Community-Based Implementation 48

This thesis supports the claim that effective models (e.g., fire prevention and fire safety, and seat belt safety) are community-based. They are bottom-up focused versus top-down. Local communities play a major role in terms of providing support for and encouraging participation in training and education programs, raising overall awareness of the importance of preparedness, both on the individual and collective community levels. Thus, it is important that whole communities become involved in terms of preparing citizens for potential disasters and creating a sense of security among all individuals in a community.

The chapter on fire safety/fire prevention describes how messages and programs are primarily implemented at the local level. Similarly, seat belt safety programs are most effective when implemented with the involvement of community organizations, in cooperation with local and state law enforcement. Chapter IV on the United Kingdom follows suit by explaining that one of the two parts of UK’s Civil Contingency Act of 2004, which focusses on civil protection at the local level and establishes roles and responsibilities for local responders. All three cases presented demonstrate increased program effectiveness when implemented at the local community level.

Thus, it can be argued that entire communities must engage in preparedness activities through community-based interaction and planning to increase the community’s ability to adapt to emergency incidents. Empowering communities to be more resilient to natural and man-made hazards will lessen the expectation of initial federal government response and reduce costs. In times of crisis, our nation must be prepared to respond in ways that lie outside the routine paradigms in which we traditionally operate. The health, safety, and security of our citizens may be at significant risk without swift and aggressive intervention and assistance. Time is of critical importance, and the requirement for action begins within communities where people live and work, where businesses and industries operate, and where local governments and government institutions reside.

The federal government should increase its efforts to foster a national approach to emergency management that is built upon a foundation of proactive engagement with broad and diversified groups of community stakeholders, which include schools, faith- based groups, businesses, neighborhood associations, trade groups, and fraternal and other civic-minded organizations. These stakeholders can mobilize their networks to build community resilience and support local needs in times of catastrophe and should not wait on the federal government to provide post-event assistance. Certainly, the magnitude of event may result in supportive federal assistance and resources, but the perceived or real expectation of immediate or near-immediate federal assistance must be reduced.

While emergency management, public health, security, law enforcement, critical infrastructure, medical organizations, and other homeland security disciplines already

possess the legislative authorities, policies, and doctrine to step into and execute assigned roles and responsibilities immediately, we need the imagination and creativity to institute a new level of inclusive and participatory planning and preparedness that engages all segments of the community. This means moving away from a mindset that government is always in the lead, to a mindset that builds upon the strengths of our local communities and, more importantly, our citizens, individually and collectively. It also means planning for communities as they are, not applying a cookie-cutter image of what we might like them to be. How effective we all are as a team in the first 72–96 hours following the onset of a disaster, whether a man-made or natural event, will largely dictate how successful we are in saving lives, stabilizing the community, and then supporting its timely recovery and return to some degree of normalcy.

This approach should be outcomes-based and grounded in results, not processes. Furthermore, results should be defined by measureable objectives and tasks. In addition, standards should be set that are aligned with outcomes and evaluated by metrics.

To be effective, the approach must focus on the individual and the community, not the incident or processes. We must stop considering individuals and communities as liabilities, but as key assets in homeland security. Our citizens are force multipliers, who offer specialized knowledge and skills, provide neighbor-to-neighbor assistance, and allow emergency responders to focus on caring for the most vulnerable members of society. That begins with personal and family preparedness, which is, and will remain, a national priority. Nothing will contribute more to saving and sustaining lives than a prepared citizen that is equipped to reduce their exposure to harm, or when harm cannot be avoided, can function effectively in the days immediately following a catastrophic disaster to take care of themselves and their neighbors. Every family that takes even the most basic preparedness actions, such as having a disaster kit and a minimal supply of food and water, frees responders and critical resources to provide for those who truly need such assistance. Partnerships that demonstrate this reality are a fundamental requirement to maximizing our combined strengths, achieving resilience, and having the resolve and capacity to quickly reach those community members that are most in need of assistance.

The environment of each community must be explored and evaluated with its own citizens as fully engaged partners, to understand how that particular community functions and addresses issues. Although common characteristics exist in most communities, acknowledging that each community is unique, and thus preparedness programs must be adaptable to the specific community is critical. Challenges specific to the community must be recognized, as well as community specific opportunities.

A Whole Community approach to emergency management was formally introduced by FEMA in December 2011.121 _{FEMA desired to lay the foundation for this}

new approach and to start a national dialog on this new philosophical approach in how to conduct emergency management.122

When developing an implementation strategy for this whole community approach to community engagement, it is important to recognize what the critical elements of community engagement are. Some of the key themes already identified are:

 understand community complexity;

 recognize community capabilities and needs;  foster relationships with community leaders;  build and maintain partnerships;

 empower local action; and

 leverage and strengthen social infrastructure, networks, and assets.123

Additional outreach to various community stakeholders groups should be conducted to further refine the required elements of effective community engagement, as well as identifying the most successful ways to interact with the these stakeholder groups at the community level.

Based on the premise that engaging more successfully at the community level will yield more favorable citizen engagement results, additional engagement and planning is

121 _{Federal Emergency Management Agency, A Whole Community Approach to Emergency}

Management: Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action (FDOC 104–008-1), 2011,

http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1813-25045- 0649/whole_community_dec2011__2_.pdf, 2.

122 _{Ibid., 3.} 123 _{Ibid., 5.}

also needed within the internal federal government environment. For the past several years, the phrase “create of culture of preparedness” has been utilized extensively. To create such a culture at the individual and community level, a cultural change is first required at the federal government level with regard to the approach in achieving this objective.

Not only must this new strategy be socialized within the FEMA component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but also within the DHS as a whole. Strategists must recognize the need for change and be motivated to implement the desired changes. Subsequently, an executable implementation plan for realizing the objective must be developed. As part of the process, the internal organization, in this case, FEMA must identify its own internal strengths and weaknesses with regard to community preparedness programs. Weaknesses should be mitigated to the extent possible while leveraging strengths.

Concurrently, the reach must also be extended to the larger federal interagency. Other federal agencies can and should be productively engaged in this new approach as active partners and the resources of other agencies and their programs should be leveraged at the community level to not only maximize potential results, but also to ensure we are not in conflict with each other, and to minimize duplication of resources.

The other key step in the planning process for this new strategy is the implementation process. How will this new approach be implemented? Based on the DHS / FEMA mission(s), are corresponding resources being applied to this stated individual and community preparedness priority? If not, an effective strategy will need to be developed and implemented to gain the support of key stakeholders, including the U.S. Congress and the federal interagency, to more appropriately apply existing resources.

Additionally, an internal engagement strategy must be developed and implemented to make this a priority of the entire organization, not just the Community Preparedness Division and the Protection and National Preparedness Directorate. To be effective, this new approach must transcend across the entire organization with a shared

responsibility for the whole community approach across programmatic areas within the regional FEMA offices.

Under the Obama administration, FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate brought to FEMA a new focus, which directs that all sectors and all levels of a community must be effectively integrated, resourced, and mobilized to achieve the FEMA mission. FEMA is only one member of the team; it is only one piece of the homeland security enterprise. The whole community approach supports the desired cultural shift, or mind-set, of community-based personal and individual responsibility with regard to individual, family, and community preparedness. It redirects the preparedness focus towards enhanced personal preparedness through the community and, ultimately, through each individual.

This whole community approach is a means by which residents, homeland security practitioners, organizational and community leaders, and government officials can collectively understand and assess the needs of their respective communities and determine the most effective ways to organize and strengthen their assets, capacities, and interests. Many communities have used this approach effectively for years, while for other communities it is a new concept. While there are many similarities that most communities share, communities are ultimately complex and unique. Ideas that work well in one particular community may not be feasible in another due to local regulations, available funding, demographics, geography, or community culture.

As stated previously in this chapter, whole community is a philosophical approach in how to conduct the business of emergency management and homeland security. As a nation, we should continue to capitalize on the FEMA whole community approach to emergency planning and preparedness and take it to next level by pursuing the actions previously recommended in this section. This approach provides a foundation for increasing individual preparedness and engaging with members of the community as vital partners in enhancing resiliency.