Launching a National Conversation on Disaster Resilience in America Workshop Summary (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Chapter 3 A National Vision for Resilience: Next Steps
Chapter 3 A National Vision for Resilience: Next Steps
Pages 21-34
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 21... ...
provided the basis for the four workshop breakout sessions: (1) measuring progress through scorecard development; (2)
|
From page 22... ...
NATIONAL RESILIENCE SCORECARD The committee's report called for the need to develop indicators to measure progress toward increasing resilience in communities and for such a basis of measurement to be initiated at a national level through a mechanism called a "national resilience scorecard." The committee envisioned that such a scorecard would identify areas that merit priority, provide a baseline from which to measure change, and offer a systematic approach for measuring progress in building resilient communities (National Academies, 2012)
|
From page 23... ...
Participants initially spent time discussing an overall vision for a national scorecard, what it would measure, and whether it might be a "catch-all", to address as many factors as possible, or might be specifically tailored to a few factors relevant to resilience in a particular community. General Considerations for Scorecard Development In discussing how to develop a national resilience scorecard, several key considerations were raised by participants.
|
From page 24... ...
Others noted that a national scorecard containing too many elements could be too cumbersome to implement; one participant suggested that the scorecard initially contain a maximum of 12 elements. Most participants observed that the final number of elements in a scorecard adapted for a specific community would need to reflect the values of the community so that it could serve as a useful self-assessment tool.
|
From page 25... ...
and noted by some participants as a potential model for developing a way to measure or rate resilience in a community. Scorecard Implementation Many participants stressed the importance of synergistic opportunities to maximize efficiency and effectiveness, and how developing and implementing a national resilience scorecard will require balancing complexity with simplicity.
|
From page 26... ...
Outreach to the private sector and nonprofit institutions is essential, some participants emphasized, to help nurture potential partner relationships for developing the scorecard and to establish conduits for resilience information. Some examples of nonprofit institutions that could be partners include: the Council of Foundations, the United Way, the National Emergency Management Association, International Association of Emergency Managers, the National Volunteer Organizations Active in Disaster, and the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes (FLASH)
|
From page 27... ...
As previously mentioned, increased resilience can be an important selling point for a community and could be a valuable marketing and promotional tool for a community that has overcome particular hardships (for example, a resilient New Orleans community attracting tourists to return after Hurricane Katrina)
|
From page 28... ...
One participant noted that it would be helpful to tie the term back to the need for community involvement, and perhaps call it a "community health and wellness plan." No single term emerged as the preferred term to replace the word "scorecard." Also, to help bypass a pass/fail mentality that could emerge with any evaluation process, some participants suggested that the scorecard could be tied to an accreditation process or a credit rating model. With a national scorecard that could be compared across various local and state jurisdictions, some communities or states may be hesitant to adopt a scorecard because of a fear that their jurisdictions could "fail" to make a certain grade.
|
From page 29... ...
31000 for risk management has been helpful in providing a nationally agreed upon methodology that provides standards and guidance for the risk management process. However, some participants commented that the current practice of using risk management jargon to convey risk has made it difficult for both decision-makers and the public to grasp the concept of risk and to determine what the possible responses should be.
|
From page 30... ...
Public Sector Involvement The federal and state governments play a unique role in managing and mitigating risks for disaster events. The public sector could facilitate the risk management process in the private sector by integrating resilience into their strategic plans and by making a business case for resilience in risk management practices.
|
From page 31... ...
A few items were considered immediate targets: determining appropriate language to better convey risk to the public; developing and establishing processes for disaster response; and incorporating behavioral sciences into risk analysis. For the short-term, they noted that some actions can be taken to define roles in collecting and translating the knowledge base, to develop a national database for assessing disaster costs, and to generate tools to help individuals self-assess personal risk.
|
From page 32... ...
Several participants stressed the importance of not focusing efforts exclusively around "resilience" or "disasters", as these existing groups have the ability to sustain themselves beyond an event-based effort. On the other hand, others suggested that there is a need to examine communities that have been through disaster scenarios in order to find examples of successful coalition efforts.
|
From page 33... ...
The private sector, a number of attendees noted, has not made more of an effort to support communities during and after a disaster, even though the private sector is a part of the community; one participant noted how companies large and small could be more actively involved in assisting individuals. They went on to suggest this lack of involvement might be due to lack of trust between the public and private entities and/or to the lack of incentives for private sector involvement.
|
From page 34... ...
Several participants described the ability of the federal government to build capacity with small amounts of funding and to play a large role immediately after a disaster event. However, the federal government might best be viewed as having a supportive role in providing mentorship and guidance to communities, because establishing resilience at the local and state levels is critical.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.