Emergency plan: access and functional needs: cities and counties.
Impact
The bill will require local governments to prioritize the access and functional needs population during emergencies, ensuring that these individuals are effectively incorporated into emergency communication, evacuation strategies, and sheltering. This represents a significant shift in how emergency plans are developed, pushing for inclusivity and responsiveness to the needs of disadvantaged groups. By necessitating the involvement of these communities in the planning process, the legislation aims to improve outcomes for those most at risk during emergencies.
Summary
AB 2654, introduced by Assembly Member Cervantes, addresses the integration of access and functional needs into emergency services plans for counties and the ten most populous cities in California. The bill mandates that local authorities, during updates to their emergency plans, must specifically consider the needs of individuals with disabilities, low-income populations, seniors, children, and recently includes foster youth. This legislative move is prompted by concerns raised in a December 2019 report from the California State Auditor which found that the state was not adequately prepared to protect its most vulnerable residents during natural disasters.
Sentiment
Overall, the sentiment around AB 2654 tends to be positive, particularly among advocacy groups focused on disability rights and community welfare. Proponents argue that the bill will lead to a more equitable approach to emergency preparedness, reducing the potential negative impacts of disasters on vulnerable communities. However, some local officials have expressed concerns regarding the logistical challenges and potential costs associated with implementing these requirements, suggesting that while the aims of the bill are commendable, feasibility is a key factor that deserves attention.
Contention
One notable point of contention is the requirement for local governments to incorporate these provisions into their emergency plans without additional state funding specifically allocated for this purpose. Critics are worried that this could strain local resources and budgets, particularly in areas already facing financial difficulties. Furthermore, the mandate for involving representatives from access and functional needs populations in planning processes underscores the tension between ensuring adequate representation and managing bureaucratic complexities.