1. CA Fire Leadership Meeting Sacramento, CA April 4, 2014 ASSESSING AND MANAGING SOCIAL RISKS BRANDA NOWELL AND TODDI STEELMAN NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY BRANDA.NOWELL@NCSU.EDU 919 513 1768 TODDI.STEELMAN@USASK.CA BRANDA.NOWELL@NCSU.EDU TODDI.STEELMAN@USASK.CA

2. Rising expectations about who will be involved in a complex wildfire incident Cohesive strategy goals– Efficient 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

3. Fire management

4. Road Closures

5. Fire management Evacuations Road Closures

6. Fire management Evacuations Sheltering & Mass Care Road Closures

7. Fire management Evacuations Sheltering & Mass Care Public Information Road Closures

8. Fire management Evacuations Sheltering & Mass Care Public Information Interagency Communications Road Closures

9. Fire management Evacuations Sheltering & Mass Care Public Information Interagency Communications Cost Share Road Closures

10. Fire management Evacuations Sheltering & Mass Care Public Information Interagency Communications Cost Share Politicians Road Closures

11. Type 1 and Type 2 WUI Fires ID, OR, WA, and MT (+ one pilot in CO) Total of 22 incidents Network 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?

12. 2013 INCIDENT PERFORMANCE BY DOMAIN Lower Performance Strongest Performance 1= strongly disagree 3 = neither agree/disagree 5 = strongly agree

13. Disaster response: evacuation/ sheltering/road closures Fire operations and interagency interactions WHOLE NETWORK AS PART OF PERFORMANCE 36%

14. Fire management Evacuations Sheltering & Mass Care Public Information Interagency Communications Cost Share Politicians Road Closures

15. 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

16. 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?

17. MENTAL MAP: UNDERSTANDING INCIDENT RESPONSE NETWORKS

18. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL NETWORKS What is a network?

19. Fire management Evacuations Sheltering & Mass Care Public Information Interagency Communications Cost Share Politicians Road Closures

20. THE WHO: WILDFIRE INCIDENT RESPONSE AS A NETWORK RESPONSE IMT

21. Disaster response: evacuation/ sheltering/road closures Fire operations and interagency interactions WHOLE NETWORK AS PART OF PERFORMANCE 36%

22. NEED TO THINK ABOUT AN INCIDENT IN TERMS OF THE ENTIRE RESPONDER NETWORK IMT

23. IMT PERFORMANCE

24. 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

25. IMT performance scores overall were good Range between A little room for improvement to Some room for improvement HOW DID IMTS DO?

26. Good Team Player Acknowledging Cooperation Sharing Credit with Your Agency Staying in Their Lane Positive ambassador Serving as a Positive Ambassador in Interactions Accessible Being Accessible to You WHAT AREAS DID COOPERATORS AND HOST AGENCIES VIEW IMTS PERFORMING THE BEST?

27. 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 affected 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?

28. 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

29. HOST AGENCY AS NETWORK BROKER IMT Host Agency Local Community

30. Host performance scores overall were very positive HOW DID HOST AGENCIES DO IN 2013?

31. 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

32. KEY FINDING: The better the host agency performs as a broker – the better the incident outcomes!

33. Watch Out Situations SOCIAL WATCH OUTS SOCIAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT: TOOLS YOU CAN USE

34. 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?

35. FINDINGS 2013: KEY WATCH OUT SITUATIONS SITUATIONS THAT > 50% OF RESPONDENTS IDENTIFIED AS PRESENT ON THEIR INCIDENT 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. Recent turnover occurred in key positions among local cooperators Lack of engagement/conspicuous absences of key local cooperators #3: MISSING COOPERATORS

39. Significant Watchouts/ Low local capacity Minimal Watchouts/ High local capacity IMT ties to community STRONG 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

40. 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 situations Watch out clusters– some kinds of risks happen together, Think about watch outs in relation to IMT social capital KEY TAKE AWAYS

41. What to do with this information Training? Venues for communication? DISCUSSION