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