FEMA: ASSESSING PREPAREDNESS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISADVANTAGED HOUSEHOLDS AND COMMUNITIES

• Sponsoring Institution: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Project Status: COMPLETE
• Funding Source: OTHER GRANTS
• Reporting Frequency: Annual
• Accession No.: 0216266
• Grant No.: 2008-48678-04904
• Cumulative Award Amt.: $318,182.00
• Proposal No.: 2008-05146
• Project Start Date: Sep 1, 2008
• Project End Date: Aug 31, 2009
• Grant Year: 2008
• Program Code: [MH.2]- PAS, Plant and Animal Systems

Recipient Organization
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV
(N/A)
MISSISSIPPI STATE,MS 39762

Performing Department
SOUTHERN RURAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER

Non Technical Summary
The devastating impacts associated with a rash of hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods in many parts of the South have resulted in catastrophic damage to countless rural and low-wealth communities that dot the landscape of many Southern states. While these disasters have created challenges for many individuals and households, they have had equally significant effects on several communities. In some cases, these disasters have compromised the physical, social, political, and natural resources infrastructures of communities, especially in low-wealth urban neighborhoods and disadvantaged rural localities. This proposal calls for the Southern Rural Development Center (SRDC), working partnership with land-grant university based Extension educators in key states, to undertake community-based field assessments of the level of disaster awareness and the state of preparedness among disadvantaged households and communities in 15 sites across 5 states. In this context, disadvantaged households/communities are defined as groups/communities that are disadvantaged socially or economically, or that are experiencing functional disabilities as a result of chronic medical problems or other special needs. The ultimate goal of this project is twofold: (1) gain clarity on how best to provide disadvantaged households and communities with the knowledge, tools, and capacity they need to effectively prepare for, and respond to, a variety of disasters; and (2) determine how well the resources produced as part of FEMS's Emergency Preparedness Demonstration Project effectively meet the needs of these disadvantaged audiences.

Animal Health Component

80%

Research Effort Categories

Basic

(N/A)

Applied

80%

Developmental

20%

Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)	Subject of Investigation (SOI)	Field of Science (FOS)	Percent
608	6050	3080	25%
608	6099	3080	10%
805	6050	3080	25%
805	6099	3080	15%
902	6050	3080	15%
902	6099	3080	10%

Knowledge Area
902 - Administration of Projects and Programs; 805 - Community Institutions, Health, and Social Services; 608 - Community Resource Planning and Development;

Subject Of Investigation
6099 - People and communities, general/other; 6050 - Communities, areas, and regions;

Field Of Science
3080 - Sociology;

Keywords

fema, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, south, southern states,

disasters

Goals / Objectives
1.Participate in a Start Up meeting with FEMA and CSREES. 2. Conduct an Assessment of Diaster Risk. 3. Organize and Host a Meeting of a Multi-State Project Advisory Committee 4. Conduct Multi-State Training of Extension Educators from the Target States 5. Work with Pilot States to Organize and Host Field Assessments of the EPD Program. 6. Host Second Meeting of the Advisory Committee to Study States Field Assessment Reports 7. Prepare Preliminary Report of Findings and Recommendations; Coordinate Initial Evaluation. 8. Complete and Submit Revised Final Report to CSREES.

Project Methods
SRDC project team to discuss the start-up of the SRDC project and project plans, and the reporting requirements associated with the EPD Program. SRDC will collaborate with the GeoResources Institute to undertake a vulnerability assessment in the Southern region for the purpose of determining which areas of the South are at the greatest risk of multiple disasters. SRDC will establish a regional advisory committee. Once the advisory committee membership is in place, the Center will host a meeting of this committee for the purpose of identifying 5 states that will be invited to take part in this emergency preparedness field assessment project. The intent of the workshop will be to introduce the Extension educators to the set of EPD Program products and procedures developed by representatives from MDC, Inc. and the University of North Carolina under contract with FEMA/DHS. The MDC/UNC team will lead discussions and respond to questions by attendees regarding these important products. The workshop will provide a vehicle for the Extension representatives from each of the 5 states to work in tandem with the SRDC on the selection of 3 communities in each state to serve as the sites in which to showcase and vet the EPD materials and protocol. The information generated by the GRI will serve as a valuable piece of information in guiding the selection of communities to targeted, as will the personal knowledge that Extension educators from these states bring to the table on these possible field sites. Development of detailed plans on how to organize and host the field assessments in each state's 3 community sites will be completed during the course of this workshop. Included will be a discussion of the type of information that the Extension educators in each state will be asked to complete at the conclusion of the field assessment/roundtable meetings. The bottom line is that SRDC and its Extension colleagues will evaluate how well these products and procedures can position disadvantaged people and communities to effectively plan for, and respond to, a variety of disasters. These two individuals will be asked to prepare a summary of their key findings/recommendations once all community roundtable sessions in their state are completed. SRDC will coordinate/host face-to-face meeting of its Multi-State Project Advisory Committee. The primary purpose of the meeting will be to carefully study and weigh through the reports prepared by the Extension team from each of the five pilot states. The committee will help identify common themes/concerns emerging from the field assessments, and offer key points that it feels should be highlighted in the final SRDC evaluation report being prepared and submitted to CSREES and FEMA. A conference call will be held with the CSREES and FEMA representatives, the MDC/UNC team, and other relevant parties for the purpose of reviewing, discussing, clarifying, and recommending refinements to SRDC team report of findings/recommendations. Prepare a final version of findings and recommendations regarding the value of the EPD program and offer specific steps to strengthen and improve the EPD Program and its associated materials/resources.

Progress 09/01/08 to 08/31/09

Outputs
OUTPUTS: The Southern Rural Development Center (SRDC) has served the lead role in the administration and organization of five teams of state-based Extension professionals acting in concert to evaluate the applicability of an educational program that is meant to strengthen the resolve of communities before, during and after a natural disaster. The education program, The Emergency Preparedness Demonstration Project (EPD), produced for and presented to FEMA as a means to enhance community ownership of the process of preparing for and recovering from disasters has never been tested on a series of communities in both urban and rural environments. The initial meeting that brought FEMA officials, the curriculum development team, SRDC staff, and all five state Extension teams was held in Atlanta, Georgia in January. The meeting was hosted by the SRDC, and provided agenda, travel information and reimbursement, and all other meeting logistics including meals and refreshments. With the assistance of county demographic descriptions provided by the SRDC, each state Extension team identified both and urban and rural county that would serve as an evaluation location for the EDP process. After locations were identified, the SRDC produced invitations, agendas, roundtable discussion outlines, reporting forms, PowerPoint presentations, and other informational handouts for each meeting. Between the months of February and June each state conducted three meetings in both their identified urban and rural locations. The first two meetings were set up so that community emergency responders and citizens groups could both review and discuss the EDP curriculum separately. The third and final meeting functioned as a means to make sure that the ideas of both community groups (Bridge Meeting) were accurately reflected and was conduct with members of both of the previous two meetings present. As outlined in the proposal for this project, SRDC staff and / or a principal investigator of this project was required to be at one of the meeting that occurred in each location. Each state then submitted a complete report for each community to the SRDC for review. Once all thirty meeting were conducted and all the state Extension teams had submitted a report for both locations within their state a final meeting was conducted. The date of the final meeting in which the final report for FEMA regarding community reaction the EDP curriculum will be formulated is scheduled for June 29th - 30th in Atlanta, Georgia. Again, the SRDC will act as the meeting host, providing lodging information, meeting agendas, handouts, demographic outlines and other necessary information, travel reimbursement, and other meeting logistics for the five Extension state teams. PARTICIPANTS: Participants in this project include but are not limited to Rachel Welborn, Shannon Lane Turner, Lionel Beaulieu, Alan Barefield, Roberto Gallardo, Vicki Vaughn and Alicia Barnes, (Southern Rural Development Center); Brain Whitacre, Stan Ralstin, Marty New, Ron Vick and Claude Bess (Oklahoma State Cooperative Extension Service); Deborah Tootle, Bobby Hall, and Ryan Francis, (Arkansas State University Cooperative Extension Service); Henry Cothran, Mark Brennan, Henry Grant, Molly Moon, Bruce Delaney, Pam Allen, George Rogers and Dave Mulkey (University of Florida Extension Service Cooperative Extension Service); Standford Dooley, Cynthia Pilcher, James Barnes, Shelia Haynes, Glenn Dixon, Dora Ann Hatch and Kay Lynn Tettleton (Louisiana State University Cooperative Extension); Mary Leuci, Eric Evans, Shelley Bush - Rowe and BJ Eavy (University of Missouri Cooperative Extension Service); Ralph Swisher (FEMA); David Salveson (University of North Carolina); John Cooper (MDC, Inc.); Carolyn Wilken (University of Florida); Tom Ball (EDEN); Rick Maurer (University of Kentucky); Judith Breland (Mississippi State University Cooperative Extension Service); Steve Smutko (North Carolina State University); Steve Cain (EDEN); Greg Taylor (Texas A & M Cooperative Extension Service); Eric Evans (University of Missouri); Paula Threadgill (Mississippi State University); Martis Jones (LA Association of Nonprofit Organizations); Ansy Vestal (Texas A & M University); LaVonya Malveaux (SW Center for Rural Initiatives) Joseph L. Wysocki (US Dept. of Agriculture); 274 community round table meeting participants. TARGET AUDIENCES: The target recipients of the project are those who final report who will ultimately be submitted. Based on our findings and observations it will be up to these decision makers as to the applicability of the Emergency Demonstration Project in various settings. More importantly, it is the hope of all involved in the multi-state process, that the ultimate outcome rest in better community disaster preparedness, response and recovery. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
The impacts and outcomes as they relate to the Emergency Demonstration Project that will be communicated with FEMA officials have yet to be outlined in their entirety. The impact of this project is not only to make suggestions as to applicability of EDP process in both urban and rural communities, but also to make recommendation as to how the EDP process could be modified to strengthen its applicability in various settings with the long range desired outcome being better community planning, preparation and recovery for and from natural disasters. Because meetings in which both emergency responders and citizen groups discussed emergency preparedness for their communities, and then met as one large group to discuss their meeting outcomes, these meetings alone stand as a means for greater awareness of community preparedness during a disaster. Community participants as well as emergency response personnel, in many instances had never met before for such discussions and therefore new networks of information, planning and awareness were forged as a result both within and between participating groups.

Publications

• Tootle, D. and B. Hall. Building Resilient Communities: State Project Report - Jefferson County, AR. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Tootle, D. and B. Hall. Building Resilient Communities: State Project Report - Ouchita County, AR. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Tootle, D. and B. Hall. Building Resilient Communities: Project Summary. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Cothran, H., M. Brennan, H. Grant, M. Moon, B. Delaney, and D. Mulkey. Building Resilient Communities: State Project Report - Escambia County, FL. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Cothran, H., M. Brennan, H. Grant, M. Moon, B. Delaney, and D. Mulkey. Building Resilient Communities: State Project Report - Gadsden County, FL. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Cothran, H., M. Brennan, H. Grant, M. Moon, B. Delaney, and D. Mulkey. Building Resilient Communities: Project Summary. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Dooley, S., C. Pilcher, J. Barnes, S. Haynes, G. Dixon, D.A. Hatch, and K.L. Tettleton. Building Resilient Communities: State Project Report - Ouachita Parish, LA. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Dooley, S., C. Pilcher, J. Barnes, S. Haynes, G. Dixon, D.A. Hatch, and K.L. Tettleton. Building Resilient Communities: State Project Report - Richland Parish, LA. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Dooley, S., C. Pilcher, J. Barnes, S. Haynes, G. Dixon, D.A. Hatch, and K.L. Tettleton. Building Resilient Communities: Project Summary. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Leuci, M. and E. Evans. Building Resilient Communities: State Project Report - Buchanon County, MO. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Leuci, M. and E. Evans. Building Resilient Communities: State Project Report - Maries County, MO. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Leuci, M. and E. Evans. Building Resilient Communities: Project Summary. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Whitacre, B. and S. Ralstin. Building Resilient Communities: State Project Report - Comanche County, OK. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Whitacre, B. and S. Ralstin. Building Resilient Communities: State Project Report - Okfuskee County, OK. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.
• Whitacre, B. and S. Ralstin. Building Resilient Communities: Project Summary. http://srdc.msstate.edu/building_resilient_communities/. 2009.