Audit: California was not ready to help vulnerable people in the event of a fire. Five years later legislators talk about the question

Read this story in English

Five years ago, when Covid-19 struck the state, legislators canceled an audience to discuss a State audit Which found that the state’s emergency service and at least three counties in California are not ready to help vulnerable people during natural disasters.

The audience finally took place on Wednesday.

Was directed by the assembly Juan Hair which chairs the joint legislative audit committee and whose district includes neighborhoods affected by Eaton Fire in southern California in JanuaryS

He said that disproportionate deaths caused by this fire are more adult residents and people with disabilities. Among them include the death of Altadan’s residents Anthony Mitchell Mr. and his son Justin, who had cerebral palsy. The two died while waiting for the evacuation help.

Assembly Rhodesian ransomDemocrat from Stockton, who chaired the Emergency Management Committee and who created the audience, said the purpose of the audience is now discussing what has changed from the audit and what gaps remain.

“Four years ago, the State Auditor issued a heavy warning: California was not ready to defend its most vulnerable inhabitants, even in the event of a disaster. This report presented critical shortcomings that threaten life, “he said, added that the legislature had taken some measures to deal with them. “However, today we are confronted with the same raw realities … California still does not protect the most vulnerable inhabitants of disasters.”

The December 2019 audit evaluated the preparation for vulnerable population (adult adults, people with disabilities, or limited domain in English) in three districts who saw the most destructive or mortal forest fires in the history of the state at that time: Ventura County where the fire of Thomas 2017 took place; Sonoma County, where the fires of the Sonoma Complex took place since 2017; and Bt County, subject to fire at the camp in 2018.

Among the findings of the then auditor Elaine Voi:

• The three counties were not full or up -plans to warn the residents, evacuate them or accommodate them.
• The Bt and Sonoma counts did not use the available technology that could send a warning to all mobile phones. Instead, employees sent signals to fixed phones and mobile signals only to those who had previously been registered.
• In the signals that were sent, Bt County did not make it clear that the message came from a reliable source and the Sonoma County did not say what the threat was on the signal.
• The signals were only sent to English.
• Counties have not completed their residents’ estimates to find out who will be at greater risk or what resources are available to help them, such as accessible transport or asylum premises.

No employee who represents the Counts mentioned in the audit is not presented to the public. County employees did not respond to SalMatters information.

And although the state defines local authorities as a major emergency response, the State Auditor also stated that the governor’s emergency service does not provide the necessary resources to support the counties, including some measures required by law.

Howle has found that the office does not provide guidance for identifying people with special access needs and does not post reports on lessons derived from other natural disasters, for example.

“No planning will guarantee success during a disaster, but I believe that lack of planning is a factor that contributes to failure during a disaster,” said Grant Parks, who took over the position of the State Auditor in 2022.

Assembly Tom LakayoA Republican from Palmdale, who requested the initial audit, said he was happy that the legislature was renewing the discussion.

“The fires will continue to burn and we must make sure that they do not allow people to die when we could protect them through public policies and processes,” he told Calmatters. “We must make sure we keep these conversations in order to continue to protect our people.”

Have they improved emergency evacuations?

Although the legislature has not reviewed the report of five years, the state and the selected counties have taken some measures to comply with Auditor recommendationsS

In 2020, the legislature approved a law that requires the emergency service to review at least 10 district plans each year to ensure that local authorities are ready to protect those who risk the most of the big risk during natural disasters.

The agency announced that it has since made 32 reviews.

And in 2020, the agency set up a working group that included people with access and functional needs and has since created training programs and has published orientation documents for local authorities, according to Vance Taylor, head of the Ministry of Emergency Services.

The agency has also developed a program called California which created flyers and videos in different languages ​​and are related to local communities to distribute information on emergency preparation.

However, the storms that flooded parts of the Central Valley in 2023 showed that there was more work, including to have sufficient competent staff in different languages, said Noah Paramo, director of the Foundation for Rural Legal Aid Foundation.

Legislators pointed to other areas where they thought it was still necessary to work more.

Harabedian said that although the emergency plans of 32 counties were reviewed, it leaves 26 hanging counties.

“There are hundreds of thousands, but millions of people with vulnerabilities who can still be in danger,” he said.

Ransom said that although the State Agency creates resources as training courses, there is no requirement that the Counts are involved and there is no consequences for those who have not updated or adequate emergency plans.

“I know you still mention that they are not a regulatory agency. I understand perfectly, “he told representatives of the emergency service. “But there is still the opportunity to secure some supervision.”

According to the State Auditor for Tracking the Recommendations, the Counts, the Bt and Ventura counties partially complied with their recommendation for updating emergency plans and the Sonoma County has fully applied it.

Sonoma County also adopted an ordinance requiring emergency plans to be viewed at least once every five years. The Bt and Ventura counties refused to accept this recommendation.

The three districts refused to compromise the best practices of the state and federal emergency services.

However, although progress has been made, Harabedian warned that such problems arose in recent fires.

Taylor, from the Access and Functional Need Service, said the counties have made significant improvements over the last decade, and California is now leading the nation to prepare for vulnerable people.

“We are not ready to hang the execution of the mission,” he said. “We did a lot, but there are many more.”

This article was originally published by CalmattersS