John Plodinec

Build It Better Leadership Forum

May 19th, 2013 - John Plodinec  

Thursday and Friday I had the pleasure to attend the Build It Better Leadership Forum in Charlotte. Renaissance Reinsurance, the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes, and their partners put on a superlative event bringing together nearly all of the stakeholders in what Leslie Chapman-Henderson has dubbed the Mitigation Movement. Presentations from the meeting will be available shortly on www.mitigationleadership.com, so I’m just going to hit a few highlights and throw in a few gratuitous comments.

Wayne Goodwin (NC Insurance Commissioner and State Fire Marshal – interesting combination) highlighted several programs in North Carolina. His talk pointed to the tension state insurance agencies face: letting insurance premiums reflect real risk (thus discouraging stupid development) vs keeping insurance affordable so that people have this important resource for recovery.

Rick Knabb of the National Hurricane Center gave an excellent talk centered around whether Hurricane Sandy was “unique” or not . His presentation and several others did a great job of debunking the idea that this was an unprecedented storm. I was left with a question, though. The Long Island Express of ‘38 was a scalpel that slashed and reshaped the Long Island Sound. Did Sandy’s butter knife have that same impact on the NJ-NY shore?

I particularly enjoyed Bill Read’s talk (former head of the National Hurricane Center) spotlighting what he saw as the next potential catastrophes. Number 1 on his list was the southwest Gulf Coast of FL – he pointed out that this has the highest concentration of the elderly in America as well as highly constrained evacuation options. Second on his list was the Savannah-Charleston Low Country. He praised Chatham County for its efforts to prepare its population. I know that its Hurricane Academy is top-notch:  the way the “Academy” tells even the poorest how they can strengthen their homes on a shoestring is really impressive. Bill also highlighted (low-lighted?) the Virginia Tidewater and the lower Rio Grande Valley for their vulnerability. I was a little disappointed that he didn’t point to the Sacramento Valley: this is the area that I believe is the most vulnerable in the country – development where development wasn’t intended, protected only by crumbling levees.

There were several talks from insurers. An interesting aspect of Sandy was that the insurance payouts for personal property were not particularly intense, but claims for autos were. This was due to the relatively sparse evacuation.

A theme reiterated throughout the meeting was that building codes – if properly maintained and enforced – really work. Tim Reinhold of IBHS made the point that enforcement of high wind codes can reduce wind damage claims by about 60%. Leslie C-H really pounded that message home in her usual inimitable style.

Gavin Smith and I both pointed to the potential impacts of Biggert-Waters. I personally believe that Dodd-Franks can have an even bigger impact: some people don’t have insurance, but almost everyone has to take out a loan when buying or refurbishing a home. And Dodd-Franks means that local banks now have to carry much more of the risks of homes in unsafe places than ever before. If we can get weather risks into loan decisions, it may well do more than anything else we can do to educate home owners.

Frank Nutter talked in terms of what we could/should be doing to further community resilience, primarily following the recommendations of one of NY’s Sandy commissions.
• Assess the community [of course this resonated with me!].
• Appoint state and local Resilience Officers to look at risk and mitigation. I think about Bill Hooke’s idea of an NTSB for weather events as a responsibility for this position.
• Close collaboration of state and local communities in safety/health/security matters.
• Evaluate business interruption financing.
• Improve building codes and enforcement.
• Develop private sector emergency response capacity [and integrate it with the public sector].
• Incorporate considerations of extreme weather / climate risks into community development decisions.
• Use nature to mitigate risk [in part, the reason for my question on Sandy's impact above].
• Mitigation tax credits.

There was lots more: Dave Canaan’s story of the remodeling of Charlotte’s watershed, Ann Roberson’s SC Safe Home, and especially Robin Westcott’s refreshingly frank remarks about what the state of Florida has done right and wrong in mitigation all should be heard by everyone.

The meeting was so upbeat its energy was almost exhausting. The focus was on action – what can or should or could we do now to build better. It brought to mind the lyrics of an old Van Morrison song:

“These are the days, the time is now
There is no past, there’s only future
There’s only here, there’s only now…

These are the days now that we must savour
And we must enjoy as we can
These are the days that will last forever
You’ve got to hold them in your heart.”

Not a bad anthem for community resilience.

John Plodinec

THE NEW RESILIENCE – HIGHER EDUCATION

April 22nd, 2013 - John Plodinec  

As I continue to develop the concept of “The New Resilience,” today I’ll look at higher education – all education beyond high school.

A fundamental fact that any discussion of higher ed has to recognize is that the costs of higher ed are rising faster than for almost any other segment of our society; the major exception is health care.  As a result, a new model of course delivery – massive open on-line courses (MOOCs) have begun to displace the traditional “sage on a stage” model of teaching.  For example, Harvard Business School doesn’t teach introductory accounting; students take an on-line course originating from BYU.

The potential advantages of the MOOC model are lower costs and exposure of students to better teaching.  “Potential” is the key word, though.  Costs are generally lower, but broadcasting a class from the same old teacher who didn’t know how to teach before he was put on camera doesn’t improve the quality of instruction.  Further, a key advantage of the traditional method is the interaction with peers and professors.  While this can be accommodated in MOOCs, it’s not an easy marriage.

This interactive process, particularly applied to recognizing and solving problems, I see as a key contributor toward the New Resilience.  In today’s world, we all need to be able to recognize change, and to use the basic skill of learning to find ways to adapt to change.  MOOCs – augmented by on-campus resources – are an efficient manner of delivering traditional course material.  If combined with a strong interactive component focused on applying the course material to the real world, our students can have the kind of adaptive – resilient – experience that they will need to succeed.

This doesn’t just apply to the traditional four-year (or more) curricula either.  Those studying for two year degrees – in welding, nursing, vet tech, and so on – all need to be able to adapt to change.  Virtually all of their “book learning” can be delivered on-line, and precious class time conserved for the hands-on problem-solving required to adapt to changing conditions.

Higher ed is changing, and will continue to change.  The change now is driven by cost; but these changes can lead to greater resilience as well, if we structure them to do so.

John Plodinec

The New Resilience: Education – The Basics

April 17th, 2013 - John Plodinec  

“No matter what global problem you are dreading, whether it’s the elimination of poverty, whether it’s the creation of peace, whether its solving environmental energy problems, the solution- whatever it is – multiple solutions, the solutions always include education, never is it without an education component and sometimes cannot be done without education.” – Nicholas Negroponte

In my last post, I introduced a concept I’m calling the “New Resilience.”   The concept is based on the belief that the American Dream is just as relevant today as it was 200+ years ago, but that we must adapt our pursuit of the Dream to the very different world we live in.

I’m going to start with Education and then march through several other aspects of community life. As you’ll see, I’m not calling for a revolution in any one area, but rather evolutions in each that taken together could have a huge impact on all our lives.

As Negroponte indicates, education is essential to solving any of our problems.  Most importantly, it has become the essential component of having a sustainable life.  In our evolving world, education has been seen as having two primary purposes – developing basic skills to be a productive citizen and developing a shared cultural understanding. Lip service is generally paid to the idea that learning how to learn one’s whole life is one of those important basic skills.

But the meaning of being a “productive citizen” is changing. The average American worker can now expect to change jobs about 10 times during his career. Less than 30% can expect to stay with the same employer 10 years or more; only 10% can expect to stay with the same employer for 20 years. How very different than when the American Dream was originally conceived! Then, unskilled jobs were always available; while there will always be unskilled jobs, they are becoming increasingly scarce (and require basic reading and writing skills), and an unreliable source of mass employment. This means that we have to teach our children to recognize change, and use the basic skill of learning to find ways to adapt, and perhaps even seize the opportunity inherent in change.

After my snide remark about the lip service paid to lifelong learning, it’s fair to ask, “Well, wise guy, how do we actually achieve the goal?” A few thoughts…

First, how about bringing people from the business world into our schools? Not to tout their particular career a la “Career Day,” but to talk about the basic skills they use in doing their job, and to share their life experiences. And not just the college-educated, but especially those who have gone on to get an Associate degree or otherwise developed a marketable skill. In many cases, these kinds of people go unrecognized, but to me many of them are the true heroes of our modern world.

Similarly, have businesses regularly come to the schools and potentially teach some of the basics. Anecdotally, many businesses are having troubley finding qualified non-college workers who can make change, communicate effectively, and have an acceptable work ethic. It is not unusual for a company to reject 19 out of 20 applicants.

While businesses obviously have an incentive to get more involved in education, I suggest that we offer tax credits to those which actually do so. There are too many cases where businesses don’t take time away from making a profit to do something worthwhile (e.g., developing a business continuity plan!).

Second, how about changing most of our education regimen from rote drilling in single subjects to a more immersive experience centered around real-world problems? Everything from making a budget to developing solutions to environmental or social problems (in an intellectually appropriate manner) can be used to drive home both the importance of basic skills and and to spark a desire to learn how to learn. As Negroponte says, “The children should be making things. The children should be writing computer programs. They should be learning by doing. The thing is not to learn Excel or such programs, it is to learn to learn.”

The key to this one is getting teachers to buy in. When I discuss these ideas with teachers, the response I get most often is, “I’d like to do that, but the administration tells me we don’t have the money to do anything beside what we’re doing.” The answer is easy – cut back on the school districts’ administration. Take the money saved and spend it on the teachers and insist that they do whatever it takes to educate our children. Recent work by the Brookings Institution found that school districts had a very small impact on students’ educational achievement: teachers made – by far – the greatest difference (7 times that of school districts); the impact of the schools themselves was twice that of the district.

Third, let’s stop concentrating just on our girls, and recognize our boys constitute the real educational challenge of our time. Only 40% of college students are men. Some Institutions of Higher Education are actually reducing entrance standards for men in order to get a “balanced” student body. Boys are far more likely to be medicated than girls during their primary years (and beyond), and to cause discipline problems. More boys than girls drop out of school before obtaining a high school diploma. We know that boys and girls learn differently and that there are huge differences in their rate of development. For many young men, a return to single sex schools would make a huge difference. In short, quite medicating and start educating our young men!

I’m going to stop here for a moment; in my next tirade (er, post), I’ll continue to take a look at education, particularly higher education. Education is an important part of what I see as the “New Resilience” – the adaptation of the American Dream to the circumstances of our new century. At the core of the Dream is not outcome but seizing opportunity. Without the proper education, how can we even recognize opportunity, let alone grasp it?

John Plodinec

The New Resilience

February 25th, 2013 - John Plodinec  

Last month, I presented my view of where America is in terms of resilience (http://blog.resilientus.mediapulse.com/2013/01/20/america-the-less-resilient/). I argued that by too many measures, we are less resilient than we once were, and our trajectory is negative.

However, we must recognize that the American Dream is an essential component of our resilience. Our resilience as a nation and as individuals is entwined with the idea that this is the land of opportunity, that there are no bounds on what we can ultimately achieve except those we set ourselves. This has imbued us with self-confidence and a certain faith in the future.

While many still believe in the American Dream, others can no longer see its relevance in today’s world. Thus, if we are to change our trajectory, we must reinvigorate the American Dream and restore its universality. We must adapt it to the circumstances of our new century.

What are those circumstances? Two years ago, I wrote about several changes that are impacting our daily lives:

• The growing complexity of communities. More people, more bureaucracies, greater interdependencies.
• The new spectrum of hazards facing communities. On top of natural hazards, we now have to worry about random acts of violence and global terrorism.
• The accelerating rate of change of our daily lives. This brings with it the need to reinvent our communities much more frequently than in the past.
• Impacts of the Great Recession. We’re all having to make do with less – even governments.
• Unrealistic expectations. We have grown more dependent on our governments to smooth our lives, but we can no longer rely (if we ever could) on government as the answer.
• Changing demographics. The graying of America, the huge number of immigrants, and a resegregation of America along educational lines are all factors that must be considered.

A little over a year ago, I posted a note about the various parts of the Resilience Movement (http://blog.resilientus.mediapulse.com/2011/12/19/resilience-%E2%80%94-one-movement-many-voices/). It seems to me that the one common thread among all of these tangled skeins is self-reliance: the implicit belief that we as individuals can (and should) adapt to whatever the future holds. Thus, I see that as the core of what I call the New Resilience:  a return to self-reliance.  The New Resilience is thus a re-imagining of the American Dream in the context of the world we now live in.

By “self-reliance” I do not mean self-sufficiency. We can rely on the survival of our global systems: they may wax and wane, but they will continue to exist in one form or another. We don’t have to grow all of our own food, for example. However, we do have to realize that our current complex community systems with their growing interdependencies bring with them vulnerabilities that may lead to occasional interruptions of essential services. If we are self-reliant, we are prepared to tolerate these interruptions.

In following posts, I’m going to explore the New Resilience in the context of our communities – how we and our communities can become more self-reliant. My goal is to point out ways to change our trajectory. I believe – with Hamlet – that our destiny is not written in our stars but in ourselves. We can become more resilient, if we truly want to be.

John Plodinec

We Know Who Owns the Problem – Who Owns the Solution?

January 28th, 2013 - John Plodinec  

Excerpts from a December 29, 2012 article in the NY Times…

“After Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc with power systems in the Northeast, many consumers and public officials complained that the electric utilities had done far too little to protect their equipment from violent storms, which forecasters have warned could strike with increasing frequency…But from a utility’s perspective, the cold hard math is this: it is typically far cheaper for the company, and its customers, to skip the prevention measures and just clean up the mess afterward.”

In other words, you and I own the problem of living without electricity; someone else owns the solution. But before we get all huffy about the electric utility not solving/preventing our problem, we have to recognize that the utility has to answer both to their shareholders and to state regulators.  Shareholders don’t look kindly on gratuitous expenditures with no return on investment.  State utility commissioners – who must approve any increases in rates – specifically those needed to make upgrades to the grid (e.g., burying power lines), historically have not looked kindly on rate increases not directly tied to the costs of generation. We know who owns the problem; but who owns the solution?

Another example…

My daughter works for a vet – prototypic small business. Over the last few years, she’s worked 35-45 hours per week. Starting this year, her employer is cutting her back to no more than 29 hours per week, to avoid the ObamaCare penalty. The vet doesn’t like it, but it’s the only thing that makes financial sense for the practice. My daughter clearly owns the problem; who owns the solution?

These are classic wicked problems. They cross boundaries of scale, of community sector (and sometimes of good sense!), and require concerted action among several people or organizations. They are tests of our resilience, at the individual, the community and the national level.

These two examples have one thing in common – well-intended government action with unintended consequences. As our President promised dramatic action on gun control, climate change, income inequality, and scores of other problems at his inauguration, I was moved to wonder what the unintended consequences will be? What rude beasts may lurk in his actions? Who will own the problems they cause? Will we be resilient enough to solve those problems?  And, most important, who will own the solutions?

John Plodinec

America, the Less Resilient

January 20th, 2013 - John Plodinec  

I think we all have been heartened by the spirit displayed by our friends affected by Hurricane Sandy. Indeed, the press has almost continually praised their resilience. But “resilience” is not an absolute – it waxes and wanes depending on the place, the people and the circumstances they face. As I pointed out in a previous post, there are sobering indications that our country is becoming less resilient.

Infrastructure. As has been pointed out in many places, much of our infrastructure was built in the middle of the 20th century. It is near, at, or past its service life. In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers developed a “Report Card” for our nation’s infrastructure. The highest grade was a C+ for solid waste; five categories received D-’s (drinking water, roads, levees, wastewater, and inland waterways). The overall grade was a D. The ASCE estimated that we would need to invest $2.2 trillion to bring all of our infrastructure into an acceptable condition. If we don’t make these investments, we can expect to see more incidents like the 2007 bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

Macro-economy. But can we afford to make these investments? Over the last seven years, the federal government’s debt has grown by an amount equal in value to all of the gold ever mined. According to Ed Easterling (Crestmont Research), over the next 10 years states will need to find $4.6 trillion just to pay their pension shortfalls. We can’t increase taxes and contributions enough to cover the shortfalls. We need economic growth. And yet, the rate of under- and un-employment has stagnated. In fact, since 1990, the recovery from each economic crisis has become depressingly weaker, esp. in terms of employment.

Micro-economy. These macro-economic facts have real impacts on individuals and families. Many small businesses have capped their employees’ work week at 30 hours, to avoid the costs of the Affordable Care Act. And while we’re at it, it should be inarguable that the increased government intrusion into health care makes us less resilient because it increases the impacts of other crises on health care, and vice versa. While it is not true that the real income of the middle class has declined over the last decade (as is often claimed), the Brookings Institution has shown that all of the increase is due to government spending on things like health care. Real wages have dropped by about 10% and continue to do so. The Brookings team concludes that the middle class is not shrinking, but its resilience is dropping fast. And for those at the bottom, greater reliance on a financially weakened government does not inspire confidence in their resilience.

Society. Many studies have shown that connectedness is a key to resilience, particularly for those with limited resources. And yet we see increasing disconnectedness in our society. In the last fifty years, we have gone from 3/4ths of Americans married, to less than half. In our schools, we’re seeing behavioral problems for both boys and girls increasing (with those of boys increasing faster). It may be politically incorrect to point it out, but there is a strong correlation between children’s behavioral problems and single motherhood. And in the last half-century, unmarried mothers’ fraction of total births has increased by a factor of 8, to 41%.

If we dig a little deeper, we find that our society is developing an educational divide that bodes ill for the poor. 75% of college-educated adults are married; less than half of everyone else is. That means that single motherhood (and its complex of problems) is becoming concentrated in the least-educated segment of our society. And if we look at the educational trajectory of the least educated, they are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world, and more and more disconnected from their communities (as well-documented in Murray’s book).

One has to ask how effective our assistance programs have been in helping to raise people out of poverty? After all, according to the Congressional Research Service, if we converted all of our federal means-tested spending to cash, it would provide $167 per day to every household in America. Compare this to the median household income of $137 per day. One has to ask – how much of this is handout, how little is creating opportunity?

I didn’t write this as a diatribe against any individual, or any political party. There is plenty of blame to go around. In fact, the blame rests with all of us. We have allowed our governments to substitute programs for connectedness within our communities. We have not demanded that government – at all levels – invest in our infrastructure. We have burdened our businesses with regulations and erected barriers to their competitiveness. Most seriously, we have become unwilling to see that in growth – better education, more connected communities, thriving businesses – lies the foundation of our greatness; and our resilience.

John Plodinec

Resilience and the “Founding Virtues”

December 31st, 2012 - John Plodinec  

Charles Murray in Coming Apart writes about the importance of what he calls the “founding virtues.” His basic argument is that American society has been developed on a foundation of

  • Industriousness. This virtue is based on the fundamental American assumption that gumption and hard work will lead to success, defined as a better life for self and family. As Murray notes, this has the corollary of failure as an embarrassment.
  • Honesty. We pride ourselves on what we call “the rule of law.” While Sandy Hook reminds us of the outliers, most Americans are basically law-abiding.
  • Marriage. Not so much a virtue as an institution, marriage serves as the basis for society in the sense that it implies a permanence of social relations and faithfulness.
  • Religion. Like marriage, religion is an institution that inculcates and reinforces good behavior.

If, as Murray argues, these four were the bases for American society, and if resilience has historically been a hallmark of American society, I’m forced to ask: are we becoming more or less resilient?

It must be admitted that we seem to be becoming less virtuous – seeing those virtues on which our American experiment was based diminished. The expansion of government and of our social safety net has reduced the importance of industriousness for many. While our middle class has prospered over the last few decades, much of that prosperity is due to an increasing amount of federal assistance, according to Congressional Research Service findings. There is a wealth of data that shows that marriage is less important to our society than almost ever before. More and more, marriage is a luxury of the educated, and less a status aimed at by all. Likewise, religion – though still one of our nation’s primary social pillars – is on the wane. It is only in the “honesty” category that we seem to have maintained our virtue (although, I’m not so sure you’d agree with that if you just looked at Congress!).

It is not possible to make a definitive case for reduced resilience, but several signs are not good (I intend to pursue these in more depth a blog called “America – the Not-So-Resilient”). If you believe, with me, that connectedness is a must for resilience (see, for example, Rick Weil’s work), then Murray has marshaled a multitude of facts indicating that a large portion of our population is becoming increasingly disconnected from the rest of society. Even among the more affluent, we are seeing a huge portion of our workforce forced to accept part-time jobs, or ones beneath their education level. Two generations ago, only about 5% of babies were born to unwed mothers; now it is 41%. These children are 9X more likely to be poor and poorly educated, and thus doomed to a life almost without opportunity. How can they be expected to cope with crises or change?

Can we become more resilient even if less “virtuous?” The optimist in me says “yes,” but guardedly. Ideally, we can find ways to reinvigorate the founding virtues in a way that is consistent with modern society. If we can grow new institutions (or see a rebirth of old ones) that will strengthen our social bonds, it will be a huge step. If our fiscal woes push us toward seeking individual opportunity and away from indiscriminate handouts, it will be another step. Most of all, if we embrace the virtue of resilience as the basis for renewed growth and vigor, then we will of necessity be more resilient – and quite possibly more virtuous.

John Plodinec

Sandy Hook

December 20th, 2012 - John Plodinec  

I have tried to avoid adding to the blather in the blogosphere about the terrible slaughter in Sandy Hook. But I have been incensed by the cynical pleading by single-interest groups promoting their own agendas; whether its gun control, better mental health care, or a return to Christian precepts.

Sure, if Lanza didn’t have access to assault weapons, fewer might have been killed – but many still would have died. I certainly agree that we could improve mental health care, but better care would have been meaningless in this case – diagnosis, so that Lanza could be treated, was the problem. We would all be better off if everyone followed the Golden Rule, but does anyone seriously think that this deranged individual gave a thought to the Golden Rule, let alone “Thou Shalt Not Kill?”

I’m not going to try to peddle any instant answers – I don’t think there are any. Incidents such as these have occurred since Man first picked up a club, first shot an arrow, sharpened the first knife. I think it’s more important to ask, “What are the factors that make these horrible events more likely?” As much as all of us would like to wave a magic wand and never have to witness a slaughter of the innocents ever again, the best we can hope for is to increase the odds against another occurrence.

If I look at factors that link many of these horrific events, one that immediately leaps out at me is that the perpetrators often come from broken homes. Would the presence of a father figure somehow have made it less likely that Lanza would go off the rails? Would a father in the house have been able to take those actions necessary to push the boy into treatment that his mother could not? Does the fact that more marriages than not now end in divorce make these tragedies more likely?

A second factor that seems to link these crimes is isolation. The perpetrators have distanced themselves from the rest of the community. No matter the nature of the community, no community countenances killing innocent children. How do we bring the isolated back into the community to make this less likely?

Conversely, has our posture of political correctness so confused us that we no longer know how to communicate and enforce community norms? Are we so afraid of offending someone – anyone – that we no longer dare say, “That’s not right.” Peer pressure is a powerful force; but lacking peers and pressure, what is left to prevent such minds from wandering down the dark paths of madness?

This season is the ultimate celebration of family. Our hearts grieve with those families who have lost so much. Please let us avoid taking simple actions simply because we feel we must do something – anything – to prevent the loss of more children, and to keep this deep grief from other families. Rather let us take the road too often less traveled. Let us find the causes of these terrible acts, and then act to eliminate them. But we must do this with the stark realization that our actions must be taken one person at a time, for all time. A daunting task if we must do it alone, but less daunting and likely more successful if we act as a community.

John Plodinec

A Note from My Son

December 13th, 2012 - John Plodinec  

I had an email from my son the other day that I thought I’d share with you.

“Dad,

We had a ‘fire emergency’ at work today and it got me thinking. I suspect it was a false alarm; but while people left the building after the fact there was no real sense of what to do after we left the building. Having grown up reading DuPont safety pamphlets and having worked in aviation for 12 or so years, I had the mindset that we should report in and take a roll call in case somebody was missing [Absolutely - That's my boy!]. While the general structure seemed to be in place (i.e., there was a plan), the plan was not enforced and had not been communicated to newer employees. I asked myself why, and in my own internal dialog I drew some parallels to the larger issue of community preparation.

Borrowing on the idea that we need to control what we can control and not waste resources on those things that we can’t, I decided that the single most important action leaders can take would probably be communications. Furthermore, while communications after an ‘event’ are critical, communications before the event are even more [I'd say "just as"] important. That is because the most important factor in resiliency of a community (according to my hypothesis) is the preparedness of the individual. And that goes far beyond the “having bottled water and non-perishable food” aspects of physical planning. In order to be truly resilient, it is imperative for the members of that community to know what to do immediately before, during and after an emergency. Call it mental preparedness. A city, county, or state can have the best plans; however if all participants (down to the smallest unit) aren’t familiar with their roles – those plans are USELESS. In Katrina, I suspect that there was a lack of planning that was a root cause of a lot of the problems before and after the fact; however, if the folks in the Superdome knew what the plan was (however minimal) they would have been better prepared, there would have been much less panic, and they would have been more resilient.

As evidence of my hypothesis, think about the 911 system. Is it more important that we have the system or that anybody who has been in this country for more than 24 hours has seen a mention of the system and shortly thereafter learns what it means and when and why to use it?

Back to the situation at hand. If this had been a real fire and people had been ’potentially’ trapped, authorities would have wasted a great deal of time and energy on ‘rescue’ that could have been better spent on ‘response and recovery.’

Bottom line – unless a leader can say that he feels as comfortable about his community’s resiliency after a triggering event as he does (or should, if he is properly prepared) about his family in a house fire, his community is not resilient. Finally, the best plans in the world are useless unless everybody involved is mentally prepared for their role in carrying out those plans, and this extends down to the individual level.

Thanks,
Matt”

Yet again, my son makes me proud to be his Daddy (of course, his intelligence probably comes from his mother!). Matt’s right, though, resilience starts at the bottom. You can’t have a resilient community if its individuals and families aren’t resilient. You can’t have a resilient nation if it’s communities aren’t resilient. And, as I’ve said before, the three most important factors in resilience are leadership, leadership, leadership.

Thanks, Matt!
(Your very proud) Dad

Warren Edwards

Crisis Coach Webinar Series

December 13th, 2012 - Warren Edwards  

The short-term recovery effort from Super-Storm Sandy is in full swing. However, for those affected by the storm, the toughest part of their efforts to come back – their long-term recovery and viability – still lies ahead. Unfortunately, there are no tried and true recipes for recovery that communities, businesses or individuals and families can follow.

The Community and Regional Resilience Institute (CARRI) and Firestorm Solutions, LLC (Firestorm®), have launched an important new CRISIS COACH™ series of cloud-based workshops focused on recovering from – and preparing for – disasters and crises. Each fact-packed hour will feature a panel of experts digging into subjects you need to know more about. They will offer practical tips and point to resources you, your business, and your community can use to prepare for or recover from disaster. These workshops are offered at no cost to communities, businesses and other organizations interested in better preparation and faster recovery.

The first in the series, conducted on December 6, was a resounding success. The comments and follow-up questions we have received have been outstanding and thought provoking. This first workshop tackled the topic of recovery funding and included experts from the Small Business Administration and from Chubb Group of Insurance Companies. The workshop participants received practical answers to the questions: “Where will I get the money to rebuild my home?” “What government assistance is available to rebuild my community?” and “Who can help me ensure my business’ survival?”

On December 20, 2012 we will take on the issue of ensuring adequate housing. Communities and businesses won’t survive if there isn’t adequate housing. In this area, our panel will answer questions like “How can I be sure that my home will do better in the next major storm?” and “I’m a builder. Are there parts of the housing market I should target (for example, many older homeowners won’t rebuild because they don’t want a mortgage)?

Future workshops will include topics such as:

• Getting our businesses back to work. Business is the lifeblood of any community. Businesses can’t completely recover unless their workforce and their communities come back as well. Here, our panel will answer questions like “My employees had to evacuate. How do I know if they’ll come back?” and “What can I do so I’m not so badly impacted by the next storm or disaster?”

• Returning community life back to normal. After a disaster, the one thing people want more than anything else is to get back some semblance of normalcy. Our panel will answer questions like “How can we help our neighborhood recover more rapidly?” and “How do we develop a community recovery plan that actually makes us stronger than before?” and “Our community relies on non-profits to provide a large portion of our social services. How can they be better prepared so that they can serve our underserved again?”

• Managing the debris from storms. Debris management is typically the largest cost element after a disaster. Our panel will answer questions like “How does my community obtain Stafford Act funding for debris? What kinds of records will we need? How long will we have to keep them?” and “What kind of programs should I set up so that I’m better able to handle debris after the next storm?”

In a very real sense, “Change Happens.” All of us can expect to be affected – either directly or indirectly – by a disaster or crisis. This important new series of workshops will empower all of us prepare better and recover faster in more vital communities. Watch for announcements on our Facebook and Web Pages and directly to you by e-mail. We urge you to participate.

Next Page »