Community-led recovery: Evidence, dimensions and supports - ReGroup Phase 2 report

This report documents the approaches and findings of phase 2 of the Community-Led Recovery: Evidence, dimensions and supports project, also known as ReGroup.

There were three aims to this phase of the study:

1. To determine what Community Recovery Committee (CRC) members consider a recovery group to be, in terms of the group’s objectives, make-up, social position, relationships and mission.
2. To test and validate a self-assessment tool (developed in phase 1).
3. To conduct a social network mapping exercise as a proof of concept for assessing the representativeness of CRCs, and develop a proof-of-concept electronic tool for mapping community participation in affected communities.

While there is existing research that establishes why CRCs are important, there is only limited information that exists to guide CRCs in their formation, planning and how they engage with other stakeholders. This has produced gaps in understanding for how CRCs function as well as how they relate to formal mechanisms of decision-making in local and state government.

This research project included case studies in four disaster affected communities and also surveys of disaster recovery workers. The research team used mixed methods and collected data by online Q-methodology survey, online questionnaire, qualitative focus group discussions and either a tangible or online social network mapping activity. Researchers also took observation notes throughout the project.

Key findings from this study include:

• Participants found both the self-assessment tool and the community network mapping tool helpful. We consider that we have established a proof of concept that these tools can support community-led recovery and should be refined to be accessible to any community who wants to use them.
• There is no silver bullet for effective models of Community Recovery Committees, as the context of communities before and after disasters vary too widely. Rather than continuing to ask ‘what is a good model for a Community Recovery Committee?’ we suggest asking ‘what do we need to better understand the context of disaster affected communities for Community Recovery Committees to have the best chance of success?’.
• There was very little consistency across the issues that the groups identified as important. This highlights how crucial it is for communities to have access to flexible support that incorporates their particular context.
• Government action and inaction in disaster affected communities influences how Community Recovery Committees define themselves. The way that governments and other organisations support disaster affected communities will impact how Community Recovery Committees perceive their role, scope and obligations.
• Community Recovery Committees had a wide range of views regarding representativeness. Some Community Recovery Committees saw their main function as being a voice for their community, while others didn’t see themselves as fulfilling this role.
• A deeper understanding of Community Recovery Committees may help expand our understanding of collective action theory. Community Recovery Committee members take on a high workload at an incredibly stressful time when they participate, but they may also be able to action change in their community more swiftly than in non-disaster times.

In the Implications and Utilisation Outputs sections of this report, we also identify further planned analysis and utilisation products.

Phase 2 of the Community-Led Recovery: Evidence, dimensions and supports project was funded by Natural Hazards Research Australia and Emergency Management Victoria.