|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 21
2
________________________________________________________________________
Community and Disaster Resilience: The Collaborative
Approach
This chapter summarizes how disaster resilience can be considered part of ongoing
community resilience, and how collaboration among community stakeholders is an
effective means of building that resilience. Key characteristics of successful collaborations
identified by the diverse set of workshop participants who regularly engage in or study
collaborative community resilience activities are also summarized.
DISASTER RESILIENCE AS PART OF COMMUNITY RESILIENCE
Jim Mullen, director of the Emergency Management Division of the Washington
State Military Department, provided a simple definition of a resilient community: it is
one that bends but does not break. Workshop participants discussed how community
resilience is not just about disaster recovery. It may also include a focus on broader
community planning, including land use, transportation, economic and workforce
development, and emergency management planning, involving all community
stakeholders. Some workshop participants stated that incorporating disaster resilience in
community planning is essential to sustainable community resilience.
Building resilience can be difficult because it is not generally embedded in
community culture. Ron Carlee, county manager of Arlington, Virginia, described how
functional and resilient communities have to be built that promote a high quality of life
every day, not just during disasters. The communities most likely to survive disaster are
those actively committed to social equity and inclusion, that are economically and
environmentally sustainable, and that create a vision to which its residents and
institutions—public, nongovernmental, and private—can relate. Members of such
communities have a sense of place, and its people are united in values and purpose.
21
OCR for page 22
22 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
Essential Resilience
Shirley Laska of the University of New Orleans described Ron Carlee’s approach as
one of building essential resilience—a condition toward which a community continuously
works, regardless of whether a disaster is likely to occur. She indicated that essential
resilience requires extensive collaboration, trust, respect, and partnering among different
groups within a community to create cross-group, cross-racial and -ethnic, and cross-
social class dynamics. These factors allow a community to define and develop the
qualities that make it resilient.
A number of workshop participants observed that building essential community
resilience accrues benefits everyday, not just during a disaster. Sociological and financial
returns on investments are likely, although several workshop participants acknowledged
that many of these benefits cannot currently be measured or documented. For
communities to become essentially resilient, some participants stated that it is important
for governments to foster a culture of resilience in which the private and public sectors
think about resilience on a daily basis and recognize that it is good economic policy to
grow resilient communities. For example, a business owner who develops a business
continuity plan in the event of a disaster may better understand how his business fits into
the fabric of the community, potentially giving the business a competitive edge. A
community composed of resilient local businesses is more likely to display stronger
business integrity, and its economy is likely to remain intact during and following a
disaster. Similarly, resilient nongovernmental and faith-based organizations are more
likely to be able to continue providing services to their constituents following a disaster.
Resilience Driven at the Community Level
Many workshop participants concurred that successful building of community
resilience happens at the community level, driven by those most familiar and involved
with the community and its needs. Several researchers and others at the workshop noted
that networks and partnerships are often more successful when established at the local
level with a bottom-up, locally relevant approach. However, a number of workshop
participants also stated that building a nation of resilient communities is largely
dependent on the facilitating—not prescriptive—support of federal and state
governments. Ellis Stanley of Dewberry and Davis described the importance of
community inclusiveness and community pride at the collaboration table. He indicated
that the attitude of “it’s not about us without us” needs to be adopted when planning for
community disaster resilience.
Mitigation as Part of Resilience
Several workshop participants noted that mitigation is a part of resilience planning. A
2005 report by the Multihazard Mitigation Council1 described a $4 benefit for every
dollar spent in predisaster mitigation (MMC, 2005). Mitigation was described by Maria
1
See www.nibs.org/index.php/mmc/ (accessed December 17, 2009).
OCR for page 23
COMMUNITY AND DISASTER RESILIENCE: THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH 23
Vorel of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the sustained action
taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk posed by hazards to people and property. She,
along with other workshop participants, described mitigation as needing to be justified in
terms other than the return on investment in the protection against natural hazards.
Communities are more likely to undertake mitigation and resilience-building efforts if the
benefits are translated into terms that reflect general economic development and gain.
COLLABORATIONS FOR RESILIENCE
Why Collaborate?
When asked during the workshop about the most significant benefit of applying the
collaborative approach to building resilience, Jason McNamara, Chief of Staff at FEMA,
stated “if we don’t do it, we fail.” Paraphrasing the founder of Business Executives for
National Security, Lynne Kidder of that organization suggested that failure is bad for
business. Workshop participants observed that, since Hurricane Katrina, there is growing
recognition in the corporate sector and within communities in general that private-public
collaboration is an imperative. From the corporate perspective, private-public sector
partnerships are a logical extension of their business continuity planning. It is in the best
interest of the private sector to invest in the continuity of their communities to protect
their customers and employees. Ensuring that critical services and public safety and
health are provided for makes it more likely that businesses can stay open. This, in turn,
ensures that citizens return to or remain in the community, providing customers for the
businesses.
Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary for policy development at the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), stated in his presentation to the workshop that partnerships
that include both the private and public sectors in planning and decision making allow for
creative problem solving that may not occur when the public sector acts alone. As an
example, Mr. Alikhan described an experience in Los Angeles during recent regional
fires during which the region experienced power outages that affected communication
among emergency responders. Starbucks Corporation and AT&T Inc. worked to open
and expand the wireless local area network capabilities at Starbucks restaurants in the
region, allowing community and emergency responders to access their networks. The
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina exemplifies the impacts of ineffective collaboration.
Although monetary resources were abundantly available thanks to donations made
immediately following the storm, people and organizations were ill-informed,
disorganized, and unable to access donated resources because of a lack of collaboration
and coordination. This persisted even 9 months after the storm; New Orleans looked
much the same as it did when the disaster first struck. Effective collaboration could have
led to the avoidance or more rapid solution to many of the problems experienced.
To increase community resilience, many workshop participants stated that
mechanisms such as collaborations that maintain public commitment to disaster
mitigation need to be developed. Mickie Valente of the Florida Council of 1002 described
2
See www.fc100.org/ (accessed December 1, 2009).
OCR for page 24
24 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
a need to plan for the continuum of emergency management activities, starting with
mitigation, and including all phases of disaster management. According to Ms. Valente,
planning for business recovery is important for minimizing economic impacts of
disasters. Emergency support functions could better serve the community if they included
identifying the needs of local businesses and helping them to obtain training related to
resilience and planning prior to an emergency. Following an emergency, support
functions could include efforts to get people back to work as quickly as possible in order
to support the financial recovery of the community. Ms. Valente stated that planning of
this type is best done at the state and local levels.
Trust: The Foundation of Collaboration
Workshop participants included individuals with experience forming or facilitating
community collaborations. They shared elements they considered essential for the
building of successful partnerships. Such elements include motivation, trust, some form
of leadership, and a common mission that drives the purpose and structure of the
collaboration. Mechanisms by which collaborations are developed, and the means by
which they are sustained may vary.
Many workshop participants pointed out that collaborations that include all
community stakeholders—all industry sectors, nonprofit organizations, and civic
leadership—were more likely to be successful at building resilience. It was repeatedly
emphasized that trusted relationships are the capital that drive resilience. Organization
leaders are more likely to call those with whom they have had interactions and trust,
especially during times of crisis. Private-public sector collaborations create networks of
trust, and provide vital points of contact across sectors. Organization leaders are far less
likely to trust information coming from unknown sources with unknown motivations.
Honest communication should also occur at all levels of government, according to
Arif Alikhan. To influence behaviors in positive ways, it is essential that all levels of
government effectively reach the wide range of populations necessary to promote
understanding within networks among community partners. Like any other member of a
partnership or collaboration, the public sector is obligated to understand the needs of its
partners and have realistic expectations of what its partners can and cannot do.
Collaboration Theory
Jim Mullen likened collaboration to a chorus: it is the effort of all members
collectively that yields a desired outcome. No single voice stands out. However, there is
no one-size-fits-all or checklist approach that can be used to create and direct that chorus.
Numerous collaboration models exist that can be embraced by different communities
under different circumstances.
No single science of collaboration exists from which to draw. Collaboration theory
has been studied and applied in a variety of disciplines. According to Gavin Smith of the
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, there is extensive social science, social
psychology, and sociological literature that discuss collaboration. Randolph Rowel of
OCR for page 25
COMMUNITY AND DISASTER RESILIENCE: THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH 25
Morgan State University indicated that the public health literature also includes extensive
discussion of collaboration. Some workshop participants noted that negotiation and
collaboration are taught in business and Foreign Service schools, and literature on
collaboration has been operationalized in alternative dispute resolution as well as in
techniques utilized by land-use planners, negotiators, and some in the international arena.
Collaborative theory has been applied in a number of arenas. Decision triage
methodology provides mechanisms for dissimilar groups and critical decisions makers to
make improved decisions under different levels of stress with less information. The
methodology has a collaborative factor that allows for improved decision making. In the
public health community, there is community-based participatory research and
participatory action research in which a whole litany of terms exists to describe the
effectiveness of organizations working together. Since 1990, the Center for Substance
Abuse and Prevention3 has funded 251 community partnership grants based on such
research findings (Yin et al., 1997).
A challenge in moving from collaboration theories to practice is in translating these
theories into language understood by all parties. Language found in the research literature
does not translate well to assist practitioners in making good choices. In attempting to
collaborate, multiple dissimilar organizations may have to agree which of the theories to
apply under given circumstances, without necessarily understanding which theories may
be appropriate.
Creating Partnerships
To learn about best practices for establishing sustainable partnerships, the committee
invited to the workshop those engaged in helping others establish local- or regional-level
partnerships. These individuals were asked to share how successful collaborative efforts
are initiated at the state and local levels, and what factors make it possible to sustain the
collaborations over time. Brit Weber of Michigan State University was invited by the
workshop planning committee to give an introductory presentation, which is summarized
in Box 2-1. He described steps that his program uses to facilitate the building of
partnerships. Other workshop participants involved in the development of partnerships
described many similar characteristics in their own processes.
3
See www.prevention.samhsa.gov/ (accessed December 1, 2009).
OCR for page 26
26 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
BOX 2-1
Steps to Create Private-Public Partnerships
Brit Weber, Michigan State University
Since 1998, Michigan State University has received federal funding to research the efficiency
and effectiveness of joint private- and public- sector activities related to crisis management that
result in focus groups, research, best practices, and lessons learned. In 2000, the group
published a document called “Critical Incident Protocol: Public and Private Partnership.”a
Michigan State University facilitated 47 partnerships at the city, council and regional level in 24
states at no cost. In doing so, the group learned how to create and sustain partnerships through
the following steps:
1. Identify public and private sector stakeholders to share leadership. The private sector must be
involved in leadership. Private-public partnerships can be successful with a public lead, but
members of the community tend to respond better to their own kind (e.g., a police chief or
mayor will respond better to public sector leadership whereas the owner of a hardware store
may respond better to leadership by the private sector).
2. Identify individual networks to be included in the partnership; ask leaders to bring them in.
Members of the partnership should creatively identify and engage anyone with a stake in
preparedness and include them in the collaboration network.
3. Identify common issues among partners related to emergency preparedness. Private- and
public-sector members will discover they share many of the same issues. Successful
partnerships depend on the collaborative tackling of common issues.
4. Identify new resources within the community to mitigate the impact of critical incidents. The
diversity represented within the partnership may reveal resources not otherwise available.
Participants who recognize the availability of resources will feel integrated into problem-
solving processes and approaches.
5. Identify challenges encountered by participating organizations, such as the challenges, risks,
and threats caused from human-caused or natural disasters that threaten community
organizations individually or collectively.
6. Create sustainability in the partnership. Partnerships should
a. Determine the collective needs
b. Define goals that provide direction
c. Assign performance tasks, and
d. Work collaboratively.
The problems and needs of local business and community leaders and members must be
extrapolated, according to Dr. Weber, in order to identify who should partner with whom and
determine how needs may be satisfied. Once established, the sustainability of a partnership can
be measured by looking at six aspects: contract, contact, trust, understanding, empathy, and
cooperation.
a
See www.cip.msu.edu/ (accessed December 18, 2009).
OCR for page 27
COMMUNITY AND DISASTER RESILIENCE: THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH 27
Sustainable Collaboration
The sustainability of collaboration is more than a measure of financial sustainability;
programmatic sustainability and the sustainability of relationships are key components.
The foundation of a sustainable partnership is the network of relationships formed within
it, and not necessarily a program that has been put in place by it. Several workshop
participants pointed to the long-lived networks and collaborations that remain active in
some Project Impact communities (see Box 2-2) long after funding for the Project Impact
program ended. The networks continue to exist because the concepts of resilience and
sustainability have been embraced and institutionalized within them. Institutionalizing the
goals of a collaboration will help ensure that bonds between organizations remain strong
even if individual people or funding move on. If a collaboration is built on the efforts of a
single individual or start-up funding source, then it is essential to ingrain the mission and
goals into the collaboration infrastructure to survive changes in leadership or funding.
Maria Vorel of FEMA described successful Project Impact communities as those that
included local leadership and community advocate involvement. The partnerships had
well-developed visions, goals, and strategies. They adopted public education strategies,
plans, and implementation to get greater community acceptance. Broad-based structures
were in place that enhanced participation of all sectors. The successful communities
adopted risk reduction plans and mitigation projects that reduced risk to their
communities, and developed flexible roles among collaborators based on skills and
abilities to commit resources and time. Community and cultural assets and resources
were identified, as well as the external influences on a community (e.g., watershed
planning or economic development districts). Some successful Project Impact
communities developed mechanisms to facilitate the collaboration, such as those now
provided in Iowa by the Safeguard Iowa Partnership (see Box 2-3).
OCR for page 28
28 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
BOX 2-2
Project Impact
In 1997, Congress first appropriated funds for the direct purpose of funding mitigation
activities for disasters (McCarthy and Keegan, 2009). With this appropriation, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), created a pilot program called Project Impact: Building
Disaster Resistant Communities. At its inception, FEMA Director James Lee Witt described the
program as “designed to break the damage-repair, damage-repair cycle and instead help
communities become disaster resistant (Witt and Morgan, 2002, p. 42). Project Impact placed
emphasis and resources on community-based and led efforts to mitigate against hazards.
Communities were required to have the commitment of local governments, nongovernmental
organizations (NGO), and local businesses. An educational component of awareness was also
required. Funding was provided by FEMA to form public and private partnerships within the
individual communities. Project Impact envisioned four steps to building a disaster-resistant
community:
1. Building partnerships by organizing a disaster-resistant community planning committee
including business and industry, public works and utilities, volunteer and community
groups, government, and education, health care, and workforce representatives;
2. Assessing a community’s risks and vulnerabilities;
3. Identifying mitigation priorities, measures, and resources and taking action; and
4. Communicating progress and maintaining collaborative involvement and support for long-
term initiatives.
One Project Impact example of success is Tulsa, Oklahoma. Through community effort, Tulsa
instituted long-term mitigation activities to reduce flood frequency and severity. Their efforts
included improving channels and detention storage basins and maintaining and clearing more
than a 1,000 buildings from floodplains.a Despite the termination of Project Impact in 2002,
private-public sector collaboration to improve community resilience continues today through an
NGO called Tulsa Partners, Inc.b
Project Impact was initiated in 1997 with a $2 million appropriation. The program received
$30 million in 1998 and $25 million during 1999-2002. In February 2001, Congress approved the
Bush administration’s proposal to eliminate Project Impact, less than 5 years after its inception.
The administration sought to create a program to carry out mitigation efforts directly.
a
See www.emergencymgmt.com/disaster/Project-Impact-Initiative-to.html (accessed December 1, 2009).
b
See www.tulsapartners.org/About (accessed December 1, 2009).
OCR for page 29
COMMUNITY AND DISASTER RESILIENCE: THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH 29
BOX 2-3
The Safeguard Iowa Partnership
The Safeguard Iowa Partnershipa was described by Jami Haberl, director of the partnership.
The private-public partnership was launched in 2007 with the assistance of the Business
Executives for National Security,b the Iowa Business Council,c and three Iowa state agencies, and
is a voluntary coalition of Iowa’s business and government leaders. The partnership leads a
statewide effort to integrate the resources and expertise of the state’s business leaders with those
in government to improve all phases of disaster management. The overall vision of the
partnership is to ensure safe, resilient residential and business communities in Iowa. Success of
the partnership has been dependent on co-leadership by large businesses in the state and state
directors, as well as on funding; the partnership has grown more than sixfold in its first 24 months.
A portion of program funding supports a small full-time staff to facilitate partnership activities.
Safeguard Iowa Partnership Staff is a neutral party that represents the interests of all partners
and assists in improving communication between all partnership collaborators. Efforts are
continually made to represent the needs of all the diverse communities in the state. Partners are
empowered by being involved in identifying challenges and strategic planning.
a
See www.safeguardiowa.org (accessed December 1, 2009).
b
See www.bens.org/home.html (accessed December 1, 2009).
c
See www.iowabusinesscouncil.org (accessed December 1, 2009).
Once Project Impact partnerships were established, multihazard identification and
risk processes could be enabled. Ms. Vorel stated that partnerships today could be formed
in a similar manner by setting aggressive goals to include as many community
stakeholders as possible at initial stages of planning and information exchange. It is in
these stages that the mission be clearly defined and metrics for success established and
agreed upon by all parties. According to many at the workshop, it is essential that all
parties also engage in implementation of plans and establish mechanisms for regular
evaluation of goals, strategies, and implementation activities. Some workshop
participants stated that successful mitigation efforts could be documented, and just as
important, celebrated as examples for others to follow.
Effective and sustainable partnerships are those that are flexible enough to allow for
long-term thinking when choosing a path toward resilience. Without flexibility, natural
community evolution could not be accommodated. As Sandra Cowie of the Principal
Financial Group stated, partnerships have to plan for succession and continuity of
operations just as organizations in the public sector are expected to do.
Characteristics of Leadership
Sustainable networks are dependent in part on strong leadership with a clear vision.
Arlington County, Virginia, was described by Brit Weber as having strong leadership,
and because the vision of the leadership has been embraced throughout partnerships in all
sectors, the collaborations are likely to be sustained even after there has been succession
in leadership. Models for network leadership vary from community to community
OCR for page 30
30 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
depending on the dynamics and needs of a given community. Many workshop
participants have described how collaboration is most effective if leadership is shared
between the private and public sectors. Participants did hear examples of ongoing
collaborative efforts with different operating models. The Earthquake Country Alliance,4
for example, is an example of collaboration led largely by the efforts of the scientific
community, but embraced by the public sector. It is a statewide collaboration of networks
linking pubic information efforts of organizations and individuals that provide
information about earthquakes and services.
In San Diego County, California, collaborations are managed by the public sector,
according to Leslie Luke of the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services. Their
goal is to look at short- and long-term recovery through mitigation and a risk
management strategy. Collaboration in San Diego is often accomplished by means of
small and separate partnerships so that individuals can discuss issues of common concern
in focused groups. Each group has a target objective. Public sector oversight avoids
issues associated with overlapping objectives between groups. Effort is made to avoid
having a single issue overwhelm the proceedings of an entire meeting. San Diego County
plans to hold future business summits to establish business-driven advisory groups. These
groups will receive only support from the government and will inform government of
their resources and needs. Part of the government’s role will be to provide educational
assistance to private-sector employees, helping them to prepare at home. This will
increase the likelihood of their more expedient return to work, getting businesses up and
running more quickly during the next crisis.
Scalability
Scalability is the ability of an organization or technology to accept changes in volume
without impacting effectiveness. Partnerships established on networks of relationships are
created on an inherently scalable system as compared with hierarchical organizations that
require problems to be solved following established procedures along a single chain of
command. John Harrald of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University gave
an example of scalability by describing hospital networks that existed at the time of the
2001 anthrax episode on the Capitol in Washington, D.C.5 Individual hospital
preparedness networks took it upon themselves to create a phone network to coordinate
response of 60 hospitals, health clinics, and other facilities in the D.C. area. The goal was
to locate resources, coordinate, and share information. Private and public health facilities,
government officials, and volunteer organizations became involved. The resulting
network was much larger than the original network and was scalable because the system
could plug into existing networks. Unfortunately, the network was not sustained or
incorporated as part of the regional emergency management system after the 2001
incident.
When considering resilience-building activities, the definition for scalability should
also include the ability to translate a process from one population to another, according to
4
See www.earthquakecountry.info/ (accessed December 1, 2009).
5
See www.fbi.gov/anthrax/amerithrax_factsheet.htm (accessed December 1, 2009)
OCR for page 31
COMMUNITY AND DISASTER RESILIENCE: THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH 31
Lakshmi Fjord, research director for Collaborating Agencies Responding to Disasters.6
This is especially problematic for rural communities for which the problem is often one
of scaling down rather than up, according to Mr. Plodinec. Brit Weber suggested that
processes become scalable by describing different ways in which private-public sector
collaborations can be formed.
From the business perspective, companies are scalable and grow in three ways:
increases in sales (organic growth), mergers and acquisitions, or through a hybrid
structure that is a type of joint venture. Companies that partner do more business.
According to Peter Hitt of the U.S. Trust/Bank of America, business growth models
might offer insights into scalability of partnerships and the capital requirement
components of different types of scalability.
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
Emily Walker, a private banking consultant based in London, England, and former
staff member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States
(also known as the 9-11 Commission)7 described how the need for private-public sector
partnerships is not unique to the United States, nor is the mechanism unique for solving
problems related to disaster at the local level. For example, following the 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami that killed over 200,000 people, the United Nations World Food
Programme8 had to depend on real-time coordination with the private sector to locate
working space in the stricken area. In 2006, the World Food Programme formed a
private-public partnership to develop a global emergency network allowing corporations
to donate goods and services ahead of global disasters.
The next sections of the report summarize some of the main themes discussed among
participants, but from different perspectives.
The Private-Sector Perspective
Business involvement in private-public sector partnerships is motivated by three
themes, according to Gene Matthews of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:
1. “Protecting the brand.” Individual organizations do not want to be
remembered as the company, medical center, bank, or NGO not involved in
doing the right thing for the community. To stay competitive, an organization
has to keep up with its competitors. Participation by the competition motivates
business involvement in community resilience building and disaster mitigation
and response activities.
2. “Enlightened altruism.” Doing what is in the best interest of the community is
often in the best interest of an organization. There is self-interest in maintaining
6
See www.CARDcanhelp.org (accessed December 17, 2009).
7
See www.9-11commission.gov (accessed December 1, 2009).
8
See www.wfp.org (accessed December 1, 2009).
OCR for page 32
32 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
a healthy local economy. For example, tourism and the general economy of
Toronto, Canada, were severely impacted when the World Health Organization9
issued travel advisories against nonessential travel to the region during a 2003
outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). To renew the economy,
the travel industry offered discounts for travel, hotel, and local attractions.
Regional airlines included Web links to competitors’ Internet sites to promote
travel to Canada. Promoting tourism more generally, even if promoting one’s
competitors, was recognized as beneficial for all regional businesses.
3. “Don’t bet the company.” Good Samaritan laws exist that protect individuals
against liability for injuries accidentally inflicted while acting in good faith
during emergency situations. Businesses in many states do not receive similar
protections. All organizations leave themselves exposed to liability when
providing assistance to the community, and liability concerns affect the ability
or willingness of businesses to participate in resilience building or disaster
response activities. Companies with offices in multiple states may find it
difficult to understand liability-related legislation in different states. Small
businesses may not have the resources or capacity to understand liability issues
at all.
Many in the private sector are starting to see the benefits of active participation in
resilience-building collaborations. However, workshop participants did not agree the
form of engagement.
Sandra Cowie, Director of Corporate Security and Business Continuity of the
Principal Financial Group summarized key factors for successful private-public sector
collaboration within communities that could be facilitated at the state level. The factors
include
• Shared defined strategic focus such as short- and long-term vision, mission,
objectives, deliverables, and performance measures. Strategic planning should
occur initially, and then periodically, with both public- and private-sector
leadership to ensure that strategies are contemporary and address appropriate
issues. One- to three-year project plans could be developed during periodic
reviews.
• Ownership and accountability for execution of strategies. After identifying
strategies, teams of volunteers, facilitated by dedicated staff, can then focus on
key objectives and deliverables. Local emergency managers are typically
overtasked and unable to serve effectively as facilitators of partnerships.
Therefore, dedicated staff at the state level, ideally a neutral party, could serve
as a coordination point that represents the joint interests of both the private and
public sectors.
9
See www.who.int/en (accessed December 1, 2009).
OCR for page 33
COMMUNITY AND DISASTER RESILIENCE: THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH 33
• Sustainable funding. In general, more effective and flexible means of utilizing
government funding are needed to cover very basic operational and personnel
costs. There is a need to break out of the government grant paradox to ensure
sustainability.
• Building local and then regional support. Obtain support for collaboration
from local private- and public-sector leaders—for example, from directors of
corporate security and business continuity in strong organizations; public health,
public safety, and local emergency management officials—then build support at
the state level, for example, within the governor’s office. Broader support for
collaborative efforts will be garnered when these bases of support are obtained.
• Establishing communication methodologies. Quickly establish a means to
share accurate real-time information. Success depends on identifying who owns
the responsibility for disseminating information. Communication may begin as
the generation of simple email distribution lists.
• Developing a marketing plan. Educate others about the partnership and the
expected returns on the investment in collaboration.
• A clearly defined organizational structure. Establishing a defined
infrastructure will ensure that individual roles and responsibilities are
understood by all. This creates efficiency in execution.
Peter Hitt advocated the creation of a business prospectus for developing private-
public sector partnerships that effectively encourage participation among the business
community. He shared a summary prospectus for national resiliency with workshop
participants as an example (see Box 2-4). Corporate executives often do not have the time
to read long descriptive documents and want concise communications on which to base
their decisions. One-page descriptions written in language corporate executives relate to
are an optimal means of communicating with this audience. The great diversity within the
business sector, such as between commercial sales firms, service industries, media,
utilities, and financial and insurance institutions, differ in purpose, character, and style,
and may require different incentivizing approaches. Language in a prospectus may have
to be adopted appropriately.
Many workshop participants voiced the need for greater public-sector support and
engagement in collaborative activities. Some individuals described a perceived lack of
public-sector funding for activities considered public-sector responsibility. The private-
sector can be hesitant to participate in collaborative efforts if they feel they are carrying
the financial burden. Public sector support is also sought in the form of legislation related
to liability and insurance. Legislation created to clarify or limit liability for good-faith
disaster preparedness and response efforts would be welcomed by the private sector, as
would legislation encouraging incentives from insurance companies for contingency
planning and resilience building.
OCR for page 34
34 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
BOX 2-4
Summary Prospectus for National Resiliency
Peter Hitt of U.S. Trust/Bank of America advocated the development of a one-page
prospectus for expedient and effective communication with corporate executives. Such a
document could efficiently communicate the benefits of collaborative efforts to build resilience into
the corporate culture in specific, and to the community in general. Below are potential elements of
a prospectus developed by Mr. Hitt, using language executives would understand:
Vision: A proactive “National Resiliency Culture”
Mission: To derive a scalable, self-sustaining national (private and public sectors) model
Economic System: An evolution of the insurance industry model
Concept of Operations: Spiral developing technical/social network and systems integration
Technical Concept: An open architecture, nonproprietary brokerage backbone
Organizational Structure: A “public benefit organization” to support regional coordination and
business utility functions
Management Structure: Decentralized regional offices that parallel the FEMA Regions
Funding Model: Brokered private and public sector direct and in-kind funding options that can be
supported by governmental incentives and/or regulations where economic and business models
warrant
These factors may contribute to the lack of historical participation by chambers of
commerce in private-public sector collaboration. Ms. Valente stated that chambers of
commerce may also be unwilling to publicly address the vulnerability of their regions to
disaster because they are generally trying to attract business to their locations. Rather
than participation in private-public sector collaborations, Stephen Jordan of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce described how chambers are adopting practices to support each
other, such as “Adopt a Chamber” or “Adopt a Business” programs that help local
businesses function following a disaster when emergency funds run out but the local
economy has not yet been reestablished. He suggested placing greater emphasis on better
coordination among private sector entities so that efforts can be coordinated in
complimentary ways. According to a model he presented, private-public sector
collaboration accounts for only 10 percent of total intensity of network engagement.
Coordination of activities accounts for approximately 20 percent of engagement. The
remaining 70 percent of network participation is communication within the networks.
Regardless of the mode of engagement, Mr. Jordan stated that the private sector
benefits from resilience building by reducing the impact of disasters on consumer
purchasing power and minimizing the time for economic recovery. Improving the
resilience and sustainability of a region, such as the Gulf Coast, may also have the added
benefit of making the region more attractive to economic investors. Ms. Valente stressed
that organizations that set up disaster contingency and business continuity plans are likely
OCR for page 35
COMMUNITY AND DISASTER RESILIENCE: THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH 35
to be more resilient in the event of a disaster, giving them an edge over their competitors
(see Box 2-5 regarding business continuity planning).
Some businesses will go into decline during and following a disaster because the need
for their services has waned. Small businesses10 (e.g., locally owned and operated
businesses with only a handful of employees) are more likely to survive a disaster if they
are prepared to reinvent themselves. Collaborations that include the full fabric of the
community may help such businesses determine what their roles can be in getting the
local economy functioning again. This may help them get back in business sooner. Intact
businesses of any size following a disaster are also in a better position to aid in recovery
efforts through donations and volunteer activities.
10
The term “small business” was used by workshop participants to refer to small, locally owned and
operated businesses—sometimes referred to as “mom and pop” businesses. These were generally
considered to have fewer resources than larger businesses. However, the U.S. Small Business
Administration defines a small manufacturing or mining business as one with up to 500 employees. A small
nonmanufacturing business can have up to $7 million in annual receipts (see
www.sba.gov/contractingopportunities/officials/size/index.html, accessed January 15, 2010). It is this
definition that allows a business to qualify for federal assistance programs.
OCR for page 36
36 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
BOX 2-5
Business Continuity Planning Certification
Emily Walker, private banking consultant and former member of the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission)a gave a keynote
presentation on the 9-11 Commission’s recommendation for national standards for emergency
preparedness and the establishment of an accreditation and certification program for business
disaster resilience. She shared a video excerpt of her own testimony given during the final public
hearing of the 9-11 Commission in 2004. In it she stated:
Homeland security and national preparedness should include: (1) a plan for evacuation; (2)
adequate communication capabilities; and (3) a plan for continuity of operations. All three
elements were tested in the private sector experience at the World Trade Center [on
September 11, 2001].
Her testimony detailed observations related to evacuation and communication planning. Part
of her testimony related to continuity planning was:
the third pillar of private sector preparedness is continuity of operations. The response to 9/11
illustrates that continuity is one of the most difficult challenges because many of the people
involved in continuity are also closely involved in the event. . . .
At a hearing held at Drew University last November [2003] . . . witness after witness told the
Commission that despite 9/11, the private sector remains largely unprepared for a terrorist
attack. We were also advised that the lack of a widely embraced private-sector preparedness
standard was a principal contributing factor to this lack of preparedness.
The Commission responded by asking the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for
help. To develop a consensus, ANSI convened safety, security, and business continuity
experts from a wide range of industries and associations, as well as from federal, state, and
local government, to consider the need for standards for private sector emergency
preparedness. ANSI has recommended to the Commission a voluntary national preparedness
standard based on prior work of the National Fire Protection Association, with a common
framework for emergency preparedness. . . .
The business sector has not come far in terms of continuity planning since 2004, according to
Ms. Walker. The final report of the 9-11 Commission endorsed ANSI’s recommendation for
national standards and looked forward to incentives to encourage the private sector to voluntarily
comply with the standards. As of the date of the NRC workshop, the Department of Homeland
Security had assigned ANSI as the accreditation board, but criteria for accreditation had not yet
been set. Ms. Walker believes there is a business case for having an accreditation process. She
indicated that there is a perception of disaster preparedness among people and businesses, but
the preparedness, in reality, does not exist. Her recommendation for business continuity
managers was to be certain they impart the importance of risk assessment and preparedness to
their superiors in their organizations. If the need for this kind of planning is not accepted and
incorporated into corporate governance, the continuity planning will not be effective.
Concerns were raised by some workshop participants that contingency planning is an
overwhelming process, and that work toward accreditation can be expensive and potentially
prohibitive for small businesses. Others participants discussed how some in the private sector
find further government regulation distasteful. Still others raised the question of how such
federally regulated accreditation is consistent with the bottom-up community approach advocated
by many throughout the workshop. Ms. Walker responded that the point of adopting national
standards for continuity planning was to encourage preparation and regular review of continuity
OCR for page 37
COMMUNITY AND DISASTER RESILIENCE: THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH 37
plans. The federal standards are such that planning efforts are focused primarily on evacuation
and communication after a disaster. The standards are sufficiently broad to accommodate the
needs of all sectors and levels of government. Businesses can become accredited at their own
pace.
Ms. Walker admitted that there is little advantage for small companies such as independent
dry cleaners to go through the expense of becoming accredited. However, these companies can
be encouraged to develop continuity plans independent of the formal accreditation process. In
some cases, commercial developers who own the buildings in which small businesses are
located are encouraging accreditation among their tenants. It is in the best interest of the building
owners to make sure their tenants have plans in place that will allow them to stay in business.
Building owners and managers in the United Kingdom take on the responsibility of helping their
tenants develop continuity plans.
a
See www.9-11commission.gov (accessed December 1, 2009).
The Public Sector Perspective
Individuals with experience in state and local government were invited to provide
their perspectives on the roles of different levels of government in furthering community
resilience and collaboration. They shared the needs of state and local governments that
could be met using resources from their respective jurisdictions as well as those that
could be met by the federal government and other key collaborators to enhance
community resilience.
Local-Level Needs
In his presentation during one of the panel discussions, Ron Carlee, County Manager
of Arlington, Virginia provided basic tenets of community resilience building:
1. Communities need motivation to engage in community resilience planning.
Without a sense of urgency, resilience planning will not take place. It was the
attack at the Pentagon (located in Arlington County) on 9/11 that gave urgency
to the need for resilience planning in Arlington County. There is no need for
every community to plan for every possible scenario. Communities should plan
to respond well to disasters likely to occur. This gives the community a strong
platform from which to respond to the improbable.
2. Resiliency is not just for disasters. A resilient community is also sustainable
and healthy. Building a sustainable community is a complex enterprise requiring
interplay among all community stakeholders. Leaders need to work together to
define a clear vision, build trust, and create structures for engagement.
3. Leadership is essential. To encourage successful collaboration, it is essential a
catalytic presence exist. However, a collaboration that is dependent on a single
leader will not be sustainable.
OCR for page 38
38 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
4. Building community is the primary business of local government. Local
government is more than the services it provides. The services should be part of
a public policy strategy to create sustainable communities. Real outcome
metrics are community indicators of economic, environmental, and social
strength.
5. Multiorganizational efforts require purpose and structure. As stated earlier
in this report, vision and mission are necessary. The vision and mission should
inspire network participation.
6. Trust is essential. Establishing mutual trust among all participants is
fundamental, especially in voluntary, nonhierarchal networks. The first step to
building trust is simply getting to know one another. Challenges arise when
there are changes in networks such as those that come in response to election
cycles or the normal turnover of key personnel. Relationships based on trust
must be continually developed and maintained.
Jim Mullen agrees that coalitions between the private and public sector are best
organized at the local level. He suggests collaborations should be founded with groups
such as community- and faith-based organizations, led by the emergency management
community. These groups are vital to maintaining the social equilibrium of a jurisdiction.
Regardless of the origins of a disaster, it is essential to establish goals at the local level
that mitigate against damage likely to occur. Effective goals are those that are affordable
and minimize disruption to the community caused by a disaster. A benefit of
collaborations established in this way is the potential reduction in government
expenditures during all phases of emergency management.
It is in the public interest that businesses stay open for business so that the market will
continue to function. The more self-sustaining a community, the better government can
focus on critical needs during a disaster. Communication enabled through collaboration
helps create the necessary environment. Mr. Mullen stated that the government should
place itself in a supporting role by providing accurate real-time information so that
private industry may adapt their supply chains during an emergency. The private sector is
often unable to move critical disaster supplies into an afflicted community because of
lack of communication from the public sector.
Communicating that businesses gain a competitive advantage by opening doors faster
than their competition, and they stand to gain new customers by having goods and
services to offer when other businesses are closed, may encourage private-public sector
collaboration. Businesses that can stabilize profit and keep workers employed and paying
their bills following a disaster help stabilize a community’s tax base and keep
unemployment down. This, in turn, reduces payouts from the government for other types
of social services.
In some cases, collaborations form as a result of need. Leslie Luke of the San Diego
County Office of Emergency Services described San Diego County’s introduction to
private-public sector collaboration in response to the threat of wildfires in 2003. There
were 15 fatalities as a result of the fires, 2,200 homes burned, and 22 businesses lost as a
result. The communities facing the hazards were ethnically diverse, creating challenging
OCR for page 39
COMMUNITY AND DISASTER RESILIENCE: THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH 39
circumstances under which to communicate on a broad scale. The public sector reached
out to the business community to encourage family disaster planning in a media
campaign. After significant contributions from the private sector, community leaders
decided to harness the expertise within the business community and held a summit that
forged relationships that contributed to future community management during fire
seasons. Special efforts were made to include those from multidenominational faith and
migrant communities in the collaborations.
Needs from Higher Levels of Government
It has been stated several times that successful resilience is planned for and built at
the local and community levels. The role of the federal government is not to be
prescriptive, but to work as a partner with communities to reach solutions. Jason
McNamara, chief of staff for FEMA, stated that FEMA is not the preeminent emergency
management organization in the country. More responsibility for emergency management
could be moved from the federal to the state and local levels. FEMA is moving toward
giving its regional offices more responsibility for activities such as logistical management
during emergencies. Regional administrators will be encouraged to focus on partnership
and system building for emergency management with the states.
Dan Alesch of the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay (emeritus), encouraged that
DHS and FEMA move beyond thinking of resilience as protection of physical
infrastructure, but as protection of communities more systemically. He stated that
communities need to be protected against what happens when disasters trigger cascading
consequences beyond the initial incident. These are consequences that destroy the local
economy and leave the community in social ruins. Other workshop participants stated
that thinking of the protection of communities in a more systematic manner could be
adopted at all levels of government. A community that is resilient to disaster, whether of
natural, financial, or terrorist origin, is one that prepares for all phases of the disaster
cycle (e.g., from mitigation through recovery), and considers recovery in the longest of
terms. Mr. McNamara stated that he expects that FEMA will change its focus of activity
away from response and recovery, and toward creating a culture of resilience.
OCR for page 40
