended for the disabled, who have no alternative
exits.''\8\ Researchers in this area emphasize the need to construct
the built environment to be accessible to everyone, rather than relying
upon people with disabilities to understand and act on detailed
instructions in an environment that is not supportive of their
functional needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Tierney, K., Petak, W., & Harlan, H. (1988). Disabled persons
and earthquake hazards. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
\7\ Hemingway, L., & Priestly, M. (2006). Natural hazards, human
vulnerability and disabling societies: A disaster for disabled people?
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 2(3), 57.
\8\ Wagner, C.G. (2006). Disaster planning for the disabled. The
Futurist (March 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When evacuation is necessary, additional attention must be directed
toward the availability of adequate transportation for individuals with
disabilities and the technology or mobility devices on which they rely.
According to the Survey of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees, the most common
reason provided by respondents for not evacuating was ``I did not have
a car or a way to leave.''\9\ In studying the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina among New Orleans residents, GAO found that State and local
governments did not ``integrate transportation-disadvantaged
populations'' into their evacuation plans.\10\ GAO also found that most
State officials did not believe that many of their residents needed
transportation assistance, despite U.S. Census data to the contrary.
Further emphasizing the importance of this consideration, the recent
Citizen Corps 2009 survey showed that over half of the respondents
reported needing help with transportation out of their area in the case
of an emergency (55 percent).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Kaiser Family Foundation. (2005). Survey of Hurricane Katrina
evacuees. Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, Harvard
University, p. 6. Retrieved from www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/7401.pdf.
\10\ Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2006a). Preliminary
observations on the evacuation of vulnerable populations due to
hurricanes and other disasters. Retrieved March 3, 2008, from
www.gao.gov/new.items/d06790t.pdf.
\11\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009). Personal
Preparedness in America: Findings from the 2009 Citizen Corps National
Survey. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://citizencorps.gov/pdf/
2009_Citizen_Corps_National_Survey_Findings.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When considering individuals with disabilities who lack
transportation, emergency planners must plan for the evacuation of
assistive devices and service animals, as well. Assistive devices are
often custom-fit for the individual and should be evacuated with him or
her to ensure maximum independence, lower reliance on emergency assets,
and speed post-event recovery. Service animals are also vitally
important to their owners' ability to maintain independence and should
be evacuated with the person.
Housing Concerns
Perhaps surprisingly, housing is one of the least examined areas of
recovery research, despite its importance. Lower income housing tends
to take a disproportionate hit during a disaster because it is likely
to be older and less likely to be up to code; located in a floodplain
or other hazardous area; and less structurally able to withstand an
event (such as manufactured housing). Thus, seniors and people with
disabilities at lower incomes presumably bear a higher risk of
displacement from their homes.
Public housing can be problematic when it has been affected,
particularly locations that are approved through the Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher Program. Although HUD maintains lists of available units
across the Nation, those units may not be located nearby. In past
disasters, HUD and local housing authorities have identified and
verified appropriate locations for replacement rentals. After the
California wildfires in 2007, HUD established a new National Housing
Locator System. The system invited prospective landlords and property
owners to list units. Approximately 26,000 units were identified within
a 300-mile radius of San Diego County. The list included the ability to
search for accessible units, although additional concerns remained,
including proximity to work, family, health care, banking, pharmacies,
and other routinely accessed sources of support.
In New Orleans, public housing units remain unavailable while they
are being rebuilt by HUD and area housing authorities. Concern has been
expressed by local residents that the new units, which will be in
mixed-income ranges, will displace or deter lower income residents.
Finding housing near vital support systems needed by people with
disabilities, the elderly, and people with medical conditions is also
of concern. For example, relocation 100 miles away from a familiar
senior center or dialysis center will be problematic.
After Hurricane Katrina, FEMA failed to provide temporary trailers
that were accessible. In Brou v. FEMA (the Department of Homeland
Security was also named in the suit), successful plaintiffs argued in a
class action discrimination suit that the Federal agency had not
provided accessible trailers (e.g., with wheelchair ramps, maneuvering
room, or grab bars), resulting in a longer wait for temporary housing.
As another example, housing advocates have noted in conference
presentations that mitigation elevations along the Gulf Coast displace
people with mobility disabilities and senior citizens. Some
organizations report that some of these people have been forced to
choose congregate care over independent living.\12\ Brou v. FEMA was
one of several efforts by the disability community that have resulted
in changes at FEMA when it comes to disaster response and recovery. In
another example, FEMA is incorporating disability-specific ideas and
language into its National Disaster Housing Strategy and Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Cahill, A. (2006). Planning tools you can use to meet the
needs of people with disabilities in an emergency: What to do, what not
to do, and what difference does it make? Paper presented at the Working
Conference on Emergency Management and Individuals with Disabilities
and the Elderly, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
Marking meaningful progress in addressing the needs of people with
disabilities in times of disaster requires implementation--follow-
through--on identified solutions. It requires deliberate and thorough
preparations that must include input in all disaster phase planning
from people with disabilities. As self-advocating experts, people with
disabilities offer invaluable knowledge of existing and potential
barriers as well as creative and personal experience in overcoming
them. Further, inclusion of people with disabilities throughout
emergency phase planning promotes personal preemptive actions and
enhances the credibility of emergency management personnel in times of
actual emergency. Finally, marking meaningful progress requires working
across silos and thinking holistically about peoples' lives--zooming
out from action steps to ensure the solution integrates across systems
in a sensible way.
Disability is a normal part of the human experience. Anyone at any
time can acquire a disability--as I did during a high school wrestling
match. And acquiring a disability can just as well open the door to new
opportunities as present new challenges--as I eventually discovered.
Furthermore, there is considerable overlap in the challenges faced by
persons with disabilities, seniors, and residents of low-income
households in disaster-threat situations. People with disabilities
should thus not be viewed as one more special interest group that
drains resources from the common pool. Rather, planning for and
accommodating people with disabilities often means being better
equipped to serve all people.
On behalf of the members of NCD, thank you again for the
opportunity to contribute this testimony to the written record. As we
are just over a month away from the 20th anniversary of the ADA, we
very much look forward to working in collaboration with this
subcommittee on closing the emergency planning gaps that remain.
ATTACHMENT
The following information is based upon NCD's 2009 report entitled
Effective Emergency Management: Making Improvements for Communities and
People with Disabilities and is meant to supplement the written and
oral testimony of Jonathan Young. This document begins by laying out
several key recommendations before moving into several supplemental
findings regarding the challenges faced by people with disabilities
during the preparedness and response phases of a disaster, germane to
the subcommittee's hearing.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Policies focusing on disaster preparedness should strive to
protect and maintain the independence of people with disabilities.--
This includes addressing appropriate warning systems, transportation
services, and sheltering options.
2. People with disabilities must be involved in emergency
planning.--Their knowledge of potential barriers is invaluable. Their
personal experience in overcoming these barriers adds tremendous
validity to plan solutions. In addition, the empowerment experienced
through participation may prompt people with disabilities to take
preemptive actions and encourage others to follow suit.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wisner, B. (2002). Disability and disaster: Victimhood and
agency in earthquake risk reduction. In C. Rodrigue & E. Rovai (eds.),
Earthquakes. London: Routledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Partnerships with disability organizations are critical.--
Federal agencies should be required to include disability organizations
as partners in all preparedness and outreach efforts, funds, grants,
and programs.
4. Regional disability coordinators could provide critical
communication linkages.--Positions similar to the National Disability
Coordinator should be included in the structure of the regional FEMA
offices. Regional disability coordinators could enhance the
effectiveness of the National Disability Coordinator by addressing more
localized disability issues. State, local, and Tribal emergency
management offices should be encouraged to establish similar positions
in their respective jurisdictions.
5. Improvements to the built environment are vital.--By ensuring
that the built environment better meets the needs of the most
vulnerable populations, policymakers can create an environment that
improves response and evacuation outcomes for all populations.
All interim or permanent housing that is built or rebuilt/
reconstructed should meet at least minimal accessibility
requirements.
As a community's infrastructure is initially built or
rebuilt/redesigned, it should offer more accessible
features, such as wider pathways, auditory signaling
systems, and tactile signage.
As schools are built, renovated, or substantially
redesigned, the envelope should be hardened according to
the probable hazard (e.g. hurricane, tornado, ice storm, or
earthquake) and other measures should be taken to equip the
facility for use as an accessible shelter.
As shelter operations often rely upon existing building
structures, funding must be made available to allow for
retrofits and modifications that remove barriers and make
existing buildings accessible when used as shelters.
6. Warning systems must be accessible to all people.--Policymakers
should address public funds earmarked for civil defense sirens and use
some monies for alternative warning systems. Additionally, Congress
should request that GAO investigate noncompliance with FCC policies
(regarding accessibility of emergency broadcasts).
7. Federal exercise evaluations should include disability
considerations.--All Federal exercises and disaster response after-
action reports should include performance evaluations and assessments
on disability concerns as standard operating procedure.
KEY FINDINGS
PREPAREDNESS
Practical Barriers to Preparedness for People with Disabilities
Although ultimately everyone, including people with disabilities,
is personally responsible for his or her own safety and must actively
prepare for a disaster, this proves difficult for many individuals with
disabilities whose incomes are often well below National norms. When an
individual must rely upon discretionary income to pay for emergency
kits, transportation costs for evacuation, temporary shelter expenses,
and on-going recovery needs, and discretionary income is little to
none, execution of these steps is often impractical. In addition,
disaster preparedness remains low in most peoples' list of
priorities,\2\ and for people with disabilities who often have long
lists of other unmet needs, this situation is no different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Tierney, K.J., Lindell, M.K., & Perry, R.W. (2001). Facing the
unexpected: Disaster preparedness and response in the United States.
Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, p. 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education and Training
Since most people have limited experience with disasters,
educational programs are essential components of effective preparedness
plans.\3\ Increasing awareness of people with disabilities through
disaster-related education is likely to lead to increased confidence
and self-reliance.\4\ Education programs should instruct individuals
and families both how to prepare for disasters. The materials and
formats used in these disaster education programs must be developed in
such a manner that they are accessible to people with all kinds of
disabilities in both format and content. Multiple modes of distribution
of this information should be used, including organizations; public
meetings; brochures, door hangers, and other printed materials (also
available in Braille and other languages); issue presentations and
panel discussions; radio talk shows, chat rooms, social networking
sites, disability blogs, and email blasts; web-based references; and
degree programs at colleges and universities, which should integrate
awareness of the needs of people with disabilities into their
curriculums.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Parr, A. (1987). Disasters and disabled persons: An examination
of the safety needs of a neglected minority. Disasters, 11(2), 153.
\4\ Newport, J.K., & Jawahar, G.G.P. (2003). Community
participation and public awareness in disaster mitigation. Disaster
Prevention and Management, 12(1), 33-36.
\5\ Natural Hazards Center (NHRAIC). (2005). Holistic disaster
recovery: Post-Katrina edition. Boulder, CO: NHRAIC and Public Entity
Risk Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training--which includes practice sessions, live drills, and
tabletop exercises--offers a way to evaluate recommended measures and
procedures contained in an emergency preparedness plan while enhancing
the proficiency of participants. Practicing and adapting a personal
evacuation plan is vital to ensuring that protective actions work and
become familiar. The development of responsive habits is the first line
of defense against any type of disaster, especially rapid onset events.
Emergency responders also need training in understanding the needs of
people with disabilities.\6\ People with disabilities must be actively
involved in preparing, conducting, and overseeing training exercises.
Their expertise in proper lifting techniques, ways of communicating,
and handling other barriers will greatly benefit emergency responders
by enhancing the effectiveness of training simulations and identifying
areas for improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Parr, at 153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evacuation Planning
Pre-event planning is crucial, as the time and resources necessary
for the successful evacuation of people with disabilities often exceeds
that required for individuals without disabilities.\7\ The U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) documented a number of
challenges in addition to timing during recent evacuation events,
including identifying people who need evacuation assistance, securing
adequate transportation, and coordinating the evacuation efforts.\8\
Evacuation protocols are still emerging and lack empirical validation.
Rapid-onset evacuations often prove more difficult, even under the best
of circumstances. In 2004, the California State Independent Living
Council (SILC) issued a brief entitled ``The Impact of 2003 Wildfires
on People with Disabilities'' and found that people who were deaf were
not notified adequately of the wildfires.\9\ Emergency personnel raced
ahead of the fast-moving fires and announced evacuation orders using
car loudspeakers, and few reports on television were close-captioned.
Similarly, people who were blind often went without notification as
well. Many remote areas did not have television or radio access and
none had reverse 9-1-1 capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Rubadiri, L., Ndumu, D.T., & Roberts, J.P. (1997). Predicting
the evacuation capacity of mobility-impaired occupants. Fire
Technology, 33(1), 32-53.
\8\ Government Accountability Office. (2006). Preliminary
observations on the evacuation of vulnerable populations due to
hurricanes and other disasters. Retrieved March 3, 2008, from
www.gao.gov/new.items/d06790t.pdf.
\9\ California State Independent Living Council. (2004). The impact
of southern California wildfires on people with disabilities. Retrieved
March 3, 2008, from www.calsilc.org/impactCAWildfires.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheltering in Place
An alternative to evacuation when faced with a rapid onset disaster
is to seek refuge inside a structure, with the object of limiting if
not eliminating one's exposure to the outside air. Sheltering in place
may be problematic for people with disabilities for several reasons.
First, people in the ``lowest income quartile [are] less likely to want
to attend classes on creating a home shelter environment and to have a
family plan or preparedness kit'' in place to do so, and people with
disabilities often fall into this lower income quartile.\10\ Second,
people with disabilities may experience difficulties with the physical
labor necessary to create a home shelter. The limitations could
increase the amount of time necessary to set up a shelter, leaving them
vulnerable to airborne contaminants for an extended period. A separate
but similar issue may occur among individuals with cognitive
disabilities, who may have difficulty understanding instructions for
sheltering in place. A third problem with sheltering in place is the
lack of accessible options; for example, most underground safe rooms in
tornado alley are not accessible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Phillips, B.D., Metz, W.C., & Nieves, L.A. (2005). Disaster
threat: Preparedness and potential response of the lowest income
quartile. Environmental Hazards, 6(3), 131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE
Communication Gap Between Emergency Management and Disability Community
Many of the problems incurred by emergency personnel during the
response phase of a disaster could be addressed if planning included
people with disabilities. It is imperative that people with
disabilities have a voice and be at the table for all stages of
disaster planning, including the development of policies that impact
the built and social environments and, therefore, influence a person's
ability to respond appropriately to disaster. Yet, the report from the
Special Needs Assessment for Katrina Evacuees (SNAKE) project found
that many emergency shelter planners had little interaction with the
disability community prior to Hurricane Katrina.\11\ The following
findings were presented in the SNAKE report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ National Organization on Disability. (2005). Special Needs
Assessment for Katrina Evacuees project. Retrieved December 18, 2008,
from www.nod.org/emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 percent of those interviewed had policies, plans, and
guidelines for disability accommodations in place prior to
Hurricane Katrina. Only 36 percent had someone with expertise
on-site to provide guidance regarding appropriate
accommodations.
54 percent of the respondents did not have any working
agreements with disability and aging organizations prior to the
event. 50 percent made contacts with those organizations as a
result of their Hurricane Katrina experience.
The gap between emergency management and disability-specific
and aging-specific organizations widened when the organizations
serving these populations tried to connect with the emergency
management community. 85.7 percent of these community-based
groups answered that they did not know how to link with the
emergency management system.
Warning Systems
The current status of emergency warnings for people with
disabilities is woefully inadequate. People who may have unique
communication needs for disaster warning messages include people who
are deaf, deaf-blind, blind, or visually-impaired; the frail elderly;
and those with cognitive disabilities. The existing and decentralized
warning system in the United States, though offering extensive means
for warning dissemination, largely relies on audible (possibly
supplemented by visual) messages that are often transmitted through an
intermediary. For many deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, audible-
only inclement weather warnings or Civil Defense sirens go unheard.
Most disaster warnings are only broadcast via conventional media
methods, so to the extent that conventional media remain inaccessible
to people with hearing and vision disabilities, emergency information
broadcast over them does as well.
Many blind or visually-impaired individuals are relying
increasingly on television to meet communication needs, which has
important implications in times of disaster. The FCC Media Security and
Reliability Council is working with the American Foundation for the
Blind (AFB) to develop standards to address the needs of individuals
with vision loss during times of disasters. In the current absence of
standards, on-air meteorologists often assume that consumers have good
vision and can see the radar images, failing to accompany an emergency
weather broadcast with proper audio cues as to location or trajectory.
Technologies that project a storm's path, location, and timing may be
useful, but only if they are offered through audible means as well as
through visual graphics.
For individuals who are deaf-blind, receipt of an emergency message
often involves diverse communication needs. Large-print and tactile
cues are preferred when available. Communication with individuals who
are deaf-blind can range from sign language near the person's face to
sign language in the palm to words written on the palm with a finger.
The universal symbol for an emergency is a tactile symbol ``X,''
``drawn'' on the back of the deaf-blind individual by an individual who
is alerting him or her. This symbol is understood to mean that an
emergency has occurred and that it is imperative for the individual
receiving the message to follow directions and not ask questions.
However, few preparedness materials or trainings include this
information.
In addition to the numerous barriers to the initial receipt of the
warning message, barriers also hamper a recipient's belief in the
credibility of the message. Experts contend that the best way to extend
warnings is through the use of people who are as similar to the target
population as possible, using well-established officials familiar to
the community to enhance credibility.\12\ Emergency management
professionals can build their credibility among the disability
community by involving people with disabilities in all stages of
disaster response. In addition, being able to see, hear, or understand
that other people are taking shelter increases the likelihood that a
person will take action. For people with sensory, cognitive, or
psychiatric disabilities, taking shelter may be further delayed if
confirmatory cues are not present. Solutions include accessible PSAs
that show people with disabilities taking protective action, outreach
efforts by people with disabilities or advocacy organizations, and
direct appeals to people with disabilities, their families and friends,
and service organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Fothergill, A., Maestas, E., & Darlington, J. (1999). Race,
ethnicity, and disasters in the United States. Disasters, 23(2), 156-
173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Considerations
When evacuation is necessary, additional attention must be directed
toward the availability of adequate transportation for individuals with
disabilities and the technology or mobility devices on which they rely.
According to the Survey of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees, the most common
reason provided by respondents for not evacuating was ``I did not have
a car or a way to leave.''\13\ In studying the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina among New Orleans residents, GAO found that State and local
governments did not ``integrate transportation-disadvantaged
populations'' into their evacuation plans.\14\ GAO also found that most
State officials did not believe that many of their residents needed
transportation assistance, despite U.S. Census data to the contrary.
Further emphasizing the importance of this consideration, the recent
Citizen Corps 2009 survey showed that over half of the respondents
reported needing help with transportation out of their area in the case
of an emergency (55 percent).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Kaiser Family Foundation. (2005). Survey of Hurricane Katrina
evacuees. Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, Harvard
University, p. 6. Retrieved from www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/7401.pdf.
\14\ Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2006a). Preliminary
observations on the evacuation of vulnerable populations due to
hurricanes and other disasters. Retrieved March 3, 2008, from
www.gao.gov/new.items/d06790t.pdf.
\15\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009). Personal
Preparedness in America: Findings from the 2009 Citizen Corps National
Survey. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://citizencorps.gov/pdf/
2009_Citizen_Corps_National_Survey_Findings.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When considering individuals with disabilities who lack
transportation, emergency planners must plan for the evacuation of
assistive devices and service animals, as well. Assistive devices are
often custom-fit for the individual and should be evacuated with him or
her to ensure maximum independence, lower reliance on emergency assets,
and speed post-event recovery. Service animals are also vitally
important to their owners' ability to maintain independence and should
be evacuated with the person.
Nursing Home Evacuations
Deaths amongst nursing home residents in New Orleans following
Hurricane Katrina highlighted the need to better plan and respond to
the special needs in this population of people.\16\ Transportation and
long-term living arrangements are the major factors in the evacuation
of nursing home residents, many of whom have mobility and/or cognitive
impairments. Evacuations are multi-tiered, as residents, their personal
items, staff, and long-term medical needs must all be addressed. When
the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) assists in the evacuation
of hospital patients during natural disasters, it is not designed to
aid in nursing home evacuations.\17\ Further, nursing homes and
emergency management teams seldom work together. In its 2006 report,
for these reasons, GAO requested that DHS ``clearly delineate how to
address the needs of nursing home residents during evacuations.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Hyer, K., Brown, L.M., Berman, A., & Polivka-West, L. (2006).
GrantWatch: Report: Establishing and refining hurricane response
systems for long-term care facilities. Health Affairs-Web Exclusive
25(5).
\17\ Bascetta, C.A. (2006). Disaster preparedness: Limitations in
federal evacuation assistance for health facilities should be
addressed. DIANE Publishing.
\18\ GAO (2006a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search and Rescue
Unlike other components of the response phase, rescuing disaster
victims always occurs in an unpredictable and hazardous environment.
Because of the unpredictability of disasters, first responders do not
preplan rescue operations but rather focus on practicing rescue
techniques. It is during the practice of these fundamentals that
guidance in lifting, moving, and communicating with people who have
disabilities should be incorporated.
Because of our decentralized society, responsibility for the
initial response to any disaster rests on the shoulders of the local
government.\19\ Thus, the incorporation of special training in rescuing
people with disabilities must be initiated at the local level. Most
first responders approach all search and rescue assignments with the
same mindset--get the victims out as quickly as possible. While speed
may be of the utmost importance in these situations, first responders
must also be careful not to exacerbate the situation. This is
especially true in rescuing people with disabilities. For example,
first responders are cautioned not to use the over-the-shoulder carry
when rescuing a person who uses a wheelchair.\20\ This carry can cause
additional life-threatening injuries because of the health issues
associated with the person's disability. Therefore, rescuers must
practice multiple carrying techniques during training to be proficient
in applying them during a rescue operation. In addition, first
responders should attempt to rescue the victim's assistive technology,
if at all possible. These assistive devices are often essential to the
person's survival and will speed his or her recovery. Although rescuing
these assistive devices should not take precedence over a human life,
they should receive consideration when time and resources allow. The
old adage ``You will play the way you practice'' holds true for rescue
situations that do not allow the rescuer sufficient time to plan each
step of the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Drabek, T.E. (1985). Managing the emergency response. Public
Administration Review, 45 (special issue), 85-92.
\20\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2002).
Orientation manual for first responders on the evacuation of people
with disabilities, 13. Retrieved April 19, 2008, from
www.eadassociates.com/fa-235-508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shelter Operations
The Americans with Disabilities Act mandates that accommodations,
which include shelters, must be accessible. Shelters must also
accommodate service animals and should provide multiple means for
communication. Ideally, shelter staff should be trained to accommodate
a wide variety of disabilities and medical needs. However, it appears
that such training is not conducted routinely and that people with
disabilities and those with medical conditions, as well as service
animals, may be turned away from a general population shelter or sent
to a special needs or medical shelter.
The National Organization on Disability (NOD) conducted a rapid
survey of 18 shelters after Hurricane Katrina, supplemented with
information from officials involved in response and sheltering efforts.
Although two-thirds of the shelters included questions regarding
disability on their intake or registration paperwork, only minimal
recognition of the disability occurred. Translating potential needs
into available services lagged behind the intake identification. For
example, only 30 percent of the shelters provided American Sign
Language. Eighty percent did not provide TTY and 60 percent did not
offer closed-captioned television. Although 56 percent posted written
versions of oral announcements, people who were deaf or blind reported
missing communications. Some shelters set up specific areas for
communication, although such locations have been criticized as
unnecessarily segregating people with disabilities.
Because of the rapid and chaotic evacuation of New Orleans, people
with disabilities reported being separated from family members, who
ended up in separate shelters. Disability organizations and schools
worked to reunite families. One State school, for example, used its
email and website capabilities to reunite families and opened the
school as a shelter site for students and parents. State officials
reported that rescue efforts failed to include many pieces of durable
medical equipment. Louisiana officials worked for 6 months, for
example, to locate and reconnect expensive pieces of durable medical
equipment with evacuees. Meanwhile, evacuees sent to shelters lost
their independence because of the loss of their equipment; shelters
scrambled to find temporary equipment that may not have fit the
specific need; and shelters had to add staff to support individuals who
had lost their equipment.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Dr. Young.
Mr. Young, Sr., are you here? Where are you? There you go.
I think you did a pretty good job. Thank you. Thank you very
much, sir.
Thank you for your testimony. I now would like to recognize
Mr. Spencer to summarize his statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CARMEN J. SPENCER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY--ELIMINATION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS, UNITED STATES ARMY
Mr. Spencer. Madam Chairwoman, Representative Rogers,
distinguished Members of the committee, I am grateful to have
this opportunity to address the subcommittee to discuss the
important work the United States Army and FEMA, working
together, have accomplished and continue to accomplish as it
relates to the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness
Program.
I respectfully request my written statement be entered into
the record in its entirety.
I am Carmen Spencer, deputy assistant secretary of the Army
for the elimination of chemical weapons. In this capacity, I
provide management oversight of the United States Army's
Chemical Demilitarization Program.
By way of background, as a former Army officer for over 28
years, I had the privilege of commanding two Army installations
directly involved in destroying the U.S. stockpile of chemical
munitions. This experience gave me first-hand knowledge of
working with municipalities and local citizens concerned with
emergency preparedness in the very unlikely event of a chemical
accident or incident.
The Chemical Demilitarization Program was established in
1986 by Public Law 99-145 and exists today to remove the threat
posed by continued storage of obsolete chemical weapons to meet
international security requirements and international treaty
requirements and to inspire a worldwide commitment to the
elimination of an entire class of weapons of mass destruction.
Since 1986, the Army has safely and effectively destroyed
over 2 million chemical munitions at seven sites Nation-wide.
As of today, the Army has successfully completed the
destruction missions at three sites, Johnston Atoll in the
South Pacific, Newport, Indiana, and Aberdeen, Maryland, and is
currently operating four incineration sites in Umatilla,
Oregon, Tooele, Utah, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and Anniston,
Alabama.
The Army's effectiveness in destroying these agents and
munitions, while maintaining the highest standards of safety to
the workers, the public, and the environment has led to over $2
billion in life-cycle cost savings and has placed the program
62 months ahead of schedule. As of today, the Army has
destroyed 74.3 percent of the entire U.S. stockpile.
The United States Army Chemical Demilitarization Program is
made up of three areas: The chemical stockpile elimination
project; the non-stockpile project; and most importantly, the
Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program, or CSEPP.
CSEPP provides technical and financial support to
communities located near the stockpiles to enhance effective
responses to potential releases of chemical agent. The program
is managed cooperatively by the Army and the Department of
Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency.
We have successfully managed and executed this mission
since August of 1988. As part of Public Law 99-145, the
Congress directed the Department of Defense to dispose of its
lethal agents and munitions while providing maximum protection
to the environment, the general public, and all personnel
involved.
In 1987, the Army released a draft emergency response
concept plan which presented a basis for the development of
local emergency response programs and examined various methods
of emergency planning. Then in 1999, the National Defense
Authorization Act provided further statutory delineation
between the roles that Army and FEMA each play with CSEPP. The
law assigned the Army the responsibility for all on-post
activities and FEMA the responsibilities for all off-post
activities.
Then in 2008, the Congress modified the termination
requirements for CSEPP funding, and this statutory change
requires that CSEPP communities receive assistance until either
the date of completion of all grants and cooperative
agreements, which are managed by FEMA, or the date that 180
days after completion of destruction of chemical agent and
munitions at each individual installation or facility.
The primary mission of CSEPP is to protect the health and
safety of the public by enhancing and augmenting existing
emergency preparedness capabilities of the Army installations
and, most importantly, of the nearby civilian communities.
The Army and FEMA have jointly developed a programs policy
and guidance using integrated process teams to ensure
representation and acceptance by all of the Government
stakeholders involved. The strong Army, FEMA, State, and, yes,
even Tribal and local government partnerships have ensured that
continued full program benchmark compliance at all sites.
I am very proud and have been continually impressed by the
work that CSEPP has done and continues to do. Through their
involvement in this program, CSEPP communities are now better
prepared to response not only to chemical hazards, but all
natural and manmade hazards.
In closing, thank you again for this opportunity to come
before you. I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
[The statement of Ms. Spencer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carmen J. Spencer
June 15, 2010
Chairman Richardson, Representative Rogers, distinguished Members
of the committee, I am grateful to have the opportunity to address this
subcommittee to discuss the important work the United States Army and
FEMA has completed and continues to do on the Chemical Stockpile
Emergency Preparedness Program in support of the Chemical
Demilitarization Program. I respectfully request that my written
statement be entered into the record in its entirety.
I am Carmen J. Spencer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, for
the Elimination of Chemical Weapons. In this capacity, I provide
management oversight of the United States Army's Chemical
Demilitarization Program. By way of background, as a former Army
officer, I had the privilege of commanding two Army installations
directly involved in destroying the U.S. stockpile of chemical
munitions. This experience has given me first-hand knowledge of working
with municipalities and local citizens concerned with emergency
preparedness in the unlikely event of a chemical accident or incident.
The Chemical Demilitarization Program was established in 1986 by
Public Law 99-145, and exists today, to remove the threat posed by
continued storage of obsolete chemical weapons, to meet international
treaty requirements, and to inspire a world-wide commitment to the
elimination of an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. The
United States Army Chemical Demilitarization Program has been a
Congressionally funded and mandated program for more than 20 years.
Since 1986 the Army has safely and effectively destroyed chemical
agents and munitions at seven stockpile sites Nation-wide. As of today,
the Army has successfully completed the destruction missions at three
sites (Johnston Atoll, Newport, IN, and Aberdeen, MD) and is currently
operating four incineration sites (Umatilla, OR, Tooele, UT, Pine
Bluff, AR and Anniston, AL). The Army's effectiveness in destroying
these agents and munitions, while maintaining the highest standards of
safety to the workers, the public, and the environment has led to over
$2 billion in life-cycle cost savings and has placed the program 62
months ahead of schedule. As of 9 June, 2010, the Army has currently
destroyed 74 percent of the U.S. stockpile.
The United States Army Chemical Demilitarization Program is made up
of three program areas, the Chemical Stockpile Elimination Project, the
Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project and the Chemical Stockpile
Emergency Preparedness Program or CSEPP. CSEPP provides technical and
financial support to communities located near the stockpiles to enhance
effective responses to potential releases of chemical agent. The
program is managed cooperatively by the Army and the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The Army and FEMA have been successfully managing and executing
this important mission since August 1988. As a part of Public Law 99-
145, the Congress directed the Department of Defense to dispose of its
lethal unitary chemical agents and munitions while providing ``maximum
protection for the environment, the general public and the personnel
involved.'' In 1987, the United States Army released a Draft Emergency
Response Concept Plan, which presented a basis for the development of
local emergency response programs and examined various methods of
emergency planning. Then in 1999, the National Defense Authorization
Act provided further statutory delineation between the roles that the
Army and FEMA each play with CSEPP. The law assigned the Army
responsibility for all on-post CSEPP activities and FEMA the
responsibility for all off-post CSEPP activities. Then in 2008, the
Congress modified the termination requirements for CSEPP funding in
Public Law 110-181. This statutory change requires that CSEPP
communities only receive assistance until either the date of the
completion of all grants and cooperative agreements which are managed
by FEMA, or the date that is 180 days after the completion of the
destruction of chemical agent and munitions at each individual
installation or facility.
The primary mission of CSEPP is to protect the health and safety of
the public by enhancing and augmenting existing emergency preparedness
capabilities of the Army installations and nearby civilian communities.
The Army and FEMA have jointly developed the program's policy and
guidance using the Integrated Process Team concept to ensure
representation and acceptance by all of the Government stakeholders
involved. This strong Army, FEMA, State, Tribal, and local government
partnership has ensured that continued full program benchmark
compliance at all sites and has successfully allowed for the continued
safe destruction of the Nation's stockpile of chemical weapons. The
United States Army has a continuing commitment to fund off-post
requirements that are validated by FEMA to meet the maximum protection
criteria mandated by Public Law.
I am very proud and have been continually impressed by the work
that CSEPP has done, and continues to do. Through their involvement in
this program, CSEPP communities are now better prepared to respond to
all natural and man-made hazards.
In closing, thank you again for this opportunity to come before
you. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Kish to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES KISH, DIRECTOR--TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS
DIVISION, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Kish. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Rogers, and Chairman Thompson, and distinguished Members.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on this
critically important topic. My remarks will describe how a
successful approach to preparing vulnerable populations has
been accomplished through the aforementioned CSEPP program.
My name is James Kish, and I serve as the director for
technological hazards for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
FEMA works with the U.S. Army and our State, local, and
Tribal partners to ensure that the communities can provide a
maximum protection for citizens that are living and working
within areas that could possibly be affected by an accidental
chemical release. To meet this high standard, the CSEPP program
focuses both on overall community preparedness, as well as
efforts to foster increased personal resiliency of those who
participate in this program.
I would like to summarize for the committee the process we
use to work with our program partners. The Army and FEMA use
integrated process teams, a highly collaborative process, to
bring together all of the program's stakeholders in an effort
to identify the needs that are individual to the particular
communities to solve problems that those needs have been
identified and to develop products to meet the needs of those
problem solutions.
At each site, a community IPT has been established and has
representatives from State and local governments, the Army
installation, as well as other Federal partners, local
volunteer organizations, and a number of other partners.
These integrated process teams have been very successful in
developing local solutions that are very specific to the
complex emergency preparedness challenges. Since 1997, FEMA,
the Army, State of Alabama, and the participating local
governments and agencies have pursued specific emergency
planning efforts to address the concerns of residents that have
disabilities, access or functional needs, or those who may live
in a facility such as assisted living facility or a skilled
nursing home.
The focus of these activities is to improve individual
resilience for those with disabilities, access, or functional
needs, while providing necessary information for the delivery
of emergency services during a response.
As I detail the efforts in Anniston, I would like to note
that FEMA is committed to communicating these positive lessons
across the entire emergency management community. For example,
a software planning tool is developed for use in the Anniston
area, and that has been posted to an open source Web site and
has been downloaded numerous times over that decade-plus
period.
The planning project in Alabama community began 13 years
ago using common terminology at the time and was called the
CSEPP special needs population program. I should acknowledge
that the CSEPP program is working with FEMA's Office of
Disability Integration and Coordination to ensure that our
approaches are modified to become and maintain consistency with
the newest guidelines.
In Alabama, the planning community developed a registry
system that people could voluntarily enroll into. The purpose
of this system was to understand the scope of those community
needs and to facilitate planning and to develop activities to
meet those needs. Key elements of the program included efforts
to invite people to self-register, the development of a
geographic information system, or GIS, emergency planning
software tool, and that tool was designed specifically for the
program to be able to assist and facilitate in geolocating
people in the event of emergencies.
Repeated efforts have been made to remain in contact with
those people who desire information that have self-registered.
As well, there has been a significant delivery of extensive
preparedness training to those people who have self-identified
their caregivers and people without vehicles for evacuation,
parents of unattended children who might need assistance during
chemical emergency.
Involvement of people with disabilities was established
early in the process. Workshops were held with the individuals,
as well as those community-based organizations, to learn of
their activities and their needs and to build bridges into the
emergency management community. Tests of the protective
equipment that was determined to be viable was--included people
with disabilities, and their inputs resulted in shaping those
equipment sets, as well as the training.
Today, the workshops continue, but the focus is now on
training individuals and their staffs on techniques and to
improve individual preparedness.
Together, these elements enabled focus to be brought on
meeting individual medical and functional needs in advance of
any danger. The emergency planning in Anniston, Alabama,
fostered relationships between Government, the private sector,
volunteer, and faith-based organizations.
The Alabama CSEPP program demonstrates that a robust public
outreach effort with consistent messaging, preparedness can be
enhanced to include all populations in that planning activity.
Such programs help all residents become more self-sufficient,
thus producing a more resilient community.
Early on, leaders and planners determined that this could
not be a rescue program, that--rather, to be successful, they
had to be a blend of self-reliance and targeted responder
preparations.
The core element of their success has been on-going
empathetic contact between emergency management personnel and
people with disabilities access and functional needs. The
Alabama project is just another example of how CSEPP's
collaborative approach is used to benefit emergency managers
throughout the country.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today, and
I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Kish follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Kish
June 15, 2010
Good Morning Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member Rogers and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on how a successful approach to preparing
vulnerable populations has been accomplished through the Chemical
Stockpile Emergency Preparedness program (CSEPP). My name is James
Kish, and I serve as the Director of the Technological Hazards Division
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). There are two
primary elements within my division, CSEPP and the Radiological
Emergency Preparedness Program (REPP). Our Division is part of FEMA's
National Preparedness Directorate.
CSEPP was created to assist communities to prepare for the unlikely
event of an accident involving the U.S. Army's chemical weapons
stockpile. Since 1989, FEMA has worked collaboratively with the U.S.
Army and our State, local, and Tribal partners to ensure the
communities with a U.S. Army chemical weapons stockpile facility meet a
standard of ``maximum protection''\1\ for people living and working
within areas that could possibly be affected by an accidental chemical
agent release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 50 U.S.C. 1521(c)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSEPP involves all levels of Government and community members to
develop, resource, test, and evaluate the integrated planning essential
to the ``maximum protection'' mission. FEMA provides both resources and
technical assistance. Target resources are delivered to communities and
States through cooperative agreements with FEMA. These resources
include: Technical assistance; training for first responders and
hospital personnel; assistance in emergency planning; organizing and
conducting drills and exercises to measure preparedness; and sponsoring
the development of various preparedness products. In addition, CSEPP
funds on-the-ground personnel in these communities to carry out
emergency preparedness functions. FEMA works with the U.S. Army to
develop budget inputs, and the Army in turn provides the funding
necessary to ensure the integrated plans are adequately resourced. This
includes resources for cooperative agreements with the States and
communities through FEMA's grants management system.
There are currently six U.S. Army installations in the United
States that store our Nation's stockpile of chemical weapons. These
stockpiles affect Umatilla, OR; Tooele, UT; Pueblo, CO; Pine Bluff, AR:
Anniston, AL; and Blue Grass, KY. CSEPP communities in Newport, Indiana
and Aberdeen, Maryland were removed from the program after their
stockpiles were safely destroyed.
Today, I would like to specifically discuss FEMA's efforts in
Anniston, AL. The Anniston Chemical Activity (ANCA) is located in
northeast Alabama, approximately 10 miles west of the city of Anniston.
For emergency planning purposes, the communities near the depots are
classified as part of an Immediate Response Zone (IRZ) area or
Protective Action Zone (PAZ) area.\2\ As of the 2000 census, there were
approximately 30,000 households in the IRZ and 138,000 in the PAZ.
Portions of Calhoun and Talladega counties closest to the depot
comprise the Immediate Response Zone. Communities in Cleburne, Clay,
Etowah, and St. Clair counties also participate in CSEPP as Protective
Action Zone areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In general IRZ size is normally out to approx 6.2 miles (10K)
and PAZ out to about 20 miles. In Alabama the IRZ is roughly a circular
radius of 6.2 to 12.4 miles and PAZ 18 to 30 miles. In all cases the
designation of IRZ and PAZ are made based on a range of factors
including population density, topography, weather patterns, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Army and FEMA use Integrated Process Teams (IPTs) to bring
together all our program stakeholders to identify needs, solve
problems, and develop products. The IPTs are typically comprised of
State, local, and Tribal planners, community leaders, and staff from
Army and FEMA CSEP Program offices. At each site, a community IPT is
established and has representatives from State and local governments,
the Army installation, and other Federal partners. These IPTs have been
very successful in developing local solutions to complex emergency
preparedness challenges.
FEMA participates in the community IPTs to identify preparedness
needs for all residents, including those who may have difficulties in
performing a protective action such as sheltering-in-place or
evacuation. FEMA works with each community to define ``maximum
protection'' in a way that is appropriate for that community. In
Alabama, the community IPT established a quantitative public protection
criterion upon which the plans were based.
The Anniston CSEPP community presented significant challenges
because residential neighborhoods are located very close to the
chemical stockpile. Because of their proximity to the stockpile, unique
preparedness measures had to be developed to meet the community's
established protection criteria.
Since 1997, FEMA, the U.S. Army, the State of Alabama, and the
participating local governments and agencies have pursued specific
emergency planning efforts in the Anniston, AL community to address the
concerns of residents with disabilities, access, or functional needs,
or those who may live in a facility such as an assisted living
community or skilled nursing home. FEMA also entered into an
Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide
enhancements to buildings and homes, reducing the infiltration of
outside air that may be harmful during a chemical release. Many of
these facilities were identified in the special needs planning project.
Although I am focusing on our efforts in Anniston, I would like to
note that FEMA is committed to communicating the positive lessons
learned from CSEPP to the greater emergency management community. The
software planning tool developed for the Alabama program has been
posted as open-source software available for download on the
internet.\3\ In addition to the materials on emergency preparedness for
people with disabilities and those with access and functional needs,
CSEPP develops and shares its training materials and preparedness
products using a variety of media.\4\ It is routine for CSEPP
communities to consult and share information in order to ensure best
practices are effectively pushed across the entire CSEPP. As
communities in Umatilla, Oregon; Tooele, Utah; Pine Bluff, Arkansas and
Anniston, Alabama prepare to close out of the program in the next 2
years, FEMA is making a concerted effort to capture the positive
lessons learned and share them with others. This initiative will not
only benefit the remaining CSEPP sites in Kentucky and Colorado, but
also emergency management personnel outside the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://sourceforge.net/projects/spc-pop-planner/.
\4\ https://www.cseppport.net/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I should note that the planning project in the Alabama community
began 13 years ago using the common terminology at the time and was
called the CSEPP Special Needs Population Program. Understanding that
efforts are under way to better integrate emergency preparedness for
people with disabilities, including updating the terminology used in
emergency preparedness, CSEPP is already working with FEMA's Office of
Disability Integration and Coordination. As an example of this effort
to change our terminology as we modernize our emergency procedures, we
are currently in production of a training video called ``Emergency
Planning for Populations with Access and Functional Needs'' that will
better enable community officials to develop comprehensive emergency
plans that include people with disabilities. Ms. Roth, our Senior
Disability Advisor and Director of the Office of Disability Integration
and Coordination, has been an integral member of the production team,
and we are working closely with her office to ensure that we continue
to comply with FEMA's efforts in this area.
The program has had an extensive National impact. The Special
Population Planner software application has been downloaded more than
2,300 times. Presentations about this work have been given to the
National Organization on Disability, the International Association of
Emergency Managers, the Big City Emergency Managers' Forum, the
International Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Conference, The
National Medical System and many others. Articles on the program's best
practices, such as its Geographic Information System features, have
been published in leading emergency management journals.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., Journal of Emergency Management, Vol. 3, No. 4,
July/August 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal statute requires CSEPP to provide ``maximum
protection'' to the public signified the seriousness of the challenge.
Programmatic guidance emphasized that people with disabilities, people
without vehicles for evacuation, and unattended children who might need
assistance during an incident were entitled to equal, that is to say,
``maximum protection''.\6\ The chemical weapons agent hazard posed
unique risks to nearby communities, and created the need for this
program. Before chemical agent demilitarization began reducing the
threat in Alabama in August 2003, some area residents would have had
less than an hour to take protective actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CSEPP Planning Guidance, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
revised June 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, officials of the six Alabama CSEPP counties began
meeting in 1997 with their colleagues from the Alabama Emergency
Management Agency, FEMA, and the U.S. Army to ensure that this standard
would be met. The group recognized that the extreme nature of the
hazard would effectively prevent emergency responders from entering the
threatened area. The participants collectively decided instead to
invest their resources in maximizing personal preparedness to increase
self-sufficiency.
The program that emerged over the next several years developed new
methods to integrate with the preparedness initiatives being developed
simultaneously for the entire community. Using a protective action
strategy that includes both sheltering-in-place and evacuation, all
area residents were offered specialized protective equipment and one-
on-one training in its use during emergencies. For example, tone alert
radios were distributed door-to-door throughout the six-county area to
maximize immediate public alerting of any emergency, along with
training in how to shelter-in-place in case an airborne agent plume
prevents evacuation.
The same approach was adopted to enhance preparedness for people
with disabilities, people without vehicles for evacuation, and
unattended children who might need assistance during an incident. The
Alabama CSEPP community understood that achieving universal
preparedness required a more intensive effort to accommodate this
portion of the community. Recognizing the difficulties inherent in
developing and maintaining emergency registries, the decision was made
to build such a database as part of a comprehensive system to improving
preparedness. Over the course of the program, some 35,000 people have
voluntarily enrolled.
The system was developed by a team that included Argonne National
Laboratory, Metro Services, L.L.C., the University of Alabama at
Birmingham, and Jacksonville State University. Working closely with the
Alabama CSEPP community, they:
conducted initial and follow-up efforts to invite people to
self identify;
geo-coded the area's road network for the first time so that
planning could include spatial elements;
developed a geographic information system (GIS) emergency
planning software application designed specifically for the
purpose of geo-locating data about people and such facilities
as schools, licensed day care centers, and nursing homes;
identified methods to adapt and enhance CSEPP protective
equipment for supporting preparedness among people with
disabilities;
established and continue to maintain a system for remaining
in contact with those who desire it by mail, telephone, and
Teletypewriter-Telecommunications device for the deaf; and
continue to deliver extensive preparedness training to
people with disabilities, their caregivers, people without
vehicles for evacuation, and parents of unattended children who
might need assistance during a chemical emergency.
Involvement of people with disabilities was established early in
the process. Workshops were held with community-based organizations to
learn of their activities and build bridges. Tests of protective
equipment included people with disabilities, and their input resulted
in added options. For example, the array of materials distributed in
shelter-in-place kits for sealing safe rooms was expanded to include
materials that senior citizens--who had participated in local tests--
preferred over the usual duct tape and plastic sheeting.
Together, these elements enabled focus to be brought on meeting
individual medical and functional needs in advance of danger. For
example, in addition to tone alert radios and shelter-in-place kits,
portable room air cleaners were offered to all residents of communities
immediately adjacent to the stockpile. The purpose of the air cleaners
is to capture chemical agent vapor that could infiltrate homes and
become a threat if residents were instructed to shelter in place
following an incident. These 39-pound devices were to be picked up from
a central facility so that training could be provided in a cost-
effective manner. However, those who registered could have their air
cleaners delivered to their homes and receive training there if needed
due to mobility disabilities, and bedside remote on/off switches were
added for those individuals. Lights to indicate whether the device is
running were added to accommodate the hard-of-hearing. Home visits were
planned for times when caregivers could be present so that they could
learn how to use these devices at the same time as their family members
or patients.
This system has fostered continuity and relationship-building
within the community. Organizations involved included volunteer
emergency rescue squads, the American Red Cross, chambers of commerce,
and faith-based organizations. A regular cycle was developed for
conducting an annual pre-enrollment public information campaign,
inviting people to enroll, clarifying the information they or their
caregivers provided, and offering assistance and training. This
consistent presence is reinforced by on-going community and caregiver
training offerings, video orientation materials, and an informational
website. Personal contact by telephone or TTY-TDD between program staff
and those who enroll has helped to build strong relationships with
those who request assistance.
The Alabama CSEPP demonstrates that with robust public outreach
efforts and consistent messages, preparedness can be enhanced by
including all populations in the planning effort. Such programs help
all residents become more self-sufficient, thus producing a more
resilient community.
During the 20-year history of CSEPP, many innovations have been
developed, planned, and implemented. Furthermore, these innovations
have led to improvements across the field: For example, the CSEPP
exercise methodology was used as the basis for the Homeland Security
Exercise and Evaluation Program. These best practices and lessons
learned are being shared with all the CSEPP sites, as well as with
other emergency management agencies that may benefit from CSEPP's
experience. The increased capability of local officials in Anniston and
the other CSEPP sites to protect the public will remain a CSEPP legacy
long after the stockpile is successfully destroyed and CSEPP's mission
ends. Self-sufficiency is sustained through regular and open contact
between emergency management personnel and people with disabilities.
The Alabama project is yet another example of CSEPP's collaborative
efforts that can be used to benefit emergency managers throughout the
country.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee
today. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
I thank all the witnesses for testifying thus far, and I
will remind each Member that you will have 5 minutes to
question the panel. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Roth, as you noticed early in my testimony, I
highlighted the fact that you have only been allocated
$150,000. That doesn't give you a whole lot. How do you foresee
doing your immense job that you have with that amount of money?
Ms. Roth. Thank you for the opportunity to answer this
question. In fact, over the 11 months that I have been with
FEMA, I have been learning a whole host of ways of bringing
resources to the work of the Office of Disability Integration
and Coordination.
I have several detailees, interns, a fellow, and liaisons
from a variety of the offices. In addition, I have the full
support of the Office of External Affairs. I have been able to
meet and, in some cases, exceed my goals in bringing together
those resources in accomplishing the work of the office.
Ms. Richardson. How many paid positions do you have in your
office? What are those?
Ms. Roth. The single paid position would be mine, and then
I have detailees, interns, fellows, and liaisons.
Ms. Richardson. How many fellows and interns do you have?
Ms. Roth. I have two interns and a fellow.
Ms. Richardson. Do they have any experience in this area?
Ms. Roth. Actually, our intern--I am sorry, our fellow is
from the Department of Education office--the National
Institutes on Disability, Rehabilitation--Disability
Rehabilitation Research. She is an executive potential fellow.
Ms. Richardson. Do they work full-time?
Ms. Roth. Yes.
Ms. Richardson. How long are they committed to your office?
Ms. Roth. She has been with me for 2 months.
Ms. Richardson. How long will they be committed to your
office?
Ms. Roth. Her fellowship ends this week.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Do you honestly believe that, for the
United States of America, that it is sufficient for just you
and two fellows--two interns and a fellow to handle the
situation?
Ms. Roth. I have been pulling resources from across the
agency, and we are making tremendous progress on every front.
Ms. Richardson. Is there any other office to your knowledge
in the administration that only has one person, for example,
within FEMA?
Ms. Roth. I don't know.
Ms. Richardson. Okay.
Ms. Roth. I would be happy to find that out for you.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. All right.
With respect to the 11 responsibilities laid out for the
disability coordinator--and I think we should start calling you
Superwoman--in the post-Katrina Act, where is your office in
meeting any of these items? Can you say that you have met all
11? Or where are you with all----
Ms. Roth. I can tell you that we have made tremendous
progress on each of the 11.
Ms. Richardson. But have you met any of them?
Ms. Roth. I would say that there is no end to each of those
11. We have certainly accomplished--I could certainly tell you
that we have met--in most of these cases, we have met baseline
requirements, but we are continuing to work to make sure that
we really are integrating these needs into the work of the
agency so that we maximize those outcomes.
Ms. Richardson. If there is no objection, I would like to
ask that Ms. Roth be able to submit to the committee for all of
the 11 items whether you meet, exceed, or do not for all of
them.
Ms. Roth. I would be happy to.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Ms. Roth, let me tell you a little
bit about my district.
Mr. Spencer, Mr. Kish, I am going to defer to the Ranking
Member, since he is from Alabama and is very well versed in the
success of your areas. I want to allow him to take the lead on
those points first.
Ms. Roth, my district--I just recently had a primary
election. So what that means is, I was knocking door to door.
And I have got to tell you, there are many, many homes that I
knock on that either a person is hearing impaired, may not be
able to physically get to the door, maybe children in the
house, and there is no parent there.
I cannot begin to tell you, out of the homes where I see
cars where I know someone is there, where I see a light, I see
the TV on, and I can see the person in the room, and they are
not always not getting up because they don't want to get up,
they are oftentimes not getting up for the reasons that I just
mentioned.
What plan do you have with the municipalities? Does there
exist a list in every single county and every single city of
every person who might need assistance? Notice I didn't say
disabilities. Mr. Kish mentioned about self-registry.
Ms. Roth. We have been looking at the success of the
existing registries, and data--most particularly, some data
from California--would indicate that registries have not been
the most effective strategy for individual preparedness and for
making sure that people who are going to have access and
functional needs in times of emergencies and disasters get the
assistance that they need.
What we are finding with those registries, first of all, as
we are making success in housing, as we are making success--
making progress in employment and in the opportunities for
people with disabilities and others to be involved in the
community, people are not where they say they live.
So that becomes a challenge, coupled with the fact that the
resources to keep these registries updated are typically not in
place. We have heard even in those communities that have a
robust registry, they are very concerned about their ability to
keep it updated.
The data that I am looking at are indicating pretty clearly
that individual preparedness, the opportunity for people to
have the kind of information they need and access to the kinds
of tools that they need in order to personally prepare, in
order to work with their support system, in order for the folks
in their community to be able to work together, is appearing to
be a much more effective use of resources than registering
folks, entering them into a computer, and then maybe they are
there in the time of evacuation.
Ms. Richardson. Okay, Ms. Roth, my time has expired, but I
am going to be coming back to ask you many more questions about
that area.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications and Preparedness and Response, the
gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for questions.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am pleased to
hear you do door to door. There is no way you can truly know
your constituency if you don't do that. It is very insightful
when you knock on neighborhood doors and get to meet folks in
their home. It is just good to know you do that. Many of our
colleagues don't, and I think that is unfortunate.
If the Chair doesn't mind, I would like to submit for the
record a statement from Congressman Bilirakis from this
committee who could not be here with us today.
Ms. Richardson. Without objection.
[The statement of Mr. Bilirakis follows:]
Statement of Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis
June 15, 2010
As we begin another hurricane season, I am pleased the Subcommittee
on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response is meeting to
conduct oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and Federal
Emergency Management Agency's efforts to ensure that the needs of
individuals with disabilities and other access and functional needs are
integrated into disaster planning and response.
As a Member from the Gulf Coast of Florida, I am all too familiar
with natural disasters. I continually encourage my constituents to
prepare themselves for possible disasters by making a family disaster
plan and getting an emergency kit. But these individual efforts are not
enough. Local, Tribal, and State governments, along with the Federal
Government, must ensure that disaster planning and response scenarios
consider the needs of all individuals--including individuals with
disabilities, children, and the elderly.
We have learned difficult lessons about our disaster response
capabilities following Hurricane Katrina. I urge the Department of
Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
continue its work to integrate the needs of all populations when
implementing disaster plans and response efforts. I hope the Committee
on Homeland Security will continue its oversight of this issue in the
months ahead.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, ma'am.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the special needs
experience in my hometown around the chemical stockpile. Many
people are like me, in that they are technologically challenged
and aren't as proficient in internet and other gadgets as some
of you are.
I know that a lot of the people that I represent who are
poor and rural really don't have access to a lot of the
internet information that you talk about.
I know, Mr. Kish, you talked about postings that you all
had, that you update. My question is, how do you--what is the
most practical ways for you to communicate what you offer to
special needs communities and for them to be able to
communicate back to you as to whether or not it is--they
understand it, they want to participate in it?
Mr. Kish. Well, thank you for the question, Ranking Member.
I would tell you that this is a bit of an unusual program, in
that it is a fairly narrowly defined geographic program that
affects only those communities that are surrounding the sites
where the chemical weapons are stored.
With your experience in the Anniston community, you will
recognize that very unique in that there are large community
areas that buttress up against the edge of the stockpile
facility, which is not the case in other facilities or other
locations. A lot of those communities, a lot of those small
neighborhoods, as the Ranking--excuse me, as the Chairwoman
identified, there are a significant number of people that have
some challenges associated with that.
To your point that there is not a lot of technological
connection there, it is kind of a grassroots process.
Now, the registry piece that was spoken about earlier, that
is something that is owned by the State, and they work closely
with the affected county jurisdictions in order to ensure that
the information is safeguarded.
Mr. Rogers. But walk me through--you said grassroots
effort. How do you communicate with that elderly woman who may
be bound to a wheelchair in a rural community, say a mill
village around a stockpile? How do--she doesn't have a
computer.
Mr. Kish. Again, this being a community-based program--it
started from the top. This wasn't something that FEMA or the
Army walked in and said, ``We want you to do it this way.'' We
were participatory in that integrated process team. There
literally were grassroots, walk-around, knocking-on-doors kinds
of activities, and that, I think, was where you were trying to
get me to go with that, and I appreciate that question.
Mr. Rogers. Right. Right.
Mr. Kish. But I think it is important to note the relative
value of this particular registry, the way it has functioned
over the dozen or so years that it has been in existence. It is
a very--it is not a level line of participation. It is very up
and down.
People opt in for a period of time. They are--they are
entered into. They are dealt with on a one-on-one basis.
Whatever specific needs they have are dealt with. They opt out
in a lot of cases. So you have a very dynamic exchange on
there.
Now, I don't know that that would be functional across the
entire United States. I know that there was a comment about the
resources of that. It is an expensive proposition, but it is
one that we have the luxury--I would say it that way--because
of the way the maximum protection mission is chartered and the
way the Army funds these programs, we have the ability to
establish and maintain that.
So I don't know that it is entirely representative of what
could be replicated across the country in that regard, but it
works in this situation.
Mr. Spencer. Congressman, if I may add a comment?
Mr. Rogers. Sure.
Mr. Spencer. You know, we can have all the plans written--
and the Army is famous for that--and put these written plans on
a shelf, but you never know if they work until you exercise it.
Thanks to the Congress and the law and the way the program is
designed, each community has a full-scale exercise each year
that it goes down to the grassroots level, where literally we
evacuate schools, we evacuate hospitals, nursing homes.
We come to them. Prior to the exercises, we train them. We
tell them how it is going to work, what is required of them,
and it is working. That very, very close relationships with the
community is what has made this a success.
Also in each community, we have full-staffed, full-time
outreach offices in each community, where any citizen can walk
in and get the current status, understand exactly where they
live and what hazard zone and what is expected of them, as
well.
So we go to them or they can come to us. But, again, it is
the exercises and successful completion of those exercises that
involve State, municipal, Federal authorities that make this
program a success.
Mr. Rogers. Great. Thank you. My time is expired, but I did
want to emphasize--going back to the Chairwoman's questioning
of Ms. Roth--you heard Mr. Kish talk about the grassroots
effort, people knocking on doors to identify these people and
communicate with them. Mr. Spencer just talked about how
comprehensive and well-staffed it was at the local level. That
takes a lot of money.
CSEPP has been a very successful program, but it has also
spent tens of millions of dollars; $150,000 is never going to
be able to help you do what they have done. So I know you can't
come in here and tell us that you are not being given enough
money because it gets you in trouble back home, but we know you
need more money to do your job.
Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
The Chairwoman will now recognize other Members for
questions they may wish to ask the witnesses. In accordance
with our committee rules and practices, I will recognize
Members who were here present at the start of the hearing based
on seniority on the subcommittee, alternating between the
Majority and the Minority. Those Members coming in later will
be recognized in the order of their arrival.
The Chairwoman now recognizes for 5 minutes the Chairman of
this committee, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I would like to start off with Mr. Rogers' comment and say,
Ms. Roth, you did a good two-step on that question. In 1 year,
you have learned how to dance on talking about resources. I
understand, but you do know that, as Members of the committee,
we have to ask those kind of questions.
I do understand and, like the other Members, the
constraints that you have to come back to us on, but $150,000
is clearly not nearly enough to address this problem. We will
get down to why we think $150,000 is not enough at part of this
hearing.
You know, there are some directives, 301 and 302: 301, as
you know, is special needs; 302 talks about household pets; and
then 101 talks about how integrate all that together.
I would assume part of your responsibility is to integrate
it. So hopefully, now that we have a pet plan, so I am not
knocking pets. But I think there are some other things, as I
said in my opening comments, that we have to address.
Can you give this committee some timeline on 101, since
March has come and gone?
Ms. Roth. Thank you. I have spent quite a bit of time
working on the important information that was included in
interim CPG 301 and making sure that that is integrated in the
new CPG 101.1.
I know that a tremendous amount of work has gone into
making sure that this updated 101 is fully comprehensive of all
of the information that was previously housed in the separate
document. I am very pleased with what I have seen. I have seen
what I believe is final draft. I have every indication that we
are going to see CPG 101.1 anytime now.
In the meanwhile, the interim CPG 301 exists and has been
on the internet for quite a while; 101 is in use; and the work
of my office continues as 101.1 gets ready to come on-line.
Mr. Thompson. Let me give you a situation I was confronted
with several weeks ago. I had some individuals, to be unnamed,
come by my office. We talked about vulnerable populations.
They asked the question do we know where everybody is, we
know if something happens, we know how to go and get them? I
said, quite honestly, I don't believe that. Was I correct?
Ms. Roth. It is hard to imagine that we would know where
everyone is.
Mr. Thompson. Okay, good point.
Ms. Roth. It is probably much more accurate to say that
each community can count on the fact that about 50 percent of
their population is going to need some additional assistance.
Mr. Thompson. Absolutely. So with the Anniston example and
some of the discussions here, we need to move beyond planning,
so even if we have to do some--what you call some action,
whatever you call it, we need to get to that point.
I am concerned that, if some major event occurs and some of
those 50 percent of the population will be left to their own to
fend for themselves, and that is not what our Government should
be about. So I am calling on you to help that 50 percent who,
through no fault of their own, might not be able to do it.
So we can plan. We can do it. But at the end of the day,
they are still relying on us for help. So now that--that Dr.
Young and the Department are communicating--and that is good--
the once-a-month meetings are good--but we need to move the
ball down the line.
It can't be done at headquarters. We have to push it out
into the regions and ultimately into the State and localities.
So we have a lot to do.
So I am impressing and encouraging the Department to look
at the DOD model of how they do things, as well as some others,
and we might not have to reinvent the wheel. We might can adopt
systems that have worked in other environments and go forward.
But Katrina has been 5 years. I would not want a Katrina-
type moment to occur again. So with your $150,000, and all you
say you got, we want you to just go forward and help us.
But if at some point you run short of money and you can't
get it done with that $150,000, come back to us and say, ``I
need a little help,'' and I think you will find a lot of
friends on this side, both Republican and Democrat, because
this is an important issue for us.
I do know the constraints on answering the money question,
but $150,000 should be addressed.
I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Roth. May I respond?
Mr. Thompson. Sure.
Ms. Roth. I want to talk about two things that we are doing
that I think you are going to get pretty excited about. This
document, this guidance to States for functional needs support
services in general population shelters, which we are going to
start training in the regions on July 19, this document, this
information, this guidance to State and local governments is
going to help them to be able to accommodate the 50 percent
that we were just talking about in general population
environments, in the general population shelter.
Typically what we have done in the past is we have
identified a certain segment of the population as being too
difficult to shelter in the general population environment, and
we have sent them someplace else.
Unfortunately, on more than one occasion, that someplace
else has actually turned out to be no place at all. There were
busloads of people during the Gustav evacuation that--I am
sorry, during the Ike evacuation, that ended up staying in
their buses, traveling from shelter to shelter, and being
turned away, because the resources were not put in place.
So this guidance is being provided to States to assist them
to be able to meet the needs of the whole population in the
general population environment. In addition to that, we are
bringing folks together at the end of the summer to help them
to build their capacity to--first of all, to work together, to
bring emergency management, to bring community leaders with and
without disabilities, the voluntary agencies, to bring those
folks together to help them to begin to build relationships
that they can then move forward together to make sure that the
right folks are at their tables, to think about who is in their
community and what are they going to need in order to be able
to accommodate them?
So these are strategies that I think are going to have a
very significant impact on individual community ability to meet
the needs of the people who live there, the people who may be
vacationing there that we didn't plan for, people who may be
working there. I think that is going to be a strategy that is
going to be very effective.
Ms. Richardson. The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Cleaver
from Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Before I even ask questions, I want to thank you and the
Chairman for this hearing. I think it is intelligent of us to
address this problem before there is a problem of a magnitude
that could bode poorly for this committee.
Ms. Roth, I am obsessed with animals, and so I study them,
I read everything I can about animals. I actually consider
myself somewhat of an expert on big cats. My family thinks that
I need help.
[Laughter.]
But I think--you know, I watch every Animal Planet episode.
Lions are my favorites. They just--if you were interested. One
of the things that a pride of lions can do--and it is
remarkable--is, if they are going to attack a herd of, let's
say, wildebeest, they pick out--this is amazing--they pick out
the oldest or the injured or the youngest.
I mean, they don't--if you look at those movies, it looks
like--it looks as if they are just running aimlessly, but they
have a target, and it is usually--actually, the oldest is
first. I think disasters do the same thing. They pick out the
oldest, the wounded, the youngest, and that is where they
attack.
I think what is true in wildlife is true of disasters. It
is also true of departments.
Let me just say that I think what you are planning is very
ambitious, and it shows that you are not--that birds are not
going to build any nest in your head, because you will be
moving.
You know, looking at this budget and knowing how this
country functions, in the unlikelihood of a disaster, and we
would want this never to happen, but let's say there are a lot
of disabled people in one location who are quite vulnerable and
been coming victims, knowing how things operate, you know, I
know, and everybody in here knows that the media will focus on
shortcomings and problems.
With a staff of one, which is essentially what you have, I
just think that we are setting ourselves up for a problem. It
is not your fault, but I see that coming.
My son, a student at Dillard University when Katrina hit,
when he went back, he managed to get out and, sleeping on a
Wal-Mart parking lot, and then made it into Houston to stay
with his aunt, but when he went back to try to get whatever
remained in his apartment, he took his video camera, and he
talked to people.
One of the things he discovered is that there were very few
people sitting out the storm as was reported. There were people
who were left out in the storm and that were older people. In
the place where he lived, he videoed them and captured, you
know, what I think was something very important.
There is probably very little you can answer with this, so
maybe I am speaking to the Congress and to the administration.
There are churches who spend more than $150,000 a year dealing
with the wounded, churches. Our church spends more than
$150,000 a year, and we don't have 300 million citizens, which
is what the Nation has.
So I have no questions. I just wanted to take this
opportunity to say what I said and encourage all of you to look
at Animal Planet.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Cleaver brings up a good point. As he
was sharing his thoughts, Ranking Member Rogers leaned over to
me and said, ``We should do a joint letter together to the
President,'' urging in light of what has been talked about
today, that we feel that your budget is grossly insufficient
and unable to perform the duties that are needed. So we will,
in fact, do that, not on your urging, but on ours.
If there is no objection, if we could have a brief second
round of questions, if there is--is there anyone opposed? Okay.
With that, it is my turn again.
Ms. Roth, for the record, I just want to be clear. Next
month you will only have yourself, then, one intern, and one
fellow?
Ms. Roth. Actually, no. Next month, I will have the
continued support of detailees from across the agency--that is
four detailees--two interns, and the continued assignment of
folks from several areas across the agency, including mass
care, the office of chief counsel, public affairs.
Ms. Richardson. Why don't we just do this? If you could
supply to the committee who is actually full time under your
jurisdiction and your jurisdiction only, okay? If you could get
that to the committee of now and what you expect in the next
couple months.
My next question is, for the record, the NCD has said that
one of the things that should be done is disability
coordinators or positions that could also include people who
are knowledgeable about people with special needs should be
hired in the regional offices. Has that been done?
Ms. Roth. We have spent quite a bit of time looking at the
best way to move forward on that. What I don't----
Ms. Richardson. I am sorry, Ms. Roth. I have got 3\1/2\
minutes. Has it been done, yes or no?
Ms. Roth. Yes and no. Yes, we have been working towards
providing the capacity-building----
Ms. Richardson. No. Have the regional offices hired a
position where a person there is able to meet the needs, supply
the information, and do all of that, that deals with people
with needs, as well, yes or no?
Ms. Roth. They have assigned point people. They have not
hired anyone. They have assigned point people.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. So if you could supply to this
committee which regions actually have individuals that can do
that and which regions don't.
Also, for the record, I just want to note what Chairman
Thompson was mentioning, and that is, with this particular
area, there are many deadlines that have not been met.
Specifically, FEMA missed the deadline for the committee's
report directed to FEMA to update the National plan review.
That was due April 16, 2010. The deadline has not been met.
Also, the guidance of 301 has not been met. That was
already delayed. You were given an extension to March 10 to
incorporate the two, and now that has not been met.
I didn't hear you give a specific date of when you thought
it would be done. Do you have one?
Ms. Roth. My part is already done, so I don't--I can't tell
you what----
Ms. Richardson. What are we waiting on?
Ms. Roth. The internal process that I am just now still
learning.
Ms. Richardson. So do you have any idea of when we could
expect it to be done?
Ms. Roth. I believe it is very close. I have seen a final
product.
Ms. Richardson. If you could let Mr. Fugate know that this
committee has asked and advised that it is now late again.
Okay.
Finally, I am going to use my last 2 minutes to say this.
Ms. Roth, if we can get you some help, what I would like to do
is, once you have some help, is to invite you, at least to my
district.
I find it particularly alarming that you would say--and it
is not your fault, you are new in this position, and we
understand that--however, as Mr. Kish mentioned, they utilized
self-registry. As Dr. Young has mentioned, you know, people
are--sometimes a person may have needs this month, but another
person may be added to that. When I asked you the question, you
said that you were not necessarily convinced that self-registry
was the way, that, really, individual preparedness.
Let me paint my district for you. I have got 1 minute and
30 seconds. In my district, one-third of the seniors are
raising their grandchildren. Let me repeat that. One-third of
the seniors in my district are raising their grandchildren.
So when you talk about individual preparedness, do you
think that--well, that is a rhetorical question. The
grandparents are doing what they can just to be able to take
care of their grandchildren, let alone do they have 3 days'
supply of food, do they have enough shoes, do they have water,
does someone know that they are taking care of all of these
grandchildren.
The issues that I mentioned to you, I could take you to
doors along a block where seniors are not necessarily answering
the door. If it were not for--I took one lady to the polls last
Tuesday. If it were not for us physically calling and saying,
``Do you need a ride to the polls?'', the lady--she had broken
her arm 2 weeks before, so she wasn't going to be able to go to
the polls. She did not have transportation.
Really, for me to take her out, down the stairs, get her in
the car, I mean, it is just not feasible. So what I think we
equally have a responsibility to do is to provide more
direction, to say there has got to be some way that you have a
record, as Mr. Thompson said, of who is all out there and who
is going to need assistance.
Because if and when we have a disaster--and I don't think
it is if, it is rather when--the biggest problem we are going
to look at is what we have already seen.
I went to Samoa, where they had the earthquake and then the
subsequent tsunami, and the people that we lost most, as Mr.
Cleaver said, were the people who couldn't run fast enough, and
that was the elderly and the children. I believe it is really
incumbent upon us and incumbent upon your particular department
to be able to have some list of at least who we know.
For starters, I would tell you one of the issues is age,
and there are many others, and we have to figure out how we can
get that properly recorded. We urge you to tell us how we can
help you.
With that, I would like to refer to the Ranking Member, if
you have any follow-up questions.
Mr. Rogers. Just one, to Ms. Roth. Is your office
considered just a policymaking office? Or are you expected to
administer some of these proposals that you are drafting?
Ms. Roth. My office is a coordinating office. We provide
support across the agency.
Mr. Rogers. Okay, that is my point. If it was just
policymaking, I can understand $150,000. But if you have got
administrative responsibilities, it is impossible on that
budget to carry out your mission.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
With that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Thompson. For the record, Ms. Roth, tell the committee
exactly what your title is.
Ms. Roth. I am the director of the Office of Disability
Integration and Coordination.
Mr. Thompson. So who is--what was that title? Who is the
disability coordinator?
Ms. Roth. I am serving as the acting disability coordinator
in my role as the director of that office.
Mr. Thompson. So you have got two titles?
Ms. Roth. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. So you get--I just--I guess the more we talk,
the more concerned the committee is that this might just be
something that was created to satisfy some of the concerns of
this committee and not something that has really put together
the work. That is more and more evident as we discuss it.
Mr. Kish, just for the record, how often do you and Ms.
Roth talk?
Mr. Kish. Me personally with her? I have not spent a lot of
time talking with Ms. Roth. However, we have been working with
her office on numerous projects. In fact, one that is in
progress right now is an updated training video that actually
features Ms. Roth that was shot in her--a portion of it was
shot in her office.
I mean, it--so we do work not just with Ms. Roth's office,
but also with the office that is responsible for integrating
the community planning guidance, 101, 301, 302. We work across
the whole National preparedness directorate to try and ensure
that not just the CSEPP program----
Mr. Thompson. 101 is not complete. 101 is not complete.
Mr. Kish. I am sorry, sir?
Mr. Thompson. You said 101.
Mr. Kish. Well, as I understand it, there is a desire to
integrate 301 and 302 into 101.
Mr. Thompson. At some point down the road.
Mr. Kish. Right, right.
Mr. Thompson. Right. All the deadlines have been missed.
Mr. Kish. I understand that. But I am saying, we work with
the office responsible for that to incorporate elements that I
have represented to you today, to present them for
consideration into those--of those products.
Mr. Thompson. Well, and thank you. I think the point we are
trying to make is, a one-person shop can only do so much. That
person wearing at least two hats in that shop creates concern.
A budget of $150,000, I think, for the population we are trying
to serve, is not in the best interest of that population. I
will put it like that.
I say that--Dr. Young, I hope you can elevate the concern
in your discussions with the Department that, you know, you
really have to invest in your commitment. You can't really just
say, ``We are with you, and we want to serve your population.''
We are trying to, you know, let the professionals and the
advocates work together, but one person is just--it is going to
be very doubtful, given that 50 percent population in the
universe that we are trying to serve. I just think that is a
real challenge.
I would join the Chairperson and Ranking Member, as Chair
of the full committee, to support expressing the committee's
concern that the Department, through its budgets and in other
things, needs to do better. I just think it is too big a
challenge to not invest the resources into make it happen.
I yield back.
Mr. Young. Might I speak to that briefly, also?
Mr. Thompson. I yield back, but I have got 50 seconds left.
Please.
Mr. Young. Thank you. Your rhetorical questions sort of
speak for themselves. We know the constraints that are here.
One thing that I think we need to balance--and this is part
of the wisdom in Ms. Roth's title--as integration and
coordination, certainly more resources make a whole lot of
sense, but even a very large office that is focused on
disability will never do its job well if it is not effectively
integrated and coordinated throughout FEMA.
So part of the challenge is not only to dedicate resources
in a specific disability-focused way, but it is ensuring that
all the offices across FEMA are themselves thinking first line
about all of these issues that you are drawing attention to.
We have a population that we have--you know, we used our 50
percent figure. Whatever the figure is, we have a general
planning process where the vast majority of resources are going
toward the easy and a tiny proportion toward the difficult.
So part of that is the resources of that office, but part
of it is ensuring that all the offices are not only thinking
about the general population, but themselves thinking about
people with disabilities and other populations that are going
to be in greater need.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I really appreciate you stepping up and
trying to defend what some of us think might be the
indefensible right now. We understand the need for integration
and coordination.
But there has to be a core component to make it happen. We
don't think that core component of critical mass is anywhere
near it should be, and that is why you are hearing the
committee raising the alarm bells, that we could be here next
June and--and the likelihood of being much further along is
still suspect in the committee's mind.
Now, we stand to be corrected over time, but given the
challenges in the population we are trying to serve, we should
move forward in, I think, as an aggressive a manner as
possible. It just appears that, in the eyes of some of us, we
are not there.
I yield back.
Mr. Young. If I can----
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cleaver, if you wouldn't mind, Mr. Rogers just wanted
to make one comment on that point.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, I just wanted to, Dr. Young, make sure you
understand, we are not advocating that she just have a bunch of
bodies to have a big office for looks. It is my view that, in
order for her to carry out her mission in coordination with you
and whoever else, there is going to have to be a sum of money
there that allows her to do the kind of grassroots things that
you heard Mr. Kish talk about.
That is just not possible with the limited staffing there.
I am--and, again, I think that it just--at a minimum, she ought
to have control over a reserve fund that, in the event we have
a disaster, she is able to mobilize certain assets that are
hopefully put in place ahead of time.
So that is where we are getting with this. It is just, we
don't want the Department to say, oh, yes, we have taken care
of that problem. We have got a person over here with that
title. That doesn't fix the problem. We need to be prepared in
the event there is a hurricane or a tornado or whatever, that
we are able to take care of folks who can't take care of
themselves, and we are serious about it.
That is all. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Cleaver is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cleaver. I just have one question for Dr. Young. In
your testimony, you recommend that people with disabilities be
more fully integrated into the preparedness process. I agree
with that.
Can you just share briefly how you envision that taking
place? How do we actually solicit involvement and, frankly,
direction from people who are disabled?
Mr. Young. Sure. I think the example earlier about door-to-
door knocking resonates here. I think we need to look at
building from the ground up. We are not going to know the right
questions to ask or the right pieces to put into the planning
unless we are talking to people in our communities to know what
their needs and concerns are. I don't think there is any single
answer for doing that, but it is integrating it into all
aspects of the emergency planning process.
I mentioned one example on Friday. We met with the exercise
division, and there is an extraordinary body of resources going
into the planning for next May, 2011, for the National level
exercise. We talked with that division about the possibility of
having an advisory committee convened by NCD that would be a
group of people that know these issues from the communities
that are going to be affected and start working right now,
throughout the entirety of the planning process, with that
exercise division.
So that, in addition to sort of the compendium of knowledge
of written recommendations, as that exercise division is going
through each and every aspect of their planning process, they
would be hearing from people with disabilities on the ground
who know the issues, I think that kind of ground-up experience
and direct involvement, not merely in written reports, but in
the day-to-day actual planning of what FEMA is doing.
Just to go back a moment briefly, I certainly--I fear that
I was miscommunicating my emphasis on the resources, where I am
actually in complete agreement. I share the concerns generally
that, if we compartmentalize disability as something ``other,''
we are going to run into risks of failure.
So there is a point of focusing on disability, but we need
to make sure that the results of that is integration into
everything that we do, so those resources are not isolated, but
actually effectively integrated in all aspects.
Ms. Roth. May I? A couple points I would like to make.
In terms of personal preparedness and community
preparedness, I think it is important, you know, when we talk
about registries, for example, and we talk about compiling
lists of people, what I am concerned with is not that we have
compiled a list, but that we have resources in those
communities to respond to the people who might be on that list.
If the resources are going into compiling a list, but there
is no plan for assisting those individuals, what we have done
is we have given them a false sense that the Government knows
they are there and that the Government is going to take care of
them, when, in fact, we haven't slipped anything underneath to
make sure that they are actually getting the services, getting
the assistance that they need.
So that is--I just want to be very clear about my concern
that we not just simply register people, but that we make sure
that they have some assistance, and that they don't--that
doesn't absolve them of their personal responsibility to make
sure they are prepared.
Even under the ideal circumstances, it may be a while
before assistance can get to any of us. Roads may be down.
There may be just more needs than the resources can handle.
Also, in terms of personal preparedness, we need to make
sure that we are giving people achievable information. I often
talk about, you know, some of the information that we give
people about being prepared. We will say, you know, you need to
have a week of your medication. Well, if any of us has been to
the pharmacy and tried to get a week of medication, we know
that that is not an easy thing to do.
So instead we need to be teaching people, even if they
don't have a computer, they need to have information provided
to their doctor's office on a Flash drive that has their
prescriptions, or they need to have a piece of paper that has
their prescriptions on it, because you may not have that backup
of your medication.
So that personal preparedness needs to be achievable. We
need to help people to learn what they need to do to protect
themselves. We need to help communities to have the resources
that they need so that they can protect all of their citizens,
assist all of their citizens, maximize resources, so that we
keep people out of medical environments, keep people as healthy
and as independent as we possibly can.
So that is some of the work that we are trying to support
across the agency and across the Federal Government in support
of the States.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver.
Mr. Cao, did you have any questions? Okay.
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony. At this
time, I would ask the clerk to prepare the table for the next
panel.
I welcome the second panel of witnesses. Our first witness,
Mr. Jon Gundry, the deputy superintendent of the Los Angeles
County Office of Education, prior to coming to Los Angeles, Mr.
Gundry spent 12 years in the Houston Independent School
District, serving most recently as an executive principal
overseeing 17 campuses in a high school feeder system.
Our second witness, Ms. Diana Rothe-Smith, has been the
executive director of the National Voluntary Organizations
Active in Disaster, National VOAD, since summer 2007. Prior to
her role as executive director, Ms. Rothe-Smith served as a
volunteer manager and disaster planner for community-based
organizations in the greater Atlanta and National Capital
Regions and spent several years working in event management.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted into the record.
I now ask Mr. Gundry to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JON R. GUNDRY, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
Mr. Gundry. Good morning, Chairwoman Richardson and the
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to address this committee on the importance of this
issue.
I am Jon Gundry, deputy superintendent of the Los Angeles
County Office of Education. I am pleased to be here today on
behalf of our county superintendent, Dr. Darline Robles.
I am going to speak briefly about the importance of
comprehensive and coordinated emergency preparedness planning
for local education agencies and to summarize some of our
efforts in Los Angeles County in planning for and responding to
emergency situations that have affected schools and students in
our county.
I am also here to express our strong support for
legislation introduced by your subcommittee chair,
Representative Richardson, H.R. 4898, the Elementary and
Secondary School Emergency Preparedness Planning Act.
County offices of education in California were established
in 1855 to directly oversee public schools. Today, the county
offices are intermediate education agencies that provide
services to school districts, exercise oversight of certain
school district functions, and provide direct classroom
instruction for juvenile offenders and many of the children in
the county with severe disabilities.
Los Angeles County Office of Education, or LACOE, as we are
known, serves 80 school districts, with 2 million preschool and
school-age children, making up nearly a third of the students
in the State of California.
Students in Los Angeles public schools are a highly
vulnerable population in times of emergency, not only because
they are located in a place that is at high risk of terrorist
attack and natural disaster, but also because many thousands of
those children have special needs. Among them are students with
disabilities, with limited English proficiency, or those living
in unstable circumstances or suffering financial hardship.
The number of severely disabled students in the county is
approximately 170,000, about 27,000 of whom are directly served
by LACOE programs.
Although schools and school districts have emergency plans
in place, they are generally not as comprehensive as they
should be and not well coordinated with other agencies and
school districts. This is primarily due to the fact that they
are often not given an active role in regional emergency
planning, they lack the expertise of many other public agencies
in emergency planning, and they do not have sufficient funding
to do the necessary planning and preparation.
In Los Angeles County, LACOE serves as the coordinating
agency for school districts for emergency preparedness
response. During the National response to the spring 2009 swine
flu outbreak, for example, LACOE played a key role in helping
school districts--keeping school districts current with public
health information and directives so schools could prepare for
outbreaks and respond to them.
LACOE's communications and emergency response director,
Frank Kwan, who I am pleased to have with me today, directed
this initiative. For several years prior to this outbreak, Mr.
Kwan worked with the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Health to present a series of avian and pandemic flu
preparedness conferences for school personnel. These
conferences also stressed the urgent need for school districts
to begin planning for a variety of potential health
emergencies.
LACOE continues to coordinate with public health and other
local and National agencies to provide input on county
emergency and disaster planning.
By way of example, LACOE is currently participating in
Operation Golden Phoenix 2010, sponsored by the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate.
Golden Phoenix deals with the nightmare scenario of the
detonation of an improvised nuclear device.
In partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey, LACOE co-
sponsored the Nation's largest earthquake-preparedness exercise
in 2008, the Great Southern California ShakeOut. Nearly 1.5
million students in Los Angeles County were among the 5.5
million Southern Californians who took part in the exercise.
LACOE was also a key player in the Great California ShakeOut in
2009, and we are currently preparing for the 2010 event.
In addition to earthquakes, we live with on-going issues
with air quality and the threat of other natural disasters,
such as wildfires, flash floods, and mudslides. Because we
serve as a coordinating agency for emergency preparedness and
response for school districts in the county, we must anticipate
and respond to the threat of health and safety of our schools
and students.
We do our best to assist school districts by doing such
things as issuing air quality alerts, advisories of possible
earthquake aftershocks, and notice of emergency street
closures. Our purpose is to anticipate safety issues that may
affect schoolchildren in order to communicate effectively with
school districts and assist with the coordination of emergency
response efforts.
While we believe we do a good job of coordinating emergency
planning and response in Los Angeles County school districts,
there is still a need for better training and closer
collaboration among county agencies.
For this reason, we urge the creation of a system of school
alert and response networks on a local or regional basis that
would more closely coordinate with emergency response agencies
and school districts, not only in L.A. County, but in all
regions of the country that are under a high threat of
terrorist attack, natural disaster, or public health emergency.
An obvious barrier to creating or expanding comprehensive
emergency planning and response systems is a shortage of staff
and resources. With the continuing crisis in education funding,
school districts and LEAs across America face unprecedented
financial challenges.
Given the priority on meeting the demands of accountability
for student academic achievement, school administrators
struggling with severe cash-flow problems are unlikely to
allocate funds dedicated to emergency planning and response.
This is why H.R. 4898 is so critical in helping to ensure
that school districts are prepared in time of emergency. The
bill would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to
establish a comprehensive National program to make emergency
preparedness planning and implementation grants to local
educational agencies and districts located in areas under high
threat for terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or public
health emergencies.
In conclusion, the Los Angeles County Office of Education
supports the creation of better ways for school communities to
proactively prepare for and effectively respond to emergency
situations in order to safeguard students. We are committed to
meeting our obligations to all students and children in our
county and especially those who are most vulnerable population
in time of emergency.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these important
issues. I am prepared to answer any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Gundry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jon R. Gundry
June 15, 2010
Good morning. My name is Jon Gundry. I am Deputy Superintendent of
the Los Angeles County Office of Education. I am pleased to be here
today, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools,
Dr. Darline Robles.
OVERVIEW
I am going to speak briefly about the importance for comprehensive
and coordinated emergency preparedness planning for local education
agencies, and to summarize some lessons we have learned in Los Angeles
County in planning for and responding to emergency situations that have
affected schools and students in our county. I am also here to express
our strong support for legislation introduced by your subcommittee
Chair, Representative Laura Richardson, H.R. 4898, the ``Elementary and
Secondary School Emergency Preparedness Planning Act.''
ABOUT LACOE AND THE COUNTY
County offices of education were established in California in 1855
to directly oversee public schools. Today, the county offices are
intermediate education agencies that provide services to school
districts, exercise oversight of certain school district functions, and
provide direct classroom instruction for juvenile offenders and many of
the children in the county with severe disabilities. The Los Angeles
County Office of Education--``LACOE,'' for short--serves 80 school
districts with 2 million preschool and school-age children, nearly a
third of the students in the State of California.
Students in Los Angeles public schools are a highly vulnerable
population in times of emergency, not only because they are located in
a place that is at high risk of terrorist attack and natural disaster,
but also because many thousands of those children have special needs.
Among them are students with disabilities, with limited English
proficiency, or those living in unstable circumstances or suffering
financial hardship. The number of severely disabled students in the
county is approximately 170,000, about 27,000 of whom are directly
served by LACOE programs.
NEED FOR IMPROVED COORDINATION
Parents rely on schools to keep their children safe. In fact,
parents are concerned about safety above everything else when they send
their children to school. Although schools and school districts have
emergency plans in place, they are generally not as comprehensive as
they should be and not well coordinated with other agencies and school
districts. This is primarily due to the fact that they are not given an
active role in regional emergency planning, they lack the expertise of
many other public agencies in emergency planning, and they do not have
sufficient funding to do the necessary planning and preparation.
In Los Angeles County, LACOE serves as the coordinating agency for
school districts for emergency preparedness and response.
During the National response to the spring 2009 swine flu outbreak,
for example, LACOE played a key role in keeping school districts
current with public health information and directives so schools could
prepare for outbreaks and respond effectively to them.
LACOE's Communications and Emergency Response Director, Frank Kwan,
who I am pleased to have with me today, directed this initiative. For
several years prior to this outbreak, Mr. Kwan worked with the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Health to present a series of avian
and pandemic flu preparedness conferences for school personnel. These
conferences also stressed the urgent need for school districts to begin
planning for a variety of potential public health emergencies.
LACOE continues to coordinate with public health and other local,
State, and National agencies and to provide input on county emergency
and disaster planning. By way of example, LACOE is currently
participating in Operation Golden Phoenix 2010, sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology
Directorate. Golden Phoenix deals with the nightmare scenario of the
detonation of an improvised nuclear device.
In partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey, LACOE co-sponsored
the Nation's largest earthquake-preparedness exercise in 2008, the
Great Southern California ShakeOut. Nearly 1.5 million students in Los
Angeles County were among the 5.5 million Southern Californians who
took part in the exercise. LACOE was also a key player in The Great
California ShakeOut in 2009, and we are currently preparing for the
upcoming 2010 event.
In addition to earthquakes, we live with on-going issues with air
quality and the threat of other natural disasters such as wild fires,
flash floods, and mud slides. Because we serve as the coordinating
agency for emergency preparedness and response for school districts in
the county, we must anticipate and respond to any threat to the health
and safety of our schools and students. We do our best to assist school
districts by doing such things as issuing air quality alerts,
advisories of possible earthquake aftershocks, and notice of emergency
street closures. Our purpose is to anticipate safety issues that may
affect school children in order to communicate effectively with school
districts and assist in the coordination of emergency response efforts.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVED PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
While we believe we do a good job of coordinating emergency
planning and response among Los Angeles County school districts, there
is still a need for better training and closer collaboration among
county agencies. For this reason, we urge the creation of a system of
school alert and response networks on a local or regional basis that
would more closely coordinate with emergency response agencies and
school districts, not only in L.A. County, but in all regions of the
country that are under a high threat of terrorist attack, natural
disaster, or public health emergency.
Because of their special relationships with communities and
families, school districts, educational support agencies, and local
education agencies should take leadership and be an integral part of
emergency and disaster planning and training. School districts and
schools would welcome the opportunity for stronger coordination with
local/State/Federal emergency responders in time of emergency.
FUNDING CONSTRAINTS
An obvious barrier to creating or expanding comprehensive emergency
planning and response systems is a shortage of staff and resources.
With the continuing crisis in education funding, school districts, and
LEAs across America face unprecedented financial challenges. Given
current dwindling resources, LACOE is hard-pressed to sustain its own
level of emergency outreach and training activities, let alone improve
our communication and coordination efforts.
Given the priority on meeting the demands of accountability for
student academic achievement, school administrators struggling with
severe cash-flow problems are unlikely to allocate funds dedicated to
emergency planning and response.
PROPOSED LEGISLATION
This is why H.R. 4898 is so critical in helping to ensure that
school districts are prepared in time of emergency. The bill would
authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a competitive
National program to make emergency preparedness planning and
implementation grants to local educational agencies and districts
located in areas under a high threat of terrorist attacks, natural
disasters, or public health emergencies.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Los Angeles County Office of Education supports
creating better ways for school communities to proactively prepare for,
and effectively respond to emergency situations in order to safeguard
students. We are committed to meeting our obligations to all students
and children in our county, and especially those who are most
vulnerable population in time of emergency.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these important issues. I
will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Ms. Rothe-Smith to summarize her statement
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DIANA ROTHE-SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS ACTIVE IN DISASTERS
Ms. Rothe-Smith. Madam Chairwoman and distinguished Members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak
before you today.
The National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster, or
National VOAD, as we are more commonly known, is made up of the
50 largest disaster-focused nonprofit organizations in the
country.
From Adventist Community Services to World Vision, our
member organizations are the driving force behind disaster
response, relief, and recovery in this country.
National VOAD represents the nonprofit and faith-based
organizations already on the ground serving low-income
communities, people with disabilities, those suffering from
illness or medical hardship, children, the elderly, the
impoverished, the uninsured or underinsured, people with pets,
and immigrant and non-English-speaking populations.
Their programs are there to offer services to those without
the means to independently recover from a disaster. Our members
work together to create an all-community approach to address
all unmet needs. Communities can benefit by including National
VOAD members in their planning early and often.
It is important to stress the role of the voluntary
organizations as part of a very elaborate and well-coordinated
team of support for communities in response to disasters.
Those that are sometimes defined as having special needs or
being of a vulnerable population, our National VOAD members
call their neighbor.
Our members are providing programs throughout the country
in an effort to fight poverty, build resiliency to disaster,
and to recovery faster and more completely.
For example, Mennonite Disaster Service is involved in
mitigation in a variety of places, most notably, perhaps, in
New Iberia, Louisiana, and Cheek, Texas, where marginalized
communities experienced minor damage from a past hurricane, but
economics and time have hindered them from repairs. Small
damage has become another disaster through time and weather.
MDS is working on repairing roofs, walls, flooring, and
replacing whole kitchens for those most in need.
Since 2007, the National Baptist Convention USA has been
strategically planning and building a network to ensure that
those underserved communities can be integrated into the
mainstream disaster system. This is in an effort to lessen the
impact of a disaster for the total community and bring to the
table those community leaders that have much to contribute.
The Salvation Army has a program called Preparing Together.
The concept is simple: Train churches, clubs, and community
organizations to pair a volunteer with a senior or a person
with a disability to act as a readiness coach and evacuation
advocate and a shelter-in-place guide.
Through their Resilient and Ready Communities Initiative,
Save the Children works with emergency management, schools,
childcare leaders, and children to assess community strengths
and address critical gaps in emergency planning for children's
needs.
The Humane Society of the United States is working to
address the needs of people with pets who are often a
vulnerable population, given their reluctance to leave their
homes and evacuate. HSUS is working with Federal, State, and
local communities to include pets in all evacuation sheltering
and mass-care planning.
Affiliates of the Hands On Network offer block parties,
where neighbors incorporate community needs assessments to
determine how best neighbors can help neighbors in the event of
a disaster.
The Church of the Brethren works to ensure that shelters
and service delivery sites have respite care for children, and
the American Red Cross is working with many agencies to ensure
the needs of all are addressed. They have also worked with FEMA
to create guidance for assisting people with disabilities and
shelters, which complements what Red Cross already uses to
ensure accessibility.
These are only a few examples, but there is still much work
to do. Terms like ``special need'' or ``vulnerable
populations'' allow us all too easily to group very differing
citizens into one homogeneous population and provide
instructions that are not appropriately communicated or are
impossible to follow. These are issues that must be addressed
with the true representation of a community and then put into
practice by emergency management.
Rather than separate plans that address special needs or
vulnerable populations, we need inclusive plans for everyone.
We also need to clearly and deliberately include the public,
who are eager to engage.
Expectations for our local citizens need to be as clearly
defined as those of our local citizens, especially in the
implementation of these plans in response and recovery.
Madam Chairwoman and distinguished Members of the
committee, I would like to thank you again for your time and
would welcome any questions you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Rothe-Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Diana Rothe-Smith
June 15, 2010
Madam Chairwoman and distinguished Members of the committee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you to address ``Caring for
Special Needs: What is being done about vulnerable populations?''
The National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster, or
National VOAD as we are more commonly known, is made up of the 50
largest disaster-focused non-profit organizations in the country. From
the American Red Cross to Catholic Charities and The Jewish Federations
of North America--from the Salvation Army to Feeding America and
Habitat for Humanity International--our member organizations are the
driving force behind disaster response, relief, and recovery in this
country. There are 50 National nonprofit members, 53 State and
territory VOADs, and hundreds of local and community VOADs throughout
the United States.
The members of National VOAD represent the non-profit, faith-based,
and community-based organizations that are already on the ground
serving low-income communities, people of disabilities, those suffering
from illness or medical hardship, children, the elderly, the
impoverished, people with pets, and immigrant and non-English speaking
populations. Our programs in times of disaster are there to continue to
offer support to these local communities and expand to offer more
services to those without the means to independently recover from a
disaster. Like disasters are planned for based upon an all-hazards
approach, our members work together to create an all-community approach
to disaster response and recovery, including all unmet needs.
Communities can benefit by including these organizations in their
planning early and often.
Additionally, it is crucial to include key organizations that
represent the full spectrum of a given community, including social
service providers, advocacy groups, and local faith-based and community
groups. Rather than separate plans that address ``special needs'' or
``vulnerable populations,'' emergency managers need inclusive plans for
their entire community.
Recognizing that humanitarian assistance is most effective when
implemented by local partners as part of a coordinated effort for
community recovery, National VOAD members have worked to more clearly
define these roles and services through Points of Consensus, manuals
and tools, direct training and technical assistance, and other
guidance. Included in our written statement are the three currently
approved Points of Consensus for spiritual care, disaster case
management, and rebuilding and repair. By 2011, National VOAD hopes to
also offer Points of Consensus for mass care, volunteer management,
donation management, and working with diverse communities outside the
continental United States.
Additionally, National VOAD members have worked with FEMA and other
Federal and State partners to develop the Disaster Multi Agency Feeding
Template, a tool for local communities when developing their own mass
feeding plans in response to disasters. This tool supports the
integrated, interdependent system this country has for providing
disaster assistance.
National VOAD is also creating the first National Nonprofit Relief
Framework. Structured and modeled upon the National Response Framework
and to serve as a companion to it and the National Disaster Recovery
Framework, the National Nonprofit Relief Framework more clearly defines
how the nonprofit community in general and the National VOAD members in
particular respond to disaster in a cooperative and collaborative
manner. This document is scheduled to be released in December of this
year.
All of this work is being done to stress the role of the voluntary
organizations as part of a very elaborate and well coordinated team of
support for communities in response to disasters.
In addition, our members are providing programs throughout the
country in an effort to fight poverty, build resiliency to disaster,
and to recovery faster and more completely.
For example:
Feeding America has an Emergency Food and Shelter Program--a
hunger/homelessness prevention program that fights poverty and
builds community resilience to disaster. In its 26-year
history, the EFSP has provided $3.3 billion in funding to
address short-term needs that could lead to increased hunger
insecurity and homelessness. In 2009, 122 Feeding America
Members received a total of $11.7 million from the EFSP.
The Humane Society of The United States is working to
address the needs of people with pets, who are often a
vulnerable population given the amount of people with pets in a
given community and their reluctance to leave their and
evacuate. HSUS is working with Federal, State, and local
communities to include pets in all evacuation, sheltering, and
mass care planning.
Since 2007, the National Baptist Convention, USA Inc. has
been strategically planning and building a network to ensure
that those underserved communities can be integrated into the
mainstream disaster system. This is in an effort to lessen the
impact of a disaster for the total community. Their goal is not
necessarily to become standardized but to assess and bring to
table those new stakeholders that have much to contribute.
The Salvation Army has a program called ``Preparing
Together'' which is a preparedness initiative for seniors and
people with disability. The concept is simple; they are
training churches, clubs, and community organizations to pair a
volunteer with a senior or a person with a disability together
to act as a readiness coach, a family partner, an evacuation
advocate, and a sheltering in place guide.
Through their Resilient and Ready Communities Initiative,
Save the Children works with emergency planners, emergency
responders, schools, childcare leaders, caregivers, and
children to assess communities' strengths and address critical
gaps in emergency planning for children's comprehensive needs.
Based on a highly successful 1-year pilot project in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, Save the Children's Disaster Resilient Communities
for Children initiative engages community stakeholders in
implementing best practices of emergency planning to help to
safeguard children in at-risk communities.
Mennonite Disaster Service is involved in mitigation in a
variety of places, most notably, perhaps, in New Iberia, LA,
and Cheek, TX, where marginalized communities experienced minor
damage from a past hurricane, but economics and time have
hindered them from adequate or any repairs. Hence, small damage
has become a disaster through time and additional weather. MDS
is working on a number of homes, repairing roofs, walls,
flooring, and replacing whole kitchens for those most in need--
the uninsured, the underinsured, the disabled, elderly, and
single parent.
Affiliates of the Hands On Network offer neighborhood block
parties where neighbors incorporate preparedness planning and
community needs assessments to determine how best neighbors can
help neighbors in the event of a disaster.
Children's Disaster Services, part of the Church of the
Brethren Disaster Ministries, partners with the American Red
Cross to ensure that shelters and other service delivery sites
have temporary respite care for children when the need arises.
The American Red Cross is working across many agencies to
ensure the needs of children and people with disabilities and
other functional requirements, including the elderly, are
addressed. Red Cross representatives have served on working
groups for children's issues coordinated by the National
Commission on Children in Disasters and have implemented many
of the recommendations from the Commission into their
protocols. Recently, Red Cross representatives worked with FEMA
to assist in the creation of guidance for assisting people with
disabilities and functional needs in shelters. This guidance
will complement the guidance documents that Red Cross already
uses in ensuring shelters are accessible and inclusive. In
addition to their work with Federal agencies, the Red Cross has
a number of partnerships with other voluntary agencies. Local
chapters are encouraged to partner with Independent Living
Centers and other organizations that provide services for
people with disabilities to augment the Red Cross response
following a disaster.
These are just a few examples. But there is still much work to do.
Terms like ``special need'' and ``vulnerable populations'' allow us to
all too easily group very differing citizens into one homogeneous
population and provide instructions that are not appropriately
communicated or that are impossible to follow. These are issues that
must be addressed with key community representatives and then put into
practice by emergency management professionals. While planning needs to
include a true representation of the community--response, immediate
assistance, and long-term recovery all require a true integration of
voluntary organizations, like those that are members of National VOAD,
in order to meet all of the unmet needs of the community.
Madam Chairwoman and distinguished Members of the committee, I
would like to thank you again for your time, and would welcome any
questions you may have.
Attachments
Church of the Brethren Children's Disaster Services
PREPAREDNESS FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
All families that have been impacted by a disaster are vulnerable--
unexpectedly thrown into a struggle to survive, seeking food, clothing,
and shelter for their loved ones. In the midst of this are the
children, their concerns and emotional needs are not a priority as
parents seek to secure essentials for the family's physical needs.
``Homelessness for a child is more than loss of a house. It
disrupts every aspect of life. It separates children from their
belongings, beloved pets, reassuring routines, friends and community.
At a time when children should be developing a sense of safety and
security . . . they are severely challenged and limited by
unpredictability, dislocation and chaos.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ellen Bassuk, MD, Harvard Medical School--Quoted in National
Commission on Children and Disaster Interim Report, October 2009, p.
56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To an uninformed observer, children appear to be unaffected because
they can be seen playing, and play looks normal. In truth, the opposite
is true. Often their play reflects the trauma of the disaster. Children
have three unique, pervasive fears after a disaster without the
language to express them: Will it happen again? Will someone I love be
hurt? Who will take care of me?
Are infants and toddlers immune to traumatic stress? Absolutely
not! Young children pick up on the fear and anxiety of their parents
and caregivers, and become irritable and fussy themselves.
In shelters children are particularly vulnerable. In addition to
being stressed or traumatized by the disaster, the atmosphere is
chaotic, increasing their insecurity. The volunteers there are often
spontaneous and unscreened. Even if an ``Instant Background Check'' is
initiated or part of a response plan, it is often not completed before
a volunteer is placed with children or staffing a shelter with children
and other vulnerable people.
While in shelters or resource assistance centers, children and
families need support. Parents and caregivers feel overwhelmed by the
disaster, which demands all of their resources to cope and create a
plan for their family's recovery. This is an all-consuming task,
leaving little emotional energy to care for the unique disaster-related
needs of their children. Considering the wide needs of families,
supporting children through temporary respite care supports the parents
and caregivers as well.
One observed strategy in shelters is to provide a space for
children and then add toys. However, this quickly becomes a problem
without good supervision. An unsupervised area quickly becomes
cluttered; children act out their frustrations, increasing the chaos of
the shelter and in turn causing additional stress on the children.
Occasionally the shelter population can become organized to help with
supervision of children, but this is far from an adequate plan in most
situations.
In situations when children have prolonged exposure to the
devastating effects of the disaster, have witnessed extreme
destruction, experienced a personal loss, or were at risk before the
disaster stuck, they are particularly vulnerable to the impact of
trauma and can develop Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder which has been
shown to retard both emotional and cognitive development. In these
situations it is particularly important for staff or volunteers working
with these children have special training and experience.
John Kinsel \2\ shares three critical strategies important in the
recovery of children affected by disaster:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Kinsel, John. ``Working with Children and Adolescents after a
Disaster,'' in Disaster Spiritual Care: Practical Clergy Responses to
Community, Regional and National Tragedy, edited by S. Roberts and
W.W.C. Ashley. Woodstock, Vermont: Skylight Paths Publishing, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children need to be assured and reassured that they are
safe.
Even the youngest children that are verbal need a simple and
truthful explanation of what happened.
Reestablishment of some semblance of normal routines should
occur as soon as possible.
Hopefully it is increasingly clear that the care of children needs
considerable planning, not just in the most extreme situations, but in
nearly all disaster situations. Children simply can't be handed off to
whoever is available or shows up, a well designed plan that includes
the family, with support from prescreened and trained staff or
volunteers, is critical part of preparedness to most disasters.
In our three decades of experience training volunteers to work with
children after a disaster, we have learned that it is essential for
volunteers to understand:
The physical and emotional phases of a disaster.
Common responses of each age group to the experience of
disaster.
How to keep children safe in a disaster situation.
How to communicate to children in a way that promotes
healing.
Toys that will draw out a child's experiences.
How to set limits in a way that fosters a warm nurturing
environment for traumatized children.
Listening to distraught parents and appropriate resources to
share if requested.
This is accomplished through simulation of a shelter setting and
carefully planned exercises that give volunteers practice in the skills
being taught.
Children's Disaster Services (CDS) has implemented an expansion
plan that will increase the number of trained and certified volunteers
in disaster prone areas in the United States. Starting with the Gulf
and Pacific coasts, CDS will systematically train and certify
volunteers in these areas, deploying them with experienced leadership
to foster their understanding of working with children after disasters
until the area has the capacity for local leadership. This is being
done through partnerships with groups that have an interest in children
and disaster response. ``CDS (Children's Disaster Services) centers
provide a safe, secure environment where children can begin the process
of healing and recovery and parents can feel reassured that their
children are being cared for in a loving way.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Peek, Lori, Jeanette Sutton, and Judy Gump (2008). ``Caring for
Children in the Aftermath of Disaster: The Church of the Brethren's
Children's Disaster Services Program.'' Children, Youth and
Environments 10(1): 418.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our experience responding to 207 disasters over the past 3 decades
has shown that one crucial element of preparedness is that those in
charge of Disaster Recovery Centers, assistance centers, shelters, or
other service delivery sites know about the risk disasters pose to
children and give their needs priority when planning. It is essential
that managers know how to access appropriate respite care services. In
addition, it is crucial that sufficient numbers of volunteers are
trained to meet the special needs of traumatized children and are close
enough to the disaster to set up Temporary Respite Centers within 24-36
hours of a disaster's impact.
FEEDING AMERICA'S ON-GOING WORK WITH VULNERABLE POPULATIONS--BUILDING
COMMUNITY RESILIENCE
Community members living in the lower economic bracket are
disproportionately impacted by disaster. Research has shown that those
living in poverty are frequently more vulnerable to injury or death and
have a much more difficult path to recovery because they have fewer
savings and the lack financial flexibility that can help speed disaster
recovery. These individuals may be the least likely to evacuate and may
not have a support system to help them recover. Feeding America, the
largest domestic hunger relief organization comprised of over 200 food
banks across the Nation and serving over 60,000 local service
organizations in every county of the United States works with this
vulnerable and at-risk population every day.
In this, the world's wealthiest nation, one in eight people do not
know where they'll find their next meal. An estimated 36.2 million
Americans, or 12.2 percent, are food insecure; meaning their access to
enough food is limited by a lack of money and other resources. These
are American citizens with homes, jobs, and families, in communities of
every description. They are our neighbors, coworkers, relatives and
friends. Their stories are filled with lost jobs, stagnant wages,
medical calamities, and the rising costs of food and fuel. The last
year has brought many more Americans to the brink and as such
individuals, families, and whole communities are increasingly
vulnerable to the impact of disasters and will have greater difficulty
recovering following the next disaster.
Current Status: More Food and Funds, but Increased Need Leading to
Increased Vulnerability
Feeding America has increased the amount of food and grocery
products secured and distributed to its network of food banks
more by more than 22 percent over last year to 2.63 billion
pounds annually.
Financial donations increased 63 percent to $75 million in
fiscal year 2009.
Demand for food at agencies of local food banks around the
country still continues to outpace supply--demand has grown on
average by 30 percent over the past year.
Current recession and the continuing rise in unemployment--
now at 9.7% across the Nation--are having a profound effect on
the ability of local food banks to feed millions of Americans
living at risk of hunger and homelessness.
Over 55 percent of our Network members have had to turn away
clients because they cannot meet demand for food.
Emergency Food and Shelter Program--a hunger/homelessness
prevention program that fights poverty and builds
community resilience to disaster
In its 26-year history, EFSP has provided $3.3 billion in
funding to address short-term needs that could lead to
increased hunger insecurity and homelessness.
In 2009, 122 FA members received a total of $11.7 million
from the EFSP.
The Feeding America network and individual member food banks
can be a resource for identifying and quantifying hunger in
communities and can efficiently meet these needs.
The relationships established on a day-to-day basis through this
program provide a unique outlet for the Federal Government to work with
in times of disasters. Marrying up the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Voluntary Agency Liaisons, cadres of Community Relations
Specialists with the EFSP local boards will help resources get out to
those who need it most in an expedited manner.
PREPAREDNESS
Feeding America Member Food Banks are working with corporate and
non-profit partners to share preparedness materials with their network
of social service agencies that serve populations which Government has
traditionally struggled to reach including the poor, seniors, children,
and recent immigrants. The following case studies highlight some recent
initiatives to improve community and individual preparedness.
North Texas Mass Care Task Force begins work to enhance
local disaster-relief efforts
Goal: To increase number of people to be sheltered and fed to 40,000
individuals.
Following the 1-year anniversary of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in
the Gulf region, executives of the North Texas Food Bank (NTFB),
American Red Cross Dallas Area Chapter (ARC), The Salvation Army
Metroplex Area Command (TSA) and the Volunteer Center of North Texas
(VCNT) came together to initiate an important project designed to
improve the efficacy and efficiency of mass care disaster response for
their community. These four non-profit organizations formed the Mass
Care Task Force to strengthen their ability to take action in
partnership when called upon to respond to a disaster in North Texas,
or to serve evacuees from a neighboring community.
The task force helped to fully define each organization's primary
responsibilities to avoid duplication. The strides made since 2005 and
when Hurricane Ike hit in 2008 demonstrated the success such
collaboration and planning can have in preparing non-profits to respond
to disasters. ``But with Ike in 2008, we knew exactly what resources
were needed and the right agencies to provide them as a result of our
Mass Care Task Force planning,'' said Jan Pruitt, president and chief
executive officer of the North Texas Food Bank. ``The organizations in
the Mass Care Task Force want to make sure we're prepared to meet the
needs of the North Texas community should a much larger disaster
occur.''
In early 2009, the Communities Foundation of Texas announced $5
million as a challenge grant over 4 years to support development and
implementation of a Mass Care Response and Disaster Relief Plan for
North Texas with funds from its W.W. Caruth, Jr. Foundation. This is
the first-in-the-Nation collaboration of this scope with the goal of
increasing emergency preparedness from their current ability to shelter
and feed 7,800 to being able to accommodate 40,000 individuals.
On May 20, 2009, National representatives of Feeding America, the
American Red Cross, Salvation Army joined the North Texas Mass Care
Task Force and the W.W. Caruth, Jr. Foundation to recognize the
important work of this task force in keeping North Texans safer in
times of disaster and hosted a kick-off meeting for the next phase of
their work together. Specifically, the Task Force began work on a joint
disaster planning and exercise effort to further refine the joint
operations plan through a series of table-top exercises with the final
plan expect by late 2009.
Partnership for Forward-staging of Essential Hurricane
Supplies
Goal: Reduce lag time associated with the movement of shelf-stable
nutritional supplement to areas impacted by disaster and/or receiving
larger numbers of evacuees.
Pre-positioning is one of the most effective ways to provide life
saving/sustaining supplies in a timely manner. Abbott Nutrition has
been a long-time supporter of Feeding America with the staging of
disaster relief supplies. Abbott wanted to explore new ways to support
food banks in disaster with a slightly more forward-leaning approach.
Rather than placing all of the donated relief supplies in the 5
National disaster distribution centers--we staged smaller amounts of
Abbott product directly in food banks throughout the Southeast and Gulf
Regions. The pre-positioning sought to reduce the time lag associated
with transporting this type of product to responding food banks and
organizations while quickly address shelter support and immediate needs
following an evacuation and/or effects of a storm. To do this Abbott
donated supplies including Pediasure, Pedialyte, Ensure, and Zone which
were staged in pre-packaged, pre-mixed modules. The East Texas Food
Bank in Tyler and America's Second Harvest of South Georgia in Valdosta
agreed to serve as mixing centers for the Network by packaging the
donated supplies for distribution prior to the beginning of Hurricane
Season. The Feeding America-Abbott Disaster supplies were delivered to
multiple locations the last week in May, coinciding with National
Hurricane Preparedness Week (May 24-30). Locations were selected due to
its vulnerability to hurricane, ability to assist in disaster response
and recovery, and the quantities were based on the size of the
population in the food banks' service areas. Specifically, Feeding
America pre-staged Abbott's donated goods at 7 food banks that served a
population over 1 million, and another 14 food banks with service areas
under 1 million. The partnership exemplified the investment that can be
made to help communities in urgent need, when disasters strike.
California Earthquake Table-top Exercise
Goal: To build capacity of local faith-based and non-profit
organizations and to improve COOP.
On Wednesday, July 1, 2009 the Foodbank of Santa Barbara County,
California hosted a disaster preparedness conference and table-top
exercise with representatives from more than 30 member agencies that
provide emergency services through food distributions, preparation and
by providing shelter. The half-day conference included representatives
from Feeding America, the Orfalea Foundation and the American Red Cross
representative to the county's Voluntary Organizations Active in
Disasters.
The development of the conference agenda and its facilitation were
a collaborative effort between the Santa Barbara Food Bank and Feeding
America's National Office. The conference included a table-top
discussion of an simulated earthquake scenario with the local service
agencies working through a variety of problem statements to be resolved
within their geographical area; a presentation by on Continuity of
Service or Who's Open for Business to help provide the basic tools
needed to develop a disaster contingency plan, and then a discussion
with the Red Cross on coordination of service delivery during times of
disasters.
The funding for the conference was provided by the Orfalea
Foundation as part of its ``Aware & Prepare: A Community Partnership to
Strengthen Emergency & Disaster Readiness'' and in partnership with the
Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Services (SBC OES). The
initiative's mission is to create a community partnership to strengthen
capabilities to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from an
emergency or disaster in Santa Barbara County.
The conference was an opportunity to address seven key areas of
disaster preparedness, including:
Public Education and Awareness.
Coordination and Communication.
Preparedness.
Emergency Public Information.
Resources and Personnel.
Volunteer Organizations Active in Disasters.
Tarrant Area Food Bank Engages Vulnerable Populations in
Preparedness
Target Corporation supports the disaster programs of Feeding
America, The Salvation Army, and the American Red Cross and has
developed a Family Safety booklet to promote disaster preparedness. The
booklet contains a checklist of supplies that every family should have
on hand at all times, as well as tips for keeping children safe and
helping families create a safety plan. The disaster preparedness
booklet was made available in Target stores during National
Preparedness Month in September 2009.
In September 2009, the Tarrant Area Food Bank in San Antonio was
able to distribute more than 1,000 copies of the Target disaster
preparedness materials to more than 300 social service agencies
throughout the 13 counties that they serve. Through this network of
food bank agencies, they were able to share information about
individual and family preparedness with children, seniors, and recent
immigrants that frequently are not the target of disaster preparedness
efforts.
RESPONSE
Feeding America Member Food Banks supplements mass care congregant
feeding sites managed by National VOAD partners, provides an alternate
distribution mechanism for individuals and families that cannot be
reached through Government Points of Distribution, and is involved with
household distribution of food that helps people move into the recovery
process. The following case study highlights the role that the Houston
Food Bank played as a partner and resource to emergency management at
the local, State, and Federal level.
BP Deepwater Horizon Gulf Coast Oil Spill
Many coastal communities throughout Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida are reporting drop-off in sales from their
grocers, revenue losses from money spent in restaurants, condos, and
hotel rentals, as well as the loss wages of boat owners and crews and
the seafood packing operators. To respond to the increased demand for
assistance, Feeding America food banks throughout these coastal
communities in these States are bracing for the long-term economic
impact and burdens families will face.
Immediately the Second Harvest Food Bank of New Orleans and
Acadiana began preparing for the need to support their communities for
the long term. They began working with other VOAD partners, emergency
management community and started to identify the long-term impact this
devastating event would have on their communities. They began to
distribute food and water to those in need and are currently assessing
how they will continue to do so for those newly in need.
In response to record unemployment and uncertainty with the recent
oil spill, Bay Area Food Bank (Theodore/Mobile) began deploying the
mobile pantry program, a traveling food pantry, to those communities
affected along the Gulf Coast including Pascagoula, MS (1 distribution)
and Grand Bay, AL (5). Specific distributions are scheduled for
additional mobile pantries in Bay St. Louis, MS (1); Bayou La Batre, AL
(4); Biloxi, MS (1) and Grand Bay, AL (7). Considered a blessing to the
grateful families who receive the much needed food, recipients have
been heard saying that they had ``given up all hope until the mobile
pantry showed up'' (Pensacola, FL). Several ladies attended a food
distribution in Grand Bay, Alabama after losing their jobs just 2 days
earlier. Both stated that the food from the trailer was a ``godsend''
to them and they ``didn't know what they would do without it.'' Some
distributions are targeted specifically for the Asian community's
dietary preferences and will also include SNAP enrollment information
in various Asian languages.
Many of these communities are still recovering from Hurricane
Katrina. Of particular interest to this committee may be that the
Mobile Pantry operation in the Bay St. Louis/Waveland, MS area is being
conducted at a temporary church building where both the church and the
area homes were entirely underwater and devastated by Katrina. This
church hosted the pantry distribution and provided cooking classes to
talk about how to prepare the food provided by the pantry as well as
held discussions on how to stretch food dollars.
April 2010 Flooding: Second Harvest of Middle Tennessee
(Nashville)
As a result of the flooding in late April of this year, Second
Harvest of Middle Tennessee worked on contingency plans developed over
the weekend for the flooding as their facility was directly impacted by
5 feet of water. The food bank quickly became inaccessible due to road
closures and lost valuable equipment, office space and product.
Further, it quickly moved over 200 pallets of key disaster food items
such as peanut butter, canned meats, vegetables and fruit and cereals
to its alternate facility at a warehouse facility at Metro Nashville
Airport.
From that location, Second Harvest Food Bank activated its disaster
team and began responding to the needs of the community and individuals
who had been affected by the flooding disaster. In the immediate days
following the flooding, Second Harvest's efforts focused on assembling
and distributing emergency food boxes, cleaning supplies, bottled
water, and other non-food items to Metro's Disaster Information
Centers.
When the flood waters receded and Metro Center became accessible
and power was restored, Second Harvest reoccupied its building and
quickly accelerated operations to meet both the on-going hunger needs
in our community and the emergency food needs for folks affected by the
disaster. The primary instrument by which they used to distribute food
quickly and efficiently into the rural counties affected by the
disaster was Mobile Pantries. The Mobile Pantry is a traveling food
pantry that delivers food directly to agencies to hold a large-scale
food distribution for people in need. To continue their day-to-day
services and the added needs caused by the flooding, Second Harvest of
Middle TN reached out to their local Kroger, Walmart, and Dollar
General contacts regarding their interest in supporting food bank flood
relief efforts. Other members of the Feeding America network quickly
stepped in and offered support--personnel and product--but true to the
Volunteer State, the food bank effectively engaged in local partners to
raise funds and foods to meet the needs thus minimized the need to ship
in product from other areas.
Since May 2, when the rain finally stopped, Second Harvest has
operated 20 Mobile Pantries, distributing close to 1,000,000 pounds
(781,250 meals) to folks whose lives have been affected by the flooding
disaster.
Hurricane Ike: Houston Food Bank as Force-multiplier for
Emergency Management
The 2008 hurricane season was recognized to have been one of the
busiest seasons on record by National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and Hurricane Ike goes down as the third-most
destructive storm in history. The Houston Food Bank played an integral
role supporting the response operations in America's fourth-largest
city and to Galveston Island which bore the brunt of the storm's
landfall.
The Houston Food Bank (HFB) distributed just over 20 million pounds
of relief supplies during the initial relief efforts and during the on-
going recovery phase. HFB coordinated with 239 different local agencies
thereby lending an distribution infrastructure to emergency management
partners that allowed far wider and more diverse coverage than is
possible through the County Points of Distribution (POD). The food
bank, along with partner agencies were able to reached deep into even
the small population neighborhoods that were otherwise not being
reached through traditional distribution efforts. In areas where there
were no viable agencies in existence, the food bank utilized mobile
pantries and made deliveries.
HFB began distribution the day after landfall and ramped up to an
average daily output of over 500,000 pounds within 4 days. Well over 50
percent of the relief supplies distributed originated with FEMA and was
provided in coordination with the State of Texas' feeding plan and the
cooperation of Houston City officials. The balance of the relief
supplies, beyond the product that originating with FEMA, was provided
through private donations at the local level and through National
corporate partners leveraged by the Feeding America National Office.
RECOVERY
Feeding America Member Food Banks remain in communities long after
other National relief efforts have ended and they continue to support
the immediate and long-term recovery efforts of community-based
organizations. The following case study highlights recent efforts to by
the Northeast Iowa Food Bank during the floods in June 2008 and during
the on-going recovery for the communities they serve.
Midwest Floods of 2008: Northeast Iowa Food Bank Support of
Long-term Recovery
The flooding experienced in Northeast Iowa continues to impact
communities through the long-term rebuilding and on-going mental health
treatment for children impacted.
The Northeast Iowa Food Bank has made a conscious effort to stay
involved with the long-term recovery process of the communities we
serve. Staff have been dedicated to be a member of multiple long-term
recovery committees and have supported work crew and camps for long-
term mental for children.
Northeast Iowa Food Bank and Camp Noah
Providing food and drinks to camps in 8 cities affected by
flooding and/or tornadoes of 2008:
New Hartford
Hazelton
Parkersburg
Shell Rock
Waverly
Lamont
Dunkerton
Laporte City
Product provided includes:
Water
Gatorade
Fruit Juice
Shelf Stable Milk
Snacks (Chips, Fruit Snacks, Granola Bars)
Macaroni and Cheese
Ground Beef
Ground Turkey
Hot Dogs
Canned Fruits and Vegetable
Fresh Produce
Bakery Items.
Camps are completely funded by the community and it cost $2,500 to
bring the National team in. By helping to provide the food we are able
to help supplement the budgets for these important camps in rural
communities.
Humane Society of the United States
For the past few decades, and especially since Hurricane Katrina,
the Federal Government and many State and local emergency management
officials have increased their awareness and recognition that families
and individuals with pets must be considered when addressing the needs
of vulnerable populations.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association's 2007
statistics, 59.5% of U.S. households have pets--and two-thirds of those
had more than one pet. This is an increase of more than 7 million pets
from the same organization's 2001 statistics, or a total of more than
680 million pets living with families.
In spite of the fact that pet owners are clearly in the majority in
our communities, planning and execution of disaster evacuation and
sheltering operations have not adequately or consistently addressed
their needs, resulting in loss of life and personal anguish.
We have learned too many times that individuals have failed to
evacuate, or have returned to dangerous areas because they were not
allowed to take their pets away from dangerous conditions. Too many
times, we have seen heart-breaking images of pets torn from children's
arms, or watched distraught adults as they were forced to abandon
helpless pets, or learned of those who perished because they would not
leave their animals or lived on the streets because no shelter would
accept them. Too many times, first responders and emergency personnel
have been imperiled by circumstances involving injured or abandoned
pets in disasters.
The 2006 PETS Act, passed by Congress and signed by the President,
began to address the needs of this vulnerable population at the Federal
level. We applaud Congress and the Executive branch for taking this
action, and acknowledge the significant steps taken by FEMA, USDA/
APHIS, and other Federal agencies since then to address the needs of
families and individuals with pets. Our members have appreciated the
commitment shown by representatives of these agencies, and the active
role they have assumed in coordinating the efforts of public and
private disaster-related organizations to ensure that families with
animals are included in disaster planning.
By working together in collaboration and cooperation, the members
of the National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster have also
strengthened the fabric of non-profit support for families with
animals.
Many communities--especially those who have extensive experience
with disasters--have also recognized the importance of planning for
families with pets and have included them in the planning process. In
others, ``lessons learned'' after a disaster have included the need to
act on behalf of those with animals.
Our commitment to this vulnerable population is solid, and we
applaud the efforts by all those who have included planning for their
needs into their Disaster Plans. We encourage all communities currently
reviewing or updating their Disaster Plans to recognize and include the
needs of families and individuals with animals in disaster.
Mennonite Disaster Service
Virtually all of our work is being done within vulnerable
populations. Much of our continuing work entails preparedness and
mitigation.
ERT
We have been and continue to train Early Response Teams (ERT) in
various communities where we have sizable populations (specifically
Mennonites and Amish). They are supplied with a trailer (which they buy
together) that is equipped for self-containment and use as soon as the
authorities allow us to come in. It is loaded with chain saws, fuel,
water, and a great variety of tools.
MATERIALS
MDS uses an adapted version of the Lutheran Disaster Response's
``Preparing for Disaster: A Guide for [Mennonite] Congregations.'' MDS
also collaborated on a booklet called, ``Beyond our Fears: Following
Jesus in Times of Crisis,'' published by Mennonite Publishing Network.
HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS
MDS and MCC (Mennonite Central Committee--our sister organization
that concentrates on disaster response overseas, and activism in the
United States) met with Mennonite congregations in Texas to discuss and
plan preparedness for the next hurricanes, including the situation for
evacuees. Mennonite churches in San Antonio, Houston, and other parts
of Texas are readying themselves to receive those fleeing a storm.
MITIGATION
MDS is involved in mitigation in a variety of places, most notably,
perhaps, in New Iberia, LA, and Cheek, TX, where marginalized
communities experienced minor damage from a past hurricane, but
economics and time have hindered them from adequate or any repairs.
Hence, small damage has become a disaster through time and additional
weather. MDS is working on a number of homes, repairing roves, walls,
flooring, and replacing whole kitchens for those most in need--the
uninsured, the underinsured, the disabled, elderly, and single parent.
None of these really reflect the additional work being done in the
Gulf, even now as we listen and begin responding to those affected by
the oil spill--many of the people who have received help from MDS for
their homes are now looking at the oncoming and present disaster that
is the oil spill.--Scott Sundberg, Director of Communications Mennonite
Disaster Service.
National Baptist Convention, USA Inc
From: The Office of Disaster Management, National Baptist Convention,
USA Inc., Randy G. Vaughn, Director.
Through our Office of Disaster Management we are organizing and
structuring our convention to strengthen and fill gaps to the
vulnerable and underserved communities. The underserved communities
have been added to the list of vulnerable populations and should be
included as such due to these populations lacking resources to prepare
for a disaster and recover from its aftermath. We have begun to build
capacity, educate, and create new partnerships with other disaster-
related organizations.
Since 2007, the National Baptist Convention, USA Inc. has been
strategically planning and building a network to ensure that those
underserved communities can be integrated into the mainstream disaster
system. This is in an effort to lessen the impact of a disaster for the
total community. Our goal is not necessarily to become standardized but
to assess and bring to table those new stakeholders that have much to
contribute.
Capacity-building is a necessary activity for disaster risk
reduction; however we now recognize what a mammoth task it is to equip
15,000 communities in such a vast geographic area. The organizational
Development is moving steadily but the Human Development is lacking.
The resources to equip individuals with understanding, knowledge, and
skills are just not available.
If we equip and educate that vulnerable community it will become
economically beneficial as it will somewhat lessen the impact on public
safety net programs. Lack of preparedness for the health and welfare of
the vulnerable population can have devastating consequences. The
catalyst that will trigger better preparedness, mitigation, protection
of human health, and safety and welfare is additional informational and
economical resources.
Ms. Richardson. I thank all the witnesses for their
testimony. I will remind each Member that you will have 5
minutes to question the panel.
I will now recognize myself for questions.
Mr. Gundry, how does the Los Angeles school county of
education conduct inclusive preparedness planning with
consideration of children and young people who come from
economically disadvantaged area, diverse ethnic backgrounds,
and children with disabilities?
Mr. Gundry. That is a very big question. Right now, what
the county does is we coordinate primarily communications with
school districts around the county. Our superintendent has a
direct line of communication with the superintendents of all 80
districts and all--including the subdistricts of the Los
Angeles School District, each of which has its own
superintendent.
So there are 88 superintendents who she has a direct line
to. So we rely on those superintendents to take the information
that we give to them and implement their own emergency plans,
whatever kind of plans they have in place.
Now, we do have the responsibility for serving directly
many of the students with special needs in those school
districts, so we have our own emergency response plans in place
for our sites that serve the 27,000 students with disabilities
who are directly under our care.
Ms. Richardson. Of those 27,000 students, what do you have
in place to help them?
Mr. Gundry. Well, it varies site by site, because our sites
are located all over Los Angeles County. We have agreements
with local school districts to serve their students, because
there are still students within the local school districts, but
we operate the sites and hire the teachers.
So each site would have its own emergency preparedness
plan, depending on where it is, because they are widely diverse
and geographically diverse, as well, around the county, so it
would--we are talking about a site-by-site emergency
preparedness plan that we have.
Ms. Richardson. Are these plans required by the State or by
the Federal Government? Or is this just something that our
county is kind of taking the initiative in doing?
Mr. Gundry. They are required. Every school and every
school district is required to have an emergency preparedness
plan. Now, I don't believe that the monitoring of those plans--
it is kind of spotty.
So that is one of the reasons, we believe, that this bill
is so important, because we would help oversee the development
of those plans and--and help ensure that they are in place,
first of all, and that they meet whatever standards are--you
know, are agreed upon are necessary to have an effective
emergency preparedness plan.
Ms. Richardson. So if I am to understand you correctly,
your officers, in terms of--or the office within your county
department, serve as monitoring or collecting information. To
your knowledge, does the State or Federal Government provide
any monitoring or follow-up?
Mr. Gundry. I believe they do, but I don't believe it is
comprehensive. You know, they do periodic auditing of the
plans, and I don't believe there is any comprehensive system
for regularly reviewing the emergency preparedness plans. I
haven't seen them, but I would anticipate that they vary widely
in terms of their comprehensiveness from one school district to
another.
Ms. Richardson. Within those plans, do they include a
section for children who might have additional needs?
Mr. Gundry. I can't give you a direct answer to that
question. I can only guess. I would say that most of them
probably do not.
Ms. Richardson. Do you find that your particular--because
you are the largest county in the United States, and I am sure
you attend many conferences--do you find that what you do is
very different from what you see in other rural communities or
even urban communities?
Mr. Gundry. Yes, I think what we do is unusual, that there
is a coordinating agency that coordinates this kind of
communication among school districts. I came to Los Angeles
from Houston, which is a large school district, and there was
no regional coordination for this.
Even within the school district, we had good emergency
preparedness plans, but when I--as a principal, I remember when
I questioned my own, I saw that I was supposed to evacuate
1,000 students to a grocery store in the neighborhood, and I
asked the manager of the store if he was aware that we were
coming in an emergency, and he was not, so--and told me that we
were not welcome there.
So I think that, even when you have a plan in place, it has
to be well coordinated and communicated with others who may be
involved in that plan, because if you are evacuating schools
and neighborhoods, they have to go somewhere. Where they are
going, those people have to know that they are coming.
So there is a great deal of communication that is involved
in regular revisiting the plans, because when people change in
these locations, they may not be aware. Principals of schools
change. Managers of stores and other administrators in public
agencies change. If there is not a regular review of the plans,
people are not going to be aware of what they are and when they
are needed.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
Ms. Smith, I have 10 seconds. What have been some of the
most important lessons learned by VOAD that can assist others
who work with vulnerable populations?
Ms. Rothe-Smith. I would say very briefly that it is the
integration, it is the actual--we are very good at being
inclusive with our planning, but in the implementation,
particularly response and recovery, there are many lessons that
can be learned.
The members of National VOAD and others advocacy groups
really need to be engaged in the response and recovery
activities of emergency managers to fully realize the potential
and to serve the full community.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
Mr. Cao, as Ranking Member, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cao. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Gundry, the Los Angeles County school district is very
diverse in its student population. Is that correct?
Mr. Gundry. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Cao. Do you have the language accessibility for
minority students, Asians, Hispanics, and others who might not
speak English well?
Mr. Gundry. Yes. Yes, we do.
Mr. Cao. Do you conduct, for example, emergency plannings
with their parents?
Mr. Gundry. The county office does not do a direct planning
with parents. Our communications are primarily with school
districts, and then the school districts around the county have
the direct contact with parents.
Mr. Cao. Now, is there a system or are there ways for
parents of minority students to be able to understand some of
the planning procedures and how to, I guess, communicate with
their children in the event of an emergency, natural disaster,
or what have you?
Mr. Gundry. Excuse me. Again, we are talking about 80
different school districts and how they all operate
differently, but I would say, generally, yes. I think the
school districts in the county know who their population is,
and there are a number of different language groups represented
in the county.
I think the school districts by and large do a very good
job of knowing the languages that their parents speak and
making every effort to be sure that their communications are
getting to all of their community.
Mr. Cao. Okay. Ms. Rothe-Smith, what are some of the
criteria, if an organization were to--if they want to join with
your agency?
Ms. Rothe-Smith. National VOAD, as an organization, a
member would need to be National in scope, would need to be a
nonprofit organization, would need to have the ability to
respond within all 10 FEMA regions and have a specific disaster
mission or program. That is to name to few, but we do have a
more comprehensive membership criteria.
Mr. Cao. What do you see as the biggest challenges in
trying to eliminate the gaps found in planning, response, and
recovery for vulnerable populations?
Ms. Rothe-Smith. I would say that there is a lot of
different definitions around vulnerable population. While we
really need to be looking at a more comprehensive definition,
ultimately it really is incumbent upon the community to define
its vulnerable population.
Our National members, as I mentioned, are National in
scope, but they do need to engage with the local community on
those that are experts in disaster, but the community itself is
an expert in its community. That is the type of relationship
that needs to occur. That integration with emergency management
is what needs to occur.
Mr. Cao. Now, does your organization work closely with
FEMA?
Ms. Rothe-Smith. Yes. We have an MOU with FEMA. The
original one was 1994, and we just updated that MOU last month
and signed that.
Mr. Cao. Okay. Now, were you present in New Orleans after
Katrina?
Ms. Rothe-Smith. I was not in my role as----
Mr. Cao. Not you specifically, but your organization?
Ms. Rothe-Smith. Yes.
Mr. Cao. Okay. In what capacity?
Ms. Rothe-Smith. We are a coordinating body, so if you
consider us more like the United Nations of disaster relief
organizations--so we were hosting coordination calls, and we
were on the ground coordinating the member organizations. They
themselves, as direct service providers, were on the ground
providing service throughout the Gulf, but also throughout the
United States, receiving the evacuees that were coming into
communities.
Mr. Cao. Now, is your organization also involved in any
aspects in connection with the oil spill?
Ms. Rothe-Smith. Yes, not in an official capacity at this
point, but our member organizations are. The majority of them
are assessing the situation. They are determining what role
they might play, dependent upon a hazards assessment with the
particular spill recovery, but they are all involved in the
long-term economic impact that we will have, because the
majority of them are social service and faith-based
organizations that are already on the ground doing that type of
service.
Mr. Cao. What kind of services are they hoping to implement
for the long-term recovery?
Ms. Rothe-Smith. They would be looking at the humanitarian
needs, most specifically. The challenge right now is looking at
what the clean-up would be, but really they are looking to
assess, then, what the economic impact on the communities will
be, and then how they as social service and humanitarian
organizations would be able to provide assistance to those
unemployed or those needing additional resources.
Mr. Cao. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
Mr. Cleaver from Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Gundry, Ms. Rothe-Smith just mentioned United Nations.
Los Angeles is actually the United Nations with regard to the
diverse population. When you consider, as you mentioned in your
comments, students with disabilities who also have some limited
language or English proficiency creates a whole new problem.
Whether people want to accept it or not, Los Angeles is going
to be the United States.
What kind of recommendation do you have for us that would
hopefully give us the intelligence to shape our policies that
would provide help for not just kids in a school, but kids who
have disabilities and who also are unable to communicate as
well as they should and we would like in English?
Mr. Gundry. My recommendation is that, when--you know, if
this legislation passes and the grant money is authorized to go
out to agencies such as ours to have a coordinated response
among school districts, that they simply be part of the
application process for the grant, is to describe what the
specific plans are to accommodate students, you know, with any
kind of disability or any kind of vulnerability they may have
in time of emergency.
So it would be--in order to qualify for the grant money,
the agency would have to have a specific plan for dealing with
the needs of those vulnerable populations.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
Ms. Rothe-Smith, can you tell us any city in the country
that would be presently ideal as a shelter, where the disabled
could be accommodated? I mean, I have gone into the dome in New
Orleans to watch football. I am not sure that it was disabled-
ready.
So is there any place that could be a model for the rest of
the country?
Ms. Rothe-Smith. I think it is a difficult question for me
to answer. I wouldn't be able to--I am not an expert to assess
the disability accessibility for a given city.
However, I would say that, in a disaster, it is
increasingly difficult to assess that, because even in the most
accessible community, given the infrastructural damage or water
or whatever the impact might be, might impede the ability for a
person with a disability to actually get to the areas that are
accessible.
Mr. Cleaver. Okay. I understand, and I appreciate what you
are saying. But today, if we had to say to the Nation that, you
know, notwithstanding the type of disaster, Lubbock, Texas,
does, in fact, have some facilities that would accommodate all
of its citizens, including disabled--what I am getting at is,
we never think about that until it happens.
You know, people in wheelchairs are already--I mean, they
are already at an enormous disadvantage. Then when they can't
get inside a building, it is--I mean, they have, you know, two
or three times the likelihood of not surviving a disaster.
What I want to have our committee deal with--and, frankly,
FEMA, as well--is how we can make ready communities to do that?
I mean, is it awareness? Is it money? What do we do? Are there
places in the country that we can look to for guidance on this?
I used to be the mayor of Kansas City, Missouri. I can tell
you, we had two floors, 25 people who drowned in one, and 12 in
the other. We never, ever thought about people who would become
victims, No. 1, and never remotely thought about, you know:
``How do we get people who are disabled into safe places?'',
until after it was over.
Ms. Rothe-Smith. I would echo that. I think the previous
panel made the point of stating that our cities need to be more
accessible today, prior to the disaster, and then, in turn,
will make them more accessible post-disaster.
But additionally, I would say that it is important that we
integrate. Your closest shelter right now might not be a
special needs shelter, so does that mean that you get turned
away? That is part of the planning, and that is really why the
community itself needs to be so actively involved in its
response, to make aware what those vulnerabilities and gaps are
and address them prior to the disaster. But I absolutely agree
with you.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver.
I have two other questions. Would Members be okay with us
continuing a second round? Without objection? Okay.
Mr. Gundry, Congress included in the 9/11 Act a provision
allowing States in urban areas to use homeland security grant
programs for school preparedness activities. Has the L.A.
County School District ever applied for and received Federal
homeland security grant funding to support prepared activities?
If so, how have you used that funding?
Mr. Gundry. Madam Chairwoman, to my knowledge, we have not
applied.
Ms. Richardson. So, again, for the record, you are the
largest county in the school district, you haven't applied, and
you haven't been able to use any of the funding?
Mr. Gundry. Well, there are possibly school districts
within the county that have been. I am not aware of it.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Also, you mentioned funding is very
tight with teachers and just keeping people in the classroom.
How are teachers and school administrators trained to serve in
their important preparedness roles? How often do you conduct
disaster training for teachers and administrators?
You mentioned 2010, 2008, but specifically to this topic,
how are special needs or needs teachers prepared beyond, you
know, cover and roll, get under your desk? Are they actually
prepared to be able to move wheelchairs, to be able to make
sure--do they call someone to make sure that a van actually
comes? How extensive does it go for them?
Mr. Gundry. That is going to vary from one school district
to another. I know some school districts are well prepared with
very specific plans. The El Monte School District, for example,
has a very detailed plan, where teachers have walkie-talkies in
their classrooms and they are very well trained on specifically
what to do in times of emergency.
I am sure there are other school districts that have not
given their teachers any training. So they don't have they
kinds of detailed plans in place.
So that is the reason why we believe it is important to
have a coordinating agency that will help oversee the quality
of these emergency response plans throughout the county,
because they will vary widely from one district to another.
Ms. Richardson. How would you use--if the Elementary and
Secondary School Emergency Planning Act were to be passed, how
would you intend to recommend that we would use that funding?
Mr. Gundry. In our county, we would recommend that we have
at least one full-time employee who oversees training for
school districts, administrators, and possibly even teachers,
to have review of emergency planning plans, to make
recommendations to school districts, and the quality of their
plans, and the feasibility of the implementation. We would
coordinate that effort from one single location.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cleaver, any further questions?
Okay. Seeing no further questions, I will go back to my
script here and make sure we covered everything. Did the
witnesses have anything further that you wanted to share that
wasn't covered in the questions that were asked or your
testimony?
Mr. Gundry. No, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Rothe-Smith. No, thank you.
Ms. Richardson. I thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of
the subcommittee may have additional questions for the
witnesses, and we ask that you respond in writing
expeditiously--preferably within 2 weeks--in writing to those
questions.
Hearing no further business, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairwoman Laura Richardson for Marcie Roth
Question 1. What efforts has the Disability Coordinator taken to
meet each of the eleven responsibilities listed for the position in
Section 513 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 321b)?
Answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Office of Disability
PKEMRA REQUIREMENT Integration and NOT MET MET EXCEEDED ONGOING COMPLETED
Coordination 7/1/09-6/
15/10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
513(b)(1) Providing guidance The ODIC .................. X................ ................. X................ .................
and coordination on disability Director has provided
in emergency planning disability integration
requirements and relief expertise and guidance
efforts. at approximately 150
external engagements
spanning issues such
as disability
registries, disaster
mental health,
children, housing,
voluntary disaster
organizations,
emergency
communications,
rehabilitation
engineering, standards
for emergency
evacuation
technologies, and
hurricane preparedness.
ODIC operates
a listserve of 600
disability and
emergency management
stakeholders, and
provided them with
updates on
preparedness,
response, and recovery
related issues of
importance to children
and adults with
disabilities, their
families, support
service providers, and
communities.
The ODIC
Director has been
actively involved in
providing guidance and
subject matter
expertise preparing
for and during
flooding in several
States, the American
Samoa tsunami, H1N1
preparedness and
response, Haiti
earthquake (supporting
USAID), west coast
tsunami alert (Chile
earthquake), Deepwater
Horizon (supporting
the Coordination Team
and the Language
Access Team, and more.
ODIC has been
actively involved in
the development of a
Multi-Agency Shelter
Assessment tool to
assist States in
assessing the needs of
shelters and their
residents in a
disaster.
ODIC has
proposed methods to
incorporate disability
subject matter experts
in FEMA disaster
response (such as
disability cadres or
subject matter experts
incorporated into
existing FEMA cadres).
ODIC has begun
to develop a FEMA
Internal Disability
Working Group to
engage senior leaders
from across the agency
in collaborative
efforts to integrate
and coordinate the
disability access and
functional needs of
our constituents and
related issues of our
stakeholders and
partners.
ODIC is
planning a National
Capacity Building
Training for Fall,
2010 bringing together
emergency managers,
disability leaders,
and FEMA headquarters
and regional staff for
intensive cross-
training in both
disability and
emergency management.
513(b)(2) Interacting with The ODIC .................. ................. X................ X................ .................
staff at FEMA, National Director is providing
Council on Disability, technical assistance
Interagency Coordinating and expert guidance on
Council (ICC), and other disability integration
Federal, State, local, and in multiple venues
Tribal governments on within FEMA, such as:
disability in emergency FEMA's Regional
planning requirements and Offices, FEMA National
relief efforts. Advisory Council, the
National Disaster
Housing Taskforce, the
Pandemic Guidance
Workgroup, Logistics,
the Long Term Disaster
Recovery Initiative,
and the National
Exercise Program's
National Level
Exercise 11, including
the National Council
on Disability and
State representatives.
ODIC
participated in the
creation of a FEMA
Children's Working
Group, and established
a focus within that
group on children with
disabilities. ODIC is
participating in the
September, 2010
Children's Summit.
ODIC has
provided disability
integration expertise
in multiple FEMA
conferences related to
Logistics, Mass Care,
and External Affairs,
and organized outside
disability expert
presentations at these
venues as well.
The FEMA
Administrator holds
monthly meetings with
the National Council
on Disability Chair.
FEMA is a
sponsor of the
National Council on
Disability 20th
Anniversary ADA
Summit, and
collaborates with NCD
on a host of issues
including
preparedness, alerts
and warnings, National
level exercises,
disaster housing,
functional needs
support services,
durable medical
equipment & consumable
medical supplies, and
long-term disaster
recovery on an on-
going basis.
The ODIC
Director holds weekly
meetings with the DHS
Office for Civil
Rights and Civil
Liberties (which
oversees the
Interagency
Coordinating Council
on Emergency
Preparedness and
Individuals with
Disabilities (ICC)),
works with the ICC on
priority issues,
serves on the ICC
Health Subcommittee
and submitted a
chapter on ODIC
accomplishments for
the ICC Annual Report.
ODIC is
establishing a Citizen
Corps partnership with
the National Council
on Independent Living,
and assisted Citizen
Corps with their
Disability Law Webinar
on April 10, 2010.
ODIC has
convened a National
work group to assist
Mass Care's ``just-in-
time'' capacity for
FEMA to provide
durable medical
equipment and
consumable medical
supplies upon State
requests.
ODIC has on-
going meetings with
the Department of
Justice and the U.S.
Access Board.
513(b)(3) Consulting with ODIC holds .................. ................. X................ X................ .................
organizations that represent monthly meetings with
the interests and rights of the National Council
people with disabilities on Independent Living
regarding emergency planning Emergency Preparedness
requirements and relief Taskforce.
efforts.
ODIC is
developing Memorandums
of Understanding with
the National Council
on Independent Living,
the Disability Rights
Network, American
Association of
Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation,
National Association
of Rehabilitation
Nurses and the
National Association
of Technology Act
Programs to provide
disaster assistance at
Disability Recovery
Centers.
ODIC has
convened meetings with
the National Center
for Law and Economic
Justice, the Coalition
for Citizens with
Disabilities, National
Disability Rights
Network, the Access to
Readiness Coalition
and other constituent
and stakeholder groups.
513(b)(4) Coordination and The ODIC X................. ................. ................. X................ .................
dissemination of best Director presented to
practices and model evacuation the American National
plans for individuals with Standards Institute on
disabilities. disability integration
in emergency
evacuation in June,
2010.
The ODIC
Director is building
relationships with
disability researchers
in order to stay
abreast of findings
related to best
practices in emergency
evacuation and other
emergency management
issues.
The ODIC
Director met with the
Principal Investigator
for a study on
Disability and
Evacuation in June
2010.
The ODIC is
working with FEMA's
Mass Care Section to
identify and acquire
universal cots that
will enable people
with disabilities to
shelter at general
population shelters
instead of being sent
to medical facilities.
ODIC Director
is providing subject
matter expertise to a
FEMA/Harvard team
working on a
technology tool to
assist with tracking
people with mobility
disabilities
throughout their
evacuation.
513(b)(5) Development of ODIC .................. X................ ................. X................ .................
training materials and a collaborated with NCD,
curriculum for training of DOJ, the Red Cross,
emergency response providers, the National Council
State, local, and Tribal on Independent Living,
government officials, and National Disability
others. Rights Network and
various States and
regions to develop
Guidance on Planning
for Integration of
Functional Needs
Support Services in
General Population
Shelters. Document
release is expected
soon. Training for the
States on this
Guidance starts in
July, 2010.
ODIC
participated in
integrating
Comprehensive
Preparedness
Guidelines (CPG) 301
(Special Needs) into
CPG 101.1. document
release is expected
soon.
ODIC has
participated with Mass
Care in developing
curriculum for
training FEMA Regions,
States, Emergency
Managers and Shelter
Planners on Guidance
on Planning for
Integration of
Functional Needs
Support Services in
General Population
Shelters.
ODIC and the
U.S. Department of
Justice provided
training to FEMA's
Emergency Management
Institute staff on
disability rights laws
and the integration of
disability issues into
emergency management
training materials.
ODIC is
currently gathering
preparedness best
practices from our
State partners and
disability groups and
will share these tools
on the ODIC website.
513(b)(6) Promoting the ODIC is .................. X................ ................. X................ .................
accessibility of telephone providing guidance to
hotlines and websites. FEMA's READY Division
to enhance ready.gov
information on
disability and
emergency preparedness.
ODIC is
working with the U.S.
Department of Labor to
plan a new emergency
management section on
disability.gov website.
ODIC is
working with the ICC
on
DisabilityPreparedness
.Gov.
ODIC has
developed its own
website to provide
information and
guidance regarding
emergency management
and disability.
ODIC has
provided guidance to
FEMA's External
Affairs team and
throughout FEMA on web
accessibility.
ODIC has
provided guidance to
FEMA's External
Affairs team on
hotline accessibility
and providing accurate
public information.
513(b)(7) Working to ensure ODIC has been .................. X................ ................. X................ .................
that video programming working with the FEMA
distributors, including External Affairs team,
broadcasters, cable operators, the FCC and the ICC
and satellite television Subcommittee on
services, make emergency Emergency
information accessible to Communications on
individuals with hearing and accessible emergency
vision disabilities. information.
ODIC is
coordinating with
FEMA's Integrated
Public Alerts and
Warning System Program
Office, research and
development experts in
emergency
communications, the
National Council on
Disability and the FCC
to address accessible
emergency
communications.
ODIC and the
National Continuity
Programs Directorate
convened a meeting of
subject matter experts
to discuss IPAWS and
making emergency
information accessible
to individuals with
hearing and vision
disabilities.
513(b)(8) Ensuring the Met with X................. ................. ................. X................ .................
availability of accessible National group of
transportation options for paratransit providers
individuals with disabilities to discuss their role
in the event of an evacuation. in evacuation.
Working with
the ICC on accessible
evacuation
transportation issues.
Currently
providing input into
the National Mass
Evacuation Tracking
System.
Discussions
with Federal partners
about evacuation-
related transportation
issues to identify
current initiatives
and needs.
Advising FEMA
ESF8, USTRANSCOM/DOD
on air evacuation
planning as it affects
people with
disabilities, their
durable medical
equipment and personal
assistance/family
member(s).
513(b)(9) Providing guidance Led National .................. X................ ................. X................ .................
and implementing policies to efforts in
ensure that the rights and collaboration with the
wishes of individuals with ICC to engage the
disabilities regarding post- involvement of
evacuation residency and disability
relocation are respected. organizations and
constituents in the
development of the
National Long Term
Disaster Recovery
Framework.
Actively
participated as a
member of the National
Disaster Housing Task
Force.
513(b)(10) Ensuring that the ODIC .................. X................ ................. X................ .................
needs of individuals with collaborated with the
disabilities are included in National Preparedness
the components of the National Directorate (NPD) and
preparedness system. the Community
Preparedness Task
Force to include a
disability subject
matter expert (Angela
English, Executive
Director, TX
Governor's Office on
Disability).
Working with
NPD on several
documents including
integrating CPG 301
into CPG 101.1.
Actively
presenting
preparedness
information at
National and regional
preparedness
conferences.
Assisting
READY.Gov to include
the preparedness needs
of children and adults
with disabilities in
all preparedness
initiatives.
513(b)(11) Any other duties as FEMA's Senior .................. X................ ................. X................ .................
assigned by the administrator. Advisor for Disability
Issues established the
Office of Disability
Integration and
Coordination, securing
liaisons with multiple
FEMA offices and
arranging for interns
and detailees to staff
the office.
Assisting the
agency in identifying
universal design cots
to accommodate
individuals with
mobility disabilities
in general population
shelters.
Active
involvement in the
FEMA Children's
Working Group to
ensure that children
with disabilities are
included in all
children's initiatives.
Serving on the
administrator's Senior
Leaders Team.
Serving on the
deputy administrator's
Investment Review
Board.
Assisting the
administrator with
catastrophic planning
considerations to
include children and
adults with
disabilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. Please describe the number of staff as well as a brief
job description for each person that works within or supports,
including part time and non-paid personnel, the Office of Disability
Integration and Coordination.
Answer.
OFFICE OF DISABILITY INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION HEADQUARTERS STAFFING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Role Anticipated End Date Base with ODIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director................................. Ongoing..................... ODIC........................ 100
Office Manager........................... 12/8/10..................... Detail--VA NPSE............. 100
Community Liaison........................ 10/1/10..................... Detail--MD NPSE............. 100
Intern................................... 8/7/10...................... STEP........................ 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, ODIC has the support of other FEMA staff who are not
staffed directly in the ODIC. Specifically, FEMA External Affairs,
FEMA's Office of Chief Counsel, and FEMA Recovery Division Offices
including Mass Care and Correspondence, each have a liaison dedicated
to working specifically with ODIC.
Question 3. Please provide an update on the status of FEMA's
Comprehensive Planning Guidance 301 (Special Needs Planning), including
when it will be integrated into CPG 101 and publicly released.
Answer. FEMA CPG 101 and the interim documents 301 and 302, are
current public documents that will remain valid and in effect until the
release of the revised comprehensive CPG 101.1. FEMA has taken great
care to solicit input from relevant stakeholders. The revised CPG 101
(CPG101.1) is under review and is expected to be released soon.
Question 4. Please describe which regions currently have full-time
Disability Coordinators. For those regions without a Disability
Coordinator, please describe what position within the region also
serves in the capacity of the Disability Coordinator.
Answer. Each of the 10 FEMA Regions has at least one Point of
Contact who works on disability issues and coordinates with ODIC.
Regions II, V, VI, VII and IX have two positions and Regions III and IV
have three. ODIC assists regional staff working with disability
integration issues by providing training, capacity building, and the
opportunity to share ideas. ODIC is planning a National conference to
be held in Washington, DC in the early fall of this year that will
bring these regional staff members together with their State
counterparts and relevant subject matter experts to provide a strong
beginning to this collaborative National effort.
Question 5. For those individuals with a disability that must
shelter in place during a disaster, what plans does FEMA have to ensure
rescue workers and Government officials are made aware of each person's
location and needs?
Answer. FEMA provides guidance to States in support of their plan
to meet the needs of all of their citizens who must shelter in place.
This information is currently available in Comprehensive Preparedness
Guide (CPG) 101, and Interim CPG 301 and has been included in the draft
version of document, CPG 101.1. In addition, the Office of Disability
Integration and Coordination is offering training this summer to expand
and strengthen relationships between disability organizations and
emergency managers and planners so they can work together to integrate
resources and accommodate everyone during a disaster.
FEMA is committed to helping people with disabilities remain
independent and self-sufficient before, during, and after an emergency.
The agency provides guidance to all individuals as they develop their
personal preparedness plans, including those for people with
disabilities and access and functional needs, on www.Ready.gov. FEMA
also assists State and local governments, as well as organizations and
individuals, to prepare and plan to address the needs of all of their
citizens in an emergency or disaster.
FEMA also works with subject matter experts to expand the use of
promising and best practices in preparedness, alerts and warnings,
evacuation, transportation and sheltering, and other aspects of the
emergency life cycle to incorporate integrated emergency management
practices that are inclusive of children and adults with access and
functional needs, including individuals with disabilities.