event, and regularly thereafter to 100% of residents will be disasters, and also in reducing opportunistic confirm safety, issues, needs etc. contacted within 12 hours of an crime following an event. event. Connectedness is however difficult to measure 4 90% of residents within 12 directly. This assessment is written in terms – hours of specifically identified volunteers and organizations, taking these as a proxy measurement for connectedness. 3 80% of residents – In addition, the confidence” 2 70% of residents “reasonable – standard is inherently subjective. As well as this proxy measurement, therefore, other 1 50% or less of residents – factors that you may also wish to take into account will include: 0 No volunteers. – A history of people in each neighborhood meaningfully helping each other after previous events; A strong fabric of community organizations in general, even if not focused on disaster resilience in the first instance. 7.1.4 Engagement of vulnerable Evidence of disaster resilience 5 All groups are regularly Vulnerable segments of the population – segments of the population. planning with or for the relevant engaged on disaster resilience include, as examples: groups covering the span of the issues and they or their vulnerable population. representatives confirm as such. Those in areas of high poverty; 4 All major groups (measured Transient or nomadic communities; – by membership % of those Confirmation from groups defined as vulnerable in the city The elderly; as a whole) are engaged some of effective engagement. – minor gaps. Physically or mentally sick or disabled; 3 One or more gaps in – Children; coverage or effective engagement. Non-native language speakers.
event, and regularly thereafter to confirm safety, issues, needs etc. 100% of residents will be contacted within 12 hours of an event. 4 – 90% of residents within 12 hours 3 – 80% of residents 2 – 70% of residents 1 – 50% or less of residents 0 – No volunteers. disasters, and also in reducing opportunistic crime following an event. Connectedness is however difficult to measure directly. This assessment is written in terms of specifically identified volunteers and organizations, taking these as a proxy measurement for connectedness. In addition, the “reasonable confidence” standard is inherently subjective. As well as this proxy measurement, therefore, other factors that you may also wish to take into account will include: A history of people in each neighborhood meaningfully helping each other after previous events; A strong fabric of community organizations in general, even if not focused on disaster resilience in the first instance. 7.1.4 Engagement of vulnerable segments of the population. Evidence of disaster resilience planning with or for the relevant groups covering the span of the vulnerable population. Confirmation from groups of effective engagement. 5 – All groups are regularly engaged on disaster resilience issues and they or their representatives confirm as such. 4 – All major groups (measured by membership % of those defined as vulnerable in the city as a whole) are engaged – some minor gaps. 3 – One or more gaps in coverage or effective engagement. Vulnerable segments of the population include, as examples: Those in areas of high poverty; Transient or nomadic communities; The elderly; Physically or mentally sick or disabled; Children; Non-native language speakers.
Resilience%20Scorecard%20Updated%20V2%20-%20April%2030th%202015.docx