| 1. |
How long has
this program been operational? Month: September
Year: 1996 |
|
|
| 2. |
What are the major purposes of this program? What problem(s) or
issue(s) was it designed to address? |
|
|
| |
The research is for educating state legislators who make housing
policy that affects post-disaster rebuilding. It is to be used as a reference after a
disaster, when specific decisions will have to be made, but it is hoped that its
recommendations will be followed BEFORE the next disaster. It is also written to inform
federal and local government, and private nonprofit housing providers about program and
policy shortcomings. |
|
|
| 3. |
Describe the specific activities and operations of the program. |
|
|
| |
Researchers interviewed all the federal, state and local government
decision makers involved in housing issues following both the Loma Prieta and Northridge
earthquakes. They collected raw data on damages and recovery loans and grants from FEMA,
SBA, HUD, California Department of Insurance, and the City of Los Angeles. They input data
into a GIS program to analyze the distribution of damages and funding. |
|
|
| 4. |
Does this program take a new and creative
approach or method? If yes, please describe. |
|
|
| |
Yes, this is the first time data has been collected from such varied
sources, each set compared to the others, and the data analyzed to understand the
distribution of recovery funds as against damage and demographics. The GIS analysis of
damage patterns and distribution is a new approach. |
|
|
| 5. |
What were the program’s start-up costs and source(s) of funding? |
|
|
|
$100,000 Budget Source:
50% California OES Earthquake Program
50% California Policy Seminar |
|
|
|
What are the program’s annual operational costs and source(s)
of funding? |
|
|
|
$ NA Budget Source:
NA |
|
|
| 6. |
How many
employees (full-time equivalent) work(ed) with this
program? 2 FTE for 1 year |
|
|
| 7. |
To the best of
your knowledge, did this program originate in your state? Yes
|
|
|
|
Are you aware of similar programs in other states? No |
|
|
| 8. |
Has the
program been fully implemented? No |
|
|
|
If No, what actions remain to be taken? |
|
|
|
The report has been used widely to educate federal, state and local
policy makers, but no called-for policy or program change has as yet been instituted. It
will be useful in the immediate wake of the next earthquake, when the legislative window
of opportunity opens, and some decisions will necessarily be made. |
|
|
| 9. |
Is there evidence that the program has been effective in achieving
its stated purpose(s)? Briefly summarize evaluations (pro and con) of how well the program
has addressed the defined problem(s) or issue(s). |
|
|
|
Legislators have been introduced to its findings. A Joint Committee
of the State Legislature has considered it. It has been widely disseminated to state and
local stakeholders, and used as a foundation for a couple of other projects on housing
after earthquakes. The report addresses the issues very comprehensively, but it remains
for legislators and government officials to follow its advice and enact new policies and
programs. |
|
|
| 10. |
How has the
program changed since its inception? What limitations or obstacles might
other states expect to encounter if they attempt to adopt this program? |
|
|
|
All states with older urban areas should expect to encounter the
same problems with residential rebuilding after an earthquake; before an earthquake they
will probably find systemic inertia as relates policy change. All policy changes slowly,
and housing policy is some of the most intractable. It is set by a combination of
local, state and federal agencies; and it is funded by an even more complex mixture of
agencies, quasi-governmental organizations, and private sources. Post-disaster housing
policy and funding is a vexed question that policy makers tend to avoid-until they have no
choice but to wrangle with it. |
