appears to be little collaboration occurring among all of these organizations, and there is confusion at the community level when private–public collaborative efforts seek information, funding, and other resources.

At the community level, those engaged in collaborative efforts have to be prepared for the lack of coordination among the programs and funding streams intended to support resilience-focused programs; this lack of coordination can lead to conflict and competition among collaborators. Federal funding, often the source of local resilience-focused initiatives, is channeled in narrowly defined programmatic stovepipes. Local area governments try to achieve integrated community goals by using uncoordinated funding streams, such as UASI funds, Public Health Emergency Preparedness funds from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,25 housing funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development,26 Coastal Resilience Network funds from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,27 and FEMA postdisaster mitigation funds.28 In such a fragmented and uncoordinated climate, it is understandable that community-level resilience is difficult to generate. That does not mean that resilience-focused private–public collaboration at the community level is not possible and should not occur; rather, communities should be aware of the political climate and strategize accordingly. Private–public collaboration can be the ideal means to leverage disparate federal resources for the benefit of the entire community and thus avoid community-level competition between different sectors.


Few metrics exist to quantify the benefits of collaboration. There is, therefore, little empirical evidence to support funding and policy decisions intended to improve community resilience. An independent study by the MMC attempted to quantify future savings from hazard mitigation activities funded through three major natural hazard mitigation grant programs, including Project Impact, and the results indicated that each dollar spent on FEMA mitigation grants saved society an average of four dollars (MMC, 2005). However, the goals of community resilience building are defined generally as concepts, not as observable and measurable outcomes. The inability to measure and evaluate the outcomes of collaboration makes it more difficult for organizations and individuals to commit to collaborative solutions.

Case studies like those associated with Project Impact tend to be anecdotal. Longitudinal data are seldom collected, and confounding variables that are linked to outcomes are not


See (accessed June 30, 2010).


See (accessed June 30, 2010).


See (accessed August 9, 2010).


See (accessed June 30, 2010).

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