Disaster Response and Recovery. David A. McEntire

O’Brien and Mileti (1992) revealed that roughly 65% of citizens in these communities took part in disaster response activities. Nearly 200,000 people donated water and food to victims. 71,000 people supported the victims’ emotional needs. Another 31,500 took part in search and rescue operations. Citizens also cared for the wounded, cleared debris, and sheltered those in need. The major lesson from this disaster is that people living in affected or nearby locations are resources that can and will be utilized to address urgent disaster needs.

Since the time of Prince’s dissertation, emergent groups and the behavior they exhibit have been studied extensively (Rodriguez, Trainor and Quarantelli 2006; Quarantelli 1996). Their unique features and activities have been characterized in a variety of ways (see Drabek and McEntire, 2003, p. 98):

       Therapeutic community. Citizens come together to promote healing and rehabilitation.

       Synthetic community. People working together to resolve major challenges.

       Mass assault. A massive response that can sometimes be overwhelming.

       Altruistic community. Selfless acts to help and assist others.

       Utopian community. Harmonious relations that may exist for a short time right after a disaster.

       Emergence. The appearance of new organizations in time of crisis.

       Emergent behavior. The pursuit of tasks that are new and unfamiliar.

      Research also reveals that emergent groups are most likely to appear when there have been insufficient steps for preparedness, when disasters are especially severe, when there is a perception of dire need, and when people place blame for what has happened. Culture, socioeconomic status, and other factors may also determine the formation and purpose of groups. Such determinants may include religion, gender, and race and ethnicity.

      Once formed, emergent groups may become involved in search and rescue operations, damage assessment, shelter provision, emotional support for victims and other relief activities. As a result, these spontaneous organizations are beneficial for disaster response and recovery. They are typically present at the scene, even before most EMTs, police officers and fire fighters. Emergent groups may organize themselves quickly (and later, more formally) to address the needs made evident by disaster. Emergent groups possess diverse skills and have a deep commitment to the cause. They also provide an impressive number of volunteers that can be harnessed in times of disaster.

      These groups are not without potential drawbacks, however. The populace may have no formal disaster training. They may unintentionally injure those victims they are trying to help (e.g., by making mistakes when providing basic first aid). Emergent groups may also get in the way of professional responders as they go about their duties. Emergent responders may even create unique challenges for emergency managers. For example, after Hurricane Andrew, there were so many donations in terms of food and supplies that it was difficult for organizations to distribute the aid efficiently. Successful response and recovery operations require the harnessing of emergent groups while simultaneously minimizing any potential negative impact.

      Self‐Check

       What are emergent groups and why do they form after a disaster?

       Are emergent groups beneficial or detrimental? Explain your reasoning.

       How is a “mass assault” different than an “altruistic community?”

       What can be done to utilize emergent groups effectively?

2.5 Working with All Partners and the Whole Community

As an emergency management official, you must be aware how each of the agencies, organizations, groups and individuals interact during disasters. Thy myriad of people and organizations involved in disasters can be viewed holistically by means of a well‐known disaster organizational typology (Dynes, 1970) (see Figure 2‐9). This model was developed by scholars from the famous Disaster Research Center (DRC) at Ohio State University (now located at the University of Delaware). For this reason, it is called the DRC typology. Its purpose is to help scholars and practitioners comprehend the unique characteristics of organizations that engaged in activities during and after disasters.

      The DRC typology was developed by Russell Dynes and E.L. Quarantelli upon interviewing hundreds of people and practitioners who observed disasters or were involved in emergency management. These researchers categorized prior findings based on two dimensions and produced a fourfold typology of organizational involvement in disasters (Dynes, 1970; Quarantelli, 1966). The two dimensions of the model are tasks and structures.

      Tasks refer to the activities of the organization. This may include functions that are routine (common to the organization) or non‐routine (unfamiliar to the organization). Structures refer to the organization’s relationships and longevity. The organizational structure may be old (implying that it existed before the disaster) or new (suggesting that it was created after the disaster). Each type of organization has unique characteristics. For instance:

       Established organizations are groups that perform routine tasks with existing structures. A fire department falls under this category. A fire department existed before the disaster and it fulfills fire suppression functions on a daily basis.

       Expanding organizations are groups that perform routine tasks with new structures. The Red Cross falls under this category. Its diverse workers from around the country are sent to a disaster site, but they still complete their normal responsibilities.

       Extending organizations are groups that perform non‐routine tasks with existing structures. A possible example of this type of organization is a church. The pastor and congregation take new on duties but were familiar with one another prior to the disaster.

       Emergent organizations are groups that perform non‐routine tasks with new structures. Citizens who were strangers prior to a disaster fall into this category (e.g., if they are completing unfamiliar search and rescue activities for those injured in an earthquake).

      The DRC typology should be considered as a useful heuristic tool for those involved in response and recovery operations. This model underscores the fact that there are many groups that participate in emergency management activities and that they each have distinct backgrounds, different goals, unique experiences and varying lengths of existence. For these reasons, coordination among the various groups may be hindered and organizational conflicts or problems may occur. As an example, a fire department and police department may have an existing interagency rivalry (due to budgetary competition within a city), which may adversely affect cooperation in a disaster. Or it is possible that some nonprofit organizations may not wish to work with other humanitarian agencies in order to better highlight their individual accomplishments in a disaster.

Figure 2‐9 Disaster organizational typology

      For Example

       International Actors

      Disasters are not just domestic issues. They also affect all countries, although developing nations are especially vulnerable. For this reason, governments around the world have endorsed the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. A number of individuals, agencies, countries, and international organizations are also involved and assist with mitigation, preparedness and humanitarian response, and recovery operations. Here is a small sample:

       AmeriCares

       Bill and