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.

Preparedness and Resilience: Are they the Same?

A couple of weeks ago the US Chamber of Commerce convened an informal meeting of people who are actively involved in community resilience-related activities and initiatives at the local, state and federal levels. This resilience-related work is frequently couched in different terms – the most frequent being public/private partnerships – but all of it can be seen to further the ability of communities to withstand and recover from significant disruptions. The individuals present represented the private sector, research programs, government, trade associations and on-the-ground resilience projects. I was privileged to be invited to attend and participate.

One of the areas of agreement reached by this ad hoc group was that there is a critical need for the nation’s leadership to clearly establish resilience as an important national goal. Several, but not all, of the participants referred to this goal as creating a “culture of preparedness” thereby seeming to equate “preparedness” to “resilience.” In fact, at least one participant went so far as to declare that the idea of resilience was nothing new but was simply preparedness under a new title.

In an earlier Blog (June 27, 2009), I argued that preparedness is the necessary foundation upon which an expanded continuum of emergency management must rest and that one of the results of that expanded continuum (and maybe the most significant one) is resilience. One prepares to prevent, protect, respond and recover and success in executing the results of that preparation is evidenced by the resilience demonstrated during recovery. To me this seems to be different than simply equating preparedness with resilience.

Is this just a distinction without a difference or is it a discussion worth having?

Striking a Balance in Research

In cooperation with the Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center of the University of Colorado, CARRI hosted the first Resilience Research Workshop on July 14. The day-long event brought together over 50 scholars and researchers who have worked in areas touching on resilience, published scholarly articles and papers on resilience issues and who are clearly thought leaders in this growing discipline of understanding resilience. Five panels covered a wide range of resilience topics ranging across the social, economic and physical aspects of the subject. A workshop report and several individual summary papers will be available on the CARRI web site very soon.

While it is clear that both the volume and quality of resilience research has grown significantly over the past few years, I came away with an impression that may deserve further thought and discussion.

Academic research is appropriately narrowly focused – some researchers concentrate on social resilience, some on economic resilience, and some on physical resilience. While most acknowledge the need for integration across the various domains, it seems to me that the integration is not as robust and productive as it might be – or perhaps as it will become as the discipline matures. I think that that integration of the social, economic and physical aspects of resilience is critical for practitioners to fully grasp the implications of resilience for their communities. This integration may also allow the research to be more useful to those in communities who struggle with the day to day problems of trying to find practical ways forward. Academic research that is too narrowly drawn and done without a view of how non-specialists will use the results will not be very helpful to the local mayor or business person who must make day to day resource decisions. Integrating work like that being done in the area of indicators of resilience by Susan Cutter (Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, University of South Carolina) and Walter Peacock (Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Texas A&M University) seems to strike just the right balance between great academic research and potentially really useful information for communities.

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.

An Evolved Disaster Management Paradigm

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.

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!