Issues In Engaged Scholarship: "Community-Campus Readiness: Approaches to Disaster Preparedness"
Issues In Engaged Scholarship, Vol. III of the annual working papers series of the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership: "Community-Campus Readiness: Approaches to Disaster Preparedness" 2014
Community-Campus Readiness: Approaches to Disaster Preparedness 2 0 13 N Y M A P S S Y M P O S I U M WOR K ING PA PER SER IES | VOL III About Issues in Engaged Scholarship The Colin L. Powell Center for Leadership and Service launched its Working Paper series, Issues in Engaged Scholarship, in 2010 to provide a platform for disseminating knowledge about community-campus partnerships and to add to the rigor of discourse in this field. Through this series, the Center strives to build a network of community-engaged scholars and increase understanding of the processes and outcomes associated with service-learning, community-based research, and community-campus collaborations. About the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership The Colin Powell School is a leading center for education and social research with a particular emphasis on preparing students to succeed as leaders in society and their fields of endeavor. The school enables students to energetically address the challenges of the 21st century, including economic growth and national wealth creation, community stability and health, expanding rights and democracy, and promoting education and the general betterment of those in need, and it focuses its research and teaching activities on fostering solutions that further diversity, prosperity, stability and peace locally and across the world. About The NYMAPS Collaborative The NYMAPS Collaborative, formerly known as the New York Metro Area Partnership for Service-Learning (NYMAPS) is a network of colleges, universities and community-based organizations dedicated to realizing the civic mission of higher education and to advancing service-learning, community-based participatory research and public scholarship, with the ultimate goal of social change. This initiative is led and supported by the Office of Engaged Scholarship at the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership at the City College of New York. For more information, please visit our website, www.nymapscollaborative.org. GenĂŠa Stewart Director, Office of Engaged Scholarship Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership 160 Convent Avenue NAC 4/146C New York, NY 10031 Phone 212-650-6335 Website www.nymapscollaborative.org Email firstname.lastname@example.org Community-Campus Readiness: Approaches to Disaster Preparedness 2 0 13 N Y M A P S S Y M P O S I U M S Y M P O S I U M W A S H E L D O N A P R I L 12 , 2 0 13 AT B A R N A R D C O L L E G E WOR K ING PA PER SER IES | VOL II I Editors GenĂŠa Stewart, Editor Susanna Schaller, Associate Editor Amanda Krupman, Production Editor Design Amelia Costigan, Vladimir Golosiy, Grzegorz Lewkowicz, Michael Dueker TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S Introduction Campuses as Community Partners During Disaster An Integration of Planning and Process for a Common Purpose ALLISON ALDEN CENTER FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, SUNY BINGHAMTON 4-5 CHRISTIE ZWAHLEN CENTER FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, SUNY BINGHAMTON 6-14 Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) How a Small Voluntary Association Uses CommunityBased Participatory Research (CBPR) to Enhance Community Resilience KATHERINE K. CHEN DEPT. OF SOCIOLOGY, COLIN POWELL SCHOOL FOR CIVIC AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP, CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK CAROLYN ENGLISH COOPERATORS’ ADVOCACY PROJECT 15-26 Civic Engagement in the City that Care Forgot TED A. HENKEN DEPTS OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY | BLACK AND LATINO STUDIES, BARUCH COLLEGE The Challenges of Designing a Successful Service-Learning Course about the Roots, Ruin, and Rebirth of New Orleans VANESSA RENE, ‘14 BROOKLYN COLLEGE | MACAULAY HONORS COLLEGE KWAME OCRAN, ‘15 HUNTER COLLEGE | MACAULAY HONORS COLLEGE 27-41 Learning from Disaster Three Models to Engage Students in Disaster Response LANE PERRY CENTER FOR SERVICE-LEARNING, WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY CARRIE WILLIAMS HOWE VERMONT CAMPUS COMPACT KELLY HAMSHAW CENTER FOR RURAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT JONATHAN HILSHER CENTER FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, ALFRED STATE COLLEGE BILLY O’STEEN SCHOOL OF EDUCATIONAL STUDIES AND LEADERSHIP, UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY GREG SAMMONS STUDENT AFFAIRS, ALFRED STATE COLLEGE ALLISON ALDEN CENTER FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, SUNY BINGHAMTON 42-56 Higher Education as Partner in Disaster Response Exploring Campus Response to Tropical Storm Irene in Vermont CARRIE WILLIAMS HOWE VERMONT CAMPUS COMPACT 57-68 INTRODUCTION A WORD ON THIS YEAR’S THEME: COMMUNITY-CAMPUS READINESS We have a clearer sense of our strengths and weaknesses when it comes to disaster preparedness. Genéa Stewart, Director of the Office of Engaged Scholarship, Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership When Superstorm Sandy struck New York City in late October 2012, it pushed disaster-relief efforts to the forefront of the civic engagement agenda. Any previous ongoing dialogues on community-campus partnerships within the metropolitan area were essentially stalled or sidetracked by this event, as institutions and organizations alike found themselves impacted and questioning their ability to maintain commitments or begin new ones in light of the recognized need for self-preservation. The inquiry then began to focus on how colleges and organizations could work together to come up with more proactive, long-term, mutually beneficial solutions. By the following spring, recovery efforts still carried on, along with warnings of future disasters. So, it only made sense to build our 5th Annual Symposium on the questions surrounding the theme Community-Campus Readiness: Approaches to Disaster Preparedness . On April 12, 2013, over fifty participants convened at Barnard College to examine how we could best empower community partners to be a strong voice in the planning process, mobilize campus resources, identify discipline-specific strategies for engaging students through service-learning courses, and support and supervise general student involvement. We were fortunate to have had that opportunity for interregional collaboration to learn from the best practices gathered through years of experience, testing, and refinement through previous disasters. We left the event with a sense of urgency and more questions, but also a clearer sense of our strengths and weaknesses as a region when it comes to disaster preparedness, mitigation, and recovery. The Collection As a follow-up to the aforementioned 2013 Symposium, I am pleased to share with you five selections that document campus responses to disaster throughout the eastern region of the United States, down to New Orleans, and as far as New Zealand. The collection begins with a framing piece, “Campuses as Community Partners During Disaster,” by symposium presenter Allison Alden and her colleague Christie Zwahlen of SUNY Binghamton. They present a study of fifteen colleges and universities responding to disaster and share lessons learned in increasing campus responsiveness and streamlining bureaucracies. Sociologist Katherine Chen of the City College of New York and her communitybased participatory research partner, Carolyn English, of the Cooperators’ Advocacy Project, take us on a tour inside of a volunteer-run organization impacted by Super- 4 storm Sandy that works with residents who are aging in place. In “Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project,” Chen and English share with us policy recommendations for promoting the sustainability of such organizations. In “The City that Care Forgot,” Ted Henken of Baruch College and Macaulay Honors College students Kwame Ocran (Hunter College, ‘15) and Vanessa Rene (Brooklyn College, ‘14) provide a comprehensive nuts-and-bolts course overview for a post-Katrina study abroad service-learning experience in New Orleans. The course draws on multiple disciplines—though primarily sociology and anthropology—and it provides a great framework for using a city and its rich history as a key component of the curriculum. The article provides a generous assortment of references and resources for those seeking content to build similar courses. Lane Perry of Western Carolina University, Carrie Williams Howe of Vermont Campus Compact, Kelly Hamshaw of the University of Vermont, Jonathan Hilsher of Alfred State College, Billy O’Steen of the University of Canterbury, Greg Sammons of Alfred State College, and Allison Alden of SUNY Binghamton came together to offer “Learning from Disaster,” which showcases three models on engaging students in disaster response: through service-learning, alternative breaks, and internships. This article is rich in foundational literature and theory that might help other campuses frame comparable engagement efforts. The collection concludes with a reflection of case studies and lessons learned in “Higher Education as a Partner in Disaster Response,” by Carrie Williams Howe of Vermont Campus Compact. Through qualitative interviews, document analysis, and focus groups, Howe compiled a collection of themes and strategies that will assist campus administrations in developing successful campus response systems. Looking Forward The focus of our upcoming volume will align with the 2014 NYMAPS symposium theme, “Advocacy in Practice: Engaged Teaching and Research for Social Change.” This will serve as an opportunity to delve into issues that arise when linking academic expertise and resources to community empowerment efforts. We look forward to showcasing engaged scholarship that addresses issue areas of pressing concern in New York City: arts and culture, community revitalization, crime and policing, education reform, environmental sustainability, health, and immigration. Please check the back of this volume for submission guidelines. 5 Campuses as Community Partners During Disaster An Integration of Planning and Process for a Common Purpose ALLISON ALDEN CHRISTIE ZWAHLEN Campuses as Community Partners During Disaster M Abstract ore now than ever, colleges and universities are being asked to contribute to and collaborate with their local, national, and global communities in significant ways. Additionally, because of a recent increase in the frequency and scale of natural disasters, institutions of higher education have been engaged in efforts to respond to these crises. This study of fifteen colleges and universities—including several from the New York Metro Area Partnership for Service-Learning (NYMAPS), investigates the specific ways in which institutions across the nation have participated in these efforts and provides insight into how higher education’s responsiveness to natural disasters can be improved. The specific means by which these institutions responded and the challenges they faced are outlined, followed by findings from the data and recommendations based on lessons learned. Key words natural disaster, response and recovery, civic engagement, servicelearning, campus-community collaborations, partnerships Introduction On matters of public concern—ranging from the economic recession to the effects of climate change—institutions of higher education are engaging with and being called upon by government and community leaders to help meet the pressing challenges that affect us all.1 While these types of partnerships have existed for a long time, higher education is now being asked to do more, including partnering with governments and organizations on natural disaster response and recovery efforts far beyond the boundaries of campus. Comprised of community members themselves, institutions of higher education often work in conjunction with international, national, and local entities to see these pressing needs met. Furthermore, the responsibility of educating students about their civic obligations as knowledgeable, contributing community members compels colleges and universities to engage students in responding to community needs. The manner in which a college or university does or does not respond after a natural disaster and what is asked of students at this important juncture serves as a powerful teaching moment, one which demonstrates the relevance of their educational experience and either reinforces or betrays the institutional commitment to partnering with communities for the public good. Expanding the traditional role of engaging in community-campus partnerships focused on more long-term community issues, such as access to education, healthcare, and housing, many institutions of higher education have chosen to respond to natural-disaster-related needs. In many cases, colleges and universities have served as temporary shelters for displaced residents, collected much needed resources, recruited and transported volunteers to “muck out” homes, clean away storm debris, and even provided emergency health services to residents when appropriate. While some US higher education institutions offer courses, certificates, and degree programs in emergency management,2 others do not have access to the in-house knowledge or experience offered by faculty members or students with formal, field-specific training. Instead, when a disaster strikes, many college and university personnel and students rely on instincts, community connections, and creative problem-solving 7 Campuses as Community Partners During Disaster strategies to meet the challenges at hand. With the frequency and severity of natural disasters continuing to escalate, continued and increased higher education involvement of this nature seems inevitable. As practitioners of community engagement are well aware, copious research has been published about the dynamics of communitycampus collaborations, broadly speaking; however, national studies specifically examining the type of partnerships that develop between communities and campuses when natural disasters strike are currently missing from the literature. Regarding higher education’s responsiveness to disasters generally, Carrie Williams Howe of Vermont Campus Compact has noted that existing literature is concerned almost exclusively with an institution’s internal efforts (i.e., how to manage the crisis on campus), as opposed to how it can be responsive to needs outside its own confines.3 According to Howe, very few published works deviate from this focus, aside from the Ready Campus Manual, developed in 2005–2006 by a number of government and higher education collaborators, including the US Department of Homeland Security, College Misericordia, Pennsylvania Campus Compact, the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, Association of Independent Colleges & Universities of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Association of Colleges and Universities, the American Red Cross, and the Pennsylvania Office of Homeland Security.4 The manual, intended as “a flexible, adaptable planning guide to prepare. . . campuses for emergencies and. . . to become valuable resources to serve the communities which have given so much to them,”5 provides an overview of emergency management best practices, brief case studies, important liability and financial considerations, a section on forming community partnerships, and a useful curriculum which “focuses on the integration of academic courses with emergency preparation and response activities using the service-learning teaching method.”6 Showcasing excellent examples of community-campus partnerships for crisis management, the included case studies range in focus from immediate response efforts to the development of courses and projects for disaster recovery and mitigation. A thoughtful and prescient guide to how colleges and universities should prepare for and respond to disasters, the study discussed here asked “What really happened?” even in cases where communities and campuses underperformed in meeting the needs at hand. The research described here seeks to illuminate the ways in which higher education institutions have responded solely to natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, tropical storms, wildfires, etc.) in their own communities and beyond over the 8 past ten years. It should be noted that within the emergency management lexicon, “response” is defined as a short-term phase immediately after a disaster. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) released a National Response Framework that defines response as “actions to save lives, protect property and the environment, stabilize communities, and meet basic human needs following an incident” and “the execution of emergency plans and actions to support short-term recovery.” 7 What is referred to as “response” throughout this paper applies more generally to the ways in which an institution supported community efforts to handle a disaster’s aftermath, including, but not limited to, the timeframe immediately after the event. Much of the information solicited from institutions for this study asked questions about their response, recovery, and mitigation efforts, all of which were considered “response” in the more commonly used sense of the word. Institutions were asked: how they responded to natural disasters; what types of community supports were offered; what barriers they confronted in attempting to respond; how they changed as a result; and most importantly, what was learned from these experiences. Based on the findings from a survey of fifteen colleges and universities that were responsive after a natural disaster (including several from NYMAPS), this article outlines: Campuses as Community Partners During Disaster (1) the structural issues and other challenges confronted; (2) the actions taken (grouped into categories) and examples of each; (3) the units, offices, and divisions responsible; (4) the findings drawn from the data; and (5) the recommendations based on lessons learned. While higher education’s response to natural disasters has often been significant, the outcomes cited here dictate a need for more strenuous preparation, for which it is hoped this study proves useful. Table 1: Natural Disasters Reported on by Participating Institutions Description of Institutions Data was collected from fifteen colleges and universities that varied greatly along a number of institutional characteristics. The electronic and paper survey responses indicate that seven of the surveyed institutions are located in metropolitan areas of at least 200,000 people, while the remaining eight are in communities of fewer than 50,000. Six institutions are private, while nine are public. According to the Carnegie Classification system,8 one is considered an Associate’s college, one is a Baccalaureate/Associate’s college, six are Master’s colleges or universities, and five are considered research universities. Regarding student enrollment, seven can be considered small (2,000–8,500 students), five are medium sized (8,501–15,500 students), and three are large (15,501–30,000 students). Although most institutions are concentrated in the Northeast, several are located in other areas across the country. These institutions differ greatly in size and focus, yet each attempted to address community needs after a major natural disaster. Graph 1 Findings The main selection criterion for inclusion in this study was some level of institutional response to a natural disaster occurring within the last ten years. According to the returned surveys, most of the colleges/universities (80%) responded to hurricanes and/or tropical storms and related flooding (see Table 1). One responded to wildfires, while two (13%) supported a variety of ongoing international crises caused by natural disasters. Six of the institutions (40%) offered a degree, certificate, minor or certification in emergency management or a closely related field at the time of the disaster to which their institution responded. responded to the particular disaster that they identified. Most (11, or 73%) indicated that they recruited volunteers (see Graph 1) who conducted resource drives and fundraisers; delivered items to those impacted; cleaned out and rebuilt houses; cleaned up debris and grounds; prepared and served meals; distributed resources; consoled, entertained, and served residents living in shelters; and conducted many of their own projects designed to assist disaster victims. Eleven of the institutions (73%) reported that they collected and/or provided resources to support these efforts. The resources included: tools and equipment; trucks; transportation; supplies (e.g., clothing, cleaning supplies, baby supplies, toys, housewares, water, and lighting materials); funds (including money from the institution, donations, grants, and student service trip fees); printed counseling information; printed contact information for relief and 9 Findings— Response Efforts The fifteen participating institutions were asked to provide information about how they Campuses as Community Partners During Disaster supply centers; the time of faculty and other employees; and student guidance, supervision and education. In terms of academic integration, some institutions were able to provide support through credit-bearing courses. Seven (47%) reported that they incorporated disaster-related service into at least one existing academic course (although six of these were rather vague and did not identify any specific courses when asked). Three (20%) indicated that they developed a new academic course that provided support for communities affected by the disaster. Aside from its human resources, one of a collegeâ€™s greatest assets is its (sometimes expansive) infrastructure. Five colleges or universities (33%) reported that their campuses served as temporary emergency shelters for those impacted by the disaster; obviously, all of these were in close proximity to the impacted areas. Four (27%) indicated that their campuses served as emergency response posts or headquarters during the disaster, and an equal number reported that their campuses functioned as centers or supports for communications during and immediately after the event. Finally, five of the institutions (33%) reported that they conducted studies that in emergency management or a closely related field and those without such programs. Â Institutions offering academic programs in emergency response and management more often reported that they collected and/or provided resources, conducted studies, and served as emergency posts. Schools without related academic programs were more likely to report that they recruited volunteers, supported their response within academic courses (naming the specific classes), and supported emergency communications. One third of both sets of institutions reported that they served as temporary emergency shelters during the crisis. As one might expect, closer proximity to the catastrophic events increased the likelihood that institutions of higher education became involved as well as the extent of their involvement. All seven institutions in close proximity to the disasters (within 50 miles) responded in at least two ways (except one that was itself severely damaged during the disaster), while only 50% of those more distant responded at that level. On average those in closer proximity responded through 3.5 means, while those further away only responded through 1.8 means. The units and divisions within the institutions that were involved in the responses Obstacles included lack of communications, limitations posed by the academic calendar, slow decision-making processes, and a lack of process for dispersing funds and supplies to appropriate organizations. were useful in understanding and/or addressing current needs or preparing for/mitigating the impact of future events. All of those who responded in this way were classified as either Masterâ€™s colleges/universities or research universities. Interestingly, there were significant differences in the types of efforts reported between schools with academic programs (i.e., degrees, certificates, minors, or certifications) 10 varied considerably. When asked which divisions were engaged, out of all fifteen institutions, thirteen (87%) reported that their Division of Student Affairs participated; nine (60%) named Academic Affairs; seven (47%) indicated Administrative Affairs; three (20%) reported that External Affairs was involved; and only one named their Division of Research. Those institutions that do not offer academic programs in emergency response or Campuses as Community Partners During Disaster management reported much more often that a center or institute charged with increasing volunteerism, service-learning, or community engagement was involved in the disaster response effort (67%), compared with those that do offer this type of academic program (17%). Also, as one would expect, all seven of the colleges and universities that indicated a community center was involved, reported that they recruited and engaged volunteers in response to the disaster. Findings— Obstacles Thirteen of the fifteen survey participants (87%) indicated that they faced challenges while attempting to respond to the disaster. Many described obstacles that resulted from the bureaucratic nature of their institutions, which made it difficult to respond immediately on a large scale. These obstacles included: the lack of communication and cooperation across campus (“disconnection” and “silos”);9 limitations imposed by the academic calendar; slow university action review and decisionmaking processes; and the lack of a process for dispersing funds and supplies to the appropriate organizations. These and other limitations hampered the ability of campuses to act quickly to address a number of logistical problems, such as: the lack of transportation to affected areas (and prohibitive cost in time and money), the lack of financial support, the lack of needed supplies and equipment, the difficulty in recruiting enough staff to supervise evacuees around the clock; and difficulty in locating alternative facilities and housing on and off campus (somewhat due to the extensive damage across the region), among other problems. A number of the institutions also indicated that their work was hindered by the lack of effective university relationships with other organizations and agencies. More specifically, it was difficult to stay informed of community needs and collaborate when few individuals on campus knew how to contact or work with response and service agencies. Also, some found it difficult to coordinate efforts with FEMA and the American Red Cross, which did not seem to welcome or work well with college volunteers; others had more positive experiences. Finally, some were unable to rely on community infrastructure, either because it never existed or because it was greatly damaged by the disaster. Managing student volunteers when their skills and interests did not match well with community needs created a problem for some institutions. Also, a few of those colleges that were not in close proximity found that it was challenging to maintain student enthusiasm to participate as time passed. The obstacles were greatest for those institutions (at least three) that were directly impacted by the disasters. While addressing their own needs and those of their own students, the affected institutions found it challenging to also respond to community needs in the short-term. In addition to sustaining physical damage to facilities and buildings, one institution was forced to close for an extended period. This university, which was impacted most severely, provided limited support as they lacked the necessary facilities, students, faculty, and staff to respond. Finally, one institution reported that it faced so many obstacles that it was unable to directly participate, aside from providing limited resources and engaging in a study afterwards. Almost all other institutions reported that they were fairly to very successful in addressing the obstacles. Findings— Institutional Change When asked if steps were taken to modify their institution in any way due to their involvement in disaster response, six colleges and universities (40%) reported that they did not change. The other nine indicated that their direct involvement did, indeed, result in modifications to their campuses. These modifications included: • an increased number of connections to community-based organizations, groups, and other partners at the national and local levels; • taking a more active role in community issues related to public education; • streamlining the process for disbursing funds and other resources to outside organizations; • increasing directed donations toward disaster response; • purchasing additional campus vehicles; • assessing and revising their own emergency response plan; • expanding disaster response efforts to other parts of the world; • increasing long-term recovery work; • hosting alternative breaks for visiting teams of students from other colleges; • establishing a student action group to help organize relief and rebuilding efforts; • establishing a student component of the local Community Emergency Response Team; and • collaboration between academic affairs and student affairs to teach volunteering skills to students. Finally, the university that was itself severely impacted by the disaster experienced a signifi11 Campuses as Community Partners During Disaster cant reduction of student enrollment, due to population loss. The only pattern found here among participating institutions was that a slightly higher percentage of private schools, as compared to public ones, answered in the affirmative that they had undergone some type of institutional change as a result of their involvement in the disaster. Recommendations Based on the study findings and our own experiences responding to natural disasters, we have identified a number of ways for universities and colleges to prepare to assist in advance of an emergency of this nature. First, they can thoroughly read the Ready Campus Manual10 and review and revise relevant practices and policies at their own institutions. The manual provides a good general understanding of emergency management, the risks involved, service-learning course syllabi, and many examples of how to effectively engage campuses to address some of the more immediate and longer-term needs. Those institutions with past experience responding to disasters (e.g., those located in communities that have faced multiple events) have already worked out many of the challenges and tend to be more able and adept in responding quickly. Even if they have not previously responded to a natural disaster, however, colleges and universities may still prepare to act immediately, should the need arise. One vital first step is to reduce the potential bureaucratic obstacles before a natural catastrophe. As suggested in the Ready Campus Manual, it is important to identify a number of knowledgeable and skilled people from different divisions across campus who will work as a team to lead efforts to respond.11 Included on this team should be those from the top decision-making level (who also handle resource allocations), as well as those who will carry out critical functions (such as recruiting and supervising voluntary service). There must be agreement across campus that, should a community crisis arise, this groupâ€™s authority will supersede the usual slow-acting college/university review and decision-making processes. This team must work together in advance to avert the potential obstacles identified by colleges and universities above. Initial steps should be taken to: (1) identify/establish a funding source that is readily available for the purchase of protective equipment (e.g., masks, gloves, and hazmat suits) and other necessary resources; (2) develop a plan for transporting volunteers, equipment, and supplies to impacted areas; (3) create an academic service-learning course rubric for disaster response (either department-specific or campus-wide) that allows for rapid utiliza12 tion within weeks if the need arises; and (4) establish a strategy for maintaining effective communication among all campus members and community partners. It is also very helpful to develop an informational website, updated hourly, that contains details on community needs (for resources and direct assistance), directions specifying how students and campus employees can help, available transportation, and important contacts and electronic links. All campuses already maintain an emergency response plan that outlines specific actions for when a natural or man-made crisis occurs on campus. The response team discussed here will also need to develop a plan to address the courses of action and responsible parties should a disaster occur in areas away from campus, keeping it current as specifics and people change over time. A list of key community people and organizations relevant to and knowledgeable regarding response efforts, as well as their contact information, should be gathered. Often, communities already have a network of agencies and organizations that are prepared to respond and support impacted communities; the challenge is to identify and connect with them. These could include the local Red Cross, Salvation Army, faith-based organizations active during disasters, United Way, and municipal and nonprofit committees and groups. Meetings with those already poised for just such an occurrence is helpful in establishing working relationships and developing strategies to effectively utilize college/ university students, personnel and resources. Some topics and challenges that could be discussed with these groups include: types of activities in which students are able to participate, as well as those in which they absolutely cannot (due to the risk or their lack of expertise); training and supervision of volunteers in community settings; addressing the physical and emotional needs of students and others who witness tragedies first-hand; and the possible use of campus facilities to serve as a temporary shelter and its supervision. It is critical that a mutually-respectful, collaborative approach between campus and community be used in planning for natural disaster response and recovery. The community likely includes experienced experts who can help guide the development of the campus response plan and advise how to best apply the collegeâ€™s human, physical, intellectual, and financial resources. Establishing effective strategies with knowledgeable community partners before the crisis will improve the efficiency and reduce redundancy in the chaotic environment always present after a natural disaster. The integration of planning efforts, practices, and processes will help achieve the mission that everyone sharesâ€”the rapid recovery of the community and its residents. Campuses as Community Partners During Disaster Conclusion In 2005, we had the 100-year flood. And in 2006, we had the 500year flood. What-year flood is this? —Binghamton resident Stacy Gould, New York Times 201112 In 2006, Broome County, New York (the location of Binghamton University—the institution where this study was based), experienced what was termed a “500-year flood.” In 2011, the region flooded again, this time on a scale never before recorded. As Binghamton resident Stacey Gould’s quote elucidates, one should never dismiss the possibility that a natural disaster could strike—even if its repeated occurrence within a short timeframe seems unlikely. Having dealt with disastrous flooding in the recent past, Broome County was fortunate to have already established an infrastructure made up of nonprofit organizations, government agencies, church networks, educational institutions, and concerned citizens who immediately convened when the most recent flooding struck in September 2011. Without this organizing response and recovery group, which is known as a Community Organizations Active in Disaster (COAD), coordinating volunteers, allocating resources, and communicating needs across sectors would have been significantly more challenging.13 The scale and speed at which Binghamton University responded was in large measure due to information and resources shared through this COAD. It should be noted that many communities lack COADs and not all higher education institutions have an emergency management professional on staff to coordinate their school’s internal response when disasters strike. To be eligible for federally sponsored disaster mitigation and relief resources, state and local governments are required to have plans for coordinating emergencies14; however, the same is obviously not required of individual citizens, or for that matter, individual higher education institutions. Furthermore, research shows that publicity campaigns aimed at moving citizens to action regarding disaster preparedness have not been particularly effective or well promoted.15 In fact, “public surveys show that most Americans recognize the importance of preparedness—but there is a great disconnect between thoughts and actions, as very few people actually take effective steps to prepare for potential disasters.”16 As evidenced by recent catastrophes on the Gulf Coast, government agencies cannot always respond as quickly as necessary to people in very dire need, “hence, disaster preparedness is not only wise, but also a vital civic responsibility,”17 and one which, as institutions with missions that espouse the importance of civic engagement, colleges and universities are compelled to act upon. There is no doubt that when natural disasters engulf communities, response plans can become difficult to execute without fault. Unexpected complications may arise which have the potential to momentarily slow progress but, on the whole, higher education institutions can be very effective at curbing the long-term negative impacts of natural It is critical that a mutually-respectful, collaborative approach between campus and community be used in planning for natural disaster response and recovery. 13 Campuses as Community Partners During Disaster disasters on their communities. If colleges and universities are able to reduce their internal bureaucratic obstacles and act in conjunction with their community partners by integrating response and recovery plans, decision-making, and action, their role as valuable partners in the aftermath of catastrophic natural disasters will be greatly advanced. References 1. David F. Shaffer and David J. Wright, A New Paradigm for Economic Development (Albany: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2010) 2. A list of these programs can be found at the website for FEMA’s Higher Education Emergency Management Institute: http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu. 3. Carrie Williams Howe, “Higher Education as a Partner in Disaster Response: Exploring Campus Response to Tropical Storm Irene in Vermont,” (this publication). 4. College Misericordia, Pennsylvania Campus Compact, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Association of Colleges and Universities, the American Red Cross, and the Pennsylvania Office of Homeland Security, Ready Campus Manual (http://www.paccompact.org/~ab1184/sites/default/files/rcmanual. pdf) 5. Ibid.,2 6. Ibid., 46 7. US Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework (2013), 1: http://www.fema.gov/ media-library-data/20130726-1914-25045-1246/final_national_response_framework_20130501.pdf 8. http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org 9. There is probably a lack of information sharing across campuses so that different divisions, offices, and other units have little information about what others are doing. Respondents have likely reported what they have more direct knowledge of and did not answer or were vague in response to questions regarding actions taken by other entities across their campuses. 10. http://www.paccompact.org/~ab1184/sites/default/files/rcmanual.pdf 11. This team does not duplicate or replace the function of the Emergency Response Manager and others charge with maintaining a safe campus. The team is charged with leading the institution’s response to the needs of others off- campus. 12. Cory Kilgannon, “Flooding Persists in Southern Tier of New York,” New York Times, September 9, 2011, accessed January 29, 2014. 13. If your community is without an active COAD, it is possible to connect with your state or territory’s Volunteer Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD) at http://www.nvoad.org/states. National VOADs, to which local and state VOADs belong, is a “nonprofit, nonpartisan, membership- ‐based organization that serves as the forum where organizations share knowledge and resources throughout the disaster cycle—preparation, response and recovery —to help disaster survivors and their communities” (http://www.nvoad.org/about). 14. Disaster Mitigation Act 2000, US Congress. 15. I.M.D. Redlener and D.A. Berman. “National Preparedness Planning: The Historical Context and Current State of the U.S. Public’s Readiness, 1940–2005,” Journal of International Affairs 59.2 (2006): 87–103. 16. Claude H. Miller, Bradley J. Adame and Scott D. Moore, “Vested Interest Theory and Disaster Preparedness,” Disasters 37.1 (2013): 2. 17. Ibid., 11 14 Superstorm Sandy and Cooperatorsâ€™ Advocacy Project (CAP) How a Small Voluntary Association Uses Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to Enhance Community Resilience KATHERINE K. CHEN CAROLYN ENGLISH Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) P Abstract rior studies have argued that social ties cultivated via organizations can enhance community resilience (i.e., a community’s ability to weather crises and support individuals). Understanding what organizations can do to cultivate and strengthen such ties before, during, and after disasters requires more research. Learning how to sustain such organizations is also important. This paper discusses one group’s efforts to enhance community resilience and set up a sustainable organization called the Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP), a small, community-based voluntary association located in a low-tomoderate-income housing complex in New York City. Drawing on ethnographic research of organizing activities conducted by an organizational sociologist between 2012 and 2013 and community-based participatory research (CBPR) efforts undertaken with the founder and director of CAP, this paper examines CAP’s organizing activities before and after a major disaster: October 2012’s Superstorm Sandy. We show how CBPR can help small voluntary associations like CAP to more systematically focus reflexive activities. With CBPR, rather than mindlessly follow routines or externally imposed guidelines, groups such as CAP can continually examine issues, introduce organizing activities that respond to emergent needs, document activities, and forecast future needs. These activities promote community resilience by establishing bonds prior to potential disasters and establish a basis for flexible and generative organizing that can respond to disasters ranging in impact from small to system-wide. We conclude with recommendations about how researchers and organizations can undertake CBPR. Key words community-based participatory research, disaster preparedness, disaster recovery, organizations Introduction Recent natural disasters have revealed how vulnerable neighborhoods are to even temporary hardships. Prior studies have argued that social ties cultivated via organizations can enhance community resilience, (i.e., a community’s ability to weather crises and support individuals). Communities with higher resilience recover from disasters more quickly than those with lower resilience,1 indicating how ties among persons and groups are crucial to effective disaster preparedness and disaster recovery. Understanding what organizations can do to cultivate and strengthen such bonding activities before, during, and after disasters requires more research. Learning how to sustain such organizations is also important. This paper discusses one group’s efforts to enhance community resilience and set up a sustainable organization. The Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) is a small, community-based voluntary association located in a multilingual, ethnically diverse, low-to-moderate-income housing complex in New York City (NYC). In 2003, Carolyn English, a registered nurse, started working on a community health issue at the request of her housing complex’s then board president. Because of her medical expertise, English was tasked with addressing the alarming number of elderly residents—from 15 to 22 a year—who died alone in their homes in the aftermath of 9/11.2 The complex, which was built in 1965 and welcomed its first residents in 1967, has become a naturally occurring retirement community. That is, the majority of residents were aged 65 or older and were aging in place rather than moving to retirement homes or nursing 16 facilities. Such residents needed support because infirmities complicate self-care activities, otherwise known as the activities of daily living (ADLs), including dressing and preparing meals. Over the years, CAP has offered health education, exercise classes, and recreational activities intended to engage and re-integrate socially isolated residents into the larger community. Drawing on the ethnographic research of organizing activities conducted by an organizational sociologist between 2012 and 2013 and community-based participatory research (CBPR) efforts undertaken with the founder and director of CAP, this paper examines CAP’s organizing activities before and after one major disaster with widespread impact, October 2012’s Superstorm Sandy. In particular, we discuss how CBPR has helped focus CAP’s efforts. In CBPR, a research partner and community partner team together to co-design and co-undertake a research project that addresses both partners’ aims and concerns.3 Superstorm Sandy provided an unanticipated natural experiment for studying disaster recovery and disaster preparedness efforts. We show how CBPR can help small voluntary associations like CAP to more systematically focus reflexive activities. With CBPR, rather than mindlessly follow routines or externally imposed guidelines, groups such as CAP can continually examine issues, revamp organizing activities that respond to emergent needs, document activities, and forecast future needs. These activities promote community resilience by establishing bonds prior to potential disasters and setting a basis Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) for flexible and generative organizing that can respond to disasters ranging in impact from small to systemwide. We conclude with recommendations about how researchers and organizations can undertake CBPR. This research can help practitioners and researchers understand how small organizations can strengthen the resilience of communities, as well as how CBPR can help promote the development and further the goals of community-based organizations. In addition, this study answers the call for more research on small organizations and collectivities, which have not been well represented in organizational research,4 particularly in disaster research.5 Small organizations are defined as including groups that lack paid staff and are volunteer-run. Because of their relative youth, size, and capacity, they may not have formally incorporated as a nonprofit organization.6 How small, community-based organizations could help with disaster preparedness and recovery In the United States, more people are living alone than before,7 suggesting changes in the types and number of social ties connecting persons. These changes have implications for individual and collective outcomes, including health and well-being. For example, meta-analyses of studies that examined relationships between social ties and mortality rates have revealed that those who have fewer social connections have higher mortality rates than those who have more social connections.8 Disasters such as heatwaves show how vulnerable socially isolated persons are, as help may not reach them in time.9 When the state and hospitals respond, their efforts may be coordinated too late. During the 2003 French heatwave, delays in emergency and medical response contributed to the deaths of 14,802 persons—mostly elderly residing in cities—from hyperthermia.10 Such outcomes suggest that decentralized, local activity may be crucial to preparing for disasters and recovering after disasters. In this vein, several policymakers have called for greater coordination with local organizations and promoted “neighbor helping neighbor” efforts.11 However, past research has shown how the state and its agents, such as the police and large organizations, have ignored or even suppressed emergent local efforts, citing security concerns. This suggests that the state and other entities do not yet fully recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of small, community-based organizations and informal arrangements. To interact with the state and other groups, smaller and less conventional organizations often experience internal and external pressures to adopt certain organizing practices that may not be appropriate for their mission or size and that are incompatible with other practices.12 This is particularly problematic for community-based organizations that do not have the resources, expertise, or interest in emulating expected practices. The lack of coordination among a wider variety of organizations and the state is puzzling because experts contend that we should expect disasters on regular basis, rather than as infrequent occurrences.13 Instead of depending upon the state to spearhead action, especially because disaster plans are likely to be inapplicable, experts recommend that individuals coordinate with people in their vicinity—namely, colleagues and neighbors.14 Community-based organizations can facilitate those ties prior to disasters and offer the basis for immediate, coordinated action during disasters and recovery periods. But how can such organizations learn to prepare for disasters? Moreover, what conditions can support such learning? How to support CBPR with community-based organizations that are small and do not rely upon conventional bureaucratic organizing practices requires more study. Lessons learned from past disaster preparations and recovery Lessons shared from recent disaster experiences have emphasized how organizations should both perform advanced rational planning and adapt to unfolding circumstances. Some organizations can implement simpler steps immediately, like keeping an up-to-date emergency contact list15 and an inventory list for insurance claims.16 Other efforts involve more complex contingency planning to compensate for downed headquarters, communication systems,17 power, and pharmacies.18 Recommendations underscore organizational creativity, flexibility, and responsiveness to emergent needs. In particular, organizations may have to suspend rules and routines that work well in stable and predictable environments, but that are ill suited for rapidly changing environments. For example, after a disaster, a library became a community site that offered social services. It suspended standard operating procedures to assist patrons in need, thereby building “the support and good-will needed” for recovery.19 After a Superstorm Sandy-inflicted power outage necessitated the evacuation of NYC’s Bellevue Hospital Center, personnel moved more than 700 patients, including those needing hand-pumped ventilators, from up to 17 flights of stairs. Able-bodied patients assisted staff teams with transferring the bedbound,20 showing how seemingly unlikely volunteers can be recruited to assist others. Other challenges require activating a pre-existing organizational infrastructure and community network. Managers of trans- Community-based organizations can facilitate those ties prior to disasters and offer the basis for immediate, coordinated action during disasters and recovery periods. 17 Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) portation agencies made informal agreements across their organizations to pool efforts in the event of a disaster.21 However, because these arrangements are informal, these agreements may dissolve with the inevitable personnel turnover, requiring new personnel to reestablish such links. Even if organizational members are willing to collectively pool efforts towards a common cause, they note barriers to knowledge-sharing. For example, professionals have expressed fears about bothering colleagues at more “elite” organizations and exposing themselves to potential liability for information shared in collective forums such as listservs.22 If effectively addressing complex issues is a priority, we need to surmount known stumbling blocks. For instance, experts have urged devoting greater attention to mental health access in the workplace and community at large. Post-disaster, more persons will need mental health services because of distress over the loss of homes, livelihoods, and posttraumatic stress disorder triggered by disaster experiences.23 Moreover, those with preexisting mental illnesses face more challenges than usual in following treatment plans.24 Structural challenges to CBPR’s role in disaster preparedness and recovery CBPR may play a role in orienting organizations to disaster preparedness and recovery, as researchers seek to share their expertise and learn from practitioners. In particular, CBPR may bridge the gap between research and policy by enabling partners to identify and target key actors that design and enact policy.25 However, conducting CBPR involves several challenges. Prior CBPR projects have documented the challenges of matching research and community partners and supporting research partners with sufficient research time to perform CBPR, which requires more time and labor than conventional research projects.26 In addition, institutions that are particularly reliant on “soft money” or grants may find CBRP an unattractive endeavor because of the time, labor, and other resources needed, suggesting that dedicated resources would encourage CBPR activities. 27 Proponents have identified systemic changes needed to support CBPR, including refashioning university tenure and promotion guidelines to reward CBPR and supporting personnel via fellowships. 28 Rationalization tendencies at certain universities—where researchers are assessed based on grants won, papers published and cited, patents filed, and other quantifiable measures29—suggest potentially hostile environments to CBPR endeavors, unless universities incorporate CBPR as part of their distinctive identity.30 18 Methods Establishment of relations prior to CBPR project In the fall of 2011, the two CBPR partners for this project met by chance at two meetings of two different umbrella organizations composed of representatives from local organizations that serve or advocate for older adults.31 Chen, an organizational sociologist, had been attending and observing these meetings for her research on how organizations approach aging issues. When English heard Chen briefly describe her research project, she invited Chen to observe CAP in the hopes that a researcher could help her learn more about what CAP could do to sustain its efforts. After several discussions with English about what this would involve, Chen conducted intensive ethnographic observations of CAP’s activities from January 2012 through December 2013. Her observations focused on the management of volunteers and six semesters of a clinical class in the urban nursing program at CityTech, CUNY that was hosted on-site as part of the CAP program. Research site Although CAP has not yet legally incorporated as a nonprofit organization, it is run and staffed by a small volunteer corps. Some volunteers are bilingual, with Russian, Spanish, Chinese, and other language proficiencies, reflecting the resident population’s primary languages. As a small voluntary organization, CAP has relied upon donated labor and resources, including space at its host residential complex. Its founding was supported by a small grant and assistance from other organizations—including the United Jewish Council and the now-defunct Cabrini Hospital. CAP has since established informal and formal partnerships with other organizations, including local universities, which provide CBPR may bridge the gap between research and policy by enabling partners to identify and target key actors that design and enact policy. Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) in-kind services such as home visits and nutrition classes. To achieve its efforts, CAP works with several actors in its organizational field. Because of CAP’s location in a housing complex, relations with the complex’s management company and cooperative board—both of which have experienced turnover in terms of personnel and elected officers—have shaped the kinds of activities undertaken by CAP. The management company oversees repairs and security at the complex, and the complex’s cooperative corporation consists of shareholders and a shareholder-elected board. CAP also works with local elected officials, several local universities’ health services programs, healthcare providers, local businesses, and local community-based organizations that advocate and/or contract with the government to provide human services. Learning about CBPR practices During the fall of 2012, Chen and English applied to a CBPR workshop program run by the Colin L. Powell Center for Leadership and Service, now the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership, at the City College of New York, CUNY. After completing an application, undergoing an interview, and being accepted into the program, the partners participated in sessions and individual meetings with Powell Center personnel about how to undertake CBPR. Undertaking CBPR At CAP, Chen not only continued to take extensive field notes on organizing efforts and experiences, but also worked with English on a potential CBPR focus. We regularly discussed CAP activities and CBPR efforts in person, by phone, and by email, with English forwarding information on CAP (e.g., fliers). When possible, we also attended meetings of umbrella organizations serving older adults, workshops, and conference presentations, which provided more ideas for community programming for the community partner and helped the research partner understand different perspectives of those working on these issues. This paper distills our CBPR experiences based on field notes and multiple discussions of efforts, with reflections on implications for CBPR in other organizations. Findings Conduct of CBPR Using a CBPR template provided by the Colin Powell Center, the partners had several discussions during fall 2011 and spring 2012 about possible research questions for a CBPR project and about what research methodologies, stakeholders, and resources would be involved. Both agreed that the project needed to integrate both partners’ strengths and interests. The research partner could offer skills and expertise in organizations and the community partner was interested in creating an organization that could continue to operate after her retirement. Thus, we focused our initial CBPR proposal on the sustainability of CAP as an organization, including documenting CAP’s efforts. During fall 2012, the partners refined the project’s focus because of Superstorm Sandy, an unexpected exogenous event. In general, CAP’s efforts can be categorized into three types: (1) planned, regular activities; (2) responses to emergent issues and disasters; and (3) advocacy work. Some activities are planned in advance and run according to a schedule. For example, as part of their community nursing class, nurses provide health education and make referrals to health and social service professionals, as needed, via face-to-face consultations and health fairs. CAP volunteers visit residents who are socially isolated or homebound and organize regular recreational activities and events that bring together residents. Other CAP activities involve responding to situations, crises, and disasters as they arise. These include addressing concentrated issues affecting individuals or families and mass disasters that span the city and even national boundaries. As English has described, CAP’s efforts “turn on a dime” by quickly shifting attention to emerging issues. For example, a fire sparked by a portable heater destroyed one apartment, severely damaged immediately surrounding units, and killed one family’s pets. Besides immediately tending to residents who had descended to another building’s lobby, away from the fire, CAP worked with the management office to help a displaced family temporarily relocate to another apartment. CAP also coordinated donations to help them and other affected families replace destroyed furniture. In addition, CAP connected distressed families with other resources, including the American Red Cross, and checked on residents’ well-being in the ensuing weeks. Similarly, when a nearby community center’s air conditioning broke during a July 2013 heatwave, closing their cooling center for local residents, CAP set up a temporary cooling center with bottled water and an airconditioned space. Having such a back-up site was important for minimizing the incidence of heat exhaustion and heatstroke, as not all residents have air conditioners or the ability to pay for the electricity to power air conditioning. In addition, older adults may not remember to drink enough water, risking dehydration (especially when taking medications). Additionally, CAP has taken on advocacy work on neighborhood-wide issues such as gentrification and the loss of affordable In general, CAP’s efforts can be categorized into three types: planned, regular activities; responses to emergent issues and disasters; and advocacy work. 19 Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) housing. Within the housing complex, CAP has educated shareholders who are unfamiliar with their rights and responsibilities in their housing cooperative’s matters. Moreover, CAP has kept track of proposed changes to policies that affect the cooperative’s ownership structure, such as what happens if a shareholder moves to nursing home. In addition, CAP has referred residents to resources that help defray rising monthly maintenance payments, rental costs, and medical expenses. Such needs underscore what English has dubbed a metaphorical “storm arising,” one that threatens to undercut community resilience: the simultaneous erosion of affordable housing and increased living costs. CAP’s resulting endeavors underscore the program’s immediacy and responsiveness to community needs. Using CBPR for post-Superstorm Sandy recovery The October 2012 Superstorm Sandy and its aftermath posed the most visible challenge with its scale and duration. In general, some NYC residents were caught off-guard, as they had underestimated the severity of the superstorm given the previous year’s comparatively tame Hurricane Irene. In addition, residents experienced confusion over newly implemented policies. For example, during Superstorm Sandy, which was expected to hit during high tide, CAP had to notify one building’s residents that they were no longer in the area designated as a mandatory evacuation zone. After the storm, the entire housing complex experienced weeklong electrical, heat, water, and communication outages due to flooding at a utility plant, corrosion to copper wires for telephone systems, and other damage. These outages stranded residents who had difficulties navigating multiple flights of darkened stairwells. Some residents ran out of prescription medications, including those that needed refrigeration (such as insulin for diabetes). Electrical outages and storm damage had also closed surrounding hospitals, pharmacies, supermarkets, and other amenities. To help residents, CAP inquired about medical facilities and amenities open elsewhere. To coordinate activities, CAP set up a temporary ground-level office at the housing complex that had a working landline, with English serving as a trained first responder who could coordinate efforts during emergencies.32 Throughout the week, English, other CAP volunteers, and co-op board members coordinated with several organizations, including the complex’s management office, police, and fire department, to evacuate several residents to medical facilities that could accept them. These efforts involved complex negotiations about who had the expertise and authority to make certain decisions to be executed by other 20 entities. For example, at post-Sandy meetings of CAP and other organizations serving older adults, English recounted a discussion with a fire chief about whether to evacuate an elderly, homebound resident. The resident’s top-floor apartment was damaged, with windows that were broken by the storm, and the resident had run out of the refrigerated medication required to manage a chronic illness. Although a volunteer doctor had strongly recommended evacuating the resident to a care facility given the apartment and health conditions, the fire chief was because the resident did not want to leave. When English pointed out that the fire chief could either evacuate the resident now or break down the door later for a dead or dying resident, he agreed to evacuate the person immediately rather than wait.33 This and other negotiations indicated how management offices, co-op boards, and the state’s agents have not yet addressed who has decision-making authority and how to coordinate group efforts under this decisionmaker. As a first responder, English used her expert opinion and local knowledge to decide appropriate steps that impact individuals’ well-being. However, she needed other groups to agree with and act upon her decisions. How to handle decision-making suggests one crucial area that needs to be addressed if the state depends on local efforts to enact disaster preparation and recovery. During the power outage, CAP also worked with local elected officials, the American Red Cross, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and surrounding community-based organizations. For example, a councilperson worked with CAP to ensure that residents who needed prescription medications could refill them at pharmacies that were open in other areas and in hospitals. In addition, CAP managed an influx of 120 volunteers who climbed up to 21 floors to Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) check on residents and distribute supplies such as water, batteries, and blankets. While some residents were able to temporarily relocate to the homes of relatives and friends, others remained in their own residences, relying upon volunteers for help and neighbors to share meals cooked on gas stoves. To residents’ relief, power to CAP’s housing complex was restored after a long, dark, and cold week. CAP’s efforts continued, shifting into disaster recovery and preparedness. When contacted by Chen in the days after Superstorm Sandy, Genéa Stewart at the Powell Center put CAP into contact with University Settlement, a local organization. Under a contract with FEMA, teams from University Settlement knocked on doors and offered mental health counseling for local residents in the year after the disaster. CAP integrated this program with its community nursing outreach program with nurses from CityTech, CUNY, during the spring 2013 and summer 2013 semesters. In the months after the superstorm, both research and community partners attended meetings on disaster recovery and preparedness that refocused CAP’s educational efforts for its staff and residents, as well as its community nursing program’s nurses. In anticipation of future disasters, English added disaster preparedness of residents and volunteers to CAP’s educational program. She and a volunteer, another registered nurse, underwent additional orientation and training conducted by the NYC Office of Emergency Management (OEM). CAP’s community nursing program undertook disaster preparedness as part of educational outreach efforts for the fall 2013 semester, when hurricane season resumed. In addition, CAP diversified volunteer recruitment with an intergenerational, multilingual corps of volunteers and interns. English realized that recruiting volunteers of all ages is necessary for effective disaster preparedness and recovery. Younger volunteers have physical stamina and technological know-how that can complement the experiences and expertise of older volunteers. A diverse volunteer corps also may be able to sustain CAP as activities evolve with community needs. Besides triggering changes for study, Superstorm Sandy’s aftermath provided the research partner with an unexpected opportunity to learn how to inquire about the community partner’s needs and teach research skills. About nine months after Superstorm Sandy, the research and community partners discussed what had and had not been done in regard to lessons learned. The community partner wanted her organization to learn how to record and analyze data to better target services and to generate statistics for internal and external record-keeping. Although she had several conversations with the research partner and another organization’s representative about record-keeping in general in the past, she felt that it was time to use CBPR to help CAP analyze efforts after this particular exogenous shock, as well as prepare for future disasters. Developing a database for current and future CBPR efforts After several more discussions with community stakeholders, including organizations that partner with CAP, the research and community partners decided to focus efforts on documenting the numbers of residents served via CAP. Although the community partner had collected handwritten records, she had not tallied figures or presented these for internal or external use. While explaining what a database could do, the research partner explained possibilities for recognizing, categorizing, and counting issues for disaster preparedness and recovery. These included requests for translation help, as well as health conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, recovery from recent surgery, etc., that require more concerted monitoring. During these discussions, the community partner outlined several objectives to pursue, such as flagging households with high needs—with residents’ permission—for extra attention during future disasters. The research partner discussed different uses of information, such as forecasting statistics and issues for future disasters. For example, another organization had advised that documenting numbers of households served could help, for example, with writing grant applications to fund programs and reports. After these discussions, the community partner developed a mini-project to assess the impact of Superstorm Sandy and how CAP could support residents. She developed a three-question, open-ended survey asking residents how they had been affected, what they needed to prepare for future disasters, and how they would prefer to have information about disaster planning disseminated. As part of their fall 2013 community nursing class, students administered this convenience survey to residents passing through the complex’s common areas and then collectively debriefed their findings in class. During this discussion, the community partner highlighted populations missed by this round of administered surveys—including the homebound and, in particular, Asian-American residents who are not proficient enough in English to answer the survey questions. This provided the community partner and students with a teaching moment about the importance of considering underrepresented populations in research.34 In addition, this mini-project demonstrated the community partner’s aptitude for research. While explaining what a database could do, the research partner explained possibilities for recognizing, categorizing, and counting issues for disaster preparedness and recovery. 21 Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) Addressing skills and resources While discussing possible foci with the community partner, the research partner discovered the extent to which the community partner and organization must straddle the digital divide. Although the community partner owned a laptop and had Internet access in the CAP office, she did not yet know how to store and organize electronic files into folders, create a password-protected user account on her computer, or use formulas in a spreadsheet program to tally or categorize numbers. Rather than delve into the details of how to create a database and use other computer applications, the research partner described possibilities, quickly demonstrated software capacities, and provided links to online guides for software applications (e.g., how to use functions such as “track changes” in word-processing documents). The community partner had identified an undergraduate volunteer, who had been recruited by an elder family member, another volunteer, as interested in learning research skills. This volunteer provided help with entering data in a database, in consultation with the research and community partners. Considering trade-offs CBPR facilitated a more consciously reflexive process about how to organize, with discussion of trade-offs that might not otherwise be anticipated and considered. For example, when a student in the summer 2013 community nursing program suggested that CAP develop a website to highlight its mission and achievements, the community partner stated concerns about not having sufficient organizational and technological capacity to maintain a website. Later, the research partner discussed with the community partner the implications of having a website. On the one hand, a website might help CAP with public relations; on the other hand, it might generate a flurry of requests for help or information that the organization may not yet be able to support. With these issues in mind, one CAP volunteer is investigating the feasibility of constructing and hosting a website. During discussions about how the press has covered individual tragedies—such as suicide—and disaster relief in the housing complex, the research partner raised confidentiality concerns for the community partner to consider. To help the community partner understand different perspectives, the research partner compared the stances of health professionals, researchers, and journalists. Such perspectives are not immediately obvious for those who are unfamiliar with the practices and ethics of different professions. Awareness of such divergent viewpoints will allow CAP to craft policies that fit its members’ needs and interests. CBPR has enabled the research and community partners to identify how ramping 22 up efforts in bonding efforts might matter for long-term resilience and recovery. CAP has adopted the standard informational route, but recent events suggest an interesting twist on how to enlarge disaster preparedness outreach. For instance, the New York City OEM has helped “train the trainers” by educating prospective first responders, including nurses, who in turn will educate those who cannot attend such meetings, such as homebound residents. However, even self-aware professionals have admitted aversions to preparing emergency “go bags” for evacuation, which compile information such as contact numbers, and planning meet-up points with family members.35 In part, this may be due to a cultural reluctance to prepare or even entertain worst-case scenarios.36 However, recent activities suggest a possible strategy for surmounting that barrier is helping others in need. After 2013 Super Typhoon Haiyan, elderly residents have asked CAP to assist with sending medical supplies via the American Red Cross to devastated areas in the Philippines.37 In addition, CAP will also hold a special outreach session, in cooperation with a partner organization, about mental health support for such transnational communities.38 Such efforts suggest that perhaps by helping others, even those located outside the immediate geographical community, individuals may also promote local resilience. Effective disaster preparation and recovery can grow out of neighbors’ efforts to help others, even across national boundaries. For the future, English would like to examine how bonding activities prior to disasters can provide a basis for maintaining trust among neighbors when everyday routines and arrangements are disrupted or suspended. These may be crucial to maintaining community integrity, particularly among those who are the most vulnerable. For example, she and another nurse have noted that residents who were “temporarily” relocated to longterm care facilities during the superstorm may have lost their apartments and thus may not be able to return home. Neighbor-to-neighbor ties may reduce the likelihood of these scenarios. If someone notices that a resident is missing or is in need of assistance to return home, that resident may be tracked rather than have to fend for themselves. In addition, CBPR fostered more reflexivity concerning community relations. The two partners view CBPR as one way of more formally integrating undergraduate and high school students who want to learn new skills. CBPR offers a more concerted opportunity for the community and research partners to mentor students and help them build community. In addition, the community partner gains familiarity with research methodologies [B]onding activities prior to disasters can provide a basis for maintaining trust when everyday routines are disrupted. Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) and current developments in research that can reinvigorate efforts while the research partner develops a deeper understanding of community needs and interests. Moreover, CBPR connected CAP with more organizations than before, coordinating efforts and enhancing community resilience via referrals to resources. English has stated that “our work [at CAP] is supported and enhanced by partnerships with other organizations.”39 Instead of fostering a sense of competition, in which local organizations feel pitted against each other for scarce resources, organizations can realize complementary efforts that ultimately serve their community. What kind of involvement do other partners want? Discussion: Conditions that Enhanced CBPR Here, we reflect on conditions that enhanced our CBPR experience, with the aim of helping other groups anticipate possible issues when undertaking their own CBPR. Establish relations prior to undertaking CBPR In general, some organizational representatives may automatically say “no” when approached about participating in any research endeavors, including traditional research projects. Such “gatekeepers” feel they do not have the capacity to accommodate researchers’ efforts, and they also do not see an immediate short-term benefit to their organizations. They may view research as involving more work without sufficient returns, and they may also cite researcher fatigue, particularly in areas such as NYC where various research institutions and their representatives (in particular, students) are seeking sites to recruit respondents for surveys or enroll persons in medical trials, for instance.40 Thus, an organization’s willingness to embark on such projects is not to be underestimated. Moreover, constant and explicit discussion about what each partner might get out of the experience, as it unfolds, is important. For the authors, having established a relationship before developing a CBPR project was crucial to identifying viable projects. With her already conducted ethnographic research on CAP and the larger field of organizations serving older adults, the research partner was fully immersed in the community partner’s setting and familiar with CAP’s activities. This immersion provided her with both context and a sense of needs and possibilities. In addition, this relationship helped set up boundaries and guidelines with stakeholders as situations arose. For instance, what can a community partner ask of a student who is being supervised by the research partner? Formalize time to conduct CBPR Moreover, having time to undertake CBPR is important. To conduct this research, the research partner applied for and received an annual course release through her union. This course release reduced her teaching load by one class during one school semester. With a course release, the research partner could conduct observations, write field notes on activities, meet with the community partner and other stakeholders, and draft this paper and related presentations and manuscripts. At research-intensive universities, professors have reduced courseloads that allow concentrated time for research. In contrast, institutions such as CUNY have heavy teaching responsibilities as well as service demands (e.g., serving on departmental, divisional, and university-wide committees) that curtail the intensity and type of research among professors who cannot get course releases for research.41 If working with the community on research is a priority, institutions must be willing to support reduced teaching and service loads. In addition, institutions need resources to support such endeavors. For example, the Colin Powell Center facilitated workshops and conferences that helped acquaint bother partners with CBPR. In addition, both partners need to spend time training and working with volunteers, whose ranks often turnover because of school schedules or individuals’ changing interests. This allocation of time already is challenging for voluntary associations and nonprofit organizations that are short on manpower and have multiple responsibilities to address. Because CBPR offers a real-world context with potential longterm payoffs—namely, building future capacity—this can be an especially rewarding joint activity for both parties. However, both partners need to have regular discussions with volunteers about their involvement with CBPR and address considerations such as whether student volunteers can earn internship credits at their home institutions or have recommendation letters 23 Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) written on their behalf for applications. This is a capacity issue that not all organizations, particularly underresourced ones, are able or willing to handle. Asynchronize priorities and divide responsibilities Another issue concerns prioritization and division of responsibilities. Both partners have to work with stakeholders who often have multiple, divergent interests and may not agree on the relative importance of outcomes and processes to reach these outcomes. For instance, the research partner highly prioritized preparing items for publication according to a regimented, deadline-oriented schedule. The community partner also valued sharing experiences and lessons with a wider public in venues such as these. However, the community partner’s efforts were focused upon emergent matters, such as clients’ needs, that demanded immediate attention. Given these competing demands, partners may have to either implicitly or explicitly agree to work out-of-synch as needed, as well as assume different responsibilities. In this case, the research partner took primary responsibility for the write-up of the paper analyzing CBPR experiences, while the community partner shared relevant references, ideas, and feedback to refine drafts. Revise assumptions and adopt mutualcoaching roles On a related note, one lesson learned for the research partner involved suspending assumptions about capacity. By asking questions about resources and skills, particularly computer literacy and organizational skills, which are otherwise taken for granted, the research partner was able to understand where to target efforts. At times, the research partner adopted an expert coaching role, explaining possible steps and consequences that are not obvious to laypersons. Likewise, the community partner took time to impart local knowledge—that is, tacit information that was not readily accessible to an “outsider”—and formal policies to the research partner, who did not have direct access to these. Learning is a two-way street, as each partner has expertise in certain areas. Encourage connection, reflexivity, and dissemination Although fledging groups view improving organizing as an important priority, in practice, they spend little time reflecting on organizing processes.42 Moreover, lessons learned may not fully disseminate to the wider public. In particular, voluntary organizations find that powerful actors, such as the state and foundations that provide financial support for programs, have expectations about what organizations should do. However, those actors 24 evidence seemingly little awareness or regard for conditions needed to realistically sustain programs and their underlying organizations. Conducting CBPR toward understanding how to sustain organizations can help address this gap. For both authors, undertaking CBPR and working on this paper contributed to an aim of connecting and sharing experiences with the public and other actors. Under traditional research, study designs and publications usually reflect only researchers’ experiences. In comparison, CBPR can forge stronger relations between researchers and communities, enhance the conduct of research, and broaden dissemination. Particularly among under-represented communities, reflecting both partners’ voices is crucial to more fully portraying experiences from multiple perspectives.43 For the two partners, CBPR has facilitated a learning loop beyond both parties and widened understanding of roles vis-à-vis others. For example, CBPR offered the community partner connections with other organizations that might not otherwise be entertained. Similarly, because of immersion into the community, the research partner has acquired a deeper understanding of how the typically divided spheres of research and community can forge more mutually beneficial ties via perspective and information sharing, student intern placements, and other activities. Through the dissemination of this and other findings, CBPR could potentially enhance capacity-building and support for other local organizations. In this way, CBPR can simultaneously help communities enhance resilience while promoting knowledge-building and sharing among researchers, organizations, and communities. Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) References 1. Aldrich, Daniel P. Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 2012. 2. Observation of a lower Manhattan umbrella group, December 2, 2011. 3. For an overview of CBPR’s origins and aims, see Minkler, Meredith, “Community-Based Research Partnerships: Challenges and Opportunities,” Journal of Urban Health 82(2) (2005): ii3–ii12. 4. Smith, David Horton, “The Rest of the Nonprofit Sector: Grassroots Associations as the Dark Matter Ignored in Prevailing ‘Flat Earth’ Maps of the Sector,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 26 (1997): 114–131. 5. Lanzara, Giovan Francesco, “Ephemeral Organizations in Extreme Environments: Emergence, Strategy, Extinction,” Journal of Management Studies 20(1) (1983): 71–95. 6. Smith, “The Rest of the Nonprofit Sector: Grassroots Associations as the Dark Matter Ignored in Prevailing ‘Flat Earth’ Maps of the Sector.” 7. Eric Klinenberg, Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone (New York: Penguin Press, 2012). 8. Holt-Lunstad, Julianne, Timothy B. Smith, and J. Bradley Layton, “Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-Analytic Review,” PLosMed 7(7) (2010): e1000316.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 9. Klinenberg, Eric, “Dying Alone: The Social Production of Urban Isolation,” Ethnography 2 (2001): 501–531. Eric Klinenberg, Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2002). 10. Adrot, Anouck and Jean-Luc Moriceau, “Introducing Performativity to Crisis Management Theory: An Illustration from the 2003 French Heat Wave Crisis Response,” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 21(1) (2013): 26–44. 11. Armour, Gaston and Hero Tameling, “Collaborative Relationships are Key to Community Resilience and Emergency Preparedness.” Proceedings of the 8th International ISCRAM Conference in Lisbon, Portugal, May 2011. 12. Joyce Rothschild and J. Allen Whitt, The Cooperative Workplace: Potentials and Dilemmas of Organizational Democracy and Participation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986). 13. Charles Perrow, Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies (Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press, 1999). 14. Lee Clarke, Mission Improbable: Using Fantasy Documents to Tame Disaster (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1999). Lee Clarke, Worst Cases: Terror and Catastrophe in the Popular Imagination (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006). 15. Wall, Kay L., “Lessons Learned from Katrina: What Really Matters in a Disaster,” Public Library Quarterly 25 (3/4) (2006): 189–198. 16. Drew, Jeff and Ken Tysiac, “Preparing for Disaster, ” Journal Of Accountancy 215(5) (2013): 26–31. 17. Wall, “Lessons Learned from Katrina: What Really Matters in a Disaster,” 189–198. 18. Redlener, Irwin and Michael J. Reilly, “Lessons from Sandy–Preparing Health Systems for Future Disasters,” New England Journal of Medicine 367(24) (2012): 2269–2271. 19. Wall, “Lessons Learned from Katrina: What Really Matters in a Disaster,” 198. 20. Mbewe, Catherine and Marcia Jones, “Hurricane Sandy: Competencies Needed to Contend with Natural Disasters,” MEDSURG Nursing 22(4) (2013): 1–5. Newsletter. 21. Donald Chisholm, Coordination without Hierarchy: Informal Structures in Multiorganizational Systems (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989). 22. Binz-Scharf, Maria Christina, David Lazer, and Ines Mergel, “Searching for Answers: Networks of Practice Among Public Administrators,” The American Review of Public Administration 42(2) (2012): 202–225. 23. Drew and Tysiac, “Preparing for Disaster,” 26–31; Redlener and Reilly, “Lessons from Sandy,” 2269–2271. 24. Manuel, John, “The Long Road to Recovery,” Environmental Health Perspectives 121(5) (2013): A152–A159. 25. Minkler, Meredith, Victoria Breckwich Vásquez, and Peggy Shepard, “Promoting Environmental Health Policy Through Community Based Participatory Research: A Case Study from Harlem, New York,” Journal of Urban Health 83(1) (2006): 101–110. 26. Shalini Tendulkar et al., “A Funding Initiative for Community-Based Participatory Research: Lessons from the Harvard Catalyst Seed Grants,” Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 5(1) (2011): 35–44. 27. Freudenberg, Nicholas, “Case History of the Center for Urban Epidemiological Studies in New York City,” Journal of Urban Health 78(3) (2001): 508–518. 28. Philip Nyden, “Academic Incentives for Faculty Participation in Community-Based Participatory Research,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 18(7): 576–585. 29. James C. Scott, Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work and Play (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012). Gaye Tuchman, Wannabe U: Inside the Corporate Universit y (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009). 30. Such an approach may be useful when competing with otherwise similar organizations for donor funds (e.g., Barman, 2002). 31. Observation of Lower East Side umbrella group, October 25, 2011, and Lower Manhattan umbrella group, December 2, 2011. 25 Superstorm Sandy and Cooperators’ Advocacy Project (CAP) 32. First responders are trained professionals, such as medical personnel and law enforcement, who can take charge of emergency situations and delegate or relinquish authority at their discretion. 33. Observation of CAP, November 20, 2013. 34. Observation of CAP, October 2, 2013. 35. Observation of CAP, November 20, 2013. 36. Karen A. Cerulo, Never Saw It Coming: Cultural Challenges to Envisioning the Worst (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006). 37. Conversation with English, November 18, 2013. 38. Observation of CAP, November 20, 2013. 39. Conversation, November 18, 2013. 40. Chen, Katherine K., “‘Why must we keep coming back?’ Mobilizing interorganizational networks during extreme uncertainty.” Manuscript presented at Eastern Sociological Society annual meeting, February 24, 2012. 41. CUNY has a contractual 21-credit load for tenured faculty. If courses are three credits each, this translates into a 4:3 course load during the school year. In other words, a tenured faculty member teaches four courses one semester and three courses another semester if s/he cannot get course releases for research or service, such as directing a program. In comparison, research-intensive universities, as well as some small liberal arts colleges (SLACs), have a 2:2 (two courses each semester) or 2:1 (two courses one semester, one course another semester) course load. Some institutions also offer teaching assistants who help with grading and classroom instruction. 42. Kathleen Blee, Democracy in the Making: How Activist Groups Form (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). 43. Suzanne Christopher, et al., “Building and Maintaining Trust in a Community-Based Participatory Research Partnership,” American Journal of Public Health 98(8) (2008): 1398–1406. 26 Civic Engagement in the City That Care Forgot The Challenges of Designing a Successful Service-Learning