Danielle Almond

From: Dawn Williams 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 12:14 PM

To: Joe Stewart; Amy Dawson (GOHSEP)
Subject: After Action Report

FEMA: FEMA's Individual Assistance department was always willing to help and do what
they could. The organization as a whole has a horrible chain of communication, or the lack
thereof. Too many people try to give an insight, but only a handful can make a true decision
and get the job done. This makes for a cluster of wrong or distorted information and it
provided us and the public with little understanding. I did not see what individuals got from
them except for the shelter residents. It appeared to me that the working peOple did not get
bene?ts, but I may be wrong because we did not see what happened after they appealed
their rejection. The different departments within FEMA do not work well with previously,
already provided information (back to the communication gap). If one department would
share what they are doing and what information they have, it would save unnecessary work
and effort towards a solution that may already be in the progress of being handled.

The biggest examples: the original 24 residents from the and their information; everyone
wanted a copy, but yet could not ?nd a source to receive such information except for
coming to us.

There was information coming from the DRC and it's volunteers that ultimately did not apply
to our TSA applicants, but everyone jus insisted that it did.

There is ZERO line of effective communication and it doubles, if not triple works
everyone who is trying to work in the recovery process.

HUD: In 6 weeks I saw James Oliveaux twice at the shelter and a HUD representative once
(at our big come-to- Jesus meeting at the Shelter). I do not think HUD handled their
evacuees as they should have. They left their residents in the dark on any progress, length
of estimated time for recovery, If it weren't for us manning the shelter and sta

FEMA: FEMA's Individual Assistance department was always willing to help and do what
they could. The organization as a whole has a horrible chain of communication, or the lack
thereof. Too many people try to give an insight, but only a handful can make a true decision
and get the job done. This makes for a cluster of wrong or distorted information and it
provided us and the public with little understanding. I did not see what individuals got from
them except for the shelter residents. It appeared to me that the working people did not get
bene?ts, but I may be wrong because we did not see what happened after they appealed
their rejection. The different departments within FEMA do not work well with previously,
already provided information (back to the communication gap). If one department would
share what they are doing and what information they have, it would save unnecessary work
and effort towards a solution that may already be in the progress of being handled.

The biggest examples: the original 24 residents from the and their information; everyone
wanted a copy, but yet could not ?nd a source to receive such information except for
coming to us.

There was information coming from the DRC and it's volunteers that ultimately did not apply
to our TSA applicants, but everyone jus insisted that it did.

1

There is ZERO line of effective communication and it doubles, if not triple works
everyone who is trying to work in the recovery process.

HUD: In 6 weeks I saw James Oliveaux twice at the shelter and a HUD representative once
(at our big come-to- Jesus meeting at the Shelter). I do not think HUD handled their
evacuees as they should have. They left their residents in the dark on any progress, length
of estimated time for recovery, If it weren't for us manning the shelter and staying on
FEMA's progress, at the same time pushing for TSA approval, what would they (HUD) had
done differently? Would they had stepped up and took the residents under their aid and
helped them and seen them through this process? Could they have placed them elsewhere
in other units, instead of FEMA using state-funded I would just like to know what other
options were indeed available for their residents that we were all unaware of.

National Guard: I was very impressed with Captain Paulk of the National Guard. He and
his staff were very polite and grateful for the meals and lodging that were provided to
them. We appreciate all the assistance that the National Guard gave to our area, OEP
director, Sheriff's Department, and other local agencies. They were always there to help
whether it was at the shelter, assisting with transportation with the use of their high-water
vehicles, or just their willingness to be prepared for the next up-coming task. They never
once backed down from a challenge and always saw each mission through. The National
Guard went above and beyond their duties to serve our parish and citizens.

GOHSEP: The whole department is incredible. If there is anyone who can make something
happen it is GOHSEP. Everyone from Richland Director to Regional Directors and staff, just
remarkable. Darryl, Amy, Mark and Collins, they were all on top of everything the whole
time and could always help mediate between Richland Parish and other organizations. They
ALWAYS assisted and helped direct the next step that needed to be taken, but at the same
time, they never gave up on the efforts here in Richland and always believed in and had
faith that our decision was the best match for our recovery progress. GOHSEP was a LARGE
part of Richland Parish's recovery and a HUGE THANK YOU is bestowed to their behalf!

American Red Cross: American Red Cross was a HUGE disappointment. It is obvious that
"emergencies" are not their strong point. Coming from one of their own "they do not do well
with the They made commitments that they didn't keep and then chastised us for rejecting them.
Nothing was resolved from our numerous sit-down meetings we had with ARC and their
representatives. I do not think they are capable of appropriately conducting business with
agencies and handling disasters, as such. Once we ?nally started seeing ARC volunteers, we
were supplied with a nurse whose blood pressure cup didn't even work; shelter volunteers
who could barely manage to take care of themselves, much less others; three ladies who all
handled registration together for about three hours. There was a lack of communication and
a source of false information within this cooperation during our disaster. There were reports
of our shelter closing with a headcount of 0, when in fact we were open, steady, running,
and with a headcount of about 16. Our food source was cut from us after the ?rst 6 or so
days due to the fact that someone reported our shelter closed. Our food contract was then
not re-upped until a week or two later. They did bring us many necessary supplies, but not
until the shelter was closed. We could not get that same assistance when we needed it most
and demands were at an all-time high. If it weren't for our community and the churches
here in our area, and we would have had to depend on ARC, we would not be where we are
today as a recovering area.

Dawn Williams