We have thanked a lot of people and remembered so many that have made CanCERN what it is.  With a bit of luck we have established that CanCERN is the culmination of so many hearts and minds and that its ownership belongs to the community.  Now that we come to an end it’s inevitable we start to reminisce about the highs and lows, the what ifs and maybes.  We plan to capture and share the lessons learned and will be calling on many of you to help with this in the future.

Quite a number of people have asked us to finish with the “real story” and to say what we “truly think” instead of staying in the space of solutions. There’s a certain desire for blood to be spilt and apparently we have the inside goss and can dish out the punishment. It’s not that we haven’t wanted to dish out our own punishment over the last five years – we have certainly ranted and raved about some of the more obstructive people and agency decisions – however, if we have learned anything, it is that extreme levels of public finger pointing rarely make us feel better.  More often than not it alienates people and doesn’t result in better outcomes for the residents and community.  We have learned to manage our anger, tailor our messages and stay at the discussion table.  We intend to do the same today in the hope that a message can get through.

It took us a while to land on this last message but we have chosen a ‘what if’: What if we all had a better understanding of the value of discomfort?

The discomfort of the journey – It’s a discomforting thought that the community organisation you helped set up to make a positive difference for the earthquake affected residents may have no real power to make change. So many people invested in the hope that CanCERN could make a difference and the responsibility was always felt. It was hard trying to have conversations that addressed the needs of the people, while knowing that outcomes were still at the whim and control of others who make the final decisions.  To continue to spend hours trying to convince others that there was another important point of view, that community need was different and constantly changing and ultimately having to cross your fingers and hope that the message got through.  It was discomforting at times to hang on to the belief that a solutions focused and relational approach was going to be the best way through.

Add this to the discomfort of knowing we had thousands of residents counting on us to make a difference that they could see, feel and experience; a lot of the difference we made was definitely invisible. Some said we sold out, we gave in, we worked too deeply in the tent.  It’s actually too much of an ask for them to have thought anything else when they continued to be at the receiving end of a frustrating, and at times, terrible recovery.  However, our wise creators set the culture of ‘working with’ and ‘offering solutions’ as we worked to get the resident’s voice on the table and in the planning sessions.  We always had to assess if we were working with the right people and trying to offer solutions in the right areas.  It wasn’t too long before we realised we couldn’t do it all, so we chose our battles but don’t think we lost sight of presenting the plight of the people.  We did allow ourselves to be constrained by agencies conditions at times, i.e. to get information and not pass it on until it was public, but this was because we felt caught by the need to develop agency trust.  In time we did free ourselves from this constraint.  ‘Piggy in the middle’ was a hard place to sit.

Creating discomfort by being the ‘thorn in the saddle’ – The real power we had was the ability to challenge the decisions and processes of all the recovery agencies simply by explaining how those things would impact on residents and the community. This was generally described as being the thorn in the saddle.  Just when they thought they had it all organised and were congratulating themselves on a job well done we would tell them all the ways it would badly affect the people.  We had examples coming out of our ears and it was hard for them to deny our critique.  What then for the recovery agencies to do?  We made people sit up and listen and feel the place of choice we were offering them.  We told them we would help them make a different and better choice.  We made it uncomfortable but not unbearable.  Probably the bigger discomfort for them was the fact the choices were often not theirs to make.

Accepting the discomfort within the membership – Meetings with members created unforgettable relationships but were not always easy.  Why? Because community is complex, constantly changing, and always ready to bring a perspective, a raw thought and emotion to the table.  We also went from a group of volunteers to an organisation with staff so that brought its own change of dynamics.  The recovery also introduced a myriad of ways to cause division – A, B, C, orange, green, white and red, mass movement, flood zone.  Put this together with ‘democratic process’ and a disaster situation (where there are more problems and issues than resources to deal with them) and you have the right chemistry for a lot of tension.  This was inevitable and necessary but not always pleasant.

The discomfort of knowing too much about ‘the other side’ – It didn’t take too long before we had glimpses of what the recovery agencies were having to deal with which was quite separate to the issues in the community space.  Organisations were caught unaware and ill equipped for the disaster and they, just like us, were making it up on the spot a lot of the time.  We were privileged to have very few constraints and absolutely no mindless processes, procedures or hierarchy to make things more difficult (these are actually code for stupid and lacking in common sense).  The recovery agencies were drowning in them and as things got more complex, the powers that be in the organisations would come up with some more.  We met with many great people and they understood and often even agreed with what we were saying but their world wouldn’t allow for that kind of thought or action.  Silos have ruled the recovery, generally held tightly to by people in offices far removed from reality.  Once we could see this it became very difficult to simply rant and protest at what they were doing because we knew we were never going to be ranting at the people who could change that system.

That said, we can’t allow the stupidity of ‘business as usual’ approaches to repeat if there is ever to be another disaster recovery. In fact, the world would be a better place if we stopped this happening in our everyday life as well.  Agencies have to try harder to work with, for and amongst the people if they are to understand a better way of dealing with them.  They can not close doors and shut out the community in favour of internal services and professionals who are expected to ‘save the day’.  That approach has shown itself to be nothing short of humanitarian neglect.

The discomfort of knowing too much about the community – ‘The community’ is a big concept especially when the collective community approach to response and recovery dismantled very quickly and was replaced with an individualistic one.  Again, this was understandable – insurance claims are all so very different, but it was unhelpful nonetheless.  In the beginning the people talked of moving their homes to the same new suburbs so we could maintain the connections that were so strong just after the quakes.  Later, stuck residents would resent their neighbours because of the progress they were making. The ‘victim’ cloak became a pretty common garb and with it came a whole raft of behaviours which were concerning, sad, and at times, awful. We watched many homeowners step up into the role of community leader, to offer hope and energy where there wasn’t too much and then watch them be cannibalised by the very people they wanted to help because they couldn’t make it all better. We listened to people as they described their right to build a castle purely to punish the insurer. We watched as the media let residents tell some terrible untruths and personally smash people in the recovery who we knew had absolute integrity. This was probably the hardest thing to contend with – how do you continue to work for solutions for people who sometimes don’t want them? The reality is that we learned the difference between representing the people and representing how people were experiencing the recovery.

The pleasure of the ‘we’ – Thanks to all those people out there who never had to be told about ‘we’ space.  The people who knew ‘silos’ but worked beyond them when and where they could, the champions who just knew that sitting at the right table with the right people and working together was the only way forward and that we were all a part of the solution.

And to those other bastards that are still running around climbing career ladders, building castles in glass offices, and feeling self important because they protected their agency from ‘the enemy’ (the community)… Well, we think you know what you can do because…

“The wisdom of the community always exceeds the knowledge of the experts.”
– Harold Fleming

The Canterbury Communities’ Earthquake Recovery Network was established on that evening and it wasn’t long before residents and officials knew the group CanCERN. Five years later, and the job, although not complete, is finishing for CanCERN. At the end of this year we will wind up the organisation and put some energy into capturing and sharing the many important lessons we have learned. It is also likely that our very successful Breakthrough service will continue with the same people leading it but not under the CanCERN banner.

There are many, many people who we need to thank before we leave and we hope to get through the list in upcoming newsletters. However, there is one small group of people that need a big mention that won’t get lost in too many words, so we want to honour them first. This small group has given so much and asked for nothing in return and they are our amazing funders.

We have had great support over the years from different organisations – Sharp NZ, GAMA Foundation, the Rata Foundation (formerly Canterbury Community Trust), Rotary, Community Energy Action and CERA who financially contributed to projects such as In the Know and Let’s Find & Fix. Their contribution to CanCERN was driven by a desire to see the resident voice represented in recovery. On behalf of board, staff, members, and the wider community, we thank them for their generous contribution and commitment to community-led recovery.

We have also been incredibly lucky to have long-term core funding from the Tindall Foundation, the Todd Foundation and the Hugh Green Foundation. We honestly cannot say enough about these family foundations who have over the last five years collectively donated more than $1 million to CanCERN. They have demonstrated incredible trust in our organisation and an absolute commitment to the affected people of Canterbury. Each has provided the staff of CanCERN with amazing support which goes well beyond just money.

We have to tip our hats to a couple of heroes from within the Tindall and Todd Foundations.

Dave Richards from the Tindall Foundation has been our main man and he has challenged, nurtured, taught, and most of all, encouraged us. Dave had a belief in the staff and what CanCERN was trying to achieve and made us better for his involvement. He’s a top bloke and we thank him from the bottom of our hearts.  His simple reliance on a Nokia mobile phone from the 90s is testament to the values of the Tindall Foundation because meeting face to face always superseded phone calls and emails. Like Dave, Stephen Tindall and his family made time to meet and genuinely connect with us.  The importance of Tindall’s core value of relationship building is something that all funders should not overlook.

Kate Frykberg, formerly of the Todd Foundation was another great friend to CanCERN. Kate’s passion for making funding more responsive to community need is something we fully supported and appreciated. Kate encouraged us to be true to what we were trying to achieve, to have faith in our intuition, and to look after ourselves in the process. We want to say a massive thanks to Kate for being such a sincere believer in us and the importance of our work.

The role of philanthropy in the response and recovery has been astounding and much of it goes unnoticed. Without the generous support of many funding organisations, the community would really have been on its own. So from us at CanCERN and on behalf of all of our members who have benefited from the generosity of our funders, we say thanks.

Invitations went out via email on 14 October but so far we haven’t heard of too many people who have actually received it. CERA is using their database but email addresses like street addresses have changed over the last four and a half years so we need word of mouth to get the message out there.

CanCERN is pretty annoyed at the promotion approach CERA has chosen to get the survey out which is limited to the use of their database and the hope that a few community leaders still have some old red zone contacts. Considering the massive CERA communications budget and the glossy stories that get delivered into letterboxes monthly, they didn’t feel that spending some of that money to try to get the word out through other channels was worth it.

The survey period is very short and people only have until 15 November to respond to the survey so if you know of someone who would like to know about this, please pass the message on now. If you need a copy you can participate by ringing Neilsen on  0800 400 402.

Lawrence Roberts, ex Avonside red zoner has done a lot of thinking about how why this survey is so important and how some may feel about actually doing it. In his blog Survey of former residential red zone owners who accepted Crown offers, Lawrence writes,

'If you are cautious about taking part in case it resurrects stresses and demons best left buried, Neilsen offer the following advice in the first part of the survey:

We hope that you will find the survey experience positive, but we understand that many former property owners may find the issues it covers difficult and taking part may bring back mixed emotions. If you find this to be the case we encourage you to consider calling the Canterbury Support Line on 0800 777 846 or to contact a trusted friend. You are free to stop the survey at any time.

Should your caution be motivated by cynicism or mistrust you won’t be alone. Never the less give thought to at least looking at the survey. If you don’t have your say, your views won’t be in the mix.'

A few community leaders including Lawrence and CanCERN were invited to attend a workshop as Neilsen was putting the survey together. The advice from all leaders was definitely informed by the experiences of those of us who either worked with red zoners or were red zoned and in many cases, both. Some changes were made but true to the top down recovery we have had to date, some decisions of how the survey has been constructed and the questions asked or not asked have been led very much by the needs of both CERA or researchers. However, there is enough in it to make the survey worth considering and at the moment, it’s as good as it gets. Lawrence explains,

'The survey is structured in an unusual way that may, or may not, fully and accurately capture the issues and experiences of Red Zoners. There are two parts for some participants to fill in, and one for others. Each part has a wide range of questions.  It may be you will find the questions don’t address issues that were, or still are, important. This can be saved up for the final part of the survey where there is (at least in the draft I have seen courtesy of Neilsen and CERA) an open-ended question:

Finally, please add any comments or suggestions you would like to make, particularly any suggestions about what more could be done to help people in the future if their properties are in the worst affected areas following a natural disaster.

Take the opportunity to say what you have to say, there may never be another chance. Were there stresses that the survey overlooks  (e.g. being in the limbo of an Orange zoning, having to relocate while the Ministry of Education was restructuring schools)? Were there services that just weren’t up to it and so you didn’t use them  (e.g. a medical centre or other health service you thought incapable or unwilling to give the help needed?)  Anything else? Mention it now; include the things that worked, as knowing what worked is as important as knowing what failed.'

As per usual the internet has won the day and there is no hard copy option available so if you know of someone who needs access to a computer or support to complete the form, please give them a hand or send them to the In the Know Hub at Eastgate Mall. The wonderful community hosts there can help.

The following is CERA’s release intended for those who haven’t been contacted about the survey:

CERA is conducting a voluntary, confidential online survey of former residential red zone property owners who accepted Crown offers for purchase of their properties. The survey is intended to help the Government, local authorities and communities in responding to any similar situations that might come up in the future. CERA has contacted former property owners (or people who acted on their behalf) directly, but some people’s contact details have changed in the past couple of years. If you’re a former residential red zone property owner who accepted a Crown offer for purchase of your property and haven’t received your invitation to participate, please contact Nielsen, the independent research company carrying out the survey on CERA’s behalf: 0800 400 402.

Eyes East is a collaboration of three parties – Eastern Vision, CTV and Rebuild Christchurch to inform, educate and engage communities about ideas for the recovery of the east Christchurch flat land suburbs.

In the seventh and final episode of Eyes East which screened on CTV on 5 November, all the community values and aspirations for the flatlands of east Christchurch are viewed as an over-arching integrated whole.  The challenges, future entities, processes and opportunities for the regeneration of the east are explored.  This episode and the rest of the series can be viewed on demand on www.rebuildchristchurch.co.nz.

Guest post – Evan Smith. View the original on Rebuild Christchurch here.

The red zone lands mean so many different things to so many different people.

Our trauma, our angst, our home.  Our backyard, our neighbourhood.  Our opportunity, safety buffer, hope, sanctuary.

Our vision, our river park.

Our one chance to get it right: our stunning legacy for future generations…

This is no more so than in the eastern flatland suburbs of Christchurch.

Like a slithery Taniwha snaking through the heart of the east, the memory, the emotion, and the promise lie in wait – only occasionally stirring.

But woe betide anyone who seeks to poke it with a stick, or grasp it with both hands and oust it from its place of rest.  The beast can spring into life with a ferocity that could devour the seemingly all-powerful.

We got a faint glimpse of that this week.

“The Government hopes to recoup money from Christchurch’s red zone by leasing or selling land for private sector development,” said an article in The Press on Tuesday.  The Government was considering “options that offered a ‘financial return for the Crown’ for the future use of the land”.

There was an immediate backlash: accusations of government – and council – subterfuge, lies, collusion with insurers and money men.  Loss adjustment!  Land-banking!  Exploitation!  Deceit!

The voluntary offer, which was far from voluntary for most, the ‘fair deal’ that made losers out of many, the lack of first right of refusal, the plight of those who stuck it out and haven’t moved on for whatever reason, the lack of transparency or clear timeframes for decision-making, but above all the erosion of trust and confidence in political and commercial process all erupted abruptly.

“It would break my heart if houses were to ever be built back where our beloved … family home was red-zoned in Dallington…”

“A massive sit-in on any land they try to build on … as they have conned people out of their homes…”

All these sentiments were stirred up when the Taniwha writhed for just a moment.

If there is any hint that anybody, whether public or private, profits – or is perceived to profit  – out of the misery of those who were red-zoned or left behind in the adjacent TC3 zones, then the Taniwha will rise with a vengeance that time will not dull.

Yes, there may be need for new and affordable housing in the east that can help offset costs, but let’s be innovative in how that may be achieved without encroaching again on lands best left alone.

Leave the Taniwha in peace. Let the lands return to what they want to be: a green and blue floodplain space that nurtures and protects the adjoining communities – and the wellbeing of the entire city.

Evan Smith

Ex-Red Zoner

Breakthrough is a free service we run with Southern Response customers whose claims are not making the kind of progress they need. There are a whole raft of reasons why progress can be slow but with some additional support many homeowners are able to progress in a way that leaves them feeling more confident.

It’s a facilitation service rather than an advocacy service. We don’t negotiate for a specific claim outcome because we’re not lawyers, quantity surveyors or engineers. We are, however, able to facilitate a constructive discussion where homeowners can have the conversation they need to have with the right people at Southern Response. There is one collective aim – to understand where the claim is at from the homeowner’s perspective and what needs to happen for the claim to progress to the next stage.

Who can it help?

Absolutely anyone who is a Southern Response customer. Because Breakthrough is about trying to get things progressing where they have slowed down you can be anywhere in the process from having a first site meeting to being in the midst of repairs or a rebuild. Breakthrough has helped homeowners who:

• thought the only option left was to head to court,
• had stopped talking to Southern Response,
• thought they should wait for others to get through first,
• had just gone over cap after a long wait with EQC

How does it work?

STEP 1 – GET INVOLVED
There are a few ways to get involved:

• You reach out to us – Anyone who is a Southern Response customer can give us a call and ask us to facilitate a discussion.
• We reach out to you – Southern Response has asked us to contact customers whose claims are progressing slower than they expected, so we may phone or email you.
• You are referred – Another earthquake support service or your claims specialist may refer you if they think we can be of help.

STEP 2 – MEET WITH US
This meeting is about us listening to you. Through listening, we can help you figure out what you really want to say, where you think you are stuck, and how you think progress can be made. This meeting normally takes an hour or two and happens in a place where you are comfortable.

We write up notes based on our conversation which also form the agenda for the facilitated meeting with Southern Response. You check they are accurate and make any changes you want to. If you want to go ahead with a facilitated meeting we ask you to sign a consent form so that we can send the notes off to the Southern Response manager we think is best to help with your claim. Click here to see what the ‘homeowner meeting’ notes look like.

STEP 3 – SOUTHERN RESPONSE DOES THEIR HOMEWORK
Once Southern Response have read the notes we give them a week to gather everything they need to make sure they can answer your questions and address your concerns. Before the facilitated meeting we check the staff are ready and let you know that everything is on track for a productive meeting.

STEP 4 – WE FACILITATE A MEETING
We have this meeting where you feel most comfortable, e.g. the CanCERN office, your home, or another neutral meeting space. We work hard to set the right tone and reinforce that the meeting is led by the homeowner’s needs. Sometimes people are really nervous about the meeting and expect it to be a battle but most walk out feeling like it was one of the best meetings they’ve had in the last five years.

At the end of every facilitated meeting we write up another set of notes that include what actions were agreed to, who is responsible to ensure they happen, and how long they will take to be completed. Click here to see what the ‘facilitated meeting’ notes look like.

STEP 5 – WE MAKE SURE THERE’S PROGRESS
Part of our role is to check up and make sure everyone is on track to complete actions on time. If there are delays, we figure out why they have occurred and make sure everything is communicated back to homeowner. Further down the track if you need Breakthrough again, we will help.

What does it cost?

Breakthrough is completely free for the homeowner. Southern Response is independently contracting us to run the service. This type of independent contract is fairly standard for facilitation industry-wide. You could liken it to the way Southern Response sometimes pays for the cost of an independent quantity surveyor’s report, for example.

What now?

Email, call or text CanCERN’s Breakthrough Project Manager:

Marcus Irvine
027 304 8092
marcus@cancern.org.nz

Yesterday the Minister released the Transition Recovery Plan. This outlines how Central Government will transition roles and responsibilities for long-term arrangements as the focus moves largely from recovery to regeneration. It also confirms decisions about new legislation which is considered necessary to support recovery and regeneration over the next five years.

If you would like to see how your feedback on the Draft Transition Recovery Plan had an impact on this version, read the Summary of submissions to Draft Transition Plan.

If you’re looking for acknowledgement that not everyone is beyond the recovery stage, you will only see it in small nods. This is a relatively upbeat document and it’s focused far more on the central city regeneration and how overall leadership will transition from Central Government to Local Government over time. That said, neither Central nor Local Government are under any illusion as to the reality of broken homes, roads, and people. The Advisory Board has made sure that focus remains front and centre and we are expecting inheriting agencies to be able to articulate clearly their role in the provision of support for people still struggling. If you want to understand who will be responsible for ensuring homes and people are repaired, look to Appendix 1: New central government arrangements.

Regenerate Christchurch is the new lead entity and it’s purpose is to ‘support a vibrant, thriving Christchurch with economic, social and lifestyle opportunities for residents, businesses, visitors, investors and developers’. It is not the group that will focus on what is left of the residential rebuild and insurance issues nor the more specific social issues which come about after a protracted disaster recovery. MBIE and MoH have been charged with that role and there is as yet very little visibility of what that really looks like.

Regenerate Christchurch is however the entity which will try to speed up momentum in the CBD rebuild and will be responsible for the future Red Zone engagement in Christchurch. The Crown and CCC have collaborated in the design of this entity and the idea is that over the next five years there will be less and less Crown influence. The Mayor is pretty happy with this approach so we need to trust that she has addressed previous issues in the set up of Regenerate Christchurch.

People will still question though, “is Regenerate Christchurch just CERA in drag? CCDU in drag? Is the Minister still calling all the shots?” In my honest opinion which has been largely informed through my role on the Advisory Board, I believe not. I’m not staking my life on it because let’s face it, when push comes to shove the Crown always has the biggest stick. However, I am confident of a few things:

1. The Crown actually wants out of the driving seat. They have to stay to ensure their ongoing financial investment is looked after but they certainly don’t want to be creating new roles for themselves.
2. The dialogue between Minister Brownlee, Mayor Lianne Dalziel, and Chief Executives John Ombler and Karleen Edwards has improved and is focused. Open dialogue leads to all kinds of great planning and accountability and we are already reaping the rewards of this new way of working.
3. The Crown actually don’t like to use the special powers but local authorities are very clear where momentum will be challenged if we do not have the ability to resolve extraordinary issues related to recovery and regeneration. We in the community have also identified long standing and unresolved issues which could be best addressed by the careful use of legislation.
4. There has been a massive process shift in terms of who can instigate Regeneration Plans and the role the Minister has which essentially means that if the local authorities commit to meaningful community engagement, we are in a better position to lead local decisions.

The things that make me nervous and which are not well articulated in this Plan are the following:

1. Future Use Residential Red Zone decisions. Like the way CERA has done it or not, there are some key people in CERA who understand that the Red Zone is as much a part of our social recovery and wellbeing as it is a Crown asset. To lose this thinking at this stage is a frightening concept.
2.  The Plan doesn’t give any real indication what MoH and MBIE have actually been asked to do in terms of leading the residential and psychosocial recovery. MBIE don’t have a very visible local role and MoH have not been here in a leadership role as MSD has taken on the role. Uncertainty is uncomfortable and those who work in this space are feeling a little anxious.
3. The section on DPMC’s monitoring and reporting also leaves me a little cold. Although it’s good to see that there will be some coordination of this, nothing in what is written demonstrates a greater commitment to the monitoring being used for anything more than reporting. Where’s the commitment to using the data to identify and resolve issues? CERA has monitored and reported on residential insurance progress stats for a long time. That doesn’t mean better progress has been made.

Next steps in moving from CERA to beyond are mostly legislative now. Select Committee submissions on the new legislation will be called for and it is likely to be a very short time frame with which to submit. Christmas is fast approaching and everything needs to be passed through Government and ready to go by April 2016.

A final personal opinion; the direction I believe is the right one. The Crown will see through the commitment to support this recovery but will move more and more out of the leadership role so that the local leadership can step up. Collaboration and leadership are the key focuses and we haven’t had enough of either to date so we are well overdue for a step-change in that area. The residential recovery has mostly taken a ‘leave it to market’ approach. We haven’t agreed that this was the right approach and we can only hope that a more specific solutions focus will be applied to what’s left. The community sector is strong and passionate about supporting the social wellbeing of Cantabrians so as long as they are in turn well supported, they will lead the way. The future use of the Red Zone is a nail-biting ‘wait and see’ area and we can only strenuously advocate that the powers that be remember the people.

What is it again?
Breakthrough is a service we run with Southern Response customers whose claims are stuck for any number of reasons. Sometimes they’re not even stuck, but with some additional support they are able to progress in a way that leaves the homeowner feeling more confident. It’s a facilitation service rather than an advocacy service. We don’t negotiate for a specific claim outcome because we’re not lawyers, quantity surveyors or engineers.

We are, however, able to facilitate a safe discussion where homeowners can have the conversation they need to have with the right people at Southern Response. The meetings are safe because we remove the ‘us and them’ approach. There is one collective aim – to understand where the claim is at from the homeowner’s perspective and what needs to happen for the claim to progress to the next stage. With any Breakthrough meeting we make sure there are action points at the end that are agreed by everyone; this ensures homeowners always have some progress going forward.

Breakthrough has been running since the end of last year and has relied on homeowners coming to us for help. The feedback we have received from homeowners revealed, it’s been working well – every person involved has made progress of some kind.

So what’s the latest?
CanCERN’s extremely generous philanthropic funding from the Todd, Tindall, and Hugh Green Foundations is coming to an end after nearly five years. What that means is we have been left with a choice: stop Breakthrough altogether, or continue the programme via an independent contract with Southern Response. The results have spoken for themselves and the need for independent facilitation in the insurance settlement area is more apparent than ever. This is why we have chosen the latter and have a short term contract which allows us to target our support more directly.

Why is Southern Response contracting Breakthrough?
Southern Response wants their customers to have the support they need to work through their claims. They have always encouraged homeowners to seek independent support from services such and Earthquake Support Coordinators and Residential Advisory Service. Breakthrough is an additional support they are keen for their customers to use if it can be helpful.

Is there a conflict of interest?
Some might perceive it that way, but for us, the service we are providing hasn’t changed as a result of the contracting situation. The homeowner shares as much or as little information with us as they choose, we facilitate the meeting based on what it is they need to discuss, and the information shared with Southern Response is all validated by the homeowner. Impartiality and transparency are key. This kind of funding arrangement is also pretty common for independent facilitation industry-wide.

Want to know more?
Give Marcus Irvine a yell on 027 304 8092 or send him a quick email at marcus@cancern.org.nz

After five years of working in this space, CanCERN has had to review the roles we play, roles that may be necessary next year, what value we can add, and the opportunities we still have to make the residential recovery better for the people we serve. It’s a complicated set of questions to consider when so many agencies we work with are in a state of transition as they prepare to move to the dreaded ‘business as usual’. Obviously the people still trying to resolve claims and reinstate homes are not yet able to return to a ‘business as usual’ life so there is very definitely still a need for someone to shine a spotlight on the realities of recovery for these people. What that looks like in 2016 is still murky because at this stage, there is little visibility on what CERA’s transition will mean for residential recovery.

So this week we don’t have all the answers but over the coming weeks we hope to have a few more. Breakthrough has ramped up which is an exciting development and we have had really successful outcomes for the homeowners who have allowed us to facilitate conversations between them and Southern Response – read more in the post below. We have also facilitated a few meetings with EQC and that has given us some insight into changes EQC is making. Changes take forever to filter through large organisations but when doors start to open we know we can really add some value for the people. The In the Know Hub is still rocking along at Eastgate and homeowners are still reporting that they are in a better position for having popped in. Just being able to talk to the Community Hosts who can help unscramble the situation is enough for many to know what the next step is.

And of course, it’s not all about insurance and repairs and rebuilds. Flood, Coastal Hazards, community rebuilding – these things are also playing out in people’s busy lives. We are pretty pleased to see new community leadership pop up to lead the charge on these other issues because Harold Fleming nailed it when he said,

“The wisdom of the community always exceeds the knowledge of the experts.”