The traditional emergency management construct (prepare, respond, recover, mitigate) has served the nation well for many years and current Presidential Directives, policy documents, the National Response Framework, NIMS and operational and implementing documents reflect the centrality of this paradigm – we train to it; we exercise it; we fund it -- we are prepared to respond. Underlying this paradigm is the inherent assumption that if we are prepared to respond quickly, efficiently, and effectively, recovery will naturally follow. This paradigm is further undergirded by the unspoken belief that responsibilities and efforts to prepare are “pushed” outwards from the emergency manager at the hub to the various “spokes” of the community. Authorities, responsibilities and resources are centralized and hierarchical.
The lessons and changes of the last decade, however, have led us to recognize the need for an expanded and potentially more powerful organizing principle for both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the larger “enterprise.” This expands and adapts the traditional emergency management construct from its emphasis on “preparing to respond” to a new paradigm which emphasizes “preparing to recover” -- not just recovering functional power and water supplies, for example, but full recovery of the normal rhythms, functions and capacities of everyday life. This modified paradigm adjusts the mission construct to a more complete continuum -- prevention, protection (including mitigation), response and recovery (both short and long-term) -- and more properly understands preparedness as a foundational necessity of every phase of the continuum. This paradigm envisions community disaster resilience as the outcome of applying this evolved and expanded continuum. Grounding DHS and the homeland security enterprise in this disaster resilience context will focus resources and actions on the appropriate outcome and provide an effective organizing construct, thus taking the first step toward a revitalized and effective department able to serve its mission and meet citizen expectations.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Two Brief Thoughts
When CARRI began its investigation into the status of resilience thinking, research and policy development, the idea of resilience was not a concept in good standing at the Department of Homeland Security or in the White House. While there was growing energy among outside groups around the concept of resilience as an alternative to protection (see CARRI’s May 5, 2009 blog posting), the discussions were very limited and frequently somewhat acrimonious. It seems clear, however, that the landscape is shifting rapidly. The President has announced that there will be an office within the Homeland Security Council for resilience. Secretary Napolitano speaks of making the federal government an “engaged facilitator of long-term community recovery.” The designee to be Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Science and Technology, Dr. Tara O’Toole has made community resilience one of her primary goals. Resilience appears to be not just a concept in good standing but is quickly becoming a focus of policy thought. I think this is good.
There is apparently some confusion about what CARRI means by a common framework for community resilience (see CARRI’s May 18, 2009 blog posting). This confusion is generating a healthy internal discussion. In an effort to broaden that discussion, I offer my first draft of a definition.
COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE: a widely accepted, coherent, measurable, way of understanding community disaster resilience and applying that understanding to a community in a meaningful way. A common framework would include objective, measurable, commonly accepted indicators; a practical assessment methodology to fairly, transparently and accurately assess the ability to return to normal; and processes facilitated by validated tools that allow the results of the assessment to be translated into actions that increase a community’s resilience.
Comments welcome!
There is apparently some confusion about what CARRI means by a common framework for community resilience (see CARRI’s May 18, 2009 blog posting). This confusion is generating a healthy internal discussion. In an effort to broaden that discussion, I offer my first draft of a definition.
COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE: a widely accepted, coherent, measurable, way of understanding community disaster resilience and applying that understanding to a community in a meaningful way. A common framework would include objective, measurable, commonly accepted indicators; a practical assessment methodology to fairly, transparently and accurately assess the ability to return to normal; and processes facilitated by validated tools that allow the results of the assessment to be translated into actions that increase a community’s resilience.
Comments welcome!
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Fatigue and a New Normal
CARRI and the Center for Policy and Resilience of the University of Southern Mississippi, Gulf Park Campus hosted a “Ghosts of Katrina” workshop on June 5 and 6. The workshop brought together a number of scholars who are working on issues surrounding Hurricane Katrina and its impact on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi as well as community leaders, activists and volunteers. Results from that workshop will be published soon and available on the CARRI web site.
It was very interesting that of the many topics and issues discussed, two themes were constant in the research results and in the community discussions. One theme can be best described as “Katrina fatigue” and the other theme is a strong desire to know when the community recovery is over. “When will we know that we are back to normal?” Clearly the two ideas are strongly linked.
The Mississippi Gulf Coast was devastated by Katrina. The recovery while dramatic has been long, slow and difficult. The communities have demonstrated great resilience, are coming back robustly, have accomplished much and will be stronger communities in the end. But they are tired. As a result of that tiredness, they want to know when they can consider themselves out of the recovery period and back into normal community growth and development. It’s a reasonable question that is undoubtedly conflicted by legal, political and social considerations. The question manifests itself in a number of ways from low attendance at community recovery events to the results of the recent local municipal elections.
Community resilience is all about getting back to normal but for a devastated community, what is normal? The CARRI team has been talking lately about the “new normal” for a resilient community. One of our proposed principles for a community framework is that resilience is ultimately about achieving a “new normal” level of functionality. This idea recognizes that a community that has been severely affected by a major disruptive event will be changed forever. The “old normal” is gone replaced by a new reality. The new normal will be different – it may be worse but in a truly resilient community it may be significantly better. Defining the “new normal” before the disruptive event – creating a resilience vision – will allow a better understanding of when recovery is over and day-to-day life has resumed. It may also help with the fatigue problem.
These ideas seemed to resonate with the audience at the conference.
It was very interesting that of the many topics and issues discussed, two themes were constant in the research results and in the community discussions. One theme can be best described as “Katrina fatigue” and the other theme is a strong desire to know when the community recovery is over. “When will we know that we are back to normal?” Clearly the two ideas are strongly linked.
The Mississippi Gulf Coast was devastated by Katrina. The recovery while dramatic has been long, slow and difficult. The communities have demonstrated great resilience, are coming back robustly, have accomplished much and will be stronger communities in the end. But they are tired. As a result of that tiredness, they want to know when they can consider themselves out of the recovery period and back into normal community growth and development. It’s a reasonable question that is undoubtedly conflicted by legal, political and social considerations. The question manifests itself in a number of ways from low attendance at community recovery events to the results of the recent local municipal elections.
Community resilience is all about getting back to normal but for a devastated community, what is normal? The CARRI team has been talking lately about the “new normal” for a resilient community. One of our proposed principles for a community framework is that resilience is ultimately about achieving a “new normal” level of functionality. This idea recognizes that a community that has been severely affected by a major disruptive event will be changed forever. The “old normal” is gone replaced by a new reality. The new normal will be different – it may be worse but in a truly resilient community it may be significantly better. Defining the “new normal” before the disruptive event – creating a resilience vision – will allow a better understanding of when recovery is over and day-to-day life has resumed. It may also help with the fatigue problem.
These ideas seemed to resonate with the audience at the conference.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Community Trajectory
In a guest blog our colleague, Dr. Andy Felts in Charleston, South Carolina , writes:
One of the observations on community resilience that the CARRI team has agreed on relates to the ‘trajectory’ of a community before a disaster. By this, we mean, broadly, the direction a community is taking pre-disaster. Our working hypothesis is that the trajectory of a community will affect the speed of its recovery or whether it may recover at all.
A simple example will explain:
In terms of housing and construction, Hurricane Katrina could not have hit at a worse time during the two decades prior to 2005. The storm and post-disaster period coincided with the leveling off and major downturn of the housing finance (hence construction) market in the US. Financial institutions were reluctant to lend money to either developers or individuals seeking to rebuild. As a result, recovery in the Gulf has obviously been hampered. A downward trajectory makes recovery much more difficult.
In this case, the trajectory of the Gulf Coast communities affected by Katrina was part of a national trend and mostly beyond their control.
In other cases, the direction a community is taking may be more under its control.
Still using housing as the example:
A community that lacks affordable, workforce housing or has inadequate housing is on a downward trajectory and will have worse housing problems post-disaster. New Orleans may be a good example.
But it is not enough to consider a single dimension or factor. As we move toward developing an assessment tool, it is growing more evident to us that while it may be possible to characterize the overall trajectory of a community, it may be more helpful to see where they are heading with respect to a number of variables. It is possible that as a community works to improve its trajectory in one area, it may actually be degrading another. This is the great benefit of continuing to keep an eye on the mantra that recovery must involve the whole fabric and all sectors of the community.
Let’s stick with housing to illustrate:
Communities could work to provide affordable, workforce housing in remote areas and that helps that situation. However, the community also should examine the burden such development might place on the transportation and other parts of a community’s infrastructure. An upward trajectory for housing may be offset by a downturn in transportation.
A resilient community should strategize to be on upward trajectories along several dimensions. The likelihood of this happening is greatly improved through perspectives such as CARRI’s that emphasize interdependencies. Being aware of the potential trade-offs between different areas of community functioning can prevent a community from sub-optimizing in one sector at the expense of another. This, we believe, will be valuable information as the community plots a path forward toward improving its resilience.
All of this raises one important point. There are good reasons for adopting the CARRI perspective even if a disaster does not occur. It makes for a healthier community and better place to live.
One of the observations on community resilience that the CARRI team has agreed on relates to the ‘trajectory’ of a community before a disaster. By this, we mean, broadly, the direction a community is taking pre-disaster. Our working hypothesis is that the trajectory of a community will affect the speed of its recovery or whether it may recover at all.
A simple example will explain:
In terms of housing and construction, Hurricane Katrina could not have hit at a worse time during the two decades prior to 2005. The storm and post-disaster period coincided with the leveling off and major downturn of the housing finance (hence construction) market in the US. Financial institutions were reluctant to lend money to either developers or individuals seeking to rebuild. As a result, recovery in the Gulf has obviously been hampered. A downward trajectory makes recovery much more difficult.
In this case, the trajectory of the Gulf Coast communities affected by Katrina was part of a national trend and mostly beyond their control.
In other cases, the direction a community is taking may be more under its control.
Still using housing as the example:
A community that lacks affordable, workforce housing or has inadequate housing is on a downward trajectory and will have worse housing problems post-disaster. New Orleans may be a good example.
But it is not enough to consider a single dimension or factor. As we move toward developing an assessment tool, it is growing more evident to us that while it may be possible to characterize the overall trajectory of a community, it may be more helpful to see where they are heading with respect to a number of variables. It is possible that as a community works to improve its trajectory in one area, it may actually be degrading another. This is the great benefit of continuing to keep an eye on the mantra that recovery must involve the whole fabric and all sectors of the community.
Let’s stick with housing to illustrate:
Communities could work to provide affordable, workforce housing in remote areas and that helps that situation. However, the community also should examine the burden such development might place on the transportation and other parts of a community’s infrastructure. An upward trajectory for housing may be offset by a downturn in transportation.
A resilient community should strategize to be on upward trajectories along several dimensions. The likelihood of this happening is greatly improved through perspectives such as CARRI’s that emphasize interdependencies. Being aware of the potential trade-offs between different areas of community functioning can prevent a community from sub-optimizing in one sector at the expense of another. This, we believe, will be valuable information as the community plots a path forward toward improving its resilience.
All of this raises one important point. There are good reasons for adopting the CARRI perspective even if a disaster does not occur. It makes for a healthier community and better place to live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
