A Person-to-Person Disaster Response Online Infrastructure

You may find this blog repeats my comments from the previous two on the Valley Fire. Sorry, but each time I try to capture my ideas in text it comes out a little differently. My hope is that you will respond to these published essays by telling me what you think will work, what doesn’t make sense and how we can work together to implement any ideas that resonate with you. So…

More on how we might improve response to local disasters such as the still-burning Valley Fire in Lake County, CA.

Much of effective, sustained response to local disasters is a supply chain problem.  Uber and AirBNB have solved it. So can we. Underlying these “sharing economy” services is a rapidly responding database accessed through a user-friendly web site. If you need something you can go to the site and post a request. If you have something you can post your offer. The computer software matches need with offer and puts the parties in contact so that they can negotiate a deal. No middleman. No visible bureaucracy. Scalable solution that does not get overwhelmed.
Every local disaster — fire, flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, explosion, terrorist attack — has four major phases:
1) the outbreak, where getting people to safety is paramount;
2) second response, where people are sheltered, fed, treated medically and stabilized;
3) the interim, during which initial shock gives way to planning for a short-term future and assessing of resources;
4) rebuilding, when resources are sought and deployed to regain long-term housing, employment, educational goals and as much “normalcy” as possible. This is the perspective of both disaster victims and first responders such as police, fire departments and Red Cross.
From the perspective of well-meaning neighbors who are not endangered by the disaster the view is quite different. For most the beginning phases are:
  1. shock and emotional outpouring of sympathy;
  2. questioning how to help and assessment of resources available to offer;
  3. search for pathways to get offered resources to victims.
At this point the would-be givers are likely to have two very different experiences. Some will be successful at getting their offered donation to the individuals they wish to help. For example, someone with a horse trailer and pasture may succeed in picking up a stray pony, locating the owner and providing care for the animal for months until the owner is in a position to bring the beloved pet home again. Someone else may feel fulfilled by simply dropping off a bag of groceries at a designated shelter. These are positive outcomes for both donor and recipient. For them the 4th phase is
  1. Help delivered, donor feels virtuous.
A different donor experience results when first responders are overwhelmed on one side by the number of victims who need their immediate attention and, on the other side, the logistics of handling offers from a concerned and generous surrounding community. In this case the scene plays out thusly:
  1. Channels for delivering physical goods or services are blocked and donors are turned away
  2. Relief agencies begin appealing for cash instead of personal involvement
  3. Donors, feeling frustrated and angry, lose interest in the cause as soon as headlines fade
  4. Victims, having been steered to overwhelmed, understaffed and underfunded agencies are left without adequate support during their Interim and Rebuilding phases.
The Valley Fire broke out on Sept 12, 2015 about 60 miles east of my home. I learned about it the following morning, before the enormity of this catastrophe had penetrated the airways, and watched as the phases I’ve described unfolded. Among the onlookers on social media, shock and awe from sensational pictures were quickly followed by “how can I help?” This is when a supply chain infrastructure — one that does not require the attention of first responders — should be activated so that initial outpouring of desire to contribute can be channeled constructively and sustained over time. Here are a few of the features we need to build into an online, disaster action template.
 
  1. Mostly empty database-with-web-interface that can be activated immediately by a local community as soon as the disaster strikes.
  2. Publicity so that
    1. first responders are aware that activation can be done within seconds simply by going to the central site and naming the crisis.
    2. news sites will point people to this site
    3. social media participants will use a single site instead of creating competing sites on Facebook and other platforms (of course, not everyone will cooperate)
  3. Instant features (1st phase) should include:
    1. Call for rescue section
    2. Missing person – ‘I’m here’ section
    3. Pet Lost and Found section (publicize in advance to animal shelters)
    4. Emergency Shelters requests and offers section
  4. 24 hour features (person to person, not agency moderated)
    1. Short-term temporary housing match (to move people out of shelters and tents)
    2. Pet foster match
    3. Special goods match (for medical supplies, dietary needs, etc.)
  5. 24 hour agency support
    1. agency needs match (specifically for volunteers and warehouse space)
    2. money appeals
  6. Interim Phase
    1. Skills bank (offers of free labor, skills, consulting, counseling and temporary employment)
    2. Medium-term temporary housing match
    3. Vehicle and RV loan program (needs detailed planning)
    4. General goods and services match
  7. Rebuilding Phase
    1. Continue skills bank
    2. Continue warehouse program
    3. Continue skills bank
Each local disaster site should remain available as long as there are unsettled disaster victims.
Implementing this program can probably be done by a staff of 4 to 10 people:
  1. Database programmer
  2. Web UX designer
  3. Emergency response consultant
  4. Publicist
  5. Manager/Coordinator/Executive Director
  6. Supply chain/resource allocation consultant
  7. Legal consultant
  8. Site host/manager/webmaster/maintainer
It could be funded by a combination of grants and in-kind labor.
I wrote this idea up (again) after listening to KQED Radio’s Forum program on Thursday, Sept. 24, 2015. One of the guests was Kyle Sherman from the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at University of Pennsylvania. This essay is now in their hands (on their disk) and we’ll just have to wait and see how they respond. — No, don’t wait. You can respond regardless of what they do. You know, it takes a village…

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.