From Crisis to Community

Housing and Community Development professionals see first hand how crisis delivery unfolds, including the immediate impacts, where things work, and where they fall short. Although tasked with community recovery and re-housing, we are often not included in up front planning, or roll out of immediate response. This paper, From Crisis to Community: Adaptive, People Centered Strategies for Disaster Resilience and Recovery, explores disaster response, preparation, and recovery at both the international and national level using lessons learned about resilience and adaptation from the 2023 International Research and Global Exchange (IRGE) paper, Embracing Indigenous Wisdom for more Resilient and Adapted Communities.  

Background 

IRGE’s research into resilience and adaptation shows that the biggest takeaways are not about housing or infrastructure development, but about adopting a mindset and framework that accommodates change and adaptation as a normal part of our housing and community development work. In particular, three elements of that mindset stand out: 

• Change starts with intention – change your thinking to change your outcome. 
• Focus on stewardship rather than on extraction – prioritize local natural resources. 
• It’s about systems – whatever we do to the web of life, we do to ourselves. 

Using this as the lens, this paper explores existing emergency and recovery frameworks, implementation, issues, and outlines needs, resources and opportunities to effect change. 

An Analysis of the National Perspective 

America’s Current Emergency and Recovery Framework 

The paper gives an in-depth overview of America’s emergency and recovery framework, including the history around its creation and how local, state, and federal resources function in the event of a disaster and a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), requirements for local jurisdictions and FEMA’s role in a federally declared disaster, as well as current discussions around possible FEMA reform.  

FEMA provides planning tools and requirements, along with some planning funds. However, planning itself takes place at the local and state level. In practical terms, this means that, although FEMA’s guidance emphasizes standardized approaches built on core principles of collaboration, coordination, continuity, and community empowerment, there can be very different levels of planning, preparation and implementation in different jurisdictions. This can have impacts on response and recovery outcomes in the event of an unplanned or large scale disaster, especially in less well resourced communities. This matter because information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) shows that the US has averaged 23 incidents, costing over a billion dollars each, for the period 2020-2024. In the US in 2024, there were 90 major disaster declarations. Researchers in London found that 41% of the US population lives in a county where a major disaster or state of emergency was declared. 

Public Housing Authorities 

Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) are providers of deeply affordable housing as well as governmental or quasi-governmental organizations administering a variety of state, federal, and local housing programs. In many places, they also provide affordable housing development, community improvement, redevelopment and may administer other grant funds. Despite this, they are often not sought out for engagement  in their communities for disaster pre-planning, mitigation, or recovery planning.  

FEMA has recognized the importance of PHAs in the process – not only for the need to plan for their own business continuity and services, but also for their unique expertise and has published the Public Housing Agency Disaster Readiness, Response, and Recovery Guidebook. However, federal policy does not always translate to local integration. 

Where Planning and Implementation Fall Short 

Despite the above, researchers from the University of Washington in a review of State Emergency Operations Plans from 44 states found that only eighteen (18) had recovery plans and only five (5) had plans specific to disaster housing. While disaster response planning and on the ground disaster work are often robust, less attention overall is given to mitigation planning to prevent disaster, or to recovery planning to help prevent displacement of persons and to effect long range recovery. 

The paper includes a case study of Hurricane Helene and the Western North Carolina Floods, looking at the incident itself and the cascade event that triggered major flooding. The case study includes an overview of what worked, what fell short, and key obstacles to recovery. Some takeaways of what worked were proactive deployment of state and federal resources, accurate state transportation flood predictions that assisted motorists, robust inter agency coordination. In terms of what fell short, sirens failed in some areas, remote communities lacked support and warning and there were communication and connection delays in the aftermath. 

The case study also highlights key obstacles to recovery which also mirror obstacles encountered in other prior major events, including widespread infrastructure damage, delays in financial assistance and funding gaps, insurance shortfalls, disruptions to social services, mental health issues and environmental challenges. 

Lessons from an International Perspective 

The US is not alone in needing to plan for and recover from emergencies and disasters. And it is not alone in developing response frameworks for responding to these needs. The paper provides an overview of different approaches and types of frameworks, including those in the US, the European Union, Japan, Australia, India and China. It also includes a short summary of global/multilateral frameworks from the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO). 

Overall, each system has developed based on unique needs, geography, history, and other factors. However, many systems share common characteristics that showcase both strengths of these systems and shortcomings. In terms of common traits: 

• Taking a risk-based and all hazards approach – focusing on all risks and hazards that are likely to occur. 
• Multi-tiered or multi-level approach. Even in strong centralized models, there is a large local planning, resilience, mitigation component. 
• In many systems, such as Australia, the US and the EU, there is a strong emphasis on the private sector; while all frameworks have strong roles for the local community. 
• For many frameworks, especially Japan, EU, India, there is increasing integration of disaster planning with climate change adaptation and sustainable development. 
• Very few, if any, systems take a client- or survivor-centered perspective on assistance and recovery. 
• Very few focus on embracing an adaptive lens or stewardship model towards enhancing future resilience. 

Many disaster frameworks appear to be stronger on immediate response, but weaker on recovery, reconstruction, and increasing resilience. The paper lays out potential reasons for this, including the need for governments to balance competing needs, short term expectations, funding gaps, limited pre-planning and fragmented responsibility. 

Blueprint for a Better Way Forward 

Research shows that a natural disaster can both reveal existing social inequality and deepen it in its effects during the aftermath. There are a variety of mechanisms that account for this. Some of these include pre-existing inequality, the role that wealth/socio-economic status and race play in recovery disparities. There are also geographic inequalities especially for isolated communities. Disasters don’t just expose and exacerbate economic inequality, but intersecting issues such as age, disability, homeownership status, gender and race can have add-on effects. 

More extreme weather and climate changes is compounding these issues for everyone, but even more so for more marginalized and more poorly resourced people and communities. Recovery policies that fail to use a survivor-centric perspective and do not address issues of land tenure, lack of equal resource access and aid coupled with policies that allow rebuilding in the same way and/or in the same high risk area all drive future inequality higher. 

Adapting and Increasing Resilience 

The paper outlines research that looks at how communities can be more resilience, whether is is through rediscovering indigenous housing types, using the natural world as allies, or policies that link climate change and the affordable housing shortage to design solutions for both, prioritizing preparedness through resilient housing, and, on a global scale, redirecting the focus and financing to least-developed and emerging economies. 

The paper also looks closer to home at building and adaptation strategies that can help local jurisdictions adapt, including a look at the German Passive House design principles for single family and multifamily building. And looks at the implications for improving communication, equity, and access through Buenos Aires’ Barrio Mugica project that gives another way to think outside the standard disaster and recovery model, by focusing on community improvement strategies over time in a large informal settlement. 

Insurance and Infrastructure 

There are many stressors that are escalating in housing and community development due to climate risk, inflation, market retreat, and lack of housing type diversity. Taken together, it is apparent that the industry is in need of cross-cutting interventions that include finance, insurance, land-use regulation, building standards and policy. These can be broadly grouped as Insurance-specific opportunities, Housing Market, Policy Reforms. To resolve issues, it will take finding combinations of strategies that best fit with different types of risk and opportunity. 

With regard to Insurance specific opportunities – three approaches show promise: Risk Pooling and Reinsurance to help stabilize availability. Existing programs could be backed by national reinsurance programs to lower carrier risk and keep them in the market. Resilience Retrofits would provide incentives to insurers to offer discounts for resilient construction or rehabilitation to meet local threats. And finally, Use Mapping to create standardized climate risk maps publicly accessible to help educate consumers and stakeholders. 

For Housing Market Interventions there are five opportunities highlighted, including updating Zoning to allow condominium and cooperative models in more places as one way to minimize sprawl and help increase defensible space. Streamline approvals and finances for lower- to middle-income buyers of nontraditional ownership types. Encourage smaller unit sizes and use concepts such as stacked flats to minimize subsidy needs. To increase resilience, tie affordable housing finance programs to resilience upgrades that reduce long term insurance and operating costs. Finally, consider community land trusts and limited-equity models with affordability components that can be used in risk pooling with other housing types to improve cost and lower risk. 

In Policy Reform, policies that discourage development in high risk zones and connect to upzoning in preferred development can expand supply and improve resilience. Using green infrastructure to build-out fire breaks, stormwater systems, install microgrids, and other green infrastructure can reduce risk and operating costs to improve resilience and reduce insurance costs. 

Where PHAs fit in 

PHAs are woven into the fabric of their communities through their housing and programs, especially for the most vulnerable to disaster impacts. PHAs themselves have risks to mitigate, including older properties and propensity to be located in geographies exposed to natural and manmade hazards. PHAs also can help identify housing gaps, funding opportunities and hazard mapping. Planning, mitigation and retrofit can mean the difference between being able to shelter safely in place or having displaced populations. 

Conclusion 

The US is not alone in its need to find new ways to adapt to change. In both the US and internationally, there is a need for better pre-planning and recovery models. There is a need for more government engagement to create change and to re-center our systems around the people we serve. The best disaster recovery plan and execution is prevention and mitigation of its most deleterious effects. A resilient recovery framework centers on preparing in advance, building multi-stakeholder platforms and focusing strategies on different sectors in a multi-dimensional way. Recovery can be changed from a reactionary response to a crisis to a more strategic process that plans in advance to tackle the difficult issues surrounding land use, housing type, affordability, and mitigation changes needed for community adaptation and resilience.  

About the researchers and authors: 

Carolee Jackson, Chair of Research Subcommittee, research, content contributor and member of editorial team. Vice President, Maiker Housing Partners. 

Lisa A Baker, member, editor, research and content contributor. Chair of IRGE 

Jeanette Porter, member, research, content contributor and member of editorial team. Senior Manager, PHA Yardi Systems Inc. 

Alan Zais, member, research, content contributor. Executive Director, Winnebago County Housing Authority. 

Martell Armstrong, member, research, content contributor. CEO, Housing Authority of Elgin Illinois 

Lee Talmage, member, research and content contributor. Executive Director, Battle Creek Housing Commission