Click for next page ( 2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 1
Summary ________________________________________________________________________ PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) on the United States prompted a rethinking of how the United States prepares for disasters. Federal policy documents written since 9/11 have stressed that the private and public sectors share equal responsibility for the security of the nation’s critical infrastructure and key assets. Private sector entities have a role in the safety, security, and resilience of the communities in which they operate. Incentivizing the private sector to expend resources on community efforts remains challenging. Disasters in the United States since 9/11 (e.g., Hurricane Katrina in 2005) indicate that the nation has not yet been successful in making its communities resilient to disaster. The National Research Council (NRC) at the request of the Department of Homeland Security formed an ad hoc committee to assess the current states of the art and practice in private-public sector collaboration dedicated to strengthening community disaster resilience. The committee’s charge included organizing a public workshop to explore the following issues: • Current efforts at the regional, state and community levels to develop private- public partnerships for the purpose of developing and enhancing community preparedness and resilience; • Motivators, inhibitors, advantages and liabilities for private sector engagement in private-public sector cooperation in planning, resource allocation and preparedness for natural and man-made hazards; • Distinctions in perceptions or motivations between large national-level corporations and the small business community that might influence the formation of private-public sector partnerships, particularly in smaller or rural communities; • Gaps in current knowledge and practice in private-public sector partnerships that inhibit the ability to develop collaboration across sectors; • Research areas that could bridge these gaps; and • Design, development and implementation of collaborative endeavors for the 1

OCR for page 1
2 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE purpose of strengthening the resilience of communities to natural and man- made hazards. The committee held a 2-day workshop in Washington, DC on September 9-10, 2009. Through presentations and facilitated discussion among approximately 60 invited participants, issues related to the development of collaborations were explored. The objective of the workshop was not to determine what the goals of collaborations should be, nor was it to consider the respective roles of the private or public sectors in disaster preparedness and response. The workshop was designed to inform the NRC study committee of the characteristics of successful and enduring collaborations, and to identify elements of the cultural environment necessary for such collaborations to form and thrive. The workshop agenda was purposely organized to avoid the emotion that often accompanies discussion of past disaster response failures so that objective discussion could be focused on issues of collaboration. Workshop participants included researchers, community organizers, representatives from business, nongovernment- and nonprofit organizations, and emergency management practitioners and leaders at the local, state, and federal levels. Individuals studying, participating in, or facilitating private-public sector collaborations in different parts of the country were invited to attend. Participants had expertise in natural disasters and science policy, disaster preparedness, crisis and risk management, disaster response, economics, public health, and other areas relevant to the discussion. Different regional perspectives were also sought. The committee sought to understand how a community benefits from broad, resilience-focused collaboration and wanted to learn what was essential for community members to build resilience and improve disaster preparedness and recovery. A workshop goal was to understand how supporting this type of collaboration could be made a national priority. The workshop was organized around three major themes: (1) facilitating factors and barriers to the formation of collaborations for building community resilience; (2) identification of the characteristics of effective, robust, and sustainable private-public sector collaboration at the local and state levels; and (3) encouragement of widespread development of private-public sector collaboration for enhancing community resilience. WORKSHOP REPORT This workshop report is the first of two reports to be prepared by the study committee. It organizes major ideas expressed during the workshop into common themes. As such, it is not a comprehensive summary of all relevant topics and issues. Viewpoints expressed in this report do not necessarily represent consensus of workshop participants, the views of the NRC study committee, the NRC, or the sponsor. This report does not contain conclusions and recommendations. The committee will present its conclusions and recommendations in its final report.

OCR for page 1
SUMMARY 3 WORKSHOP CONCEPTS Disaster Resilience as Part of Community Resilience Community resilience, in general terms, speaks to the continued ability of a community to function during and following stress. Building and maintaining resilience depend on the ability of a community to monitor change and appropriately modify plans and activities to accommodate observed changes. Implicit in the report discussion of building community disaster resilience is that all sectors of a community can and are obligated to participate in all phases of disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. Building resilience, according to workshop participants, involves community planning at every level, and involves more than just planning for disaster. Communities most likely to survive disaster are those committed to building a sense of community, those that are actively committed to social equity and inclusion, those that are economically and environmentally sustainable, and those that create a vision to which its residents and institutions can relate. Resilient communities are those that continuously work toward resilience, regardless of whether a disaster is likely to occur. Extensive collaboration, trust, respect, partnering, and cross-networking allow a community to define and develop the qualities that make it resilient. According to many workshop participants, communities are more likely to undertake mitigation and resilience-building efforts if the benefits of doing so are translated into terms that reflect general economic development and gain. Benefits of resilience accrue daily. Resilient businesses, for example, may be more inclined to display stronger business integrity during normal operation, and are more likely to remain open or reopen more quickly following a disaster, helping to keep the local economy functioning. Similarly, resilient nongovernment and faith-based organizations may be better able to provide services to their constituents following a disaster. Many workshop participants stated that command-and-control mechanisms are not conducive to engaging all members of the community and to building community-level resilience. They noted that private-public sector collaboration could be an ideal model for building grassroots-based collaborative efforts for all phases of collaboration and disaster preparedness and response. Such efforts are more likely to succeed if established at the local level with a bottom-up, locally relevant approach. Building a nation of resilient communities, however, is largely dependent on the facilitating, but nonprescriptive, support of higher levels of government. Characteristics of Successful Collaboration Motivation, trust, some form of leadership, and a common mission that drives the purpose and structure of the collaboration are considered essential for successful collaboration building. Mechanisms by which partnerships are developed and sustained may vary, but collaborations are more likely to succeed at building community resilience

OCR for page 1
4 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE if all community stakeholders are included in the collaborative efforts. It was emphasized that trusted relationships are the essential capital that drive resilience. Working through a collaborative infrastructure may make it more likely that actions taken will best serve the interests of the community. Some workshop participants praised the volunteer efforts of individuals and groups that spontaneously respond to disasters, but noted their actions may not always be in the best interest of the community. Determining how to harness the energy of these volunteers and engage them in productive collaborative approaches could be beneficial. No single science of collaboration exists, although collaboration theory is studied and applied in a variety of disciplines. There are numerous collaboration models that can be applied by communities under different circumstances, and extensive social sciences and public health literature exists from which to draw. The literature has been applied in alternative dispute resolution, in techniques utilized by land-use planners, and by negotiators. Creating Successful Private-Public Collaboration Workshop participants were presented with a suggested protocol for the development of private-public collaboration developed at the Michigan State University. Similarities were noted between this protocol and other collaboration-forming processes also described at the workshop. The protocol developed at Michigan State University includes the six steps listed below. 1. Identify public and private sector stakeholders to share leadership (some workshop participants described how members of the community may respond better to leadership representing their own sector; others indicated that shared leadership was not essential). 2. Identify and engage individual networks to be included in the collaboration. 3. Identify common issues among collaborators related to emergency preparedness. 4. Identify new resources within the community to mitigate the impact of critical incidents. 5. Identify challenges encountered by participating organizations, such as risks and threats caused by natural or human-caused disasters that threaten participating organizations individually or collectively. 6. Create sustainability in the collaboration by determining collective needs, defining goals that provide direction, assigning performance tasks based on who does what best, and by working collaboratively. Many workshop participants noted that programmatic and relationship sustainability, rather than the longevity of programs, are key measures of the sustainability of a partnership. Some Project Impact communities were cited as examples of sustainable collaborations—relationships were maintained even after program funding ended. Networks are more likely to be sustainable when mission-driving concepts are institutionalized throughout the network. Sustainable funding, local and regional support,

OCR for page 1
SUMMARY 5 successful communication strategies, and an effective marketing plan were all cited as essential to effective and sustainable collaborations. Leadership Sustainable partnerships were considered by many to be dependent on strong leadership able to promote a clear vision embraced by all. Different leadership models may be successfully applied depending on the dynamics and needs of a community. Some successful models are based on sharing of leadership as mentioned above, and others are based on leadership primarily from the public sector. Workshop participants learned that leadership may come from elsewhere, such as the scientific community, exemplifying how different approaches can be successful. Regardless of the leadership model employed, flexibility and responsiveness were cited by many as essential qualities. Leadership may evolve from one model to another in response to changes in the network or in the larger community. Institutionalizing a vision makes the collaboration more likely to be sustained even after succession of dynamic leadership. Scalability Scalability is the ability of an organization or technology to accept volume changes without impacting effectiveness. Scalability in collaboration implies an ability to expand functionality to handle larger or smaller situations; to include a greater or smaller number of people or organizations as warranted; or to apply functionalities of the collaboration to meet new objectives. Partnerships established on networks of relationships are inherently more scalable than hierarchical organizations that require single-path processing. The definition of scalability could also include the ability to translate a process from one population to another. Some participants described how collaboration-building processes may be made scalable by describing the different ways in which private-public sector collaborations can be formed. Other workshop participants remarked how the scaling down of processes can be more difficult than scaling up, especially for rural communities with few or scattered resources. Business growth models may offer insights regarding the scalability of partnerships and the capital requirement components of different types of scalability. BARRIERS During market equilibrium, when not influenced by disaster, a certain amount of need exists, as does the capacity to fill those needs. However, when a disaster strikes, demand for essential resources may escalate while the ability to meet demand declines. Many workshop participants described how private-public sector collaboration may be a means to identify the supply chains critical for maintaining market equilibrium following a disaster. Emergency response could be coordinated more efficiently, and disruptions to

OCR for page 1
6 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE market equilibrium and social stability minimized. However, numerous barriers to collaboration exist—the social, political, and economic environments of our nation are often not supportive of collaborative efforts. Jurisdictional Challenges Disasters do not respect jurisdictional boundaries and it is difficult to reconcile economic, social, environmental, and political spaces when disaster crosses boundaries. The responsibilities and liabilities of local, state, and federal levels of government are not clear. Communication and trust between different levels of government, and even between agencies at the same level of government, were identified as barriers to effective collaboration and were blamed for problems ranging from minor inefficiencies to major gaps in emergency response. Additionally, the tendency to place organizations of all kinds—government, nonprofit, and private—into organizational silos can create a competitive rather than cooperative environment. Incompatible or duplicated efforts often result. Fear of Additional Oversight Organizations may already be overwhelmed by government programs, regulations, and mandates. The fear of additional government oversight was described by some workshop participants as a deterrent to private sector participation in private-public sector collaboration. This was also recognized as a potential deterrent to participation by nongovernmental, community, and faith-based organizations. Liability Issues Liability concerns may create disincentives for engagement in private-public sector collaboration. Good Samaritan laws that safeguard individuals who inadvertently do harm when acting in good faith during emergencies are often not applicable to organizations. Confusion regarding liability laws was described as a major impediment to private sector engagement in resilience-building efforts. For example, liability laws may differ between the different jurisdictions in which a business may operate. Memoranda of understanding (MOU) established between local jurisdictions and private organizations may compete or conflict with state-level MOU. Confusion regarding how liability is covered may result, and coordination efforts may be negatively impacted. Language Barriers The language of resilience is often translated poorly to different audiences, and a lack of shared understanding of concepts and terminology can be a barrier to effective communication. A lack of common language, even among those who seek similar

OCR for page 1
SUMMARY 7 outcomes, may make collaboration difficult. For example, the business sector may not effectively communicate with nonprofit or faith-based organizations, or with other private industries. The public sector may not communicate well with the private sector. Finding a common language presents a major challenge, but many participants stated that avoiding language steeped in military vernacular may be more conducive to ground-up building of collaboration at the community level. Establishing good communication is best done, according to many participants, prior to testing the strength of collaboration. Lack of good communication could cause a disintegration of collaboration when stressed by disaster. Trust Lack of trust is a primary barrier to effective network-building efforts, according to many workshop participants. Trust changes with time and circumstances, and strategy and creativity are needed to create and sustain trust. A single formula may not be universally applicable to all communities or even to a single community over time. Sustaining trust through change is a greater challenge. A general lack of understanding about human factors such as trust prevent the most effective use of technologies, methodologies, or strategies for building community resilience. Resource Challenges Sustainable funding was described by multiple workshop participants as another primary barrier to forming and sustaining private-public collaborations. Funding sources are often short-lived and limited, though resilience building is a long-term process. Long- term approaches are difficult to fund because thinking in the long term is, in itself, not acknowledged by funding agencies as a critical aspect of program delivery. Few funding programs appreciate the success of processes such as collaboration, partnership development, and public education. Benchmarks are not readily available to justify resource requests for these types of expenditures. Many participants noted that funding is often tied to threat-based initiatives, limiting resources available for more general efforts such as building community resilience. Inflexibility of grants, the requirement of matching funds, and the confusing and time- consuming administration of public grants were also described as problematic. Some workshop participants noted hesitancy from the private sector to contribute to collaborative endeavors when it was perceived that the public sector was not contributing in significant ways. Required cost sharing by communities as a prerequisite to the acquisition of public funding may be a major obstacle for rural and other communities with limited resources to obtain money for resilience-building efforts.

OCR for page 1
8 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE Lack of Inclusiveness Disenfranchised Community Members Some workshop participants noted that resilience-building efforts may fail, in part because of a focus on generic populations (e.g., middle class, educated suburban dwellers) rather than on the full fabric of the community. For example, government organizations may not have plans in place to serve those who live in perpetual states of disaster because of poverty, crime, and violence. Minority groups and non-English speakers may similarly be overlooked. Rather than thinking of such citizens as drains on resources, these populations could be embraced as positive assets because of their extensive experience dealing with disaster on a daily basis. Several workshop participants considered it essential to integrate disenfranchised members of the community into collaborative efforts. Collaborative processes can empower all members of the community to be decision makers for the community. Community and Faith-Based Organizations Effectively engaging community- and faith-based organizations in private-public sector collaborations is an organizational challenge. In the wake of a disaster, community- and faith-based organizations are often the first to provide food, shelter, medical, hygiene, and other support services. They independently identify and fill gaps in services not otherwise provided. Yet these groups are often not engaged in collaborative efforts because they do not readily fit into the organizational silos into which other organizations are divided. A lack of knowledge of the community and faith-based groups operating in a community, their respective goals and capacities, and the ways in which the mutual interests of the organizations and the larger community may coincide are barriers to effective engagement. RESEARCH THEMES AND TOOLS A Repository of Best Practices and Lessons Learned The need for a freely accessible repository of knowledge, best practices, lessons learned at the community level, and subject matter expertise—managed by a neutral party representing the best interests of all stakeholders—was repeatedly expressed during the workshop. It was also expressed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency or another funding agency might not be effective as the neutral-party manager of the repository. Exploration of possible mechanisms for how this repository could function would be useful. Tools and templates that encourage and assist in community preparedness and response by describing actionable, understandable, and scalable methodologies for given situations could be part of the repository, as could time-series

OCR for page 1
SUMMARY 9 analyses, and other pertinent data and research results, all in readily accessible and searchable formats. Metrics Many workshop participants noted a lack of a politically acceptable, evidenced-based, nonprescriptive framework that helps communities build resilience. However many also noted that few measures of resilience exist that can aid in establishing objectives and measuring success. Bases of information from which to draw are not available from which to gauge progress. Participants described the need for metrics to quantify the benefits of collaboration and resilience-building efforts. Metrics are important from the scientific and practical points of view, for example in determining the most effective methodologies under given circumstances, or for justifying that grant dollars are well spent. Metrics that quantify success could be useful for mobilizing private sector participation and investment in collaborative efforts. Several types of metrics were identified as vital, including those to evaluate partnerships themselves, and those to measure the resilience of communities more generally. Evaluating Partnerships Certain aspects of collaboration are difficult to measure, such as trust generated between network members, or how well goals of collaboration are institutionalized. Research on the social measures most indicative of successful collaboration, as well as the development of tools for their measure, could be of benefit. The pubic health community has some mechanisms in place for evaluating effectiveness of partnerships. Exploring research conducted within other disciplines could prove useful. Evaluating Community-Level Resilience Aspects of resilience building associated with physical infrastructure can be relatively straightforward to measure. Measuring the sociological benefits acquired as a result of resilience-building efforts, such as those related to public education and cultural and attitude shifts, is less straightforward. Research to quantify these “soft tissue” changes, such as social network analysis, could be useful. Research by government agencies on measuring different aspects of resilience was cited. A survey of research conducted by, for example, the Economic Development Administration of the Department of Commerce, the United States Department of Agriculture, and other government agencies at all levels, could identify applications already in use or in development. A survey of this sort could allow more efficient use of resources and more coordinated efforts toward achieving common goals.

OCR for page 1
10 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE A Base of Information Partnership Models Case studies of effective partnerships could be part of the means of establishing a base of information considered essential for measuring progress of collaborative efforts. Longitudinal studies to understand how partnerships function or are sustainable under different circumstances could be a means of creating a body of best practices. Comparison studies of partnerships and their infrastructures could identify factors critical to sustainable efforts. Research on effective collaboration models within government, the private sector, and in private-public sector collaboration, as well as the economic impacts of the various approaches, were also described as important. Community Infrastructures A more holistic approach to resilience building was described as necessary by many workshop participants, and research to understand existing networks in a community could provide an important part of the information considered necessary for such an approach. Understanding how community education, public health, workplace, transportation, and communications systems work and can fit together could lead to ending the practice of categorizing organizations into independently functioning silos. Research findings could help community managers and organizers more efficiently identify common goals among organizations and, in turn, to develop a single community infrastructure that unifies community networks. Time-Series Studies Because how a community responds to stress may change as a community changes, assessing regional resilience levels over time could be beneficial. Determining the means to monitor a community’s ability to respond to disasters was considered an essential research topic by many workshop participants. Once a disaster occurs, time-series research on recovery—for example 10, 15, and 20 years following an event—could help quantify the long-term losses of all sectors in the community. This could be true not only for those communities directly affected by the disaster, but for those communities facing secondary impacts such as the influx of disaster evacuees. Such data could be useful for recovery effectiveness methodology modeling.

OCR for page 1
SUMMARY 11 Incentivizing Participation Community-Level Involvement Research on how best to integrate community- and faith-based organizations and underserved populations into collaborative resilience-building efforts could empower such groups to operate most efficiently for the benefit of themselves and the community as a whole. Research on how different peer groups can be incentivized, including on how partnership agendas can be reframed to be more inclusive, may help engage these important but often overlooked community stakeholders. Business Involvement Business-sector involvement in private-public sector partnerships is motivated by an understanding of the benefits of participation, the desire to maintain positive public perception, and concerns about liability. Because businesses are in business to make money, the profits associated with collaborative efforts could be highlighted to those reluctant to expend their resources. Many in the private sector, however, recognize the benefits of active participation in resilience-building collaborations—that what is good for the larger community is also good for individual businesses. However, workshop participants did not agree on a form of engagement. Some workshop discussion focused on the language and methods useful for incentivizing business executives to participate in resilience-building collaborations. The development of a business prospectus that identifies potential operating models for collaboration was suggested. 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. Research regarding different operating and economic models, and on the most sustainable and scalable models for the business community, were considered important by some. Equally important to some participants was research on the human factor issues that could be incorporated into the various models. Behavioral Studies Many questions were raised by workshop participants regarding the behavior of individuals and collaborations when under stress, including emergent behaviors. Answers to these questions could inform predictive behavioral models. Understanding and predicting motivators to certain behaviors could help planners target communication, planning, and emergency response activities.

OCR for page 1
12 PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR COLLABORATION FOR COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE Capacity Building Resilience building was considered by workshop participants to be largely dependent on the ability of communities to provide technical training, assistance, and outreach. Many questions were raised about the form training should take as well as who should implement the training. Research on the kinds of training essential to build leadership qualities among individuals, on how collaboration skill sets are built at the community level, and on how creativity and innovation can be fostered within collaborations (e.g., by tapping into communication technologies embraced by younger generations) could all be informative. Many workshop participants stated that the concept of resilience could be incorporated into curricula at institutions of higher learning in order to realize cultural shifts in thinking they considered integral to successful resilience-building efforts among the next generation of business leaders, public managers, and managers of nongovernmental organizations. Peer mentoring—where community members assisting other communities—are a potential means of reaching individuals already in leadership positions. Evaluation of the effectiveness of such programs could provide information to make these and similar programs more effective in the future. FUNDING RESEARCH A new type of funding stream to support the applied research necessary on how to build collaborations for resilient communities was considered essential by many workshop participants. Funds are more often available for development of technologies that support resilience, but, according to many participants, sustainable funding is not readily available to study the human factors that allow the technologies to be driven successfully. Incorporating research directly into funding for collaborative activities could foster interaction between researchers and practitioners, provide a laboratory for researchers, and potentially provide real-time information needed by practitioners to best modify goals, objectives, and activities. A NATIONAL AGENDA To become a nation of resilient communities, many workshop participants considered it essential to create an environment that promotes collaborative resilience-building efforts. The need was identified by some to move from a system focused on response to disasters, to a framework that is informed and guided by the general principles of resilience building. To do so, it is essential to establish the building of community resilience as a true national priority across all agencies. Goals would be clearly stated and accepted and institutionalized at the national level. This could create a focus on the issue that has not existed before.