forget about absorbing the threat; repel, withstand and deflect the threat; be proactive rather than reactive; share info throughout the intelligence community and repel the danger; gather intel on the actual enemy and NOT on those of us who are good citizens to begin with, but happen to have a somewhat different definition of what reality is than those who want to remake our Country in the image of socialist/Marxist doctrine and rewrite our Nation's history

I, too, have a problem with the first statement but from an entirely different point of view. Being proactive is good and building intelligence and all of that is good because it is always better to stop a threat than to recover from one. But we must remember that prevention works only - - until it doesn't work and then someone must clean up the mess. Some of us must focus on cleaning up messes. Item one is close but what I'm striving for within my community is being able to "pull up the drawbridge" for 72 hours when an incident does occur. A relilient community, in my view, is one that doesn't need outside assitance and can manage the majority of its own problems. We focus on the ability of out community to "take care of itself" first and then we worry about mutual aid from outside. Is this not true resilience?

The Reform Institute identifies the four pillars of resilience as preparedness, protection, response, and recovery. The study can be found at http://www.reforminstitute.org/DetailPublications.aspx?pid=203&cid=3.

The Federal Government should lead all our efforts in this area. Though communities can focus on specific issues within their respective communities, the Government must take in the "BIG PICTURE" and identify major destructive and disruptive issues that arize during natural and man made hazards over large areas and which can negatively impact other areas outside the hazard zone as well. The Government is in the very unique position to have the funds and resources to identify problems and assist in developing mitigative technologies and programs to make our entire country more resilient. It is their obligation to do what it can to protect the lives and property of the citizens it represents.

I thought your "ideas" here were intended to be suggestions, not topics for discussion. ~~~~ When I hear or read "resilience" the only thing I think of is the property of something that indicates that it will "bounce back" -- elasticity. Can someone reference a dictionary entry indicating that the word has anything to do with any ability besides the ability of something to return to original shape after deformation? Definition #2 seems accurate. #1 is close, but not quite. #3: no way. ~~~~ #1: If we stretch deformation to mean something that comes as a result of adversity, then it does seem that something which is resilient is able to withstand adversity, because instead of breaking or remaining deformed, it returns to its original condition after the cause of deformation ceases to exist. #2: I don't see how being resilient has anything to do with the ability to respond, much less the ability to respond effectively, and I don't think resiliency implies ability to recover *quickly*, just that something *will* (not just *is able to*) return to its original form. #3: That's not resilience, it's ability to adapt. You might say that resilient things "adapt" during deformation (instead of breaking), but then they go back to their former state. ~~~~ Is there an English teacher in the house?

To respond to the second question: That depends on the definition of "disaster-resilient". I'm no grammarian, but can we get someone to explain when it's appropriate to create a new adjective by hyphenating a noun and an adjective? I'm not convinced that it makes sense to say something is disaster-resilient. Resiliency seems to stand on its own and simply indicate that something will return to its former state after being deformed. A piece of soft rubber is resilient, right? You could poke your finger into it, and when you remove your finger, it springs back. Is that piece of rubber finger-resilient or pressure-resilient? I think not.

Servantheart and Torema: You make compelling arguments, but they are irrelevant in this context (meaning this "idea" not the whole QHSR). The issue at hand is not what DHS should do, but what, if anything, "disaster-resilience" and "disaster-resilient community" mean.

- Mitigation: the action of lessening in severity or intensity. - Preparedness: the state of having been made ready or prepared for use or action. - Resilience: an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change. I believe these definitions combine to form the meaning of disaster resilience in the U.S.

While a certain amount of wordsmithing is a necessary step toward clarifying, crystallizing & achieving consensus, it seems to me the point here is to establish enough common ground that we can move forward with defining our country's resilience goals, objectives, metrics & specific, actionable next steps. Re: the questions in the original posting: 1/ I'm comfortable with the proposed 3-element definition. 2/ I'd suggest that a disaster-resilient community (of whatever scale - not necessarily a town or city) qualifies for the 3-element definition if it possesses "adequate" human capital & material resources. These can be further broken down into components that correlate with those in the Incident Command System & similar bodies of work.

On May 18, 1565 the fleet of Sultan Suleiman the Great invaded Malta. For the next three months, the knights of the Order of St. John and the citizens of Birgu withstood one ferocious attack after another. In the end, the Maltese prevailed. Fort St. Elmo has been rebuilt, Birgu revived, and Valetta, named after the commander of the Order, Jean Parisot de la Valette, has been built from nothing. The spirit and meaning of resilience was as obvious then as much they are today. We really do not need to belabor lexicographic definitions. With Daniel Webster providing the definition of the word “resilience” well over two hundred years ago, even a moderately intelligent person will be able to read it in any dictionary of English. Those unfamiliar with either the word or the art of dictionary use should simply not participate in this discussion. What is resilience is clearly understood by most. How to attain that attribute is, on the other hand, a major problem the answer to which encompasses a very wide range of transboundary concepts. Politics at all levels, economy, science, sociology, psychology, and even the mental state of individual participants in the resilience-building efforts play a significant role. In the end, however, the problem is directly contingent on three cardinal elements of preparedness, readiness, and leadership. All need to be cultivated and serve as core values of our communities: preparedness as defined by general Honore in his incessant quest to build it, readiness as the ability to respond to any crisis with the resources at hand and not those one would wish to have, and leadership that does not center on enthused verbiage but on complete, devoted engagement to the task of community perseverance and survival despite all odds. Let us not waste the effort on empty talks and useless attempts at the definition of a common word. Let us not act like the Christian coalition under the leadership of king Charles V and Philip II of Spain debating endlessly the obvious, but let us take the example from the citizens of Birgu and Jean de la Valette. It is an example that may be 450 years old, but it is still useful: there have been people before us who faced insurmountable odds and prevailed, who exhibited the spirit of exemplary resilience without philosophizing on what it was. And if we need something more contemporary, it is worth remembering that the history of this country is full of events where citizens were imbued with the remarkable spirit that allowed them to withstand and recover from even the harshest assaults providing that equally spirited leadership was in place. If we cannot create such spirit on our own, let us then learn how attain it from our betters instead of embarking on near-nonsensical discussions that lead nowhere and attain nothing.

Ssharro, are you still here? You started a conversation, then disappeared. People have taken the time to respond to your questions and ask you some questions. Are you ignoring us? Have our responses not prompted further thoughts from you that you're willing to share?

All three elements seem important, although the summary statement appears to lose the concept of adaptation. "A disaster-resilient community is one that can withstand, respond effectively to, and recover quickly from disasters" implies recovery to the initial state, as opposed to reaching an acceptable level of key functions (e.g., recovering lifelines, but not the golf course) and developing work-arounds/substitutions in some cases rather than restoring the original operational state. Infrastructure protection experts at Sandia have been working also to develop a proposed definition of resilience, and have concurrence from collaborators at CREATE that this appears a good starting point. The proposed definition is: "Given the occurrence of a particular disruptive event (or set of events), the resilience of a system to that event (or events) is the system's ability to efficiently reduce both the magnitude and duration of the deviation from targeted system performance levels."

Appreicate all the thoughtful comments. spgordon is right. The original definition of a resilient community did not specifically mention the adapting element. Adding it might produce the following definition of a disaster-resilient community: a community that can withstand, respond effectively to, and recover quickly from disasters and readily adapt to the changes caused by such events. What do you think? How important is this adaptation aspect of resilience. Should it be mentioned separately?

Ssharro, where does the adaptation part come from in the first place? Is resilience not the property by which things return to their original form after deformation? Have we established that it makes sense to hyphenate a noun and "resilience" to come up with a new adjective that means something similar to but different than "resilience"? Is a piece of soft rubber "finger-resilient" or is it the case that a piece of soft rubber is simply resilient, and that resilience means that the rubber will spring back after a finger is removed from it? Similarly, is a community or anything else "disaster-resilient"? It may be disaster-resistant, for sure. We use "resistant" like that all the time. It means that something is resistant to the effect of whatever noun precedes "-resistant". However, is it correct to say that something, particularly a community, is "resilient to disaster"? I suspect this is not correct use of the word resilient.

I would define a disaster resilient community as one that has assessed the risks, vulnerabilities and assets, done as much as possible to mitigate the risks and vulnerabilities, and recognize / enhance assets in advance of anticipated or unanticipated shock and change. As part of a Resilience System I envision risk-vulnerability-asset assessments being done at the neighborhood and community level by the people who live there: the "boots on the ground". Guidance brought in from a "US Resilience Project" (under FEMA?). I want funding by the federal govt that recognizes a dollar spent in advance of a disaster by engaging the local citizenry in ownership of their own neighborhood and community resilience/disaster mitigation, will pay off many times over when compared to a scenario like NOLA. I want a system using the intrernet/extranet, existing and new social networks and communication channels, so that citizens can respond and share disaster risk reduction and resilient solutions across and between neighborhoods, communities, counties, and states. Resilience does not come from top down. It must come from individuals, neighborhoods, communities creating the whole of a resilient nation. DHS can provide a framework for action. The work needs to be done by everyone, as a society wide, participatory initiative. We went to the moon 4 decades ago. The focus of American society towards a common goal can be tapped again. We can engage civil, business and government in a "bow tie" approach where top down meets bottom up and diagonally integrates with a focus of resilience.

I worry that "resilience" will mean more certification and red tape. It would be like selling to the DoD with an infinite number of certifications and requirements which just ensure that innovation if squashed (does not fit into specs), frustrates competition (large vendors will dominate and drive specs to limit competition), add costs (testing, delays). The $500 dollar hammer is the by-product of this mentality. Finally, if you want resilience, look at Mil Spec and network certification requirements for DoD, or NIST for civilian agencies. The last thing that is needed is more standards. Distributed assets that are interconnected in meshes are the best common sense hardening. Let's not re-invent the wheel, again, and agai, and again.

pmocek: Essentially the study group is considering adaption as the ability of an individual, community, etc to adapt to the "new normal" in the aftermath of an incident. When reviewing much of the literature on resilience, the ability to adapt is often cited as a core component, particularly when thinking about the psycho-social aspects of disaster. With respect to the hyphenated version, it is just a mechanism to limit our discussion to disaster-specific resilience.

ssharro - re: your 10:09AM post, I think adaptation is very important and your re-worded definition of a resiliant community is sopt on. My only concern is with the word "quickly" with respect to recovery. while I agree that there will be a need to quickly recovery CIKR, recovery of the local economy and adaptation to the new "norm" will not happen quicly. I recommend removing the word "quickly from the definition. Full recovery and adaption are not going to happen fast. jrees - re: your 3:19PM post, spot-on! Resiliance does not come from the top down. It must start with individuals and local communities.

I believe "adapt" in number 3 is accurate, because the resulting post-disaster community will never be completely identical to its original pre-disaster self. The bounce-back, post deformation, etc. isn't simple or direct reformation. One of the main goals of resiliency should be not only to return to a pre-disaster definition of "normal," but to also improve the community after a disaster to a new "better than pre-disaster normal." This can be done by establishing broad recovery goals before a disaster even occurs. This is not quite the same as post disaster mitigation, which is specific to what actually occurred. Recovery goals are more generalized. Number 2 about recovery needs to be included because the short and long term recovery period is when a community's resiliency is tested and its through recovery that the level of resiliency becomes apparent. But Number 1 is the most important aspect of resiliency. All of the pre-disaster work a community can do towards the goal of resiliency has to do with preparing and mitigating to withstand, deflect, or absorb an emergency.

I don't believe you could ever have a disaster-resilient community. Would a community be able to recover or much less adapt to a changed environment. Katrina is a very good example. Could we ever use "disaster-resilient community" for New Orleans? Or for any devastating disaster for that matter.

It appears that your study group may have been glancing through Wayne Blanchard’s Guide to Emergency Management and Related Terms, Definitions, Concepts, Acronyms, Organizations, Programs, Guidance, Executive Orders & Legislation. Your definition seems to be a hybrid of the DHS Lexicon and Twigg’s Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community. Overall, I think you captured the correct semasiological selections. I like the use of ability rather than capability. “Ability” seems to carry a meaning of being firmly established before the perturbation occurs rather “capacity” which may insinuate only the potentiality of capability. Respond and recover are good as they are active in nature and denote an entities positive activity upon interaction with the adversity. “Adapt” is always a great term is a disaster context. Curiously your summation statement, “Therefore, a disaster-resilient community is one that can withstand, respond effectively to, and recover quickly from disasters” does not contain the word “adapt” as it does all the other key words of the three-pronged definition. May I suggest then adding the “adapt to…” or “adapt to the changes in the environment from…” As above, if we look at Blanchard’s inclusions of definitions encompassing both “resilient” and “resilience,” one could make the argument that you are missing a key phrase that appears alongside the ones you have chosen. A phrase that I think would capture the missing element would be “ability to maintain/sustain critical functionality and/or structures.” Some definitions simply state “maintain basic functionality,” but I feel that “recovery quickly” is not compatible with just basic functionality, you would need “critical” to correspond with other know terms in disaster management such as “critical infrastructure” or “critical facilities” which would increase the apperception of “critical.” Including the above phrase would parallel the positive, action motif of “respond effectively to and recovery quickly from” portions. As to the word “withstand,” it seems out of place as to the rest of the definition. It is the only passive word and seems more like a yes/no or pass/fail type of word. Meaning, it seems to say a entity can or cannot withstand. It captures a simple idea but may not be needed when taking the rest of the definition into consideration. It seems like a given that if an entity is responding effectively to and recovering quickly from adversity that they are in fact, withstanding that adversity. If you take it out, then the rest of the definition is all positive and active in nature. You are left with all great active words with some great modifiers, “effectively respond to…recover quickly from….adapt to changes….maintain/sustain critical functionality. A great combination as a whole sequence of thoughts, don’t you think! By focusing on this set of words the entire definition seems to transverse simply “withstanding” and implies a higher sense of “resilient,” hence, really, a better definition of what I think you are trying to capture given the other language in your goals and objectives.

I would not change that list. As a CERT (Community Emergency Responce Team) volunteer it is my job to help the community absorb what has happened, to respond quickly the disaster, and to help those adapt to the situation. IF the CERTs are used. To be a disaster-resilient community, would be to go through a disaster and come back better and stronger.