ReliefMap: A 21st Century Approach to Disaster Response

7/29/2019 ReliefMap: A 21st Century Approach to Disaster Response

1/21

National InvitationalPublic Policy Challenge

School of International and Public AffairsColumbia University

ReliefMap

Team Members:

Lakshmi Balachandran, MPA Jesper J. Frant, MPA Eric Smyth, Master of International Affairs Seisei Tatebe-Goddu, Master of International Affairs


2/21


3/21

RELIEFMAContents

Section 1: Executive Summary 2Section 2: The Problem 3Section 3: Policy Proposal 6

3.1 Legitimacy 63.2 Access 7

3.3 Flexibility and Inclusiveness 7

3.4 Privacy Protection 73.5 Accountability 73.6 Planning Process 7

3.7 ReliefMap in Action 83.8 Scope for Expansion 9

3.9 Assumptions 9

Section 4: Implementation 104.1 Planning and Design 104.2 Prototype Development 114.3 Pilot Launch 114.4 Launch 12

4.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 12Section 5: Funding 13

5.1 Grants 13

5.2 Annual Funding 13

Section 6: Budget 146.1 First Year Budget 14

6.2 Detailed Operating Costs 146.3 Website Development Costs 14

6.4 Office Setup Costs 14

Appendices 15Appendix A: Glossary 15

Appendix B: News Clippings 15Appendix C: Technological Responses to Hurricane Sandy 16Appendix D: Letter of Support 17

Appendix E: Advertising 18

Appendix F. Sample Interactions 19

We would like to thank Professor Ester Fuchs, Professor SarahHolloway, Professor Anne Nelson, and Reverend Stephen Harding fortheir assistance in developing the ReliefMap proposal. The ReliefMapproject has its roots in the class New Media and Development

Communications.


4/21

RELIEFMASection 1: Executive Summary

The ProblemDespite being a relatively low-intensity storm, Hurricane Sandy was one of the most damaging in United States

history due to the accompany storm surge that inundated highly populated coastal areas. Moodys Analyticsestimated the economic impact at $50 billion, with about $12 billion of that damage falling within the NYCmetro area.

The day after Sandy devastated the tri-state area, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo recognized thelikelihood that disastersparticularly those that are climate-related would become more frequent and that

cities would need to find ways to respond. The challenges of dealing with a disaster are compounded by thelogistical challenges of matching people with needs to donated good and volunteers with appropriate skills orequipment in the aftermath. New York-based charities had collected over $400 million for Sandy relief effortsbut there is little evidence on where and how that money was disbursed. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, YahooNews cited an expert as saying that unwanted donations constituted a second disaster after the disaster.

The implementation of the ReliefMap platform will provide a mechanism to seamlessly bridge the divide

between need and donation after a disaster.

Policy ProposalReliefMap is a technological platform that will allow citizens and disaster relief organizations (DROs) to requestrelief needs ranging from food, drinking water, and blankets to volunteers and money during a disaster. Theseneeds are then accessible to donors both individuals and DROs to donate these items as per their capabilitiesWe propose not only a technological solution to mapping needs and relief efforts, but also incorporates aprocess for building such a platform that enables city administration to effectively engage stakeholders. Forthe purposes of this proposal, we will refer to the case of New York City (NYC) and the lessons learned fromHurricane Sandy, but we hope to create a platform that is relevant in both scale and application to other cities

ReliefMap will contain five essential elements that were lacking in past solutions. The platform must: (1) have

legitimacy and broad public acceptance. To this purpose, we propose that ReliefMap be housed inside theNYC Mayors Office of Operations, within NYCs 311 system, the main source of government informationand non-emergency services. It will (2) be easily accessible, providing multiple means (including SMS, mobileapplication, Internet, telephone hotline) to connect to the platform. ReliefMap will (3) consider the resources

and limitations of the realities on the ground, and provide flexibility to DROs to integrate the platform withtheir existing processes. It will also (4) take into account the privacy of individuals and organizations; and (5)

have an accountability mechanism to help the city verify that organizations have responded to needs.

Implementation PlanThe implementation timeline for ReliefMap can be broadly divided into the following phases. In conversations

with city advisers and potential stakeholders, we have concluded that we could begin the process in September2013, with the ability to develop a prototype by spring of 2014.

Sep 2013 Feb 2014 Mar Jul Jul Sep Oct - Nov Ongoing


5/21

RELIEFMASection 1: Executive SummaryPlanning & Design:A strong participatory Planning & Design process ensures that ReliefMap can addressuser needs after a disaster, while also engaging them in the platform to promote ownership and uptake once itlaunches. The planning process for NYC would need to include Local and Federal Government, including theMayors Office of Operations and FEMAs Regional Office. The process must also incorporate meetings withlarge and smaller Disaster Relief Organizations, one of whom is the Episcopal Diocese of New York, whose

recommendations and strong support the ReliefMap team has received. Focus groups and interviews withindividual donors and affected citizens from the several winter storms that struck NYC in the past year willalso be facilitated.

Prototype Development: Initial discussions have been used to develop a test prototype that is constantlybeing improved to meet user needs. The prototype development will follow a typical software development

life cycle, with extensive system and user testing to ensure it is technically sound.

Pilot Launch: A pilot launch, planned for July 2014, will ensure that ReliefMap is equipped to handle massusage and will be accompanied by an end-to-end feedback process for all users of the platform.

Launch:ReliefMap is expected to be ready for a city-wide launch in NYC in October 2014, at the peak ofhurricane season. Marketing for the platform will be ongoing through the city government and will be rampedup during hurricane season, with advertising on buses, subways, weather services, the local and national mediaas well as through community outreach. The run-up to hurricane season will also include targeted outreachto, registration, and training of DROs and relevant personnel in the city. Outreach to individual donors at city,state, and national levels will begin after the disaster occurs.

Monitoring & Evaluation:The ReliefMap platform will incorporate an ongoing monitoring process, as well asevaluations of every deployment. Indicators on usage, including number of users and repeat users, processevaluation on matching of requests and the quality of this matching, as well as program evaluation on the stateof disaster relief, will be used to evaluate the impact of the platform.

FinancesReliefMap proposes that the City of New York take ownership of this process, as well as responsibility forfunding, building, piloting, and launching the technology platform. The total first year costs are estimated atabout $535,000, comprising of operating costs at a little over $500,000, office setup costs at nearly $15,000and website development costs at $17,000.


6/21

RELIEFMASection 2: The ProblemDespite being a relatively low-intensity storm, Hurricane Sandy was one of the most damaging in UnitedStates history due to the accompany storm surge that inundated highly populated coastal areas. The day afterSandy devastated the tri-state area, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo recognized the likelihood thatdisastersparticularly those that are climate-relatedwould become more frequent, and that cities would needto find ways to respond.1 Indeed, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimate in their Fourth

Assessment Report (AR4) that the United States sustained over US$500 billion in insured and uninsured lossesfrom weather-related disasters between 1980 and 2005, and note that 80 percent of North Americans live inurban areas.2 The report also predicts that, across North America, cities will experience more extreme heatand, in some locations, rising sea levels and risk of storm surge, water scarcity, and changes in timing, frequencyand severity of flooding.3

In the case of Hurricane Sandy, the effects were far-reaching. Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba, West Virginia, and Tennesseewere all directly affected by snow, hurricane-strength winds, or flooding. Power outages affected people in 17states, as far west as Michigan.4 At the height of the storm, more than 8.1 million people were without power,some of whom did not receive power for several weeks after the storm.5 Moodys Analytics estimated theeconomic impact at $50 billion, with about $12 billion of that damage falling within the NYC metro areaone o

the worst disasters to ever hit the U.S.6

The challenges of dealing with a disaster are compounded by the logistical challenges of matching people withneeds to donated good and volunteers with appropriate skills or equipment in the aftermath. In the wake ofHurricane Sandy, Yahoo News cited an expert (see Appendix B) as saying that unwanted donations constituteda second disaster after the disaster.7 For these very reasons, the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) requests that people not self-deploy but rather donate through an existing organization to ensure thata need really exists before responding (see Appendix B).

As logical as FEMAs guidance is, the need to help spurs well-intentioned people to create mechanismswhere they see a gap. Multiple frameworks pop up in an effort to match needs with services and goods

sometimes causing more harm and confusion than good. In addition to a sudden plethora of mechanismsexisting mechanisms flounder that were not intended to deal with disasters of such magnitude. In the wake oHurricane Sandy, Attorney General Schneiderman released figures showing that, as of mid-December 2012New York-based charities had collected $400 million for Sandy relief efforts.8 Yet little evidence exists showing

where and how that money was disbursed. In other words, people have been giving without finding out firstwhat a groups capacity is to actually deliver services.9

The following table assesses a number of responses that emerged in response to Hurricane Sandy in Novembeand December 2012.10 Each mechanism had its advantages and disadvantages. Certainly using crowds to maprecovery effort can be an effective way to connect survivors to those offering assistance. However, a more

coordinated response is needed.


7/21

RELIEFMASection 2: The Problem

Accessibility

(multiple methods via SMS,

phone, internet, Android or

iPhone app)

Cost to user

(SMS, phone

call)

Involved existing

networks to fulfill

needs

DRO ability to

request goods

and services

Confidentiality/

privacy

Accountability/

feedback process

Episcopal

DioceseN/A

Facebook N/A

FEMA N/A

Google N/A

NeedMapper

New Jersey

Hotline

NYC Marathon N/A

Occupy Sandy

Recovery

Red Cross N/A

Team Rubicon N/A

Figure 1: Analysis of a Sample Group of Organizations in Terms of Eff

ectiveness of Post-Sandy Relief Eff

orts

Future attempts to crowd-source and map recovery efforts must take into account three critical observationsFirst, communications networks are vulnerable to natural disasters, and, therefore, an effective recoverymapping tool should permit multiple means to connect to the system. By diversifying means of access, one

can minimize the vulnerability of the platform. SMS and browser-based mobile applications are a good placeto start.

Second, a functional platform must be more than a simple mobile or SMS platform; it must be a mechanismthat can take advantage of existing resources, match needs based on a consideration of DROs limitations, and

provide stronger monitoring, verification, and reporting. This will ensure that needs are filled in a timely and

eff

ective manner.

Finally, maps should not make the contact information of those requesting aid public, and should include amechanism for assigning responsibility for requests and removing the requests from the map once it has beenfilled. In doing so, the crowd-mapping tool will protect families from being overwhelmed with offers of assistance

and limit the ability of bad actors to cause mischief. Mapping tools must provide effective mechanisms thatclose gaps in legitimacy, accessibility, inclusiveness, confidentiality, and accountability.

Notes1. Hurricane Sandy Shows We Need to Prepare for Climate Change, Cuomo and Bloomberg Say. Huffington Post. Web. 31. Oct

2012.2. IIPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van derLinden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 976pp. p. 338

3. Ibid, p. 620.4. Webley, Kayla. Hurricane Sandy By the Numbers: A Superstorms Statistics, One Month Later. Time. Accessed March 11, 2013.

http://nation.time.com/2012/11/26/hurricane-sandy-one-month-later/.

5. Ibid.6. Center for Disaster Philanthropy. Hurricane Sandy. Web. 11 Mar 2013. http://disasterphilanthropy.org/where/current-

disasters/hurricane-sandy/7. Disaster After the Disaster: Unwanted Donations. Yahoo! News. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

8. Goldberg, Eleanor. Hurricane Sandy Donations May Not Be Going Entirely To Victims, Watchdog Says. Huffington Post,January 11, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/sandy-donations-money-spent_n_2457063.html.

9. Ibid.

10. Based on a paper by Jesper Frant, Mapping Sandy Relief Efforts: Matching needs with action, December 9 2012.


8/21

RELIEFMASection 3: Policy ProposalReliefMap is a technological platform that will allow citizens and disaster relief organizations (DROs) to requestrelief needs ranging from food, drinking water, and blankets to volunteers and money during a disaster. Theseneeds are then accessible to donors both individuals and DROs to donate these items as per their capabilities. We propose not only a technological solution to mapping needs and relief efforts, but also incorporatea process for building such a platform that enables city administration to effectively engage stakeholders. The

implementation of the ReliefMap platform will provide a mechanism to seamlessly bridge the division betweenneed and donation.

There are few technological or cultural barriers to using crowd mapping as an effective tool to facilitate recovery efforts in the United States. Many need-mapping efforts have come close to building a scalable solutionbut a few critical flaws have hindered their effectiveness and adoption. By applying lessons learned from past

efforts, ReliefMap can create a successful large-scale solution that will efficiently allocate resources and con-nect donations to those in need after a natural disaster. For the purposes of this proposal, we will refer to thecase of New York City (NYC) and the lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy, but we hope to create a platformthat is relevant in both scale and application to other cities.

ReliefMap will contain five essential elements that were lacking in past solutions. The platform must: (1) havelegitimacy and broad public acceptance; (2) be easily accessible; (3) consider the resources and limitations ofthe realities on the ground; (4) take into account the privacy of individuals and organizations; and (5) have anaccountability mechanism.

3.1 LegitimacyIn order to ensure that the platform has legitimacy and credibility among the various actors needed to makeit successful, we propose that ReliefMap be housed inside the city agency responsible for operations. A cityagency has the power and authority to convene relevant stakeholders for a credible planning process. Inthe case of New York City, this is the Office of Operations, which is responsible for NYCs 311 system, themain source of government information and non-emergency services.1 In the event of an emergency, the

first instinct of many citizens is to contact the city for help. However, during a disaster, the citys resourcesare usually focused on urgent relief and reconstruction efforts, and well-meaning citizens can overwhelm thecity with requests or offers to help. Building ReliefMap into the existing 311 system would create a mechanismfor government to delegate the responsibility of responding to less-urgent needs to DROs and other localorganizations, while providing a critical mass of users.

The only third-party crisis mapping solution that achieved broad acceptance following Hurricane Sandy was

the map sponsored by Google, which was created in close partnership with government. Occupy SMS, on theother hand, did not partner with government and did not provide a mechanism to ensure the quality of thevolunteers that it connected to those in need. As a result, a week after Occupy SMS was launched, only 115people were using the system to request and receive help.2


9/21

RELIEFMASection 3: Policy Proposal

3.2 AccessReliefMap should provide multiple means to connect to the platform (SMS, mobile application, Internettelephone hotline, etc.) to maximize the ability of individuals to use the system following a crisis. In theaftermath of Hurricane Sandy, it took weeks for telecommunications companies to reconnect service for someof the hardest hit areas. Providing people with more ways of accessing the platform will ensure that the largest

possible number of people is able to connect to the system. Again, here we propose that integration with NYCs311 system would be beneficial in providing near-universal access. 311 already enables citizens to connect to theservice via text message, phone call, Skype, and Twitter. During a disaster when the 311 system is overburdened

by requests, an automated process could be enabled to route non-urgent requests for aid to ReliefMap.

3.3 Flexibility and InclusivenessMany organizations, whether faith-based organizations, municipalities, or DROs, already have local systemsin place to respond to a disaster. Taking advantage of these networks will be critical to ReliefMaps success.ReliefMap should vet existing organizations and automatically give qualifying organizations a higher level ofaccess to sensitive data such as contact information and location of people who have requested needs. While

it will be impossible to force these organizations to use ReliefMap, organizations will have access to a valuable

servicequality, up-to-date information about the needs that are being requested in their area of operationthat will provide an incentive to use the system. The legitimacy provided by housing ReliefMap within agovernment agency will provide an added incentive, reassuring organizations that there is a responsible actorin charge of managing the platform.

3.4 Privacy ProtectionReliefMap should respect the privacy of those requesting aid by not making contact and location informationpublicly available. There were significant privacy issues with some of the ad hoc platforms created after HurricaneSandy, such as Needmapper. While the maps creators designed an excellent platform for mapping needs, theyfailed to design aid delivery in such a way that the privacy of individuals was respected. By ensuring that onlyorganizations that have been vetted in advance are allowed to access contact and location information, and

providing mechanisms for assigning responsibility and removing completed requests from the map, ReliefMapwill avoid this potential pitfall. Again, housing ReliefMap within NYCs 311 system, which already has a built-inconfidentiality and privacy mechanism, would be a major advantage.

3.5 AccountabilityReliefMap goes one step beyond simply mapping and matching needs to helping the city verify thatorganizations have responded to needs. ReliefMap would facilitate verification of delivery using a double-verification accountability system, which encourages DROs to take responsibility for delivering specific needsand empowers individuals to track their request and notify the platform if their request has not been metHowever, the city must carefully manage expectations and ensure that accountability to those using the systemis not conflated with the citys obligation to itself fulfilling all needs. ReliefMap is and should be treated as a

facilitative mechanism, not one that can itself take responsibility for all outcomes of a natural disaster. Thisbalancing act would require a realistic framework for assessing the time it will take to deliver requested needs

3.6 Planning ProcessBecause of the complexity of the proposed system and the sensitivity of the information that would be collectedby ReliefMap, we recommend that the City of New York undertake a planning process headed by the Office ofOperations, which would convene key stakeholders, build the platform, and launch a pilot program.

Notes

1. About NYC 311. Web. 11 Mar 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/apps/311/about.htm2. Strochlic, Nina. Text In to Help Hurricane Sandy Victims. The Daily Beast 16 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.


10/21


3.7 ReliefMap in Action

Figure 2: ReliefMap in Action.

Figure 3: ReliefMap Disaster Management Lifecycle.

Annie's heat isout in her

apartment. Shedoes not have

blankets to keepher and her

children warm.

Annie textmessages 311 to

request help.Her request is

routed toReliefMap.

Annie is askedvia automated

text messages tosupply

additionalinformation. Herrequest is added

to ReliefMap.

Annie receivesconfirmation

that her requesthas been

entered into thesystem and a

trackingnumber.

Annie receives a

text message toannounce that aDRO will deliver

blankets.

Annie receives afinal text

message, askingher to verify that

the blanketshave indeed

been delivered.

A church near

Annie's apartment

has a stockpile ofblankets.

The church runs a

search onReliefMap and

decides to bring

Annie blanketssince she lives

nearby.

The church

confirms that theyintend to fulfillAnnie's request

and her request is

removed fromReliefMap andadded to the

church's to-do list.

The church is

granted access toAnnie's location

and contactinformation.

The church

contacts Annieand sends a

volunteer todeliver herblankets.

The volunteer uses

her smartphone to

confirm delivery ofthe blankets.

Disaster Victim

Disaster Relief Organization

-ReliefMap set up and ready to beused.

-Outreach to DROs to be part of

network

- Outreach to community.

- Disaster occurs.

- Citizens and DROs input needs.

-DROs are able to view needs and

provide relief.

-Outreach to citizens in other parts of

the region/country on fulfilling

needs.-ReliefMap facilitates individual

donations to DROs.

-Seek feedback from pilot users:

affected citizens, dros, and donors.

-Amend platform to prepare for next

pilot/launch

ReliefMap and Disaster

Management

AFTERMATH

(day/weeks)

1

1

SHORT TERM

RECOVERY

(weeks/months)

1

1

LONG-TERM

RECOVERY

(months/years)

1

1

1

1

PREPAREDNESS/

MITIGATION


11/21


3.8 Scope for ExpansionWe foresee several potential areas of expansion for the ReliefMap platform. First would be the possibilityof a public-private partnership between a city and a technology provider such as Google, which has alreadymapped data on DROs during a crisis. This map could be modified to also provide data on DROs that are notfunctioning during or after a crisiseither because they were themselves affected by the crisis or for other

reasons. This map could then be used to filter requests to ReliefMap in order to avoid overwhelming thesystem: people with needs would be directed to the map to determine if an aid organization was within walkingdistance and if it was functional. If so, ReliefMap would refer the person to that facility. If such a facility did not

exist or was not functional, ReliefMap would then input the individuals request for assistance.

A second possibility is that the ReliefMap platform could be integrated with immediate emergency responsemechanisms to provide comprehensive service from the moment the crisis occurs. It could also integrate withsmart city monitoring platforms that are being built, such as the IBM platform in Brazil.

Finally, we anticipate that the United Nations would be interested in globally scaling the technology to applyin disaster-prone hot spots.

3.9 AssumptionsThe need for legitimacy and credibility, particularly in convening stakeholders, means that a city agency is thebest owner of such a project. However, we are prepared to launch this as a stand-alone software companythat will deliver the platform to cities under contract, noting that this is not our preferred framework.

The disaster is not so severe that communications networks are still working.

We will initially address less urgent recovery needs, not emergency response, which is highly specialized, has its

own system, and functions adequately in the aftermath of a natural disaster. We suggest that the city eventuallyconsiders integrating ReliefMap with existing emergency response frameworks, but this is neither the initia

focus of ReliefMap nor a prerequisite for its success.


12/21

RELIEFMA

1

Section 4: ImplementationThe implementation timeline for ReliefMap can be broadly divided into the following phases. In conversationswith city advisers and potential stakeholders, we have concluded that we could begin the process in September2013, with the ability to develop a prototype by spring of 2014, and a pilot launch during the summer of 2014just in time for hurricane season. The following sections will describe select key aspects of this implementationprocess.

4.1 Planning and DesignA strong participatory Planning & Design process ensures that ReliefMap can address user needs after a

disaster, while also engaging them in the platform to promote ownership and uptake once it launches. Thisprocess encompasses a Market and Competitor Analysis, ongoing and described in our previous section onthe problem, as well as consultative discussions with key stakeholders, and culminates in detailed design

specifications for the ReliefMap platform.

The Planning & Design process will be repeated in each city or region in which ReliefMap will be launchedto facilitate the participation of local users, integrate with local processes, and tailor the platform to locacircumstances.

StakeholdersAt each location, the following broad categories of stakeholders must be engaged during the planning processInterviews, meetings and focus groups with each category separately, interspersed with several group meetingswill ensure a comprehensive planning process.

As mentioned previously, the adoption of the ReliefMap platform by city administration will ensure the platformslegitimacy and raise its profile among stakeholders. Preliminary outreach and discussions in NYC indicate astrong, positive response to facilitating a platform that would match needs with relief during a disaster, and thisis expected to gather momentum with city backing. The following describes our proposed planning processfor NYC.

Local and Federal Government:The Mayors Office of Operations, which houses NYCs ubiquitous 311 servicewill be the main driver of this process to ensure ReliefMap can supplement existing procedures and integrateinto the 311 service with ease. In addition, the Mayors Office of Emergency Management and FEMAs RegionaOffice (Region II) will be engaged to facilitate their specific needs .

Disaster Relief Organizations: NYC has a strong network of DROs housed under an umbrella organizationthe New York Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster. The planning process must incorporate meetingswith larger organizations, including the New York Red Cross, The Salvation Army and New York Cares, aswell as medium- and small-ized community-based organizations. The ReliefMap team has already met multipletimes with the Episcopal Diocese of New York, active in NYC during disasters including Hurricane Sandy, tounderstand local needs, and has received recommendations and a strong letter of support from them (SeeAppendix D).

Sep 2013 Feb 2014 Mar Jul Jul Sep Oct - Nov Ongoing


13/21

RELIEFMA

1

Section 4: ImplementationIndividual donors: The past year has seen several winter storms strike New York City, with the most destructivebeing Hurricane Sandy. Citizens across the city and state chose to donate their time, money, and goods torecovery efforts, and focus groups with a cross-section of these donors will be facilitated for their inputs on auser-friendly platform.

Affected citizens: The ReliefMap team will also reach out to citizens who were affected by Hurricane Sandyparticularly to develop convenient access to the platform and a strong marketing strategy.

4.2 Prototype DevelopmentThe Planning & Design process will provide detailed design specifications to develop the platform. Initiadiscussions have been used to develop a test prototype that is constantly being improved to meet user needsThe prototype development will follow a typical software development life cycle, with extensive system anduser testing to ensure it is technically sound.

4.3 Pilot LaunchThe Atlantic Hurricane season begins June 1st and ends November 30th . The ReliefMap platform will beready at the beginning of the 2014 season and expected to deployed for a pilot launch in NYC by the endof July. Details of the pilot will be decided closer to an expected hurricane incident, and will be limited to asmaller area in New York. The pilot will ensure that ReliefMap is equipped to handle mass usage and will beaccompanied by an end-to-end feedback process for all users of the platform.

Importa

nce

InfluenceLow Medium High

High Affected Citizens

Individual donors

Mayors Office of EmergencyResponse

Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA)

311, Mayors Office ofOperations

Large Disaster ReliefOrganizations

-New York Red Cross

-New York Cares-The Salvation Army

Medium Other relief matchingplatforms

-Googles Hurricane SandyCrisis Map-Needmapper-AidMatrix

Medium and small sizedDisaster Relief Organizations

-Episcopal Diocese of NewYork-BonaResponds

Low

Figure 4: Stakeholder Map.


14/21

RELIEFMA

1

Section 4. Implementation

4.5 Monitoring and EvaluationThe ReliefMap platform will incorporate an ongoing monitoring process during a deployment, as well as eval-uations of every deployment.

UsageThe technical platform will collect data on users including number of DROs, number of individual donorsand number of individual requests for relief. Importantly, the platform will also report on repeat users (partic-

ularly donors and requesters), to judge user-friendliness and likelihood of users returning to use the platformUser satisfaction will also be judged based on immediate feedback ratings from individual donors after everytransaction.

Process EvaluationThe platform will additionally report information on number of requests made, number of requests matchedand number of requests unmatched. To evaluate whether needs are being adequately met, statistics on thenumber of days it takes to match a need will also be analyzed.

Program EvaluationThe larger goal of the platform is to facilitate disaster relief and reduce waste in this process. This outcome

will be evaluated using government, media and independent reports commissioned after a disaster, and stud-ied for improvements from previous iterations. ReliefMap will also interview and organize focus groups withindividual donors as well as the participating DROs to understand if the process was in fact simpler, and howthe platform can be improved.

4.4 LaunchAfter updating the platform following the pilot launch, ReliefMap is expected to be ready for a city-wide launchin NYC in October 2014, at the peak of hurricane season. Marketing for the platform will be ongoing through 311NYC.gov, the Mayors Office of Operations, and the Mayors Office of Emergency Response. Communicationson how to request relief and donate through the platform will be ramped up during hurricane season, with

advertising on buses, subways, weather services, the local and national media, as well as through communityoutreach. See Appendix E for mock-ups of marketing material.

The run-up to hurricane season will also include targeted outreach to, registration, and training of DROs andrelevant personnel in the city. It is expected that the involvement of DROs in the planning and testing processwill facilitate a smoother launch. Outreach to individual donors at city, state, and national levels will beginafter the disaster occurs. Hurricane season communications will also include FEMAs Commercial Mobile AlertSystem (CMAS) Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) and Emergency Alert System (EAS), by adding ReliefMapoutreach information to these weather related alerts.

Disaster occurs


15/21

RELIEFMA

1

Section 5: FundingFunding for ReliefMap will come from a combination of grants used to fund initial development, and the NewYork City budgetto fund continuing operations. The use of grant money to fund initial development wilreduce the risk to the city of New York and the ReliefMap project. Relying on grants will ensure that ReliefMaphas sufficient funding for system design and the development of a functional prototype. The City of New Yorkbenefits from the creation of a solution for coordinating humanitarian aid without having to invest money in an

undeveloped platform.5.1 GrantReliefMap proposes that the City of New York take ownership of this process, as well as responsibility forfunding, building, piloting, and launching the technology platform. The risk of relying on the city is that ourapplication may trigger a bidding process where established technology companies may seek to underbid theReliefMap proposal. Funding from the city may not be available until fiscal year 2014. However, this is still thepreferred funding mechanism, as the city provides legitimacy and credibility in the planning process that wouldbe difficult to duplicate using other means. Cities that are concerned by the increased risk of natural disasterssuch as New York, have an incentive to develop this process and technology in order to minimize damage to

their governance capacity and reputation, and are likely to take on such a project.

The primary alternative source of startup funding could be through a Kickstarter campaign. Kickstarter wilallow the startup costs to be crowdsourced by interested donors. Individuals may contribute as little as $1 orup to the entire cost of the project. The grant application time for Kickstarter is significantly less than otherroutes. The tradeoffis significantly more effort is required during the grant window to ensure donors are awareof the project. There is a risk from using Kickstarter as all funds for the project must be raised within sixtydays or no money is provided. To mitigate this risk the ReliefMap team plans to simultaneously prepare an

application for a FEMA grant. However, the FEMA grant would delay implementation one year.

A secondary alternate source of grant funding, ReliefMap may apply for a FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDMGrant. The PDM grant may be used in conjunction with funding from either the City of New York or Kickstarter

PDM grants provide funds to, inter alia, cities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation ofmitigation projects prior to a disaster event. A PDM grant may cover up to $800,000 but may not pay morethan 75 percent of the eligible costs. There is some risk from relying on a FEMA PDM grant as the primarysource of startup funding. FEMA may determine that the ReliefMap project does not reduce risk to disasteraffected communitiesa key criteria for PDM grants.

Possible Grant AlternativesMicrosoft Corporation: Corporate CitizenshipMotorola Solutions FoundationNationwide Insurance FoundationState Farm

5.2 Annual FundingOnce the City of New York has adopted the ReliefMap platform, funding will need to be provided on an annuabasis to continue the project. Although there is potentially room for budget savings in wage changes and use ofexisting administrative resources, the estimated annual cost for ReliefMap is roughly 12 percent of the budgefor the New York City Office of Emergency Management. There is some risk that due to fiscal constraintsReliefMap would be cut in the event of another recession.


16/21

RELIEFMA

1

Section 6: Budget

6.1 First Year BudgetItem CostWebsite Development $17,100

Office Setup $13,300

Staffi

ng $447,200Service Hosting $22,800

Administrative $35,400

Total $535,800

6.2 Detailed Operating CostsItem Rate Period Annual CostStaffing

Project Manager $55 Hour $114,400

Director of Communications $25 Hour $52,000

Chief Technology Officer $40 Hour $83,200Director of Operations $25 Hour $52,000

Director of Strategic Partnerships $25 Hour $52,000

Director of Personnel $25 Hour $52,000

Website Administrator $20 Hour $41,600

Service Hosting

Servers $650 Month $7,800

Storage $500 Month $6,000

Network $150 Month $1,800

Administration $600 Month $7,200Administrative Costs

Office Rent $2,500 Month $30,000

Utilities $350 Month $4,200

Office Supplies $100 Month $1,200

Total $505,400

6.3 Website Development CostsItem Hours Rate CostSite Development 67 $100 $6,700

Content Development 48 $100 $4,800

Mobile App Development 24 $100 $2,400

Search Engine Optimization 8 $100 $800

Social Media Integration 4 $100 $400

Backend Development 20 $100 $2,000

Total 171 $17,100

6.4 Office Setup CostsItem CostLaptops $4,200

Office Furniture $3,500

Deposits & Installation $5,400

Office Supplies $200

Total $13,300


17/21

RELIEFMA

1

Appendix A: GlossaryAR4 - IPCCs Fourth Assessment Reportreleased in 2007on climate change.

Commercial Mobile Alert System - CMAS allows public safety authorities to send geographically targetedtext-like Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) to the public. WEAs will relay Presidential, AMBER, and Imminent

Threat alerts to mobile phones using cell broadcast technology that will not get backlogged during times ofemergency when wireless voice and data services are highly congested.

DRO - Disaster Relief Organization

FEMA - The Federal Emergency Management Agency lead the federal governments effort to provide assistanceand support to states affected by disasters, including for Hurricane Sandy since October 2012.

IPCC - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for theassessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) andthe World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on thecurrent state of knowledge in climate change and its impacts.

ReliefMap - Online platform that maps individual and organizational needs following a disaster and facilitates

the efficient response to those needs.

WEA - A Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) is a special text messages that uses a unique ring tone and vibrationto signal that an alert has arrived. The unique vibration, which distinguishes the alert from a regular texmessage, is particularly helpful to people with hearing or vision-related disabilities. Alerts will automaticallypop up on the mobile device screen and will be limited to 90 characters.

Appendix B: News Clippings

Figure 5: FEMA website for Hurricane SandyDonations.1

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) Superstorm

Sandy has brought out generosity far and widein the biggest U.S. relief eort for the AmericanRed Cross and other groups since HurricaneKatrina swamped the Gulf Coast in 2005.

And while the response is heartwarming, someof that is also helping create a second disasteraer the disaster, in the words of one expert.

Its a common quandary aer natural disasters displace lots of people and destroy homesand possessions. Relief groups need very specic things, along with cash and organization.Instead, they get vases and vacuum cleaners, or interference from well-intentioned

volunteers who think theyre helping but are just hindering eorts.

Its really been a lot of stureally aecting the disaster site, said James McGowan, theassociate director of partnerships at the National Voluntary Organizations Active inDisaster, who made the second disaster analogy. eyre just showing up and theyrenot coordinated with the agencies.

Ad hoc relief groups need to make sure they are taking in only items that are requestedand can be distributed. Money is the best because organizations dont have to pay tomove it and can tailor spending to changing needs, McGowan said. Transporting anddistributing a simple donated can of food can be $15 to $25.

Figure 6: Associated Press article describing theproblem of unwanted donations.2

Notes1. Hurricane Sandy: Donate and Volunteer Responsibly. Web. 10 Mar. 2013. .2. Disaster After the Disaster: Unwanted Donations. AP. Web. 24 Nov. 2012. .


18/21

RELIEFMA

1

Appendix C: Technological Responses to Hurricane Sandy

FacebookMultiple pages attempted to help and/or popped up in response to the crisis. On the FDNY Incidents Facebook pagethe Point Breeze Volunteer Firefighters, among other groups, simply posted a list of needed items. Another page, Adop

a family, Hurricane Sandy, took a different approach: they opted to identify families in need and attempted to directlyconnect them to individuals or families who wished to adopt them. However, Facebook communications and thereforerequests are difficult to aggregate, deliveries are thus equally difficult to monitor and verify, and requests that have been

posted and filled may not be deleted from the system, creating a danger of duplication.

GoogleGoogles Superstorm Sandy Crisis Map is an example of a successful application. It offered a range of valuable information

to tristate area residents, including gas stations with available gas, shelters and recovery centers, FEMA remote-senseddamage assessments, and even location-specific emergency alerts based on tweets by emergency agencies. The Googlemap seeks to be a one-stop-shop for all available recovery maps, aggregating them into one location. However, the

Google map did not attempt to solve the accountability and verification issues of delivery.

Needmapper

NeedMapper enabled storm victims to publicly post their contact information along with their need on a map, trustingthat the delivery of the need would be taken care of by do-gooders. Once the need is filled, users can text the worddone to the system in order to remove their request. Unfortunately, the people who used NeedMapper got more than

they bargained for and were subsequently overwhelmed by phone calls from people who wished to help.[1]

New Jersey HotlineThe government of New Jersey implemented a hotline designed to inform potential donors of what supplies are most

needed and preempt donations that would cause more trouble than they would solve. New Jerseys solution may havehelped to address the problem of unwanted donations, but it relied on existing distribution networks that are sometimes

insufficient for meeting individual needs of households or communities.

NYC MarathonAfter the New York Marathon was canceled, nearly 1,300 marathon runners chose to channel their energy into helping

with relief efforts, packing backpacks full of donated supplies and literally running them to the aid of hurricane victims onStaten Island. Despite their good intentions, the marathon runners did not know who the supplies should be deliveredto and instead ran door-to-door hoping that the needs of the resident matched what they happened to be carrying in

their backpacks.

Occupy Sandy RecoveryOccupy Sandy Recovery deployed mapping tools to aid with Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts. The primary Occupy

Sandy Recovery map focused on informing individuals about drop-off locations for supplies and other volunteeropportunities sponsored by other organizations, but Occupy Sandy developed a second map called Occupy SMS,

which was designed to facilitate mutual aid by connecting people to those offering assistance in a specific area. Theapplication utilized an existing platform called Mobile Commons, which uses SMS to take requests for donations orassistance and matches those requests with volunteers in areas affected by the hurricane. The service is specificallyintended to fulfill individual household needs, as opposed to the needs of aid distribution centers. The privacy concernwas addressed through an additional layer, where potential volunteers needed to text their intention to help in order to

receive the specific address where their assistance should be delivered. However, accountability, working with existingorganizations to avoid duplication of efforts, legitimacy and credibility, and tracking requests still remained problems with

this system.


19/21

RELIEFMA

1

The Reverend Stephen Harding

1047 Amsterdam Avenue New York, New York 10025

[email protected] 917 301-0267

Mr. Jesper Frant

New Media Task Force

School of International and Public Affairs

Columbia University

New York, New York 10027

March 9, 2013

Dear Mr. Frant:

Thank you for your work in developing a platform that will help relief agencies identify needs in the aftermath

of a disaster and when those needs are met.

Recently, in the aftermath stage of Superstorm Sandy, the Diocese was faced with power outages in upstate

1HZ


20/21


21/21

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jesper-frant
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

ReliefMap: A 21st Century Approach to Disaster Response

Documents