Book of Abstracts 2013 - Australian and New Zealand Disaster ...

Mr Mark Armstrong
Director, Full Capacity
Standing ready for the worst………How the QLD state disaster coordination centre (SDCC)
response capability was conceived and deployed in less than twelve months
The Queensland State Disaster Coordination Centre (SDCC), whilst an impressive and well-equipped physical facility, is
only as good as the people who staff it during a disaster. During a complex emergency the required staff for the SDCC
needs to swell dramatically in order to effectively manage a statewide response. Regional disasters in recent years
proved the difficulty in surging a staff sufficient to operate the SDCC in quantity, let alone quality. This had many
negative consequences during emergencies; notably senior SDCC staff engaged in the time consuming tasks of seeking
release of people from other government departments and negotiating issues such as staff hours. Critically, the staff
that were released often lacked even a fundamental understanding of State Disaster Management Arrangements or
SDCC operations resulting in urgent on-the-job training and ad-hoc induction. This capability gap was the first issue
addressed by the newly formed Disaster Management Services Unit in early 2012. Through systematic planning,
extensive consultation and vigorous execution an ’SDCC Response Team’ capability was justified, created and trained in
less than a year. This capability was centered on a pool of trained, volunteer public servants standing ready to rapidly
augment the SDCC in the event of crisis. The ’SDCC Response Team’ capability was deployed during the weather and
flood events of early 2013. Initial feedback is that it was a great success resulting in an SDCC that ramped up faster and
operated more effectively, cohesively and sustainably than in the past. This paper, using the ‘ends-way-means’ model of
policy implementation, will examine how this initiative was developed and deployed so quickly. It will also consider
how this augmentation approach could be used to enhance disaster management arrangements at the local or district
levels using public or commercial resources.
Dr Sharon Atkin
State Manager Research, UnitingCare Community
Co Author - Mr Redzo Mujcic, Senior Researcher, UnitingCare Community
Longer term individual and community needs after natural disaster: The experience of
Central Queensland
Lifeline (as part of UnitingCare Community), along with other government and non-government organisations is a key
signatory for the provision of Community Recovery Services following a disaster. Following the 2010-2011 flood
disasters in Queensland, Lifeline Queensland, became concerned about the level of ongoing medium to longer term
support available for the many rural and remote areas of Queensland. The organisation decided that it was important
to evaluate the services provided in these communities and developed a research project that was attached to the
service provision. The purpose of the research was to evaluate need for such services, explore the impact for previously
vulnerable individuals, explore engagement methods, evaluate effectiveness, look at changing needs across time, and
look at general community needs and service delivery gaps. The research was a mixed model design. Quantitative data
about individuals seeking counselling from UnitingCare Community recovery counsellors was gathered from a survey
completed by the counsellor. The survey consisted of the following domains: engagement, identified issues,
relationships, health and social supports. Interviews were conducted with community recovery counsellors to gather
qualitative data on the impact of the disasters on regions and individuals. The most frequently reported issues were
financial stress, property damage, personal health, and relationship breakdowns; leading to a high demand for
counselling services. The services had a notable impact on the welfare of respondents, with most measures of
individual well-being improving over the initial four quarters of the survey. Such measures include client mental health,
depression, level of anxiety, feelings of support, and coping levels. Nevertheless, there was a decline across the