Emergency Needs of Vulnerable Populations in LA County: An...

2009

Written by Deborah Robinson, MBA, Ph.D. and David Miller, MPA for ENLA 6/5/2009

Emergency Needs of Vulnerable Populations in LA County: An Assessment of FBO/CBO Service Capacity

Report on Findings from ENLA Survey Emergency Network Los Angeles

Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................3 Development of Assessment Tools ..............................................................................................3 Organizations Included in Analysis ...............................................................................................4 4.2 Populations that May Require Additional Outreach Planning .................................................4 4.3a Size of Vulnerable/Special Needs Populations.....................................................................7 4.3b Services Provided .................................................................................................................9 4.3c Capacity to Perform Additional Services that May be Required During an Emergency......12

Food Preparation and/or Distribution ......................................................................................12 Staff or Volunteers to Assist with Various Disaster Services ..................................................13

Case Management ..............................................................................................................13 Clinical Nursing....................................................................................................................14 Feeding and Food Services.................................................................................................14 Mental Health Services........................................................................................................15 Spiritual Counseling.............................................................................................................15

Staff or Volunteers Who Can Interpret ....................................................................................17 Organizational Capacity to Provide Key Services ...................................................................17 Willingness to Allow a LA County Public Health Nurse to go with Staff into Client’s Home ....19

4.4a Recommendations to Address Gaps in Services for Vulnerable Populations in the Event of an Emergency.............................................................................................................................20 4.4b Current “Reach” of ENLA Member Agencies......................................................................26 4.4c Potential Capacity to Function in an Emergency ................................................................29

Does Your Organization Have a Written Emergency Plan?....................................................29 Number of Tabletop Exercises or Preparedness Workshops Attended ..................................30 Has Your Organization Responded to a Disaster in the Last Five Years?..............................31

4.5 Plan to Fill Identified Gaps in Services for Vulnerable/Special Needs Populations ..............34 Appendix 1: Survey Instrument...................................................................................................37 Appendix 2: List of Organizations that Completed the Various Surveys.....................................42

Supported by Grant Cooperative Agreement number 5U90TP917012-08 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the

official views of the Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc.

2


Emergency Needs of Vulnerable Populations in LA County: An Assessment of FBO/CBO Service Capacity

Introduction Emergency Network Los Angeles received a grant from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health in 2008 to increase the capacity of community-based organizations and faith-based organizations to support countywide response to pandemic influenza and other emergencies. One part of the project involved conducting an assessment of the needs of vulnerable/special needs populations (V/SNP) in LA County and the ability of county CBOs and FBOs to assist in this population during an emergency. This document is a report on the findings of that assessment. Specifically, it focuses on the following requests in section four of the Scope of Work:

4.2 Identify and define those specific populations through ENLA member agencies that may require additional outreach planning efforts by the Department of Public Health during an influenza pandemic or other emergency event. 4.3 For ENLA member agencies, provide information on the size of their special needs populations, services provided and resources needed to address additional services that may be required during an emergency.

4.4 Provide recommendations to address identified gaps in services for SNPs. This analysis should include both an assessment of the current “reach” of ENLA member agencies and their potential capacity to function in an emergency.

4.5 Draft a plan to fill identified gaps in services for special needs populations.

Development of Assessment Tools ENLA, with guidance from the LA County Department of Public Health staff and particularly Jeanne O’Donnell of the LA County Office of Emergency Management, created three questionnaires during the course of the project year to assess the required information: an ENLA Membership Survey, an Organizational Assets and Operational Capacity Survey, and a Resources and Assets during an Emergency Survey. Each survey will be described in turn. The ENLA Membership Survey was developed between June and September and launched in September 2008. The survey contained 52 questions and covered organizational background information, organizational plans, emergency supplies and training needs, vulnerable populations served, and communications/emergency information dissemination. The questionnaire was administered online via Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com). Thirty-eight (38) of the fifty-one (51) non-profit ENLA members completed the survey, resulting in a 74.5% completion rate. The Organizational Assets and Operational Capacity Survey was conducted as part of ENLA’s Golden Guardian exercise. ENLA tested three things during Golden Guardian 2008: Communication, EOC Management, and member Resources and Assets. Twenty-eight (28)

3


agencies and 36 people participated in the drill. Resources and assets were evaluated via an Organizational Assets and Operational Capacity survey using Survey Monkey. Seventeen (17) of the twenty-eight organizations participating in Golden Guardian completed the survey, resulting in a 60% completion rate. Of those seventeen organizations, eleven (11) were ENLA member organizations and five (5) were other non-profit organizations and one was a for-profit organization. The Resources and Assets during an Emergency Survey was finalized in March 2009 to assess the remaining items needed to meet the CDC/Public Health scope of work. The questionnaire included several questions from the previous surveys. In addition, other questions concerning vulnerable populations, gaps in the services, the capacity of CBOs and FBOs to function and provide additional services during an emergency. The survey was administered primarily online via Survey Monkey. In addition to ENLA member organizations, we sought to acquire information from other FBOs and CBOs who were not members of ENLA. Therefore, hard copies of the questionnaire were distributed at the ENLA March Training event in Santa Monica. The responses from those questionnaires were entered into Survey Monkey by hand. Finally, Mark Benthien, (Director of Communication, Education and Outreach Southern California Earthquake Center) sent information about the study and the link to the survey out to over 500 nonprofit organizations that participated in the Great ShakeOut. Although we thought that would be a great idea, it resulted in a lot of organizations completing the survey that were not our target audience. For instance, many hospitals signed up for the Great Shakeout. Although they are nonprofit organizations, they are not the typical CBO and FBO that makes up the membership of ENLA. Therefore, we excluded hospitals and Neighborhood Councils (which are not 501(c)3 organizations) from our analysis.

Organizations Included in Analysis In all, 132 organizations completed the survey. Of that number, we are only using the data from 66 organizations; 44 organizations that are ENLA members (67%)1 and 22 non-ENLA members (33%). Of the 66 organizations deleted from the analysis, 21answered two questions or less (basically a mistake, a test, or they didn’t want to continue after the first real questions), 19 were hospitals or other type of medical facility, 14 would be considered Associate/Governmental members and not the target of this exercise, and 12 were duplicate entries. Throughout this report “ENLA-members” refer to ENLA member organizations that completed the survey. “Non-members” refer to the organizations that are not currently members of ENLA, but completed the survey.

4.2 Populations that May Require Additional Outreach Planning Of the 66 respondents, 50 (75.8%) provided services to vulnerable populations. This percentage differed somewhat by ENLA membership; 73% of ENLA members and 82% of non-members provided services to vulnerable populations. For example, ENLA member organizations such as Shelter Partnership, Christians United in Response to Emergencies, Community Outreach Promoting Emergency Preparedness, Topanga Coalition for Energy Preparedness, and the United Way2 are not service-type organizations; they are research,

1 Catholic Charities of Los Angeles is a member organization. Eight of their service centers are included in the 44 member respondents. 2 The United Way supports organizations that are direct service providers. The “reach” of the United Way is discussed in section 4.4b.

4


emergency preparedness, and funders, respectively. Organizations that were not service providers did not answer the series of questions related to vulnerable populations served. With regards to an influenza pandemic or other emergency, we identified a wide range of populations that would require additional outreach. We asked respondents, “Which vulnerable/special needs populations (V/SNP) are served by your organization?” Of the 50 who provided services, 43 answered this follow-up question to determine which groups they serve. The results can be seen in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Vulnerable Populations Served

While responding organizations served all vulnerable populations, the most frequently mentioned was low income (76.7%), people experiencing homelessness (62.8%), children (58.1%), those with limited English or did not speak English at all (55.8%), and senior citizens (53.5%). On the other hand, only 16.3% indicated that they served those who are mentally challenged, and 20.9% served people dealing with substance abuse. To a certain extent, ENLA members and non-members served different populations. Most notably, non-members served fewer senior citizens, those who are limited or non-English speaking, those experiencing homelessness, those with low income, children, and recent immigrant populations, but served many more of those who are mentally challenged. It is only possible to make very general comments because of the low sample size. Only 43 answered the question; 27 ENLA members and 16 non-members. That being said, the results of vulnerable populations served by membership status can be seen in Figure 2 on the next page.

5


Figure 2. Vulnerable Population Served

By Membership Status

Four respondents mentioned other vulnerable populations that they serve that were not included on the list. Those responses can be seen in Table 1 below. It should be noted that one organization views anyone who is a victim of a disaster or emergency that needs help as vulnerable and thus they serve everyone in need. Non-discrimination as to who they serve is a main tenet of their organization. As such, it was impossible for this organization to identify specific vulnerable groups served.

Table 1. Other Vulnerable Populations Served

• Anyone who needs our help – non-discrimination • Victims of social and domestic violence • At-risk youths • People with compromised immune systems, but not HIV

CONCLUSION – ENLA member organizations are better at reaching certain vulnerable populations than others. Over 50% of member organizations serve children, people experiencing homelessness, those with limited English, those with low income, recent immigrants and senior citizens. ENLA member organizations tend not to reach those who are mentally challenged, those suffering from substance abuse, those with vision and hearing impairments, those with compromised immune systems, and the homebound. Our survey showed that the non-member organizations tended to serve those who are mentally challenged to a far greater extent. ENLA can use these findings to target outreach to organizations that

6


serve vulnerable populations that current members tend not to serve. By doing so, it would increase ENLA’s reach to a wider spectrum of vulnerable/special needs populations.

4.3a Size of Vulnerable/Special Needs Populations The size of the vulnerable/special needs populations served by responding organizations was assessed by asking, “Approximately how many vulnerable persons does your organization serve annually?” Although we thought this would be an easy question to answer, since this kind of information is required for government and foundation grants, it turned out to be rather difficult for respondents. Of the 50 organizations that indicated they serve vulnerable populations, only 33 provided information concerning the size of the vulnerable populations that they serve. Of those, 18 organizations were ENLA members and 15 were not members. In all, over 900,000 vulnerable people are served by respondents who answered this question. The overwhelming majority of those (700.000) are served by the Los Angeles Regional Foodbank. On the lower end, three organizations served fewer than 100 vulnerable people annually. Since one organization indicated that they served only 8 vulnerable people annually, either they misunderstood the question, or that is the extent of their service delivery to vulnerable populations. ENLA member organizations served many more vulnerable/special needs populations on average than non-member organizations; 50,200 vs. 1,670, respectively. Even if the LA Regional Foodbank is taken out of the analysis, ENLA member organizations serve more V/SNPs on average; 11,977 vs. 1,670, respectively.

Figure 4. Average Vulnerable/Special Needs Populations Served Annually by Membership Excluding LA Regional Foodbank

7


Another way to look at these data is to divide V/SNPs served into size groups. Six groups were created:

1. Organization that served less than 250 V/SNPs annually 2. 250-999 3. 1,000 – 2,999 4. 3,000-5,999 5. 6,000 – 9,999 6. 10,000 or more V/SNP annually

The results in Figure 5 below clearly shows that ENLA member organizations served larger numbers of V/SNPs compared to the non-member organizations. Figure 5. Vulnerable/Special Needs Populations Served Annually by Membership Status

8


Respondents were also asked, “Approximately what percentage of the total population you serve are vulnerable/special needs?” This was also very difficult for people to answer, but the clear majority of people served were vulnerable populations. Many organizations’ mandate or funding is tied to serving this population. For ENLA member organizations, on average 90% of the people they serve are vulnerable populations, while for non-member organizations, 73% of the people they serve are V/SNPs. This difference can be seen graphically in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6. Percentage of Population Served that are Vulnerable/Special Needs by ENLA Membership Status

CONCLUSION - ENLA member organizations who answered the survey can reach approximately 900,000 of the county’s vulnerable/special needs population. It must be noted though, 78% of those are reached through the Los Angeles Regional Foodbank. In addition, it is impossible to determine how many of the 900,000 are being served by multiple ENLA member organizations. The survey results also indicate that on average, 90% of the people ENLA member organizations serve are vulnerable populations. As ENLA’s membership continues to grow, it will continue to be an important partner for government agencies in terms of being able to reach vulnerable/special needs populations before, during, and after an emergency.

4.3b Services Provided Respondents were asked, “What primary services does your organization provide?” They were asked to indicate up to five services. Case management, information services, and food/feeding, were the services most frequently mentioned by the responding organizations; those services were mention by 36.8%, 33.3%, and 31.6%, respectively. The services least likely to be offered included legal aid (3.5%), animal services (5.3%), immigration/refugee (5.3%), and medical/disaster supplies (5.3%). All results for the services we asked about can be seen in Figure 7 below.

9


Figure 7. Primary Services Provided

Once again, ENLA members differed in the kinds of services provided compared to non-members, as can be seen in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Selected Services Provided by Membership Status

10


Compared to the 19 non-members, the 38 ENLA member organizations were much more likely to provide food/feeding services (47% vs. 5%), information services (40% vs. 21%), pastoral care (21% vs. 5%), religious services (21% vs. 5%), and shelters/sheltering services (21% vs. 11%). On the other hand, non-members were much more likely to provide case management services (24% vs. 63%) and disabled persons services (3% vs. 32%). Respondents provided other services that were not specifically listed in the questionnaire. These services can be seen in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Other Services Mentioned by Respondents

• Children’s School (Head Start) • Healing Center • Home Ownership Education, Lending,

Construction, Management • Home Visits • Rental Assistance • Grant Making • Social Reports • Financial Literacy • Needs Assessment, reconstruction,

Organizational Capacity Building • Communication • Children’s Museum • Advocacy for clients with Developmental

Disabilities • Communication services

• Policy Work • Worker Rights & Government Benefits • Domestic violence, Sex Offenders, HIV &

Hepatitis patients • Ministry training, Bible Doctrine related

to Poverty, Evangelism • Social Services • 24-Hour Suicide Hotline • Donation Management, Financial Aid,

Dental Care • Addiction Recovery Support Groups • Preparedness • Community Center • Support Group for people with Chronic

Illnesses and Caregivers • Preparedness services

We did not ask about preparedness or communication services. Six organizations spontaneously mentioned preparedness services and three mentioned communication. Even with these small numbers, there were differences by membership status. However, due to the small sample size, caution should be used when interpreting these differences. As can be seen in Table 3 below, ENLA member organizations mentioned preparedness services to a greater extent than non-members, but non-members mentioned communication services (primarily amateur radio services) more than members.

Table 3. Preparedness and Communications Services Mentioned by Membership

Members Non-Members Preparedness Services 15.8% 5.3% Communication 2.6% 10.5%

Conclusion – As with vulnerable populations served, ENLA member organizations and the non-member organizations that completed the survey tended to provide slightly different services. Recruitment of the non-member organizations that completed the survey and more organizations that provide animal, immigration/refugee, language (translation and

11


interpretation), legal aid, and medical/disaster supply services, would greatly enhance ENLA’s ability to not only provide key services, but also have a greater sense of the needs related to these issues and populations.

4.3c Capacity to Perform Additional Services that May be Required During an Emergency The scope of work focused on resources needed to provide additional services that may be required during an emergency. After consultation with the Public Health grant manager, it was decided that it would be more important to assess which organizations had the capacity to perform these additional services. We asked respondents about a range of services including food preparation and distribution, staff and volunteers who have certain skills, and the following additional services identified by LA County Public Health:

1. Delivery of meals to the homebound or other individuals. 2. Delivery of supplies or goods 3. Transportation of individuals to a POD (Point of Distribution) site 4. Dissemination of information from LA County Public Health or other government

agencies 5. Willingness to allow a LA County Public Health nurse to go with a staff person into a

client’s home to deliver necessary medication.

Food Preparation and/or Distribution Respondents were asked if their organization prepares meals on a regular basis, distributes food on a regular basis, both prepares meals and distributes food, or does neither. Once again, there were stark differences between ENLA member and non-member organizations. It should be noted that only the 50 organizations that indicated they provided services to vulnerable populations were asked this question. In addition, since data from early surveys from some organizations were copied to this survey, we had missing data for questions not asked on a previous survey. Therefore, we only had 38 responses to this question; 23 member organizations and 15 non-members. Quite notably, member organizations were much more likely to distribute food than non-member organizations (44% vs. 7%, respectively), and non-members were much more likely to neither distribute nor prepare food (60% vs. 26%, respectively). It was also interesting to note that ENLA member organizations distribute food much more frequently than they prepare meals; 44% vs.9%, respectively. Clearly, organizations that already have the capacity to distribute food could be very useful in the event of an emergency. These findings can be seen in Figure 9 on the next page.

12


Figure 9. Food Preparation and Distribution by Membership Status

Staff or Volunteers to Assist with Various Disaster Services Respondents were also asked if they had staff or volunteers who could assist with providing various disaster-related services. They were asked how many could assist with case management, clinical nursing, feeding/food service, mental health services and spiritual counseling. Case Management Thirty three percent of ENLA member organizations did not have staff or volunteers who could assist with case management compared to only 7% of non-members. In addition, at almost each staffing level, non-member organizations indicated that they had people to assist with case management. Once again, the findings from the survey show that the non-member organizations that responded are very different from the ENLA member organizations. It should be noted though, 14% of the member organizations who completed the survey had 25 or more staff/volunteers that could assist with case management in an emergency.

Table 4. Staff or Volunteers to Assist with Case Management

ENLA Member

Non-Member

Don’t Have

33% 7%

1-9 34% 47% 10-24 19% 33% 25+ 14% 13%

Cas

e M

anag

emen

t

# Orgs. 21 15

13


Clinical Nursing Although the majority of both members and non-members do not have clinical nursing capacity, non-members had more capacity in this area than ENLA members. Forty-four percent (44%) of non-members had 1-9 staff or volunteers who could provide clinical nursing. On the other hand, only 6% of ENLA organizations had this capacity. It should be noted that a few ENLA member organizations (6%) indicated that they had 25 or more staff or volunteers with this skill. Compared to case management, feeding/food service, mental health services, or spiritual counseling where capacity is spread out across the various levels, with clinical nursing, ENLA members either did not have people with those skills, or a few organizations had a large number of people with such skills. For non-members, a little more than half did not have anyone with those skills, while a little less than half had 1-9 people with those skills.

Table 5. Staff or Volunteers to Assist with Clinical Nursing Skills

ENLA

Member Non-Member

Don’t Have

88% 57%

1-9 6% 43% 10-24 0% 0% 25+ 6% 0%

Clin

ical

Nur

sing

# Orgs. 17 14 Feeding and Food Services As was seen in types of services provided and distribution of food, ENLA members have more capacity in this area (75%) than the non-members (50%).

Table 6. Staff or Volunteers to Assist with Feeding and Food Services

ENLA Member

Non-Member

Don’t Have

25% 50%

1-9 40% 22% 10-24 5% 14% 25+ 30% 14%

Feed

ing/

Fo

od S

ervi

ces

# Orgs. 20 14

14


Mental Health Services The data show that non-members have greater mental health service capacity compared to ENLA members. Seventy three percent of the non-members have at least one person with this skill compared to 42% of ENLA members.

Table 7. Staff or Volunteers to Assist with Mental Health Services

ENLA Member

Non-Member

Don’t Have

58% 27%

1-9 32% 47% 10-24 5% 20% 25+ 5% 6% M

enta

l H

ealth

Se

rvic

es

# Orgs. 19 15

Spiritual Counseling While slightly more than the majority of ENLA member organizations do not have staff or volunteers who could assist with spiritual counseling, the remaining member organizations had more staff with these skills than the non-member organizations.

Table 8. Staff or Volunteers to Assist with Spiritual Counseling

ENLA Member

Non-Member

Don’t Have 58% 43% 1-9 12% 43% 10-24 12% 7% 25+ 18% 7%

Spiri

tual

C

ouns

elin

g

# Orgs. 17 14 CONCLUSION – A large percentage of member organizations tended not to have staff or volunteers with clinical nursing skills and over 50% of the member organizations who answered the survey did not have staff or volunteers that could assist with mental health services or spiritual counseling. Figure 10 below shows the percentage of members and non-members that did not have any staff or volunteers who could assist with the services in question. The large percentage of organizations without clinical nursing skills should not be surprising given the target audience for this survey was community-based and faith-based organizations. That being said, 6% of ENLA members in the study had 25+ staff or volunteers with these skills. ENLA members have greatest capacity in the area of feeding and food service (30% of the organizations have 25+ staff or volunteers who could assist), and significant capacity in the area of spiritual counseling (18% of the organizations in the survey have 25+ staff or volunteers who could assist). Figure 11 below shows the percentage of members and non-members who had 25+ staff or volunteers who could assist with various services.

15


Figure 10. Percent of Organizations That Did Not Have Any Staff or Volunteers

Who Could Assist with Various Services

Figure 11. Percent of Organizations Who had 25+ Staff or Volunteers Who Could Assist with Various Services

16


Staff or Volunteers Who Can Interpret The overwhelming majority of both ENLA member and non-member organizations had staff or volunteers who could provide interpretation services; 96% vs. 80% respectively. Respondents were then asked how many staff and volunteers could interpret various languages. For the purposes of this analysis, the Figure 12 below indicates how many organizations indicated they had someone who could interpret (by membership status), but does not go into detail about how many interpreters organizations had for each language group.

Figure 12. Number of Organizations with Interpreters in This Language

Note: This is not a reflection of the number of interpreters for that language.

Organizational Capacity to Provide Key Services Respondents were asked a series of questions that were of particular interest to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Although it would be interesting to determine which organizations were willing to provide certain additional services, it was decided that at this time it was most important to assess what percentage of organizations currently had the capacity to provide key services in the event of an emergency or disaster. The results for the 39 organizations that answered this series of questions can be seen below. Organizations were less likely to have the capacity to deliver meals to the homebound or transport individuals to a POD site. They were evenly split on being able to deliver supplies or goods, and they overwhelmingly felt they could disseminate information from LA County Public Health. See Table 9 below for these results.

17


Table 9. Capacity to Provide Key Services in an Emergency or Disaster

YES NO Delivery of meals to the homebound or other individuals.

38% 62%

Delivery of supplies or goods

50% 50%

Transportation of individuals to a POD (Point of Distribution) site

37% 63%

Dissemination of information from LA County Public Health or other government agencies

79% 21%

There were some interesting differences in capacity to provide key services depending on ENLA membership. ENLA members were slightly more likely to have the capacity to deliver meals, deliver supplies or goods, and disseminate Public Health literature. It should be noted that these are only slight differences, and given the small cell size, these differences may just be due to random error. Most interesting though, it seems that more non-ENLA members were willing to transport individuals to a POD than ENLA members. It is unclear as to why this is the case. These results can be seen in Figure 13. Figure 13. Percentage of Those Who Said “Yes” Their Organization had the Capacity to

Provide Key Services During an Emergency by ENLA Membership

18

Rep

ort on Findings from ENLA Survey Emergency Network Los Angeles

19

Willingness to Allow a LA County Public Health Nurse to go with Staff into Client’s Home Although 45% of the respondents were willing to allow a nurse to go with staff into a client’s home to deliver necessary medication, 49% were not sure, while only 6% said they would not be willing to do so. There was a striking difference between ENLA members and non-members on this question. As can been seen in Figure 14 below, ENLA members were much more willing to allow a public health nurse to go with staff to a client’s home than non-members; 58% vs. 29% respectively. In addition, fewer members were “unsure” about their willingness to do this compared to non-members (37% vs. 64%, respectively). It is unclear why this is so, but maybe ENLA members have more familiarity with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and have developed a greater sense of trust than non-members.

Figure 14. Willingness to Allow Public Health Nurse to go with Staff to Client’s Home By Membership Status

CONCLUSION – Of the four additional services related to capacity in the survey, both ENLA members and non-members can most easily disseminate information from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Half of the respondents had the capacity to deliver supplies or goods, with ENLA members having a slightly higher capacity to do so. Delivery of meals to the homebound, and especially transportation of individuals to a POD site were much more difficult. Surprisingly, non-members had more capacity to transport individuals to a POD site than members (53% vs. 26%, respectively). Delivery of meals, supplies, transportation of individuals and the dissemination of information had more to do with capacity, not necessarily their willingness to perform these services. The final question had to do with willingness to allow a public health nurse to go with a staff person into a client’s home. ENLA members were much more willing to do this than non-members. This demonstrates once again that ENLA is an important partner to Public Health. It can also be argued that as ENLA’s membership increases, the level of trust and familiarity with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health would also increase. This relationship would be key in the event of an emergency.


4.4a Recommendations to Address Gaps in Services for Vulnerable Populations in the Event of an Emergency (Approved by the ENLA Board on May 14, 2009)

Mega Gap

Specific Gap

Suggested Solution/Recommendation

Non-English speakers • Materials translated in more languages • Identify more interpreters to assist during an emergency

o Encourage organizations to have interpreters o Have a registry of interpreters similar to the LA County Emergency System for

Advanced Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals o Develop a relationship with schools and businesses that train interpreters o Encourage the sharing of interpretation resources with local partners

• Develop relationships with ethnic media (incl. emergency preparedness trainings/outreach)

• Partner with those providing ESL classes to disseminate preparedness literature and possibly do a mini training in person. Or train the trainer preparedness workshops for ESL teachers

• Disseminate literature to non-English speaking parents via their children in elementary school

Vision Impaired don’t have access to information

• Provide materials and information to centers and schools for the vision impaired • Develop audio cassettes/CDs with emergency preparedness information • Develop podcasts of emergency preparedness materials or links in one place of such

podcasts that already exist.

Hearing impaired don’t have access to information

• Provide materials and information to centers and schools for the hearing impaired • Develop registry to utilize text messaging of emergency alerts, etc. • Utilize sign language interpreters at CBOs and FBOs to communicate to this population

and share resources

Elderly may not have enough information

• Provide materials and information to senior centers • Provide training for in-home supportive service providers/in-home caregivers •

People won’t know where to turn for information

Lack of Access to Information Limited access for those who

do not have phones or e-mail

• Pre-identify places in each community for people to post and/or receive information (ex. schools, school fences, walls, etc.)

20


Mega Gap

Specific Gap


Hard to reach populations who live “under the radar”, such as those experiencing homelessness, and are hard to locate or track. How will they get information? Hard to reach populations, cont’d.

• Use community reps and active outreach to reach isolated populations. • Provide contact people (“friendly faces”) for maintaining morale and emotional support • Training of outreach workers on emergency preparedness and so they would become

quasi case workers in the event of an emergency. Ideally they could be supplied with a wireless device that has information from 211 readily available to help those “under the radar” with their needs on the spot

• Direct training for people experiencing homelessness

• Identify and utilize cars/vans with loudspeakers to drive through target areas announcing key emergency information and directions

• Information available at shelters, board-and-cares, and day labor work sites • Utilize Home Delivered Meal Programs, (ex. Meals on Wheels) to deliver emergency

information to their clients

Lack of Access to Information, cont’d.

Lack of phone and/ or internet during and after certain types of disasters

• Provide training for at least one licensed ham radio operator for each ENLA member organization and other FBOs and CBOs

• Explore options for using web-based telephony as opposed to the traditional PBX system

People who are not citizens may not seek out needed information

• Use community reps and active outreach to reach isolated populations • FBOs and CBOs should train staff on policies related to the provision of services

regardless of immigration status • Provide contact people (“friendly faces”) for maintaining morale and emotional support • Training of outreach workers on emergency preparedness for possible dissemination of

preparedness information, etc.

Lack of Trust in Authorities/ Public Officials

People may not “follow instructions” OR want services or assistance

• People doing outreach must mirror the population or group they are trying to reach CAVEAT: Some won’t respond to government outreach, others won’t respond to faith-based outreach. No single answer to fit these needs.

Lack of Access to Specialized Equipment

Equipment such as wheelchairs can be difficult and/or expensive to obtain or replace – particularly when customized for children and certain

• Establish relationships with equipment manufacturers and distributors to provide contingency supplies and services in the event of a disaster or emergency

21


Mega Gap

Specific Gap


disabilities

No evacuation wheelchairs in multi-storied building

• Advocate for legislation that would require multi-story residential buildings to have evacuation equipment, similar to what is required for multi-story office buildings.

Need special equipment for overweight people

• Establish relationships with heavy equipment distributors and service providers to facilitate the transporting of those with mobility issues

Lack of special equipment & training for pediatric patients

• Hospitals should make sure their Surge Capacity plans include having sufficient pediatric equipment and trained staff to meet specific pediatric needs during an emergency

Back-up sources of power for electric or battery dependent medical assistive devices

• As part of one’s personal preparedness, those with such physical challenges need to consider and have a plan to deal with these issues

Homebound may not have access to food

• Utilize Home Delivered Meal Programs (ex. Meals on Wheels) to reach clients • Explore options for these programs to be “ramped up” with necessary support to

reach more citizens during an emergency • Block clubs, CERT, Neighborhood Councils, etc. can assist the homebound, as they

are likely to know who needs help in their communities • SMOAiD has developed a model that could be used more widely. They are utilizing

AmeriCorps volunteers and partnering with Meals on Wheels and senior housing facilities to establish strategies to get food and supplies to seniors during an emergency

If schools close, thousands of children would not have access to their usual school lunch program

Lack of Access to Food

If restaurants or senior centers close, many seniors would be deprived of this source of food

• DPSS and other relevant agencies should update their contacts with the grocery industry and develop MOUs to help provide food during an emergency; the assistance would be targeted with the priority going to the lowest income census tracks first.

22


Mega Gap

Specific Gap


Poor/unemployed don’t have food and can’t store up food like for a pandemic Food pantries overwhelmed given increase in needs – not enough food for those in need. 30% increase in food, but 40% increase in need

Macro Issue

Food access sites are too sparse in some areas

Macro Issue

Lack of Access to Food cont.

Not enough trucks and refrigerated trucks to deliver food. Not all areas covered by Los Angeles Regional Food Bank structure

• Develop a database of CBOs and FBOs that have trucks and refrigerated trucks to possibly assist in food distribution

Housing needed for whole families Housing for men with children Housing/shelter for disabled

• Need more affordable housing • Pre-designated vacant parking lots can be utilized (ex: Santa Barbara, CA)

People need to know where the shelters are

• CAVEAT: Shelter sites aren’t identified until after an emergency) --- The real issue is access to information once they are identified, especially for those who don’t have access to e-mail

Not enough shelter beds • Assist the Red Cross in identifying and training more potential shelter sites Minimal access to bathe/shower

• Portable showers/Port-o-potties

Lack of Access to Housing/Shelters

No triage personnel at homeless shelters or shelter personnel to do triage.

• The LA County Emergency System for Advanced Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals could be utilized to assist shelters with medical needs

Low Income/ Lack of Supplies

Need resources to create a survival kit or emergency

• Provide vulnerable populations with such kits (NOTE: some groups have received funding to do this, or it could be a project of a block club or Neighborhood Council)

23


Mega Gap

Specific Gap


preparedness kit, first aid kits Need food

(see Lack of Access to Food section)

Need clothes • Establish relationships with organizations and businesses (ex. Goodwill) that could aid in the collection and distribution of clothing

Peoplewithout medi

may be evacuated cine

Macro Issue

People may be evacuated without list of medicines

• Disseminate and publicize health information cards re: their blood type, allergies, prescriptions, etc.

People may not have enough medicine (not stockpiled; not able to stockpile given insurance issues; and depending on when the disaster occurs on the 1st vs. 25th of the month, etc). Persons closely managed by services providers such as homeless with mental and substance abuse disorders) may not be able to access even an extra day of medication

• Possible easing of requirements. An agreement with insurance companies/Medicare/ Medicaid should be established BEFORE an emergency to address these gaps which occur AFTER an emergency;

• Establish an industry-wide, scaled understanding regarding the “level” or severity of disaster and these entities

Access to Medicine and Medical Supplies

People may not have medical supplies such (re: insulin, diabetes testing equipment, etc.)

Macro Issue

24

Rep


25

Mega Gap

Specific Gap


Not enough mental health services for children and adults;

homeless; and returning newlymilitary

• Use school counselors/psychologists during an emergency to augment regular mental health professionals

• Provided training for mental health service providers regarding disasters and emergencies to address the needs of these specific populations in and after such crises

• Mental health service providers should be made aware of free federal informational documents (DHHS/SAMHSA/CMHS) concerning mental health and disaster situations

These types of services are unevenly distributed across the county. Better communication to know where to find this help.

Lack of Access to Mental Health Services or Counseling

People are on edge, have been on edge, then a disaster can put them “over” the edge

• Establish relationships with ethnic mental health associations and engage them regarding emergency preparedness and response issues and training

• Representatives from those organizations need to join ENLA

Unable to effectively evacuate • Develop a Voluntary Registry for government entities to identify those with functional

needs (ex. SNAP Project) • LA County OEM needs to establish MOUs now, before an emergency, with service

providers that specialize in transporting people with physical disabilities • Possibly also have local CBOs/FBOs or block clubs who look out for people with

those needs. Stanford Community Resilience Plan --- 5 key coordinators; food, supply, medical outreach, community services, and special needs.

People may be unable to get to food/water and PODs

Lack of Access to Transportation

Getting vulnerable populations to alternate sites in the event that their usual site/community service center is non-operational

• Utilize the Department of Public Social Services relationship with local transportation authorities and public school districts to gain access to buses


4.4b Current “Reach” of ENLA Member Agencies At the end of May 2009, ENLA had 56 member organizations; 52 are nonprofit organizations. These organizations vary greatly in terms of size, function, geographic service area, annual budget, and structure (single site vs. multiple chapters, program sites, or member network). The relatively small membership number is therefore misleading in terms of ENLA’s true “reach”. In order to access this reach, ENLA’s multi-site organizations were asked three general questions:

• How many service centers does your organization have? • What kind of services does your organization provide? • How many people does your organization serve?

Summary descriptions are provided below. American Red Cross – Greater Los Angeles Chapter Since 1916, the American Red Cross of Greater Los Angeles has been providing disaster relief to local citizens. The American Red Cross trains and certifies people in vital life-saving skills, including CPR and first aid, aquatics and water safety. Nearly 3,000 local volunteers assist them in providing vital services. The Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the Red Cross functions as the regional headquarters but overall the Red Cross has nine chapters, with 14 district offices, located throughout Los Angeles County. Additionally, there are 711 potential shelter locations in the county where feeding, medical and mental health services can be provided as needed on a case to case basis in response to a disaster or emergency. Cal-Pac Conference of United Methodists As a regional organization for California and the Pacific Ocean, the Cal-Pac Conference of United Methodists includes the California counties of Imperial, Inyo, parts of Kern (Antelope Valley to the base of the Tehachapi Mountains and eastward) Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara (excluding the town of New Cuyama), Ventura, and excluding the cities bordering the Colorado River (namely Blythe, Needles, and Fort Yuma,) and the entire State of Hawaii, the Territory of Guam and other territories of the United States in the Pacific Region. The Cal-Pac Conference includes beaches, mountains, islands, deserts, large urban areas, suburban communities, agricultural lands, and sparsely populated areas. The number of square miles covered by land and sea is huge, covering seven time zones and crossing the International Date Line. The Conference is made up of 752 clergy members, and 87,300 lay members, at 373 churches throughout the region. Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc. Since 1919, Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc. has been one of the largest social service providers in Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. Clients go to Catholic Charities for emergency food and shelter, low-cost before-and-after-school childcare, immigration and refugee assistance, counseling services, computer and jobs skills training, and other supportive services. All services are available regardless of a client's race, ethnicity, income, gender or religious belief. Catholic Charities LA has divided itself into five (5) regions in Los Angeles County with more than 50 offices and community centers, and two more regional offices located in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. In sum, the agency rendered over 900,000 services to an estimated 208,500 clients during the last fiscal year (July 1, 2007-June 30, 2008). For the current fiscal

26


year (July 1, 2008 – April 2009), approximately 249,000 clients have already received 967,000 services. As one can see, both the number of clients served and the number of services provided have increased (undoubtedly due to the recession), and the current fiscal year is not over. Center for Community and Family Services The Center for Community and Family Services (CCFS) has been serving low-income families since 1969 with a mission to support self-sufficiency for individuals and families and to help build sustainable communities. Their services include early childhood development, housing, nutrition and job training. Their services provide early childhood education to 1,183 children and their families through the Pasadena, Altadena, and Glendale Head Start Programs. They serve more than 9,000 children and their families through their Child Development Programs in the South Bay, Los Angeles, and the west San Gabriel Valley. CCFS helps parents develop strategies to return to school, find employment or locate housing, while entrusting their children to one of our pre-schools and home-based child care sites. CCFS affects the lives of more than 10,000 families every day. Children’s Hunger Fund Through the Children’s Hunger Fund (CHF) Mercy Network Program, large local churches or non-governmental organizations around the world serve as hubs for distribution of CHF resources. They provide toys, Food Paks, clothing and medicine to care for basic needs. By employing volunteer families and groups from schools, churches and other organizations, CHF is able to keep costs low and process donated products quickly. These churches are trained, mentored, supplied and held accountable for providing services to the poor in their communities. The Children’s Hunger Fund works with 55 different churches in California. Lutheran Social Services of the Southwest Since 1970, Lutheran Social Services of the Southwest (LSS-SW) has provided a broad range of social services. LSS-SW divides its programming into four areas: Senior Services, Community & Family Services, Disaster Services, and Multicultural Services. LSS-SW is an affiliate of Lutheran Disaster Response (LDR) which is a national leader in disaster recovery. LDR is a collaborative ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) (a different Lutheran denomination). There are over 200 ELCA and LCMS congregations in LA County with an estimated membership of 20 thousand LSS-SW’s Disaster Services are offered in Arizona, Hawaii, Southern Nevada and Southern California and their resources can be accessed and utilized accordingly depending on the size and scope of the disaster. Salvation Army – Southern California Division Since 1900, The Salvation Army has responded when called to the scene of any disaster, whether it is a fire, flood, storm, earthquake, aviation or act of terrorism. The Salvation Army does not operate a full-time national disaster response team or administrative staff and they have no national fund raising program designated specifically for disaster responses. Therefore, when disasters strike, the Salvation Army assists with local community-based efforts and its own local personnel, who take command and provide leadership, when the public responds with financial support. The money is channeled directly to the point of need without administrative overhead. Services provided include feeding, counseling victims and rescue workers, setting up shelters and/or housing, and providing financial aid to affected families. There are 53 Salvation Army offices in LA County serving 315,000 residents.

27


Southern California Ecumenical Council The Southern California Ecumenical Council is comprised of 18 denominations and 1300 congregations, with a membership of over 26,000 in the region. Each of the 18 denominations has a disaster team, which function independently from each other, to provide a diverse set of post-disaster recovery services including feeding, sheltering and emotional counseling. Additionally, in the past, the council’s central office has established itself as a communications clearing house cataloging the names, emails and phone numbers of key personnel that can assist in the event of a disaster or emergency. Taiwan Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation USA As an internationally renowned relief organization, the Taiwan Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation has provided humanitarian aid and medical services to victims of fire, earthquake, hurricane and flood disasters around the world since 1966. In 1984, the foundation established its United States headquarters in Los Angeles, CA. Since then, 62 local offices have been established with 100,000 members in the U.S. working to make a difference in their local communities. Volunteers give out emergency cash and relief supplies within days of a disaster. Their services include: free medical and dental clinics; radio and television broadcasting; home visits to seniors in long-term care facilities; homeless services, including serving meals; and financial assistance through its community support program which works with neighborhood organizations to help the needy. Locally, the Tzu Chi Foundation has several offices delivering services throughout LA County and Southern California. They also have hundreds if not thousands of volunteers at their disposal. United Way of Greater Los AngelesThe United Way of Greater Los Angeles (UWGLA) raised $58 million in 2007-08 to address several key facets of poverty including: homelessness, affordable housing, education, health, and income inequality. UWGLA funds and partners with over 170 nonprofit organizations across Los Angeles County, including the American Red Cross and 211 LA County, impacting well over 400,000 children; 800,000 students and 50,000 families and adults. In 1983, UWGLA took the lead and helped to establish the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program to supplement food, shelter, rent, and utility assistance only to people with economic emergencies. Today, this FEMA program continues to be housed and supported by UWGLA. With its broad, cross-sector reach, UWGLA is uniquely positioned to create partnerships across nonprofit, public, philanthropic and private sectors, particularly during times of crisis, as it has following the Watts Riots, Sylmar and Northridge Earthquakes, September 11th, and Hurricane Katrina. In the event of a major disaster, UWGLA will mobilize to set up a special fund to address long-term recovery needs, and it will convene non-profit partners to address response and capacity issues as well. CONCLUSION - In the event of disaster or emergency that required assistance from beyond ENLA’s LA County borders, the ability of ENLA’s multi-site member organization’s to “ramp up” their response capacity is profoundly evident. With nine of the ten organizations being just part of a larger national (and in some instances international) entity, it is clear that additional resources and services could be called upon. ENLA’s multi-site organizations can potentially rely on hundreds of other affiliated organizations, thousands of volunteers, and perhaps several million dollars in financial support, to help meet the needs of approximately two million people throughout the region.

28


4.4c Potential Capacity to Function in an Emergency Potential organizational capacity to function in an emergency was assessed via three questions:

1. Does your organization have a written emergency plan? 2. In the past two calendar years, in how many “Tabletop” exercises or emergency

preparedness workshops has your organization participated? 3. Has your organization responded to a disaster in the last five years?

Given the sample size and time limitations, no effort was made to statistically determine if it were possible to make an index of “preparedness” by combining these items. Seemingly, the more prepared an organization is, the greater the likelihood that it would have the capacity to function in an emergency. Two indicators of preparedness were used: 1) whether they had a written emergency plan, and 2) how many tabletop exercises or preparedness workshops they had attended. It can be argued that having responded to a disaster in the past increases the likelihood that an organization has the capacity to function during an emergency. The results from those survey questions are described below.

Does Your Organization Have a Written Emergency Plan? The clear majority (59%) of organizations that responded indicated that they did have a written plan, while 30% indicated it was “in process”, 5% said they did not have a written plan, and 6% didn’t know. These results can be seen in Figure 15 below.

Figure 15. Does Your Organization Have a Written Emergency Plan?

A higher percentage of non-members compared to members, had written plans (68% vs. 55%). None of the non-members answered that they did not have a written plan, and a slightly higher percentage did not know if their organization had a written plan or not. The results for the written plan question by ENLA membership can be seen in Figure 16 below.

29


Figure 16. Status of Organizational Written Plan by Membership

Number of Tabletop Exercises or Preparedness Workshops Attended Respondents were almost evenly divided across the various levels of participation in preparedness exercises and workshops, although almost half of the respondents (47.6%) had attended one or two of these types of events. Only 11% of respondents had never attended a tabletop or preparedness workshop.

Figure 17. Tabletops or Workshops Attended

Membership in ENLA seemed to make a difference in terms of participation in tabletops and workshops. While ENLA members were represented at all levels almost evenly, non-members tended to have predominately participated in only one or two of these types of trainings, and were less likely, compared to ENLA members, to have participated in three or more such trainings.

30


Figure 18. Participation in Tabletop Exercises and Workshops

by ENLA Membership

Has Your Organization Responded to a Disaster in the Last Five Years? Respondents were almost evenly split as to whether they had responded to a disaster previously; 45% had while 55% had not. ENLA membership was a very strong predictor of whether an organization had responded to a disaster in the last five years. This is especially true for non-members; non-members were much less likely than members to say they have responded to a disaster in the last five years (27% vs. 54% respectively). The results of response by membership can be seen in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Response to a Disaster by ENLA Membership

31


There seems to be a slight positive relationship between the number of tabletops/workshops attended and whether the organization has responded to a disaster in the last five years, as can be seen in Figure 20. Specifically, the fewer training experiences, the more likely it is that your organization has not responded to a disaster.

Figure 20. Responded to a Disaster by Number of Tabletop/Workshops Attended

CONCLUSION - On the whole, the organizations in the survey, particularly ENLA member organizations, had plans in place and previous experience that contribute to their capacity to function in a future emergency. The clear majority of organizations (59%) had either a written emergency plan or had one in the process of being completed (30%). A higher percentage of non-members had written plans compared to members (68% vs. 55%). On the other hand, while ENLA members were represented at all levels of tabletop and workshop participation almost evenly, non-members tended to have predominately participated in only one or two of these types of trainings. These organizations were also less likely than ENLA members to have participated in three or more such trainings. In addition, more ENLA members had responded to a disaster compared to non-members; 54% vs. 27%, respectively. Although ENLA members are not a monolithic group, they do have a level of preparedness and capacity that would facilitate their functioning in an emergency.

32

Rep


33


4.5 Plan to Fill Identified Gaps in Services for Vulnerable/Special Needs Populations Based on the previously identified gaps in services for vulnerable populations in LA County, the following chart is intended to display the most important and most feasible recommendations for filling the gaps. This information can be used by ENLA and other city- and county-level agencies to develop full-fledged planning documents with specific courses of action and timelines. To this end, ENLA and the governmental organizations it is most closely related to have been listed in the “Suggest Responsible Entity” column. In some instances, the responsible entity is listed as “ALL”. ORGANIZATIONAL KEY - DPH = LA County Department of Public Health; DPSS = LA County Department of Public Social Services; OEM = LA County Office of Emergency Management; DHS = LA County Department of Health Services; DMH = LA County Department of Mental Health; and EMD = City of Los Angeles Emergency Management Department

Priorities and Gaps


Suggested

Responsible Entity PRIORITY: Lack of Access to Information Non-English speakers

• Identify more interpreters to assist during an emergency • Encourage organizations to have interpreters • Have a registry of interpreters similar to the LA County Emergency System for

Advanced Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals • Develop a relationship with schools and businesses that train interpreters • Encourage the sharing of interpretation resources with local partners • Develop relationships with ethnic media (incl. emergency preparedness

trainings/outreach)

ENLA, ALL ALL ALL ENLA, ALL ALL ALL

Hard to reach populations who live “under the radar”, such as those experiencing homelessness, and are hard to locate or track. How will they get information?

• Use community reps and active outreach to reach isolated populations. • Training of outreach workers on emergency preparedness and so they would become

quasi case workers in the event of an emergency. • Direct training for people experiencing homelessness • Information available at shelters, board-and-cares, and day labor work sites

ENLA, DPH, DPSS ENLA

DPH, DPSS ENLA, DPH, DPSS

Lack of phone and/ or internet during and after certain types of disasters

• Provide training for at least one licensed ham radio operator for each ENLA member organization and other FBOs and CBOs

ENLA, OEM, EMD

PRIORITY Lack of Trust in

• Use community reps and active outreach to reach isolated populations

ENLA, DPH, DPSS

34


Priorities and Gaps


Suggested

Responsible Entity Authorities/ Public Officials Lack of Trust cont’d Undocumented residents may not seek out needed information

• Training of outreach workers on emergency preparedness for possible dissemination of preparedness information, etc.

• FBOs and CBOs should train staff on policies related to the provision of services

regardless of immigration status

ENLA, DPH

ENLA, DPH, DPSS

PRIORITY Lack of Access to Specialized Equipment Lack of special equipment & training for pediatric patients

• Hospitals should make sure their Surge Capacity plans include having sufficient

pediatric equipment and trained staff to meet specific pediatric needs during an emergency

DHS, DPH, DPSS

PRIORITY Lack of Access to Food Homebound may not have access to food

• SMOAiD has developed a model that could be used more widely. AmeriCorps volunteers partner with Meals on Wheels and senior housing facilities to establish strategies to get food and supplies to seniors during an emergency

• Block clubs, CERT, Neighborhood Councils, etc. can assist the homebound, as they are likely to know who needs help in their communities

ENLA, DPSS OEM, EMD

Poor/unemployed don’t have food and can’t store up food (ex. for a pandemic)

• DPSS and other relevant agencies should update their contacts with the grocery industry and develop MOUs to help provide food during an emergency; the assistance would be targeted with the priority going to the lowest income census tracks first.

ENLA, DPSS, OEM, EMD

Not enough trucks and refrigerated trucks to deliver food.

• Develop a database of CBOs and FBOs that have trucks and refrigerated trucks to possibly assist in food distribution NOTE: Not all areas covered by Los Angeles Regional Food Bank structure

ENLA, OEM, EMD, DPSS

35

Rep


36

Priorities and Gaps


Suggested

Responsible Entity PRIORITY Lack of Access to Housing & Shelters Not enough shelter beds No personnel at shelters to do triage

• Assist the Red Cross in identifying and training more potential shelter sites

• The LA County Emergency System for Advanced Registration of Volunteer Health

Professionals could be utilized to assist shelters with medical needs

ENLA, OEM, EMD

DPH, DHS

PRIORITY Lack of Access to Mental Health Services or Counseling Not enough mental health services

• Provide training for mental health service providers regarding disasters and emergencies to address the needs of these specific populations in and after such crises (NOTE: This is more important for children and adults; newly homeless; and returning military)

ENLA, DMH, DPH, DHS

These types of services are unevenly distributed across the county

• Establish relationships with ethnic mental health associations and engage them regarding emergency preparedness and response issues and training

• Representatives from those organizations need to join ENLA

ENLA, DMH ENLA, DMH

PRIORITY Lack of Access to Transportation Unable to effectively evacuate

• Develop a Voluntary Registry for government entities to identify those with functional needs (ex. SNAP Project)

• LA County OEM needs to establish MOUs now, before an emergency, with service providers that specialize in transporting people with physical disabilities

• CBOs/FBOs or block clubs should look out for people with those needs. Stanford Community Resilience Plan --- 5 key coordinators: food, supply, medical outreach, community services, and special needs.

ENLA, ALL ENLA, OEM, EMD ENLA, OEM, EMD

People may be unable to get to food/water and PODs Getting vulnerable populations to alternate sites

• Utilize the DPSS relationship with local transportation authorities and public school districts to gain access to buses (NOTE: This is more important in the event that community/service centers become non-operational and alternate sites are necessary

OEM, DPSS, EMD


Appendix 1: Survey Instrument

37


38


39


40

Rep


41


Appendix 2: List of Organizations that Completed the Various Surveys

ENLA Membership Survey

(Oct. 08 – Feb. 09)

Organizational Assets and Operational Capacity Survey

(November 4-13, 2008)

Resources and Assets During an Emergency Survey

(March – April 2009) Members Members Others Members Others

211 Los Angeles County 211 Los Angeles County Beacon Management 211 Los Angeles County A Community of Friends American Red Cross - GLA Faithful Central Bible Church CCEO, Inc. Youth Build American Red Cross - GLA BHS/American

Recovery Center ARES – LAX Section LA Regional Foodbank Joint Efforts, Inc. ARES – LAX Section CCEO, Inc. Youth Build Cal Pac Conference of the United Methodist Church

Lutheran Social Services of the South West

Venice Community Housing Corporation

Cal Pac Conference of the United Methodist Church

Do Your Part, Inc.

Calvary Chapel Burbank Relief Neighborhood Legal Services WLCAC Greater Watts Calvary Chapel Burbank Relief Eastern Regional Center Center for Community and Family Services,

Operation USA YMCA of Greater Whittier CC of LA – Brownson House Community Center

Frank D. Lanterman Regional Center

Children’s Hunger Fund Salvation Army CC of LA – Catholic Counseling Services Center

Gardena Valley Baptist Church

Community Outreach Promoting Emergency Preparedness

Society St. Vincent de Paul CC of LA – Glendale Community Center

Gentiva Rehab Without Walls

Christian Reformed World Relief Committee

SPCA-LA CC of LA – Guadalupe Community Center

Human Potential Consultants, LLC

Culver-Palms United Methodist Church

Tzu Chi Foundation CC of LA – Lancaster Community Shelter

Jewish Federation of Long Beach

Christians United Responding to Emergencies

United Way CC of LA – Loaves & Fishes Kidspace Children’s Museum

Faithful Central Bible Church CC of LA – San Juan Diego Community Center

LERC ARC K6LMA

Families in New Directions CC of LA – San Gabriel Los Angeles County REACT

Homeless Healthcare Los Angeles

Center for Community and Family Services – Carson

Moore Family Child Care

Immanuel Presbyterian Church Center for Community and Family Services - Pasadena

Partners in Care Foundation

LA Neighborhood Housing Services

Chabad Israel Center San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center

LA Regional Foodbank Children’s Hunger Fund San Gabriel Valley YMCA

Lutheran Social Services - SW Christian Reformed World Relief Committee

Social Vocational Services

Manhattan Beach CERT COPE Preparedness Tichenor Orthopedic Clinic for Children

Neighborhood Legal Services-LA Christians United Responding Valley Oasis

42


to Emergencies Noah’s Wish Didi Hirsch Westside Regional

Center Operation HOPE, Inc. Faithful Central Bible Church Women’s and Children’s

Crisis Shelter Operation USA Families in New Directions Salvation Army Homeless Healthcare Los

Angeles

Shelter Partnership Immanuel Presbyterian Church Society of St. Vincent de Paul Jewish Family Services SPCA-LA LA Neighborhood Housing

Services

Sunrise Community Counseling Center

LA Regional Foodbank

Topanga Coalition for Emergency Preparedness

Lutheran Social Services of the Southwest

Tzu Chi Medical Foundation Manhattan Beach CERT Tzu Chi Foundation Neighborhood Legal Services of

LA

United Way Noah’s Wish Volunteer Center of Los Angeles Operation Hope West Angeles Church of God in Christ

Operation USA

Salvation Army Shelter Partnership Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals - LA

Society of St. Vincent de Paul Sunrise Community Counseling

Center

Topanga Coalition for Emergency Preparedness

Tzu Chi Foundation United Way Volunteer Center of Los

Angeles

West Angeles Church of God in Christ

43

Emergency Needs of Vulnerable Populations in LA County: An...

Documents

Transcript of Emergency Needs of Vulnerable Populations in LA County: An...