Higher Education as Partner in Disaster Response
nection or proximity to the disaster as a reason some students did not get involved, and why some campuses had a more limited volunteer response. This observation led to speculation among interviewees and focus group members that making the disaster more visible might have increased interest or involvement in volunteer response on some campuses. Existing Campus Culture and Relationships While the above themes represent more of the “how to” for disaster response (i.e., what worked or created challenges), this theme is less concrete and more about the conditions that serve to make those concrete action steps successful, including two sub-themes: (1) an existing campus culture of responding to immediate needs; and (2) existing (and positive) campus-community relationships. Interviewees indicated that the presence of these two conditions before disaster strikes was key to their ability to more easily adapt and respond to an event. In each interview, I asked the staff person if their campus typically responds to immediate community needs. “In other words,” I would ask, “if someone calls because they need an elderly person’s lawn raked that weekend, are you usually able to make that happen?” Most campuses responded that this was a common role for their office and something they did not have trouble doing. They had systems in place, and perhaps more importantly, a culture that accepted or embraced this regular occurrence of responsive service to the community. Likewise, some campuses stated that they had a “typical” way of responding to large disaster (usually on a global scale), which might involve a campus-wide gathering, groups who normally step in, a typical fundraising approach, etc. This norm of response did not always lead to a high level of engagement after Irene; one campus specifically struggled with the fact that students usually do respond to things like this and weren’t responding to calls for help for Irene (a contrast that the interviewee hypothesized was connected to the issues of proximity or lack of awareness about the impact of Irene). Yet it did seem to be especially helpful to campuses that could access these previously developed modes of response that, again, reduce the need to create new systems and operational solutions. Equally important (and likely related) to a culture of responsiveness was the existence of networks and positive relationships between campuses and their surrounding towns. Interviewees credited much of this to individual relationships. Said one campus staff person: “It helped to a certain extent that I’ve been here so long because I knew who to call in the firefighter’s group and one of the guys is
a personal friend. So we have a network and an infrastructure that is already in place that helps.” But institutional relationships were also important, as was trust in each other as partners. “They knew if they asked that we would provide as much help as possible, so I think all of our community partnerships that we’ve had over the last 10–12 years helped in . . . pulling it off pretty easily,” said one interviewee. The relationships at this institution were intentionally and carefully built. “What myself and my staff tried to do early on was to connect with as many organizations, individuals in the community to let them know that we are here as a partner,” this person told me. “We’re not here as somebody to come out and tell you what you need to do.” In some cases, response to the disaster also went a long way in building this sort of trustful relationship for the future. Presidents who had positive relationships with local government and offices that have a reputation for coming through when communities need them seemed to lay the groundwork for a more successful and smooth campus response. “Having Faith” as a Planning Philosophy When a disaster strikes, communities often have trouble easily defining what it is they are going to need from a group of 10 or 200 volunteers in a week’s time. But what they usually do know is that they will need them and they will make use of them. Campuses that had robust response initiatives seemed to understand and accept this condition; they had faith that communities would figure out how to use volunteers, or that they would adapt and go somewhere else if need be. In the scenario that a group of volunteers arrived at a community location that didn’t need them, they were either redirected or asked to come back later. And this was OK. Waiting to have all of the details before you get a group of students, staff, or faculty signed up for a day of volunteer work wasn’t always practical. But that’s often our regular way of doing things in higher education: we want to know where we are going, what we are going to be doing, how many people can go, how we will get there, and what the hours will be. One of my interviewees described in detail a situation in which she was literally making phone calls while riding on a bus full of students, after initial plans had fallen through. They found an alternative site that needed help and were put to good use. But if they hadn’t been needed, she would have had to accept that and potentially return to campus. Campuses that had regular volunteer shifts or days, perhaps without realizing it, were also taking this “faith-based” approach. They had to trust that “if they built it (the volunteer base or event), the needs would come.” Taking this approach
Equally important (and likely related) to a culture of responsiveness was the existence of networks and positive relationships between campuses and their surrounding towns.
65