St. Joseph Community Partnership Fund

29 effectively, agencies indicate that they are further strengthening relationships with nonprofits to call on. Collaboration with trusted CBOs and funding partners enhanced the successes of the EOC response as will be discussed further in the section on Partnerships and Collaboration. The efforts of Public Health, Behavioral Health Division, and Human Services supported the relief, recovery, and resilience needs of the Counties' most vulnerable. The Department of Human Services did a lot of case management at the EOC Shelter (not supported by the Red Cross) and LAC. The Napa County Director of Public Health oversaw coordination of medical operations at the local EOC. In this case, the Director indicated that plans written in response to previous disasters and relationships developed through previous response were helpful in coordinating recovery. The Sonoma County Director of Public Health pointed to the amount of work done in terms of disaster planning and preparation, as well as in support of mental health and wellness. As a Public Health entity, this office focused on individual and communi- ty capacity building. One example is through the implementation of trauma relief programs designed by The Center for Mind-Body Medicine. Cohorts of residents were trained to in- struct trauma-informed mindfulness and stress management skills to their communities. The California Helping Outreach Possibilities Empowering (HOPE) program was also an effort to provide field-based crisis counseling to fire survivors. This high-demand program was imple- mented with targeted groups and received a good deal of anecdotal success ratings. It was initially supported by FEMA, later by the County, and by Kaiser Permanente Northern Califor- nia Community Benefit. In addition to the role of meeting immediate individual needs such as safety and shelter, local governments were tasked with leading infrastructure recovery. After the conclusion of firefighting efforts, the sheer scale of structure assessment and categorization (i.e. establish- ing state of damage, condemning, or giving all clear for right of entry) and debris removal was astounding. Planning, Building & Environmental Services in Napa assessed about 1,500 structures in under two weeks. Debris removal was such a task that it took approximately one year and the support of the Army Corps of Engineers, since the job was unusually com- plex for the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and FEMA. Approximately 175 tons of debris were removed safely. According to the Director of Permits Sonoma, the clean-up task was about ten times that of the task in Napa. It followed a similar trajectory, but includ- ed enlistment not only of the Army Corps of Engineers, but also some private corporations. Private contractors did not adhere to all sorting requirements and thus, concrete and other materials ended up in landfills that need not have. Lessons were learned and implemented in debris removal following subsequent floods. All of this unique labor was the precursor to beginning a rebuild effort. The County leaders who were interviewed about their fire experience often spoke of the re- build effort as a major success, as well as a challenge. Considering the scale of the fire dam- age, the under-insurance of many, and the often prohibitive costs of construction, it is cer- tainly fair to point out successes. A lot has been done since 2018. In Napa, according to the Director of Planning, Building, & Environmental Services, 650 homes – a quantity equivalent to 10 years of average building – were lost in the wildfires. In August 2019, 20 had been re- built and 180 were in construction. Accomplishing almost a third of a 10 year job in 1 year is something to be proud of. That aid, the hope and public expectation is that all those who lost

• Cover