systematically collected indicators are essential. Sponsoring a network, such as RAVON, is consistent with the mission of DHS; indeed, it is difficult to envision how such a network could be developed without substantial input on the part of DHS.
Communities around the nation have few information resources on collaboration for developing community disaster resilience. Information and guidance exist but are scattered throughout the peer-reviewed literature, government reports, research-project reports, and organizational and institutional Web sites; this makes access difficult for the average local agency or business. As sponsored research on private–public collaboration develops and matures, DHS itself will need a means of disseminating research findings.
Establish a national repository and clearinghouse, administered by a neutral entity, to archive and disseminate information on community resilience-focused private–public sector collaboration models, operational frameworks, community disaster-resilience case studies, evidence-based best practices, and resilience-related data and research findings. Relevant stakeholders in all sectors and at all levels should convene to determine how to structure and fund this entity.
Workshop (NRC, 2010) and committee discussions have revealed that nongovernment partners are likely to prefer information and guidance from third-party sources that are considered independent and disinterested. That finding and a recognition of the importance of “boundary organizations” (Guston, 2001) in bridging the research-policy–practice gap, form the basis of this recommendation.
Tentatively called the Center for Best Practices in Disaster Resilience, the entity or network of entities would provide information and guidance free of charge and in formats that are readily accessible and comprehensible by private-sector and public-sector leaders, emergency-management practitioners, and researchers. It would make available a variety of products, from peer-reviewed publications to existing and emerging “toolkits” for those engaged in private–public collaboration. As an NGO, it would serve as the “honest broker” and facilitator for private–public sector interactions on resilience issues.
In considering the need for an independent repository of information and expertise, the committee stopped short of offering advice on how such a resource should be structured and funded. Those are decisions best made by a broad-based and trusted coalition of public- and private-sector stakeholders and experts in the delivery of guidance information to diverse users. Agencies that support research and practice in community disaster resilience (NSF, DHS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USGS, and others) have an important role in making these decisions, but the committee concludes that the resource