Unrealistic Expectations

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 previous posting, I pointed out that the new reality of constrained resources created by the Great Recession makes the need for a community resilience framework more pressing than ever before. In this post, I’ll discuss another major reason a community resilience framework is needed now: the unrealistic expectations that have resulted from recent disasters.

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. This belief has been reinforced by recent federal bailouts to financial institutions and automakers, and mirrors some of the rhetoric surrounding the health care debate.

Many current plans for emergency response and recovery reflect other facets of the same problem. For example, too many plans expect that the community’s behavior will conform to directives from the community’s leaders. And yet opinion polls in several locales have shown that large portions of the populace in hurricane-prone areas say they won’t leave no matter what they are told.

Further, plans made before the Great Recession most likely reflect the resources available when they were drawn up, not what the community actually has available to it now or in the near future. As I discussed in my last post, financial resources are likely to be limited for several years. But money isn’t the only constrained resource; the human capital needed for recovery is facing a major turnover. Even before the Great Recession, both the public and private sectors were concerned about how they were going to replace the experience of the Baby Boomers when they retired (in fact, almost 60% of the public sector workforce is likely to retire in the next ten years, while “only” 40% of the private workforce will). As an example, in Charleston, SC, we are now seeing the retirement of the generation who helped Charleston recover so rapidly after Hurricane Hugo. While there are highly capable replacements, in many cases they have not had to cope with the unexpected in real time, under extreme duress and stress. Thus, plans that assume a cadre of experienced leaders may need to be rethought.

Thus, our communities must build a new set of expectations – and a new basis for planning – that reflect the new realities of the Great Recession and the passing of the baton from the Baby Boomers to a new generation of leaders. A community resilience framework can help to accomplish this in several ways:

• It can help a community’s leaders to identify all of the resources actually available, and thus adjust their expectations. The new reality means that communities will have to mobilize much more of the resources available in their own communities – public, non-governmental, and private.
• It can help a community’s leaders communicate their expectations to the public, and to learn what their public’s expectations are. In some cases, this will lead to significant changes in plans. In others, this use of a community framework will mean that individual citizens will see the need to take more responsibility to limit losses.
• As a corollary, the use of a community resilience framework can increase the likelihood that a community’s plans will be more consistent with those of its citizens and businesses, enabling a more efficient and rapid recovery.
• A framework can help new leaders see the entire breadth of their communities, how their communities are structured, and find their place in communication networks.

Thus, our communities need a framework for community resilience. As they face the new reality created by the Great Recession and the retirement of the Baby Boomers, they need it now.

The Accelerating Rate of Change

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


In my previous post on the need for a national framework for community resilience, I focused on the new spectrum of hazards facing American communities. In this post, I’d like to look at another reason why a national framework is needed – the accelerating rate of change.

As I’ve noted earlier, in early American communities the pace of change was relatively slow – communities usually could adapt to emerging trends and new hazards at their own pace. A person in his prime in 1700 would not be all that uncomfortable in the America of 1800 (unless, of course, he was a violent royalist!). A city dweller in her prime in 1800 might be overwhelmed with all of the new technologies (street lights, streetcars, horseless carriages!) in the world of 1900, but her country cousin would still be able to recognize her world of 1800 in that of 1900. In today’s techno centric world, the accelerating rate of technological change means that those in their prime in 1900 would face a completely unfamiliar – and perhaps terrifying - world.

As noted in an excellent report by Susi Moser and Shanna Ratner (“Community Resilience and Wealth….”), available at the US Endowment for Forestry and Communities, http://www.usendowment.org/communityresilience.html, rural communities are now faced with the need to adapt, or re-invent, themselves every fifteen years. Why is that?

As technologies change, the businesses in a community are faced with a decision of whether to adopt new, or adapt existing technologies to meet their markets’ evolving needs. If they choose to adopt, they face the certainty of increased capital costs and the uncertainty of the value of the new technology. If they choose not to adopt new technologies, they run the risk of imitating the US steel industry after World War II, which was nearly destroyed by a Japan that eagerly embraced new technology.

Businesses making bad choices can start the clock ticking on a time bomb laid at the foundations of a community. We have only to look at how communities in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana are struggling to reinvent themselves in light of the poor choices made by the carmakers. Or how rural communities in the Southeast are struggling to survive in light of the new challenges facing them.

Communities dependent on furniture manufacturing provide an ideal example. Ten years ago, Mississippi produced more wooden furniture than anywhere else in the nation. However, the American furniture industry was very slow to adopt new technologies, for example robots to automate production. Conversely, their competitors in China aggressively pursued these new technologies, and now have captured much of the American market. As a result, many communities in northern Mississippi and Alabama are facing tremendous challenges because of an eroded tax base and a workforce mostly looking for work.

A resilience framework can help a community to successfully adapt to change. First, it should help a community identify its vulnerabilities, whether that is dependence on a single company or industry, or a poorly maintained bridge, or lack of a flexible workforce. The framework should then help the community look at the resources it has and identify actions it can take to reduce those vulnerabilities. A wise community will use these insights to reinvent itself – and reinvest in itself. The result – more resilient communities, better able to respond to change.

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.

Community Complexity and Need for a Framework

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

Generally, communities in early America were formed based on the perceived self-interest of their members – at convenient points for land or water transportation, or near valuable natural resources, or for mutual defense or for religious reasons. These early communities quickly became hubs of activity for the common good – for defense against hostile intruders, for trade, for education.

In the earliest days, most communities were self-sufficient – the community provided its citizens with the essentials from local farmers, artisans and craftsmen. The community had to be relatively self-sufficient; most communities were rather isolated (for example, it would take two hours to go from Harlem to central Manhattan, even by ferry) and travel farther than a few tens of miles was both difficult and expensive. These early communities were also relatively stable; their reasons for being - whether economic, defensive or religious – changed very slowly. For most communities, this meant that in times of crisis, people almost instinctively knew who they could rely on for support in times of crisis. Timely assistance could only come from their friends and neighbors - people they had known their entire lives - to recover.

With the growth of cities like Philadelphia, Charleston, Boston and New York, the nature of communities began to become more complex. Instead of looking to the entire community in a crisis, people relied on their neighborhood for support. The neighborhood was largely a place where you lived, and citizens had to look to other neighborhoods – and eventually other communities - for some of their needs. Thus, while early American communities were self-sufficient, cities – and especially neighborhoods – became less so.

At the same time, communities became more dynamic. The waves of immigrants from Europe, then Asia, and then from within the US (particularly the Great Migration of African Americans from the South after Reconstruction ended) resulted in huge changes in the ethnic makeup of even single neighborhoods – for example, Harlem, in New York, was successively primarily Dutch (the Roosevelts lived there), Irish, Jewish, Italian, and African American within the span of 100 years. Thus, individual citizens were less likely to know all of their neighbors, and certainly not for all of their lives. In times of crisis, people more and more turned for support either to other types of “communities” – for example, their church – or to some organized and recognized assistance agency, either public or private.

Further, the changing needs of individual citizens within communities led to the growth of a patchwork quilt of infrastructures intended to fill those needs. These infrastructures might be in private hands (e.g., a private electric company), owned and serviced by the public (the road system), or a combination of public and private (private physicians, public and private hospitals, augmented with other services supplied by non-governmental organizations).

If we fast forward to the first decade of the 21st century, we find that these trends have resulted in communities enmeshed in a web of interdependencies. Within the community, the various infrastructures depend on each other, and can interact in complex ways. Virtually no communities are self-sufficient – they rely on others in their region or state, and sometimes foreign countries to provide some of the essentials of existence.

And there is no one model that describes every community. While communities all perform the same functions, they are distinguished by how – and how well – they perform them. Their organizational infrastructure – the mix of public and private organizations that actually carry out a particular community function - can assume a myriad of forms, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Thus, in times of crisis, a community needs a roadmap telling it how it is connected both within and externally, so that it can identify where resources may be available, and how best to use them.

A community resilience framework can help communities develop that roadmap. A useful framework will provide a community with a means to look at itself and understand how it functions, including how it is interconnected with other communities. It will also enable a community to better anticipate the direct and indirect impacts of a disaster. As a result, the community will be able to identify the resources likely to be available after a disaster, and how to use them with maximum effect.

Community Resilience – What Federal Government Can Do

In a 2009 paper by the British Think Tank, Demos, titled, “Resilient Nation,” author Charlie Edwards suggests that for the UK, the role of central government in community resilience should be limited and mainly supportive of local and regional efforts. He recommends a central government role based on four “Es” – Engagement, Education, Empowerment and Encouragement. Although written for the UK, the paper has great relevance for the US and is well worth reading. The full paper can be found on the Demos web site at http://www.demos.co.uk/. These four Es may be useful in thinking about how DHS relates to other partners in the homeland security enterprise in the area of disaster preparedness and recovery.

The federal government (largely through the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency) plays two significant roles in community disaster resilience. In the first role, DHS is the leader of the federal response to incidents of national significance – the nation’s first responder at the federal level. As such, DHS acts in a top-down manner as a cabinet-level department within the federal government. In the second role, DHS is the leader of the nation’s “homeland security enterprise” and must coordinate many different types of efforts including disaster preparedness and recovery. In the past, DHS has fulfilled this role by acting as the approver of state and local plans, providing funding for preparedness planning and coordinating federal efforts to prepare for recovery.

DHS has steadily improved its ability to carry out the first role. But while the National Response Framework lays out an operational framework for response, the framework has not been fully effective in helping DHS carry out its second role – coordinating preparedness and recovery efforts across the Homeland Security Enterprise. In fact, the lessons of the past decade demonstrate inherent tensions in these two roles that produce expectations that often cannot be met within the constraints of traditional emergency management.

In our view, nationally DHS must help nurture communities in developing their inherent resilience; help train them in concepts, tools, and practices that develop, support and enhance disaster resilience; and provide incentives to communities that demonstrably increase their disaster resilience. The returns to the nation for this federal effort are communities that enhance the power of national programs by inculcating realistic expectations and by applying local power in an effective and efficient way. This approach harmonizes the two roles of DHS and allows DHS to change from being solely a federal “control” agent (which it is sometimes seen as doing ineffectively) to becoming a facilitator of rapid and effective return to normal community functions (a role that 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 increase 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.

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: A Resilience Speech

Secretary Napolitano’s speech marking the end of a successful and highly publicized National Preparedness month hit just the right resilience note. While clearly stating that protection of the nation from terrorism remains job one, she then went on to spend most of her address talking about building a resilient nation. She recognized several volunteers who are active in their communities and mentioned numerous other examples of ways to build resilience at the community level. In all it was a very good speech, effectively and robustly delivered. The Secretary clearly indicated that she is serious about national resilience and intends to focus some of the department’s energy there.


It struck me, however, that the discussion of community resilience focused solely on the preparedness of individuals and the participation of community organizations. That, in my opinion, is not nearly enough. It takes the full fabric of the community working together to make a resilient community. That means local governments, local businesses, local associations, local organizations and individuals working in concert over a significant period of time using whatever resources they have available toward a well thought out plan. It’s a lot more than moms and dads and book clubs.


Now I know that the Secretary knows this. What I’d really like to know is that this idea of robust, full-fledged community resilience is penetrating the rest of her organization.

Community Resilience and Personal Responsibility

In its recently released report, Personal Preparedness in America: Findings from the 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey, FEMA discovered that we as individuals are not as prepared for disaster as we should be. The report (www.citizencorps.gov/ready/2009findings.shtm) provides a detailed look into individual perceptions of disaster readiness and responsibilities as well as interesting evaluations of demographic and contextual insights. I don’t think that anyone should be very surprised by this report.

Since Hurricane Andrew (maybe Hugo), American expectations of outside assistance particularly federal assistance have grown steadily, rapidly and unrealistically. Perhaps most evident in Katrina, our citizens and our communities seem increasingly to believe that FEMA will be on site at almost any level of disaster within 48 hours and will fix the problem. This report reveals, for instance, that more than 60 percent of the respondents plan to rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster despite repeated warnings from governments at all levels to the contrary. As interestingly, even among those who deem themselves prepared for disaster, the survey finds that most do not have adequate family plans and lack even a basic understanding of their community’s plans.

This problem is only a failure of the federal government in that we continue to believe that we can craft national solutions to local problems. At its heart, this is an indication of community failure. Very few communities have coherent, highly coordinated, individual preparedness efforts with a common message across jurisdictions and well thought ways to transmit the message to the full fabric of their societies. I am sure that there are some. In fact I highlighted one in my posting of March 24, 2009, the “I’m Ready Campaign” in Shelby County, Tennessee. The FEMA report, however, says that our communities are not doing enough or are not doing it right.

I am a big advocate of FEMA’s Citizen Corps. The thousands of Citizen Corps councils across the nation are in exactly the right place to solve this challenge. Citizen Corps hasn’t had greater success because communities continue to rely on federal funding of the councils, an expectation which belies the very name of their mission “citizen” corps. No matter how hard we try, the nation will never provide the resources to fully support all the nation’s communities in this way -- nor should we. This is a local community problem. Federal funding of what should be local initiatives only continues to foster the belief that preparing communities to recover from disaster is a federal responsibility. Communities have an inherent responsibility to protect their citizens. They need to put the skin in the game to get individual preparedness right.

Resilience at the Top

The President’s weekly radio address on Saturday was dedicated to remembering the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. It is worth noting that he used the word resilience in his address and called for the nation to be more resilient. He stated, “As we rebuild and recover, we must also learn the lessons of Katrina so that our nation is more protected and resilient in the face of disaster.” The President went on to support a multi-hazards approach to national preparedness giving examples in the natural, medical and man-made disaster areas. As I have noted earlier, the concept of resilience as a national goal seems to be gaining traction at the national level. Clearly, a significant number of senior federal officials are beginning to incorporate resilience to many hazards into their strategic thinking. Getting the President firmly ensconced into a culture of national resilience has to be a top priority.

Simultaneous or Sequential?

In a series of meetings in Washington last week (hot and humid and not very many people in town other than tourists), I began to see just how much traction the concept of resilience is gaining. Perhaps as some would suggest, it is just the newest buzzword that will run its course in time. I don’t think so. Those that I spoke with both in government and in the private sector are all very serious about the idea of making a more resilient America and have invested a significant amount of their time and energy thinking about this important subject. They really want to see it succeed.

At the national level this is going to take time. If the goal is to have national resilience as a national priority, Homeland Security Presidential Directives will have to be rewritten. An interagency that focuses on resilience across the departments may have to be created. Speeches and public announcements will have to be coordinated. This is a serious and important issue and will have to be treated as such. Additionally, resilience must compete with other challenges facing the national government that seem much more urgent in the short term – H1N1, national health care policy, energy policy and climate change.

The question for us at the Community and Regional Resilience Institute is whether creating a way for communities to work toward resilience in a systematic, meaningful way must – or can afford to – wait on the national process. Can we work simultaneously and in parallel with the national effort? Of course, I think we can. We need to start this year while there is significant momentum to convene the nation-wide forum necessary to find our way to a common framework for community disaster resilience. As the national policy work matures the two processes can inform each other. Communities will provide their input to help shape national policy and national policy will provide appropriate federal guidance and strong support to the community efforts.

That’s the way it should work.

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.