EM Forum Presentation — January 23, 2013

Disaster Resilience
A National Imperative

Susan L. Cutter, Ph.D.
Director, Hazards Research Lab
Carolina Distinguished Professor of Geography
University of South Carolina

Amy Sebring
EIIP Moderator

This transcript contains references to slides which can be downloaded from http://www.emforum.org/vforum/NAP/DisasterResilience.pdf
A video recording of the live session is available at http://www.emforum.org/pub/eiip/lm130123.wmv
MP3 format at http://www.emforum.org/pub/eiip/lm130123.mp3
or in MP4format at http://www.emforum.org/pub/eiip/lm130123.mp4

[Welcome / Introduction]

Amy Sebring: Good morning/afternoon everyone and welcome to EMForum.org. I am Amy Sebring and will serve as your Host and Moderator today and we are very glad you could join us. Today’s program is about a new report from the National Academies on disaster resilience that makes specific recommendations for a national approach to reducing losses and enhancing recovery in the future.  Please note that you can access a free, PDF version of the report, as well as a summary from the links on today’s Background page.

Today’s recordings and a copy of the slides will be available from our site later this afternoon.  A transcript will be available early next week.

[Slide 1]

Now it is my great pleasure to introduce today’s speaker:  Dr. Cutter is one of our foremost hazards researchers and we are delighted she was willing to join us today. She served as Chair of the authoring committee for this report, is a Carolina Distinguished Professor of Geography at the University of South Carolina and Director of the Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute.

Please see today’s Background Page for further biographical details and links to related resources.  Please note that the Institute’s Web site provides access to a wealth of hazard data.

Welcome Susan, and thank you again for taking the time to be with us today. I now turn the floor over to you to start us off please.


Susan Cutter: Thank you, Amy and welcome, everyone.  It is a great treat to be able to talk to you about this important report that was recently released by the National Academies called “Disaster Resilience”.

 [Slide 2]

As many of you know reports don’t come about by one individual’s effort.  I want to publicly acknowledge the committee who drafted this report and did yeoman’s service in making this something we can be proud of and also the nation can be proud of.

[Slide 3]

What is the problem and why now on this report?  Well it is clear that no one is immune from disasters.  Disasters happen everywhere.  They happen to all kinds of people in all kinds of places.  We also know that losses are escalating.

In 2012 we had 11 billion dollar disasters, which was actually less than the year before but in total we see that the losses are increasing.  We know that all of this is happening at a time when communities face very difficult choices about the best ways to maintain community functions under fiscal restraints and social policies.

[Slide 4]

We also know there has been a collective body of knowledge over the past sixty years or so about how to reduce losses and we know that losses can be reduced by picking a more proactive approach—one that promotes resilience ahead of time rather than waiting until after the disaster occurs.

Such an approach, that we are calling resilience, builds on this wealth of knowledge from both the technical knowledge, scientific knowledge and practical knowledge that the community has been amassed over this time period about the causes of hazards and disasters, and the ways in which we can protect ourselves from them through preparedness activities, planning activities, mitigation and then more effective response and recovery.

[Slide 5]

The committee was faced with this seeming dilemma of how to do we think about how to enhance the nation’s resilience.  Do we proceed with the status quo which is doing things we have already done or do we take this opportunity through this report to lay out strategies and findings about the nation becoming more resilient?

Clearly the committee offered an option for becoming more resilient.  The choice we had was really not a choice in our mind.  We know that disasters are going to continue to occur and some of these extremes will get more routine under changing climate conditions.  We know that people are moving into more hazardous environments particularly along the coasts.

We also know that there is increasing exposure to drought.  We are also increasing in age.  Our population is growing.  Our public infrastructure is well beyond its design limits.  We have finally as a nation and communities within the nation have come to the recognition that we can’t really eliminate risk but there is some residual risk that always needs to be managed in some way.

[Slide 6]

One of the first tasks the committee had was to develop their definition of resilience because resilience means different things to different people.  We scoured through literature and looked a federal government reports and we decided as a group to take a very broad view of resilience.

We defined resilience very broadly as the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from or more successfully adapt to actual or potential adverse events.  By taking this broad definition of resilience we are able to include a variety of different types of resilience and perspective within this. So far this has proven to be a very good strategy because the umbrella is quite large.

[Slide 7]

Another thing the committee thought about was to speculate on what the characteristics of a resilient nation might look like in the year 2030.  We did this for two reasons—for one, it helped clarify our thinking in terms of where we would like to be as a nation but also it set out a goal for figuring out how we might get there.

From our perspective a resilient nation in twenty years or so is one where individuals in communities are the first line of defense against disasters—that is to take proactive action to reduce risks.  We see a nation where there is national leadership in resilience throughout the agencies and more importantly in Congress, where community level resilience efforts receive federal, state and regional investments and support.

We see a characteristic of specific risk information that is readily available, transparent and effectively communicated so everyone understands it.  We see a nation where zoning ordinances are enacted and enforced and where building codes and retrofit standards are widely adopted and enforced.  

We see a resilient nation as one where a significant percentage of post disaster recovery is funded through private capital and insurance payouts—not the federal government per se.  We see where insurance premiums are risk based, where community coalitions have contingency plans that provide those services particularly to the most vulnerable populations after disasters.

We see where post disaster recovery is accelerated because of infrastructure redundancy and upgrades in existing infrastructure.

[Slide 8]

Now to begin the task the study was overseen by the Disasters Roundtable and the Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy.  This means that the study involved all three academies—the Academy of Sciences, The Academy of Engineering and the Institutes of Medicine.  In many ways this was a watershed event for the Academies because of the number of federal sponsors for this study which was nine.

We were asked to do a number of things.  One was to define national resilience.  I gave you that definition.  One was to frame the issues that might be involved in increasing resilience.  One was to provide some information on goals, baseline conditions and performance metrics for resilience.  One was to describe the state of knowledge we have about resilience to hazards and disasters in the nation—to outline gaps and obstacles and to present conclusions and recommendations.

[Slide 9]

A couple of things as we go through the specific findings and recommendations—and these are all tied to relevant chapters.  First, the  background we viewed communities as systems with systems, that is communities had environment components to them, infrastructure, social, institutional, economic—and we also felt these elements must be robust in a community and they must be collaborative.

We examined the whole question of managing risks.  One of the findings was that reducing risk really does require a disciplined approach—one where you identify the risk, you develop a strategy to deal with it but you keep that strategy flexible and current so you can engage with behavioral responses, uncertainties where you know you are going to have multiple partners and stakeholders and where there is a variety of tools that are available—some of which are related to structural approaches (construction, for example) and non-structural approaches.

The idea here is that in managing risks a one-size-fits-all strategy is not going to be the most effective because the places are different, the hazards that affect them are different and the communities themselves are different as well.

[Slide 10]

We also felt we needed to make a business case for the resilience investment.  Why should the nation care?  Why does it make sense to invest in resilience?  We found here there is no consistent database in the United States for understanding the patterns of hazard events and losses.  

We hypothesize that building the business case for resilience demonstrates that these will have short and long term benefits but in order to prove it we need such databases.  While we don’t have them now we have portions of them in different agencies and institutions but they need to be improved in terms of their measurement, their accuracy and their consistency.

For example not all losses are counted in some aspects of community assets, like the social and environmental assets of communities that are not included in any of these databases.

[Slide 11]

At the same time we know we need some way of measuring progress as we develop strategies to enhance resilience so we need a consistent basis for measuring resilience that includes the multiple dimensions that are embodied within it.  We know there are some existing national and international indicators that measure different aspects of community systems and hazards but we don’t have a consistent framework for measuring resilience.

The committee did not come up with a metric per se but we thought about what might be included within a measurement system.  What we felt was there needed to be something on the critical infrastructure and its ability to perform, that we needed information on social factors and these social factors tend to limit the ability of a community to recover.

We needed something on community and structures and their capacity to withstand the different types of disasters.  Then we needed something to capture the special needs of individuals and groups.  This discussion is actually found in chapter four about measuring progress.

[Slide 12]

One of the things the committee recognized early was that enhancing resilience is not simply a top-down effort—it requires bottom-up integration as well.  Resilience begins with strong local capacity and it begins with engagement of communities and residents in policy and practice and their ability to communicate with, to organize, and to prepare for, distill and adopt reduction measures.  We’ve come up with a chapter on how you build the local capacity which is embodied in chapter five in the report.

[Slide 13]

Having started with the bottom-up—and there are different kinds of strategies that one can facilitate—there also needs to be efforts at the national level.  We know that strong governance at all levels is a key element in building resilience.   We also know that policies need to take the long term view and help diminish the impact of these short term expediencies that come up and how these things are made.  

We also recognize that some of the government policies and practices actually have some unintended consequences that can negatively influence resilience.  We found there are gaps in policies and programs in the federal agencies.  There are some gaps that also result from the legislative authority under which these agencies operate.
The end result is that the nation does not have an overall vision for coordinating strategies for resilience although the implementation of Presidential Directive 8 will address some of these consistency and coordinating issues we still are lacking in such a broad-based strategy.

[Slide 14]

The big problem and the big kind of conclusion that the report came out is that after looking at all these findings if we are going to establish resilience as a key principle within the federal agencies and in our local communities we need to have a culture of resilience.  We need to understand and build this culture of resilience.

In this way we will be able to develop the necessary infrastructure—both human and physical infrastructure to move forward and achieve that vision of a resilient nation in 2030.  

[Slide 15]

What are the specific recommendations that came out of the report?  The first is that the federal government agencies should incorporate national resilience as a organizing principle within their agencies and use this organizing principle as a way to guide the mission and actions of that agencies.

Number two—the public and private sectors need to work cooperatively to encourage commitments and investments in risk management strategies that are complementary.  Again it is not a one-size-fits-all strategy but one that must be tailored to the local communities with the tools that are readily available.

Number three—we do need this national resource of disaster related data that can help document the injuries, loss of life, property loss and economic losses.  This database can be used to support better risk modeling and also can be used to understand the geographic differences in the impact of disasters and the differences based on social vulnerability.

[Slide 16]

We think it is important to develop a baseline of resilience metrics that allows us to move forward and assess our progress as we move toward that goal of 2030.  We think that this development of a resilience scorecard, or something like this, should be done with several agencies taking the lead but also with the engagement and involvement of state and local partners and professional groups.

Recommendation number five is that we should have the development and support of resilience coalitions and local levels and regional levels.  Recommendation six is that federal agencies should ensure that they are promoting their national resilience in their programs and policies by looking at a self-assessment to make sure they aren’t working at cross purposes with the goals of building and enhancing a resilient nation.

[Slide 17]

Unlike other studies at the National Academies this particular study has another year—approximately eight months left on its contact.  This was done intentionally so that we could engage in a national conversation and do outreach efforts to involve the community of practice and local communities as we move forward as a nation.

We had a public event in November that was a symposium and webcast which is available on the Academies website.  Last week we were involved in a program with the USEPA and a program by the National Council for Science and the Environment.  The committee has engaged in briefings on the hill and at the White House.

We have also started to set up briefings across the country and we have done agency briefings as well.  We think this is a bold vision.  It is one that we need to work on collectively.  With that I’d like to thank you for your attention and turn it back to Amy.

Amy Sebring: Thank you very much Susan.  I appreciate your efforts there. Now we will move to questions and comments. Audience, please keep your question or comment related to today’s topic and reasonably concise.  We are ready to begin now, so please enter your comment or question at any time.

[Audience Questions & Answers]

Taylor Conophy: How do you foresee public and private agencies working together in disaster response?

Susan Cutter:  I think they already are working together in disaster response where you see them forging partnerships in terms of prepositioning of assets outside of the impacted area and coordinating those assets with the federal government.  I know this was done for Superstorm Sandy.  I think we have a new era where the private and public partnerships are increasingly important in enhancing a community.

Amy Sebring:  Let’s expand that a little more broadly and not just disaster response.  What do you see that the private sector has to bring to the table in terms of enhancing resilience pre-disaster?

Susan Cutter:  One of the things you have to think about is in the area of infrastructure.  Most of the nation’s infrastructure is private.  We need to get the private sector involved in building resilience but because of the private sector it becomes a business investment in the business case, so you need some way of working with local communities in terms of tax breaks or something like that—that would encourage the private sector to develop a more resilient infrastructure that would serve the community in the short and long term.

Miguel Ascarrunz: Do you believe the President's new agenda for Climate Change will enhance community resiliency and if so, how?

Susan Cutter: Absolutely.  Last year there was a report that came out from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).  That special report was looking at climate change and disasters.  One of the conclusions of that report was that if you mitigate for disasters in the short run you actually build climate change adaptation in the long run.

[Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, Full Report, Summary for Policymakers]

So I think these two issues are linked and I think if you take again the longer view, which is very difficult for Americans to think that anything that we look at we always want to be satisfied now—but I think building resilience is a long term strategy.  Anything looking at climate change is also going to be looking at longer term strategies to reduce the impact.

Annie Merritt: Will there be additional meetings/symposiums in the future?

Susan Cutter:  The answer is yes—we are trying to figure out now what those will be like.  I know the committee visited three communities.  We actually got out of Washington, D.C. to do our work.  We went to the Mississippi Gulf Coast and New Orleans.  We went to Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, Iowa.  We went to Southern California.

We are going to be talking about the report to the folks in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on the anniversary of the big flood they had there in May 2008.  Also I believe we are trying to develop some web outreach where we may have a question of the month that people can talk about and chat about to try to stimulate a conversation about resilience.

Amy Sebring:  You mentioned you are doing staff briefings and so on. What kind of reception are you getting from folks in Congress?

Susan Cutter:  We are getting good support in Congress. We haven’t briefed a lot of Senators and Congress people.  We have been briefing agencies as well and it is resonating quite well within the agencies themselves including agencies that are not sponsors of the report.  At the time the report came out Congress was a little busy doing other things so it wasn’t as high on their agenda as we would like it to be. Nevertheless now that we have a new Congress we will make an effort to go back to the hill and sit down and chat with those folks.

Richard Vandame: Has the DHS PS-Prep Program been part of your review?

Susan Cutter: We looked at all kinds of evidences.  We didn’t really single out one particular program over another but that was part of the evidence and materials we looked at.

Carl Rebstock: What funding or incentives are available to communities considering undertaking baseline assessments of infrastructure, environment, social capacity, etc.?

Susan Cutter:  The idea is they are not transparent enough.  Do you do it under your hazard mitigation planning or do you do it under some other program?  One of the things the committee would like to see is the federal government re-orient some of these pre-impact programs so that they actually focus on resilience in the pre-impact stage.

Amy Sebring:  That is part of the agency coordination I would think.  You have some in the flood program—I’m thinking of the Community Rating System as an incentive.  You probably have something under the Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program and so forth.  It would be nice if you had those coordinated somehow.  That takes legislation.

Avagene Moore: Do you know of specific communities attempting to build resilience that could be monitored, reported on and highlighted as examples for other communities to follow?

Susan Cutter: We have some experience in Cedar Rapids.  We have some limited experiences across the country.  We didn’t see many exemplars like you have in a formal program—like in Project Impact of years ago but we think there are good examples out there.  We just haven’t discovered them yet.  

We think people are actually working toward disaster resilience but they may not be calling it that.  This is one of the reasons why we have some outreaches as part of our program so that we can continue to push this and look at the communities across the nation, as much as we can identify them, to see what is being done.

Amy Sebring:  It seems to me that you mentioned the symposium you had in DC was set in the context of post-Sandy, versus your report was pre-Sandy I believe, at least in the writing of it.  I am seeing in the news that there is some growing awareness about how extremely vulnerable some areas are.  Can you speak a little about how the experience of Sandy is relating to this?

Susan Cutter:  I think one of the important aspects of Sandy was that it showed in the major media market in the country, in very graphic ways, the need for disaster resilience.  What you see in Sandy in the New York area and lesser so in the New Jersey area is a more thoughtful conversation about recovery.

While there is a rush to try to recover quickly a lot of people are slowing the process down a little bit to ask the question of how we can make our recovery more resilient.  This to me is the first time we’ve seen these conversations happening among government entities.

If you look to the New York 2100 plan that Governor Cuomo put out it is all about resilience and it is all about how do we build a resilient community back and what are those sort of choices we need to make as communities.  I think the conversation is starting and that it is a good conversation to have because these losses are not sustainable.  We have to do something.

Deborah Matherly: How do you encourage/ require state and local governments (as well as the private sector) to include mitigation and resilience in their new and renewal projects (highways, transit, utilities, etc.), especially as budgets are tight?
Susan Cutter:  This is why one of the aspects of the report is making the business case.  If you make the business case that it makes economic sense to do this I think people will buy into it. If you say we need to do this because it makes us feel good under these economic realities that is not going to work.  What the committee is thinking is that you need to shift the approach.

We need to make the business case for resilience—why it pays, why it makes sense to do it, why it is ethical to do it.  A lot of our efforts are focused in on how do you demonstrate that resilience works, that resilience will save lives and dollars and that the private sector will become engaged in it because it makes economic sense for them to do so.

Tara Laycock: Can you comment on methodologies for risk assessments, or Hazard Risk Vulnerability Assessments - and how to integrate or bring together different results from approaches that may be used locally, given that the goal is national consistency?

Susan Cutter:  We could have a whole webinar on that, but there are ways to aggregate data that are important at the local level into state and federal databases.  Those data can be linked geographically through the use of geographic information systems for example.  That is one of the best ways of gathering that empirical basis in support of risk assessment.

If you do risk assessments locally where you have that fine grain detail they can then be aggregated up to a county level, a state level or national level without much difficulty.

Amy Sebring:  We have done a program in the past with you on the Social Vulnerability Index that incorporates that type of data, and you have some other hazard data at your institute that can be downloaded.  We have a link to the institute site on our background page, so one might check that out as well.

I can see where she is coming from in terms of having some national approach to doing this so you can have equal measures across the country versus trying to compare apples and oranges.

Susan Cutter:  I think that was the idea behind the National Scorecard kind of approach where there would be some baseline indicators that would be used everywhere but then they could be customized for the local experience.  We are thinking of things like the LEED certification for example where you have to have certain things in your buildings in order to become LEED Certified Platinum for example. [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design]

The development of those minimal things that would monitor resilience we think would work across the nation but communities would customize that a little more bit so they could monitor their own progress independent of what is going on nationally.

Amy Sebring:  So the concept of the scorecard is to develop a national model so folks can adapt?

Susan Cutter:  Correct, but there would be some basis of comparison across all communities because they would be measuring, say for the sake of argument  maybe five different parameters, but for some communities they would have twenty and other communities would have six parameters.  Those five would constitute the national comparison and you could compare Community A to Community B because they all collected or because the Scorecard was based on the same information.

Amy Sebring:  I would like to ask about the loss data mentioned in part of the report about how we don’t have a nice, single consistent repository of loss data—just fragments depending on the program and so on.  What does the insurance industry do?  I assume they collect this loss data to calculate actuarial rates, but I presume they are not necessarily willing to share that.  Do they have a role?

Susan Cutter:  The insurance industry collects data on insured properties, not uninsured properties.  They may collect some data on business interruption but it is only for those policies they hold and the market share they have.  NOAA, through the National Climate Data Center, collects weather related events and we get some loss statistics from them but they don’t do anything on geophysical events.  

There you have to go to the USGS but the USGS is great at collecting data on the physical dimensions of the events but not as good on the social, in terms of dollars lost or injuries.  The Center for Disease Control has data on fatalities from natural hazards and those data don’t always articulate with what you find from the NCDC or from USGS.  Everybody has a piece of the action.

You can look at these databases against each other and some are aggregated at levels that aren’t useful for county emergency managers.  The only place they are semi-attached to bring them together is through a database that we have called SHELDUS.org.  This is a database at the county level for the whole United States.  It has eighteen different natural hazard types and it is searchable online and it is downloadable online.  It compiles all of these federally based databases into one and reconciles it at the county level because that is where emergency management begins. And, it is free.

Miguel Ascarrunz: Are your efforts linked, in any way, with FEMA's Strategic Foresight Initiative?

Susan Cutter:  I am peripherally knowledgeable of it, and the answer is no.

Abel, LW: Most Amateur Radio ("HAM") Clubs volunteer to help with public events (e.g., parades, marathons, etc.) as well as providing communications assistance for local served agencies and emergency responders. Is there any mention in the report about this focus?

Susan Cutter:  We talk about community based organizations and we talk a lot about crowd-sourcing information and the use of new technology such as Facebook, Twitter, et cetera in providing real-time crowd-source information.  That is included in chapter four so I would suggest if people are interested in how to use that kind of local knowledge by residents or community based organizations that is where we bring it in.

Taylor Conophy: Do you believe crowd-sourced information is effective, particularly in disaster relief where information is abundantly available from non-governmental agencies?

Susan Cutter: I think we have good experience that it is effective.  We have the Haiti experience and wildfires in southern California and there is a process with crowd-sourced information that is self-correcting.  In the past governmental agencies were a little concerned about crowd-sourcing information but now I think there is a much more relaxed attitude about it that it has an effect and can be useful in the immediate response period.

Avagene Moore: What role does 'political will' play at all levels of government in building a resilient nation, state or community?

Susan Cutter:  Avagene has a way of asking the central question.  If we don’t have the political will to do it, it won’t get done.  Getting that political will means taking a long term view over the short term.  It means making tough decisions.  It means making the business case and the political for engagement with communities from the local to the national level.

We think the political will is there but we need a spokesperson and we think it should come from the national level with setting the vision for what we want a resilient nation to look like.

Amy Sebring:  That is one of the things that struck me most about your report.  This is something new—this idea of setting a goal or at least having a conversation about what the goal should be, whether it is 2030 or something else.  It seems to me if you can at least get folks to talk about the consensus of what the goal should be, it might help get some will to achieve it.

Susan Cutter:  The idea was we didn’t want a report that said, “Develop a vision”.  We wanted to provide actionable recommendations to the nation they could take, some of which is low-hanging fruit like, “Enforce your building codes”, and others which may take a while to get our heads wrapped around this new kind of ethic and culture of resilience.

But it just makes so much sense—just like mitigation makes so much sense—but you can see we have not done as good a job as we could have with hazard mitigation.  Setting up this as a building of culture, having leadership at all levels, making the business case and getting everyone involved because it is everybody’s business, and moving forward toward that vision for 2030 which is a step in the right direction.

John Contestabile: Resilience is the new "thing", but how do you see this approach being accepted/adopted across DHS/FEMA/NOAA/COE, etc....the dozens of disparate programs in the federal space?  Isn’t this a real roadblock to widespread adoption? How can we operationalize?

Susan Cutter:  We saw in our examination of some of the things that were going on in the federal space that there is quite a bit of activity on resilience but it is uncoordinated, overlapping and there are gaps.  One of the ideas is let’s charge the federal government or ask them to do a self-assessment of their programs and policies to see that they are promoting resilience.

If every federal agency does it we can look across the federal agencies to identify overlaps and gaps and do a better job at coordinating it.  We need an office of resilience and that would help us coordinate this function.  We have a lot going on in the federal state but it is going on in silos and people are not talking to each other.  They are not coordinated at all and we need to do that.

Amy Sebring:  Have you done any outreach to NEMA, IAEM, and other professional associations perhaps in the planning area?

Susan Cutter:  We are in the process now of setting up some briefings with those groups.

Michael Gurnick: FEMA has focused more on disaster recovery monies rather than preparedness ahead of time. This is all about giving more to the 'private sector' and it reeks of politics. We cannot continue to have a constant 'do over' when disasters occur.

Susan Cutter:  I agree.

Amy Sebring:  Congress just did a big supplemental for National Flood Insurance and the Sandy disaster recovery assistance.  Folks are starting to ask about the price tag, are they not?

Susan Cutter:  They are.  This is the first time that I recall where there was actually some hesitancy on voting on the Disaster Relief Bill.  I think it is because of the economic constraints we are all working under.  Why are we allowing communities to make decisions where they are not taking responsibility for their actions, where they allow people to develop or redevelop on barrier islands or develop on known flood plains?

When the flood comes the community says, “The federal government will bail us out.”  We need to shift our thinking.  We need to develop in a way that brings the economic engines to communities but does it in a way that assets are protected and where the community is resilient when that inevitable flood hits.

Mike Gregory: Our culture is based around marketing and it is not doing a good job at getting the resilience and mitigation messages out.  It is time to use the marketing professionals?  

Susan Cutter: I would like to see a mass marketing, Super Bowl type campaign on resilience.  I’m not sure who would fund it.  Wouldn’t that be great?


Amy Sebring: Absolutely. Okay we will wrap it up for today. On behalf of Avagene, myself, and all our participants today, thank you very much Susan for joining us and your efforts towards evidence-based disaster policies.  We wish you continued success in the future.

Thanks to all our participants today for all the good questions and comments really stimulating. We really appreciate that.  Folks, before you go, PLEASE take a moment to complete our little feedback form and enter any additional comments you may have.  

Our next program is scheduled for February 13. Please watch for our announcement and make plans to join us then.  If you are not subscribed to our email list go to our home page and up near the top left there is a place to subscribe.

Have a great afternoon everyone!  We are adjourned.