National Academies Press: OpenBook

Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration (2011)

Chapter: 3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration

« Previous: 2 A Conceptual Framework for Resilience-Focused Private–Public Collaborative Networks
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

CHAPTER THREE
Guidelines for Community-Based Private–Public Collaboration

Effective resilience-focused private–public collaboration will often span geographic and political jurisdictions, include multiple agencies and levels of government, and cross other social, economic, and cultural boundaries. Collaborators recognize that no person or entity has all the expertise, insight, information, influence, or resources to build community resilience. Likewise, there will be impediments to collaboration that need to be recognized and addressed, including cultural, interpersonal, political, financial, and technical challenges. There is the barrier of physical separation caused by time and distance that cannot be completely offset, even by the most sophisticated communication technology. In sum, collaborative efforts are often complex. An organizing structure is therefore necessary to understand how the various components of collaboration relate to one another (Briggs et al., 2009). This chapter offers practical suggestions for applying the conceptual framework provided in Chapter 2.

Many different types of community actors mobilize to respond when disaster strikes. Postdisaster response networks are far larger and more complex than those envisioned in official disaster plans (NRC, 2006). For example, based on multiple data sources, Kapucu (2007) found that over 1,100 nonprofit organizations played some role in emergency response and postevent relief activities following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in New York City. Included in that number were nonprofit organizations that formed specifically to address the needs of those affected by the attacks. Also using multiple sources, Bevc (2010) identified more than 600 organizations whose activities focused directly on emergency response tasks such as search and rescue, fire suppression, and assisting victims and emergency workers. These organizations were involved in extensive networks of interaction and collaboration that emerged and evolved over time. The mobilization of a broad spectrum of community organizations and sectors is thus a key factor enabling effective disaster response. Response activities typically involve a formal or informal network, characterized by collaboration rather than command and control, with entities joining response

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

networks to carry out activities that are deemed necessary, regardless of whether such activities are specified in plans. The committee cautions, however, that whatever role a collaborative network serves in the community, it should be consistent with and supportive of the legal authority of emergency management agencies.

As described in Partnerships for Emergency Preparedness: Developing Partnerships (LLIS, 2006), many communities’ public-safety and private-sector entities have conducted planning and preparedness operations largely independent of one another. Few fully understand or appreciate the others’ roles in emergency prevention, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. Public-safety agencies often underestimate the private sector’s interest and involvement in emergency-preparedness efforts. Private-sector groups overestimate the capabilities of government and fail to recognize the need for their own contributions to an incident response. In addition, the private sector often perceives cooperation with government agencies as risky because of the government’s role in regulating their industries, concern about the protection of proprietary information, and the potential of legal liability.

It can be challenging to motivate private and public sectors to participate in resilience-focused collaboration that emphasizes a comprehensive management approach. How are organizations encouraged to plan for disaster mitigation and preparation, as well as response and recovery? How are organizations encouraged to do this collaboratively with others in their community? The committee describes engagement at the community level in the first major section of this chapter. In it, the importance of acknowledging local networks and network diversity are discussed, as are the importance of engaging needed expertise—either locally or further afield—and following evidence-based principles of emergency management. The second major section explores structure and process in resilience-related activities, including the importance of a coordinating function and multilevel relationships. The third major section of the chapter discusses practical application of the conceptual model discussed in Chapter 2. The final section of this chapter provides the committee’s overarching guidelines designed to address community-level private–public collaboration for enhancing disaster resilience.

ENGAGING AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL

Just as there is no clear federal coordination or national strategy for climate adaptation (NRC, 2010a), there is no national strategy for building community disaster resilience. That 2010 NRC report on climate change concludes that there is a need for a national strategy for climate adaptation, and that the strategy would benefit from “a ‘bottom-up’ approach that builds on and supports existing efforts and experiences” at the state and local levels, including private–public collaboration.

This report does not address all components of a national resilience strategy, but the committee recognizes that with or without a national strategy, there is a need for community-level resilience. Achieving resilience at the state or national levels begins with resilience-

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

enhancing efforts in local communities. Community efforts begin with individuals from any sector believing in and acting on a sense of personal responsibility to ensure community sustainability. Those individuals also convince others of similar need to act. Leadership and initiative can come from any sector.

Local government and local business and civic organizations have unique knowledge of, access to, and communication with individual citizens throughout the community. Well-prepared individuals contribute to household and workplace resilience. Well-prepared households and businesses contribute to neighborhood, social, commercial, economic, and community resilience. Well-prepared communities place fewer demands on state and federal resources because they are better able to cope when disasters or other disruptions occur. A nation is resilient when it is made up of resilient communities.

The notion that disaster resilience is fostered at the local community level is a cornerstone of many recent national preparedness efforts, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National Response Framework. It states in part that “an effective, unified national response requires layered, mutually supporting capabilities” (FEMA, 2008:4), and that “resilient communities begin with prepared individuals and depend on the leadership and engagement of local government, NGOs, and the private sector” (FEMA, 2008:5). The concept of a “tiered response,” a key element of the framework, places primary responsibility for hazard and disaster management at the local community level. Although it indicates that response activities must be flexible and scalable, the framework contains the directive that “incidents must be managed at the lowest possible jurisdictional level and supported by additional capabilities when needed” and states further that “incidents begin and end locally, and most are wholly managed at the local level” (FEMA, 2008:10). It can even be hypothesized, as Mileti (1999) did, that an indicator of community disaster resilience is the ability of a local community to cope with events without relying excessively on outside resources. Conversely, as seen during the January 2010 Haiti earthquake, communities and societies that lack disaster resilience may depend almost exclusively on external aid.

However, community and extracommunity preparedness efforts aid and reinforce household, business, and individual preparedness. Community resilience-enhancing interventions can thus be used at any level of analysis—individuals, households, neighborhoods and community associations, individual businesses and groups of businesses, individual nonprofit organizations and networks of nonprofit organizations—with a key stipulation that such efforts be mutually reinforcing.

The sections that follow discuss the strategic dimensions of a national framework for enhancing disaster resilience with an emphasis on local-level strategies. The committee was asked to focus on community-level private–public collaboration, and it did, but the committee would be remiss to ignore the sociopolitical environment that is conducive to such collaboration. Discussions of strategy are based on what has been learned not only in the fields of emergency management and disaster-loss reduction but in other fields such as

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

public health. The committee also draws on knowledge on topics such as citizen mobilization, collective action, and community organizing.

Recognize the Significance of Local Networks

Chapter 1 defined a community as a group of people with a common interest, on the basis of the definition developed by Etienne Wenger (1998). The concept of community has many dimensions, and communities are perhaps best understood as consisting of networks of relationships of various types on various scales. Networks exist at many levels within and across myriad sectors of society, including interpersonal, neighborhood, organizational, private industry, civic, and governmental. Networks may be based on informal or formal ties or on a mixture of the two. They may be organized according to geography, government or economic functions, or interests of various kinds. Communities in the United States include a wide array of vibrant and dynamic networks, and even the most impoverished and seemingly deprived communities and subsets of communities include such networks. U.S. society is widely understood to contain a rich array of religious institutions, voluntary associations, nonprofits, coalitions, interest groups, and alliances of other kinds.

Efforts to mobilize individuals and groups are most efficient and successful when begun through existing networks and institutions using multiple mechanisms. People are not motivated to work toward a goal as isolated individuals; rather, they participate in collective efforts through the groups and institutions in which they normally participate. In the U.S. civil rights movement, for example, black churches and church-related networks, such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, provided a means of connecting individuals to the movement (Morris, 1984). Mass-media–based information campaigns, such the DHS Web portal,1 may succeed in bringing issues to the attention of individuals but might not be effective in motivating collective action.

An individual business owner may understand that preparing for disasters is important but might not act on that understanding unless messages and encouragement come through the local chamber of commerce or other business-oriented association. That was the experience of the Disaster Resistant Business Toolkit (DRB Toolkit)2 Workgroup that brought together private- and public-sector experts in business continuity and emergency management. Through existing relationships, the workgroup developed and launched disaster planning software to assist small businesses in the United States with continuity planning to reduce their vulnerability to all hazards. The DRB Toolkit Workgroup understood the interconnectedness of a community (Bullock et al., 2009).

All-inclusive networks can be created by linking and optimizing existing professional,

1

Available at www.ready.gov/ (accessed July 1, 2010).

2

See www.DRBToolkit.org/ (accessed July 30, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

religious, service, social, economic, and other networks. Community stakeholders collaborating in resilience-enhancing strategies might therefore consider how to reach individuals and groups through the organizations to which they belong. It is important to build on the work and achievements of local networks devoted specifically to emergency management and homeland security, such as local disaster-preparedness networks and the DHS Urban Areas Security Initiative programs that can provide a firm basis for more inclusive and comprehensive resilience-enhancing efforts. However, it is equally important for resilience-enhancing efforts to be directed toward and occur through the wide array of local entities, associations, and alliances that represent the full fabric of the community. One example of a network of community-based organizations is the Kentucky Outreach and Information Network (KOIN),3 established to communicate with hard-to-reach populations in an emergency. KOIN is a network of local resources that provides information to groups such as non-English speakers and the deaf, and its members serve as liaisons between those people and emergency responders.

Collaboration with local agencies can increase the effectiveness of collaboration, not only because of increased interaction with the emergency management community, but because of the relationships of local organizations with members of the community. Local police and fire departments, for example, have relationships with citizen groups such as neighborhood crime watch groups, Community Emergency Response Teams,4 or Citizens of Oakland Respond to Emergencies (CORE) in Oakland, California.5 Engaging with groups such as local Boys and Girls Clubs,6 for example, or groups representing minorities, or special needs groups in a community may help reach individuals who are otherwise difficult to reach. Most groups will have their own trusted means of communication, and people respond best to information that comes from people they know and trust and with whom they interact regularly. That is the case regardless of the type of information conveyed, as was demonstrated through examples in the summary of a National Research Council workshop on social-network analysis for enhancing community resilience (Magsino, 2009). As noted in the earlier National Research Council report on the human dimensions of hazards and disasters (NRC, 2006), horizontal ties both elicit and increase trust.

Recognize Network Diversity

Participants of the committee’s information-gathering workshop noted the tendency of government to focus on “generic” populations—for example middle-class, educated suburban dwellers—that may not represent the diversity in the community or its networks.

3

See chfs.ky.gov/dph/epi/preparedness/KOIN.htm (accessed September 15, 2010).

4

See www.citizencorps.gov/cert/ (accessed September 15, 2010).

5

See www.oaklandnet.com/fire/core/about.html (accessed September 15, 2010).

6

See www.bgca.org/Pages/index.aspx (accessed September 15, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

Engaging all sectors, community members, and existing networks increases the ability to identify community needs and leverage community resources. However, different communication mechanisms may be needed to communicate collaborative goals, functions, and benefits for different constituencies. Such tools may include conceptual models, narrative descriptions, and business prospectuses. In some cases, the mechanisms may need to be provided in different languages.

Successful use of existing networks includes recognition that not only do communities consist of numerous diverse networks, but that networks that include some community members by definition exclude others. Church membership, for example, is an important community tie for many people, but such networks are themselves diverse, and communities contain many people who are not church goers or affiliated with any religious institution. In most communities, there are well-established fraternal associations, but they are also diverse. Chambers of commerce and such institutions as the United Way serve as focal points for many—not all—local businesses and nonprofits, respectively. Similarly, many—not all—communities have a wide diversity of neighborhood and homeowners associations. There are also work-based and school-based networks. In some communities, a major employer provides a focal point for community activities. In our culturally diverse society, many networks center on ethnic identities, immigration histories, and minority community institutions. Ethnic enclaves have their own distinctive forms of social organization, which may not be well understood by the larger majority community.

The committee calls attention to other types of organizations, those that emerge in response to crisis. Participants of the committee’s information-gathering workshop recognized that it is often through informal or unofficial channels that food, shelter, hygiene, and other support services are first offered immediately following a disaster (NRC, 2010b). Often groups, called “problem solving networks” by Milward and Provan (2006), emerge specifically to determine a way to quickly resolve the crisis and can result in long-lived and effective networks. Groups that arise in response to crisis are often not recognized or used effectively by emergency management officials. This report emphasizes the importance of preparation prior to a crisis and does not focus on groups that arise as a result of crisis. However, regular assessment of networks within a community may help identify the conditions under which such groups emerge. Mothers Against Drunk Driving,7 for example, arose in response to tragic events in individual families, but is now a national nonprofit organization that promotes change in social behavior and in public policy. Understanding how such groups emerge may help communities understand where they may emerge, as well as how they may be used during crisis.

Private–public collaboration—whether directed at enhancing a community’s quality of life, solving community problems, or, in this case, aiding communities in becoming disaster-

7

See www.madd.org/About-Us/About-Us/Mission-Statement.aspx (accessed September 3, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

resilient—will be most successful when it includes an early comprehensive assessment of diverse community network assets.

Engage Expertise at Local and Broader Scales

Different types of expertise are required for the development and maintenance of resilience-focused private–public collaboration. It is necessary for partners in such efforts to understand community risks, hazards, and vulnerabilities. Different kinds of information are required to address those needs, including hazard assessments, information on the impacts of past disasters, and information on the vulnerability of population groupings, the built environment, and ecosystems. Community stakeholders require a general understanding of such issues as how much protection current building codes offer against damage, the likely consequences of previous land-use decisions, and the likely social and economic impacts of both probable and worst-case disaster events. Those kinds of information can come from multiple sources, including loss-estimation studies that use HAZUS,8 HAZUS-MH, the Social Vulnerability Index (SOVI),9 census data, community disaster scenarios, and individuals and organizations including university researchers, professional engineers and engineering societies, building-code officials, urban planners, and state agencies. Resilience initiatives may also draw on the knowledge of community-based experts, such as community organizers, elected and appointed officials, leaders in community-based nonprofit organizations and businesses, and long-term community residents. Such information lends nuance and meaning to more “scientific” hazard and vulnerability data and increases the probability that resilience-enhancing private–public collaboration will be successful.

With support from FEMA, the National Science Foundation–sponsored Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research developed a set of guidelines for seismic-safety advocacy strategies (Alesch et al., 2004). The report contains practical guidance on a variety of topics, including how to use scientific expertise in community loss-reduction campaigns, risk communication, community mobilization, and partnership building. Although the report is focused on earthquake safety, its lessons are easily transferable to an all-hazards context. Individual community stakeholders are not all expected to be able to identify what information is available or to determine what actions are translatable or scalable to their own circumstances. Private–public collaboration therefore benefits greatly from engaging those that have necessary expertise—for example, from local institutions of higher learning—as community stakeholders.

8

See www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/ (accessed July 1, 2010).

9

See webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/sovi.aspx (accessed July 1, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

Follow Evidence-Based Principles of Community Engagement

Community engagement is a well-recognized approach to community problem solving that has been used in such fields as health care and research, law enforcement, and planning for pandemic influenza and homeland security threats (Patterson et al., 2010; Fleischman, 2007; NRC, 2006; Lasker et al., 2003). Numerous resources exist for those desiring to engage the full fabric of the community in community activities. The Higher Education Network for Community Engagement is made up of community colleges, colleges, and universities that provide community-engagement guidance.10 Numerous online resources contain step-by-step guidelines on effective community-engagement processes. Such organizations as the Center for Advances in Public Engagement11 provide an array of materials that can inform local resilience-enhancing efforts, including what the center terms “core principles of community engagement” (Kadlec and Friedman, 2008). The IBM Center for the Business of Government12 offers an online Collaboration Series that includes guidance for public managers involved with citizen engagement (Lukensmeyer and Torres, 2006). A report on the promises and challenges of neighborhood-level democracy, based on a meeting organized by Grassroots Grantmakers and the Deliberative Democracy Consortium, explores creative ways for local governments to engage citizens in public decision making and problem solving (Leighninger, 2009).

New initiatives also seek to apply concepts of community engagement originally developed in the fields of health and public health to disaster preparedness. For example, the National Resource Center on Advancing Emergency Preparedness for Culturally Diverse Communities is a project of the Drexel University School of Public Health Center for Health Equality that seeks to link health-based and disaster-loss reduction engagement strategies.13

In 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Disease Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry established a Committee for Community Engagement, which reviewed relevant research and synthesized findings in a report titled Principles of Community Engagement (CDC-ATSDR, 1997). The recommendations in that report are applicable to all types of community-based improvement efforts, including resilience initiatives, and are summarized in Box 3.1.

10

See www.henceonline.org/ (accessed June 30, 2010).

11

See www.publicagenda.org/cape (accessed June 30, 2010).

12

See www.businessofgovernment.org (accessed August 31, 2010).

13

See www.diversitypreparedness.org/ (accessed June 30, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

BOX 3.1

Principles of Community Engagement as Recommended by the CDC-ATSDR Committee on Community Engagement

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established the Committee for Community Engagement in 1995 to consider the literature and practical experience gained by those who were engaging people and organizations in communities around the nation and to provide public-health professionals and community leaders with scientific information and practical guidelines to aid in decision making and action on issues associated with health promotion, health protection, and disease prevention. The community engagement strategies provide practical guidance for those wishing to engage in resilience-focused private–public collaboration. The following is a summary of strategies drawn directly from that committee’s report (CDC-ATSDR, 1997).


Before Beginning a Community Engagement Effort

  1. Be clear about the purposes or goals of the engagement effort, and the populations and communities you want to engage.

  2. Become knowledgeable about the community in terms of its economic conditions, political structures, norms and values, demographic trends, history, and experience with engagement efforts. Learn about the community’s perceptions of those initiating the engagement activities.

For Engagement to Occur

  1. Go into the community, establish relationships, build trust, work with the formal and informal leadership, and seek commitment from community organizations and leaders to create processes for mobilizing the community.

  2. Remember and accept that community self-determination is the responsibility and right of all people who comprise a community. No external entity should assume it can bestow on a community the power to act in its own self-interest.

For Engagement to Succeed

  1. [Partner] with the community … to create change and improve health [and resilience].

  2. All aspects of community engagement must recognize and respect community diversity. Awareness of the various cultures of a community and other factors of diversity must be paramount in designing and implementing community engagement approaches.

  3. Community engagement can only be sustained by identifying and mobilizing community assets, and by developing capacities and resources for community health decisions and action.

  4. An engaging organization or individual change agent must be prepared to release control of actions or interventions to the community, and be flexible enough to meet the changing needs of the community.

  5. Community collaboration requires long-term commitment by the engaging organization and its partners.

SOURCE: CDC-ATSDR (1997).

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

STRUCTURE AND PROCESS IN RESILIENCE-RELATED ACTIVITIES

Collaboration to achieve disaster resilience requires considerable attention to organizational design and structure. Insufficient attention to organization is likely to result in short-lived partnerships that fail to achieve their objectives. Inappropriate forms of organization can lead to participant dissatisfaction and conflict among stakeholders. Accordingly, the committee gathered research-based evidence on appropriate forms of organization for collaborative networks and collected the views of experts regarding best practices. The committee’s conceptual model for resilience-focused private–public collaboration (Figure 2.1) can serve as a visual reminder of the connections between various collaborative elements and desired outcomes. Referring to the conceptual model while planning and mobilizing a collaborative network can assist organizers in decision making and assessment of activities.

The Importance of a Coordinating Function

The University of Delaware Disaster Research Center Project Impact assessment studies emphasized the importance of local Project Impact coordinators, whose jobs consisted of ensuring that communities were progressing in collaboration, partnership building, and other project goals. The findings suggest that regardless of how collaborative activities are organized, it is necessary to devote resources specifically for collaboration management. Put another way, it appears to be insufficient to argue for the importance of collaboration without also investing in individuals or groups that are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that collaboration is taking place. The experience of dedicated staff ultimately reduces jurisdictional confusion and wrangling after a disaster, allows more efficient pooling of resources, and promotes faster recovery. It is relatively easy to persuade potential collaborators to join umbrella organizations or to be signatories to disaster plans. However, given the infrequency of serious disasters in any given community, it is far more challenging to engage their active participation in resilience efforts on an ongoing basis. A strong collaborative network with dedicated staff will help keep loss reduction and resilience a community priority as an integral part of normal community functioning.

Some may argue that a coordinating function is not consistent with the committee’s suggestion that decision making remain decentralized. The committee would counter that decentralized decision making is possible within an organized structure. Our system of governance in this country is an example. Rules and guidelines exist to direct the structure, but the structure does not direct the outcomes of decision-making processes. As long as there is consensus regarding rules of collaboration and the actions of a coordinating person or body, and as long as those rules are regularly evaluated for their relevance, decentralized decision making is possible.

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

Communities may decide that resources are too scarce to support a dedicated coordinator; it is essential that they consider the greater cost of not having a coordinator and the long-term benefits a coordinator is likely to provide.

Horizontal and Vertical Ties

Because enhancing disaster resilience is a nationwide goal, it is most useful to consider collaborative activities in the context of individual efforts nationwide. That does not imply that collaborative efforts should be driven by federal regulations and requirements or that collaboration should be approached in a uniform fashion in communities around the country. As with any program designed to address national problems, successful solutions developed to improve disaster resilience reflect the diversity of local communities around the nation and are consistent with the structure of the U.S. intergovernment system. Because of the importance of local-level buy-in to sustain the effort, it can be counterproductive for higher organizational levels in both the private and public sectors to provide more than technical, logistical, or financial support unless requested and coordinated with local leadership.

Chapter 2 discussed the importance of developing strong horizontal or intracommunity networks for disaster resilience. The conceptual model (Figure 2.1) includes strategizing for including the full fabric of the community. It is appropriate that horizontal networks receive substantial emphasis, but ideally resilience-enhancing programs will include a productive mix of horizontal and vertical collaboration and coordination. In its 2006 report Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding Human Dimensions, the National Research Council linked disaster resilience to the concept of social capital and emphasized the importance of both horizontal integration (within the community) and vertical integration (across different scales) among entities participating in loss-reduction activities. Regarding the importance of strong horizontal ties, the report (NRC, 2006: 231) noted that a community with a high degree of horizontal integration (i.e., strong social capital) has an active civic engagement program that fosters more tightly knit social networks among citizens and local organizations. Stronger networks provide a greater opportunity for creating interpersonal trust. Such a community can be a viable, locally based problem-solving entity. Its organizations and individuals not only have an interest in solving public problems, but also tend to have frequent and sustained interaction, believe in one another, and work together to build consensus and act collectively. Thus, local populations have the opportunity to define and communicate their needs, mediate disagreements, and participate in local organizational decision making.

Intracommunity ties thus constitute the fundamental building blocks of a disaster-resilient society. However, there is also the need to link communities vertically to other external entities. External ties—for example, among local communities and state and federal

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

governments; local companies and their parent corporations; and local chapters of nonprofits and their national headquarters—bring benefits that cannot be realized through intracommunity linkages alone. The benefits include connections to broader societal institutions, expansion of trusted networks, and greater access to funding, expertise, and other resources (NRC, 2006). Both types of integration—intracommunity ties and external ties—are necessary to maximize the ability of communities to mobilize, learn, and innovate.

Emphasizing the importance of vertical ties between community networks and external entities does not imply that communities relinquish their decision-making authority to outside control. Rather, in keeping with the spirit of this entire report, collaboration and partnering are the most appropriate forms of interaction across scales for several reasons. First, mandates and regulations inevitably encounter resistance. Second, in the case of disasters and in many other situations, external entities that provide such resources as information and funding in fact have no formal authority over the vast majority of local network actors. For example, the federal government cannot require a local community to adopt a particular building code; mandate that corporations adopt NFPA 1600, the National Fire Protection Association Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity;14 require small businesses to prepare for disasters; force communities to tax themselves to achieve higher levels of resilience; or regulate the disaster-relevant activities of local nonprofits. Third, community residents and community-based entities have local knowledge that is not available to entities at other levels of scale. For example, in an increasingly global society, large corporations may lack a detailed understanding of the hazards faced by their local affiliates.

Project Impact provides a useful example of federal leadership not accompanied by efforts to control or micromanage local disaster-loss reduction activities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided financial assistance directly to local communities to engage in four types of activities: hazard assessment, hazard mitigation, public education, and the formation of private–public partnerships. FEMA provided general guidelines to participating communities and encouraged their development of memoranda of understanding to formalize partnerships related to loss reduction, but it did not tell communities what to do or how to work toward the four goals, nor did it make funding conditional on adopting particular types of organizational forms or processes. Government policy can nourish or diminish resilience. Federal policy that links the provision of resources to top-down control, federally mandated priorities, or uniform implementation has the potential to reduce the flexibility, innovation, and capability of individual communities in engaging and sustaining nongovernment stakeholders in resiliency efforts.

Parallels exist between efforts to achieve disaster resilience and efforts to respond to climate change and variability. Both involve the management of risks, and in both cases local

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

communities, states, and regions are engaging in innovative approaches that often extend beyond what the federal government requires. With respect to climate change, the National Research Council America’s Climate Choices project report on informing climate-related decisions emphasizes that the federal government should not attempt to preempt local climate-change mitigation and adaptation initiatives or stifle innovative programs (NRC, 2010a). But the report also indicates that the federal government can do much, particularly in providing information. The same may well be true for encouraging disaster-resilient communities, and many of the collaboration models and case studies provided in the climate change report can be useful in the context of disaster resilience-focused private–public collaboration. With these ideas in mind, communities can establish vertical ties and collaborative relationships with state- and national-level organizations and governments.

BUILDING AND OPERATING COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS: PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Many local communities, business and professional organizations, and state and local agencies have broken new ground in creating self-governed, private–public partnerships to serve their constituencies, and examples of these are provided throughout this report. These partnerships provide a promising array of collaboration models and lessons learned. The committee recognizes the need for a national framework that will enable the development of community-based partnerships; however, until such a framework exists—with supporting policy and resources—there is intrinsic value in developing entrepreneurial partnership work at the state and community levels.

The benefits of establishing community and statewide private–public collaboration before a disaster strikes have been observed in recent years. Those seeking to build private–public collaboration in their own communities may wish to use existing efforts as models. For example, the Safeguard Iowa Partnership15 played a pivotal role during response to the historic 2008 floods in the midwestern United States; the Earthquake Country Alliance16 staged annual statewide earthquake drills in California17 and supports earthquake preparedness in multiple states and some other countries; the Aware and Prepare Program in Santa Barbara, California, is a private–public collaboration established by the Orfalea Foundation to increase the level of community disaster preparedness;18 and regional alliances have expanded their collaboration on economic issues to include disaster resilience.19 The

15

See www.safeguardiowa.org (accessed July 1, 2010).

16

See www.earthquakecountry.org/ (accessed July 30, 2010).

17

See www.ShakeOut.org/ (accessed July 30, 2010).

18

See www.orfaleafoundations.org/go/our-initiatives/aware-prepare/ (accessed July 1, 2010).

19

See www.pnwer.org (accessed July 1, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

committee heard examples of a variety of other collaborative efforts during its information-gathering workshop (NRC, 2010b).

Although there is anecdotal evidence of success and growing support for the concept of private–public collaboration, the expertise and resources required to sustain all-hazards community partnerships on a nationwide basis are lacking, and hundreds of state and local agencies, private businesses, and NGOs are looking for guidance in the “how-tos” of collaboration. The committee considered numerous examples and case studies of resilience-focused private–public collaboration and identified common strategies among them for developing effective communitywide collaboration. For example, models developed by the Michigan State University Critical Incident Protocol (MSU-CIP) Community Facilitation Program20 and by Business Executives for National Security (BENS)21 have been applied in diverse communities nationwide. Other collaboration models and steps recommended for collaboration implementation are referred to in the series Public Private Partnerships for Emergency Preparedness, published on Lessons Learned Information Sharing (LLIS).22 The federally funded Community and Regional Resiliency Institute has also demonstrated effective partnership development through its three pilot communities—in Charleston, South Carolina; Memphis, Tennessee; and Gulfport, Mississippi.23

Resilience-focused collaboration attempts to build social capital in the community. A good source of discussion on this and other types of networks can be found in a document by Milward and Provan (2006). They describe essential management tasks in public networks that can be adapted and applied to private–public collaboration. A modified version of their table is provided as Table 3.1. The committee finds that those tasks are consistent with the application of its conceptual model (Figure 2.1).

In the next sections, the committee describes the developmental steps it considers most common and effective for private–public collaboration born from grassroots efforts. The conceptual model (Figure 2.1) can be a valuable tool when applying these suggested steps. Those collaborating may decide, based on the conceptual model, that certain aspects of their collaboration warrant change to get the best outcomes, or the model can be modified as collaboration and the community change over time. The conceptual model can be consulted regarding many decisions about structure, processes, strategies, and desired collaboration outcomes. Options can be compared to the model to determine which is most consistent with collaborative goals.

20

See www.cip.msu.edu/ (accessed July 1, 2010).

21

See www.bens.org/ (accessed July 1, 2010).

22

See www.llis.gov (accessed July 1, 2010).

23

See www.resilientus.org (accessed July 1, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

Identify Leadership

Community-based private–public collaboration often begins with the inspiration of an individual leader—a business leader, state or local government official, civic-minded community organizer, or public servant—who sees the value of building an alliance to address a particular need. That person may already be an established leader in the community but could also be a concerned citizen who builds support and buy-in at the grassroots level. The person may not envision a communitywide collaboration to address myriad issues, but his or her initial outreach begins the collaborative process and lays the foundation for a broader, more inclusive partnership. Initial goals could include creating an advisory or leadership team.

Create an Advisory or Leadership Team

A small core team of three to six champions is ideal for beginning to frame the general goals of the collaborative effort and for exploring potential opportunities and benefits. The person who initiates collaboration—described above—may form and be part of the team, or may ask for guidance from others who could then form the team. A main function of the core team is to define the general purpose of collaboration before broader participation is invited, leaving specific functions open to discussion during the early stages of development. The latter is necessary to build consensus and buy-in among key stakeholders. The most effective core team is one that is representative of the community at various levels.

It is during this early exploratory phase that relevant top public officials and high-level private-sector leaders may be approached to enlist champions from both the public and private sectors (MSU, 2000). If a collaborative effort is directed solely by a government agency, there is the risk that businesses and other nongovernment stakeholders will view the effort as “just another government program.” Conversely, public officials will be more likely to support a collaborative initiative spearheaded from within the private sector or by a private citizen if they are brought into the development process early.

Using a conceptual model such as provided in Figure 2.1 will help the core team to determine a preliminary framework for their own collaborative network and help the core team keep the appropriate goals in mind as collaboration expands.

Invite Key Stakeholders to the Table

The size and breadth of a collaborative relationship will be determined by its scope and mission, which may expand as collaboration matures. It is essential that the core advisory group developing the collaborative effort begin to identify other constituencies to be included in later stages of development. Convening too large a group at the outset may prevent

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

TABLE 3.1 Essential Management Tasks in Collaboration

Essential Networks Management Tasks

Management of Collaboration

Management in Collaboration

Management of Accountability

  • Determining who is responsible for which outcomes.

  • Rewarding and reinforcing compliance with collaboration goals.

  • Monitoring and responding to collaboration “free riders.”

  • Monitoring your organization’s involvement in collaboration.

  • Ensuring that dedicated resources are actually used for collaborative activities.

  • Ensuring that your organization gets credit for contributions to collaboration.

  • Resisting efforts to “free ride.”

Management of Legitimacy

  • Building and maintaining legitimacy of the collaborative concept, structures, and involvement.

  • Attracting positive publicity, resources, new members, tangible successes, etc.

  • Demonstrating to others (members, stakeholders) the value of participation in collaboration.

  • Legitimizing the role of the member organization among other collaborators.

Management of Conflict

  • Setting up mechanisms for conflict and dispute resolution.

  • Acting as a “good faith” broker.

  • Making decisions that reflect collaboration-wide goals and not the specific interests of members.

  • Working to avoid and resolve problems with individual collaborators.

  • Working inside your organization to act as a “linking pin” to balance member organization versus collaboration demands and needs.

Management of Collaborative Structure

  • Determining which structural models would be most appropriate for the success of collaboration.

  • Implementing and managing the structure.

  • Recognizing when structure should change based on collaboration and participant needs.

  • Working effectively with other collaborators and with collaborative management, based on the structure of collaboration in place.

  • Accepting some loss of control over collaborative decisions.

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

Essential Networks Management Tasks

Management of Collaboration

Management in Collaboration

Management of Commitment

  • Getting the “buy-in” of participants.

  • Working with participants to ensure they understand how success of collaboration can contribute to the organization’s effectiveness.

  • Ensuring that collaborative resources are distributed equitably to network participants based on collaborative needs.

  • Ensuring that participants are well informed about collaborative activities.

  • Building commitment within the member organization to goals of collaboration.

  • Institutionalizing involvement in collaboration so that support of collaboration goals and participation goes beyond a single person in the organization.

SOURCE: Milward and Provan (2006).

effective relationships from forming and make self-governing impossible. An example of a specialized private–public partnership that engages only a particular specialized community is the Twin Cities Security Partnership, which was developed to increase public safety and quality of life in the Minneapolis area. The private sector collaborates with law-enforcement officials to share intelligence, threat alerts and warnings, and the potential for security incidents on a regular basis.24 Collaboration began among a core group of business leaders and law-enforcement officials in 2003 and now has more than 100 members. An applicant for membership, however, must be a security practitioner, a supplier of security service, a management or common-level law-enforcement official, or a critical-infrastructure official. In this particular partnership, the key stakeholders are those most familiar with the issues associated with security.

Expertise needs will be broader in the case of disaster-focused and community resilience-focused private–public collaboration that reaches the full fabric of the community. Identifying key stakeholders who have the necessary expertise needed and are able also to represent and communicate with various segments of society will be important for effectiveness. Targeting the right key stakeholders, given collaborative missions and goals, allows access to broad arrays of social networks and resources and will engender trust in different segments of the community.

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

Institutionalize Collaboration by Developing an Organizational and Operational Framework

Collaboration itself will be most effective if it is neutral—that is, nonpartisan, not-for-profit, and focused on providing benefit to the community at large (BENS, 2009). According to BENS, the legal, regulatory, and cultural barriers to collaboration often discourage long-term engagement by businesses when collaboration is government-funded and proscribed. The committee extends this observation to all organizations—neutral and nonpartisan collaboration is more conducive to trust building and creates an environment in which consensus can be built on common operating principles. The ideal organizing structure will reflect that neutrality—whether it is grounded in an existing community organization or incorporated as an independent 501(c)(3) organization—and will include the relationships necessary to coordinate preparedness efforts. A nonpartisan structure is less likely to exclude potential collaborators because of ideological differences, and is more likely to survive changes in political administration.

Collaboration organized by local governments can be effective—collaboration organized by the city of Seattle, Washington, being a notable example25—but the experience and observations of committee members leads the committee to conclude that relationships with the private sector are more easily formed and sustained when collaboration is not organized by a government agency, and that the organizational structure itself is likely to be more sustainable if not closely tied to a particular administration. Individual communities will need to decide which type of organizational structure would be most sustainable in their communities.

The organizational and leadership structures can be devised by using models from other communities and drawing on research and best practices or with technical assistance provided by a facilitator or nonprofit organization. Organizational aspects will vary by community, but it is important to provide for governance and ownership by local stakeholders.

BENS, MSU-CIP, and the LLIS series all recommend building collaboration, when possible, from the platform of an existing organization that has high credibility in the community (BENS, 2009; MSU, 2000; LLIS, 2006). For example, when invited by the governor of Iowa to explore feasibility of a partnership in Iowa, BENS went first to the Iowa Business Council, an organization that comprised the CEOs of the state’s top 20 private employers, the presidents of three public universities, and the Iowa Bankers Association. The Iowa Business Council provided institutional endorsement and credibility for the partnership and aided its growth and expansion throughout the state. The Safeguard Iowa Partnership

25

For example, the city of Seattle and King County, Washington, have formed a Vulnerable Populations Action Team (VPAT) that works with community-based organizations focusing on public health preparedness needs for their community members with special needs during times of disaster. See www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/preparedness/VPAT/about.aspx (accessed September 15, 2010). Seattle has other private–public partnerships related to disaster preparedness and community disaster resilience. See www.cityofseattle.net/emergency/ (accessed September 15, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

BOX 3.2

Illustrative Collaborative Model

Perhaps the best example of private–public collaboration that has moved to an advanced stage is the Safeguard Iowa Partnership (SIP). Originally facilitated by BENS, SIP was formally launched on January 29, 2007, with representatives of major Iowa businesses, the Iowa Business Council, and several state agencies. It is a voluntary coalition of Iowa’s private and public-sector leaders, who share a commitment to strengthening the capacity of the state to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. SIP partners work to reduce the impact of emergencies on their communities by pledging resources and offering support services.

SIP undertakes activities in five categories: resources and preparedness, communication and coordination, education and exercises, partnership development and outreach, and partnership marketing and public awareness. SIP’s board of directors developed the five initiatives during a strategic planning session in 2008. The initiatives benefit SIP members, state government agencies, and the public.

SIP remains dedicated to increasing the participation of the private sector in its programs and therefore increasing the number and variety of assets available to lend to preparedness and response operations across Iowa. The partnership has developed a program to promote the establishment of organizational chapters within regions, counties, and cities. Chapters network between public and private-sector partners based in a given area with location-specific initiatives and information. SIP also pursues relationships actively with public-sector agencies, as evidenced by SIP’s business seat in the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) and its involvement with the Iowa Department of Health and the Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management First Responders Advisory Committee.

SIP has been tested by disaster and its efficacy has been validated. During summer 2008, Iowa experienced a series of severe storms that produced several tornadoes and historic flooding. Over a four-week period, flood waters moved across Iowa and required the state to undertake extensive preparedness, response, and recovery operations. Overall, the 2008 summer storms resulted in 17 deaths, forced the evacuation of about 38,000 Iowans, and affected over 21,000 housing units.

During the 2008 summer storms, SIP helped to bridge the gap between Iowa’s public and private sectors. SIP partners spent hundreds of hours during the 2008 summer storms contributing to Iowa’s emergency response and recovery process, including assistance with general resource procurement at the SEOC.


SOURCE: www.LLIS.gov (accessed July 1, 2010).

was born as an initiative of the Iowa Business Council with BENS serving as a neutral facilitator.26 It later incorporated as an independent 501(c)(3) organization. Stakeholders agreed on an operational framework that was institutionalized, and the Safeguard Iowa Partnership quickly grew—and was tested by disaster. (See Box 3.2 for a more detailed description of the partnership effort.)

26

See www.safeguardiowa.org/ (accessed June 30, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

The Seattle Project Impact effort was launched through the efforts of the Seattle Office of Emergency Management with the assistance of the Contingency Planners and Recovery Managers Group, consultants to the private and public sectors on issues related to emergency management preparedness and planning. Successful Seattle Project Impact programs were exported to surrounding jurisdictions and were all managed for years under the Seattle Project Impact operational framework. Seattle Project Impact supported the development of a separate but partnering nonprofit, the DRB Toolkit Workgroup,27 who in turn partnered with Washington state communities to provide their tools to increase business disaster preparedness (Bullock et al., 2009).

Civic-minded organizations with executive-level volunteers are important in a partnership to provide both governance and operating support. Several partnership models suggest that collaboration can be governed and supported by multiple “teams”: a high-level advisory council comprising CEOs and the directors of key state or local agencies to set strategic direction and an operating council that includes operations-level managers from business, civic organizations, and NGOs charged with program implementation. Sustaining commitment from a broad cross-section of members is critical for the success of a partnership.

Creating an organizational or governing structure with the conceptual model for resilience-focused private–public collaboration (Figure 2.1) in mind will help to ensure widespread acceptance as well as the efficacy and sustainability of a collaborative structure.

Identify Collective Resources and Capabilities that Mitigate Disaster Impact

As an early tool to build cohesiveness and a common sense of purpose, many organizations established to facilitate partnership development recommend that participants identify what their respective organizations can bring to their community in an emergency. The process is invariably an “eye opener” as it creates new understanding and trust among participants and lays the foundation from which to build new capability and resilience. Participants who recognize the availability of resources feel greater commitment to the process of collaboration when they recognize how sharing resources could benefit them. This inventory process can also provide early benefits by cataloging and coordinating identified resources in a systematic way. The Infrastructure Security Partnership28 published a guide to building regional resilience that recommends a series of questions and steps that facilitate stronger resilience-focused collaboration among public and private stakeholders (TISP, 2006).

Collaboration can also serve as a means of forward thinking in the community. Through collaboration, for example, a community may develop a central community foundation to

27

See www.drbtoolkit.org/ (accessed September 28, 2010).

28

See www.tisp.org/ (accessed June 30, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

serve as a repository for donated assistance funds for rapid distribution into the community when disaster strikes. Similarly, collaboration could result in initiatives that tie short-term benefits, such as improved bond ratings and community services, to actions that enhance longer-term preparedness and resilience.

Focus on Disaster Resilience, and Explore Community Resilience

Whether building collaboration from existing community organizations or beginning from scratch, one of the most important steps is to identify and agree on specific challenges, threats, or gaps in the community’s disaster preparedness and resilience-building efforts that the new collaborative effort can address. It is important for those engaged in collaboration to share a commitment to the greater goal—the continuity of the community—as opposed to pursuing only parochial interests or self-interest. It is imperative to identify common issues related to emergency preparedness, for example, but it is also essential for collaborators to identify how emergency preparedness is part of a broader community-building effort. Such an effort was made in Arlington County, Virginia, following the attack on the Pentagon, located in that county, on September 11, 2001. The attack itself gave urgency to the need for resilience planning in the community, and community engagement followed because all sectors shared a similar vision for community resilience. A community most likely to survive disaster, according to Ron Carlee, Arlington County’s manager until 2010, is one that actively commits to social equity and inclusion and creates a vision to which all its residents and institutions can relate (NRC, 2010b).

Develop Feasible and Measurable Objectives

Programmatically and financially sustainable collaboration depends on members’ adoption of annual plans with well-defined, feasible, and measurable objectives; that exercise new capabilities; that deliver return on investment to all partners; and that manage growth and expectations. Examples of measurable annual program objectives include:

  • The creation of a registry identifying private-sector resources and capabilities resident in the community—and points of contact for those resources—that could be mobilized in a disaster (the registry is a tangible product that increases local capacity and tangibly demonstrates the value of working together);

  • The annual number of businesses and nongovernment organizations that participate in joint table-top or live exercises with government partners;

  • A target number of private employers that use the collaborative partnership to strengthen disaster preparedness for their organizations and their employees;

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
  • An annual increase—for example, by 10 percent—in the number of active participants and supporters; and

  • Achieving financial and programmatic sustainability through a combination of public and private contributions and in-kind donations adequate to support at least one coordinator/staff.

Committee members have observed how many homeland security partnerships produce recommendations and plans and declare victory without delivering tangible results. Successful collaboration includes exercises to test and improve new capability. The results of these tests are tangible, measurable outcomes. Additionally, these actions enable capabilities to be perceived real assets, and exercising them on a continuing basis for many initiatives raises awareness, builds strong relationships, and prepares collaborators for any disaster. It is, however, difficult to know how some measures correlate with long-term benefits. Even so, allowing every collaborator and members of the community to perceive and measure value in collaboration provides incentives for continued participation. The challenges associated with choosing metrics are discussed in Chapter 4 and the research needs in this area are described in Chapter 5.

Build Capacity

An important role of disaster resilience-focused collaboration is to educate the community on community readiness. Effective capacity building will help ensure that critical services are available to the broader community during crises. Collaborative public-education initiatives and campaigns may include actions aimed at crisis mitigation, with end-result goals of building trust between local government and other support organizations, reducing risk, and shortening recovery time after extreme events. Capacity-building programs will need to include education and training about community resilience and its inextricable link with services provided by NGOs, FBOs, and other community organizations that often serve as the unofficial first responders to a disaster. Collaborative education efforts could assist organizations in establishing training programs for employees and members that increase the understanding of personal and organizational roles in disaster mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery.

Collaborate with Educational Institutions

Collaborating with local educational institutions increases access to local resources and capabilities. University scientists and technical experts may develop the fundamentals of a risk-education campaign on the basis of available research, elements of which can be tailored for elected officials, business leaders, and the broader community. Communication

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

and education experts can be similarly tapped. Community colleges have many resources to offer especially given that 80 percent of the nation’s first responders are credentialed at such institutions, according to the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC, 2006). Students in institutions of higher learning, including trade schools, can be enlisted to support resilience-building efforts and public outreach. At the same time, educational institutions can be encouraged to make business continuity and resilience education essential components of undergraduate education for economics and business majors, and to incorporate community resilience into the curricula of public policy and engineering disciplines. Collaborating with K-12 educational institutions can build on existing momentum for resilience-building activities within a community, for example, in the case of the Great California ShakeOut29 drills. ShakeOut drills are being incorporated into school programs to fulfill annual earthquake drill requirements. Doing so could steer the next generation of leaders in all sectors to expect resilience-building to be a vital part of community economic, social, and environmental well-being. Partnering with K-12 educational institutions can help build capacity in a community’s youngest members and their families.30

Rapid societal change and the resulting changes in community vulnerability suggest a need for comprehensive, continuing analysis, assessment, and research. The committee’s conceptual model for resilience-focused collaboration (Figure 2.1) highlights the need for regular assessment of the community and of collaboration itself to ensure that goals and activities remain relevant. Although the committee understands that not every community will be able to do so, incorporating research directly into collaborative efforts will benefit collaboration and funders of collaboration by informing methods and metrics used. The assessment of the benefits of collaboration and of the direct and indirect costs of investing in collaboration could be better understood, and knowledge gained applied to other collaborative efforts. Decision making would be improved through direct input of research data. Incorporating random trial metrics in policy experiments by economists have shown some positive outcomes (e.g., Banerjee and Duflo, 2010; Banerjee et al., 2010). Positive outcomes have also been suggested through participatory research in the public health arena. The University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, and PolicyLink,31 a national economic and social equity research and action institute, considered 10 case studies that reflect numerous public health issues in different locations. Their focus was on promoting public policy related to health through community-based participatory research. Studies included diesel bus pollution and its health consequences (Northern Manhattan, New

29

See www.ShakeOut.org/ (accessed July 30, 2010).

30

In California, a statewide earthquake preparedness exercise organized by the Earthquake County Alliance received the support of numerous county school superintendants who embraced the themes of the event and encouraged schools in their districts to engage students, families, local businesses, and community groups. Children were taught to secure their spaces in preparation for an earthquake, and taught how to be safe in the event of an earthquake. Resources were made available through schools for families and local organizations. See www.shakeout.org/schools/ (accessed August 24, 2010).

31

See www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136441/k.BD4A/Home.htm (accessed September 13, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

York), environmental injustice in industrialized hog production (rural North Carolina), and lead exposure among children (Tar Creek, Oklahoma). The analysis highlighted sample policy and related outcomes that suggest the substantial role of partnerships and presented success factors and challenges faced across sites (Minkler et al., 2008).

Encourage Flexibility in Resource Administration

Whether support is given or received at the national or local levels, the ability to provide or use resources in a timely manner will be seriously hampered if too many conditions are tied to their use. Participants in the committee’s workshop (NRC, 2010b) indicated that administering grants can be as time consuming as the activities they are intended to support. Some requirements were considered counterproductive. Requiring local matching funds as a condition of receiving resources, for example, can be prohibitive for rural or other communities in desperate need of support. It is essential to consider effective and flexible administration when providing grants and other funding support to allow creativity and the most effective use of resources.

It is also important that support is provided with the understanding that collaboration of the type described in this report needs long-term nurturing and may yield few short-term quantifiable outcomes. Funds provided without proper consideration of long-term benefits might actually create an environment of less productivity. Funding and resources provided for resilience-focused collaborative efforts will have greater impact if they provide incentives for groups to collaborate rather than encourage competition for limited funding. Funding mechanisms that encourage competition for grants, such as that incorporated by the DHS Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), focus on short-term results and can be biased toward certain communities. The committee finds that such programs may actually create competition that is unproductive in the long term in order to realize short-lived benefits. Further, funds directed to specific communities or outcomes may ignore the greater good done through collaboration elsewhere. More inclusive funding programs that are less targeted to specific agencies or outcomes may be more beneficial to communities in the long term.

CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR CHANGE

Community resilience is more than the ability to conduct disaster response, and private–public sector collaboration is an optimal means of generating community resilience. In preparing this report, the committee faced a daunting challenge: to identify specific aspects of private–public sector collaboration most crucial for building community disaster resilience in a broader context. Box 3.3 provides a concise and overarching summary of the guidelines provided in this report, offering guidance on how the sociopolitical environment might

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

BOX 3.3

Overarching Guidelines

The committee was tasked with developing a set of guidelines for private-sector engagement in enhancing community disaster resilience, but finds that its overarching guidelines are applicable to all sectors. The guidelines were designed to address community-level private–public collaboration for enhancing disaster resilience, but they will also apply to collaboration—or those wishing to support collaboration—at any level. These guidelines can be used in concert with the committee’s conceptual model for resilience-focused private–public sector collaboration (Figure 2.1), which shows the relationship between collaborative elements and outcomes. Keeping in mind how different elements of collaboration are related may facilitate more successful application of the guidelines.

  1. Pursue community-level private–public sector collaboration as a fundamental component of community resilience in general and disaster resilience in particular. Resilience-focused private–public collaboration ideally will:

    1. Integrate with broader capacity-building efforts within the community and include all community actors.

    2. Emphasize principles of comprehensive emergency management allowing preparation for all hazards and all phases of the disaster cycle to drive goals and activities.

    3. Function as a system of horizontal networks at the community level, coordinating with higher government and organizational levels.

    4. Develop flexible, evolving entities and establish processes to set goals, conduct continuing self-assessment, meet new challenges, and ensure sustainability.

    5. Institutionalize as a neutral, nonpartisan entity with dedicated staff.

  1. Build capacity through communication and training programs for those engaged in private–public collaboration and for the broader community. Resilience-focused private–public collaboration ideally will:

    1. Incorporate capacity building into collaboration from the onset.

    2. Target educational campaigns toward crisis mitigation with goals of community readiness, continuity planning, trust building, risk reduction, and shortened recovery time.

    3. Encourage all organizations in the private and public sectors to commit to organizational resilience through business-continuity measures.

    4. Partner with educational institutions in developing educational campaigns and disseminating information.

    5. Institutionalize the practice of embedding research into resilience-focused private–public sector collaboration by building research directly into existing and future collaborative efforts.

  1. Respect well-informed, locally determined all-hazards preparedness and resilience priorities.

  2. Develop funding and resource allocation strategies that are flexible in administration.

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

foster community-level partnership building more effectively. Although the guidelines presented address resilience-focused private–public collaboration at the community level, they are applicable to collaboration at any level.

The private sector can build capacity, for example, by educating local elected officials about the benefits of participation in and support of community cross-sector partnerships and collaboration that encourage anticipatory risk reduction. It can combine the power of for-profit and nonprofit organizations to influence legislation and policy that support resilience-focused disaster mitigation and business continuity planning at the local, state, and federal levels. At the same time, the private sector, including NGOs and FBOs, can commit to internal organizational resilience through business-continuity measures, and encourage preparedness for employees and their families through education and training, activities, and incentives.

The public sector is typically regarded as a leader in providing disaster response and recovery aid. It is essential, then, that the public sector promote activities that increase knowledge about resilience, resilience building, and the importance of private–public collaboration among community members. Government employees may be trained to promote resilience in their own lives and to understand their roles in the continuity of their organizations during and following a disaster.

Federal partners, like community-level counterparts, could learn from unsuccessful efforts to develop strategies for mainstreaming collaboration in existing programs. Training and learning experiences aimed at developing the skill necessary for forming, sustaining, and institutionalizing private–public collaboration could be built on such lessons learned. Federal activities could include producing training materials for disaster personnel, placing a greater emphasis on partnership-building skills in programs offered by the Emergency Management Institute, funding workshops and train-the-trainer experiences, sponsoring the development of higher-education courses and textbooks on the topic, and providing learning experiences for members of the federal workforce.

REFERENCES

AACC (American Association of Community Colleges). 2006. First Responders: Community Colleges on the Front Line of Security. Washington, DC. Available at www.aacc.nche.edu/Publications/Reports/Documents/firstresponders.pdf (accessed September 16, 2010).

Alesch, D., P. May, R. Olshansky, W. Petak, and K. Tierney. 2004. Promoting Seismic Safety: Guidance for Advocates. MCEER-04-SP02. Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. Buffalo, NY: The State University of New York at Buffalo.

Banerjee, A. V. and E. Duflo. 2010. Giving Credit Where it is Due. Journal of Economic Perspectives. Paper available at econ-www.mit.edu/files/5416 (accessed August 4, 2010).

Banerjee, A. V., E. Duflo, R. Glennerster, D. Kothari. 2010. Improving Immunization Coverage in Rural India: A Clustered Randomized Controlled Evaluation of Immunization Campaigns with and without Incentives. British Medical Journal 340: c2220.

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

BENS (Business Executives for National Security). 2009. Building a Resilient America: A proposal to strengthen private–public collaboration. March 3. Available at www.bens.org/PBO Proposal_03_04_09.pdf (accessed March 12, 2010).

Bevc, C. 2010. Working on the Edge: Examining the Dynamics of Space-Time Covariates in the Multi-Organizational Networks Following the September 11th Attacks on the World Trade Center. Doctoral dissertation, Dept. of Sociology, University of Colorado at Boulder.

Briggs, R. O., G. Kolfschoten, C. Albrecht, D. R. Dean, and S. Lukosch. 2009. A Seven-Layer Model of Collaboration: Separation of Concerns for Designers of Collaboration Systems. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems. Available at aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=icis2009 (accessed July 1, 2010).

Bullock, J. A., G. D. Haddow, and K. S. Haddow (editors). 2009. Global Warming, Natural Hazards, and Emergency Management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

CDC-ATSDR (Center for Disease Control-Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1997. Principles of Community Engagement. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at www.cdc.gov/phppo/pce/ (accessed July 1, 2010).

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. National Response Framework. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Available at www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf (accessed March 11, 2010).

Fleischman, A. R. 2007. Community engagement in urban health research. Journal of Urban Health 84(4): 469-471.

Kadlec, A., and W. Friedman. 2008. Public Engagement: A Primer from Public Agenda. Essentials No. 01/2008. New York: Center for Advances in Public Engagement. Available at www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/public_engagement_primer_0.pdf (accessed July 1, 2010).

Kapucu, M. 2007. Non-profit response to catastrophic disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management. 16: 551-561.

Lasker, R. D., E. S. Weiss, Q. E. Baker, A. K. Collier, B. A. Israel, A. Plough, and C. Bruner. 2003. Journal of Urban Health 80(1): 14-60.

Leighninger, M. 2009. The Promise and Challenge of Neighborhood Democracy: Lessons from the intersection of government and community. A report on the “Democratic Governance at the Neighborhood Level” meeting, November 11, 2008, Orlando, FL.

LLIS (Lessons Learned Information Sharing). 2006. Public-Private Partnerships for Emergency Preparedness. LLIS.gov Best Practice Series. Available at oja.wi.gov/docview.asp?docid=14758&locid=97 (accessed July 1, 2010).

Lukensmeyer, C. J., and L. H. Torres. 2006. Public Deliberation: A Manager’s Guide to Citizen Engagement. Collaboration Series. Washington, DC: The IBM Center for the Business of Government. Available at www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/LukensmeyerReport.pdf (accessed August 31, 2010).

Magsino, S. 2009. Applications of Social Network Analysis for Building Community Disaster Resilience: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Mileti, D. S., 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: The Joseph Henry Press.

Milward, H. B. and Provan, K. G. 2006. A Manager’s Guide to Choosing and Using Collaborative Networks. Networks and Partnerships Series. Washington, DC: The IBM Center for the Business of Government. Available at www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/CollaborativeNetworks.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010).

Minkler, M., V. B. Vásquez, C. Chang, J. Miller, V. Rubin, A. G. Blackwell, M. Thompson, R. Flournoy, and J. Bell. 2008. Promoting healthy public policy through community-based participatory research: Ten case studies. A project of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health and PolicyLink, funded by a grant from W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Available at www.policylink.org/atf/cf/%7B97C6D565-BB43-406D-A6D5-ECA3BBF35AF0%7D/CBPR_PromotingHealthyPublicPolicy_final.pdf (accessed September 10, 2010).

Morris, A. 1984. The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement. New York: The Free Press.

MSU (Michigan State University). 2000. Critical Incident Protocol—A Public and Private Partnership. Project supported by Grant No. 98-LF-CX-0007 awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice. Available at www.cip.msu.edu/cip.pdf (accessed July 1, 2010).

NRC (National Research Council). 2006. Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding Human Dimensions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×

NRC (National Research Council). 2010a. Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC (National Research Council). 2010b. Private–Public Sector Collaboration to Enhance Community Disaster Resilience: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Patterson, O., F. Weil, and K. Patel. 2010. The role of community in disaster response: Conceptual models. Population Research and Policy Review 29(2): 127-141.

TISP (The Infrastructure Security Partnership). 2006. Regional Disaster Resilience: A Guide for Developing an Action Plan. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Wenger, E. 1998. Community of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"3 Guidelines forCommunity-Based Private–Public Collaboration." National Research Council. 2011. Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13028.
×
Page 84
Next: 4 Challenges to Sustainable Resilience-Focused Collaboration »
Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $47.00 Buy Ebook | $37.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Natural disasters--including hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and floods--caused more than 220,000 deaths worldwide in the first half of 2010 and wreaked havoc on homes, buildings, and the environment. To withstand and recover from natural and human-caused disasters, it is essential that citizens and communities work together to anticipate threats, limit their effects, and rapidly restore functionality after a crisis.

Increasing evidence indicates that collaboration between the private and public sectors could improve the ability of a community to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. Several previous National Research Council reports have identified specific examples of the private and public sectors working cooperatively to reduce the effects of a disaster by implementing building codes, retrofitting buildings, improving community education, or issuing extreme-weather warnings. State and federal governments have acknowledged the importance of collaboration between private and public organizations to develop planning for disaster preparedness and response. Despite growing ad hoc experience across the country, there is currently no comprehensive framework to guide private-public collaboration focused on disaster preparedness, response, and recovery.

Building Community Disaster Resilience through Private-Public Collaboration assesses the current state of private-public sector collaboration dedicated to strengthening community resilience, identifies gaps in knowledge and practice, and recommends research that could be targeted for investment. Specifically, the book finds that local-level private-public collaboration is essential to the development of community resilience. Sustainable and effective resilience-focused private-public collaboration is dependent on several basic principles that increase communication among all sectors of the community, incorporate flexibility into collaborative networks, and encourage regular reassessment of collaborative missions, goals, and practices.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!