Community Resilience Mentorship Initiaive

FINAL REPORT 2014
Community Resilience
Mentorship Initiative:
A MODEL FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Published by:
Central Goldfields Shire Council
PO Box 194
Maryborough Victoria 3465
(October 2014)
© Central Goldfields Shire Council
Please cite this document as:
Neale, S. (2014). Community Resilience Mentorship Initiative: A model for implementation,
Central Goldfields Shire Council, Maryborough.
For further information, please contact:
Sonny Neale (project leader)
sonnyneale@gmail.com.au
P.O. Box 199, Chewton 3451
Mob. 0477 011 580
Acknowledgements
This Activity received funding from the Commonwealth of Australia Attorney-
General’s Department through the Natural Disaster Resilience Grants Scheme,
administered by the State of Victoria’s Department of Justice.
Project Partners:
Australian Red Cross
Kate Brady, National Recovery Manager, Emergency Services
Logo Monash University
Francis Archer, Emeritus Professor, Director of the Monash Disaster Resilience Initiative (MDRI)
Dudley McArdle, Senior Policy Advisor at the Monash Disaster Resilience Initiative (MDRI)
Anne Leadbeater, OAM
Special Thanks:
• Municipal Association of Victoria
• Australia Emergency Management Institute
• The people of Carisbrook and the initial mentors for the Pigs Might Fly flood recovery pilot from the
towns of Ouyen, Newstead and Kinglake.
• The supporters and participants in the CRMI scoping project, especially those who attended the CRMI
Design Forums in Melbourne in 2013.
Disclaimer
The views expressed herein are not necessarily the views of the Australian Government, and neither the Commonwealth of Australia nor
the State of Victoria accepts any responsibility for any information or advice contained herein.
This publication may be of assistance to you, but the Central Goldfields Shire Council does not guarantee that the publication is without
flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other
consequences which may arise from you relying on information in this publication.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
INTRODUCTION 10
PIGS MIGHT FLY: A SPONTANEOUS SUCCESS 12
A CALL FROM KINGLAKE 13
Outcomes 2 years on 14
Awards and endorsements 14
THE CRMI SCOPING PROJECT 15
BACKGROUND 15
PROJECT DESIGN 15
Phase One – Initial scoping 16
Phase Two – Product design 16
Phase Three – Administrative design and reporting 16
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 16
Desk-top and academic research 17
Forum 1: Community Stakeholders Design Forum 17
Key findings 17
Forum 2: Organisational Stakeholders Design Forum 17
Key findings 18
THE CRMI MODEL 19
What the CRMI is 19
What the CRMI is not 21
A database of mentors 21
IMPLEMENTING THE MODEL 22
Learning and innovating 22
Empowering local communities 22
Cross-sectoral integration 22
THE MENTOR/MENTEE RELATIONSHIP 22
How and when to engage 22
Framework and duration of the relationship 23

4
The mentors job: empowering and enabling others 24
The mentors job: key distinctions 24
THE FUNDER 25
Funding duration 25
Monitoring and evaluation 26
THE HOST 26
Risks and benefits: An independent entity within an existing organisation 26
Governance 26
Administrative process 27
Functions and support from the host organisation 27
THE STEERING COMMITTEE 28
Membership of the Steering Committee 28
Role of Steering Committee members 28
Responsibilities of the Steering Committee 28
THE STAFF 29
Functions of the staff 29
THE MENTORS 30
Mentor characteristics 31
Management and support of the mentors 32
THE MENTEES 33
Identifying a need 34
Finding the right mentor at the right time 34
OPERATIONS AND RISK 34
The importance of being able to‘disengage’ 35
Stepping-on-toes in the Emergency Management sector 35
Maintaining a perception of independence 36
A CRMI: READY TO GO 37
It is already being done:‘mentoring’in the Blue Mountains 37

5
APPENDICES 39
Appendix A. The Carisbrook Flood Recovery Experience: the context for Pigs Might Fly 39
Appendix B. An Appetite for Community Resilience 44
Appendix C. The CRMI: Implementing the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience 45
Appendix D. More Events, Less Money: An argument for the CRMI? 46
Appendix E. CRMI Scoping Project Partners 48
Appendix F. Participant List and Agenda: Forum One (Community Forum) 49
Appendix G. Participant List and Agenda : Forum Two (Organisational Forum) 51
Appendix H. Endorsement of Pigs Might Fly in the“Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission Implementation
Monitors Report” 53
Appendix I. CRMI National Endorsement (COAG) 54

Members of the Florentine choral
society participate because they
like to sing, not because their
participation strengthens the
Tuscan social fabric. But it does.
Robert D. Putman et al
1 Robert D. Putnam (Author), Robert Leonardi (Author), Raffaella Y. Nanetti (Author);“Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in
Modern Italy”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1993. pp. 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Community Resilience Mentorship Initiative
(CRMI) is conceived of as a centralised secretariat
and leadership capacity dedicated to proactively
finding people whose experience, made available at
just the right moment to just the right person, could
conceivably make a substantial difference to the
quality and speed of recovery after a disaster.
Whether you are the CEO of a local government
struggling to balance daily operational effectiveness
with the requirements of a major emergency, or the
local publican of a small country town who wants to
make her venue an appropriate space for community
recovery,directaccesstopeoplejustlikeyouwhohave
been faced with the same challenges and difficulties
you are facing is an extremely powerful vehicle for
the effective and targeted transfer of the skills and
knowledge required in that moment.
At its heart, the CRMI is intended to identify, access
and effectively mobilise the wisdom and experience
generated by previous natural disasters in Australia
through the agency of mentor/mentee relationships.
The CRMI is also conceived of as one avenue for
implementing the National Strategy for Disaster
Resilience (NSDR).
This project was underpinned by a growing awareness
in the Emergency Management space (reinforced by
the research conducted for the project itself) that
despite our extensive historical experience with
natural disasters, a great deal of the experience and
wisdom generated in the aftermath of, and recovery
from, disasters in Australia is being unnecessarily
lost because there is no effective mechanism for
identifying, accessing and mobilising the people who
hold it.
Though people naturally form relationships to
pass on knowledge and wisdom in an ad hoc
fashion (especially within individual institutions)
there does not currently exist a mechanism in the
Emergency Management sector that would allow
us to systematically mobilise that experience across
institutions, states, communities and across time.
As a consequence, hard-won personal experience and
wisdom that could make a substantial contribution
to future recovery efforts is often underutilised. This
represents a substantial loss to the sector and to
Australians generally. It also represents an opportunity
for improving our collective ability to support
community recovery through direct engagement
with the people who have the most at stake: the
communities themselves and the people whose job it
is to serve them.
Designed quite literally by the people who would be
expected to utilise it (representatives of all Australian
governments, the Army, Police, NGO’s and previously
impacted communities) the model for a CRMI outlined
in this report was fashioned specifically to address this
gap and provide the sector with a vehicle that will
enhance our ability to implement hard-won lessons in
recovery.
Like two individuals exposed to
the same disease, recovery may
have more to do with the quality
of the host than the nature of the
illness.
7
2 Daniel P Aldrich, (August 2012),“Building Resilience:
Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery”, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, New York.

8
This report is intended to provide an ‘instruction
manual’ for implementing a national CRMI. The
organisational principals and structures, governance
arrangements and administrative processes proposed
here do not represent the only way such a mechanism
could be implemented. They do however directly
reflect the opinions, preferences and experience of
an important subsection of the people who would
be expected to both constitute and utilise the CRMI
network.
Critically, the participants in the CRMI Scoping Project
declared a willingness to personally commit their
time and energy as mentors and mentees. From the
perspective of a network facilitation mechanism, such
engagement constitutes the model’s most important
and powerful endorsement.
The genesis of the CRMI Scoping Project was the
experience of the award-winning community flood-
recovery pilot‘Pigs Might Fly’, delivered in 2011 by the
Central Goldfields Shire Council (CGSC) in Carisbrook,
rural Victoria. Over a six-month period, this project
completely shifted the trajectory of the community’s
recovery from frustration and inertia to a point
where Carisbrook won both the Victorian and the
national Resilient Australia Awards in the Community/
Volunteer category in 2012.
Of particular import to Emergency Management
professionals and others in the sector, the Pigs Might
Fly experience also identified a vector through which
such results could be replicated: the facilitation of direct
personal relationships between people with experience
of recovery and the ability to effectively share the
wisdom earned (mentors), and people dealing with
relevant recovery challenges (mentees).
The research conducted in the Scoping Project
supported the initial learning’s from the Pigs Might
Fly pilot that the formation of such relationships
within and between communities can serve as an
effective and influential means through which to
foster indigenous recovery processes. As the Scoping
Project progressed, it became increasingly clear that
this approach would be of direct value to institutional
actors as well as to local communities. Appropriately
structured and supported from within the sector,
the mentoring approach has a broad potential to
constitute an effective and low-cost mechanism
through which to proactively support community
recovery, augment more traditional approaches as
well as mitigate some of the challenges and risks
associated with highly-resourced and externally-
driven recovery processes (see Appendix A. for a
discussion of some of these challenges as experienced
in Carisbrook and elsewhere in Victoria). The model is
therefore designed to be available to professionals
working in the field as well as to people thrown into it
due to their experience of a disaster.
With the level of experience available in the Scoping
Project, this report is able to go into some depth
regarding the specifics of the administrative,
governance and leadership roles stakeholders
felt would best mitigate risks and maximise the
advantages of the CRMI. This includes risks to people
working with and in the initiative (especially mentors
and mentees) as well as to stakeholder institutions,
supporters and the communities and organisations
working with mentors.
Key components of the proposed model therefore
includeanexpectationthattheinitiativewouldreceive
multi-year funding, that it would be hosted in an NGO
but remain operationally independent from the host
(both in perception and in fact) and that it should
be governed by a Steering Committee constituted
by members of many of the key institutions in the
Emergency Management sector in Australia (including
individuals with extensive experience in recovery
drawn directly from local communities).
The Steering Committee in particular is expected
to play a critical role. Steering Committee members
would obviously provide oversight for the initiative
but they would also be expected to be the ‘eyes
and ears’ for the mentors and staff: identifying new
mentors and mentees as well as ensuring the initiative
is intimately associated with relevant developments in
the Emergency Management space.
The Scoping Project stakeholders also clearly
articulated the context, if not the content, of the kind
of relationship they envisioned mentors and mentees
to form. The relationship should serve to catalyse a
fundamental shift in the way the recovery journey
is understood, in the relationship people have with
the challenges they are facing, in their willingness to
be accountable and proactive and, in the range of
options they see available to themselves and their
organisation or community. Such a relationship
should serve to leave mentees both empowered and
enabled to craft a recovery process that acts as both a
reflection of, and midwife to, the future that inspires
them.

9
Fostering a proactive and effective indigenous process
of recovery is a holy grail for recovery professionals. It
is however notoriously difficult to achieve. Sometimes,
the very act of providing ‘Emergency’ resources and
institutional support to a community (and to a lesser
extent an organisation) can serve to undermine the
capacity of that group of people to own and direct
their own recovery.
By identifying and making available people with direct
and relevant experience, this initiative is intended
to help people to invigorate the social networks and
institutions in their community or organisation that
pre-datethedisaster.Afterall,whenresourcesorfunds
sourced from outside the community/organisation
are eventually spent or withdrawn, the success of the
recovery endeavour can only be measured by whether
the community/organisation itself is stronger and
better able to withstand future shocks. The long-term
resilience of a community or an organisation rests in
the strength and adaptability of local relationships
as embodied in local administrative, governance and
organisational structures. The CRMI outlined in this
reportisintendedtohelptheEmergencyManagement
sector to support the organic growth of this strength.
The approach embedded in the CRMI model has
been tested on-the-ground in Carisbrook, analysed
by Monash University and carefully designed over a
two-year Scoping Project by some of the most well-
respected people in the sector. It has been endorsed
by both the Victorian Government and by the relevant
sub-committees and steering groups reporting to
the Australian Council of Australian Governments.
Even before a formal mechanism has been set up to
facilitate these relationships, people who had a hand
in designing the model were already implementing it
after the Blue Mountains fires in 2013.
The CRMI is well designed, fits a well-identified and
critical need and will help keep Australians well and
safe into the future.

INTRODUCTION
The CRMI Scoping Project has been delivered by the
Central Goldfields Shire Council and guided by a
Steering Committee including representives from the
Australian Red Cross and Anne Leadbeater OAM with
research support from the Monash Disaster Resilience
Initiative (MDRI).
The CRMI Scoping Project was funded by the
Commonwealth of Australia through the Natural
Disaster Resilience Grants Scheme to leverage the
success of the Pigs Might Fly, flood-recovery program
delivered in the small rural community of Carisbrook
(regional Victoria).
The Scoping Project was delivered over two years and
has included:
• project-specific research
• national stakeholder engagement activities
including two stakeholder forums held in
Melbourne in 2103
• the engagement and expertise of highly
experienced practitioners across the country
The proposed model and implementation processes
outlined in this report represents an aggregation
of the knowledge and wisdom of the stakeholders
and participants in the CRMI Scoping Project. These
participants were drawn from across the Emergency
Management sector and included representatives
from government agencies, not-for-profits and
communities across the country.
It is intended that this report provide direction and
input into any future iteration of the model.
In the course of the Scoping Project it became clear
that there were two key, interlinked challenges facing
the Emergency Management sector and communities
across the country that the CRMI could potentially
help address.
The first challenge identified was that a wealth
of knowledge, wisdom and experience exists in
communities, government and Non-government
organisations (NGOs) about community recovery that
is not being effectively accessed.
Despite the ad hoc development of trust-based
networks within organisations, there is currently no
substantive mechanism for identifying, qualifying and
supporting people with the appropriate experience
and skills in a way that makes that hard-earned
wisdom available when and as it is needed.
The second challenge identified was that many of
the existing mechanisms for facilitating recovery and
resilience-building are not robust and sometimes,
despite the best intentions of the people involved,
the very mechanisms that are effective in protecting
lives and property serve to undermine long-term and
sustainable recovery and resilience-building.
Itiscleartopeoplewhohavedirectexperienceworking
with individuals and communities in the process of
response and recovery that enhanced community
control is critical to the long-term effectiveness of
recovery efforts. In this context, key questions being
asked by people tasked with supporting communities
to recover and prepare for future events are:
• what are appropriate mechanisms for proactively
intervening in a community in a way that does not
undermine that community’s perceived and actual
ownership (and control) over the process?
• What is the role for people external to the
community in fostering indigenously-driven
recovery processes?
The Pigs Might Fly experience seemed to suggest
that one answer to these questions was to link the
relatively untapped resource that is people with
previous experience with the people who are in
need of that experience when they most need it. In
Carisbrook, such a process was effective in mobilising
community linkages that already existed in the
community in a structured and well-directed way.
This approach ensured that the perceived and actual
control of the recovery process remained in the hands
of the community itself. By identifying and mobilising
people external to the Carisbrook community as
mentors, an external agency (in this instance a local
council) was able to engage with people in a way
that was effective in fostering an indigenously driven
recovery and resilience-building process.
Key questions posed to the participants of the Scoping
Project included: is the approach piloted in Carisbrook
applicable beyond that unique set of circumstances; is
it something you think would be useful in your work?
Could such an approach be systemised and managed
appropriately and, if so, what would such a mechanism
look like? How would such an initiative be designed,
and; how would it be appropriately embedded in the
Emergency Management sector generally?
The final and most important question posed to
the participants was intended to ensure that the
10

mechanism designed is not only relevant in principal
but would actually work: would you be willing to be
a mentor in such a program, and if so, what would
you need it to look like, what intentions, principals,
administrative structures and safeguards would you
require in order to participate?
The process of developing the final model outlined
in this report was marked by enthusiasm, good-will,
creativity and collaboration throughout the two years
of the Scoping Project. The model presented in this
report is one the participants consistently felt they
would personally like to be engaged with, and one
they felt would be an effective support to their efforts
to foster recovery and resilience in the communities
they currently, or could in the future, work with.
This report is written for a reader who has no previous
background in emergency response or recovery.
11

PIGS MIGHT FLY: A SPONTANEOUS SUCCESS
Pigs Might Fly developed spontaneously out of a local
government-led flood recovery project in the small
rural town of Carisbrook in centralVictoria (population
800)1
. After a number of thwarted attempts to engage
with the flood-affected community, and onto their
third flood recovery officer in nine months2
, the local
Council had effectively given up engaging with the
town. Concurrently, many of the psychosocial and
communal impacts immediately recognisable to
practitioners in the field were being manifested in
the town including increased absenteeism from work
places; relationship breakdown, and; increasingly
intractable conflicts over issues catalysed by the
floods3
.
Over a six-month period, the Council intervention that
catalysed, and came to be known as, Pigs Might Fly
completely turned the recovery trajectory of the town
around.
The community of Carisbrook went from being
resentful about the challenges it was facing and
1 The shire of Central Goldfields in which Carisbrook is located is
scored 79th out of 79 on the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas
(SEIFA) in terms of disadvantage.
2 The author of this report was employed as the third and final
Flood Recovery Officer.
3 Some issues, such as seemingly inequitable distribution of
government or private insurance funds were caused directly by
the floods, other issues that were coming to prominence pre-
dated the flood but were revived by experiences associated
with it: old cleavages coming to light in new, and increasingly
aggressive forms.
12
“The Carisbrook community disaster
mentoring program is an excellent
demonstration of community resilience
in action.”
Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission Implementation Monitor
Final Report, July 2012
Below are a few of the 320 plus wishes our children at Carisbrook
Primary School wanted to have to make their town a better place for them
to grow and live and love.
The kids have given their ideas ... Now parents and grand parents,
brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, and all their friends who want
Carisbrook to be the best place for all, are invited to do the same ...... See
over for details
•

•
•
•

•

•

Pigs Might FlyPigs Might FlyPigs Might FlyPigs Might Fly








P T O

committed to rejecting external engagement to
becoming a poster-child of community recovery and
resilience.
The mechanism through which this transformation
occurred was the deliberate and externally managed
engagement of people from other communities who
had experienced natural disasters and were willing to
share with and support the people of Carisbrook in
their own recovery journey. These people (Mentors)
were identified by the Council Flood Recovery
Officer who helped organise the initial meetings
and maintained a supportive role for the mentors
throughout (and after) the process.
A Call from Kinglake
In March 2012, one month after Council’s third
Flood Recovery Officer started work, a resident from
Kinglake rang to say they had raised $9000 for the
flood affected residents of Carisbrook. In the following
three months, a number of residents including
representatives of the local Kinglake Ranges Business
Network and the local Radio Station made the three
hour journey to attend meetings in the Carisbrook
Pub4
. At each of these meetings they spoke about
their experience of the bushfires that claimed 46 lives
in their community, and the challenges of recovering.
At each event the number of Carisbrook residents
attending grew. The experience of working with the
4 The Carisbrook Pub was still undergoing flood-related
renovations throughout this whole process.
community transformed. Instead of resentful, upset
and angry residents, there was a new willingness to
looktothefuture.Thementorsworkedwiththepeople
of Carisbrook and the Council’s Flood Recovery Officer
to identify other people who could speak about local
successes, and more meetings were organized.
In less than six months the community had gone from
passive (and often resentful) recipients of government
infrastructure projects, to a dynamic, self-organising
group that brought together nearly 20 percent of the
township to take charge of, and start designing, their
own future.
Within six months of that initial call a not-for-profit
organisation called Carisbrook Projects Inc. had been
formed to help fund and manage projects of interest
to the community. Shortly after that there were 5
major local infrastructure projects being developed
by townspeople with no input from outside agencies
apart from the ongoing support and mentoring of
residents from other towns. These projects included
the:
• restoration of the Recreation Reserve
• re-creation of the local swimming hole
• building a community playground
• restoration of the local railway station
• creation of an annual festival
Off the back of the enthusiasm and structure provided
by the Pigs Might Fly process, a number other minor
projects were initiated by local townsfolk including:
13

14
• building a sacred walk and a rose garden (funded
by the Anglican Church)
• safe horse crossings over the main road
• a local school—based art project (focussing on
flood and water images)
• a shire-wide newsgathering service
In addition, the level of community engagement in
emergency planning and volunteering increased
substantially. The local branch of the SES, which
was virtually banned from the town after the floods,
started attending local meetings and was asked to join
a community emergency planning committee. From
an emergency planning perspective, the community’s
conversation has shifted from “there will never be
another flood” to “how will we prepare for the next
one?”
The level of enthusiasm and engagement in the
community has developed to the point where other
towns in the region have noticed the difference and
are now asking for the people of Carisbrook to mentor
them and the model is expanding
OUTCOMES 2 YEARS ON
What we can learn from Carisbrook
is how towns recovering from
natural disaster can best be assisted
to thrive again...
Jack Archer, Lead Author, Regional Australia Institute
“From Recovery to Renewal: Case Studies” (2013)
The level of community engagement and enthusiasm
in the recovery effort that was catalysed by the Pigs
Might Fly project has waxed and waned as such things
always do. However, two years since the project was
completed the community continues to be actively
engaged in Carisbrook Projects Inc. and, instead of
the prospect of increasing communal torpor and
contraction they were facing before Pigs Might Fly,
indicators suggest that the Carisbrook recovery effort
has been a long-term and sustainable success:
• increase in population since 2011
• no businesses closed, 2 new businesses opened
• regular creek cleanups managed as a partnership
between the local Council, residents and the
regional Catchment Management Authority
• development of a ‘Waterways Management
Plan’ created between local Council, Catchment
Management Authority and Carisbrook Projects
Inc. – a state first
• community-driven emergency planning and
engagement with Council and other local agencies
AWARDS AND ENDORSEMENTS
Recognition of the success of the recovery effort in
Carisbrook was provided through a number of state
and nationally-based fora including being:
• awarded the Resilient Australia Award for the state
of Victoria in the Volunteer/Community Group
category (2012)
• awarded the National Resilient Australia Award in
the Volunteer/Community Group category (2012)
• endorsed in the Victorian “Bushfires Royal
Commission Implementation Monitor’s Report”
(2012) - see appendix H
• chosen as one of four Case Studies for the Regional
Australia Institute’s research project“From Recovery
to Renewal: Case Studies”(2013)
Locals advertising the first Community Planning
Event in April 2012. This event attracted over 100
people from the town. Everything at the event
(including a suckling pig) was donated and the
event itself and was facilitated by a resident from
Kinglake. Representatives present from other towns
included Newstead and Ouyen.

15
Background
With the success of the Pigs Might Fly project there
was clearly scope to look at making similar results
available elsewhere.
There was also a high level of interest from various
stakeholders in looking at what processes and
structures would be required to facilitate the retention
of recovery-related experience in order to make it
available when-and-as-needed.
Fundamentally, there was a recognition that the
relational basis of the networks that could be fostered
through such a mechanism were critical. In other
words, what had to be replicated and retained from
the Pigs Might Fly experience was the ability of
external actors to catalyse and foster the formation
of appropriate relationships between people from
different communities. Any CRMI mechanism must
remain focussed on fostering the relationships
themselves rather than on the knowledge that is
transferred as a result of those relationships. The key is
to put the right people together at the right time and
with the right context and then trust them to find what
each other needs.
Project design
It was recognised at the beginning of the Scoping
Project that the people most qualified to design this
mechanism were the people who would actually be
asked to use it. As such, the CRMI Scoping Project
design was not a linear, research-heavy process.
Rather, it was designed with a strong focus on asking
‘the punters’ themselves (both community and
organisational representatives) whether and how
they would want to see the experience of Carisbrook
replicated.
The heart of the CRMI was always conceived of as
a database of people who were available to act as
‘mentors’ and one or several people whose task it
would be to help put them together with appropriate
mentees at the right time. Though this fundamental
driver has not changed, a number of essential
questions arose throughout the Scoping Project that
played a key role in determining the model that is
outlined in this report. These questions were:
• how do we identify the people who need
mentoring?
• how do we identify the people they should be
speaking to?
• how do we determine what is ‘the right time’ to
bring mentors and mentees together?
• what is the best way(s) to get mentors and mentees
together?
• who is the‘we’that would actually do this work?
The CRMI Scoping Project was delivered through nine
stagesdividedintothreephases.Inbroad-terms:phase
one was designing the model, phase two was testing
it, and phase three was finalising the administrative
elements of the proposed model and reporting.
THE CRMI SCOPING PROJECT
The CRMI Scoping Project was created to assess the viability of designing a nationally-focussed Community
Recovery Mentorship Initiative that would be effective at mobilising the hard-won knowledge of people who
have experienced emergencies (including where appropriate, professionals in the Emergency Management
sector). This wisdom could then be systematically and effectively shared with others in a way that helps build
community resilience and facilitates community recovery.
This project was funded by the Commonwealth of Australian through the Natural Disaster Resilience Grants
Scheme, administered by the State of Victoria’s Attorney-General’s Department, and delivered by the Central
Goldfields Shire Council in partnership with the Australian Red Cross and Monash University’s Disaster Resilience
Initiative.
The Scoping Project commenced in July 2012 and was completed in July 2014.The project included formal research
conducted by Monash University, as well as extensive stakeholder engagement and two formal workshops that
brought together stakeholders from around the country to, quite literally, design the model presented in this report.

16
PHASE ONE – INITIAL SCOPING
1. A desk-top and field-work based scan of existing
examples of inter-community mentoring and
engagement from around Victoria (including Pigs
Might Fly) and, where appropriate from across
Australia.Theintentionofthereviewwastoidentify
mechanisms and processes that could be relevant
to the CRMI Scoping Project
2. The development of a draft CRMI model
3. Hosting a forum of highly respected community
members from across Australia who have been
affected by emergencies to provide input, test, and
validate the draft CRMI model
4. RefinetheCRMImodelinresponsetotheoutcomes
of the forum
PHASE TWO – PRODUCT DESIGN
5. A mid-project review by the Steering Committee
and appropriate stakeholders to address key issues
raised in Phase One and to formulate Phase Two.
Key issues to be resolved in this phase included:
a) the appropriate organisational structure for the
initiative
b) where that structure should sit within the larger
Emergency Management sector
c) how the initiative should be funded
d) how the initiative should interact with local
communities and with individual mentors
e) how the initiative should interact with
Emergency Management organisations
f) how Emergency Management sector
organisations should be engaged in phase two
of the Scoping Project
6. Desk-top research of national and international
literature with a view to identifying appropriate
mechanisms for integrating the CRMI into existing
Emergency Management structures and service
delivery frameworks.
7. A second forum focussed on engaging
organisational stakeholders in the Emergency
Management sector to review, test and refine the
CRMI model. The two goals of this forum were:
a) to ensure that the proposed CRMI model could
be effectively integrated into the existing
Emergency Management sector processes and/
or organisational structures
b) to generate organisational support and
buy-in from within appropriate Emergency
Management organisations for the potential
implementation of the initiative
PHASE THREE – ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN AND
REPORTING
1. Final CRMI report including proposed governance
and administrative model
2. Stakeholder engagement to facilitate appropriate
uptake of the report’s recommendations
Development of the model
The two key elements of the CRMI design process
were the two forums (steps 3 and 7). In both cases
participants were identified from across Australia
and, where necessary, flown to Melbourne to actively
participate in the design of the CRMI model that is
being proposed in this report.
At each forum the whole project was put‘in-the-dock’.
The Steering Committee was fully prepared to walk
away from the project if the participants did not feel
that the project was either valid or would actually
work in the reality of the emergency response and
recovery environment in Australia at this time.
In both cases, the response of the participants
was extremely constructive and overwhelmingly
supportive. The Steering Committee is therefore
confident that the CRMI model that is being proposed
here is one that key people with relevant experience
and knowledge would feel confident engaging with.
A number of key issues and challenges were identified.
These were discussed in each of the forums and within
the various stakeholder networks. These discussions
have substantially informed the final model proposed
in this report. Issues included:
• Organisational Design
> coordinated network model
• Quality Assurance
> program design
> identifying mentors and mentor training
> on-the-ground outcomes and impact
• Financial and Organisational Sustainability
> secure and appropriate funding
> functional independence
• Network Development and Management
> providing credibility and appropriate access to

17
stakeholder groups including:
• local communities
• government(s)
• Emergency Management organisations and
not-for-profits etc.
DESK-TOP AND ACADEMIC RESEARCH
The first step of this project was to conduct desktop
research in order to identify alternative sources of
input into the design process and to ensure that the
initiative would not duplicate or replicate work being
conducted elsewhere. This research was delivered by
the project’s research partner, Monash University1
. Key
findings included:
• there is an increasing number of localised attempts
to support community resilience building and
recovery efforts in Australia but no examples of
where mentoring, or the formation of formalised
direct relationships, form the defining feature of
the initiative
• there are no state or nation-wide mechanisms of
the kind proposed for the CRMI for integrating or
coordinating these efforts
On this basis, the Steering Committee felt confident
progressing to the first stakeholder design forum.
FORUM 1:
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS DESIGN FORUM
The Community Stakeholders Design Forum was held
on 5 August, 2013. It was hosted by the Municipal
Association of Victoria.
The forum was intended to support the CRMI Scoping
Project Steering Committee to determine:
a) whether the project was deemed viable and
relevant by the government and community
sectors (especially local government)
b) the key elements they felt would be required to
form an effective CRMI
Participants were chosen from varying fields including
government (at all levels), business, community
groups and not-for-profit organisations. Participants
were chosen for their personal and professional
experience working with communities recovering
from natural disasters. Many of the participants were
1 The research was conducted by the Monash Disaster Resilience
Intitiative (MDRI). The full report can be provided on request by
the Central Goldfields Shire Council.
people who had direct experience of natural disasters
in their home communities, and of the successes and
failures of subsequent recovery efforts. The Steering
Committee invited participants from every state
and territory across Australia. The final participants
list included representation from Victoria, NSW,
South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania (for a full
participant list and the forum agenda- see appendix F).
The forum brought together approximately 500 years
of collective experience in disaster management,
community development, and dealing with
emergencies in communities. The active participation
of these stakeholders was critical in determining the
final outline of the CRMI model.
KEY FINDINGS
Key findings of this forum were that:
• empowering existing social organisations and
networks is the key to long-term recovery and to
building community based resilience
• any intervention aimed at achieving this goal
must be implemented by invitation and must be
structured in such a way as to be appropriate to the
unique conditions and relationships that pertain in
that community at that time
• an effective form of intervention is people sharing
their experiences in such a way as to leave others
with new openings for action
• for this process to work, credibility and trust are the
critical preconditions
• people trust people they feel are like themselves
and have experienced something like what they
are experiencing
FORUM 2:
ORGANISATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS DESIGN FORUM
The Organisational Stakeholders Design Forum was
hosted by the Australian Emergency Management
Institute and held on 29 November, 2013.
The forum was intended to support the CRMI Scoping
Project Steering Committee to determine:
a) whether the project was deemed viable and
relevant by key stakeholders in the Emergency
Management sector
b) the key governance elements they felt would be
required to form an effective CRMI
Participants represented government and non-

18
government agencies with direct responsibility for
emergency response and recovery from around the
country. The response was positive and included
representatives from key agencies and governments
across Australia. These included representatives from
the Australian Defence Force and Police, as well as
senior state and federal government officials (for a full
participant list and the forum agenda- see appendix G).
This forum built on the endorsement, concerns and
operational preferences identified in the research
so far, especially the work with the community
representatives in the first forum. Leveraging the
depth of experience and expertise in the Emergency
Management sector, this forum looked more
specifically into operational and administrative
aspects of the preferred CRMI model.
KEY FINDINGS
Key findings from the second forum include:
Mentors should be:
• carefully vetted for relevant skills, especially
interpersonal capacity
• looked after financially and psychologically
(including being able to opt-out at any time)
• drawn from and be available to people across the
whole range of ‘communities’ that are engaged in
recovery work (this includes agencies, institutions
and government)
The CRMI should be:
• structured as to be able to maintain a‘steady-state’
and not be pulled into the‘emergency cycle’
• structured as to be able to maintain operational
independence from both the Emergency
Management sector and local communities as
necessary
• supported by an engaged Steering Committee that
is ‘across’ the national Emergency Management
sector
• a facilitative entity which endeavours to put the
right people together at the right time
• able to develop and maintain a database of
qualified mentors
• able to provide a secretarial, facilitation and
leadership capacity as needed
• appropriately funded, including:
> adequate secretarial/administrative capacity
> adequate training and support for mentors
> adequate budget for mentor transport and
reimbursement
• funded on a recurring basis with minimum three
year tranches
• national in scope, providing opportunities for
shared learning across state boundaries and the
development of nationally-based networks

19
The CRMI model proposed here is the model Scoping
Project participants felt:
• would best fulfil on the intention of the CRMI to
link people with relevant experience with people
who want access to that wisdom
• would be well adapted to current and future
arrangements in the Emergency Management
sector in Australia
• would be suited to managing and/or mitigating a
number of key risks (see Operations and Risk)
• would be the model to which they would be most
likely to support and commit their own time and
resources (including as a mentor)
In essence, the CRMI should act like a network
developer and aggregator. It is not expected to deliver
services in the traditional meaning of the term but
rather to support the growth of relationships between
people with experience and wisdom of disaster and
recovery and people who could take advantage of
that experience and wisdom.
The staff of the initiative, supported by the Steering
Committee and other relevant stakeholders, should
have a birds-eye view of the resources available
to support people in response and recovery from
across the Emergency Management and community
engagement spectrum.
It is expected that mentors would be approached to
make an application to the CRMI according to the
formalprocessesapprovedbytheSteeringCommittee.
These applications would be assessed by the Steering
Committee with the support of the initiative’s staff for
approval.
If approved, the new mentor would be informed that
they have been added to the cohort of mentors and
given access to the list of other mentors (which would
not be otherwise available except to members of the
Steering Committee and staff).
The Steering Committee and staff would actively seek
opportunities to utilise the mentors to support people
dealing with the aftermath of a community-level
disaster. These people may want access to mentoring
in their capacity as community-members only, or they
may want access to that experience and knowledge
in other, presumably professional, capacities (for
example, mentoring between school principals,
community health practitioners, or recovery workers).
In the instance where there is a valid opportunity for
a mentee(s) to be in contact with a potential mentor,
an appropriate mechanism for that interaction must
be identified, usually in conversation between CRMI
staff and the mentor with relevant input from Steering
Committee members and others as required. This
may be in the form of a one-off phone call, a group
presentation(likeinCarisbrook),orevenpresentations
to select members of the local government, other
agencies and community-level organisations (as in
the Blue Mountains example, see below).
What the CRMI is
Formulated by the people who will one day use it,
the CRMI is conceived of as a centralised secretariat
and leadership capacity dedicated to proactively
finding people whose experience, made available at
just the right moment to just the right person, could
conceivably make a substantial difference to the
quality and speed of recovery after a disaster.
A concern identified in the development of this model
was whether the CRMI would be able to remain
focussed on the relational aspects of the job, and
not become “just another piece of the bureaucracy”
delivering another service. It will be important that the
CRMI is‘owned’by stakeholders across the Emergency
Management space in the same way that Pigs Might
Fly was ‘owned’ by the people of Carisbrook. This
sense of ownership is key to both the immediate and
the long-term success of the CRMI. If, at any point, the
CRMI becomes something people feel that are obliged
to participate in, its effectiveness will be substantially
compromised.
THE CRMI MODEL
The principles, governance, administrative and models outlined in this section were formulated by the
participants in the Scoping Project across a two-year period. The functional elements of the CRMI as articulated
in the rest of this report were tested again and again in the CRMI Steering Committee, with external stakeholders
and, especially, at the two forums held in 2013.

20
• Existing organisation
• Employs coordinator as an“independent”project
• Roles include:
• funding contract management
• HR
• project evaluation
• in-kind project overheads and administration support
Providing:
• medium-term funding
(3 to 5 years)
• supporting community
leadership
• membership on steering
committee
FUNDER HOST
• Accountable for the CRMI,
including approvals for:
• strategy
• mentors
• Approx 9 people including:
• host organisation
• funder
• mentors
• Emergency Management
sector stakeholders
• Meet 3-4 times per year
• Three person executive
• Not chaired by funder or
host
STEERING COMMITTEE
• Identified through networks (including
Steering Committee & Host Organisation)
• Open-ended, opportunity-driven process
(working with ESOs, local and state govts,
individual and community groups)
• Have a right/ability to choose mentor
• Opportunity to identify what they want
• Relationship-driven
(i.e. no rigid way of mentoring)
• Financially accessible (i.e. no cost barrier)
• Continuous feedback actively sought
MENTEES
• Volunteers (on call as required):
• cost not a barrier to participate
• Structured intake including:
• tri-annual
• application-based
• initial training/formation and ongoing
professional development
• ongoing engagement and
communication
• Strong psychosocial support
• Multiple opt-out options
MENTORS
• Personal experience of
disaster and a willingness
to share
• Strong relationship skills
• Appropriate personal
circumstances
• Open to training and
feedback
• Strong mentoring/
leadership skills
Mentor
characteristics
$
MOU
ACCOUNTABILITY
• National Focus
• Key roles:
• Executive function
• Relationshipmanagement
• Network Coordination
• Facilitation
• Project management
and admin
• Research/Advice
• Outsource mentor
training and support
COORDINATOR
NETWORK
MANAGEMENT
ENGAGEMENT
RELATIONSHIP
Community Resilience Implementation Model

21
What the CRMI is not
Through the Scoping Project it became clear that
there were a number of things the participants were
keen to distinguish this model from. This included:
A service delivery vehicle – though it would act as
a central service, it would not in and of itself deliver
services. It should in no way be in competition with,
or attempt to overlap with other agencies delivering
services into communities recovering from a disaster
A repository for knowledge – as above, there are
excellent vehicles for this including the Australian
Emergency Management Institute’s (AEMI) knowledge
hub. If anything, the CRMI could act as a mechanism
for identifying and feeding relevant knowledge into
such a hub, rather than collating and curating such
knowledge itself
The people who work in it or for it - the CRMI is not in
fact the people who sit on its Steering Committee or
work in its secretariat. It is constituted by the network
that is developed. There should truly be nothing new
about the CRMI, rather it should be constituted by and
serve to enhance what already exists: people sharing
about what they have experienced in a way that makes
a positive difference
A professional unit – though of course professionals
with sufficient experience will staff and input into the
CRMI, the entity itself should not be conceptualised
as a small number of professionals working together
within an agency and linking with ‘the outside’ at
relevant times. As in the previous point, the initiative is
conceived of as existing in the network, not in the node
An arm of any particular organisation or ideology –
the importance of real and perceived independence is
discussed elsewhere (see The Host)
A database of mentors
At the heart of the CRMI is a database containing the
contact details of those who have been approved as
mentors.
The members of the Steering Committee and the
Scoping Project participants explored the following
issues relevant to the development of such a list:
• the level and form of their anticipated engagement
• their roles and responsibilities
• resourcing parameters
• expectations
On the basis of these discussions, the remainder of
this report aims to provide recommendations for how
best to engage, manage and mobilise mentors on this
database.

22
Learning and innovating
The CRMI model proposed in this report is intended
to provide a mechanism that will support people
to better learn from the past, and innovate into the
future.
There was an absolute and common recognition by
all stakeholders that a great deal of the experience
and wisdom generated in the aftermath and recovery
from natural disasters in Australia is unnecessarily
lost because there is no effective mechanism for
identifying, accessing and mobilising the people who
hold it.The CRMI model is intended to help rectify this.
Empowering local communities
The CRMI model proposed in this report is intended to
provide a mechanism that will support communities
to have more influence and control over the process of
disaster response and, especially their recovery.
This outcome is intended to be achieved through
the agency of external mentors forming personal
(i.e. non-institutional) third-party relationships.
These relationships form the vehicle through which
knowledge and wisdom can be shared in such a way
as to benefit both parties involved in the interaction
(i.e. the mentor and the mentee). By providing a
mechanism focussed specifically on fostering these
kinds of relationships, the model proposed here is
intended to foster and support the willingness and
ability of all stakeholders in disaster recovery to take-
charge-of, and‘own’, their recovery.
Cross-sectoral integration
By providing a well-formed and well-trusted
mechanism for enhancing peer-to-peer relationships,
the Scoping Project participants evinced an aspiration
and a confidence that this initiative could, over the
medium-to-long term, serve to improve the overall
integration of service delivery in the Emergency
Management sector.
Better integration between organisations and
agencies, as well as methods for better sharing local
knowledge of recovery are both outcomes that are
currently being eagerly sought in the sector.
TheCRMInetwork,SteeringCommitteeandsecretariat
(i.e. staff) could conceivably forward these goals.
The Mentor/Mentee Relationship
Facilitating an appropriate relationship between the
mentor/mentee is the functional goal of the CRMI.
Beyondsimplyidentifyingpeoplewillingtobementors
or mentees and putting them together, the staff and
Steering Committee should be clear on the kinds of
relationships they exist to foster. It is the context and
particularly the qualities of the relationships that are
formed through the agency of the CRMI that will be
the key to the success or failure of the initiative. These
qualities were identified through the experience of
the Pigs Might Fly pilot and by the Scoping Project
participants1
.
HOW AND WHEN TO ENGAGE
Fundamentally, all engagement at all levels of the
initiative must be by invitation. Each progressively
deeper level of engagement with both individuals
and with communities must be initiated by an
explicit or an implicit invitation to take it to the next
level. It is incumbent upon the mentors, the staff
1 The parameters of the mentor/mentee relationship should be
well understood by everyone engaged in the CRMI. The need
for well defined parameters is put into relief by highlighting
the likelihood that, in some instances, individual mentees will
have substantially more experience (and in a professional sense
be senior to) the mentor, staff and/or Steering Committee
members whose task it will be to support and sometimes to
coach them.
It was commonly understood by participants in the CRMI scoping Project that mentors or representatives of the
CRMIwouldworkcloselywitharangeofstakeholdersintheEmergencyManagementfieldfromlocalgovernment
officials to military officers, CFA and SES representatives, the local milk-bar owner, a not-for-profit manager, an
academic or a politician.
Ensuring the initiative embeds this expectation and capacity in its formative culture, organisational structures
and procedures and in its staff and Steering Committee members is critical.
IMPLEMENTING THE MODEL

23
and the Steering Committee to be sensitive to both
the presence and to the lack of such an invitation to
engage. The level of engagement with mentees and
communities must be appropriately calibrated to the
degree to which people want more engagement.
This is a critical distinction to bear in mind because it
cuts both ways: where an invitation to engage, explicit
or otherwise, is not present there is no opportunity for
engagement by the mentors or staff.
The CRMI is not an initiative intended to ‘help’ or
‘save’ people. It is an initiative intended to support
and empower people to take charge of their own
recovery. If potential mentees are not ready or willing
to be proactive about improving or ameliorating
the circumstances in which they or their community
find themselves, mentoring is not an appropriate
engagement vehicle for them. Though the staff or
a mentor can support people to be proactive, the
willingness to do so cannot be engendered from
without. Mentees must step-up to being responsible
for their own recovery; they cannot be induced or
otherwise ‘made’ to be responsible. Attempts to
have people take charge of their own recovery in the
absence of a personal willingness to be responsible
will fail and could conceivably draw mentors, staff
and other agencies into forms of engagement that
are inappropriate for this program. Fundamentally,
the drive for change, though fostered and supported
by a mentor, must come from the communities and
individuals themselves.
The experience in Carisbrook represents a case in
point. During the project evaluation of the Pigs Might
Fly pilot it became clear that when the opportunity
to engage with external mentors became available,
there were people in the town willing and able to
make the effort. Six months earlier, or six months
later, it is possible such an opportunity would have
fallen on deaf ears. In a similar vein, communities
(or organisations) that should objectively be ripe for
engagement may never be ready for reasons that are
never fully understood2
.
All participants in the CRMI should have keen
antennae for the level of invitation present at all
stages of the process. Ultimately, it is the responsibility
of the Steering Committee to determine what level of
2 In this sense, the initiative offers the sector an unparalleled
opportunity to better understand these dynamics through
consistent, on-the-ground engagemet.
engagement is appropriate and when to disengage.
A consciousness of the scope of the invitation that
is present, the ability to deliberately build on that
invitation to facilitate deeper levels of engagement
and, a willingness to disengage from a relationship
when appropriate are critical attributes.
In the context of empowering others to take charge
of their own recovery, a permanent willingness to
disengage is a critical attribute (see Operations and
Risk). This is a relatively unusual characteristic to
privilege in the recovery space and serves to highlight
one of the key differences between traditional
Emergency Management approaches and the
approach intended for the CRMI (see Administrative
processes below for an example of where this
fundamental difference plays out in the day-to-day
implementation of the initiative).
Using the example of the Pigs Might Fly pilot, there
were several key moments in that project where
residents of the community started to expect mentors
to agree with their narrative (particularly in relation
to the perceived insufficiencies of Council’s response
to their concerns) and to start advocating on their
behalf. While remaining compassionate, the mentors
explained that their continued involvement was
contingent upon the residents’ willingness to be
proactive and that blaming Council was a waste of
time. Because the mentors were clear they could walk
away from the engagement, and because they had
already formed some productive relationships in the
town, this position quickly sorted the‘wheat from the
chaff’in terms of those willing to engage productively
with recovery and those who were not.
FRAMEWORK AND DURATION OF THE
RELATIONSHIP
The framework of the relationship between the
mentor(s) and the mentee(s) cannot be pre-defined.
It must be allowed to evolve according to the needs,
individuals and circumstances that created it.
The duration of the relationship between mentor and
the mentee may be fleeting (i.e. a single phone call)
or it may evolve into a long-standing personal and/
or professional relationship. It may be between only
two people, or, as in the case of Carisbrook, it may
involve groups of people. It may be distinguished
by relationships between people in a primarily
professional capacity, between volunteers or simply
between people impacted by disaster. In all cases the

24
mentor/mentee relationship must be underpinned by
a desire to be personally responsible for improving
things and a willingness to look ‘outside the box’
for support and answers. From the perspective of
the initiative, a key measure of success is when the
relationship between two or a number of people that
have been ‘put-together’ though the agency of the
CRMI takes on a life of its own and the involvement
the staff diminishes over time to zero.
THE MENTORS JOB: EMPOWERING AND ENABLING
OTHERS
The content of the mentor/mentee relationship,
what actually happens in the conversations between
mentors and mentees, will be defined by the needs
of the mentees and the skills and experience of the
mentors.
At its most basic, the content of this relationship can
be categorised as the transfer of knowledge and
experience from the mentor to the mentee.
From this perspective, the mentor is a repository of
knowledgethatthisprogramaimstomakeavailableto
people who could take advantage of that experience.
In some instances it is likely that a simple transfer of
knowledge through sharing pitfalls and successes will
be a sufficient and exemplary utilisation of the CRMI
network. Such a scope may pertain particularly to
interactions between the representatives of different
organisations who want to know such things as how
best to manage the impact of the disaster on their
workforce, advice on managing new funding regimes
or, interactions with agencies they would not normally
have to engage with. In relation to community
recovery such as that experienced in Carisbrook, the
level of mentoring and support would be expected to
be deeper and more embedded.
Even in inter–organisational engagement however,
the potential of the relationships formed between
mentor and mentee is far greater then the simple
transferofknowledge.Thepotentialofthisrelationship
extends to the formation of long-term relationships
where both parties learn from each other and gain
confidence to innovate and experiment. It is on the
basis of relationships such as these that the CRMI is
expected to facilitate the formation of a nationwide
network of people in whom reside a profound depth
of knowledge and wisdom in the recovery space.
From this perspective, the mentor’s job is more
nuanced and challenging. It will require a set of skills
that go far beyond their direct experience of a disaster
and the recovery process. These include the ability to:
• get clear on what they want their community’s
recovery to look like
• understand the actual (as opposed to the
supposed)parametersoftheircapacitytoinfluence
the process of recovery
• identify appropriate pathways for making the
difference they are committed to and, critically
• hold themselves and their community ultimately
responsible for their circumstances now and into
the future
Each of these outcomes will look substantially
different for each mentee and for each community or
organisation that engages with a mentor(s). Mentors
can be expected to change over the course of time.
The mentors will need to be able to be patient and
committed at the same time as people go through the
spaces required to be responsible for their own and
their community’s future, deal with their own and each
others’concerns, issues and upsets and, start working
together on common projects that are important to
them.
The mentor should be ‘proactively available’ to the
mentors and work to continually expand the invitation
to engage for themselves and for other mentors. If the
levels of engagement deepen, they should then work
to expand the network available to their mentees
by identifying other people and resources that can
provide the advice, resources and support they need
to fulfil on their vision. As distinguished above, the
ultimate goal of the mentor is to become redundant
and to replace themselves with a new generation of
mentors.
THE MENTORS JOB: KEY DISTINCTIONS
The base criteria identified for a mentor through this
program is personal experience with a disaster and
the recovery process. Experience provides the mentor
with credibility in relation to potential mentors, but
also the content they will need to be of value to their
interlocutor.
However, in order to be effective at empowering and
enabling people in communities and organisations
there are a number of other distinctions mentors
should be able and willing to work with. In some ways,
these distinctions help define the difference between
a program focussed on helping others and a program
focussed on empowering others to help themselves.

25
These distinctions are not commonplace in the
Emergency Management and recovery fields, and are
distinguished for CRMI mentors as the ability to:
• lookforopportunitiesto‘takethingsout’ofpeople’s
lived experience rather than‘put new things in’
• share their experience in a way that leaves others
with new openings for action. This is distinct
from sharing in a way that leaves others with an
experience that it is all too overwhelming, too hard,
or that the mentor was lucky or had some‘x-factor’
they may not have
The participants in the Scoping Project validated the
experience of the Pigs Might Fly pilot that it is critical to
help people get complete about their experience and
make their own plans before a tsunami of resources and
optionsaremadeavailabletothem(seeappendixAfora
discussion on why this is important, using Carisbrook as
anexample).Giventheimmediateneedsofpopulations
in distress, it is not always possible for this process to
be linear as described here, nonetheless, the principal
of supporting the development of local authority and
clarity-of-mind before substantial recovery resources
(as opposed to response-focussed resources) are made
available, is critical to the formation of an indigenous
recovery process.
Facilitating this requires of the mentors a key set of
skills and a profound willingness to listen and share
experience as partners in a common enterprise.
The mentor should be able to ‘get’ the experience
of the people recovering from a disaster. In the Pigs
Might Fly experience, the mentees in Carisbrook got
extraordinary value out simply being able to talk
about their experience with people they felt could
personally relate to what they were talking about.
They were profoundly relieved to hear about the
ongoing challenges facing the community’s impacted
by the Black Saturday fires two years after the event
because it validated the ongoing challenges they
were experiencing. Having that experience validated
by people from another community played a critical
role in unlocking the capacity of the community to
stop attacking each other and the local Council, and
to start working together.
The approach described here is distinct in important
ways from many aspects of the traditional approach
to recovery exercised in Australia.
By embedding the distinctions described here
through a network approach it is hoped that the
CRMI can play a valuable role in ‘bridging the gap’
that is often seen between the intentions and goals
of Australian Emergency Management agencies, and
the implementation mechanisms available to them to
achieve these goals3
.
The Funder
In order to operate, the CRMI will have to be funded.
The nature and duration of this funding is critical to the
long-term potential of the initiative. This is especially
true as the CRMI is conceived of as a network facilitator
and augmentor, a model that implies particular
requirements and tensions.
Thelevelofdirectengagementofthefundingprovider
in the initiative’s governance and implementation
was heavily debated and no definitive answers were
achieved. However, some parameters and guidance
notes can be extrapolated from the work done
through the Scoping Project:
• it is anticipated that the funder will be
extensively engaged in the Australian Emergency
Management sector and would therefore have a
solid contribution to make to the CRMI Steering
Committee
• the funding body will need to have a clear
understanding of the nature of the CRMI and
support its intention to provide a mechanism
through which value can be created by other
actors, and not to become a static repository of
knowledge itself
• The funding body would need to understand
and be supportive of the dynamics of community
development as this, more than any other
framework, should inform the work of the CRMI.
FUNDING DURATION
It is important that the funding mechanism and
timing is appropriately calibrated to fulfil the intention
of the initiative. Most importantly the funding must be
secure and recurring over a number of years.
Developing a network takes time. Once created it must
be maintained if it is to be available when actually
needed.
3 The challenge facing the Emergency Management sector is not
in defining a resilient community, or even defining recovery.
The challenge lies in identifying the mechanisms through which
such outcomes can be achieved. See appendix C for a discussion
regarding the role the CRMI could play in implementing the
National Strategy for Disaster Resilience.

26
The CRMI will be effective to the extent that people
with experience and knowledge and the skills
necessary to transmit that wisdom are identified,
supported and mobilised.
This process is based primarily on trust between all
parties and on the development of a network that is
intended to stretch across states, communities and
organisational boundaries.
Developing the network and appropriate processes
for managing it, will take time and the funding
(and hosting) regime under which the CRMI will be
constituted should recognise the relatively long lead-
times required. There is no point building a database
and a set of relevant relationships in preparation for a
community-level emergency and then not having the
resources on-hand to mobilise those resources when
they are actually needed.
As an innovative project, the initiative will also need to
develop robust processes and governance structures
appropriate to fostering ‘empowering and enabling
relationships’. The opportunity to evolve appropriate
mechanisms for such a task is critical and it may not
be possible to simply adopt the practices of another
agency, or those of the host (see Administrative
Process).
There are also some inherent risks in the CRMI
approach to all parties involved that must be carefully
worked through (see Operations and Risk). As a
fundamentally relationship-based approach, these
risks should be planned for, but they can only really be
managed through an iterative process of engagement
with partners.
The general consensus of Scoping Project participants
was that funding should be provided for aminimum of
three years to ensure that the relationship aspects of
the CRMI were effectively leveraged.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The CRMI is intended to facilitate the sharing of
knowledge and experience and the initiative is
intendedtoactasaproactivefacilitatorandsecretariat.
Below are a number of the impacts and outcomes
identified as an appropriate starting point:
Impacts
• Communities, and the organisations and agencies
dedicated to serving them, are powerful in
preparing for and responding to emergencies
• The experience and knowledge generated in
previous events is readily available, accessible and
deliveredinaformthatistrusted,easilyunderstood
and locally appropriate
• The communities and organisations that will have
to live with the long-term impacts of the response
and recovery processes undertaken have been
effective in defining theirown definitions of success
and the future that represents
• TheCRMIhasbeeneffectiveinhelpingcommunities
and organisations in fulfilling on the goals that are
important to them
Outcomes
• Number of projects created
• Increase in mentor/mentee contacts (short-term)
• Proportionatedecreaseinmentor/menteecontacts
over time (as capacity is embedded)
• Number of new mentors and mentees on the
database
The Host
The administrative environment in which the CRMI
would be expected to sit will probably have the
single most decisive influence on how it operates and
evolves.The risks and benefits of different governance
models were the subject of extensive discussion
throughout the Scoping Project.
RISKS AND BENEFITS: AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY
WITHIN AN EXISTING ORGANISATION
The broad final consensus was that the CRMI should
be hosted as an independent entity within a non-
government, nationally-focussed organisation. It was
felt that this would be the most effective model for
fulfilling the goals and intentions of the CRMI while
at the same time maximising its reach and access into
the Emergency Management space.
GOVERNANCE
The positioning of the CRMI in the organisational chart
of the host organisation should be carefully managed
to ensure that oversight of the initiative remains
with the Steering Committee, and not with the host.
Though the CRMI is expected to be embedded in
an organisation, and will be therefore bound by the
policies, human resource guidelines and processes
of that organisation, it was the distinct preference
of participants in the Scoping Project that the line of
authority for the operations of the initiative should run

27
directly to the Steering Committee and not to the host
organisation.
From an operational perspective the initiative should
retain, in perception and in fact, a discrete identity and
independenceofthoughtandactionandshouldavoid
the perception and the fact of being or becoming an
appendage of its host4
.
The two key strategies identified through the Scoping
Project for ensuring this independence is retained and
appropriately managed are:
1. Hosting the initiative in an NGO
It was felt that hosting the CRMI project within
government risked it becoming dependent on
political fortunes and the vagaries of the political
cycle. There was a general consensus that
government representatives are less trusted than
those from the not-for-profit sector in a community
recovery setting (see the Carisbrook experience for
potential drivers of this perception).There was also
an assumption that not-for-profit agencies would
provide fewer bureaucratic impositions on the
initiative than government5
2. The role of the Steering Committee
The role of the Steering Committee in managing
expectations and relations with the host
organisation cannot be underestimated.
The Steering Committee would be expected to be
responsible for ensuring that the administrative
processes of the CRMI are appropriate to it’s unique
operational needs, and are not adopted willy-nilly
from another source (eg. the host organisation).
For all the cost and administrative value hosting
the initiative in a larger organisation offers, the
risks associated with that relationship must be
carefully understood and managed by the Steering
Committee members. This would include:
a) negotiating the governance position of the
initiative as well as on-goingly managing the
boundaries of that agreement
b) reassuring the host organisation that the CRMI
is effectively managing risk (especially as the
host may not have the same degree of oversight
4 It must be noted that, at least in principal, the extent to which
the Steering Committee is organisationally responsible for
the processes of the CRMI is the extent to which it is also
responsible for the risks associated with the outcomes of those
processes.
5 An assumption that has not been tested.
it has on other projects)
c) continually articulating the value the CRMI is
providing both to the sector generally, but also
to the host organisation itself
In relation to both internal and external stakeholders,
the relationship management role of the Steering
Committee members is thus critical.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
To be successful, the CRMI will be a relationship-based
network of mentors and mentees. The processes that
govern the deliberate development and mobilisation
of a network are different in critical ways from those
that are appropriate to the management and
governance of a traditional Emergency Management
or government agency.
This distinction is especially important to note
because of the likelihood the CRMI will be hosted
within a traditional Emergency Management
institution or agency. In this instance, it is important
thatprocessesthatworkwithinthehostarenotassumed
to automatically apply in the CRMI. What is appropriate
in one context may well be inappropriate in the other
as the two entities, though sharing similar goals, may
represent very different (if complementary) ways of
getting there.
Administrative processes including project
management, HR and employment, funding,
reporting etc. should not be imported willy-nilly
from an outside source (the most obvious being the
host organisation). They will need to be developed
(potentially off external templates) by the Steering
Committee and staff to be appropriate to the specific
needs and strategic intentions of the CRMI as a
network-oriented facilitator.
FUNCTIONS AND SUPPORT FROM THE HOST
ORGANISATION
The CRMI Steering Committee would be expected to
negotiate the following forms of in-kind and other
support to the initiative:
• Contract Management
> with the funder
> with other relevant agencies
• Provision of relevant overheads
> office space
> access to administrative equipment
> vehicle pool

28
> banking and finance
> payroll and insurance
• Provision of Ad Hoc services e.g.:
> media, graphics and marketing
> IT support
• HR support
> contract and employment templates
> inclusioninP/L,P/Iandotherrelevantinsurances
• Program Evaluation
The Steering Committee
The Steering Committee plays a critical role in
the proposed structure of the CRMI. The role of
the Steering Committee members goes beyond
performance management, governance and financial
accountability.
The members of the Steering Committee are expected
to ‘hold the flame’ for the initiative and its goals.
They are also expected to play a critical role as the
initiative’s ‘eye’s and ears’, helping identify mentors
and opportunities to be of service as well as playing a
hands-on role in vetting and supporting the mentors
and the staff.
It is hoped that an initial Steering Committee could be
formed out of the CRMI Scoping Project participants
prior to the submission for any funding. This would
help to maximise links to the Scoping Project and
its learnings, maintain momentum and consistency
in the project and manage the expectations of the
people who had a hand in developing the CRMI and
who expect to be a part of it going forward.
MEMBERSHIP OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE
It is anticipated that the Steering Committee
would be constituted by relatively senior people
in the Emergency Management sector as well as
representatives of other key stakeholder groups.
Steering Committee members would be expected to
have substantial personal experience in the sector
and with disaster recovery.
This representation should obviously include people
from all tiers of government (local, state and federal)
as well as people who will legitimately represent the
perspectives of non-organisational actors including
residents of individual communities.
While fulfilling on this role, Steering Committee
members are representatives of the CRMI, and not
of the organisations or communities they are drawn
from. This is analogous to the fiduciary duty held by
directors in a for-profit company.
The question of what a community representative
is was discussed extensively through the Scoping
Project. It was determined that the question is a false
one as everyone is a member of many communities
and most of us have both local community-based
as well as professional roles. The networks that the
initiative is intended to build and foster are intended
to spread across all sectoral boundaries, and the
membership of the Steering Committee should reflect
that spread.
ROLE OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
The core function of the Steering Committee is to
provide governance and oversight to the initiative, as
well as be accountable for financial and performance
outcomes. In addition, a key expectation on Steering
Committee members is that they will provide links
into the Emergency Management sector.This will help
the staff and mentors build a broad-based network
and facilitate appropriate outcomes.
Steering Committee members should satisfy the
same criteria as mentors in that they personally have
relevant experience and knowledge as well as the
skills and capacity to effectively share that wisdom.
Though a Steering Committee member may be
employed by Red Cross, the NSW government or
the Australian Army, to the degree possible, they
should be expected to be willing and able to set aside
institutional biases while fulfilling their functions on
the Steering Committee.
The CRMI is expected to operate effectively across
organisational, geographic and sectoral boundaries,
and even potentially play a part in making some of
thoseboundariesmorepermeable.Theextenttowhich
these outcomes are achievable depends primarily on
the contacts, commitment and enthusiasm for the
initiatve displayed by Steering Committee members.
The final essential function of the Steering Committee
is to balance the application of due and rigorous
process with the need to allow mentor/mentee
relationships to evolve and flourish in their own way,
untrammelled by external procedural requirements.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE
Key responsibilities of the Steering Committee are as
follows:

29
• hiring and performance management of the senior
staff member (especially the executive function)
• supporting staff in:
> defining and operationalising the mentor and
mentee identification and vetting processes
> defining and operationalising processes
associated with community and organisational
engagement
> identifying, vetting and supporting mentors
and mentees (all mentor applications must
be assessed and approved by the Steering
Committee in order for them to be included in
the list of mentors)
> developing and implementating procedures for
‘disengaging’ with communities/organisations
and/or mentees when and as appropriate
• managing relationships with the host organisation
(see The Host above) and all other organisational
stakeholders
• managing governance issues, especially around
the requirements for bureaucratic process and the
assumption and generation of risk, including by:
> mentors and mentees and the organisations
and/or communities they work within
> the staff
> the host
• ensuring that the initiative operates in a steady-
state and is not pulled into the‘emergency cycle’
• managing and maintaining the credibility of the
mentors themselves viz a viz external agencies and
potential and actual mentees
• acting as the initiative’s ‘eyes-and-ears’ in the
Emergency Management sector with a view to:
> identifying opportunities to engage with
potential mentors and mentees
> understandingwheretheinitiativecancontinue
to add value in the Emergency Management
space
> relationship management with other
organisations and institutions in the Emergency
Management sector
The Staff
The operational and leadership capacity of the
initiative will inevitably be sourced primarily in the
paid staff.
Itisanticipatedthatstaffnumberswillremainrelatively
small and that they will therefore have to fulfil multiple
functions. The context for the staff should be that of
a private-sector start-up attempting to rapidly build
organisational momentum while currently delivering
relevant sector-wide engagement.
The CRMI was conceived by the participants in
the Scoping Project as an independent entity
hosted within a larger organisation. As such,
the staff would report directly to the Steering
Committee and not to the host organisation.
FUNCTIONS OF THE STAFF
The motivation for creating a CRMI is to formalise
and craft an alternative and innovative method of
engagement between and within communities and
organisations. As such, the staff should be expected
to provide substantial leadership in the Emergency
Management space, and in the communities and
organisations they have the opportunity to work
with. To fulfil on this intention it is therefore essential
that the advocacy and executive roles of the staff
are recognised alongside their administrative and
community engagement functions.
The person who fills the executive function of the
initiative will have to be both experienced and well
respected in the Emergency Management sector.They
will be expected to work closely with senior people in
the sector as peers as well to effectively mentor and
coach mentors (many of whom will themselves be
senior people in the sector).
As in any executive position, the person who fills this
role will be critical to both the short and the long-
term functioning of the CRMI. They must be paid
commensurate with the seniority the role demands,
and related to as an important contributor and actor
in the sector.This is not a job for someone with limited
experience or drive.
If, for funding reasons only one staff person can
be employed, the administrative function should
wherever possible be out-sourced either through
external agencies or, by preference, to the host
organisation as an in-kind contribution. This will free
up the staff person to play the leadership and network
development functions of the role.
The staff would be expected to work with the Steering
Committee to build, manage and where required,
train the network of mentors. They would also be
expected to ensure that the administrative and

30
funding resources required to mobilise this network
when and how required are available. They would
be expected, with the direct support of the Steering
Committee and other mechanisms as appropriate, to
have available to them a robust framework for:
1. Identifying which communities, organisations and
people are appropriate to work with as mentors
and mentees
2. Howbesttoapproachand/ordeveloparelationship
with those communities, organisations and people
3. How to ascertain the mechanisms through which
mentors should be introduced to people, and
critically, how to determine which mentors and at
which stages in the recovery process
4. Ensuring that mentor/mentee relationships are
appropriate as per the distinctions outlined in this
initiative (see The Mentors Job: Key Distictions
above and below)
5. Continuing to define what the appropriate mentor/
mentee relationship is: what its parameters are and
when and how best to influence that relationship
Unpacking these five issues will be an ongoing
enquiry for the staff, the Steering Committee and all
the associated stakeholders. Working through these
issues in the context of operationalising the CRMI
should provide concrete learnings to the whole sector.
Making these learnings available to people who can
operationalise them in Australia is the reason the
Scoping Project participants were keen to ensure
the initiative’s staff were asked to provide sectoral
leadership.
Staff deliverables:
• coordinating communications and/or travel as
required between:
> the mentors and the staff
> the Steering Committee and the staff
> other stakeholders
> mentors and mentees
• providing vetting and/or training for:
> staff
> mentors
> mentees
> Steering Committee members
• working with the Steering Committee to identify
opportunities and appropriate timing for engaging
with potential new mentors and mentees
• providing leadership for the further development
of the initiative including:
> working with the Steering Committee to build
the network of mentors and mentees
> workingwiththeSteeringCommitteetoexpand
the scope of opportunities for mentors
• as required, and in collaboration with the Steering
Committee, engaging with potential mentees to
ascertain whether, when, how and with whom to
link them with
• supporting the mentors (and if required some
mentees) through:
> coaching and training (as required, the staff
will be expected to act as mentors themselves
and provide coaching and other professional
support)
> administrative and other support as required
> managing and maintaining the credibility of
the mentors viz a viz external agencies and
potential and actual mentees
• working with the Steering Committee to be
responsible for the evolution of the relationships
between mentors and mentees and all other
stakeholders. This would include ongoing
assessment of the engagement process and
whether,whenandhowmentorsshoulddisengage
from relationships (see Operations and Risk)
• managing the mentor/mentee and other
stakeholder databases
The Mentors
The intention of the CRMI is to bring together people
with the relevant experience and knowledge of
community-level disasters and the capacity to share
that wisdom effectively with the people who could
use that wisdom at that moment in time.
Recognising a need to identify in mentors a specific
ability to share wisdom effectively is based on a
recognition that the existence or simple declamation
of such knowledge and experience is insufficient in-
and-of-itself to produce a sustainable result. This
proposition was validated by the experience of Pigs
Might Fly pilot, and through the experience of the
participants in the Scoping Project. Indeed, people’s
participation in the Scoping Project was largely
predicated upon their recognition that current models
of sharing knowledge and experience of previous
events was insufficient, and the promise of the Pigs
Might Fly pilot in identifying an alternative.

31
The Emergency Management sector is founded on
a commitment to help communities responding to
and recovering from community-level disasters. A
Community Recovery Mentorship Initiative should
add value by addressing two key challenges people
working in the sector have become increasingly
conscious of in recent years:
1. finding ways to ensuring that the knowledge and
experience that has been generated by previous
events is utilised to its maximum effect in new
events
2. mitigating the unintended consequences of a
recovery model based on the primary mobilisation
of resources external to the community in question
A key finding from both the Pigs Might Fly pilot and
the CRMI Scoping Project is that people in the throes
of responding to and recovering from disasters need
to be personally related to the people providing advice
and support if they are to be effectively mobilised
in directing their own recovery. No other form of
credibility is sufficient to ensure that they are both
fully engaged in the process of their own recovery,
and that they are left empowered by that process.
Associated with this is a realisation that profession-
based forms of credibility are not always effective
sources of credibility in that environment. Indeed
the earnt-right to wear a uniform, a Council logo, or
represent an institution external to the community-
in-question can actually serve to undermine the
effectiveness of the advice being provided and the
growth of indigenous recovery-processes.
The organisations traditionally considered to
constitute the Emergency Management sector
represent a critical resource in shielding and
supporting people from the full-brunt of natural and
man-made disasters. However, when it comes to
community recovery and engagement, many of these
organisations face hurdles constituted by their very
nature as professionally-based entities.
This statement is not intended to diminish the
importance or role of Emergency Management
institutions in supporting communities to respond
to and recover from disasters in Australia. Rather, it is
intended to point to the particular function of mentors
as conceived for this initiative.
Mentoring relationships are expected to develop
between two or more people. They must be built on
trust and a mutual recognition of similar experience,
including general life experience.
From a recovery perspective, it is expected that
people with experience in a small business context
would develop relationships with other small business
owners, teachers with teachers, local government
officers and executives with other local government
officers and executives etc.
MENTOR CHARACTERISTICS
The definition of the term mentor was contested
throughout the CRMI Scoping Project and many
alternatives were suggested. Concerns around the
definition came down to the term’s associational links
with three elements that seemed to be in appropriate
for the CRMI:
• business and professional development - the
terms of reference for the relationship are overly
constrained
• mentoring in a youth context - a power imbalance
between mentor and mentee is embedded in the
relationship
• a traditional institutional, hierarchical or formal
conception of the relationship
All three approaches to mentoring would undermine
or preclude the kind of relationship the Scoping
Project participants felt would be appropriate in a
disaster recovery context.
One working definition that does serve to capture
manyoftheaspectsofthementor/menteerelationship
intended by the Scoping Project participants is:
Mentoring is a process for the informal transmission
of knowledge, social capital, and the psychosocial
support perceived by the recipient as relevant
mentoring entails informal communication, usually
face-to-face and during a sustained period of time,
between a person who is perceived to have greater
relevant knowledge, wisdom, or experience (the
mentor) and a person who is perceived to have less
(the protégé)”
Bozeman, B.; Feeney, M. K. (October 2007)6
As discussed earlier, professional experience and
qualifications are insufficient, and in some cases
could represent a distraction, when attempting to
6 Bozeman, B.; Feeney, M. K. (October 2007), "Toward a useful
theory of mentoring: A conceptual analysis and critique" in
Administration & Society 39 (6): 719–739

32
identify appropriate mentors for this initiative. Due to
the limitations of traditional professional markers in
identifying mentors, the Scoping Project participants
and the CRMI Steering Committee members, spent
a considerable effort attempting to distinguish the
characteristics they felt staff and Steering Committee
members should look for.
At a minimum these would include:
• personal experience of disaster and a willingness to
share that experience
• strong relationship skills
• appropriate personal circumstances (i.e. they
could afford, or be afforded by an employer, the
commitment/time required)
• being open to training and feedback (largely
from the staff and the members of the Steering
Committee)
• exhibiting strong mentoring/leadership skills (or
their potential)
Mentors would need to be able to engage with,
and appropriately relate to, people dealing with a
highly stressful and potentially traumatic event in a
compassionate and appropriate manner. They would
also need to be able to be responsible for their own
mental and physical wellbeing in these circumstances.
It is expected that one of the first functions of the
CRMI Steering Committee after staff are appointed
will be to further define and operationalise the
characteristics, definitions and requirements of a
mentor and develop the relevant processes required
to manage an initial intake of mentors. Given their
commitment to supporting the CRMI through their
personal engagement, it is reasonable to expect that
the initial intake of mentors would be constituted
primarily by participants in the Scoping Project.
MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT OF MENTORS
Designing, modifying and especially implementing
the processes that govern the identification,
approach, application, vetting, ongoing management,
mobilisation, support and debriefing of mentors
should define the bulk of the staff’s work.
The Steering Committee will play a critical role in
supporting the staff in this work. They should be
especially active in helping develop and oversee
policies intended to protect the wellbeing of mentors.
In particular, Steering Committee members will be
expected to be proactive in identifying and initiating
contact with potential mentors. One of the key
functions of the Steering Committee is to provide
the staff with embedded access, information and
relationships across the sector.
Throughout the process of designing the CRMI,
the participants of the Scoping Project where at
pains to emphasise the importance of ensuring that
appropriate support mechanisms are put in place
to help mentors both before, during and after their
engagement with individuals and communities.
Some of the mechanisms that were suggested by
participants to provide this support to mentors
included:
• Psychosocial support
Processes for supporting the mentor’s
psychological health must be put in place and
rigorously implemented.
The availability and provision of this support, both
to mentors and to staff, is critical.The role of mentor
will include commonalities across all interventions
but it will also be unique each time.The mentor will
be required to be personally related to the people
they are working with, and thus with the issues and
trauma’s they are experiencing.
• Professional and organisational support
The mentor and the staff will be operating with limited
institutional support (apart from that provided
by the host organisation which must, perforce,
remain in the background) and at the intersection
between various agencies and interest groups in
the community(s) they are engaged in. Such a role,
operating at the boundaries of multiple stakeholder
groups and traditional practice yet expected to be
intimately related to the experience and processes
of them all, is fraught with risk to the mentor and
the staff. Access to professional development
and support will represent a key mechanism for
mitigating these risks.
• Forming project-specific working groups
These would be small, event, project or
community-specific groups of mentors, staff,
Steering Committee members and potentially
external stakeholders. Each group would be
formed to provide direct oversight for a particular
engagement. These could be set up as ad hoc
groups or on a regular basis depending on the
experience of the CRMI over time.

Community Resilience Mentorship Initiaive

Community Resilience Mentorship Initiaive

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Community Resilience Mentorship Initiaive

Similar to Community Resilience Mentorship Initiaive (20)

More from Sonny Neale

More from Sonny Neale (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Community Resilience Mentorship Initiaive