Proposed Framework for the Lan e Regional Resiliency Collaborative Photo by Andy Nelson July 2020 MPA Capstone August 2017 Final Report Prepared by: Amelia Rhod eland, Jake Boone, Katie Fields, Kelly Mason Oregon Policy Lab August 2017 IFninsatli Rtuepteor tf or Policy Research and Engagement School of Planning, Public Policy, and Management 1209 University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403-1209 August 2017 Final Report ipre.uoregon.edu About the Institute for Policy Research and Engagement The Institute for Policy Research and Engagement (IPRE) is a research center affiliated with the School of Planning, Public Policy, and Management at the University of Oregon. It is an interdisciplinary organization that assists Oregon communities by providing planning and technical assistance to help solve local issues and improve the quality of life for Oregon residents. The role of IPRE is to link the skills, expertise, and innovation of higher education with the transportation, economic development, and environmental needs of communities and regions in the State of Oregon, thereby providing service to Oregon and learning opportunities to the students involved. About the Oregon Policy Lab The University of Oregon’s School of Planning, Public Policy and Management and the government of Lane County started a partnership in 2018 to provide applied learning experiences for students, applied research settings for faculty and staff, and technical assistance to the Lane County government. In 2019 the Willamette National Forest was the second partner to join to OPL for long- term engagement. This project was funded in part by the Oregon Policy Lab. Land Acknowledgement The University of Oregon is located on Kalapuya Ilihi, the traditional indigenous homeland of the Kalapuya people. Following treaties between 1851 and 1855, Kalapuya people were dispossessed of their indigenous homeland by the United States government and forcibly removed to the Coast Reservation in Western Oregon. Today, descendants are citizens of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians of Oregon, and continue to make important contributions in their communities, at UO, and across the land we now refer to as Oregon. IPRE operations and projects take place at various locations in Oregon, and wishes to acknowledge and express our respect for the traditional homelands of all of the indigenous people of Oregon. This includes the Burns Paiute Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, and the Klamath Tribes. We also express our respect for all other displaced Indigenous peoples who call Oregon home. Page ii July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 5 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 6 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 7 RESILIENCE 7 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 7 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS 8 METHODOLOGIES ................................................................................................................... 10 CASE STUDIES ......................................................................................................................... 11 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESILIENCE COLLABORATIVES 11 COLLABORATIVES IN LANE COUNTY 12 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMPACTS 13 OTHER 13 CASE STUDY ELEMENTS 13 ELEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 15 STAFFING 16 DECISION-MAKING 17 MEMBERSHIP 18 WHERE IT’S HOUSED 19 FUNDING 20 LEADERSHIP 21 KEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 22 CASE STUDY OUTCOMES 22 MEETING OUTCOMES 22 PROPOSED FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................ 23 WHERE IT’S HOUSED 23 LEADERSHIP 24 Governing Board 24 Advisory Board 24 MEMBERSHIP 25 STAFFING 25 Developing a Framework for Resiliency Collaboration in Lane County June 2020 Page iii FUNDING 25 DECISION-MAKING 26 NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................. 27 TIMELINE 27 RATIONALE AND GUIDANCE 28 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 30 APPENDIX A – CORE TEAM ...................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX B – POTENTIAL MEMBERS, GOVERNING AND ADVISORY BOARDS .......................... 32 APPENDIX C – BROCHURE ....................................................................................................... 37 APPENDIX D – WEBSITE ........................................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX E – SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FROM CASE STUDIES ...................................................... 40 APPENDIX F – FEEDBACK ON FRAMEWORK ELEMENTS ............................................................ 42 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 45 Page iv July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Executive Summary In the fall of 2019, the Oregon Policy Lab and the Wayne Morse Center (both part of the University of Oregon) worked with the Lane County government to plan and facilitate two meetings to discuss the need for resiliency and collaboration across Lane County. These meetings brought together stakeholders from a range of local, state and federal governments, utilities, hospitals, and others operating in the county to collaborate on developing a local collaborative to foster resilience. At these workshop-style meetings, attendees learned from the expertise of Dr. Lucy Jones, a USGS seismologist and founder/chief scientist at the Dr. Lucy Jones Center for Science and Society. The outcomes of these meetings functioned as a foundation for the MPA Capstone team project—the development of a framework for the Lane Regional Resilience Collaborative (LRRC). This process spanned from January to mid-June 2020, and resulted in the creation of this report. The research team worked closely with a “Core Team” of stakeholder-advisors from Lane County, the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB), the Cities of Eugene and Veneta, and the US Forest Service to design an operational framework for the Lane Regional Resilience Collaborative. The team conducted a literature review, case studies of similar organizations, and interviews with personnel affiliated with those organizations. Throughout this process the team sought advice from a larger Steering Committee and the Full Group of currently-engaged and future members of the LRRC (full list in appendix). This work resulted in the framework and next steps presented in this report. The Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative (LRRC), a regional cross-agency, cross-jurisdictional collaborative is focused on pre-event hazard mitigation and risk reduction. We have conducted research to help tailor this regional partnership to the unique strengths, assets, and threats in Lane County. This report outlines our recommendations for what we believe is the best option for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative to be successful. The comprehensive, evidence-based research presented in this report can be used to adjust the proposed framework as necessary. While the proposed framework in this report is what we believe is the most preferable, some of the finer details are flexible and could be slightly adjusted. We are recommending that the LRRC: 1. Be formed as an ORS-190 intergovernmental agreement. 2. Be led by a governing board, an advisory board, and committees as needed. 3. Be staffed with two staff members (1.5 total FTE) including an Executive Director and a Grant Writer, with more staff to be hired later on as needed. 4. Be funded through membership dues that are calculated in proportion to the overall budget of each signatory organization, in addition to federal and state grants. 5. Use consensus building as it’s decision-making model, with the Advisory Board making recommendations to the Governing Board in most cases. Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 5 Background Natural hazards in Lane County - such as extreme winter storms, flooding, and wildfires - can cause negative economic, infrastructure, and social impacts that cross jurisdictional and agency boundaries. The predicted Cascadia earthquake threatens significantly greater disruption. It is increasingly clear that resilience (reducing risk and recovering more quickly) from large-scale disasters requires cross- jurisdictional and cross-agency leadership, coordination, and collaboration. While some collaborative networks exist among a number of stakeholders in Lane County, they do not support the level of cross- boundary problem solving necessary to adequately protect residents, businesses, and institutions. Regions throughout the nation and around the world are creating successful partnerships that link agencies, sectors, and jurisdictions in order to implement mutually-beneficial projects in the short term and increase coordination around a shared vision of resilience in the long term. These collaborative efforts serve to share information and best practices, link, leverage and align local hazard mitigation efforts and resources, coordinate risk reduction policy approaches, and engage with state and federal agencies for technical assistance and funding support. In recent years, Lane County has experienced an increased need for collaboration as disaster events continue to increase in frequency and severity. Some examples of this include the major snowstorm event that occurred in early 2019 and more recently the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic that has forced Lane County and the entire world to rethink how we work together, thus emphasizing the need for a collaborative organization like the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative (LRRC). The need for relationship building, shared resources, shared understanding, and collaborative decision-making is clear. The LRRC will provide the opportunity for Lane County to become better prepared and more cohesive in the future. The purpose of this research is to bring the most important elements of a successful collaborative to the surface and build upon those elements through clear examples and explanation. We have worked to identify a model of collaboration that is likely to produce desired outcomes for the LRRC. Guiding Principles: ● Research was focused on disaster resilience with particular consideration of issues likely to affect Lane County such as climate change, storm events, and earthquakes. ● The model includes a clear, functional distribution of responsibilities. ● The analysis and recommendations are oriented toward goals of mitigation and risk reduction, best use of limited resources, and process efficiency. Page 6 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Literature Review A substantial body of literature exists on both resilience and intergovernmental collaboration, and these two topic areas inform one another. Key themes that emerge from this literature include structural elements such as funding and management approaches as well as components of organizational dynamics such as shared learning and relationship-building. The research engaged emphasized the collaborative governance framework defined by Emerson et al as “the processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private, and civic spheres to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished” (2012). Combined with case studies of specific organizations, the literature provides a body of support for the framework that will underlie the operations of the LRRC. Resilience Resilience can be defined as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change” (Walker et al, 2004). Resilience is the ability to anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and recover from disruptions. Crucially, in order to be considered resilient, the system must still be recognizable after going through a period of change. One of the seminal recent works on resilience was published by the Stockholm Resilience Centre (Simonsen et al, 2015). This document establishes seven guiding principles for practices in resilience, which align with other contemporary research. These principles include 1) diversity and redundancy 2) connectivity 3) slow variables and feedbacks 4) complex adaptive systems thinking 5) encourage learning 6) broaden participation and 7) promote polycentric governance systems. Much of the research to date on collaborative governance in the context of resilience addresses these principles, but different elements of resilience are emphasized by others. Jung and Song (2015) propose that the four key components of resiliency are strength, repetition, resourcefulness, and quickness. The ability of a community to decrease and cushion shock while an event is happening, minimize damage, and recover quickly are ways to understand community capability. It is important for a collaborative to understand the needs of the specific community in order to become more resilient. Organizational Structure Resilience depends on developing processes, structures, and practices within organizations that are used to make decisions before and during an unexpected event (Jung and Song, 2015). Some of the key aspects of effective collaboration are shared resources and information, clear decision-making processes, and clear leadership (Kapucu and Garayev, 2011). Clarity of roles and responsibilities, and simplification of the number of programs operated by a collaborative are also more conducive to success than more complicated or ambiguous structures. Strong leadership is essential to success and can come in the form of polycentric, multilayered institutions, which aligns with principle 7 of the Stockholm Resilience model (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone, 2015; Djalante et al, 2011; McGuire and Silvia, 2010; Mu et al, 2018; Quick and Feldman, 2014). Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 7 As different levels of governance work together in a polycentric structure, some researchers emphasize the benefits of viewing boundaries as opportunities for connections rather than as lines of separation (Aldag et al, 2019; Kwon and Feiock, 2010; Quick and Feldman, 2014). Cost sharing is one of the major potential benefits of interjurisdictional collaboration (Aldag et al, 2019). However, there are limits to cooperation between differing levels of governance, and researchers suggest that funding capacity- building at local and state levels confers greater benefits than focusing on the federal level (Kapucu, Arslan, and Collins, 2010). In general, governments with more own-source revenue are less collaborative than those with less independent financial resources. Interdependency comes from mutual need that helps make the most of limited dollars (Kwon and Feiock, 2010; Aldag et al, 2019). Certain types of service sharing do not confer cost savings. In the context of LRRC’s goals, ambulance services, water, and fire are among the service categories that do not experience reduced costs from sharing (Aldag et al, 2019). Organizational Dynamics Trust Fostering resilience through intergovernmental collaboration depends on strength within communities. As Godschalk (2003) emphasizes, this can mean helping community members get to know each other through relationship building, so they can help each other in a disaster. If they do this, the community is likely to recover from the disaster more quickly. This means that resiliency efforts need to concentrate on creating closer bonds among community members. Mutual trust is a major factor in intergovernmental collaboration. Intergovernmental agreements tend to form between agencies that have existing relationships and a history of working on projects together (Kwon and Feiock, 2010). Existing relationships foster and build off of social capital, which is an element many researchers point to as critical to effective collaboration (Emerson et al, 2012; Margerum, 2011; Nowell and Foster-Fishman, 2011). Trust is hindered by hierarchical structures and enhanced by equality among membership (Bekker et al, 2018). Trust is further helped by formal processes for dialogue, conflict resolution, and decision-making (Bryson et al, 2020). As the size of the organization expands (number of participants and degree of complexity), collaboration becomes more challenging (Scott et al, 2019). Risk The presence of risk is a strong source of motivation for effective collaboration, especially in emergency management contexts (Kapucu et al, 2010; McGuire and Silvia, 2010). In a slow disaster, problems develop over time (e.g. climate change), instead of all at once (e.g. a tornado). This slowness makes it difficult to get people and communities to prepare for the disaster, because it never gets to the point where it feels urgent (Joyner and Oregera, 2013). The LRRC can strategize and allocate time to specific tasks on each end of the risk spectrum. Preparation and mitigation work are more effective when they build over time, but perception of risk is nevertheless a critical catalyst to motivate meaningful participation. Learning Ongoing, shared learning is a critical element of collaboration that many researchers point to as essential for building trust and successfully achieving objectives (Bryson et al, 2015; Emerson et al, 2012; Mu et al, Page 8 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative 2018). Kapucu and Garayev (2011) highlight training, simulations, and scenario planning as specific learning tools that are necessary for leaders to be able to collaborate effectively and make decisions quickly. The Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC) asserts that joint production leads to the most effective training (ISC, 2019). Collaboratives that make training resources available help to build trust in communities while also creating impacts for resiliency Communication One threat to successful collaboration is that communication breakdowns and other failures can lead to worse outcomes than might have otherwise occurred (Kapucu et al, 2010). To enable better communication, collaborative participants should minimize the negative impacts of differences among participants by decentering and translating across differences (Quick and Feldman 2014). Members are more likely to see the group as legitimate if they feel that their voices are heard (Bryson et al, 2015). When done well, reciprocal, consistent communication is one of the hallmarks distinguishing collaboration from other forms of governance (Ansell and Gash, 2007). Adaptability/Flexibility In addition to resilience, Walker et al (2004) also ascribe two other important qualities to systems: adaptability and transformability. Adaptability refers to the extent to which those within a system can affect its operations. Transformability refers to the extent to which a system can be changed when it no longer works. In the case of transformability, the system may not be recognizable as the same system (distinguished from resilience) but would instead emerge as a new system. Collaboratives are more successful when they start by working backward from their goals in order to define their structure and operations. While the eventual structure is most effective when codified into a written agreement, flexibility is also instrumental to efficacy (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone, 2015). However, collaboratives must be careful that their level of flexibility does not lead to ambiguity and confusion (Djalante et al, 2011). Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 9 Methodologies Figure 1: Process Diagram Tasked with the creation of a framework for a regional resiliency collaborative, we began in January of 2020 by meeting with the project’s Steering Committee — a group of previously identified stakeholders who were interested in the success of the project. This initial meeting gave the MPA research team a starting point from which to begin our research, and this source of information was strengthened via later meetings with the steering committee as well as larger groups of current and potential stakeholders. Case Studies The literature review uncovered best practices and helped in identifying similar organizations already in operation. The selection of example case focused on organizations that from across the country and throughout the state of Oregon that provided the team with models to draw upon for structuring the LRRC. Through individual interviews, the research team investigated the origin of each case organization, the types of services they provide, what worked and did not work well in their structure and activities over time, and how they maintained stakeholder buy-in. Interview Outcomes In the process of developing our list of key themes, we focused on those items that our interviewees emphasized, repeated, or otherwise indicated were essential for success. We also looked for items that turned up multiple times from different interviewees. As these themes were identified, we added them to a list and then used that list as important touchstones in the design of our proposed framework. Stakeholder Meetings Lane County stakeholder meetings held March 12 (in person) and May 29 (virtual) allowed the research team to create a model for collaboration that will be successful and appropriate for the groups involved as well as the collaborative’s leadership. The data gathered were coded and organized in order to find trends and clarity on best practices for what a successful collaborative should look like. At the conclusion of this process have recommended a framework as a backbone for the collaborative—presented later in this document. Page 10 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Case Studies Drawing upon case studies in literature, suggestions from LRRC team members, and independent research, the research team created a list of 30 interesting organizations whose work could be relevant to the framework of LRRC. From the list, the team identified a subset of 19 collaboratives to study intensively, including a mix of collaboratives whose work centers on disaster preparedness and resilience, collaboratives that were local to the Lane County area, intergovernmental compacts, and one other collaborative-adjacent organization. The team researched these case studies, using publicly available materials as well as conducting phone interviews of collaborative representatives, when possible. Below is a short description of each of the case study organizations. Disaster Preparedness and Resilience Collaboratives Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization The Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization (RDPO) is a partnership of government agencies, non- governmental organizations, and private-sector stakeholders in the Portland Metropolitan Region collaborating to increase the region’s resilience to disasters. The metropolitan region spans Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, and Washington counties in Oregon and Clark County in Washington State. Colorado Resiliency Office The mission of the Colorado Resiliency Office is to support and help empower Colorado communities to be “stronger, safer and more resilient in the face of natural disasters and other major challenges.” The CRO collaborates with partners to coordinate recovery and resilience activities. Larimer County Resiliency Framework Based in Colorado, the Larimer County Resiliency Framework is a county initiative to plan for and improve resiliency in Larimer County. Project partners and a steering committee identified six sectors whose success was vital to the county’s resilience: community, economic, infrastructure, watersheds and natural resources, housing, and health and social. Emergency Volunteer Corps of Nehalem Bay Based on the northern Oregon coast, the Emergency Volunteer Corps of Nehalem Bay (EVCNB) is a nonprofit that builds structures with the goal of helping individuals and communities in the Nehalem Bay region be self-sufficient and resilient. They do this by teaching and encouraging personal preparedness, demonstrating and promoting preparedness on the community-wide scale, evaluating best practices for community resilience, and supporting the region’s emergency responders. Mid-Coast Water Planning Partnership The Mid-Coast Water Planning Partnership examines water needs in Oregon’s mid-coast region. By working with stakeholders such as small cities, unincorporated community water districts, and tribal communities, they develop solutions to provide adequate water supply for water systems and local industry while maintaining sufficient quality water flow for fish, wildlife, and the environment. Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 11 Los Angeles Regional Collaborative With a focus on climate resilience, the Los Angeles Regional Collaborative for Climate Action and Sustainability (LARC) works on land use, transportation, public health, emergency response, and resource management issues in Los Angeles, CA. LARC is a “network of local and regional decision-makers,” one of seven such regional collaboratives in California. Collaboratives in Lane County Public Safety Coordinating Council Lane Council of Governments’ Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) is a regional advisory council for the Board of County Commissioners in Lane County, Oregon. Their mission is to prevent and reduce crime and increase the sense of safety within communities. The organization stems from Senate Bill 1145, which mandated that each county in Oregon have a local PSCC. Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council Based in rural Lowell, Oregon, the Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council describes themselves as a “local, non-regulatory, non-governmental, community-based nonprofit organization focused on improving and stewarding the rivers and landscapes of the Willamette River headwaters through habitat restoration, youth education, and community engagement.” Oregon’s watershed councils were created in 1995 by House Bill 3441, which directed the establishment of locally organized groups with the goal of improving the conditions of watersheds in their area. The council is a forum to bring land management agencies of various jurisdictions together with property owners and private land managers. It facilitates a collaborative approach and provides local people with a voice. Southern Willamette Forest Collaborative The Southern Willamette Forest Collaborative is a community-based collaborative that was created to address economic and ecological concerns affecting rural communities in and around the southern portion of the Willamette forests. The collaborative “brings together stakeholders, interest groups, and land managers” with the goals of finding common ground and balancing forest restoration while supporting the local economy. Pure Water Partners The Pure Water Partners (PWP) Program is an initiative designed to reward McKenzie landowners who protect high quality land along the river, assisting EWEB in protecting water quality and helping to avoid future water treatment costs. The program provides annual payments, technical assistance and/or other incentives to participating landowners. It also helps to connect landowners who wish to engage in restoration projects on their land with technical and financial assistance. Program partners include the Eugene Water & Electric Board, Cascade Pacific Resource Conservation & Development, McKenzie Watershed Council, McKenzie River Trust, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District, University of Oregon, and the US Forest Service. Page 12 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Connected Lane County Connected Lane County is a regional collaborative based in Lane County with a focus on education. Members include “school districts, institutions of public higher education, the local workforce board, industry innovators, and early childhood partners.” The collaborative seeks to create pathways that enhance students’ transitions, whether entering kindergarten, embarking on their first careers, or beginning higher education. Oregon Dunes Restoration Collaborative Established in 2014, the Oregon Dunes Restoration Collaborative brings together tribes, county commissioners, the local watershed council and national forest, conservation and recreation groups, tourism organizations, and members of the public. The organization seeks to collaboratively support and guide the restoration and preservation of the dunes and those who enjoy visiting them. Intergovernmental Compacts Land Use Intergovernmental Agreements In Boulder County, Colorado, the County’s use of intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) serves to align different jurisdictions around a shared vision for land use. The State of Colorado’s constitution provides for cross-jurisdictional land use planning agreements, and Boulder County has been at the forefront of applying this approach since the 1970s. Today, the county’s planning department has ongoing agreements with most of the municipalities in the county, ranging from road corridors to comprehensive plans. The agreements are typically developed for 10-30 years at a time, and often focus on broad land development patterns and priorities, such as maintaining open spaces and rural character. Puget Sound Regional Council The Puget Sound Regional Council brings together government, academia, and business stakeholders to plan for resiliency. They have a special focus on the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels, precipitation, and temperature, and coordinating the methods that can be used to mitigate these effects. Other Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition The Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition is a coalition of nonprofit, public, and private organizations with a focus on collaborative solutions rooted in Western landscapes. Their work “envisions healthy landscapes and vibrant rural communities across the American West,” through the approaches of advancing policy, fostering learning, and sharing stories. Case Study Elements As described in the “Methodologies” section, through our research we identified several key qualities of organizations that together combined to create the structure of each of our case study collaboratives. On the initial spreadsheet that we created, we recorded the way that our case studies embodied 10 such qualities, or “elements,” such as the size of the population served by the collaborative and the type and Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 13 frequency of their external communications. With feedback received during team meetings and after conducting additional research, we narrowed the list to just six key elements discussed in the next section. Page 14 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Elements As described in the “Case Studies” section, our case study research helped us to identify six important elements, which together create the framework of a collaborative. These elements are: 1. Staffing 2. Decision-Making 3. Membership 4. Where it’s housed 5. Funding 6. Leadership After receiving additional input from the Core Team and Steering Committee of the LRRC, we decided to focus on just five elements for the full team workshop that we conducted on March 12, removing “Staffing” from the list of elements. We created the “Model Home” with the remaining five elements as a way of visualizing the collaborative framework. For more about the Model Home activity and the feedback we received from the March 12 meeting, see Appendix F. Figure 2: Final model home diagram Throughout our research, we continued to focus on these same elements, and recorded the different ways that our case studies embodied them. Next, we will describe each of the elements in more detail and present a table depicting our case studies for each element. Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 15 Staffing Table 1: Staffing The case studies we researched employed different numbers of staff, with a variety of different positions. Generally, collaboratives tended to employ two to eight staff. One outlier was the Puget Sound Regional Council, with 65 staff in total. A few collaboratives relied on existing government employees to manage the oversight of the organization as an additional duty of their work, but this was rare (three out of 14 collaboratives: Larimer County Resiliency Framework, Public Safety Coordinating Council, and Land Use Intergovernmental Agreements). The most frequent position type was an outreach coordinator (positions called “Communications” or “Community Engagement” coordinators were also included in this category). Eight of the 14 collaboratives employed someone in the outreach coordinator capacity, although three of these positions were half-time or less, and one of the positions was occupied by a RARE (Resource Assistance for Rural Environments) AmeriCorps member. Seven of the 14 collaboratives employed an Executive Director or Manager, making this the second most frequent employee type. Five case studies employed administrative staff, ranging from a half-time Staff Assistant with RDPO, to 3-4 administrative staff at the Colorado Resiliency Office. Four case study collaboratives employed a facilitator. Additional staff titles Page 16 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative included Planning Coordinator/Planners (5), Policy Analyst (3), Logistics Coordinator/Project Coordinator/Project Assistant (3), Grant Coordinator/Grant Writer (2), Operations, Data/Evaluation, Youth Education, Restoration Projects, and more. Decision-Making Table 2: Decision-Making In our research, we explored the decision-making processes that the case studies employed. We identified four approaches to decision-making: ● Majority vote (binding) ● Requires ratification from individual member entities ● Advisory only ● Consensus Many of the case studies (6) leaned towards consensus in their decisions, whether that entailed requiring consensus, or just seeking consensus before voting. Four case studies used the “majority vote” approach to make decisions. One example, the RDPO, used both approaches, seeking consensus for most decisions, Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 17 but making financial decisions via a vote by financially-contributing members. The other two approaches (“Requires ratification from member entities,” and “Advisory only”) were not employed by the case studies in this study. Membership Table 3: Membership Initially, our approach to the membership of collaboratives was similar to the decision-making element -- we identified four ways to structure the membership of a collaborative and explored which of the case studies inhabited each of those options. However, we found that membership varied widely in regard to the type and number of members that each case study allowed. On one end of the spectrum, the local Public Safety Coordinating Council has 23 members, with most positions mandated by Oregon Statute and Board of County Commissioners, including the Public Defender, City Manager, Director of Community Corrections, District Attorney, City Councilor, Lane County Administrator, and three lay citizens. On the other end, many organizations employ an “open door approach,” welcoming any member of the public to Page 18 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative join. Most of the case studies landed somewhere in between the two extremes, putting some limitations on their members, such as restricting membership to resilience-related entities, while welcoming members from a variety of organizations and sectors. It was common for case studies to consist of around 14 members (4). Medium-sized organizations have 20-35 members (3), while the more encompassing coalition-type groups have from 80 to 160 members (3). Where it’s Housed Table 4: Where it's Housed Although they are network-based entities, collaboratives still need a structural “home.” The “house” can entail any combination of the following: serving as a fiscal sponsor for the collaborative, providing a physical location for staff and supplies, employing collaborative staff, providing their own staff for assistance with collaborative work, and supporting operations. Our case studies were most frequently housed within government entities (6), from the City of Portland (RDPO) to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (Colorado Resiliency Office). Some case studies (4) Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 19 either formed their own nonprofits (SWFC) or were housed inside one (RVCC). Two case studies were housed in a hybrid of nonprofit, university, and/or government. Funding Table 5: Funding We examined three potential funding sources: Grants, Fiscal sponsoring agency, and Donations and events. By far the most common funding source for our case studies was grants, with 10 of the 14 case studies using this approach. Further, many of the case studies largely relied upon grants for their funding, with other funding sources merely supplementing the grants. “Fiscal sponsoring agency” and “Member dues” were the second most popular funding sources, with four case studies each. Three case studies used “Donations and events” for funding, including LARC’s fee-for-service model. This revenue source was often quite minimal when compared to the yield of other funding sources. Page 20 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Leadership Table 6: Leadership Finally, we compared the different leadership models of our case studies, focusing on the following leadership structures: ● Board of Directors ● Chair and Vice Chair ● Committees Many case studies (5) had some form of committees, whether that took the shape of coordinating committees and work groups, or steering committees. Many groups also had different names for their leadership, such as “leadership team” or “leadership council,” with accompanying distinct responsibilities and processes. It wasn’t uncommon for organizations to have some combination of the three leadership types (3). For some examples of organizational structures, see the “Sample Documents from Case Studies” in Appendix E. Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 21 Key Findings Case study outcomes One of the most prevalent themes discovered through the interview process was the importance of a “champion” for the organization. This would be someone whose primary responsibility is the success of the organization, rather than someone with a “real job” elsewhere. This prevents the organization from becoming moribund, or just a “side project.” To this end, having paid staff is crucial; volunteers are often not willing and/or able to devote the amount of time and effort to the project that a paid staff person would. Having a well-defined mission and scope, as well as basic policy guidelines, is also important. While this may limit funding sources somewhat, it also helps to control “mission creep” and helps keep the organization focused on its true mission. Related, it is necessary to have clearly defined roles for members, committees, and working groups (as well as specific meeting rules) to avoid endless “spinning” and duplication of effort between organizational subgroups (Kapucu et al, 2010). Intentionally building relationships among members was another oft-mentioned piece of advice. Shared meals, group tours, and ongoing engagement can be crucial in the development of group camaraderie, mutual trust, and long-term organizational success. This lines up with several of the Stockholm Resilience Centre’s guiding principles for practices in resilience (Simonsen et al, 2015), and is not only good for the success of the meetings themselves, but also pays dividends when the member agencies are interacting outside the boundaries of the organization. We also heard multiple times that transparency is a hugely valuable aspect to this sort of organization, echoing some of the takeaways from the literature review (e.g. Godschalk, 2003). Likewise, members need to feel that their input is both heard and valued, which enhances buy-in and makes the organization more effective (Bryson et al, 2015). In addition, the ability and willingness of the organization to reevaluate procedures and programs — and then to make firm changes based on that reevaluation — will prove critical to the long-term success of the organization (Walker et al, 2004). Meeting outcomes In addition to case study research and interviews, we received feedback from LRRC participants about their preferred LRRC frameworks during the two March meetings (one Core Team meeting and one larger stakeholder meeting). For the decision-making element, consensus was a popular choice. Participants generally agreed that membership should be inclusive of various types of entities. For the “Where it’s housed” category, LRRC participants touted the freedom of being an independent nonprofit and the structural, decision-making benefits of being housed within the Lane Council of Governments or Lane County. Grants were the most popular funding source, though many participants suggested supplementing this income with sponsorships, donations, and membership dues. For LRRC leadership, participants favored having a board of directors, with an advisory board underneath it. Outside of the model home framework, participants reiterated the importance of having a “champion” whose sole focus is the collaborative -- likely, an Executive Director. They also suggested that a key benefit of LRRC (and likely a main focus in its early work) is resource use and coordination across jurisdictions and organizations. Page 22 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Proposed Framework Figure 3: Proposed Framework Where it’s Housed Rather than housing the LRRC within an existing organization, and thus running the risk of shackling its success and priorities to that of the parent organization, we recommend legal formation as an ORS 190 intergovernmental agreement, with signatories comprising the governmental entities whose borders lie within or partially within Lane County. The advantages of an ORS 190 agreement outweigh those of other potential legal forms in several ways: ● It has the same tax-deductible donation advantages as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, but unlike a 501(c)(3), an ORS 190 is not limited to spending on, for example, charitable, educational, or amateur sports activities. ● As “fee for service” is not particularly tenable, an ORS 190 provides a foundation of fiscal stability one would not get with a more private-business-like organization. ● Since the communities of Lane County as a whole are going to be the primary beneficiaries of the work of this collaborative, it makes sense that their representatives — the various public- sector entities within the county — should have a strong role to play. Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 23 Leadership Governing Board The Governing Board is the top level of LRRC leadership and contains representatives from all signatories to the ORS 190 agreement. As the Governing Board will be, we expect, made up primarily of elected officials, this body will be instrumental in gathering political support and cheerleading for the collaborative, as well as advocating at the state and federal levels. This board will be the approving body for budgets and “high-level” policy. They will hire, fire, review, and directly oversee the LRRC Executive Director (see below), who shall be tasked with (among other duties) keeping the Governing Board apprised of LRRC activity and programs. Advisory Board Practically, the work of the LRRC will be accomplished by both organization staff and members of the LRRC Advisory Board, which comprises both subject matter experts from within government agencies and interested parties from a larger swath of the community, including private organizations, nonprofits, and other community organizations as well as public agencies (such as those at the state and federal levels like the US Forest Service) that are not members of LCOG. Advisory boards in our case studies typically included 12-15 representatives. While we do not explicitly recommend adhering to that range, it is a size that similar organizations find works well. The Advisory Board takes the lead on devising new programs, identifies best practices, and broadly serves as the real drivers of the mission of the organization. While the Governing Board holds the purse strings, we expect they will consider the conclusions reached by the Advisory Board to carry great weight in their deliberations. Members of the Advisory Board may be nominated by any member of the Governing Board or the Executive Director and are voted on by the Governing Board. Both the Governing Board and the Advisory Board have the power to constitute new committees, comprised of members and/or nonmembers of the boards, as either board sees fit. Possible committees could include training, transportation, energy, medical, communications (emergency), outreach, grant support, etc. based on the assets of the LRRC’s membership. Figure 4: Organizational Structure Page 24 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Membership Due to the multi-tiered structure of the organization, requirements for membership in one form or another can be reasonably flexible. While the Governing Board will, for legal reasons related to the ORS 190 structure, need to be made up of governmental signatories, the Advisory Board and various committees can be populated by nonprofit organizations, partner jurisdictions, and subject matter experts, as well as interested citizens. Any new member must be appointed by the Governing Board, however, as a check against the “local gadfly” types who might otherwise self-appoint. This setup ensures that new organizations (or existing organizations we may have missed) can be involved in the organization without difficult and time-consuming amendments to the organizational charter. See Appendix B for potential member organizations. Staffing The staff of the LRRC would be headed by a full-time Executive Director and a part-time grant writer dedicated to funding efforts exclusive to the LRRC. As the organization secures stable funding, the organizational chart will likely grow to include planners and other needed administrative staff. Funding The signatory governments begin with an obligation to fund one full-time lead staffer and one part-time grant writer. We estimate the cost of these positions to equal approximately $150,000 per year. This funding should be calculated in proportion to the size of the overall budget of the signatory organization so that governments with larger budgets pay more, quantitatively, than their smaller neighbors. With 34 LCOG member organizations, this should not be an overwhelming expense; we calculate that if all 34 signed on, the average signatory’s dues would be somewhere around $4,400 per year. If fewer entities were involved, this cost per entity would increase; we thus recommend that as many of these jurisdictions be encouraged to join as possible in order to more equitably share the burden. The Governing Board, of course, may vote to adjust this funding in either direction. Additionally, the Governing Board may choose to set membership dues for the Advisory Board members, both to ensure “skin in the game” on the part of participating organizations and to help defray the costs of the organization as it grows. In this case, we recommend a sliding scale much like that used for the members of the Governing Board, so that both large and small organizations can meaningfully participate. We envision that the organization will be largely self-funded through state and federal grants, but the member jurisdiction funding is there to ensure at least a “skeleton crew” to keep the organization alive should funding fall short in any given year. This baseline funding model is recommended because our research has shown that the success of a resilience collaborative like this one relies heavily on the existence of a champion — someone whose job it is to keep the organization on an even keel. With that stable “night watchman” funding in place, the collaborative can then begin bootstrapping itself up via grants from federal and state sources and can grow its offerings as it grows its funding. This should prove a useful way to spread the risk and cost of measures to improve resilience. Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 25 Decision-Making Consensus-based decision-making is ideal for the LRRC. We follow the definition of consensus as a “series of steps through which individuals come together, share information, and reach a mutual agreement about problems, goals, and actions” (Margerum, 2011, p. 8). In most cases, the Advisory Board makes recommendations to the Governing Board, which then votes on the proposal. In general, though, the Advisory Board should avoid proposals to the Governing Board that do not meet general consensus during Advisory Board deliberations. In cases where the Advisory Board cannot reach consensus, a vote will be taken, but the side that does not prevail in the vote should be encouraged to pen a “dissent” to be transmitted along with the recommendation to the Governing Board. Page 26 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Next Steps The ongoing establishment of the LRRC, subsequent to the completion of the Capstone project team’s involvement, will require a number of additional steps in preparation for commencement of formalized sign-on by members and initiation of regular collaborative activities. The phases and tasks described below provide a preliminary timeline of activities to be addressed as the UO Capstone team hands the project off to other parties. These phases are presented as suggestions with full scoping to be undertaken by the Policy Lab during Phase 3a. Timeline Figure 5: Timeline Phases 1 & 2 – COMPLETED Fall 2019 - June 2020 Phase 3a – Legal Viability Assessment – Summer 2020 ● Conduct joint learning activities/scenario planning among likely signatories ● Initiate conversations with lawyers at Lane County, the University of Oregon, and other entities to begin negotiating ORS 190 ● Develop detailed scope of work for Phase 3b ● Distribute information to interested organizations Phase 3b – Formation and Commencement of Operations – Fall 2020-TBD ● Draft ORS 190 ● Sign-on by members ● Hire executive director ● Establish advisory board and committees ● Commence regular activities ● Define objectives and metrics Phase 4 – Evaluation – Fall 2023 ● Conduct assessment of first three years of collaborative operations ● Evaluate benefits to members Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 27 ● Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats ● Develop plan for next 3-5 years ● Renewal of memberships Rationale and Guidance Obviously, this collaborative is not going to be up and running immediately; there is still work to be done between here and there. To that end, we recommend a staggered start. Once the organization is formalized, the transition to the full-time lead and part-time grant writer would follow as the funding is accumulated. To maximize the eventual success of the collaborative, it is vitally important that the new board members be involved in the creation of an organizational vision and goals. Likewise, we recommend that board members consider how things are going in three years (and on an ongoing basis) to reevaluate whether the structure of the collaborative is working properly, or if modifications are needed. Phase 1 - Fall 2019 - COMPLETE ● Discussion of resiliency and value of a collaborative among stakeholders throughout Lane County Phase 2 - Winter/Spring 2020 - COMPLETE ● UO research team develops framework for intergovernmental agreement Phase 3a – Legal Viability Assessment – Summer 2020 This phase is a critical moment to leverage COVID-19 recovery to reaffirm and actively demonstrate the value of the collaborative. During the summer of 2020, the University of Oregon Policy Lab may employ a student worker to support this transition under the guidance of Professor Benjamin Clark and Josh Bruce. Policy Lab staff and the Core Team will work together to conduct joint learning activities. The goals of these activities are twofold: they will help to build relationships among participants, and they will help to identify assets and resources that can be shared through the collaborative. Continuing the momentum of the LRRC as the legal details are worked out is critical to ensuring the progress made to date is not lost. We recommend that the likely members meet at least once every two months and focus those gatherings on activities that foster learning together and building trust. The activities could be led by professionals in resilience or might be designed internally by the Policy Lab. In addition to developing trust and learning together, another outcome of these sessions is that they can kick-start the development of committees within the collaborative as the group gets a sense of the assets and resources represented within membership. Mapping of assets and resources may include, but is not limited to, identifying creative and skills capital within the membership of the broader LRRC. In addition to joint learning exercises, participants in Phase 2 meetings indicated an interest in finding ways to share “lessons learned.” These conversations could be facilitated as separate meetings, or time could be set aside at the beginning or end of joint learning sessions for sharing. As the ORS 190 takes shape, conversations about lessons learned are likely to be critical to the details of the agreement. To the extent possible, having a trained facilitator guide these discussions would be beneficial for ensuring productive, meaningful dialogue. Page 28 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative The framework for the ORS 190 will need to be reviewed by the Lane County legal counsel and adapted into formalized documentation for establishment of the ORS 190 agreement. The specific language of the ORS 190 will need to be negotiated among signatories to ensure balance between the county’s urban and rural areas, among other considerations such as a fee model. In addition to development of the formal organizational documentation, next steps also include securing initial funding. Several jurisdictions have made verbal commitments to providing funding, but this will need to be formalized through relevant legal and accounting protocols at the county, Policy Lab, and/or Lane Council of Governments. Phase 3b - Formation and Commencement of Operations – Fall 2020-TBD In Phase 3b, the LRRC will hire an executive director and possibly a grant writer. Anticipated start-up costs for these positions is approximately $150,000-$178,000 assuming a 1.0 FTE for the executive director role and 0.5 FTE for the grant writer. This includes $75,000-100,000 for the executive director’s salary and 40% benefits, totaling $105,000-140,000, and $27,500 (0.5 of a $55,000 salary) for the grant writer and 40% benefits, totaling $38,500 as well as supply costs (see Funding, page 20-21). Membership tiers will determine levels of contributions by member organizations to secure this funding. Sign-on to the ORS 190 will represent commitment of signatory organizations for three years as discussed by the Core Team and Steering Committee. At the end of this period (Phase 4), an assessment of the collaborative will be conducted. Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 29 Conclusion The foundation of the establishing Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative, proposed in this document, were two of public informational meetings with experts on resilience and natural disasters led by Dr. Lucy Jones, Josh Bruce (Institute for Policy Research and Engage at UO), Lane County, and the Wayne Morse Center (Rebecca Flynn). These two meetings in October and November, elicited widespread engagement across sectors and levels of governments throughout Lane County. These meetings generated sufficient interest to engage the MPA research team to further the goal of enhancing Lane County’s resilience through thoughtful planning and coordination—with an end goal of creating a new coordinating body that would span from the Cascades to the coast. This report and associated public-facing deliverables represents the input from a year-long process that incorporates information, insight, feedback, and research from a wide range of stakeholders of the proposed organization, the LRRC. The intent of the framework outlined in this report is to guide stakeholders in how to streamline their process to develop this coordinating body and improve resilience. By following these recommendations and the phased implementation outlined in this report, the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative can be realized. Our plan recommends using an ORS 190 Agreement as the foundation of the LRRC. The ORS 190 facilitates intergovernmental cooperation across two or more public agencies, and was specific designed to “foster efficiency and economy by promoting the use of existing resources” (Oregon Department of Administrative Services, 2020). The LRRC will give local entities a means to enhance Lane County’s resiliency in the event of natural disasters, global pandemics, and other unexpected events by more consciously coordinating planning and resource use across the vast spaces of Lane County. When the next event occurs, the goal of the LRCC would be to provide benefits to the members by reducing costs and improved operations. Improved outcomes will enhance the lives and economy of Lane County by linking, leveraging, and aligning the resources of the county. Page 30 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Appendix A – Core Team Core Team These individuals comprised the Core Team and advised the UO research team’s involvement during Phase 2. Going forward, the Core Team will be replaced by an official Governing Board and Advisory Board. Title Affiliation Oregon Partnership for Josh Bruce Director Disaster Resilience, UO Associate Professor UO Planning, Public Policy Benjamin Clark & Management Greg Rikhoff Director of Operations Lane County Jeff Kincaid Management Analyst Lane County Randi Bowers-Payne Risk Services Director City of Eugene Patence Winningham Emergency Manager Lane County Government Services Lane Council of Howard Schussler Division Director Governments Chief Electric Engineering Eugene Water and Electric Rod Price and Operations Officer Board (EWEB) Megan Messmer City Project Manager City of Florence Duane Bishop Deputy Forest Supervisor Forest Service Neil Laudati Interim Asst. City Manager City of Springfield Matt Michel City Administrator City of Veneta Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 31 Appendix B – Potential Members, Governing and Advisory Boards This list represents both existing participants in Phase 1 & 2 meetings as well as members recommended by the Steering Committee, Core Team, and UO Research Team. These are not currently delineated by Governing Board, Advisory Board, or committees. Those distinctions can be determined between during Phases 3a and 3b. Organization Primary Organizational Involvement Contact Name Fall March May 29 Core TBD 2019 12 meeting Team meeting meeting 4J School District ü Army Corps of Engineers Erik Petersen ü Bureau of Land Management ü Campus Planning and Tony Facilities Management Hardenbrook ü City of Coburg Ray Smith ü City of Cottage Grove Richard Meyers ü ü City of Creswell Richard Zettervall ü ü City of Creswell Airport Shelley Humble ü City of Dunes City ü City of Eugene Lucy Vinis ü ü ü ü City of Florence Megan Messmer ü ü ü ü Page 32 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Organization Primary Organizational Involvement Contact Name Fall March May 29 Core TBD 2019 12 meeting Team meeting meeting City of Junction City ü City of Lowell ü City of Oakridge ü City of Springfield Joe Pishioneri ü ü City of Veneta Matt Michel ü ü ü City of Westfir ü Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council ü Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and ü Siuslaw Indians Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde ü Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians ü Coquille Indian Tribe ü Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians ü Emerald People's Utility Sara Cline District ü ü Eugene Springfield Fire Christopher Heppel ü Eugene Water and Electric Rodney Price Board ü ü Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 33 Organization Primary Organizational Involvement Contact Name Fall March May 29 Core TBD 2019 12 meeting Team meeting meeting Florence Police Department Jamie Gorder ü Lane Community College ü Lane Council of Howard Governments Schussler ü ü Lane County Greg Rikhoff ü ü ü Lane County Community & Alexandra Economic Development Corvello ü ü Lane County Emergency Chanelle Management Moody ü Lane County Public Health Selene Jaramillo ü Lane County Public Works Lance Englet ü ü ü Lane County Sheriff's Carl Office Wilkerson ü ü ü Lane Education Service District ü Lane Electric ü Lane Regional Air Merlyn Hough Protection Agency ü ü Lane Transit District ü Long Tom Watershed Council ü McKenzie Fire and Rescue Darren Bucich ü McKenzie Watershed Council ü Page 34 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Organization Primary Organizational Involvement Contact Name Fall March May 29 Core TBD 2019 12 meeting Team meeting meeting McKenzie-Willamette Alan Beebe Medical Center ü Mid-Coast Water Planning Partnership ü Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council ü Oregon Department of Chris Cline ü Forestry Oregon Department of Transportation ü Oregon State Police ü Pacific Power ü PeaceHealth ü Rainbow Water District Jamie Porter ü ü Siuslaw Watershed Council ü South Lane School District ü Springfield School District Brett Yandey No. 19 ü Springfield Utility Board ü Union Pacific ü University of Oregon Ben Clark ü ü ü ü University of Oregon Safety Andre LeDuc and Risk Services ü Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 35 Organization Primary Organizational Involvement Contact Name Fall March May 29 Core TBD 2019 12 meeting Team meeting meeting Wayne Morse Center for Rebecca Flynn ü Law and Politics ü Willamalane Park and Recreation District ü Willamette National Forest Duane Bishop ü ü ü ü Page 36 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Appendix C – Brochure Front of brochure Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 37 Back of brochure Page 38 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Appendix D – Website • Location: Existing LRRC page on Lane County site Contents • Graphics a. “Model Home” with proposed framework b. Organizational chart • Potential documents/files to include a. Brochure b. Research report c. Meeting minutes d. Recordings of webinars/trainings (once available) e. Calendar of upcoming events f. Contact form • Links to federal, Oregon, and Lane County resources • Links to member webpages - TBD based on signatures to ORS 190 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 39 Appendix E – Sample Documents from Case Studies For a folder containing PDFs of these resources, visit https://tinyurl.com/ybt4suxq. Governance Policies and MOUs • Los Angeles Regional Collaborative Governance Policy: https://tinyurl.com/ybyv9vnm • Puget Sound Regional Council Interlocal Agreement: https://tinyurl.com/y796npec • Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization (RDPO) Intergovernmental Agreement: https://tinyurl.com/ybzxsmnq • RDPO Program Management SOP: https://tinyurl.com/y9qvku75 Fee Structures and Funding • Los Angeles Regional Collaborative Fee Structure: https://tinyurl.com/y8cryfr6 • RDPO Cost Share Method: https://tinyurl.com/yctygmqm Leadership Structures • RDPO Organizational Chart: https://tinyurl.com/y9drck5a • RDPO Membership and Organizational Structure: See below Page 40 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative RDPO Membership and Organizational Structure Project Plans • Colorado Resiliency Framework Definition: https://www.coresiliency.com/resiliency-frameworks • 2015 Colorado Resiliency Framework: https://tinyurl.com/yd2zlphv • Larimer Community Resiliency Framework: https://tinyurl.com/yaddpzju • RDPO 2017-2021 Strategic Plan: https://tinyurl.com/ya53gsbn • Other resiliency resources: https://www.coresiliency.com/ Communications • PSRC Brochure: https://tinyurl.com/yc376ovd • RDPO Weekly Update: https://tinyurl.com/ycoaw288 • RDPO Brochure: https://tinyurl.com/y9u26j8m Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 41 Appendix F – Feedback on Framework Elements After conducting original research via case studies, the elements comprising intergovernmental collaboratives were visualized as a “model home.” The elements for this model were selected from the longer list that was compiled earlier by the team, and that guided case study research, interviews, and literature review. The student team selected several of the most critical elements and developed a draft model home which they proposed to the core team during the February 28th core team meeting. With feedback from the core team, the UO student team then refined the model home, resulting in the graphic displayed below. Final model home diagram This graphic was used to gather information about needs, wants, and constraints from members of the LRRC during the full team meeting on March 12th. Meeting participants were divided into groups of 3 and given poster-size printouts of this model, with corresponding cut-out shapes depicting several different options for each of the elements. For example, the “decision-making process” element, which was displayed as the “roof” of the model home, had roof-shaped cutouts that said “Consensus,” “Voting (one vote per member),” “Voting by paying members only,” and “Other:____.” To design their model home, group members collaborated to select their preferred options, then taped them onto the poster. Afterwards, a spokesperson from each group reported their group’s selections out to the body as a whole. Page 42 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative Model home elements Roof To build the roof of their collaborative model home, groups selected an approach for making decisions. 1. Decision-making How would LRRC make decisions within the collaborative? Decision-making processes were presented as the “roof” of the model home. LRRC participants were presented with the options for “Consensus,” “Voting (one vote per member),” “Voting by paying members only,” and “Other:____.” Most groups agreed that there should be some variation of a consensus-based model, though some suggested a voting approach, with majority determining the ultimate decision. It appears, though, that a consensus of members would be preferred, with intractable disagreements settled by a vote of paying members. Framework To create the framework for the model home, groups were asked to select their preferred solutions to the membership and housing of the collaborative. 2. Membership The “membership” element aimed to answer the question of who would participate in LRRC as a member. The options were “One representative per entity,” “Regional representatives,” “Government only,” and “Other:_____.” Most participants suggested that LRRC include anyone who wanted to participate, whether that be one representative per entity, or even multiple representatives per entity. Some groups preferred having regional representatives. Potential members could include municipalities, unincorporated communities, regions of the county, nonprofits, food suppliers, health care organizations, watershed councils, and private businesses. Some members could participate in the collaborative as non-voting members, including the organizations who could benefit from resilience work. 3. Where it’s housed For the “Where it’s housed” category, participants chose a structural “home” for the collaborative. The suggested options for this category were “Nonprofit,” “University of Oregon,” “County,” “Centralized hub,” “Hybrid: ____,” or “Other:____.” Groups suggested that the location should either be a nonprofit (to “kill the red tape”), within Lane County, or within the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Foundation The foundation of the collaborative model home is comprised of leadership and funding. 4. Funding How should LRRC be funded? The options for this category were additive, meaning that groups could select up to three of the following options: “Grants,” “Pay to play,” “Sponsorships,” and three “Other:____” options. All five of the small groups selected grant funding as a part of their model. FEMA and other federal and state organizations could be potential grantors. Sponsorships Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 43 are another popular source of funding. Pay to play appeared in a few groups’ models, but one group noted that this quality could make LRRC less inclusive to organizations with less funding. 5. Leadership On the topic of leadership, participants selected from “Board of directors plus advisory members,” “Regional offices (leadership meetings rotate),” “Champion/Executive Director,” and “Other:____.” Most groups preferred the “board of directors plus advisory members” model. Groups noted that the board of directors should be an interagency group of leaders with decision-making power within their organizations, while the advisory members could be the “do- ers” who accomplish the work of the collaborative. Many groups suggested also incorporating an executive director/champion to guide and lead the collaborative. Page 44 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative References Aldag, Austin M., et al. “It Depends on What You Share: The Elusive Cost Savings from Service Sharing.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Sept. 2019, p. muz023. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1093/jopart/muz023. Ansell, C., and A. Gash. “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 18, no. 4, Oct. 2007, pp. 543–71. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032. Bekker, Marleen P. M., et al. “Comparative Institutional Analysis for Public Health: Governing Voluntary Collaborative Agreements for Public Health in England and the Netherlands.” European Journal of Public Health, vol. 28, no. suppl_3, Nov. 2018, pp. 19–25. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1093/eurpub/cky158. Bryson, John M., et al. “Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging.” Public Administration Review, vol. 75, no. 5, Sept. 2015, pp. 647–63. Crossref, doi:10.1111/puar.12432. Bryson, John M., et al. “Using a Design Approach to Create Collaborative Governance.” Policy & Politics, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 167–89. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1332/030557319X15613696433190. Djalante, Riyanti, et al. “Adaptive Governance and Managing Resilience to Natural Hazards.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, vol. 2, no. 4, Dec. 2011, pp. 1–14. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1007/s13753-011-0015-6. Emerson, K., et al. “An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 22, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 1–29. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1093/jopart/mur011. Institute for Sustainable Communities. Regional Collaboratives for Climate Change -- A State of the Art. Apr. 2019. Joyner, Timothy Andrew, and Ryan Orgera. “Climate Change Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Policy in South Louisiana: Planning and Preparing for a ‘Slow Disaster’: Climate Change Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Policy in South Louisiana.” Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, vol. 4, no. 3, Sept. 2013, pp. 198–214. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1002/rhc3.12034. Jung, Kyujin, and Minsun Song. “Linking Emergency Management Networks to Disaster Resilience: Bonding and Bridging Strategy in Hierarchical or Horizontal Collaboration Networks.” Quality & Quantity, vol. 49, no. 4, July 2015, pp. 1465–83. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1007/s11135-014-0092-x. Kapucu, Naim, and Vener Garayev. “Collaborative Decision-Making in Emergency and Disaster Management.” International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 34, no. 6, May 2011, pp. 366–75. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1080/01900692.2011.561477. ---. “Structure and Network Performance: Horizontal and Vertical Networks in Emergency Management.” Administration & Society, vol. 48, no. 8, Oct. 2016, pp. 931–61. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1177/0095399714541270. Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative July 2020 Page 45 Kapucu, Naim, et al. “Examining Intergovernmental and Interorganizational Response to Catastrophic Disasters: Toward a Network-Centered Approach.” Administration & Society, vol. 42, no. 2, Apr. 2010, pp. 222–47. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1177/0095399710362517. Kwon, Sung-Wook, and Richard C. Feiock. “Overcoming the Barriers to Cooperation: Intergovernmental Service Agreements.” Public Administration Review, vol. 70, no. 6, Nov. 2010, pp. 876–84. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02219.x. Margerum, Richard D. Beyond Consensus: Improving Collaborative Planning and Management. MIT Press, 2011. McGuire, Michael, and Chris Silvia. “The Effect of Problem Severity, Managerial and Organizational Capacity, and Agency Structure on Intergovernmental Collaboration: Evidence from Local Emergency Management.” Public Administration Review, vol. 70, no. 2, Mar. 2010, pp. 279–88. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02134.x. Mu, Rui, et al. “What Conditions, in Combination, Drive Inter-Organizational Activities? Evidence from Cooperation on Environmental Governance in Nine Urban Agglomerations in China.” Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 7, July 2018, p. 2387. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.3390/su10072387. Nowell, Branda, and Pennie Foster-Fishman. “Examining Multi-Sector Community Collaboratives as Vehicles for Building Organizational Capacity.” American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 48, no. 3– 4, Dec. 2011, pp. 193–207. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9364-3. Oregon Department of Administrative Services. “State of Oregon: Oregon Procurement Manual - ORS 190 Agreement.” 2020. https://www.oregon.gov/das/OPM/Pages/ors190.aspx. Quick, Kathryn S., and Martha S. Feldman. “Boundaries as Junctures: Collaborative Boundary Work for Building Efficient Resilience.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 24, no. 3, July 2014, pp. 673–95. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1093/jopart/mut085. Scott, Tyler A., and Craig W. Thomas. “Unpacking the Collaborative Toolbox: Why and When Do Public Managers Choose Collaborative Governance Strategies?: Unpacking the Collaborative Toolbox.” Policy Studies Journal, vol. 45, no. 1, Feb. 2017, pp. 191–214. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1111/psj.12162. Scott, Tyler A., et al. “Convening for Consensus: Simulating Stakeholder Agreement in Collaborative Governance Processes Under Different Network Conditions.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 29, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 32–49. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1093/jopart/muy053. Simonsen, Sturle Hauge, et al. Applying Resilience Thinking: Seven Principles for Building Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2015. Walker, Brian, et al. "Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems." Ecology and society 9.2 (2004). Ward, Kevin D., et al. “Institutional Factors and Processes in Interagency Collaboration: The Case of FEMA Corps.” The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 48, no. 8, Nov. 2018, pp. 852–71. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1177/0275074017745354. Page 46 July 2020 Proposed Framework for the Lane Regional Resiliency Collaborative