MFleming-ResiliencyPartnerships

Running head: BUILDING RESILIENCE: COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS TO SPEED
DISASTER RECOVERY 1
Building Resilience: Community Partnerships to Speed Disaster Recovery
Michael D. Fleming
University of Maryland, University College

BUILDING RESILIENCE: COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS TO SPEED DISASTER
RECOVERY 2
Abstract
Resilient communities are better prepared for emergencies and experience shorter recovery
periods as a result of efforts prior to the emergency event. While resiliency is a relative term,
communities that are actively engaged and involved in planning and preparedness for
emergencies can realize increased resiliency through the identification of and efficient use of
organic resources, and articulation of their true requirements for recovery and return to a state of
normalcy. FEMA’s Whole Community concept provides a methodology for engaging and
involving the entire community, recognizing and understanding their unique capabilities and
needs, and working with them through the structures and processes they already use on a daily
basis to overcome challenges. While the need for community outreach has been expressed for
many years, and funding has been distributed through a variety of federal programs to
accomplish community outreach and involvement, barriers to true partnership between
government and the public remain. FEMA’s Whole Community concept outlines action items
that overcome those barriers and will ultimately result in a better prepared and more resilient
community, and a more effective local emergency management process.

RECOVERY 3
Community Partnerships for Resiliency
Government can and will continue to serve disaster survivors. However, we fully
recognize that a government-centric approach to disaster management will not be
enough to meet the challenges posed by a catastrophic incident. That is why we must
fully engage our entire societal capacity-Craig Fugate, Administrator, FEMA (2011, p. 2)
Although government agencies are tasked with protecting both citizens and their well-
being, after a major emergency, the government alone cannot meet every need (Berg,
Musigdilok, Haro, & Myers, 2014). The cycle of emergency management affects everyone, not
just the professionals engaged in planning, response, and recovery. The resources and time
needed for a community to recover from an emergency can be dramatically reduced when the
community as a whole is engaged and invested in planning and preparedness (Miao, Banister, &
Tang, 2013). Building partnerships for resiliency at the community level during the
preparedness phase of emergency management positively affects disaster recovery by limiting
the type and quantity of outside resources required and the time it takes for the community to
return to a ready state.
Resiliency for Communities
Emergencies and disasters may, and often do, occur by chance. They are unplanned
events, and even the smallest emergency is probably someone’s worst day. The nature,
magnitude, and timing of an emergency may be unknown, but the likelihood of occurrence can
often be calculated, at least to some extent—Alabama has thunderstorms, Michigan has snowfall,
California has droughts, and Okinawa has typhoons. There are other types of emergencies, of
course, and to some degree they can be expected based on risk analysis of other factors; high-

RECOVERY 4
profile terrorist targets, degrading infrastructure, and proximity to facilities that present extra risk
are broad risk categories that can be considered.
What is difficult to predict is timing and magnitude. Preparedness, then, is an educated
gamble. Government, business, and individuals that prepare for emergencies do so for the most
likely events, to the most feasible and affordable extent that is practical. When an event occurs,
people are affected and some of those resources are used. Sometimes the event can be of such a
magnitude that it overwhelms the capabilities of the affected, and outside resources are needed,
for both response to the event, and recovery afterwards.
Resiliency can be defined in the simplest sense as the ability to “bounce back.” It refers
to the level of effort required to return those affected to a state of normalcy. A resilient
community is one that can return to normalcy relatively quickly and largely on its own, because
they have made preparations to minimize disruption and destruction, and protect and rapidly
restore basic functions (Twigg, 2009). Just like preparing for risks and vulnerabilities, however,
resiliency is a relative concept; a catastrophic even could overwhelm even the most proactive and
resource-laden community (Twigg, 2009).
Whole Community Concept
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has embraced the Whole
Community concept to better address the needs of citizens at the lowest common categorical
level. FEMA includes both the traditional sense of community—geographical, cultural,
religious, and capability (i.e. disability)—and organizational—business, fraternal, non-profit, and
public—in their definition (FEMA, 2011). So when FEMA refers to Whole Community, they are
referencing all of the various social groups to which citizens in a given area belong. They define
the Whole Community concept as a “philosophical approach” to ensure the needs of the citizens

RECOVERY 5
are addressed in emergency planning (FEMA, 2011, p. 3). FEMA explains that each
subcomponent of the Whole Community will have decision points, actions, tactics, and
procedures for emergency management, based on their unique qualities and goals. The Whole
Community approach seeks to identify and support those unique requirements, addressing them
in plans and policies to increase community resilience. The Whole Community concept is aimed
at engaging the citizens in planning and preparedness process in an ultimate effort to build
resilient communities (FEMA, 2011).
The Whole Community concept stems from lessons learned during major emergencies in
recent years. Events such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, and the Joplin tornado,
demonstrated the need for better partnerships between non-government organizations (NGOs)
and the public sector (Chandra et al., 2013). Public awareness campaigns directed at social
issues like tobacco and alcohol use, and community violence have been viewed as example ways
to increase public knowledge of and involvement in programs that increase community
resiliency. That is especially true for programs targeted towards at-risk populations (Chandra et
al., 2013).
Transitioning from Concept to Operations
Typically, community outreach has only been a focus of effort during response and
recovery (Gamboa-Maldonado, Marshak, Sinclair, Montgomery, & Dyjack, 2012). FEMA has
identified three key foundational areas that support the Whole Community approach to
emergency management (FEMA, 2011). Accomplishing each of these requires community
engagement and dialog, which sets the stage for getting communities involved in preparedness.

RECOVERY 6
Community Needs
FEMA makes the case that emergency management planners need to know the
communities they serve (FEMA, 2011). Understanding what drives those communities and what
their goals are is a necessary step towards meeting and sustaining their needs. It also helps to
identify ways to get those communities involved in planning and preparation activities.
Engagement
It follows intuitively that when planners and stakeholders are in touch with their
communities, they are well positioned to meet the needs of those communities. Staying engaged
with those communities will help emergency management professionals capitalize on inherent
strength and capacity to deal with the risks and vulnerabilities faced by the community (FEMA,
2011). That level of engagement, however, requires understanding on the part of the emergency
management team, and trust within the community; a relationship must be established and
maintained on both sides. Additionally, those relationships need to encompass all of the sub-
groups within the community equally, touching the individual citizens where they are at work, in
social groups, faith-based organizations, school, and professional groups (FEMA, 2011).
Strengthening Capabilities
Every community has existing support structures and networks already established. The
people within the community depend on their churches, school groups, service organizations,
and employers (to name just a few) for support, advice, and assistance. They turn to those
groups when they have a problem, and they help each other through those settings. FEMA
suggests tapping into those existing networks to involve and engage the public, using those
support structures and relationships to their fullest potential (FEMA, 2011). Rather than
establishing new programs or organizational structure, FEMA recommends using these existing

RECOVERY 7
“pathways” to take advantage of the community’s strength and innate support structures (FEMA,
2011, p. 5).
Barricades to Implementation
A Loma Linda University study investigated the use of partnerships between public
health entities and the communities they serve for ways to improve public health emergency
preparedness (Gamboa-Maldonado, Marshak, Sinclair, Montgomery, & Dyjack, 2012).
Although targeted at public health, it is likely that many of the challenges identified in that study
would be encountered by other emergency management agencies attempting to engage the
public.
The first challenge noted by the Loma Linda University study is centered of funding
limitations. Establishing and maintaining the relationships necessary under the Whole
Community concept has a cost, and funding even to cover the personnel that would be required is
a significant challenge. Many public organizations, such as those that provide emergency
services (fire, police, EMS) have public outreach programs already established. Some of these
programs are funded by federal grants, such those under the STOP Violence Against Women Act
(Department of Justice, 2015). For public health, the Affordable Care Act created the Prevention
and Public Health Fund, which has been used to create and fund education and outreach
programs across the country (Department of Health & Human Services, 2015). Many of these
grants have specific stipulations on how they are used, but some of them are related to
preparedness, particularly those for public health. FEMA administers community services
programs targeted grant programs, but none of those are directly targeted at implementation of
the Whole Community concept.

RECOVERY 8
The second barrier documented by the study reflects problems with interdepartmental
collaboration (Gamboa-Maldonado, Marshak, Sinclair, Montgomery, & Dyjack, 2012). The
report highlights that the two primary departments, in this case the department for environmental
health and the department for emergency preparedness and response, only collaborate during
emergency response. The report describes the classic “information stove-pipe” in which each
department has a separate and distinct information and reporting stream and no mechanism exists
for sharing resources or collaborating on preparedness projects.
The third problem revealed by the Loma Linda University study deals with
communications to the public. The discussion on this topic shows difficulty in relaying accurate
information to the public because of language and education barriers. Specifically, the report
calls out highly technical and scientific facts that need to be presented to the community, but the
community is not capable of fully understanding the jargon and scientific principles that make up
the message (Gamboa-Maldonado, Marshak, Sinclair, Montgomery, & Dyjack, 2012). The
public health professionals involved in communicating with the public have a difficult time
speaking on the public’s level, and there are concerns about losing some of the factual accuracy
of the message during “translation.”
The fourth barrier presented in the study involves community trust. The report states that
come communities have a lack of trust in government agencies. This lack of trust stems from a
variety of sources including previous problems, perception of inequality, and fear (Gamboa-
Maldonado, Marshak, Sinclair, Montgomery, & Dyjack, 2012). One survey respondent was
quoted as stating that the lack of trust may have nothing to do with the represented agency or the
message being delivered; it could be based on something that happened decades ago (Gamboa-
Maldonado, Marshak, Sinclair, Montgomery, & Dyjack, 2012).

RECOVERY 9
The final barrier presented by the study addresses the frequency of communications.
Respondents for the report indicated that there is perception within the agency that the
community gets “desensitized” to frequent emergency messages, and may ignore them once
issue saliency wanes (Gamboa-Maldonado, Marshak, Sinclair, Montgomery, & Dyjack, 2012, p.
27). Issue saliency, or the perceived importance of communications that are tied to a recent
event, is a common problem in emergency management when it comes to preparedness (Bishop,
2014). Unlike communications during response and recovery that have elevated importance to
the public because of the emergency event, preparedness communications are issued when there
may be little or no public recognition of risk. Issue saliency is a problem for government as well,
making it difficult to secure funding for preparedness and mitigation activities because law
makers, like the public they represent, feel there is more “bang for your buck” in addressing
current issues than spending money, time, and resources for something that may or may not
occur.
Employment Strategies
FEMA identifies six ways that the Whole Community concept can best be implemented to
increase community resiliency (FEMA, 2011). These six actions stem directly from the three
themes previously identified, and would address the five barriers discussed in the Loma Linda
report. Addressing these six areas will give the community an equal voice as an engaged
stakeholder in the planning process, and will garner support for preparedness programs that lead
to increased community resiliency.
First, an effort must be undertaken to develop understand and appreciation for each
community’s complexity and diversity. This process requires recognition of the factors and
dependencies that prevail in the community, and how the community normally functions

RECOVERY 10
socially, on a daily basis. It is important to develop an understanding of how the community
functions, even without government involvement, to recognize the true needs of its people during
and after an emergency. FEMA suggests using “community mapping” to visually depict patterns
of need (FEMA, 2011). Community mapping, like the entire Whole Community concept, is a
dynamic and on-going process that must be maintained and updated, but can reveal important
concerns for emergency planners.
Secondly, an accurate picture of the community’s capabilities and shortfalls that affect
ability to deal with an emergency event must be formed. This picture helps define the true needs
of the community, and should be formed from both study and dialog with the public.
Identification of needs that can be met within the community in advance helps the community
establish mechanisms to help themselves and reduces pressure on the government. By engaging
the community in identifying capabilities and needs, resources can be targeted efficiently and
effectively when disaster occurs. FEMA includes the use of self-assessment tools such as the
Community Resilience Index (CRI) to identify shortfalls and capability gaps that exist, so that
need statements can be incorporated in planning and preparedness efforts can better address
those areas (FEMA, 2011). Ensuring that the community and emergency management
professionals know what is needed and where those needs can be met locally will help the
community bounce back after an emergency event.
Next, relationships with community leaders and organizations –those existing support
networks and structures that community members already rely on—must be established and
maintained. Community leaders, both formal and informal, are excellent sources of information
on what drives the community, what their goals are, and what capabilities and needs they have
(FEMA, 2011). The understand how to communicate with their people, and have earned their

RECOVERY 11
trust and confidence. This makes them well suited ambassadors between the public-at-large and
the emergency management team. They are the conduits for passing information both ways, and
can overcome many of the hurdles that might be encountered through direct dialog and
engagement between emergency management professionals and the community, especially when
distrust and communication difficulties exist (FEMA, 2011).
Those relationships then need to be cultivated and solidified as partnerships between the
community and the professional emergency management agencies. Partnership, whether formal
or informal, turns those cultivated relationships in active and involved members of the team. A
meaningful partnership can only be formed when the relationship is established and common
goals and overlap are identified (FEMA, 2011). The emergency management team needs to
make sure that there is symbiosis between both parties expressed, so that the partnership is
meaningful, important, and there is incentive to maintain it. The use of coalitions and public-
private commissions are more formal partnerships that offer excellent forums for information
sharing, collaboration, and coordination. In many cases, those types of partnerships are a
familiar structure for both public and private, and formal or informal leaders and organizations to
coordinate and accomplish set tasks. FEMA points out that, in many cases, partnerships already
exist for the purposes of response and recovery, so adding preparedness to the goals and tasks of
those partnerships is feasible and could benefit the work those partnerships already engage in
(FEMA, 2011).
The fifth action is to support and encourage local actions that support preparedness and
resiliency. This action is about empowerment and is an important step towards encouraging
community initiative (FEMA, 2011). Promoting, coordinating, and encouraging the actions of
community leaders and partners makes the community feels that they are equal stakeholders in

RECOVERY 12
emergency management planning and preparedness. This makes the relationships between the
government and the community stronger, develops trust and confidence, and encourages
participation. All of these results can be directed at programs and initiatives that increase the
community’s resiliency and preparedness to cope with and overcome disaster emergencies
(FEMA, 2011).
Finally, efforts to strengthen and utilize existing community networking and resources
must be employed. FEMA points out that communities in general are very resourceful, and
capable of using the resources available to them to overcome challenges (FEMA, 2011). They
do it every day, after all. When emergency management professionals participate in that process
on a day-to-day basis, and align emergency management functions to support community
partners and initiatives, the capabilities of the community grow stronger (FEMA, 2011).
Understanding and being active in these community decisions will make working within those
networks before, during, and after an emergency second nature and even expected, and it
reinforces the importance of the community as a stakeholder in the emergency management
continuum.
Conclusion
Engaging the public in emergency management planning and preparedness increases the
community’s resiliency and makes them an equal stakeholder in the emergency management
cycle. The traditional “top-down” government framework has proven ineffective, difficult, and
inefficient, costly, and cumbersome, especially in the aftermath of a major emergency or
disaster. By fostering and maintaining relationships and partnerships within the community as a
whole, recognizing the complexity, diversity, and unique capabilities, resources, and needs of the
public, emergency management professionals can lessen the impact of a disaster and shorten the

RECOVERY 13
recovery phase. By putting FEMA’s Whole Community concept into action and giving the
community a voice and role in emergency management planning, the government is enlisting and
employing a robust and dependable resource that is motivated to achieve resiliency. The Whole
Community concept is not a new “buzz word” or paradigm shift that requires a massive
restructuring of the emergency management planning process. It works simply because it
embraces the way communities organize and operate on a daily basis already—the way the
people behind emergency management already operate in their homes, churches, and social
settings.

RECOVERY 14
References
Berg, B., Musigdilok, V., Haro, T., & Myers, P. (2014). Public-private partnerships: A whole
community approach to addressing children's needs in disasters. Clinical Pediatric
Emergency Medicine, 15(4), 281-288. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/
login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=103861196&site=eds-live&scope=site
Bishop, B. H. (2014). Focusing Events and Public Opinion: Evidence from the Deepwater
Horizon Disaster. Political Behavior, 36(1), 1-22. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9223-7
Chandra, A., Williams, M., Plough, A., Stayton, A., Wells, K., Horta, M., & Tang, J. (2013).
Getting actionable about community resilience: The Los Angeles County Community
Disaster Resilience Project. American Journal of Public Health, 103(7), 1181-1189.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301270
Department of Health, & Human Services. (2015, April 30). Prevention and Public Health Fund
| HHS. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/open/prevention/index.html
Department of Justice. (2015, September 9). Grant Programs | OVW | Justice Department.
Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/ovw/grant-programs
FEMA. (2011, December). A whole community approach to emergency management: Principles,
themes, and pathways for action (FDOC 104-008-1). Retrieved from http://
www.FEMA.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1813-25045-0649/
whole_community_dec2011__2_.pdf
Gamboa-Maldonado, T., Marshak, H., Sinclair, R., Montgomery, S., & Dyjack, D. (2012).
Building capacity for community disaster preparedness: A call for collaboration between
public environmental health and emergency preparedness and response programs.

RECOVERY 15
Journal of Environmental Health, 75(2), 24-29. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/
login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=104500518&site=eds-live&scope=site
Miao, X., Banister, D., & Tang, Y. (2013). Embedding resilience in emergency resource
management to cope with natural hazards. Natural Hazards, 69(3), 1389-1404.
doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0753-4
Paturas, J., Smith, D., Smith, S., & Albanese, J. (2010). Collective response to public health
emergencies and large scale disasters: Putting hospitals at the core of community
resilience. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 4(3), 286-295.
Retrieved September 26, 2015, from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=53975379&site=eds-
live&scope=site
Twigg, J. (2009, November). Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community: A guidance note
(Version 2). Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1346086/1/1346086.pdf

MFleming-ResiliencyPartnerships

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to MFleming-ResiliencyPartnerships

Similar to MFleming-ResiliencyPartnerships (20)

MFleming-ResiliencyPartnerships