Impacts of the Great Recession on Communities

The following is offered by Dr. John Plodinec, Associate Director for Community Resilience Certification at CARRI and Science Advisor, Savannah River National Laboratory.

In previous postings, I’ve tried to present trends that pointed to the need for a community resilience framework. These trends (growing complexity of communities, the new spectrum of hazards facing communities, and the accelerating rate of change) by themselves make the case for the need for a community resilience framework. In this posting and the next, I’ll examine reasons why we need such a framework NOW – first the impacts of the Great Recession, and then the unrealistic expectations of so many of our citizens.

The Great Recession of the last two+ years has created a new reality for communities. The resources that communities, states, and the federal government have available for disaster recovery may not be there for the next disaster. Across the country, tax revenues are falling. At least 35 states expect to have budget shortfalls this year; last year, 49 out of the 50 actually did. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that translated to almost 300,000 less workers in government in December, 2009, than a year before – and at least 17 states already have announced they will reduce staff again this year. This year, the National Debt is expected to approach 90% of our national GDP. We just don’t have the money - or the human resources - to repeat the recovery from Katrina (cost $230B and counting), at least not the way we’ve done it before.

And it does not look like the economic picture will significantly improve any time soon. Only the most glowing – and unrealistic – projections of our economy lead to reductions of more than a percent a year in unemployment over the next decade. These rosy assumptions fly in the face of the projections of many economists that we will see another economic dip within the next two years.

Overlaid on this economic bad news (no wonder economics is known as the Dismal Science!) is a ticking time bomb: the retirement of the Baby Boomers. Projections made five years ago were that the Medicare and Medicaid expenses alone would be at least 10 times the national debt (currently $12.3 T). But some nice work done by our colleague Dr. Andy Felts of the College of Charleston suggests that the costs may be even higher. Using data from Charleston County, SC, Andy showed that the per capita cost of providing county services to seniors (those 65 or greater) was rising almost twice as fast as for everyone else. These cost increases are expected to accelerate as the Baby Boomers become so-called “Super Seniors” (75 or older). We’re hearing similar projections across the country.

Thus, national economic recovery will be protracted, with no guarantee of complete success. Resources for recovery are likely to be constrained and harder to obtain. This puts a real premium on community efficiency: more precisely identifying the resources a community will need to recover from future disasters – before disaster strikes – so that the community can rapidly secure them after a disaster.

A community resilience framework can help improve community efficiency in several ways:

• Communities can more accurately predict what will be lost, i.e., what internal resources might not be available, and – of equal importance – what resources ought to be available within the community that can be utilized. For example, separating debris by disposal categories (e.g., separating “green” waste – downed trees, for example – from white wares can lead to big savings to communities in disposal costs. However, it is very expensive to do if all of the waste is aggregated. If the community prepares its citizens to carry out this task after the disaster it can save both segregation and disposal costs.
• Communities can identify sources of funding for recovery, and the requirements associated with them. Too many communities have built their plans on the expectation of federal funds only to find that they had to repay the federal government because they hadn’t complied with a particular agency’s rules. As you are reading this, meetings between FEMA and communities in Mississippi and Alabama are being held to decide how much of the Stafford Act funding moved so expeditiously after Katrina must now be paid back because of poor accounting or documentation practices.
• Communities can prioritize the sources of funds they pursue.
• Communities can assess how well they can use the resources, and streamline their systems to remove bottlenecks.

Thus, the Great Recession has created a new reality of constrained resources that communities must face. A community resilience framework can help communities survive and thrive even in this new era of constrained resources.

Old and New Threats to Communities

The following is offered by Dr. John Plodinec, Associate Director for Community Resilience Certification at CARRI and Science Advisor, Savannah River National Laboratory.



In the first post of this series, I summarized the reasons that a community resilience framework is needed – now. In my last post, I expanded on one of them: the growing complexity of communities. In this post, I want to expand on another of them: the new spectrum of threats facing communities.

American communities have always been at risk from natural hazards and pandemics. However, the evolving and ever more complex nature of communities, and the rise of global terrorism have brought new vulnerabilities. A community resilience framework can help communities identify these vulnerabilities, and take steps to mitigate them.

With the growing affluence after World War II, Americans were able to live wherever they wanted, rather than where they were born and raised. As a result, more and more people have migrated to what they deem to be more attractive locations. In 1900, less than half of our population lived near either the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Now, over three fourths of Americans live within 50 miles of one of the coasts, and the proportion is increasing. Smaller communities that were formed as a hub for agricultural activity are disappearing, or are being transformed into bedroom communities for a nearby urban center. Where once almost all communities were self-sufficient, now most communities have complex ties to others in their region or the nation (and, more and more, to the rest of the world), and must depend on others for critical capabilities.

As a result, more and more communities are at risk, in a variety of ways. More communities are faced with major coastal weather-related hazards - hurricanes, floods – than ever before. The threat of a pandemic continues to hang over all of our heads. To these must be added a new litany of hazards – terrorist acts and economic dislocations. We are assaulted nearly every day with news stories about terrorist attacks either here or in foreign countries. Over the last quarter century, the economies of American communities have seen the impacts of the interconnectedness of the global economy, with much less fanfare. For example, downturns in the Asian or Russian economies have led to reduced demand for American agricultural products such as grain and poultry, stressing the communities where they are produced.

Domestically, the web of interdependencies surrounding a community also introduces new and often unrecognized hazards. For example, a major industrial accident in an urban center may have devastating consequences on the bedroom communities around it that depend on the urban center for jobs for their citizens. A decision to close a manufacturing facility made in a corporate headquarters a thousand miles away, may devastate a community whose existence depends on that plant. While hurricanes and floods have always had the potential to isolate smaller communities, that isolation may now mean that the community is cut off from essential services.

Using a community resilience framework, communities can look at the impacts of various scenarios and better identify their spectrum of vulnerabilities. In some cases, the community will be able to take action to reduce the impacts; for example, strengthening a bridge to ensure its integrity during an earthquake. In others, the community may not be able to take action; for example, preventive actions may be too costly, or the triggering event might be something that will occur in another community. In these cases, a community resilience framework can help communities anticipate impacts and develop plans to address them - again, spotlighting the need for a community resilience framework.


A note from CARRI Blog Maintenance: the blog entry posted January 26, 2010 was posted inadvertently; it will be re-posted at a future date. Thank you.

Need for a framework – now!

The following is offered by Dr. John Plodinec, Associate Director for Community Resilience Certification at CARRI and Science Advisor, Savannah River National Laboratory.

Two questions that we are hearing more and more are:

1) Why does the country need a community resilience framework?
2) Why should we work on developing one now?

There are several trends that point to the need for a framework.

THE GROWING COMPLEXITY OF COMMUNITIES. American communities today are much more complex than ever before, and becoming more so. Almost all communities are enmeshed in a complex web of interdependencies, both within the community and with other communities. A framework can help citizens, community leaders and state and federal entities better understand the nature of each community. In times of disaster, this understanding is essential for obtaining resources and maximizing their impact.

THE NEW SPECTRUM OF HAZARDS FACING COMMUNITIES. American communities have always been at risk from natural hazards and pandemics. However, growing community complexity and the rise of global terrorism have brought new vulnerabilities. A framework can help communities to better understand these vulnerabilities, and to take action to limit impacts.

THE ACCELERATING RATE OF CHANGE. In prior times, communities often could adapt to emerging trends and new hazards at their own pace. In today’s techno centric world, the accelerating rate of technological change means that communities are almost continually faced with the need to adapt – or re-invent – themselves. A framework can point out the paths a community can follow to successfully adapt to change.

We believe it is essential to develop a community resilience framework NOW.

IMPACTS OF RECESSION. The global recession has severely limited the resources that communities, states, and the federal government have available to help communities recover from disasters. National economic recovery will be protracted, with no guarantee of complete success. This means that communities must identify the resources they might need to meet future disasters – now, or risk compaction or collapse.

UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS. In the aftermath of 9/11, and especially after Hurricane Katrina, a large portion of the populace seems to believe that the federal government should and can be the “White Knight” that charges in after a disaster and returns the community to normalcy. Quite simply, the federal government doesn’t have the resources to repeat Katrina (currently $230 B and counting). In order to fully recover from future disasters, communities and their citizens must be ready to take charge of their own recovery. They must identify all of the resources that will be available for recovery – those within the community and outside, and prepare to use them if disaster strikes.

In the next few postings, I’ll expand on each of these.

National Thinking About Community Resilience Must Evolve

As we move from an almost completely protection centric view of homeland security to one acknowledging the requirement for a broader paradigm that includes protection, prevention, response and recovery, it is a significantly positive step that the concept of community resilience seems to have forced its way into the new doctrine. Community resilience is at least now a subject of conversation. Unfortunately, the national view of communities and where they fit in the homeland security enterprise remains quite shallow and does not recognize the full potential of community resilience to be the foundation of a resilient nation.

National leader speeches as well as federal web sites and publications now include words on resilient communities in almost every discussion of national needs. But the words always focus on individuals and families very occasionally going further to acknowledge organizations and the private business sector. Communities are certainly about families and individuals. But they are far more than that. Communities are the foundations of our civil society – where individuals live, work, play, raise families and derive their values. Communities are complexes of built and social infrastructure. Most of the built infrastructure is privately owned and operated. Much of the social infrastructure resides in organizations independent of governmental structures. Communities create the wealth of the nation in their small businesses, retail outlets, housing markets and individual investments. Communities educate the nation, care for the nation’s physical and mental health and provide opportunities for faith and spirituality. And communities are inherently resilient.

Nationally, we need to understand and capture that complexity in our thinking about, planning for and encouragement of community resilience. Resilient communities must be the foundation of a national disaster resilience culture.

Disaster resilient communities would have the goal of rapidly returning to normal functioning after a disaster. They would do so using the full resilience continuum of prevent, protect, respond and recover appropriately within the community context. A nation of disaster resilient communities would meet this goal by working to protect, prevent and mitigate appropriate systems with a focus on eventual full recovery. They coordinate response to rapidly achieve recovery of normal community function and capacity and ensure that recovery is rapid, equitable, and leaves the community at least as strong as it was prior to the disaster.

Disaster resilient communities will have realistic expectations of outside assistance following a disaster based on comprehensive vulnerability and capability self-assessments and community developed plans and processes across the full resilience continuum. Nationally, federal systems must help nurture communities in developing resilience; help train them in concepts, tools, practices which develop, support, and enhance disaster resilience, and work with communities and regions in exercising their resilient characteristics. In return, resilient communities enhance the power of national programs by inculcating realistic expectations and by applying local power in an effective and efficient way.

Communities are the powerful, complex, resilient foundations of a resilient nation.

Community Resilience: Long-Term Recovery

FEMA has formed a working group to examine policies and practices for disaster recovery. The effort is welcome and long overdue. As a part of the input to the working group, there is an invitation to the public at large to comment by providing answers to a series of questions. (I have noted in the past that current FEMA leadership seems to be committed to listening. This is another welcome indication.) Thoughtful answers to FEMA’s recovery questions from across America will be helpful in shaping good recovery policies and programs.

A fundamental question is how to define a successful disaster recovery. CARRI believes that successful disaster recovery begins well before a disaster occurs with a deliberate and well thought out plan to achieve community recovery. Successful disaster recovery addresses all domains of community life – economic, social, ecological and physical systems – meeting the needs of the full fabric of the community in a sustainable and inclusive manner. While speed of recovery is important, thoughtful consideration to reduce vulnerabilities for future events is also required. Successful recovery includes adaptation where weaknesses can be identified and corrected as part of the recovery process in order to make the community more resilient to future incidents. Over time, successful disaster recovery should increase community functionality above pre-disaster levels so that recovery after the next disaster is less costly and more rapid. The ideal process for community recovery facilitates and is in harmony with long-term community goals.

We believe that there are three primary characteristics that influence the speed and quality of successful recoveries. First, resilient communities have deliberate plans for recovery in the same way that they have deliberate disaster response and emergency management plans. They plan in detail how the community will achieve a rapid return to normal. Second, successful disaster recoveries involve the full fabric of the community in every phase of their approach to recovery: planning, preparedness, response, and short- and long-term recovery. Third, successful recoveries involve broad-based use of formal and informal (official and unofficial) communication networks to facilitate recovery processes and involvement. These networks are identified and rehearsed before the disaster and thereby extend the reach and impact of formal, official communications. They also include all parts and domains of the community. The informal, unofficial networks are incorporated into official, long-term recovery communication networks.

These systematic examinations by FEMA of federal policies and programs that will ultimately influence community resilience are very welcome. We should support them fully and thoughtfully.

Where Does Mitigation Fit?

One of our CARRI blog followers in a comment to the August 18 blog expresses the thought that “mitigation” should be in his words, “included as a component of any Sustainable and Resilient Nation.” (See the comment to “Simultaneous or Sequential,” August 18, 2009) He goes on to give several examples of how actions to mitigate would beneficially contribute to limiting the effects of disasters.


The comments have caused me to think about how CARRI is handling the important area of mitigation to disaster. Clear actions to mitigate are important and must be part of any community's plan to reach a state approaching resilience. Much of the writing about mitigation in disaster management seems to group mitigation actions into two categories – structural (engineered interventions) and non-structural (planning, codes, restrictions, material usage). Mitigation seems, therefore, to deal primarily with the physical environment. While this is clearly critical, it is not sufficient by itself.


CARRI treats mitigation as part of the total resilience mindset – culture – ethos. As we look at our proposed emergency management continuum – prevent, protect, respond and recover – undergirded by preparation, mitigation falls in the “protect” area of the continuum. Mitigation is one of the ways we protect ourselves and our stuff from the effects of natural or man-made disasters.


Resilience, however, also recognizes two things that affect our thinking about mitigation. First, we will never be able to mitigate all effects. Something will be damaged and some things will be damaged severely despite our best efforts. We still need to bounce back from this damage. Second, resilience includes more actions than just those which address physical effects. Resilience in a community has social and economic aspects that are not typically considered when one is looking at mitigation actions. Perhaps using resilience as our basis of thought can help us to enlarge our perspective of mitigation to include more than how disasters affect the physical environment.

Engaging the Full-Fabric of Communities

Not only must disaster resilience be the cornerstone of a new disaster management culture in the US, and not only must it be built on resilient communities and regions, but disaster resilience must also engage the “full fabric” of our society. While the efforts of governments (federal, state, local and tribal) are critical, they are not sufficient. True disaster resilience requires a complex collaboration of government at all levels with crucial private sector energies and assets. The private sector is not limited to the private business sector but also includes the non-governmental, volunteer, academic, non-profit, faith-based and associational organizations that make up our social fabric. All of these organizations are important to the resilience continuum – some are critical. The private business sector provides much of the nation’s critical infrastructure and must be integrated either voluntarily or through regulation. Each method of integration will have an accepted and welcomed place. The business sector will have an incentive to participate in resilience activities where they can be shown to prevent loss and ensure a degree of protection from business disruptions. Many large businesses already operate across the resilience continuum – preventing those things that seem preventable, protecting critical assets and information, responding to disruptions as required and getting their business back on line as quickly as possible. Because the best of them operate this way on a daily basis, the private business sector inherently understands disaster resilience. It is critical that the Department of Homeland Security continue its efforts to engage, involve, and embed all of these critical non-governmental elements into the full homeland security “enterprise.”

Empowering Resilient Communities

Just as “all disasters are local,” national disaster resilience can be best developed from the bottom up, starting with communities. Resilient communities must be the foundation of a national disaster resilience culture and another essential goal of a revitalized and effective Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Ultimately, it is a community’s responsibility to prepare for recovery. It must also be the community’s responsibility before an event to:

· understand specifically what constitutes recovery for that community;
· strategize and deliberately plan specific actions to achieve the recovery, and
· set expectations on how that recovery will be achieved and what the “new normal” will be following the disaster.

Disaster resilient communities would have the goal of rapidly returning to normal functioning after a disaster. They would do so using the full resilience continuum of prevent, protect, respond and recover appropriately within their context.

A nation of disaster resilient communities would meet this goal by working to protect, prevent and mitigate appropriate systems with a focus on eventual full recovery. They coordinate response to rapidly achieve recovery of normal community function and capacity and ensure that recovery is rapid, equitable, and leaves the community at least as strong as it was prior to the disaster.

Disaster resilient communities will have realistic expectations of outside assistance following a disaster based on comprehensive vulnerability and capability self-assessments and community developed plans and processes across the full resilience continuum.

Nationally, DHS must help nurture communities in developing their resilience; help train them in concepts, tools, practices which develop, support, and enhance disaster resilience, and work with communities and regions in exercising their resilient characteristics. In return, resilient communities enhance the power of national programs by inculcating realistic expectations and by applying local power in an effective and efficient way. This evolution harmonizes DHS’s roles and allows DHS to change from being solely a federal “control” agent (which it is sometimes seen as doing ineffectively) to become a facilitator of a rapid and effective return to normal community function (a role which will properly and successfully leverage the federal resources and might).

A number of surveys and studies reveal that the current federal hierarchical, response-centric approach has elevated the public’s expectations of federal responsibility and capability well beyond the nation’s needs —and the Federal government’s ability to deliver -- particularly in light of longer term trends such as the projected increased in climate variability. The nation would be better served to engage communities in a way that sets more realistic expectations and increases the incentives to become resilient at the local and regional level.