Emergency Preparedness Project

1. Emergency Preparedness Project Bridge Meeting Okemah, OK 4-13-09

2. Summary of Previous Meetings • Meeting 1: Okemah Emergency Management Personnel • 3/13/09 • Personnel from health department, EMS, city and county emergency management, Creek Nation, Creoks, churches • Meeting 2: Boley citizens • 3/24/09 • Expressing their opinions on past emergencies and sharing their experiences Both groups answered same list of questions

3. Items Discussed • Recent Experiences with Natural Disasters • How well community responded / preparation level • Least prepared for disasters • Assistance available • Existing Resources • Local organizations involved in helping community prepare • Other organizations who could be involved • Assessing the EPD Project • Are the steps reasonable / appropriate? • Value of “community coach” • Is the vulnerability assessment process useful?

4. Today’s Agenda • Session 1: Some Areas of Agreement • Session 2: Some Areas of Differences • Session 3: Opinions on the EPD Project Responses / comments from first two meetings will be shown, then break into discussion groups for more in-depth conversation

5. Some Areas of Agreement Issues / topics that were consistent in both meetings

6. What Type of Natural Disasters Did You Experience? • Ice Storms (Winter 2009, 2008, 2007, 2005, 2001) • Fires (Nov 2006, Spring 2007) • Droughts / Fires • Floods • Tornadoes

7. What Type of Damage Did Your Community Suffer? • Most Common • Loss of electricity • Fences / hay / livestock lost in fires • Less Frequent • Trees lost • Paden gymnasium collapsed • Street / road damage • Weleetka businesses lost

8. Who in Your Community Was Least Able to Prepare?Why? • Elderly • Lack of planning • Lack of mobility • Poor communication • Those with small children • Lack of mobility

9. Did You Get Information About the Natural Disaster Ahead of Time? • Mostly Yes • But, sources of information used were varied (next section) • Acknowledged strength of community • Personal contacts • Need for improved outside communication noted

10. What organizations could be valuable (but may not have been involved up until now)? • Some disagreement about which ones are currently involved (next section) • Those who could help: • Ministerial alliance • Local businesses • Fire dept auxiliaries

11. Some Areas of Differences Issues / topics where there were inconsistencies between groups

12. How Well Did Your Community Respond? • Some thought the community responded quite well • Well-trained combination of entire community • People know their roles • Some felt the community did not respond well • Lack of a plan / lack of generators / equipment • Some were very aware of Emergency Operations Management (EOM) plans, others were not • Some knew immediately who to call / where to go, for others the information was not obvious

13. How Well Did Your Plan Work? • Some were very aware of Emergency Operations Management (EOM) plans, others were not • Some saw the plan as a success for obtaining / staging resources, others knew little about the plan • Most agreed that educating the public about these plans is problematic

14. Sources of Information • Some indicated that most of their information came from TV – which had very little coverage for their specific community • Weather radios were also used • Others mentioned contact from the emergency management team within Okfuskee county • Local contacts also seen as very important

15. What Local Organizations Were Involved in Helping Your Community? • Some saw very few local organizations that were involved • Red Cross • Fire Department • Police • Others saw a lot more • Health Dept • Department of Human Services • Schools • Hospitals • State Gov’t • Salvation Army

16. What are the Best Sources of Information for Needs of At Risk People? • Some listed large organizations • DHS • Health Department • Schools • Others listed local individuals or organizations • Volunteer Fire Department • Local leaders • Church members

17. The EPD Project Feedback on the steps involved and the community coach

18. Overall Assessment of EPD Project Process • Most were fairly optimistic • Felt it represented a good starting point • Having an organized plan would help keep people from panicking • Very inclusive • Good to look at areas that are at risk • Useful for future planning • Involvement of new people is useful, but challenging • Helps agencies who think about “what if” to be better prepared • Will encourage participation from larger community groups

19. Overall Assessment of EPD Project Process • But some had a few problems with it • Getting community involvement will be difficult • Having enough volunteers to develop and implement the plan would be challenging • Would require some technical expertise to implement • Education needed before process even begins (particularly for surrounding communities to learn about each other) • How does it get updated? • Need for person-to-person recruitment will be time consuming

20. Thoughts on the “Community Coach” • Most generally thought it was a good idea • Must be someone from outside the community, with experience • Would be necessary to have this person • Good for motivation, and experience from other sites • But there were a few problems noted • Community coach can’t do it all • Difficult for the coach to relate to community • Trust is an issue • Can’t have an overbearing personality • How would they be funded?!