Measuring and communicating the progress of recovery increases public confidence in the recovery process by promoting transparency, accountability and efficiency. It enables local leadership to identify ongoing recovery needs and engages partners in providing assistance and problem resolution. Recovery progress serves as a tracking mechanism for improving and adjusting recovery strategies and activities and ensuring continuing improvement. Communities determine how to qualify and quantify their progress. They measure progress toward recovery holistically, recognizing that recovery outcomes and impacts are measured beyond a single criterion such as dollars spent or assistance delivered on a program-by-program basis. The following are successful strategies for measuring progress:

Most community disaster recovery operations result in a Long-term Community Recovery Plan (LTCR) or Recovery Actions List(s) that will provide guidance to the disaster-stricken community as it progresses down the pathway of recovery.  LTCR and Recovery Action Lists are unique to the community and portray the goals that express the long-term recovery vision of the community members that were developed through the participatory planning process.  It is important to recognize that although LTCR Plans and Action List present a broad breadth of recovery projects and action-oriented recovery alternatives, these plans do not provide strategies as to how to implement these projects or provide communities with guidance on how to navigate the various recovery assistance programs or how best to manage the recovery process. 

Obtaining commitment to the Community Recovery Plan or Recovery Action List(s) by community leaders, key stakeholders and public officials outside of the disaster-stricken community is a necessity for sustained long-term community recovery activities, regardless of how small or significant these commitments may be. A written testimony of commitment provides physical testimony that an act of commitment has occurred.  A documented and public commitment will garnish the support of others, providing a foundation for future support and acknowledgement that will create an influential force of community improvement and change.  

In a post-disaster recovery environment, existing and new groups emerge to give support for, provide assistance to, and set agendas for community needs and long-term recovery efforts.  The ability for local government to coordinate with these institutions and their programs is contingent upon its ability to establish the support of external authorities (State EMA, FEMA, etc.) and to integrate other complimentary disaster recovery programs.  Furthermore, the institutional structure and decision-making process is of critical importance to sustaining long-term disaster recovery operations.  The institution, whether existing or new, must be able to fit into the overall governing structure, establish democratic processes, and be able to adapt to systematic and political changes.

Successful and sustainable community disaster recovery entails integrating public participation into the decision-making process.  Involving the public in the decision-making process provides an opportunity for interested public and affected stakeholders to participate and voice opposition, support, perspectives, and opinions.  Community disaster recovery organizations must be able to navigate the various community layers and involve those whose participation offers the most credibility and those stakeholder groups that are most influential.  As the outreach efforts progress, the players in long-term community recovery will constantly evolve, as new and emergent groups whose interests are affected by the decision-making process become involved in the long-term community recovery process.

Community disaster recovery organizations must not only engage community decision-makers but also stimulate the recognition of at-risk groups, identify high-risk and vulnerable conditions, and provide instrument of change through acknowledgement and commitment.  It is important to note that this often contradicts pre-disaster agendas. To further complicate matters, community disaster recovery deals with politically sensitive topics and often operates outside of the cone of credibility.  When an organization is looking to gain credibility and remain politically sensitive, it must include credible third parties to validate the decision-making process.  Community disaster recovery organizations can establish this credibility by engaging with third parties that are recognized and valued by the community.

Community disaster recovery is a long and arduous process that involves a litany of efforts involved with the reconstitution of services, rebuilding, and redevelopment. Recovery projects can take extensive amounts of time, energy, and particularly funding. There are a variety of funding sources available to communities, private non-profit organizations, businesses, families and individuals that have been affected by the disaster; however, it may take considerable effort to identify and obtain proper funding sources, coordinate these funding sources, and implemented funded projects. Funding disaster recovery can be generally secured from a variety of sources; however, the availability and accessibility of these sources of funding will vary based on the type and scale of the event.

Identifying and incorporating mitigation actions into the recovery process are the foundation of a truly effective community recovery process.  Mitigation, as defined by FEMA, is any action taken to eliminate or reduce long-term risk to human life and property from the consequences of natural and human-caused hazards.  Mitigation focuses on breaking the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. The benefits of implementing mitigation actions include:

FEMA’s mitigation grant programs provide funding for cost-effective mitigation activities that reduce disaster losses and protect life and property from future disaster damages. Currently, FEMA administers the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program, the Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) program, and the Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) program. The two new grant programs, RFC and SRL, are designed to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flooding to NFIP-insured structures, and thereby reduce the number of claims paid from the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF).

In 2020, FEMA launched the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program which will support states, local communities, tribes, and territories as they undertake hazard mitigation projects that reduce the risks they face from disasters and natural hazards. BRIC is a new FEMA pre-disaster hazard mitigation program that replaces the existing Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program.

Benefit-cost analysis is an important mechanism used among local, state and federal governments in evaluating hazard mitigation projects.  Benefit-cost analysis compares the “benefits” and “costs” of a proposed hazard mitigation project. For tornado and hurricane shelters, the only benefits considered are avoided future deaths and injuries in the shelter that are expected to occur as a result of the mitigation project. In other words, benefits are the reduction in expected future deaths and injuries (i.e., the difference in expected future deaths and injuries before and after the mitigation project). These benefits are monetized using Federal guidelines for loss of life and injury. The costs considered are those necessary to implement and maintain the specific mitigation project under evaluation.

Tough decisions are to be expected in any community’s disaster recovery process.  Communities will be presented with multiple recovery alternatives whose benefits and challenges may not always be obvious or be supported with unilateral agreement.   Sustainable community recovery is dependent upon not only the thorough analysis of recovery alternatives, but also informing decision makers and the public of the benefits and challenges of each recovery alternatives based on predefined criteria.

Communication is a critical element in any organization, and especially so for an organization that deals with the complexity and uncertainty of resolving disaster recovery challenges. The more an organization is people and idea oriented, the more important communication becomes. There are scores of ways an organization may choose to communicate with internal and external stakeholders; however, optimal communication will be accomplished by providing accurate information to all inquiring parties or individuals. Although internal communication is of extreme importance, external communications is paramount to ensuring that community recovery issues are identified and resolved effectively. Creating awareness of the community recovery issues, challenges and opportunities with external power agents, as well as recognizing the community vulnerabilities and hazard risks, is a crucial component of a sustainable and resilient community.

There are a variety of methods to effectively engage community organizations, interact with residents and new public frameworks. Each of the following methods is effective in their own right; however, they are even more powerful in fostering positive improvements and sustainable change when they are combined together. A few of these methods include:

The Community disaster recovery process is action-oriented and based upon the core planning principles of: 1) community driven, 2) public involvement, and 3) locally controlled.  Communities can choose different paths to recovery; however, in reality recovery is often constrained because the public is unaware of the choices before them, the lack of community support and buy-in, and the emergence of disaster recovery group conflicts.  Engaging the community and key stakeholders, providing them with information, and giving them a voice can help to reduce conflict and build consensus of long-term community recovery decisions.

Community disaster recovery starts at the local level and, therefore, requires the support of local communities and its leadership.  The incorporation of consensus building, and involvement of decision makers ensures a politically salient process that will foster community unity, improve the quality of the decisions, increase program efficiency, and maintain credibility of the recovery process.  The goal of the public information strategy is to ensure that the residents are given accurate and timely information for their use and own individual planning purposes. If information is not distributed quickly, rumors and misinformation spread and erode confidence in applicant management of the recovery operations.

One of the most immediate, and critical, operational needs for ESF 14 is the timely and accurate assessment of post-disaster community needs that is incorporated into community recovery strategy. A timely impact analysis and accurate needs assessment sets the operational tempo for the long-term community recovery and provides the necessary intelligence for local, regional, state and federal partners as to the necessity of ESF 14 support. A community’s impact assessment process should be comprised of three stages: 1) community impact profiles, 2) community cross-sector impact analysis, and 3) impact assessment and analysis. This information will be used not only to justify the necessity of ESF 14, but also provide an operational framework in which disaster management leadership and local community stakeholders are afforded a visionary perspective of potential disaster recovery issues. Most importantly, these assessments provide communities with a strategic perspective that extends beyond tactical operations of delivering immediate community needs and provide a framework for the management of sustained long-term recovery operations.

There has been growing attention of the importance of thoroughly understanding pre-disaster vulnerabilities and their association with understanding potential disaster impacts. Evidence has demonstrated that large-scale hazard events exacerbate the preexisting conditions of a community. This finding provides clarity that a community’s threat and hazard risks is a function not only of a community’s core capabilities and potential hazard impacts but also provides support that consideration must be made to evaluate the community’s pre-disaster conditions that either heighten or reduce its vulnerability to disaster. When disasters happen they have a cascading impact on a community and its residents, essential services, and critical assets. This understanding can assist in conducting a timely and accurate assessment of community hazard impacts.

The severity and impacts of the event, as well as the disaster-experience, capability, capacity, and perspective of the affected individuals and groups, will have profound effect in how recovery is defined and activities are prioritized. Similar to the other operational phases of emergency management (i.e., preparedness, response, and mitigation), recovery does not exist within a defined boundary of activities or timeframe. Recovery is a complex process in which pre-disaster emergency management practices, community cultures, and bureaucratic systems can have profound influence on the recovery process.

There is not a defined transition from response to recovery, and therefore the most daunting challenges faced during response such as debris removal, sheltering/temporary housing, and restoration of critical lifeline infrastructures often carry over into disaster recovery operations. In essence the ability to effectively manage and deliver vital short-term needs and to understand the challenges of recovery prior to the event, have a direct effect on the ability of communities to focus on broader sustained long-term recovery objectives and influence long-term recovery decisions.

There are litanies of disaster recovery activities that will be led or supported by a variety of organization types. These organizations will depend on the continued coordination and support of local, regional, and outside resources. Here are a few ‘typical’ disaster recovery activities communities should consider:

The corner stone to an effective community recovery strategy is a sound management plan that is supported by community leaders, elected officials, and disaster management professionals.  Purely developing a management plan is not enough; it must be formalized and recognized by multiple parties.  Furthermore, the management plan must balance many of the common controls of any success program effort: 1) ability to meet projected schedules, 2) control budgets, 3) operate within a defined magnitude or scope, and 4) achieve pre-determined community recovery performance objectives.  The common operations of a community recovery strategy include: