Page 141 - Creating Spiritual and Psychological Resilience

110 Creating Spiritual and Psychological Resilence

landscape of aid. At first it appeared that the typical role of faith commu-
nities to provide for unmet needs and long-term recovery might not be
needed as record cash donations were received. Indeed, in the first weeks
of 9/11 recovery, there was a belief expressed informally between work-
ers that there “would be no unmet needs” because of the large amount of
donations received. Quickly, however, it became apparent to many that this
could only be true if the definition of disaster victim was drawn so tightly
that many who were clearly disaster impacted became categorized as “not
direct disaster victims.” Pressure from the media, especially as it attacked
the American Red Cross for possible misuse of aid, and concern that aid
was not being distributed quickly enough led to decisions that changed the
landscape of disaster assistance in response to 9/11 and long thereafter.
Surprising to many, in the wake of the World Trade Center disaster,
whole communities in New York City, many with preexisting socioeco-
nomic vulnerabilities, found accessing disaster recovery cash assistance
difficult or, in some cases, impossible. New York community-based agen-
cies and grassroots organizations were struggling to meet the needs of
people who were traumatized and increasingly depressed due to loss of
jobs and fear of another terrorist attack. Clergy and lay staff of houses of
worship throughout New York were also struggling to provide spiritual
care despite confusion about who could be considered “direct” or “indi-
rect” victims of the disaster. With general knowledge that assistance was
being distributed at the “piers” in lower Manhattan, it took months for
spiritual leaders to agree that the best use of their donated funds would be
to work in collaboration through an unmet needs table. At first, there were
assumptions that people would be eligible for mainstream aid. However,
as Jackson Chin (personal interview, November 19, 2005) of the Puerto
Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund articulated:
What we were learning from the American Red Cross [and other agencies]
was that they had very different types of criteria that then started to gel. They
would say, “well, your address is above Canal Street” … and Canal Street is not
a straight line. Then all the agencies evolved to some agreement that this would
be their line for who would be helped and who would not be helped. The line
was drawn, but it essentially disqualified a high number of people who were
within an equal distance of the World Trade Center. Because of the line, they
were considered not qualified for assistance. Why is it that these people who
were clearly impacted were excluded?

While this systemic exclusion of communities based on their geo-
graphic location in relationship to the World Trade Center was evolving,
other concerns regarding the distribution of aid were also being discussed.