People with challenges and community resilience

As many of you know, CARRI has embarked on a massive undertaking focused on developing – and then testing – a community resilience system.  Recently, during a meeting of the Community Leaders Working Group, I was asked why we had included “The community works to maximize the value of those with special challenges” as one of our important community functions.  In fact, two of the most in-my-face questioners (both former mayors of sizable cities) actually accused me of being politically correct (If this were true, it would come as a huge shock to the rest of the CARRI team, not to mention my wife!).  By the way, these are my thoughts I share today and not necessarily the voice of CARRI.

 I thought it would be worthwhile to talk about who are the challenged, and why it makes practical sense for communities to treat them as potential assets, not liabilities.

 If we look at our communities today, 5-10 % of the population has some debilitating mental or physical condition.  Last year, one in eight Americans received at least part of their food through food stamps – and one in four of our children.  Officially, about 10% of our population is unemployed; but if we include new college grads, those who’ve stopped looking for work, and those who are underutilized, the rate increases to almost 18% nationwide.  It should also be noted that unemployment among the college-educated is at an all-time high – almost 5%.  In the Rust Belt and parts of the South, the official unemployment rate is over 20%, meaning that the actual unemployment rate approaches 30%.  Thus, in many communities, a large fraction of the population – and sometimes a majority – is facing significant challenges.  

 After a community is hit by a disaster, recovery makes huge demands on the permanent personnel who actually keep the community running.  More people are needed to remove debris.  More people are needed to handle the flood of permits for rebuilding.  People are needed to reconnect families and to help get services to those who need them.  Many communities meet these needs by hiring “outsiders” to provide these services, but if they do so, they lose in at least two ways: 

• These communities send the resources to pay for these services outside the community.  Since the federal government will pay for many kinds of temporary workers after a disaster, it makes good sense to hire these workers from within the community – to keep as many precious dollars within the community as possible.  The challenged – particularly the employable unemployed – should be the first resource tapped by a community (To their credit, BP has agreed to do just that in southern Louisiana communities affected by the oil spill.).
• These communities have to spend more of their resources helping the challenged recover from the disaster than they otherwise would. That means much less accomplished with limited resources and possibly a longer recovery period.

In other words, communities who don’t use the challenged to aid in the extraordinary challenges of recovery are turning potential assets into real liabilities.

 Thus, by making use of its members who face significant challenges to meet the extraordinary demands of recovery from a disaster, a community can keep dollars in the community while maintaining a more productive and motivated permanent staff.  This isn’t political correctness but enlightened self-interest.