Lawmakers discuss audit that found California was unprepared to help vulnerable people in disasters

Five years ago, as COVID-19 hit the state, legislators cancelled a hearing to discuss a state audit that found the state’s office of emergency services and at least three California counties weren’t prepared to help vulnerable people during natural disasters.

That hearing finally took place Wednesday.

It was co-led by Assemblymember John Harabedian, who chairs the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, and whose district includes neighborhoods impacted by the Eaton Fire in Southern California in January.

He said a disproportionate number of deaths from that fire were older residents and people with disabilities. Those include the deaths of Altadena residents Anthony Mitchell Sr. and his son Justin, who had cerebral palsy. The two died waiting for assistance to evacuate.

Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom, a Democrat from Stockton who chairs the emergency management committee and who co-led the hearing, said the goal of having the hearing now was to discuss what had changed since the audit, and what gaps remained.

“Four years ago, the state auditor issued a stark warning: California was not prepared to protect its most vulnerable residents, even in a disaster. That report exposed critical life-threatening gaps,” she said, adding that the Legislature had taken some steps to address them. “Yet today, we confront the same harsh realities … California is still not protecting the most vulnerable residents from disasters.”

The December 2019 audit assessed preparedness for vulnerable populations — older adults, those with disabilities or those with limited English proficiency — in three counties that had seen the most destructive or deadly wildfires in the state’s history at that time: Ventura County, where the 2017 Thomas Fire took place; Sonoma County, where the 2017 Sonoma Complex Fires took place; and Butte County, site of the 2018 Camp Fire.

Among the findings by then-Auditor Elaine Howle:

1. The three counties didn’t have complete or updated plans for alerting residents, evacuating or sheltering them.

2. Butte and Sonoma counties did not use available technology that could have sent warnings to all cellphones. Instead, officials sent alerts to landlines and mobile alerts only to those who pre-registered.

3. In the alerts that were sent, Butte County did not make clear that the message was coming from a credible source, and Sonoma County didn’t say what the threat was in the alert.

4. The alerts were only sent in English.

5. Counties hadn’t completed assessments of the county’s residents to find out who would be most at risk or what resources were available to help them, such as accessible transportation or shelter space.

No officials representing the counties named in the audit appeared at the hearing. County officials did not respond to requests for information from CalMatters.

And while the state designates local governments as being primarily responsible for emergency responses, the state auditor also noted that the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services failed to provide necessary resources to help counties with planning — including some measures required by law.

Howle found that the office didn’t provide guidance on identifying people with special access needs and did not publish reports on lessons learned from other natural disasters, for example.

“No amount of planning will guarantee success during a disaster, but I think a lack of planning is a contributing factor to failure during a disaster,” Grant Parks, who took over as state auditor in 2022, said at the hearing.

Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Republican from Palmdale who requested the original audit, said he was glad the Legislature was re-upping the discussion.

“Fires are going to continue to blaze, and we need to be making sure that we’re not letting people die when we could have protected them through public policy and through processes,” he told CalMatters. “We need to make sure that we’re having these discussions so that we can continue to protect our people.”

Have emergency evacuations improved?

While the Legislature hasn’t revisited the report in five years, the state and the selected counties have taken some steps to fulfill the auditor’s recommendations.

The Legislature passed a law in 2020 requiring the Office of Emergency Services to review at least 10 county plans each year to ensure that local governments were prepared to protect those most at risk during natural disasters.

The agency reported that it has since done 32 reviews.

And in 2020, the agency created a task force that includes people with access and functional needs, and has since created training programs and published guidance documents for local governments, according to Vance Taylor, head of the emergency services department’s Office of Access and Functional Needs.

The agency also developed a program called Listos California that created fliers and videos in different languages, and partnered with local communities to distribute information on emergency preparedness.

Still, the storms that flooded parts of the Central Valley in 2023 showed there’s more work to be done, including having enough staff who are competent in different languages, said Noé Páramo, project director with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

Legislators flagged other areas they felt still needed more work.

Harabedian said that while 32 counties’ emergency plans had been reviewed, that leaves 26 counties outstanding.

“That’s hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of folks with vulnerabilities who still may be in harm’s way,” he said.

Ransom noted that while the state agency created resources such as training courses, there was no requirement that counties participate, and no consequences for those that don’t have up-to-date or adequate emergency plans.

“I know you all keep mentioning you’re not a regulatory agency. I totally get that,” she said to representatives from the Office of Emergency Services. “But there’s still an opportunity to provide some oversight.”

According to the state auditor’s tracker of recommendations completed by counties, Butte and Ventura counties partially implemented its recommendation to update emergency plans and Sonoma County fully implemented it.

Sonoma County also adopted an ordinance that emergency plans be reviewed at least once every five years. Butte and Ventura counties declined to adopt that recommendation.

All three counties declined to commit to following the best practices from state and federal emergency offices.

Still, while progress has been made, Harabedian flagged that similar issues arose in the recent fires.

Taylor, with the Office of Access and Functional Needs, said counties have made considerable improvements over the last decade and California now leads the nation in preparedness for vulnerable people.

“We’re not ready to hang the mission accomplished banner,” he said. “We’ve done a lot, but a lot still needs to be done.”

___

This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

By SAMEEA KAMAL/CalMatters
CalMatters