CA Fire Leadership MeetingSacramento, CAApril 4, 2014
ASSESSING AND MANAGING SOCIAL RISKS
BRANDA NOWELL AND TODDI STEELMAN
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITYB RA N D A . N O W E L L @ N C S U . E D U 9 1 9 5 1 3 1 7 6 8
T O D D I . S T E E L M A N @ U S A S K . C A
Rising expectations about who will be involved in a complex wildfi re incident
Cohesive strategy goals– Effi cient and effective response to shared-jurisdiction
wildfire Pre-fire planning for multiple jurisdictions Metrics include pre-season agreements and annual
operating plans, integrated wildfire response scenarios, and shared training
More holistic and system focus regarding both WHO we consider part of incident response and WHAT we consider as part of incident response
SOCIAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF INCIDENT NETWORKS
Fire management
Fire management
Road Closures
Fire management
Evacuations
Road Closures
Fire management
Evacuations
Sheltering & Mass
Care
Road Closures
Fire management
Evacuations
Sheltering & Mass
Care
Public Information
Road Closures
Fire management
Evacuations
Sheltering & Mass
Care
Public Information
Interagency Communications
Road Closures
Fire management
Evacuations
Sheltering & Mass
Care
Public Information
Interagency Communications
Cost Share
Road Closures
Fire management
Evacuations
Sheltering & Mass
Care
Public Information
Interagency Communications
Cost Share
PoliticiansRoad Closures
Type 1 and Type 2 WUI Fires ID, OR, WA, and MT (+ one pilot in CO)Total of 22 incidentsNetwork Performance scale (Nowell & Steelman,
2012) 28 items
Interview and observation data from three incidents: GC Complex (OR) , Elk (ID), and Beaver Creek (ID) fires
INCIDENT PERFORMANCE FOR FIRE SEASON 2013:HOW DID WE DO?
2013 INCIDENT PERFORMANCE BY DOMAIN
3.503.603.703.803.904.004.104.204.304.404.50
We see stronger performance in areas of the network where ICS is prevalent and IMT has formal control
Lower Performance
Strongest Performance
1= strongly disagree3 = neither agree/disagree5 = strongly agree
Disaster response:
evacuation/sheltering/
road closures
Fire operations
and interagency interactions
WHOLE NETWORK AS PART OF PERFORMANCE
36%
Fire management
Evacuations
Sheltering & Mass
Care
Public Information
Interagency Communications
Cost Share
PoliticiansRoad Closures
Relationships critical VAR
More complex array of responders = greater risk
How do we understand and manage these relationships and these risks?
SOCIAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT WITHIN INCIDENT NETWORKS
Need tools to help gain better situational awareness and mental maps for assessing and managing social risk
HOW DO WE ASSESS AND MANAGE GREATER SOCIAL RISK?
MENTAL MAP: UNDERSTANDING INCIDENT RESPONSE NETWORKS
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL NETWORKS
What is a network?
Fire management
Evacuations
Sheltering & Mass
Care
Public Information
Interagency Communications
Cost Share
PoliticiansRoad Closures
THE WHO: WILDFIRE INCIDENT RESPONSE AS A
NETWORK RESPONSE
IMT
Disaster response:
evacuation/sheltering/
road closures
Fire operations
and interagency interactions
WHOLE NETWORK AS PART OF PERFORMANCE
36%
NEED TO THINK ABOUT AN INCIDENT IN TERMS OF THE ENTIRE RESPONDER NETWORK
IMT
IMT PERFORMANCE
Expert Consultant: IMT is dominant,
operates a-contextually
Emphasis is on operational control
Responsive Coordinator:
IMT is top down in relation to its own
operations, but recognizes the need for coordination and information sharing with cooperators –
emphasis is on accessibility
Responsive Collaborator:IMT has a proactive service
orientation, strong emphasis on local concerns and culture,
shared understanding, tailored response-
Emphasis is on engagement
EVOLUTION OF IMT ROLE AND LOCAL RELATIONSHIPS
IMT performance scores overall were goodRange between “A little room for improvement” to “Some room for improvement”
HOW DID IMTS DO?
Good Team Player Acknowledging CooperationSharing Credit with Your AgencyStaying in Their Lane
Positive ambassadorServing as a Positive Ambassador in Interactions AccessibleBeing Accessible to You
WHAT AREAS DID COOPERATORS AND HOST AGENCIES VIEW IMTS PERFORMING THE BEST?
Appreciating local context Valuing local knowledge and local input Being sensitive to the local community Incorporating information about local values Obtaining and utilizing information about the local context
Pro-active communication
Including your agency in info dissemination Getting your agency the info you need
Early engagement of aff ected jurisdictions Engaging affected jurisdictions from the beginning
Flexibility
Being flexible in adapting their fire management strategy
WHERE DID LOCAL COOPERATORS AND HOST AGENCIES SEE THE MOST ROOM FOR
IMPROVEMENT FOR IMT PERFORMANCE?
Expert Consultant: Responsive Coordinator
Responsive Collaborator
IMT PERFORMANCE
Currently in a coordinating model, but getting a signal from other groups that they would like a more collaborative model
HOST AGENCY AS NETWORK BROKER
IMT
Host Agency
Local Community
Host performance scores overall were very positive
HOW DID HOST AGENCIES DO IN 2013?
Best Performance Providing effectively –engaged Agency Administrators Providing up to date information on all pertinent media
contacts Demonstrating familiarity with how IMTs operate
Greater Room for Improvement Good maps of values at risk Contact information for pertinent local cooperators Locations of residential populations that could be at risk
HOST UNIT PERFORMANCE
KEY FINDING:
The better the host agency performs as a broker – the better the incident
outcomes!
Watch Out Situations
SOCIAL WATCH OUTS
SOCIAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT: TOOLS YOU CAN USE
Need to watch out for situations indicative of social risk 2012/13 Interviewed 24 Fire Managers across 10 states
646 years of large wildfire experience 824 Type 1 Fires
2013 AC/IC participants evaluated list 2013 fire season surveyed for watch outs on 22 fires
WATCH OUT SITUATIONS: WHAT DID WE LEARN?
FINDINGS 2013:KEY WATCH OUT SITUATIONS
S I T U AT I O N S T H AT > 5 0 % O F R E S P O N D E N T S I D E N T I F I E D A S P R E S E N T O N T H E I R I N C I D E N T
Community has past negative IMT experience
• 70.3% of IMTs reported as present to some degree on their incident
Problematic historic relationships between Forest and local community
• 66.7% of respondents reported as present to some degree on their incident
Anti-fed/Outsider Sentiment in local community
• 66.7% of respondents reported as present to some degree on their incident
Recent turnover in key position on Forest
• 64.2% of respondents reported as present to some degree on their incident
Anti-fed/outsider/government
sentiment was present in the
community
Problematic historic relationships
between host Forest and local community
Actions indicated hidden or unspoken agendas on part of local cooperators
Community has had past negative experience with
IMTs
Apparent conflicts or turf battles between
or among local cooperators and/or
host forest
Local cooperators were prone to
taking independent action
#1: PROBLEMATIC COMMUNITY DYNAMICS
Actions indicated hidden or unspoken agendas on part of
host Forest
Local community was
inexperienced with wildfire
AA disengaged after in-brief
There were confusing or conflicting management
objectives among agencies involved in the
managing the fire
#2: AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR CHALLENGES
Recent turnover occurred in key positions among local cooperators
Lack of engagement/conspic
uous absences of key local cooperators
#3: MISSING COOPERATORS
Significant Watchouts/
Low local capacity
Minimal Watchouts/High local capacity
IMT ties to communitySTRONG
Moderate–High Risk
Focus: leveraging team social capital to build local capacity
Lowest Risk
Focus: Strengthening relationships and working within existing infrastructure
IMT ties to community WEAK
Highest Risk:
Focus: Building relationships, learning local context and building local capacity
Moderate-low Risk
Focus: Building relationships and learning about local systems to be able to work effectively with them
ASSESSING SOCIAL RISK: CONSIDERING IMT SOCIAL CAPITAL
Importance of developing broader situational awareness of incident response networks
Utilizing metrics for performance on incidents that tap into management of networks and mitigation of social risk through pro-active communication and coordination
Recognizing the critical role of host agencies in helping to bridge between the IMT and the local community
Watch out for Watch out situationsWatch out clusters– some kinds of risks happen
together, Think about watch outs in relation to IMT social
capital
KEY TAKE AWAYS
What to do with this information Training? Venues for communication?
DISCUSSION