The State of Resilience A Leadership

Forum and Community Workshop

Proceedings of a Workshop 1st Edition
And Medicine Engineering National
Academies Of Sciences
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-state-of-resilience-a-leadership-forum-and-commu
nity-workshop-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-natio
nal-academies-of-sciences/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Improving the American Community Survey: Proceedings of

a Workshop 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering
National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/improving-the-american-community-
survey-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-and-medicine-
engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

Community Violence As a Population Health Issue

Proceedings of a Workshop 1st Edition And Medicine
Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/community-violence-as-a-population-
health-issue-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-and-medicine-
engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

Software Update As a Mechanism for Resilience and

Security Proceedings of a Workshop 1st Edition And
Medicine Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/software-update-as-a-mechanism-for-
resilience-and-security-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-
and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

Neuroscience Trials of the Future Proceedings of a

Workshop 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering National
Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/neuroscience-trials-of-the-future-
proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-
national-academies-of-sciences/
Communicating Clearly about Medicines Proceedings of a
Workshop 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering National
Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/communicating-clearly-about-
medicines-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-and-medicine-
engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

Revisiting the Manufacturing USA Institutes:

Proceedings of a Workshop 1st Edition And Medicine
Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/revisiting-the-manufacturing-usa-
institutes-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-and-medicine-
engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening Proceedings of

a Workshop 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering
National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/implementation-of-lung-cancer-
screening-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-and-medicine-
engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

Sustainable Diets, Food, and Nutrition: Proceedings of

a Workshop 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering
National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/sustainable-diets-food-and-
nutrition-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-and-medicine-
engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

Adaptability of the US Engineering and Technical

Workforce Proceedings of a Workshop 1st Edition And
Medicine Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/adaptability-of-the-us-engineering-
and-technical-workforce-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-
and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/
 The
State of
Resilience
A Leadership Forum and
Community Workshop
PROCEEDINGS OF A WORKSHOP

Sherrie Forrest, Rapporteur

Roundtable on Risk, Resilience, and Extreme Events

Policy and Global Affairs

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC
20001

This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of

Sciences and Contract No. HSHQDC-16-P-00016 with the Department of Homeland
Security, Contract No. HSFE40-15-C-0331 with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and Contract No. G14AP00195 with the U.S. Geological
Survey, with additional support from the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Any
opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication
do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided
support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-47369-9

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-47369-1
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25054
Epub ISBN: 978-0-309-47372-9

Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National
Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800)
624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

2018. The State of Resilience: A Leadership Forum and Community Workshop:
Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:
https://doi.org/10.17226/25054.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by
an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private,
nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to
science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is
president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964

under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected
by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C.
D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of

Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health
issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished
contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other
activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy
decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and
research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and
increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering,
and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,

and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based
consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring
committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions,
and recommendations based on information gathered by the
committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been
subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it
represents the position of the National Academies on the statement
of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and
discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by
the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in
proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by
other participants, the planning committee, or the National
Academies.

For information about other products and activities of the National

Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwed
o.
 PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR THE STATE OF
RESILIENCE LEADERSHIP FORUM AND COMMUNITY
WORKSHOP

ARRIETTA CHAKOS (Chair), Principal, Urban Resilience Strategies

LUCILE M. JONES, Research Associate, Seismological Laboratory of
California Institute of Technology and Retired, Science Advisor for
Risk Reduction, United States Geological Survey
LINDA LANGSTON, Director of Strategic Relations, National
Association of Counties
WILLIAM D. SOLECKI, Professor of Geography and Founder
Director, Emeritus, CUNY Institute for Sustainable Cities, Hunter
College of the City University of New York

Staff

LAUREN ALEXANDER AUGUSTINE, Director, Program on Risk,

Resilience, and Extreme Events
SHERRIE FORREST, Senior Program Officer, Program on Risk,
Resilience, and Extreme Events
CHARLENE MILLIKEN, Program Officer, Program on Risk,
Resilience, and Extreme Events
DANIELLE NAGELE, Associate Program Officer, Program on Risk,
Resilience, and Extreme Events
MAGGIE ESCH, Research Associate, Program on Risk, Resilience,
and Extreme Events
JAMIE BIGLOW, Research Associate, Program on Risk, Resilience,
and Extreme Events (until January 2018)
ANDREA SHELTON, Program Coordinator, Program on Risk,
Resilience, and Extreme Events

Resilient America Roundtable Membership

LINDA LANGSTON (Co-Chair), Director of Strategic Relations,
National Association of Counties
MONICA SCHOCH-SPANA (Co-Chair), Senior Associate, John
Hopkins Center for Health Security JHU Bloomberg School of
Public Health
RAY BONILLA, JR., Senior Director, IT Resiliency Management,
Kaiser Permanente
JAMES CARD, Retired, U.S. Coast Guard
ERIN D. CORYELL, Program Officer, Margaret A. Cargill Foundation
SUSAN CUTTER, Carolina Distinguished Professor of Geography,
University of South Carolina
REGINALD DESROCHES, William and Stephanie Sick Dean of
Engineering, George R. Brown School of Engineering, Rice
University
JOHN DORMAN, Assistant State Emergency Management Director
for Risk Management, North Carolina Department of Public
Safety, North Carolina Emergency Management
KEVIN P. HEASLIP, Associate Professor of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
QUINTUS JETT, Director and Research Fellow, Citizen Alum
Project, Rutgers University-Newark
DAVID J. KAUFMAN, Vice President and Director, Safety and
Security, CNA Corporation
SUSAN W. KIEFFER, Emeritus Professor of Geology and Physics,
Center for Advanced Study, and Charles R. Walgreen Chair,
Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
KRISTIN LUDWIG, Staff Scientist, DOI Strategic Sciences Group,
Natural Hazards Mission Area, U.S. Geological Survey
EDUARDO MARTINEZ, President, The UPS Foundation
STEVE MODDEMEYER, Principal, CollinsWoerman Architects
BROOKS NELSON, Director, Global Resilience, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce Foundation
LORI PEEK, Professor, Department of Sociology, and Director,
Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado Boulder
ROSS STEIN, Co-Founder and CEO, Temblor, Inc.
ERIN WALSH, Program Manager, Science and Technology
Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
ROY E. WRIGHT, Former Deputy Associate Administrator for
Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency
 Preface and
Acknowledgments

The 2012 National Research Council report, Disaster Resilience: A

National Imperative, stressed that having greater resilience to
natural disasters can help reduce risks and vulnerability to extreme
events, decrease cost, and mitigate impact. Resilience, as defined in
the report, is the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover
from, or more successfully adapt to actual or potential adverse
events (NRC 2012).1 The report articulated four pillars for building
resilience: (1) establish measures, metrics, or indicators of
resilience; (2) share quality data and information; (3) communicate
risk in ways that enable better risk management; (4) and develop
partnerships and coalitions.
In particular, opportunities to develop strong, cross-sector
relationships and dialogue are a critical aspect of increasing
community resilience. This workshop brought together leaders,
experts, and practitioners from the public, private, and academic
sectors to explore the current state of resilience, to share
information and experiences gained in taking on resilience
challenges and activities, and to provide a forum for looking forward
to what resilience will look like in the future. This report provides a
summary of the State of Resilience two-day event, which comprised
a half-day leadership forum and 1-day community workshop.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The planning committee’s role was limited to planning the
workshop. This report was prepared by a rapporteur as a factual
summary of what occurred at the workshop. The statements made
are those of the rapporteur and do not necessarily represent
positions of the participants as a whole, the planning committee, or
the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
This activity was the result of efforts and collaboration among
several organizations and individuals; its success would not have
been possible without the invaluable contributions by the panelists,
moderators, and participants who donated their time and expertise
to inform these discussions. We give a special thanks to the planning
committee whose contributions, insight, and expertise in the
development and organization of the leadership forum and workshop
provided for an exciting and productive program. We gratefully
acknowledge their assistance and time: Ms. Arietta Chakos (chair),
principal at Urban Resilience Strategies; Ms. Linda Langston, director
of strategic relations at National Association of Counties; Dr. William
D. Solecki, professor and chair of the Department of Geography at
Hunter College-CUNY; and Dr. Lucile M. Jones, research associate at
the Seismological Laboratory of Caltech and retired science advisor
for risk reduction at the U.S. Geological Survey.
The success of the 2 days would not have been possible without
the many speakers, panelists, and moderators who contributed their
time and expertise to ensure engaging and informative discussions.
We thank: C. Dan Mote, president, National Academy of
Engineering; Craig Fugate, administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency; Michael Berkowitz, president, 100 Resilient
Cities, pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation; The Honorable Chip
LaMarca, County Commissioner, Broward County, FL; The Honorable
Ben McAdams, Mayor, Salt Lake County, UT; The Honorable Michael
Seibert, Mayor, Joplin, MO; Ray Bonilla, Jr., senior director, IT
Resiliency Management, Kaiser Permanente; Paul Nicholas, senior
director, Global Security Strategy & Diplomacy, Microsoft; Lynn
Scarlett, global managing director, The Nature Conservancy; Lt. Gen.
Thomas P. Bostick, 53rd Chief, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
Richard E. Bissell, executive director, Policy and Global Affairs, The
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Andrew
R. Brenner, associate director, Global Communications, 100 Resilient
Cities, pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation; Roy E. Wright,
deputy associate administrator for mitigation, Federal Emergency
Management Agency; Lori Peek, professor, Department of Sociology
and director, Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado Boulder;
June Kailes, disability policy consultant and associate director and
adjunct associate professor at Harris Family Center for Disability and
Health Policy, Western University of Health Sciences; Nick Kushner,
program analyst, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human
Services, District of Columbia Government; Robin Pfohman, program
manager, Community Resilience + Equity, Public Health, Seattle and
King County; Natalie Grant, program analyst, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services; Jeanne Herb, associate director,
Environmental Analysis and Communications Group, Edward J.
Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey; Nick Macchione, agency director, Health
and Human Services Agency, San Diego County; Jane Cage,
community disaster recovery leader for Joplin and managing partner,
InsightFive22; Dan Burger, director, Coastal Services Division, South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and chair
of the Charleston Resilience Network; Miriam Chion, planning and
research director, Association of Bay Area Governments; Joshua
Barnes, director for preparedness policy, National Security Council,
The White House; Andrea Larson, business process and data
analyst, City of Minneapolis; Molly O’Donnell, resiliency planner and
project manager, Community Development Block Grant, Boulder
County Collaborative; William Solecki, professor, Department of
Geography, Hunter College-City University of New York; Kathy
McLeod, director, Global Risk Reduction and Resilience, The Nature
Conservancy; Jennifer Molloy, Water Permits Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Erika Lindsey, senior policy
advisor, Office of Recovery and Resiliency, New York City Mayor’s
Office; Kevin Long, emergency management specialist, Strategy
Branch, Integration Office, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Alex
Kaplan, senior vice president, Swiss Re; Sandi Fowler, assistant city
manager, City of Cedar Rapids; Sarene Marshall, executive director,
Center for Sustainability, Urban Land Institute; Arrietta Chakos,
principal, Urban Resilience Strategies; Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., Glenn
L. Martin Institute Professor of Engineering, University of Maryland;
and Linda Langston, director of strategic relations, National
Association of Counties.
A very special thanks to Andrea Seabrook of National Public Radio,
whose provocative, persistent questions led to discussions that
delved deep into the enduring challenges of building resilient
communities faced by residents and leaders across the nation’s
cities, states, governments, nonprofit organizations, and private
sector.
And, finally, we thank all the people who attended this event, both
in person and online. Your thoughtful questions and contributions to
the discussions made the event a success.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS
This Proceedings of a Workshop has been reviewed in draft form
by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical
expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide
candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published
proceedings as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the
institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and
responsiveness to the charge. The review comments and draft
manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this
proceedings: Jane Cage, InsightFive22; Quintus Jett, Rutgers
University-Newark; Russ Paulsen, United Way Worldwide; and Tracy
Trittle, Community Alliance Initiative.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many
constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to
endorse the content of the proceedings, nor did they see the final
draft before its release. The review of this proceedings was overseen
by Susan Cutter, University of South Carolina. Appointed by the
National Academies, she was responsible for making certain that an
independent examination of this report was carried out in
accordance with institutional procedures and that all review
comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final
content of this proceedings rests entirely with the rapporteur and the
National Academies.

__________________
1 National Research Council. 2012. Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
 Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

2 RESILIENCE NOW AND GOING FORWARD

Building Resilience at the National Level
Building Resilience at the Local Level
Private Sector Incentives and Investments in Community
Resilience
Closing Remarks

3 COMMUNITY RESILIENCE
Setting the Stage
Engaging with Diverse Populations
Healthy Communities
Building Partnerships and Coalitions
Measuring Resilience
Climate Adaptation and Resilience
Incentivizing Resilience

4 FROM DISCUSSION TO ACTION: LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE

APPENDIXES

A Planning Committee Member Biographies

B Speaker, Panelist, and Moderator Biographies
C Workshop Agenda
 1

Introduction

Over the past decade, resilience has gained significant traction

across the nation and innovative programs are showing exciting
progress in building resilient communities. For communities to be
prepared for future extreme weather and climate events, as well as
the chronic daily stressors, the momentum of implementing and
taking action to build community resilience should continue to be
fostered and expanded. The Resilient America Roundtable
(Roundtable) seeks to advance and sharpen the discussion about
resilience through opportunities to develop relationships and provide
dialogue and community exchange on projects that build local and
national resilience to disasters and other disruptions.
Building on its many efforts dedicated to increasing and enhancing
resilience, the Roundtable hosted the State of Resilience Leadership
Forum and Community Workshop on June 28 and 29, 2016. This
activity brought together diverse decision makers, experts,
practitioners, and community stakeholders, including representatives
from academia, government, the private sector, foundations, and
nonprofit organizations, to consider the results of years of
investment, experimentation, and research in building resilience,
take stock of these many initiatives and efforts, and share their
experiences in building more resilient communities.
 The leadership forum featured a series of conversations among
noted leaders in resilience from the federal government, local
government, private sector, and nonprofit organizations. National
Public Radio’s Andrea Seabrook moderated discussions that focused
on resilience at the national level, asking the questions:

What are effective means to enhance and incentivize resilience?

What has and has not worked in building resilience across the
nation and in communities?
How will today’s actions in building resilience offer dividends in
the future?
What are the big challenges yet to come in advancing resilience?

The community workshop provided a venue for peer-to-peer

sharing of actions and solutions that communities are taking to build
resilience. The day was structured around a series of moderated
panels and breakout sessions addressing common issues that
communities face. The three panel sessions focused on engaging
with diverse populations, climate adaptation and resilience, and
incentivizing resilience; each panel session was followed by Q&A
with the audience. The three concurrent breakout sessions focused
on healthy communities, building partnerships, and measuring
resilience. In each breakout session, two community members
shared an example of a resilience goal, challenges they encountered
in implementing that goal, and the results of the action they took;
these case studies were followed by a group discussion.
 2

Resilience Now and Going

Forward

Lauren Alexander Augustine, director of the Office of Special

Projects and the Program on Risk, Resilience, and Extreme Events at
the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the
National Academies), provided opening remarks stating, “We know
that many organizations, people, federal agencies, companies,
individuals, towns, communities, and others are doing a lot to
improve the resilience of their place. The time is ripe to get a sense
of who is doing what, where, and how it is working. Is there an
appetite growing? Can we learn from each other? Did some things
work better than others? If you had to make a decision, what would
you do next?” She encouraged participants to not only highlight what
has already been done to build resilience, but to also consider what
the future of resilience looks like and the next big questions that
need to be addressed.
Augustine introduced C. Dan Mote, president of the National
Academy of Engineering, who began by thanking the many people
working toward resilience from federal agencies, the military, cities
and counties, and the private sector. He cited the motivation behind
the workshop as an effort to move resilience from idea to norm and
from norm to action, urging participants to consider what it takes to
build not just a culture of resilience but a proactive culture of
resilience.
Mote drew comparisons between the history of society’s response
to human disease and its response to fostering resilience. Just as the
stages in medicine include prevention, treatment, and recovery,
resilience efforts include preparing for, responding to, and recovering
from disasters. In human health, treatment receives most of the
attention because it cannot be postponed, just as most of the
attention given to disasters focuses on response. However, he
emphasized, investments in prevention and preparation yield the
greatest return.
Mote described his view of the three characteristics of a culture of
resilience: a network of systems, strategic thinking, and leadership.
First, an integrated systems approach brings together technological,
societal, health, emergency, security, economic, political,
environmental, and other systems that work in harmony and are
interdependent with each other. He provided the hypothetical
example of creating open green space in communities that could
restrain floodwaters during high water events, and simultaneously
benefit local ecosystem processes, increase property values, and
strengthen the social fabric of the community. Investments in building
a culture of resilience should consider a range of benefits across
multiple systems.
Second, Mote noted that strategic thinking connects the decisions
and actions of today to the outcomes anticipated from tomorrow’s
disasters. Part of building a culture of resilience requires
understanding the risk that a community faces, ways to communicate
those risks to the community and its decision makers, and the
consequences of those high-risk outcomes. Strategic thinking relies
on tools such as catastrophe models, predictive models, risk
assessments, and consequence analysis.
The third characteristic of a culture of resilience is leadership. Mote
contends that leaders make decisions under uncertain conditions,
incorporating strategic as well as tactical thinking. Leaders also make
decisions knowing that the benefits may not be realized until much
later, often after their term of office. He emphasized the role of the
science and engineering communities in helping leaders create a
culture of resilience by providing information and helping to interpret,
translate, and decipher information to increase its usefulness to
decision makers.
Mote closed by noting the engagement of the Resilient America
Roundtable with communities in the city and county of Charleston,
South Carolina; the City of Cedar Rapids and Linn County, Iowa;
Tulsa, Oklahoma; and the Central Puget Sound region, Washington.
He asked participants to consider their role in preparing their
neighborhood, community, or country to be a part of a culture of
resilience.

BUILDING RESILIENCE AT THE NATIONAL

LEVEL
Andrea Seabrook of National Public Radio moderated a discussion
with Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), and Michael Berkowitz, president of the
100 Resilient Cities program pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation.
This discussion focused on ways that local officials can and should
use policy tools to increase community resilience nationwide. She
opened the session by asking the panelists, “How do you get
politicians to want to do something and spend money on something
that, if it goes right, no one will notice?”
Berkowitz opened by pointing to the “long-term, slow burn
disasters,” explaining that addressing chronic stressors—such as lack
of access to food and water, high levels of crime and violence, and
failing infrastructure—will start to show daily benefits. The high-
frequency, low-impact, day-to-day stresses are something that
politicians can take credit for on an immediate basis. Fugate talked
about the importance of preserving the community’s tax base (today
and into an unpredictable future), noting that this can be a powerful
signal for resilience. If a community’s tax base is not resilient, the
community cannot provide services or be resilient itself. Fugate
suggested the question of, “Are the decisions that are being made
around constructing homes and businesses creating more
vulnerability?” In other words, are homes and businesses insurable by
the private sector (a long-term view) or will they require a taxpayer
subsidy (a short-term view)? Making decisions based on a long-term
view of the tax base can increase resilience.
Fugate went on to discuss how long commutes to a resident’s place
of employment or inadequate transportation options could negatively
affect a community’s ability to be resilient. If residents experience
higher costs or longer commute times, many choose to move closer
to urban centers, which can diminish their former communities’ tax
base. Resilience, in this case, involves bringing residents and their
places of employment closer together, either through mass transit (to
make it easier for people to get to jobs) or economic development in
bedroom communities (to bring jobs to the people). Berkowitz agreed
with the value of creating multiple economic centers, not just a single
concentration of jobs in a large downtown. For example, in New York
City, planning is underway to create opportunities that allow citizens
to live within 40 minutes of their employment. This requires
movement of economic development to Queens and the Bronx, so
that “all of our eggs aren’t in the midtown, downtown basket” in
Manhattan.
Seabrook asked each speaker to describe their view of the
differences between resilient infrastructure (with a focus on
engineering) and the broader concept of community resilience
(specifically, the web of relationships that create community
resilience). Berkowitz spoke about two types of resilience with regard
to infrastructure: 1) infrastructure that does not degrade easily and is
resilient to a hazard, and 2) infrastructure that promotes resilience by
bringing communities together, enhancing the natural environment,
and helping to create a more tight-knit, stronger community. He
noted the cross-Bronx expressway in New York City as an example of
infrastructure that is extremely resilient from an engineering
perspective; its construction, however, divided the north and south
sides of the city, creating a community of downward mobility and
contributing to the city’s resilience challenges. Berkowitz concluded,
“To design and build a bridge which is an engineering feat that is
resilient is one thing, but to design infrastructure that makes the city
more resilient is something else.”
Fugate commented on the commonly expressed resilience goal of
building back better, which, in practice, often means building back
based on cost–benefit analysis. Cost–benefit analysis uses data from
past events to make decisions about the future. However, these data
can be misleading if it fails to reflect changing environmental trends,
population density, and technology. For example, within the context
of Hurricane Sandy, Fugate asked, “What do we build back to?” If
past data are inadequate or do not take into account future risk and
trends such as sea level rise, how is future risk being determined?
One place to look, he suggested, is the reinsurance industry, which
builds risk into its investment strategies; for example, a structure
insured by the private sector could be an indicator that it is a
worthwhile risk.
Berkowitz added that there are things that communities can think
about now when developing a resilient strategy or recovery plan that
could help them make better decisions later. Immediately following a
disaster, it can be difficult to identify and implement effective
mitigation actions. However, thoughtful planning in advance of a
disaster can help a community to identify smarter options for building
back should an event occur.
Fugate proposed two questions to consider when providing
guidance for making development decisions that promote greater
resilience. How could the federal government use insurance rather
than government grants or other tools to guide decision-making
around investments in building resilience in their community?
Moreover, how can federal, state, and local governments share the
responsibility for the risk more effectively following a disaster? Fugate
described a combination of actions the federal government could take
including disincentives for communities that opt not to carry
insurance on structures that should be insured, tighter insurance
requirements after a community rebuilds, and credit that could be
applied to states and communities based on the percentage of
structures they insure, and for resilience-promoting building codes
and land use.
Seabrook asked how a community can ensure that the
determination of risk is fair and does not include racial or economic
profiling, since insurance companies’ processes of determining risk
are largely unknown to the public. Fugate responded that insurance
companies’ numbers are highly focused on the risk to a parcel of land
over a certain period of time. He acknowledged that the high cost of
insurance could sometimes make a community unaffordable for
lower-income residents. This is an important policy issue because in a
community where the price of insurance is high, policymakers may
want to maintain a community of different income levels to retain
teachers, firefighters, and other moderate-income professionals. In
order to do this, communities will need to subsidize residents’
protection against the risk and to promote actions that decrease the
risk over time.
An audience member asked whether federal funding for emergency
response could be prioritized at the regional level. Fugate responded
that this is unlikely given that every senator and representative must
answer to his or her constituents. However, he added that relying on
federal dollars is not sustainable in the long term and indicated it is
important to bring the broader community to the table, for instance
by engaging the private sector in finding investment opportunities
that would be both profitable and locally relevant. Fugate mentioned
the Earth Genome Project1 as an example of the private sector taking
action in an area traditionally addressed by government. In
collaboration with other institutions, the Earth Genome Project
designed a tool2 that helps corporations that require large amounts of
water to make better decisions around water maintenance and use,
and identify green solutions.
Berkowitz also pointed to an innovative partnership between Veolia
and Swiss Re, a resource management and a reinsurance company,
respectively, which is exploring ways to finance improvements for and
recovery of cities’ infrastructure systems following disasters; the first
project will be focused on water infrastructure in New Orleans.
Berkowitz suggested that this type of partnership is more sustainable
in the long term. Cities will not become resilient if they keep waiting
for federal or philanthropic dollars.
Seabrook reflected on the need for solid data about specific risks
and asked the speakers to talk about their metrics of success. Fugate
talked about the importance of “putting data in one spot” and
communicating risk openly as a basis for decision makers to make
informed decisions. Los Angeles, for example, makes its data
available on public platforms and provides tools that the public can
access with information about the city, such as where crimes are
happening, where job growth is occurring, and when a street will be
resurfaced.
Berkowitz acknowledged that resilient cities have strong a civil
society and a strong private sector that are integrated at different
levels of the government, adding, “An entire ecosystem is what
enables the city to bounce back from a disaster.” However, he
recognized that data at the city level tend to exist in siloes. In light of
rapid urbanization and climate change impacts, Berkowitz encouraged
the development of common data platforms that allow city
government and residents to evaluate data simultaneously on a range
of items; for example, city capacity, city risk, where the best property
owners are, where the flood damages are, and who the code
violators are.
Finally, Berkowitz stated that measuring resilience is a big
challenge, but it is a key part of understanding the efficacy of specific
interventions in building community resilience. If a city can
understand what the impact of a particular intervention would be on
its resilience, then it would be easier to design financing around
those interventions to really move the needle. A forward-looking city
is one that is approaching its issues holistically, and is diverse,
walkable, dense, and economically integrated.

BUILDING RESILIENCE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

The second panel focused on how leaders at the local level build
resilience. Andrea Seabrook introduced Mayor Michael Seibert of
Joplin, Missouri; County Commissioner Chip LaMarca of Broward
County, Florida; and Mayor Ben McAdams of Salt Lake County, Utah,
to discuss actions that their communities are taking to build local
resilience.
Mayor Seibert began by talking about the devastating tornado that
Joplin experienced in 2011, which resulted in 161 lives lost and
massive property damages. Property losses included the devastation
of 7,000 homes or apartments, one of the city’s two major medical
institutions, one-third of its middle schools, half of its grade schools,
and its only high school; 550 businesses were also damaged or
destroyed. Seabrook asked how the community recovered and
worked toward building greater resilience. According to Mayor
Seibert, the key to community revitalization was the federal, state,
and local partners, and the many volunteers who came to Joplin to
help with the response and recovery. More than 185,000 people
arrived, gifting more than 1.5 million hours of their time. He
explained that 5 years later, Joplin’s population is higher than before
the disaster and while the city lost 10 percent of the businesses
following the tornado, 300 new businesses have since come to the
community. An audience member asked whether Joplin developed a
way to track and influence interagency collaboration and volunteers.
Mayor Seibert replied that for the volunteer effort, AmeriCorps played
a key role. They assisted with the placement and deployment of
volunteers, coordinated and tracked volunteer efforts, and kept
accountability of their time.
Seabrook asked County Commissioner LaMarca how he convinces
decision makers to invest in resilience-related projects without being
able to point to a recent disaster such as the tornado experienced in
Joplin. County Commissioner LaMarca pointed to the importance of
tourism in the community. Rather than focusing on hurricanes or
coastal flooding, the city demonstrated to the state legislature the
return on investment for maintaining healthy beaches, along with the
infrastructure and coastal routes that support those beach
communities. He cited that in a recent year, 53.3 million tourists
spent $14.2 billion in Florida, with the majority of them spending at
least some time on the beach. County Commissioner LaMarca stated,
“If that beach isn’t there, they’re not coming.”
Mayor McAdams noted that disaster is inevitable for every
community and shared some of the steps Salt Lake County is taking
to be prepared for an event. Preparations are countywide, and focus
on a major earthquake predicted to occur in the next 50 years. Salt
Lake County is working not only on emergency preparedness for the
first 24 or 48 hours after a disaster, but to ensure it is prepared to
bounce back quickly. Mayor McAdams commented that the county is
very prepared for the immediate emergency but has more work to do
when it comes to long-term recovery. He noted that a major
consideration in longer-term recovery is that efforts are not the sole
responsibility of the government but also that of the private sector—
electricity, trucking and shipping, and Internet and connectivity—
which often hold assets that are critical to a community’s resilience.
In Salt Lake County, there is a concerted effort to convene the main
players now, aiming to ensure that the dialogue and partnerships are
active today, so that in the event of an emergency, relationships and
plans are in place for community-wide resilience.
 Seabrook asked how communities go beyond recovery to
prevention; in other words, how are communities going about their
pre-disaster work? County Commissioner LaMarca talked about
programs that help residents create hurricane-hardened homes (e.g.,
houses with windows and glass that can withstand a 2×4 board
traveling at 150 miles per hour), strict building codes, and back-up
power for critical locations; with policies instituted over the past 10
years, back-up power is now required for places such as cell phone
towers, health facilities, and gas stations on interstate highways.
Mayor Seibert also cited changes in home-building rules. Joplin now
requires hurricane straps on truss roofing and additional anchors
joining walls to the foundation. The more stringent requirements add
approximately $500 to $600 to the cost of a newly built home. He
noted that they did not add a requirement for storm shelters stating,
“We felt like the open market would take care of that, and that’s
exactly what happened.” The city gave the school district additional
funding to rebuild the schools to a higher standard. They tried to
strike a balance between preparing effectively while not imposing
high costs that would lead residents to relocate to another
community with fewer building requirements.
Mayor McAdams pointed to the Utah Shake-Out, an annual
community-wide emergency drill,3 as an effective method to raise
awareness and preparedness. People in businesses, public schools,
and universities come together to discuss what an effective
earthquake response looks like. He noted that the drill has raised
awareness in his own home, prompting his family to engage in
discussion of how to become more prepared; questions like, “if there
is an emergency, where do we meet our kids? Do we have a
designated meeting place? What if we’re at home, what if dad is at
work and mom is out of town?” The community also increasingly
focuses on questions of business continuity and contingency planning
should supply chains be disrupted. Mayor McAdams believes these
exercises are motivating households and businesses to develop their
own plans.
Beyond built environment solutions, Seabrook asked how each
community is accounting for climate change and changing weather
patterns when considering the future. Mayor McAdams stated that
while the risk of an earthquake is of most concern for Salt Lake
County, changing climate patterns are having a distinct impact on its
flooding and wildfire risk. He raised the issue of declining snowpack,
which accounts for half of the county’s drinking water supply; lighter
snowpack also means a higher incidence of wildfires. Even with this
reduction in snowfall, the county’s incidence of flooding is going up
since sudden warm temperatures melt the snowpack more rapidly
than current systems can handle. With the help of FEMA, affected
communities are in the process of thinking through these issues.
County Commissioner LaMarca discussed the unique situation of
southeast Florida, which has about 300 miles of exposed shoreline
along the Atlantic Ocean and parts of the Gulf of Mexico that can be
subject to a changing climate. Four coastal counties work together on
a regional approach, the Southeast Florida Regional Climate
Compact,4 which coordinates mitigation and adaptation activities and
provides opportunities for engaging with state and federal entities for
technical and other support. They found that through advance
planning, natural infrastructure, such as plantings and sand dunes,
could be used to preserve and maintain the fragile coastline; built
infrastructure interventions can be much more costly.
Given each of the speaker’s experience with “radical resilience
building” at the local level, Seabrook asked each to advise
administrators, mayors, and civil servants where to start and what to
watch. All three panelists highlighted the importance of committed
leadership. Mayor Seibert said, “Identify your key positions and make
sure your leaders are strong. When you’re faced with a disaster, it’s
too late to realize that you have the wrong people in the wrong
positions.” County Commissioner LaMarca asserted the need for
public servants to serve their constituents in the face of a crisis
despite philosophical or political differences, and highlighted the need
for elected leaders to listen to what the community is telling them.
Finally, Mayor McAdams stated that there is an opportunity for
political leadership to expand the discussion beyond family and home
to community awareness, and use community-wide emergency drills
like the Utah Shake-Out. He emphasized the government’s ability to
bring people together.
A member of the audience asked what is being done now, and
what could be done better, to address emotional resilience? Mayor
McAdams believes that the emergency drill does a good job of
preparing people publicly for a disaster, but acknowledged that some
residents could be left behind, such as lower-income people who
could be displaced in an earthquake and elderly people with health
concerns. In regard to Joplin’s 5-year anniversary of the tornado,
Mayor Seibert said that half of the community wanted to recognize it
and the other half did not. Ultimately, they planned a one-mile
memorial walk with 1,000 participants. The Joplin community has
tried hard to recognize residents’ challenges and emotional needs.
An audience member asked a final question about tools and
mechanisms that could be used to communicate with the community.
Mayor Seibert described how Joplin is unifying its communication
points between county agencies and other organizations, “Everybody
knows what everybody is doing now and we’re not communicating in
silos like we were in the past.” He highlighted the value of
smartphones and apps released by local television and radio stations
for emergency alerts. For families without smartphones, Joplin used
grant funding to provide 4,000 weather radios. County Commissioner
LaMarca replied that Broward County communicates through religious
organizations, community-oriented organizations, ethnic groups, and
chambers of commerce and, in an emergency, television, public radio,
and other means of electronic broadcast such as reverse 911 and
Twitter.

PRIVATE SECTOR INCENTIVES AND

INVESTMENTS IN COMMUNITY RESILIENCE
Andrea Seabrook introduced three speakers for a final discussion
about the roles and opportunities for private sector actors in
increasing the nation’s resilience: Paul Nicholas, senior director of
Microsoft Global Security Strategy and Diplomacy; Lynn Scarlett,
global managing director of The Nature Conservancy; and Ray
Bonilla, senior director of IT resiliency management at Kaiser
Permanente.
Seabrook began the discussion by asking the speakers if the United
States should have a chief resilience officer. Nicholas supported the
idea as a way to create an overarching focus on resilience that
includes comprehensive investment spanning economics, social
cohesion, and environment. Bonilla also favored a national chief
resilience officer, noting that though a great deal of good planning is
accomplished within an organization’s own sphere of resilience, silos
can inhibit an organization’s ability to meet challenges in a flexible
and adaptive way. He believes there is a need for a “truly coordinated
and harmonized way of responding to emergencies and being able to
bounce back from anything.” Scarlett acknowledged the diversity of
the challenges and risks faced by communities and, likewise, the
variety of agencies with differing responsibilities and responses to
these challenges. She felt that because of the diversity of needs at
the local level, a single focus at the federal level would not be the
ideal structure. For example, during Hurricane Katrina, she said,
“some of the most fantastic and nimble responses were on the
ground, by mayors and companies on site.”
In response to questions from Seabrook and the audience, the
three panelists described various aspects of their companies’ work
toward resilience. Nicholas noted that Microsoft has made substantial
changes in its data center operations and with efforts to reduce the
carbon footprint of the company and its products. He discussed a
cultural change at Microsoft from an individual focus to the notion of
a collective challenge. At one point in the company’s history,
employees were highly competitive with one another rather than
focusing on the customer. In the early 2000s, security issues forced
the company to change its operations—compelled it to slow down—
and the resulting culture shift was toward one of greater
collaboration.
Nicholas described a collaborative project among Microsoft, the 100
Resilient Cities program, and the city of Rotterdam, a diverse
community of 170 languages. Rotterdam wanted to be a cyber-
resilient city; the initial focus was on security. This narrow focus soon
shifted to a broader discussion of how to be ready and responsive in
facing diverse challenges. The city realized that its ethnic and
linguistic diversity provided an opportunity to become a “cyberport”
to the world, fostering community networks and startups and
creating places where people who were disconnected could connect.
Nicholas discussed the value of a data-driven environment for
turning the “known unknowns” into “knowns.” He believes that many
cities and nations as well as people working with different
infrastructure and in different sectors of the economy are only
beginning to understand how to utilize available data. There are still
questions about how to identify where the data are, how to consume
it, and how it can help anticipate problems. Nicholas advocated
planting seeds with the next generation and described Microsoft’s
YouthSpark program (https://www.microsoft.com/en_us/digital_skill
s), which aims to advance technical education in both developed and
less developed countries to build local capacity for data analysis.
Finally, Nicholas highlighted the need to establish relationships well
before a crisis demands them. Resilience is about having a range of
options and bringing together the right stakeholders to help manage
a crisis.
Bonilla described Kaiser Permanente’s focus on total health. The
organization seeks to maximize the health and well-being of its
members and the communities it serves, an effort that easily extends
to crisis situations. He connected resilience with a range of
investments in communities’ health. For example, a community that
is more walkable and safe with easy access to fresh fruits and
vegetables increases its ability to deal with adversity. Bonilla stated,
“It’s really about planning for life’s what-ifs. How do we build the
muscle memory within our community so that residents are healthy
and resilient and able to quickly bounce back?”
Kaiser Permanente’s own resilience activities encompass business
continuity, crisis management, disaster recovery, and physical and
cybersecurity. Bonilla spoke about how a fundamental element of
Kaiser’s resilience is its people, “how well do our people know their
role in resilience, embrace it, and own it while they’re at work and at
home, and how does that radiate into a community level of
preparedness and resilience?” Much of the organization’s resilience
efforts focus on ensuring that all employees understand and are
empowered in their roles within the organization.
Bonilla stated that Kaiser’s commitment starts with the CEO. The
CEO and his colleagues customize their efforts to each division’s
mission as well as to the strategic pillars and vision of the company.
When they collaborate with the chief medical officer about resilience,
they emphasize how to ensure that the medical operations of the
organization are always available. Similarly, when they talk with the
chief information officer, the focus is on the stability of the
information technology systems and the organization’s data. Bonilla
noted that since “telehealth” is revolutionizing health care, it is now
critical to make sure technology is always on. In conversations with
the chief marketing officer, they discuss how to integrate resilience
into Kaiser’s brand and reputation. Similarly, the chief human
resources officer wants Kaiser Permanente to be the best place to
work and to make investments in its employees’ well-being and
safety.
Seabrook asked the speakers to talk about “marketing” resilience,
what makes a product go viral? Bonilla replied that it was about being
positive, persistent, and passionate about Kaiser Permanente’s work
stating, “It’s about being happy and buoyant and adaptive to
anything that life throws your way. Taking small steps today can have
big payoffs in the future.”
A member of the audience asked about how companies and
individuals can become more accountable, efficient, and effective,
and reduce their environmental footprint. Bonilla suggested appealing
to emotions by finding ways to get people excited about making
changes that will provide for a better future. When he began working
on resilience 10 years ago, the focus was on preparedness, planning,
and emergency management. People were overwhelmed and fearful
and believed that resilience was too complicated. Bonilla realized it
was important to make the topic of resilience more than about
planning for the next earthquake but to also talk about being
prepared to bounce back individually, locally, regionally, and
nationally.
Scarlett described the shift at The Nature Conservancy from
conservation to resilience, prompted by the organization’s work
responding to the effects of the changing climate, such as increased
frequency of high-intensity storms and catastrophic wildfires. She
described how nature itself is part of the solution. For example,
restoring oyster reefs can reduce storm surge, which can reduce the
risk of catastrophic storms as well as provide multiple other benefits
including enhanced fisheries, aesthetic benefits, and other related
economic benefits. Scarlett advocated a forward-looking approach.
For example, improving the health of a forest not only reduces the
risk of wildfire but also helps to secure a community’s water supply
since wildfires create sedimentation. The Nature Conservancy
approaches resilience from a number of levels including using
scientific findings to understand solutions, providing examples of on-
the-ground strategies, and brokering dialogue. Scarlett emphasized
that it is crucial to listen to what the community is saying and
understand the risks that are of most concern. One challenge is
convincing communities to adopt ecosystem approaches to protect
themselves. A community that has recently experienced a disaster
may want to see rapid improvement to their risk, for example, by
building a sea wall to protect against storm surge. The Nature
Conservancy tries to demonstrate ways to integrate natural solutions
with other risk-reducing actions and emphasize the multiple benefits
that can result with nature-based strategies.
Regarding “known unknowns,” Scarlett urged a focus on solution
sets that can function across a wide range of conditions. For
example, floodplain restoration makes a community more resilient to
a wider-range of water conditions than a levy built to a particular
water height. Scarlett also emphasized the importance of convening
decision makers and organizations; it is valuable to provide
opportunities for dialogue on a regular basis.
An audience member brought up international activities, which
acknowledge the value of forests in capturing atmospheric carbon,
watersheds for maintaining the water supply, and wetlands for
dissipating storm surges, and asked why these strategies have not
gained traction in the United States. Scarlett replied that this is a
work in progress. The Nature Conservancy is helping to lead the way
with 30 water funds for investment in watershed protection around
the world and more than 20 coastal resilience projects in the United
States alone. She added that there is an “exponential appetite
growing for these kinds of solutions” and her organization is working
with other institutions, such as the World Bank, to identify ways to
increase investments in them.

CLOSING REMARKS
Lieutenant General (Ret.) Thomas P. Bostick of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) concluded the leadership forum by talking
about his experiences building resilience through the USACE. He
emphasized the Corps’ broad experience with extreme events and
wars over its 241 years of existence, most recently with droughts,
Hurricanes Katrina and Isaac, floods on the Mississippi River in
Missouri and West Virginia, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
General Bostick discussed specific examples of USACE resilience
work. Following Superstorm Sandy in 2012, the U.S. Congress asked
the USACE to look ahead 50 years and lead an assessment of the
needs for resilience in the face of climate change. The result was the
North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study released in January 2015.5
Currently, the USACE is working with many partners and taking action
on nine of the study’s focus areas. General Bostick also referred to
work he did as part of the Coastal Engineering Research Board, in
which participating organizations convened to work together on a
shared meaning of resilience. For the USACE, this resulted in a
resilience initiative that examined how it would approach resilience in
the future in terms of infrastructure, communities, and across federal
agencies.
General Bostick stated that the implementation of resilience
activities depends on funding and resources. However, he also
acknowledged that resilience is working its way into policy, and noted
President Obama’s 2015 Executive Order that addressed the federal
flood risk management standard, “It is the policy of the United States
to improve the resilience of communities . . . against the impacts of
flooding.”6
General Bostick closed by urging participants to plan for
uncertainty, plan for failure, and plan for flexibility in the system. He
cited work on the Mississippi floodplain that was begun in the
aftermath of a flood that killed nearly 1,000 people. At the time,
General Edgar Jadwin recognized that the Mississippi River could not
be contained solely by the use of levees, no matter how robust, but
that it needed to be allowed to spread out through a number of
controlled features. That strategy—currently 89 percent complete—
has resulted in dramatically fewer fatalities and damages due to
flooding along the river. For example, in 2011, Mississippi floods cost
$2.8 billion; without the decades of USACE work, the damages would
have been an estimated $234 billion. General Bostick noted how the
nation benefits from this work begun in 1927 and challenged
participants to “think about what we need to do today, so that our
grandchildren and their grandchildren will look back on this
generation and say, ‘They did something really good for us. We’re
safer and our people are safer and our communities are more
resilient because of their hard work.’” Finally, he noted the
importance of strong leadership—from the local level to U.S.
Congress—to get behind the concept of resilience.

__________________
1 See https://www.earthgenome.org.
2 The Green Infrastructure Support Tool, created by the Earth Genome Project, in
collaboration with Arizona State University, Dow, and the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, “identifies and evaluates wetland restoration
opportunities to support a more predictable and sustainable water supply to the
Freeport facility. Wetlands store water during deluge and release water during dry
spells, much like engineered solutions like reservoirs.”
3 See http://www.shakeout.org/utah.
4 See http://www.southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org.
5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study
Report. See http://www.nad.usace.army.mil/CompStudy.
6 Executive Order – Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and
a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input (https://obamaw
hitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/executive-order-establishing-fe
deral-flood-risk-management-standard-and-).
 3

Community Resilience

SETTING THE STAGE

The moderator, Arrietta Chakos of Urban Resilience Strategies,
opened the community workshop with a conversation among Roy
Wright, deputy associate administrator for mitigation at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); Andrew R. Brenner, senior
manager for global communications at the 100 Resilient Cities
program pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation; and Lauren
Alexander Augustine, director of the Program on Risk, Resilience, and
Extreme Events at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine (the National Academies) about how resilience efforts
are making a difference in communities and ways to scale efforts
regionally and nationally.
Chakos asked Wright to discuss how FEMA works with local
governments and what local and regional governments can learn
from federal policies. Wright emphasized that the federal government
can help communities through national programs but will not be able
to change the profile of a community related to its risks. Instead,
FEMA provides building blocks of resilience to support local officials in
making choices for their community, exemplified through the National
Flood Insurance Program and various grants and other programs. He
acknowledged that building resilience can be fundamentally different,
depending on the community, and that prioritizing and paying for
resilience can be very difficult. For example, many communities that
experience a disaster may lose part of the population of their
community; this can lead to a reduction in their tax base, which can
affect a community’s ability to fully bounce back. Another challenge is
that local elected officials have many conflicting issues to address
with resilience being just one business-line of many in a mayor’s
budget.
Chakos asked Brenner to talk about common themes that have
emerged from the 100 Resilient Cities work and discuss how the cities
are planning to pivot from developing resilient strategies to
implementation. Brenner stated that each city develops a city
resilience strategy and that these strategies have helped the cities
identify new ways to assess risk, think differently about
implementation, and identify new partners to bring to the table from
the private, public, and other sectors. So far, 12 Rockefeller cities
have released a resilience strategy. Brenner stated that many cities
identify similar needs for addressing shocks and stresses. Not
surprisingly, more than 80 percent of cities in the 100 Resilient Cities
program identified a water issue—either too much or too little—as
their top shock or stress. The program is leveraging the expertise of
cities wherever possible, bringing them together to problem solve
specific issues and common challenges.
Chakos asked Augustine to talk about the role of science and
engineering in the work of resilience action. Augustine stated that
disasters and resilience are not single sector issues but involve
everybody. The National Academies exercises its convening power to
bring diverse decision makers and stakeholders to the table. She
emphasized the role of science and data, and the need for its
interpretation and translation to provide accessible and meaningful
information to underpin community decision making.
The three panelists discussed the trajectory of resilience over the
next 5 to 10 years. Brenner sees cities learning from one another’s
efforts, for instance by appointing a chief resilience officer in the
government. This person constitutes a focal point for resilience, helps
to bring together many business-lines in the budget, and identifies
outside resources from the community and private sector to integrate
into the process. Brenner sees new approaches being brought forth
simply by virtue of the chief resilience officer being at the table.
Wright noted the momentum of the resilience movement, but also
commented that resilience stills needs more direct integration into
local decision making and investments by the private and public
sectors. Success means moving resilience beyond a niche
environment to something that is pervasive across multiple sectors,
organizations, and disciplines. Augustine referred to a question posed
the previous day about how to take credit for something when, if
done right, nobody notices. She noted the importance of the 100
Resilient Cities program in promoting and supporting a larger
conversation on resilience; the question now is how to take these big
programs and pilot efforts and operationalize them so that they are
part of everyday thinking.
Finally, an audience member asked how to replicate and transfer
resilience lessons. Brenner replied that it is hard for cities to grapple
with the complex challenges of the 21st century on their own.
Outside expertise helps cities to think through their challenges and
potentially replicate ways that other communities are approaching
risk and working toward solutions. Brenner concluded that open and
honest conversations about risk are important and sometimes it takes
a shock to have happened for resilient thinking to become fully
embedded in a community.

ENGAGING WITH DIVERSE POPULATIONS

Lori Peek, professor, Department of Sociology and director, Natural
Hazards Center, University of Colorado Boulder, explained that the
planning committee’s choice to use the term diversity rather than
vulnerability during this discussion was deliberate. It was meant to
avoid a common consequence of discussion around vulnerability,
which often results in developing lists of the types of people who are
most disadvantaged—those with the least power, least resources, and
least voice within communities. The planning committee favored the
lack of directionality inherent in “diversity” and the broader range of
what it can include in terms of people, places, or perspectives. Peek
also acknowledged, however, that the lack of directionality in
“diversity” has the potential for participants to lose sight of the
inequalities that exist in people’s differential opportunities and that
are embedded in histories, structures, and political systems of
communities and the nation as a whole.
Peek introduced the panelists and asked them to briefly describe
some of their core projects. June Kailes, disability policy consultant
and the associate director and adjunct associate professor at Harris
Family Center for Disability and Health Policy at Western University of
Health Science, began the discussion. The primary focus of Kailes’s
work is to ensure delivery of services in an equal and effective way to
people with disabilities and with access and functional needs. She
works on building disability competencies, practice competencies, and
actionable competencies in health care and emergency management;
developing courses for FEMA; and assisting states, cities, and
counties in developing inclusive emergency plans. Kailes explained
that the people for whom she advocates constitute 50 percent of the
U.S. population and include those with vision and hearing loss;
physical disabilities; mental health disabilities; developmental,
intellectual, and other cognitive disabilities; behavior health issues;
learning, understanding, remembering, reading, and speaking
limitations; mobility limitations; serious allergies and chemical
sensitivities; limited English language abilities; and those who are
transportation dependent.
Nick Kushner, project manager in the Office of the Deputy Mayor
for Health and Human Services in the District of Columbia
government, introduced his work with the Age-Friendly DC program,1
which is part of the AARP Network of Age-Friendly Communities
through the World Health Organization Global Network of Age-
Friendly Cities and Communities. This program brings an inter-
generational focus to city planning by putting the views of older
residents at the forefront. In addition, as part of its mission to build
an inclusive city, the District of Columbia is revising its comprehensive
plan to include resilience and incorporating a range of issues from the
age-friendly approach such as access to transportation, housing,
community health services, long-term care, social participation,
respect, and inclusion.
Robin Pfohman, program manager for the Community Resilience +
Equity program in the Department of Public Health in Seattle and
King County, Washington, discussed her work with a King County
community resilience framework focused on health, equity, and
climate change. She acknowledged that an invisible line exists in the
Seattle region in which people struggling with certain disparities—in
terms of life expectancy, tobacco use, mental distress, negative
childhood experiences, diabetes, and preventable hospitalizations—
have to live farther and farther from the city of Seattle. This pattern
necessitates a countywide perspective to ensure conversations are
not Seattle-centric and that communities that need assistance remain
part of the discussions.
Peek asked the panelists to share examples of how to integrate the
needs of diverse populations into a formal plan, process, or
vulnerability reduction initiative. Kushner pointed to the development
of Age-Friendly DC. At the start, they engaged hundreds of George
Washington University students to spend time with District of
Columbia residents and listen to their concerns. Across the city,
students walked with long-time residents—people using wheelchairs
or canes and young families using strollers—as they told stories about
the neighborhood, discussed their access to places such as
pharmacies and sources of healthy foods, and talked about problems
that needed attention such as roads in disrepair, unsafe sidewalks,
and unsafe traffic intersections. The data were used to advocate for
funding to address those needs.
Pfohman described an effort in Seattle to test and disseminate
emergency messages to the region’s Somali community; ultimately, it
resulted in the formation of the Somali Health Board. The city’s
primary connection with the community revolved around health
issues. Because a past communication effort around H1N1 had left
impaired relationships when it did not take into account cultural
sensitivities, for this next effort the city partnered with a Somali
organization and worked with a local Somali health professional to
conduct focus groups around vaccines and other health issues
important to the community. This helped build relationships and
resulted in the project evolving from a focus on emergency
messaging to health and ultimately the establishment of the Somali
Health Board. The city had considered the Somali population as
vulnerable. However, by better understanding the assets in the
community and helping to build capacity, the Somali community
started its own nonprofit organization, successfully applied for grants,
and took the lead on the health and well-being of their community.
Kailes discussed two success stories involving the American Red
Cross that demonstrate recent progress in the integration of
communities with disabilities into emergency planning and response.
In one instance, several shelters need to be opened very quickly
following a large emergency. When Red Cross staffers inspected the
designated facilities, they found the locations were not accessible and
refused to open the shelters. The conflict rose to the state attorney
general’s office, which recognized that the designated facilities were
not suitable and supported the Red Cross in opening appropriate
shelters. In a second example, Kailes described advocacy efforts
focused on the need to accommodate people with disabilities in
shelters designed for the general population, by providing a few
specific alterations. Kailes described how disability advocates asked
the Red Cross to observe the Americans with Disabilities Act, to
update their policies and procedures to engage in community
partnerships with the disability community, and to provide a
management position for a disability inclusion coordinator. She
reported that in 2015 the process had begun, with the development
of stronger partnerships and problem solving for more inclusive
sheltering and response services.
Each panelist provided thoughts on how communities, states, or
the federal government could approach and integrate diverse
populations across the disaster lifecycle. Pfohman noted that
resilience could be a hard sell because the focus is on an acute
distinct event, while the reality is that many residents have disasters
every day and preparing for emergencies is a luxury for many people.
She believes that opportunities around resilience are broader and
urged approaching resilience not with the assumption of deficit but as
an opportunity to address existing inequities, linking disaster
preparedness to daily life.
Kailes advised leaders to “embrace the fact that an emergency
dogma is perishable and should have a short expiration date.” She
advocated infusing practices based on new, evolving information,
economics, laws, technology, values, products, and services. The goal
is not lessons heard about, observed, or even documented, but
lessons repeatedly applied until we can eventually claim them as
learned. Kailes urged decision makers not to consider people with
disabilities a small population to address in the future, reiterating that
this group constitutes 50 percent of the population. Jurisdictions must
plan for known needs by providing inclusive transportation,
addressing health and safety issues, and contributing to the
maintenance of residents’ health and independence.
Kushner discussed the importance of connecting with diverse
organizations and recognized the natural fit between health policies
and resilience policies. He described the need to meet people where
they are and address the increasing isolation of residents, for
example, his organization works with home-delivered meal services
as a way to get messages to residents. He cited a program in Utah
through which a person can sign up for a buddy system, allowing the
person delivering meals to contact a client’s friend or neighbor if the
client is unreachable.
Peek asked each panelist how they convince decision makers to
integrate the needs of diverse groups into planning and practice, and
what quantitative or qualitative metrics would be most effective in
measuring success. Kailes advised against registries or lists of people
who need to be moved in the event of a crisis or extreme event as a
model intervention, pointing out that there is little evidence that
registries are successful. For example, where a person lives does not
say anything about where they are at the time of a crisis; this can
result in wasted time for first responders. Regarding metrics, she
suggested an evolving checklist for integrating people with
disabilities, access, and functional needs into preparedness, response,
and recovery plans, and noted the need to include these procedures
in funding requirements.
Regarding emergency services, Kailes recommended the use of the
U.S. Department of Justice compliance accessibility checklist and
emphasized the need to make sure that community data are available
and consulted before emergency response sites are opened.
Emergency communication with residents should be available in
usable, understandable formats and accessible to a wide range of
people. Lastly, she urged the use of just-in-time training and
checklists, given high levels of staff turnover and the simple fact that
there is too much information to be stored in memory, especially
during the stress of an emergency.
Kushner asserted, “We’re not resilient if we’re not inclusive, if we’re
not looking at equity in how we’re planning and doing outreach, and
in who is at the table.” He described community organizations called
“villages”—networks of neighbors that arise organically and provide
services like transportation or plumbing help—that function as a long-
term support system for people to continue to age in their
community. He noted that while these organizations are now
primarily in upper-income neighborhoods, the District of Columbia is
trying to foster connections in other neighborhoods through faith-
based and community-based organizations. Regarding metrics,
Kushner said that often the government has only partial data on
different communities and suggested a need to work with other
community organizations to tap into existing efforts to collect
additional information, through annual health surveys, for example.
He revisited his work with the World Health Organization on the age-
friendly program, which collected data on multiple age-related
mobility factors such as sidewalk connectivity, rates of elder abuse,
and the number of certified trainers in the public. Pfohman described
her efforts to shift the paradigm in King County by working across
different communities to bring together initiatives around health,
climate change, and emergency preparedness. Metrics can be helpful
in defining this shift.
 HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
Natalie Grant, program analyst, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, moderated a discussion about what it means to be a
“healthy community.” She opened the conversation by noting that the
phrase “healthy communities” runs a broad gambit from public health
to health care services and beyond, and asked the presenters to
discuss not just the components of a healthy community, but also the
challenges and how to overcome them. Grant called attention to a
2015 report Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After
Disasters,2 which includes case studies and best practices, addresses
communication with different audiences, and discusses the
incorporation of health into the pre- and post-disaster environment.

Jeanne Herb, director of the Environmental Analysis and

Communications Group at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 © Wide World Photos

PARIS, FRANCE—A SALUTATION FROM M. BLERIOT

One of the first lessons was the “three sixty”—so named because its
completion required a total change in direction of three hundred and
sixty degrees. The cadet would take-off and climb to eight hundred
or a thousand feet. The higher he went the less difficulty he had in
properly completing the maneuver. Then he would fly into the wind
directly over a landing “T” in the center of the field. As the plane
passed over the “T” he throttled his motor and made a quick bank
either to the right or left depending upon his preliminary instructions.
The object was to make a complete circle and land without using the
motor, bringing the plane to a stop beside the “T.”
“One eightys” were the next requirement and they were probably the
cause of more crashes than any other maneuver. They were started
in the same manner as the “three sixty,” but with the plane heading
down wind and at only five hundred feet altitude. They required quick
manipulation of controls and a steep bank into the field just before
landing.
Next came acrobatics. Loops, spins, barrel rolls, Jenny Immelmans,
figure-eights, wing-overs, and reversements, every one of which
each cadet had to master thoroughly during his course at Brooks.
After the first few weeks had passed we became more or less
accustomed to life in the cadet detachment, and found a little time
now and then to look around the country and even spend a night in
San Antonio. Our examinations were purposely given on Saturday
morning so that we would not spend the week-end studying. It was
well known that too much studying affected a cadet’s flying and the
school schedule was arranged with that in mind.
Our day began with first call at five forty-five and flying started about
seven. At eleven we returned to the barracks and from one to five
o’clock was devoted to ground school. After supper we could study
until bed check at ten o’clock. Plenty of sleep is a necessity for the
student pilot, and that fact is recognized nowhere more than in the
army schools. Every week night at ten p.m. the cadet officer of the
day checks each bunk and turns in the names of any vacant ones.
Some of our academic subjects, such as aerodynamics and machine
guns required nearly all of our time after school because of
approaching examinations, whereas others were comparatively easy
and the classroom instruction was sufficient in itself. When we were
not studying there were always plenty of other things to attract our
attention. If one of the boys left the post, as sometimes happened,
he often returned to find his belongings heaped together in the
middle of the floor with the army cots piled on top. Several times
some cadet returned at midnight to find his equipment carefully
transferred and set up on the roof or in the mess-hall. Another one of
the favorite sports was to put a hose in the bed of a sound sleeper at
two a.m. or, if he slept with his mouth open, to fill it from a tube of
shaving cream or hair grease.
One of the fellows found a scorpion in his bed and each night for a
week thereafter looked through the bedding for another, but finally
became careless and forgot to look. His nearest neighbor promptly
placed a number of grasshoppers between the sheets near the foot
of the bed.
Another evening it was reported that three pole-cats had crawled into
a culvert in front of the barracks. For an hour we attempted to smoke
them out. When that failed the fire department was called and we
washed them out. The smoke had evidently taken effect, however,
and soon three dead pole-cats came floating out from the culvert.
The next problem was how to make use of such possibilities. That
question was worthy of a most careful consideration. After a survey
of the barracks we found that our cadet first sergeant was in San
Antonio. There was scarcely one of us who did not have some small
score to settle with him so we took one of the pillows from his bed
and after removing the pillow case, placed it behind one of the pole-
cats. The desired results were then obtained by stepping on the back
end of the cat, and after cautiously inserting the pillow back in its
case, we replaced it on the first sergeant’s bunk. The results were far
above expectation. One by one the occupants of that bay arose and
carried their cots outside, until by midnight, when our sergeant
returned, there were only a half dozen bunks left including his own.
By that time the odor had permeated through the other bedding and
he was unable to locate the pillow as being the primary cause of
offense. Any night for nearly two weeks thereafter our first sergeant
and his cot might be located out behind the barracks, and the
inspection of quarters, which was to have been held the following
morning, was postponed indefinitely.
During our last six weeks at Brooks, life became much less difficult.
Most of us who had survived the check pilots and “Benzine Board”
were reasonably sure of graduating and although our studies were
just as exacting as ever, we were able to absorb them much more
easily. Also we had passed our primary flying tests and were making
cross country flights in T.W.3’s; and learning formation flying in
Voughts. And finally we were given a few hours in De Havilands in
preparation for the advanced training at Kelly.
We were paired up for the cross country flights. One of us flew on
the way out, while the second acted as observer. On the return flight
we traded about, so that each achieved an equal amount of
experience, both as an observer and as a pilot. These trips were
usually laid out in a triangular course, and included landing at each
corner of the triangle.
While on one of our first trips from the home airdrome, we landed in
the designated field alongside of a road just as a load of
watermelons was passing by, so we carried several of them back to
the Detachment in our plane.
Always there was some new experience, always something
interesting going on to make the time spent in Brooks and Kelly one
of the banner years in a pilot’s life. The training is rigid and difficult
but there is none better. A cadet must be willing to forget all other
interest in life when he enters the Texas flying schools and he must
enter with the intention of devoting every effort and all of the energy
during the next twelve months towards a single goal. But when he
receives the wings at Kelly a year later he has the satisfaction of
knowing that he has graduated from one of the world’s finest flying
schools.
 VI
RECEIVING A PILOT’S WINGS

IN September, 1924, we were transferred to Kelly. The time we had

looked forward to for half a year had arrived. We were through the
period of just learning how to fly and were entering a new
experience; that of learning how to make use of our flying ability in
actual service. We would no longer be floating around the airdrome
in machines whose only purpose was to stand up under the hard
knocks of inexperienced pilots; but we were going to fly planes which
had an actual military value in warfare.
 © Wide World Photos

PARIS, FRANCE—PAUL PAINLEVÉ, FRENCH MINISTER OF

WAR, EXTENDS HIS WELCOME. ON THE RIGHT IS
AMBASSADOR MYRON T. HERRICK
 © Wide World Photos

PARIS, FRANCE—WITH M. DOUMERQUE AND AMBASSADOR

HERRICK

We were old cadets and felt the importance of our experience. We

were no longer treated as rookies but as potential officers. Before
leaving Brooks we had conformed with cadet traditions and allowed
groups of the new class to gather around us while we gravely spoke
of examinations, check pilots, “Benzine Boards,” and “washouts.” We
thoroughly enjoyed the awe inspired by our seventy-five hours of
flying experience.
At Kelly our difficulties set in with renewed vigor. The De Havilands
did not maneuver like the training Jennies, and we were required to
fly as we had never flown before. If a cadet was not able to handle
his ship in a maneuver which was at least equal to the standard, he
was usually heading towards home within a week.
We were allowed a few days to become accustomed to flying the
new type of plane, then an instructor would go up with us to see if
our progress had been satisfactory. If so we were sent to the next
stage; if not we went up with a check pilot.
From landings we went to the “eight” stage, where were assigned
two landmarks such as a tree and a haystack several hundred feet
apart, and required to do figure-eights around them. Then came the
spot landing stage, when we throttled our engine at about a
thousand feet and were required to land in a large white circle
without using our motor. On this stage we were graded on our take-
off, climb, approach, landing, roll, distance from mark, and method of
handling the ship. In fact at Kelly we were constantly under
observation and our only method of relaxation while flying was when
the sky was cloudy and we could get above the clouds.
On one occasion we were flying with a low ceiling and the visibility
was not very good. In fact it was an ideal day to do the things we
were not supposed to. I was hedgehopping along over the country
when I saw another D.H. playing around on my right. I flew over, and
after chasing each other around for a while we proceeded to do
chandelles, vertical banks, wing-overs, and everything else we could
think of; all within a few feet of the ground as the clouds themselves
were only about three hundred feet high. At last I decided to go up
close to the other plane for a little low formation flying, but as I
approached I saw that there were two men in the ship and that I had
been breaking every rule ever established about low flying with an
instructor watching me from another ship. I left that locality with wide
open motor and for several days expected to be called on the carpet
before the commanding officer on a washout offense. That instructor
must have been a good sport, however, because I never heard from
him and never was able to find out who he was.
On another occasion, near the end of my course, I came very near
being washed out for something I knew nothing about. I had been
practicing landings in an S.E.-5 on one corner of Kelly Field. When
my time had expired, I landed on the pursuit stage, taxied up to the
line, and turned the ship over to the mechanics. That afternoon I was
called from class and ordered to report to the operations officer;
whereupon he informed me that my flying days were over and that
as I knew why, there was no use in explaining further. I was then
ordered to report back to my studies.
It came out of a clear sky. I knew of a number of offenses I had
committed but none of them at that time. I had actually no idea of
what the operations officer was talking about.
When school was over I returned to the operations hut and
requested an account of the alleged offense. It appeared that the
propeller on my S.E.-5 was cracked, and the spreader board broken
on the landing gear. The crew chief had reported this together with a
statement that there were corn stalks hanging on the landing gear,
and as there was no corn growing on Kelly Field, that was a sure
sign that I had landed away from the airdrome without reporting the
fact. A washout offense. We drove to the pursuit stage and found
conditions exactly as stated, except that the corn stalks turned out to
be weeds, and it was decided that the damage had been caused by
a stake left standing in the corner of Kelly Field where I had been
landing, although I had not felt the ship strike anything. The cadet
who flew the plane earlier in the morning was using the same part of
the field and said that he felt it strike a bump on one of his take-offs
but did not believe any damage had been done. Who was flying the
ship made little difference, however, because as long as he had not
landed away from the airdrome without authority, the slight damage
was of no consequence. I had come very close to the “Benzine
Board” for an offense of which I knew nothing, but it was probably
only the open-mindedness and sense of fair play of the operations
officer that kept me from being washed out as a result.
 © Wide World Photos

PARIS, FRANCE—CROWDS AT THE CITY HALL AT THE

OFFICIAL RECEPTION
 © Wide World Photos

PARIS, FRANCE—GUESTS AT THE LUNCHEON OF M. BLERIOT

LEFT TO RIGHT: PAUL PAINLEVÉ, CHARLES LINDBERGH, M.
BLERIOT, AMBASSADOR HERRICK

One day during the beginning of our term at Kelly, someone decided
that the cadets should stand reveille. How it came about or who
caused the decision was never known by the detachment, but there
was a strong rumor circulated to the effect that our beloved Cadet
Sergeant had not forgotten the episode of the pole-cats. It was an
unheard of thing for the cadets of Kelly to stand formations. We had
graduated from that when we left Brooks, and the thought of
continuing it in our advanced status was, we concluded,
degenerating to the morale of the detachment.
Consequently, when our first sergeant himself delighted us with
verbal visions of being tumbled out of bed at first call if we were not
up at the blast of his whistle, we decided that if it were in the
combined power of the detachment, the first call should not sound
the next morning. We could not disobey an order; army training
banishes even the remotest thought of that; but we might prevent
that order from being given. The Cadet Captain and first sergeant
were assigned to a private room together. The rest of us were given
cots in the barracks. While supper was in progress that night the
hands on the sergeant’s alarm clock were so manipulated that the
alarm would sound exactly one hour after the time set. At two o’clock
the next morning a padlock was placed on the hasp outside of his
door, and when first call blew a few hours later the cadet detachment
slept soundly on.
From spot landings we passed to hurdles. Hurdles require the ship to
be brought down without assistance from the engine, and after just
passing over a line stretched about eight feet above the ground, to
be landed as close as possible to the hurdle. This gave us excellent
practice for landing over a fence in a small field.
One of the traditions at Kelly was that anyone knocking down the
hurdle must treat the rest to a case of refreshments. It often
happened that a pilot was so intent on getting over the hurdle string
that he did not notice that his plane was in a stall, and about the time
he was over the hurdle the bottom would fall out from under him and
his plane would pancake into the ground. Almost every class had
one or two minor crack-ups as a result of stalling over the hurdle
string.
The De Havilands were not considered safe for hard stunting and as
a result we were only allowed to do wing-overs and split air turns.
Diving in excess of one hundred and fifty miles per hour was also
forbidden. Consequently only air work allowing us to be thoroughly
accustomed to the plane was included in the flying schedule before
our formation training began.
The strange field landing training was one of the most interesting
parts of our schooling. An instructor would lead a number of planes
and land in some field we had never seen before. Then each cadet
was required to land and take-off after the instructor. Some of the
fields were small and full of obstructions. Yet we had comparatively
few even minor crack-ups. Later each cadet was given an
opportunity to lead the rest and pick out a field for them to land in
while the instructor trailed.
At Kelly we were given more and longer cross country trips than at
Brooks. One of the most important parts of flying training is cross
country experience. We made flights to Corpus Christi, Galveston,
Laredo and a number of other places.
Each class spent about two weeks on a gunnery expedition at
Ellington Field between Houston and Galveston. Ellington Field was
one of the few double fields built during the war, but was later
abandoned and, except for a National Guard squadron, was entirely
deserted.
We set up our mess in the clubhouse and made the old building
which had served as officers’ quarters as comfortable as possible.
This was in winter and the weather was cold, even in Texas, unusual
though it might have been. There were no stoves available so we
contrived all sorts of makeshifts to hold a little fire in. If nothing better
was obtainable, we shovelled several inches of earth on the floor
and devised a hood of some kind leading through a few lengths of tin
pipe to the chimney. Of course these fires could not be left
unguarded, so it was necessary to put them out in the morning to be
rekindled at the close of operations for the day.
Our gunnery work was divided into three parts: ground targets,
shadow targets and tow targets. The ground targets were large
sheets of paper similar to those used on a rifle range and were set
up at an angle on the ground. We shot at these with both the
Browning and Lewis machine guns.
The Browning guns on a De Haviland were mounted rigidly in front of
the pilot and were synchronized with the engine to shoot between
the blades of the propeller. They were capable of firing up to twelve
hundred rounds a minute, depending on the motor R.P.M. when they
were fired.
Several of us would form a large circle with our planes, and starting
our dive from about one thousand feet, would fire short bursts into
the target on the ground. After completing our bursts we would zoom
back up into the circle while the next ship started its dive. Each plane
had its individual target.
After emptying the Browning guns we gave our observers a chance
with their Lewises by circling low around the targets. On the next
flight the pilot and observer traded places.
The Lewis gun is mounted on a turret on the rear cockpit. Two guns
were usually used together and they could be pointed in any
direction.
After a few days on ground targets we were sent out over Trinity Bay
for shadow targets. One plane is flown fairly high over the water
while another fires at its shadow. The splashes from the bullets are
easily seen and the accuracy of marksmanship very apparent.
The tow targets are by far the most difficult of the three varieties, and
require skillful maneuvering and excellent marksmanship. They
consist of a cloth sleeve similar to a wind sock which is towed a few
hundred feet behind a De Haviland flying at sixty or sixty-five miles
an hour.
When the forward or Browning guns were used, the attacking ship
approached the tow target head on, firing one or two short bursts as
it passed. In this way there was no danger of the occupants of the
towing plane being struck by a wild shot. The De Havilands were
much too large to use the forward guns effectively on a tow target.
Any accurate shooting required the quick maneuverability of a
pursuit ship.
The Lewis guns were used while flying parallel with the target and
were very effective. When we were close enough we could often see
the tracers pass directly through the cloth sleeve.
After returning from Ellington Field we were given a few hours in
each of the various types of service airplanes. The M.B.-3 and the
S.E.-5 scouts; the Martin Bombers with their twin Liberty engines;
the T.W.-5 two-place transition planes; and the little Sperry
messengers. In this way we obtained experience in each branch:
pursuit, attack, observation and bombardment. Later we were given
our choice of which we desired to specialize in. If our wishes
corresponded with the judgment of the instructors we were assigned
to that branch.
Together with three other cadets and four student officers, I was sent
to the pursuit stage, where we spent the few remaining weeks of our
course, piloting the S.E.-5 and the M.B.-3 single seaters.
Pursuit combines a little of every branch of the air corps. In addition
to formation combat, dog fighting, and ground strafing, the pursuit
pilot is often called upon to make observations and do light bombing.
A great deal of our time was devoted to formation flying. Air combat
of the future will probably often be between large formations rather
than individual pilots, and it is accordingly of utmost importance for
the pursuit pilot to hold his place in formation instinctively, so that his
entire attention can be devoted to the enemy rather than to his own
formation.
We often maneuvered our flights while the individual planes were
less than ten feet apart and it was not unusual to dive vertically for
several thousand feet in a fairly close formation.
We learned the use of Lufberry circles, cross over turns, and other
formation tactics. Our formations were often tight, it is true, but
strange as it may seem, very few accidents occur from too close
flying. A pilot is constantly alert when his plane is only a short
distance from the one in front and nothing is allowed to distract his
attention. On the other hand, when there is quite some distance
separating them he is often more engrossed in lighting a cigarette or
watching some object on the ground than in his own formation.
In pursuit flying we came to have great confidence in our parachutes.
The planes we were flying were kept in excellent condition and none
ever failed, notwithstanding the fact that we placed them under every
conceivable strain imaginable. But the knowledge that we did not
have to concern ourselves about whether they did fall apart or not
was an invaluable factor in building up our morale. Our formations
were tighter, the combats faster, and our flying better as a result.
We had a number of close calls but considering the amount of flying
we had done, and that all of it was military flying, which cannot be
ever compared to commercial traffic as far as safety is concerned,
our accidents were remarkably few and none resulted seriously.
No one knows of the risk he takes better than the pursuit pilot and no
one is less concerned about it. Every move, although at lightning
speed, is made with a coolness born of experience and love of flying.
The army Air Corps is built up of men who fly for the love of flying.
Their only mission in life is to build up the finest air corps in the
world, and their greatest desire is to be given the opportunity to do
so without restriction. If an officer is lost in duty he would be the last
one to wish for resulting restrictions on his comrades.
A week of our pursuit training was spent on a gunnery expedition at
Galveston. We flew there from Kelly Field in M.B.3A. machines and
fired on tow targets exclusively. Our field was close to the Gulf, and
when the day’s operations had been completed we were free to go
about as we chose. Consequently a large part of the evening was
spent along the rocky beach.
On the night of our last day at Galveston several of us were holding
a contest to decide which could reach the most distant rock between
the breakers, before the next wave rolled in. One of the fellows was
outstanding in his accomplishments. In fact he was so dextrous that
none of us could compete, so we were all loud in our praises and
unanimously agreed that there was not a rock in the gulf too obscure
for him. There was, however, a rock a number of feet beyond the
most distant point any of us had attained, which was visible only for
an instant as the last breaker receded and before the next arrived.
Even this was possible, we confidently assured him.
He watched that rock intently for several minutes; then bolstered up
by our praise and his own confidence, he stood poised and ready. At
the proper moment he nimbly leaped from boulder to boulder after
the retreating surf but just before the final rock was touched a large
wave towered above it. Too late! The chance of retreat had never
been considered and its opportunity had passed. With do or die
determination he leaped onto the boulder and into the breaking
wave. This incident would not have been serious or its
consequences important had we been able to carry any extra
equipment in our pursuit planes, but as it was, extra clothing was a
scarce article, and when we took off for San Antonio and Kelly the
following morning, it was necessary for him to send his wet clothes
back in a De Haviland and make his flight in a bearskin flying suit
without insulation against the bearskin.
In warm weather these suits acquired an odor similar to that of a
goat which has been in the barn all winter and the fur itself was far
from comfortable. On the trip back a piston froze in the engine. For
two days the cadet was alternately roasting in the southern sun and
freezing in the Texas nights while he guarded his ship and waited for
a new engine.
After our return from Galveston while we were practicing formation
attack on two seaters, I experienced one of the incidents of the
military pilot’s life. I made my first emergency parachute jump. When
an Army plane crashes, the pilot is required to write a detailed report
of the crash. My account was as follows:
“A nine-ship SE-5 formation, commanded by Lieut. Blackburn, was
attacking a DH4B, flown by Lieut. Maughan at about a 5,000 foot
altitude and several hundred feet above the clouds. I was flying on
the left of the top unit, Lieut. McAllister on my right, and Cadet Love
leading. When we nosed down on the DH, I attacked from the left
and Lieut. McAllister from the right. After Cadet Love pulled up, I
continued to dive on the DH for a short time before pulling up to the
left. I saw no other ship nearby. I passed above the DH and a
moment later felt a slight jolt followed by a crash. My head was
thrown forward against the cowling and my plane seemed to turn
around and hang nearly motionless for an instant. I closed the
throttle and saw an SE-5 with Lieut. McAllister in the cockpit, a few
feet on my left. He was apparently unhurt and getting ready to jump.
“Our ships were locked together with the fuselages approximately
parallel. My right wing was damaged and had folded back slightly,
covering the forward right-hand corner of the cockpit. Then the ships
started to mill around and the wires began whistling. The right wing
commenced vibrating and striking my head at the bottom of each
oscillation. I removed the rubber band safetying the belt, unbuckled
it, climbed out past the trailing edge of the damaged wing, and with
my feet on the cowling on the right side of the cockpit, which was
then in a nearly vertical position, I jumped backwards as far from the
ship as possible. I had no difficulty in locating the pull-ring and
experienced no sensation of falling. The wreckage was falling nearly
straight down and for some time I fell in line with its path and only
slightly to one side. Fearing the wreckage might fall on me, I did not
pull the rip cord until I dropped several hundred feet and into the
clouds. During this time I had turned one-half revolution and was
falling flat and face downward. The parachute functioned perfectly;
almost as soon as I pulled the rip cord the riser jerked on my
shoulders, the leg straps tightened, my head went down, and the
chute fully opened.
“I saw Lieut. McAllister floating above me and the wrecked ships
pass about 100 yards to one side, continuing to spin to the right and
leaving a trail of lighter fragments along their path. I watched them
until, still locked together, they crashed in the mesquite about 2000
feet below and burst into flames several seconds after impact.
 © Wide World Photos

PARIS, FRANCE—WITH AMBASSADOR HERRICK ON THE

STEPS OF THE EMBASSY, JUST AFTER ARRIVAL IN PARIS
 © Wide World Photos

LONDON, ENGLAND—THE WELCOME AT CROYDEN FIELD

WHERE A MILLING MOB OF NEARLY HALF A MILLION HAD
GATHERED

“Next I turned my attention to locating a landing place. I was over

mesquite and drifting in the general direction of a plowed field which
I reached by slipping the chute. Shortly before striking the ground, I
was drifting backwards, but was able to swing around in the harness
just as I landed on the side of a ditch less than 100 feet from the
edge of the mesquite. Although the impact of landing was too great
for me to remain standing, I was not injured in any way. The
parachute was still held open by the wind and did not collapse until I
pulled in one group of shroud fines.