Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG)

Draft Concept Paper 

Draft Interagency Concept for 

Community Resilience Indicators

and National-Level Measures

Published for Stakeholder Comment in June 2016 

The information presented in this paper is intended to illustrate potential options for measuring 

resilience and to engage public comment. The paper is a summary of MitFLG research only - it is 

not a draft policy, strategy, or other Federal doctrine.
▪ Page i ▪

FOREWORD

In collaboration with the Community Resilience Indicators Subcommittee of the Mitigation Framework 

Leadership Group (MitFLG), an interagency project team co-led by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, developed this Draft Concept Paper. 

This paper provides a Federal interagency perspective, outlining one of many possible approaches to 

measuring community resilience capacity using indicators. The approach represented here is a conceptual 

framework that extracts federally sourced indicators that can help communities describe their resilience and 

aligns them with relevant core capabilities under the Mitigation and Recovery Frameworks of the National 

Preparedness Goal. This alignment promotes consistency with existing national-level and State-level 

assessment and reporting structures. This conceptual framework presents a potential resource for addressing 

national-level needs for indicators and metrics for broader consideration by stakeholders. 

The indicator approach in this Draft Concept Paper may be broadly useful as a resource to: (1) help build 

common terms of reference across multiple disciplines; (2) promote collective outcomes from 

complementary Federal, State, and local capacity-building actions; and (3) characterize local-scale data 

issues and gaps constraining further development of effective metrics. The project team encourages 

stakeholders at all levels to review this Draft Concept Paper and to provide comments, feedback, or 

additional data suggestions that could expand the utility and increase the value of this conceptual framework 

as a resource for those purposes
▪ Page ii ▪

Table of Contents

Foreword....................................................................................................................................................... i

Proposed National-Level Measures........................................................................................................ 16

Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1

Community Resilience Concepts ............................................................................................................... 3

National Preparedness Goal Alignment.................................................................................................... 5

Data Access and Availability.................................................................................................................... 22

APPENDIX A. Resilience Indicator Categorization Taxonomy......................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B. Assessing Potential National-Level Measures ........................................................... B-1

Summary of Proposed Measures ................................................................................................. B-5

Indicator 1: Housing Condition ................................................................................................. B-15

Indicator 2: Housing Affordability ............................................................................................ B-17

Indicator 3: Health Care Availability......................................................................................... B-19

Indicator 4: Healthy Behaviors.................................................................................................. B-21

Indicator 5: Environmental Health............................................................................................. B-23

Indicator 6: Employment Opportunity....................................................................................... B-24

Indicator 7: Income .................................................................................................................... B-26

Indicator 8: Roadway Conditions .............................................................................................. B-28

Indicator 9: Transportation Connectivity................................................................................... B-29

Indicator 10: Transit Accessibility............................................................................................. B-31

Indicator 11: Water Sector Emergency Support ........................................................................ B-33

Indicator 12: Dam Safety........................................................................................................... B-35

Indicator 13: Integrated Infrastructure Sector Preparedness...................................................... B-37

Indicator 14: Water Conservation.............................................................................................. B-39

Indicator 15: Wetlands Conservation......................................................................................... B-41

Indicator 16: Forest Conservation.............................................................................................. B-42

Indicator 17: Habitat Quality ..................................................................................................... B-43

Indicator 18: Risk Identification ................................................................................................ B-44

Indicator 19: Risk Data .............................................................................................................. B-46

Indicator 20: Risk Awareness.................................................................................................... B-47

Indicator 21: Community Preparedness..................................................................................... B-48
▪ TABLE OF CONTENTS ▪

▪ Page iii ▪

Indicator 22: Mitigation Planning.............................................................................................. B-51

Indicator 23: Planning Integration ............................................................................................. B-54

Indicator 24: Collaborative Networks........................................................................................ B-56

Indicator 25: Civic Capacity ...................................................................................................... B-58

Indicator 26: Building Codes..................................................................................................... B-60

Indicator 27: Higher Standards.................................................................................................. B-62

Indicator 28: Mitigation Investment .......................................................................................... B-66

List of Citations ......................................................................................................................... B-70

APPENDIX C. Summary of Indicators and Sources.......................................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D.List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................... D-1
▪ TABLE OF CONTENTS ▪

▪ Page iv ▪

List of Tables

Table 1. Community Resilience Indicators................................................................................................. 9

Table 3. Federal Resources for Relevant Community-Level Data............................................................. 22 

by State ................................................................................................................................. B-16 

(2008-2012 5-Year Averages) .............................................................................................. B-18 

Table B-7. Per Capita Income by State (2013)..................................................................................... B-27 

Table B-10. Domestic, Publicly Supplied Per Capita Water Use by State (2010) ................................. B-40 

(as Fiscal Year 2016, Quarter 1).......................................................................................... B-53 

Adopted Building Codes with Disaster Provisions, by State (2015)................................... B-61 

Table B-15. NFIP and CRS Participation by State (2015)...................................................................... B-64 

Table 2. Proposed National-level Measures ............................................................................................. 17

Table A.1. Community Resilience Taxonomy Structure .......................................................................... A-1

Table B-1. Proposed Indicator Framework with Illustrative Measures.................................................... B-5

Table B-2. Number and Percentage of Housing Units with One of Four Severe Housing Problems 

Table B-3. Percentage of Cost-Burdened and Severely Cost-Burdened Households by State 

Table B-4. Primary Care Physicians per 100,000 Residents, by State (2013)........................................ B-20

Table B-5. Percentage of Adults Who Engage in No Leisure-Time Physical Activity (2013) .............. B-22

Table B-6. Unemployment Rate by State (3-Year Average, 2012-2014)............................................... B-25

Table B-8. Percentage of Intermodal Public Transportation Facilities by State (2013) ......................... B-30

Table B-9. ADA-Compliant Transit Stations in the NTD by State (2013)............................................. B-32

Table B-11. Number of Sites Designated as StormReady® or TsunamiReady® by State (2015)......... B-50

Table B-12. Percentage of Population Covered by Current Local Hazard Mitigation Plans, by State 

Table B-13. Percentage of Individuals Volunteering by State (2014).................................................... B-59

Table B-14. Jurisdictions Subject to One or More Hazards (Seismic, Flood, Wind) That Have 

Table B-16. Percentage of SBA Home Disaster Loan Funds Spent on Mitigation Assistance (2014)... B-69

Table C-1. Summary of Datasets Identified for Evaluating Community Resilience Indicators............... C-2

List of Figures

Figure 1. Resilience Indicator Categorization Taxonomy ............................................................................ 6

Figure B-1. Web Mapping Application Screen Shot ................................................................................ B-3

Figure B-2. Organization of Indicators to Relevant Core Capabilities..................................................... B-4
▪ Page 1 ▪

INTRODUCTION

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Defining and quantifying community resilience capacity can be challenging at any level; however, it is 

especially complicated on a national scale. While most actions to improve community resilience capacity

occur at the local level, Federal programs provide numerous resources that support relevant community 

capacity building across the Nation. It is important to understand how such actions improve local-level 

resilience capacity. However, Federal agencies also must gauge how their individual and collective efforts 

affect community resilience capacity nationwide. The availability of locally scaled data for use in 

understanding and tracking community resilience capacity nationally is very limited. Federal agencies could 

improve availability significantly by using a consistent framework for community resilience indicators to 

help guide the development of useful measures, promote the identification and sharing of relevant data, and 

facilitate the collection of new data needed to fill critical information gaps.

BACKGROUND

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) initially undertook this joint project to explore resilience indicators and measures. 

The project then evolved into a broader interagency partnership under the Mitigation Framework 

Leadership Group (MitFLG). Leaders representing multiple Federal agencies have expressed interest in 

common indicators of community resilience to help inform and prioritize resilience policy, capacitybuilding strategies, and outcomes. Related needs identified by key public- and private-sector stakeholders 

also served as important drivers for this effort. 

One of the recommendations from the 2012 National Research Council report titled Disaster Resilience: A 

National Imperative stated that government entities at Federal, State, and local levels and professional 

organizations should partner to help develop a framework for communities to adapt to their circumstances 

and begin to track their progress toward increasing resilience. 1 The project team developed this Draft 

Concept Paper from a Federal perspective, identifying needs and opportunities using Federal resources to 

track community resilience capacity building progress at a national scale. To broaden potential 

1 Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative (2012), Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and 

Disasters; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; The National 

Academies.
▪ INTRODUCTION ▪

▪ Page 2 ▪

applicability, the project team offers the conceptual framework in this paper explicitly for the purpose of 

soliciting feedback from key public- and private-sector stakeholders and identifying possible connections 

to related efforts at multiple scales. 

COMPONENTS

▪ Community Resilience Primer – This Draft Concept Paper includes key definitions and concepts

related to community resilience capacity. The paper helps set the stage for establishing some

common, broadly applicable indicators across diverse Federal programs that contribute to

community resilience capacity building in many different ways. These Federal capacity-building

contributions include supporting intrinsic community functions that are also critical for absorbing,

rebounding, and adapting to hazard risks; facilitating hazard-focused community preparedness, risk

management and mitigation actions that reduce long-term vulnerabilities; and enabling postdisaster community recovery and redevelopment that integrates community resilience objectives.

▪ National Preparedness Goal Alignment – This Draft Concept Paper provides a structured

approach for aligning national-level community resilience indicators and building out a suite of

relevant measures that align with the National Preparedness Goal (NPG). The top level of the

structure consists of 10 core capabilities associated with the mitigation and recovery mission areas

under the NPG. This Draft Concept Paper also describes the indicators and measures using a

recently developed taxonomy, designed to provide greater precision to the universe of Federal

community resilience resources in the context of the NPG.

▪ Community Resilience Indicators – In this Draft Concept Paper, the term “indicators” refers to

general conditions or factors associated with community resilience capacity. A number of

community resilience indicators complement the 10 mitigation and recovery mission area core

capabilities. Those indicators are grounded in scientific research literature and represented in

notable community resilience assessment methodologies and applications. The indicators presented

in this paper provide an initial template for possible use in further defining and building out relevant

measures for community resilience capacity at multiple scales.

▪ Proposed National-Level Measures – This Draft Concept Paper presents a number of proposed

national-level measures associated with various indicators of community resilience capacity. These

proposed measures are only a subset of the possible relevant options. They reflect project-driven

time and resource limitations, including dependence on readily available Federal geospatial

datasets with nationwide coverage at county (preferred) or State (minimum) levels. The main body

of this paper provides a summary of the proposed measures; significantly more detail appears in

Appendix B. Assessing Potential National-Level Measures.

▪ Data Access and Availability – Because the focus of this initial effort was on national-level

indicators and measures, the project team generally aggregated community-scale data into Stateand national-level summaries for analysis and presentation purposes. The project team recognizes,

however, that the greatest potential value for many stakeholders is in the availability of relevant

Federal data for assessing community resilience capacity at local levels. To extend project benefits

to community stakeholders, this Draft Concept Paper includes links to key publicly available

Federal datasets. Descriptions and links to all project data used and created to support this effort

appear in Appendix C. Summary of Datasets Identified for Evaluating Community Resilience

Indicators and Measures.
▪ Page 3 ▪

COMMUNITY RESILIENCE

CONCEPTS

Community Resilience, as defined by Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 8 – National Preparedness and 

the NPG, is the ability of a community to adapt to changing conditions, withstand disruption, and rapidly 

recover from emergencies. Community resilience to hazards, including the impacts associated with climate 

change, is an element of overall national security and resilience and is a priority goal of the Federal 

Government. 

Community can have a variety of meanings, but a unifying Federal definition, also supported by the NPG, 

is 

A unified group of people who share goals, values, or purposes. Communities may exist 

within geographic boundaries or unite geographically dispersed individuals. Communities 

bring people together in different ways for different reasons, but each provides 

opportunities for sharing information and promoting collective action. 

Communities generally function under the authority of a specific governance structure, such as a town, city, 

county, or Tribal entity. Community also may refer to State or regional governance structures. Community 

governance structures generally facilitate decision-making that can substantially affect individual quality 

of life in capacities including livelihoods, housing, health, physical access, educational and cultural access, 

and environmental quality. Resilient communities work to build and protect the public and private assets 

and services that assure sustainability, livability, and equal access for all citizens.

Resilience is a broad concept linked to numerous aspects of individual and community capabilities in 

response to many different stressors; therefore, no single measurement approach fits all situations. Even 

when using a common resilience framework, starting and ending points for each community are likely to 

differ, depending on specific risks, inherent physical, social and economic characteristics, and resources 

available to address needs. Recognizing that there are valid reasons for multiple tools that can help 

communities meet specific needs, the effort summarized in this paper does not attempt to duplicate or 

replace any of them. Instead, it builds on the research and application of many of these existing resources 

for the explicit purpose of exploring indicators of community resilience capacity that are most relevant 

across a wide range of Federal capacity-building programs. Federal programs generally help build 

community resilience capacity through the following approaches: 
▪ COMMUNITY RESILIENCE CONCEPTS ▪

▪ Page 4 ▪

▪ Intrinsic community functions – These programs strengthen resilience through support to core

community functions, such as economic development, transportation, housing, community

infrastructure, natural resources, environmental protection, and public health. Generally, when

these systems are functioning adequately to meet steady-state community needs, some inherent

capacity is available to help absorb and rebound from hazard impacts.

▪ Risk management and mitigation action – These programs strengthen resilience through support

for communities in identifying, managing, and mitigating hazards and risks. Community actions

such as integrating improved risk information into decision-making, reducing asset vulnerabilities

to hazards, and implementing risk-informed development standards are all examples of building

community resilience capacity.

▪ Disaster recovery and redevelopment – These programs include disaster assistance and other

types of programs that integrate future resilience objectives into community recovery and

redevelopment activities. Community resilience capacity building includes such actions as

adopting higher resilience standards for post-disaster redevelopment and allocating disaster

assistance funds (where authorized) for high-priority hazard mitigation projects.
▪ Page 5 ▪

NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL

ALIGNMENT

NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL

The NPG defines what it means for the whole community to be prepared and thus resilient for all types of 

disasters and emergencies. The goal itself is:

A secure and resilient nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to 

prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards 

that pose the greatest risk.

These risks include natural hazards, such as hurricanes and pandemic influenza; accidental hazards, such 

as dam failures and chemical spills; and manmade threats, such as acts of terrorism and cyber-attacks. The 

NPG is capabilities based and organized into five mission areas: 

1. Prevention – Avoid, prevent, or stop an imminent, threatened, or actual act of terrorism.

2. Protection – Protect our citizens, residents, visitors, assets, systems, and networks against the

greatest threats and hazards in a manner that allows our vital interests and way of life to thrive.

3. Mitigation – Reduce the loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters.

4. Response – Respond quickly to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic

human needs in the aftermath of an incident.

5. Recovery – Assist communities affected by an incident to recover through a focus on the timely

restoration, strengthening, and revitalization of infrastructure, housing, and the economy, as well

as the health, social, cultural, historic, and environmental fabric of communities affected by an

incident.

The NPG describes 32 activities, called core capabilities, which address the greatest risks to the Nation. 

Core capabilities targets recognize that communities need the flexibility to determine how they apply their 

resources, based on the threats that are most relevant to them. The core capabilities are grouped into the 
▪ NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL ALIGNMENT ▪

▪ Page 6 ▪

five mission areas described above, based on where they most logically fit. Some fall into only one mission 

area, while some others apply to several mission areas.

The NPG serves as a national-level objective for which everyone at the Federal, State, local, Tribal, 

Territorial, private and nonprofit, and individual levels can play an important role. Aligning the indicators 

and measures in this Draft Concept Paper with the NPG ensures consistency with that national-level 

objective. 

ALIGNMENT TO A COMMUNITY RESILIENCE INDICATOR 

CATEGORIZATION TAXONOMY

Efforts to build community resilience can be complicated. These efforts should be community-driven, with 

clear goals and priorities for what an individual community considers necessary to become more resilient.

One of the inherent complexities with community resilience capacity building is that goals can and should 

differ greatly among communities because communities must tailor the outcomes to their individual needs. 

To support a wide range of different capacity-building needs, many Federal departments and agencies 

publish guidance, standards, materials, and data that they broadly label as “resilience resources.” Over time, 

this general labeling of resilience resources has made it increasingly difficult for State and local 

practitioners to identify and use the most applicable resilience capacity-building resources. 

To address this challenge for federally sponsored resources, an interagency effort was undertaken to better 

align how these resources are communicated and organized. The effort resulted in a taxonomy to improve 

how the Federal Government communicates the intended objectives and outcomes from their community 

resilience indicators, metrics, standards, and related resources. The taxonomy provides greater precision to 

the universe of Federal community resilience resources in the context of the NPG. The taxonomy does not 

attempt to establish a mutually exclusive classification scheme. Instead, the taxonomy is a useful tool for 

aligning Federal resources by degrees of relevance and helping clarify areas of emphasis under the larger 

resilience umbrella. An overview of the categories included in the taxonomy appears in Figure 1.

Information on the full taxonomy, including definitions, is in Appendix A. 

Figure 1. Resilience Indicator Categorization Taxonomy
▪ NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL ALIGNMENT ▪

▪ Page 7 ▪

The proposed indicators and measures presented in this Draft Concept Paper are described below using the 

recently developed taxonomy. 

Mission Area and Core Capabilities Framing

The primary objective of the proposed indicators and measures in this Draft Concept Paper is to identify 

key attributes of community resilience capacity related to the mitigation and recovery mission areas. These 

attributes align specifically with 10 core capabilities:

1. Housing

2. Health and Social Services

3. Economic Recovery

4. Infrastructure Systems

5. Natural and Cultural Resources

6. Threats and Hazards Identification

7. Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment

8. Planning

9. Community Resilience

10. Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction

Categorizing the Indicators

• Geographic Scope – A desired outcome for this Federal effort is to develop national-level

measures that can summarize community resilience capacity information and possibly track

relevant trends over time at a national level. While this national-level scope is the primary driver

for the proposed measures in this Draft Concept Paper, the indicator framework presented here also

may be useful as a template for developing similar measures at regional, State, and local scales.

• Geography – The proposed indicators and measures in this Draft Concept Paper reflect a wide

range of community resilience factors that cut across different types and sizes of communities.

Overall, however, the proposed indicators and measures are likely to be more representative of

community resilience attributes in urban and suburban areas than in rural areas. Stakeholders have

requested additional indicators and measures for rural communities as a priority for future

consideration.

• Threat or Hazard – The proposed indicators in this Draft Concept Paper focus primarily on

community capacity; therefore, they should apply to all hazards. Overall, however, the current

indicators and measures are likely to be more representative of resilience capacity for flood-related

hazards than other types of hazards or threats. Stakeholders have requested additional indicators

and measures that reflect resilience capacity for a broader range of hazards, including wildfires and

earthquakes.
▪ NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL ALIGNMENT ▪

▪ Page 8 ▪

• Critical Infrastructure Sector – The proposed indicators in this Draft Concept Paper cut across

multiple critical infrastructure sectors as defined in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. Key

sectors represented in the indicators include Dams, Health Care and Public Health, Transportation

Systems, and Water and Wastewater Systems.

• Climate Change - The proposed indicators in this Draft Concept Paper focus primarily on

community capacity; therefore, they should apply to all hazards, including those caused by or

exacerbated by climate changes. Stakeholders have requested additional indicators and measures

that reflect resilience capacity for a broader range of climate-related hazards, including extreme

temperatures, drought, and sea level rise.

Resilience Themes

While these indicators and measures touch on all four themes represented in the taxonomy (i.e., community 

resilience capacity, infrastructure systems resilience, ecosystem and natural resources resilience, risk and 

resilience assessment), the primary emphasis is community resilience capacity. From the taxonomy, key 

attributes of community resilience capacity represented by the proposed indicators and measures in this 

Draft Concept Paper are:

• Housing Resilience

• Health Resilience

• Economic Resilience

• Access and Functional Needs

• Community Planning

• Social Connectedness

Community Resilience Indicators

The project team conducted an extensive literature review of governmental, business, nonprofit, and 

academic literature related to community resilience capacity and indicators. This Draft Concept Paper

includes the indicators that represent key factors of community resilience and are grounded in scientific 

research literature and represented in notable assessment methodologies and applications for community 

resilience. 

The team did not attempt to duplicate or replace previous work or ongoing research conducted by the 

broader professional community engaged in resilience indicators and measurement. Instead, the project 

team derived these indicators from Federal datasets, emphasizing those with connections to the core 

capabilities of mitigation and recovery mission areas. The resulting list of indicators, presented in Table 1,

is not exclusive but serves as a basis for further defining key elements of community resilience capacity 

and building out relevant measures. 
▪ NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL ALIGNMENT ▪

▪ Page 9 ▪

Table 1. Community Resilience Indicators

Indicator Resilience Relevance

Housing Core Capability

Housing Condition Families living in housing units that are well maintained and consistent with current 

building standards are typically more resilient to hazards than families living in poor 

housing conditions. Substandard housing may be more susceptible to the impacts of 

hazards, resulting in property damage, injury, or death during an event and extensive 

repair costs in both time and money after an event. These costs are especially 

challenging for the typically lower-income families that occupy housing units with 

severe problems. Communities taking actions to reduce high concentrations of 

substandard housing are increasing community resilience capacity by improving 

housing quality and reducing the housing-related disaster vulnerabilities.

Housing Affordability Households not overburdened by housing costs are able to invest in property 

enhancements, have financial flexibility for post-disaster uncertainties, and generally 

have more capacity to absorb and bounce back from unanticipated events. The 

availability of affordable and accessible housing affects the resilience capacity of 

vulnerable individuals and households, and is especially critical to effective disaster 

recovery at the community scale. Understanding and overcoming housing 

affordability and accessibility challenges improves community resilience capacity at 

multiple levels.

Health and Social Services Core Capability

Health Care 

Availability 

Health care organizations play a key role in community resilience. Communities with 

high concentrations of primary care physicians tend to have higher levels of overall 

physical and mental health. High levels of baseline community health are important 

for resilience because communities with healthy residents are better able to absorb the 

impacts of, and recover from, disasters. Primary care physician accessibility also is

important for disaster response and recovery, when many injuries or health-related 

impacts may result from an event.

Healthy Behaviors Resilient communities promote individual and community physical, behavioral, and 

social health to strengthen their communities for both daily and extreme challenges. 

In general, communities with good baseline mental and physical health are more 

resilient to disasters than communities with high concentrations of health-related 

needs are. Individual mental and physical health and resilience is important for 

community resilience because healthy, socially connected, prepared people make for 

stronger communities that are better able to withstand, manage, and recover from 

disasters. Promoting wellness and encouraging healthy behaviors alongside disaster 

preparedness can help communities face everyday challenges as well as major 

disruptions or disasters.

Environmental Health A number of environmental factors, such as air and water quality, can directly affect 

individual and community health status. Areas with concentrated environmental 

health risks can increase disaster impacts by increasing underlying vulnerabilities and 

amplifying the impact on individuals with access and functional needs. Poor air 

quality contributes to health conditions including cancers, cardiovascular disease, 

asthma, and other illnesses that can compound disaster vulnerabilities. In addition, 

many areas with high environmental health hazard risks also face other socioeconomic 

challenges that can exacerbate disaster impacts. Improving environmental health and 

reducing the prevalence of related diseases increases community resilience capacity.
▪ NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL ALIGNMENT ▪

Table 1, continued

▪ Page 10 ▪

Indicator Resilience Relevance

Economic Recovery Core Capability

*State and Local

Government 

Revenues

The capacity of a State, Tribal, or local government to sustain critical services to its 

constituency is an important indicator of the overall resilience of that jurisdiction.

Many Federal grant programs derive their need basis from whether States or local 

government applicants have exhausted their taxing or borrowing capacity, thus 

necessitating Federal involvement. Additionally, the diversity of revenue sources can 

demonstrate the resilience of the State or local government and their ability to sustain 

critical services even following major disruptions or exceptional expenditure needs 

(like a major disaster). 

Employment 

Opportunity 

A community’s general economic vitality and employment levels, among several 

other factors, are related. High employment rates indicate community stability and a 

general economic ability to absorb disaster impacts and recover quickly. Communities 

with high unemployment, on the other hand, tend to have more residents who are 

disproportionately affected by disasters. The factors that lead to unemployment at the 

local level vary greatly from community to community and can often represent 

structural or entrenched conditions that may be very difficult to change with local 

actions. The unemployment rate also does little to tell a story about labor market 

participation, or the types of industry, work, and working conditions present in a 

community. As such, employment opportunity should be just one of many variables 

used when considering a community’s economic vitality and resiliency.

Income Across sociodemographic groups, income builds adaptive capacity and allows 

individuals to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. Individuals with low 

incomes are less likely to have access to high-quality housing units, social support 

networks, or other resources to limit their exposure to hazards. They are also less able 

to recover and rebuild their quality of life when disaster results in the destruction of 

their property or adverse impacts to their health. They may be unable to afford housing 

in a new location, or pay for repairs and disaster-related medical bills. Conversely, 

higher income individuals tend to live in higher quality, more resilient housing and 

have the financial capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. 

Given how closely income and resilience capacity are related, a significant need and 

opportunity exists to improve local community resilience capacity through economic 

development initiatives and programs. Additional information, such as income 

distribution, cost of living ratios, and poverty thresholds, is necessary for a more indepth perspective on income-related capacity and vulnerabilities.

Infrastructure Systems Core Capability

Roadway Conditions A community’s transportation infrastructure is the core of its economy and its disaster 

response and recovery system. In the response phase of a disaster, sufficient 

transportation infrastructure ensures that residents can evacuate and emergency 

responders can reach areas in need. After a disaster, functioning transportation 

infrastructure is critical for economic and physical recovery. Roads and bridges are a 

critical part of the transportation infrastructure. 

Transportation 

Connectivity 

Transportation alternatives provide several resilience-related benefits to communities. 

Good transportation options and alternatives make places more attractive for 

economic development and give people more options for walking, bicycling, and other 

active transportation methods, thereby improving individual health. Redundancies in 

key transportation systems and the availability of transportation alternatives can also 

be critical to community recovery. Transportation alternatives rely on the availability 

of adequate multimodal infrastructure and effective connectivity between different 

modes. Public transportation terminals that only serve a single mode of transportation 

are more exposed to impacts from service disruption, while multimodal stations have 

redundant systems in place. 
▪ NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL ALIGNMENT ▪

Table 1, continued

▪ Page 11 ▪

Indicator Resilience Relevance

Transit Accessibility The national transit system is composed of hundreds of local transit providers that 

operate over 140,000 vehicles, travel over 48 billion annual passenger miles, and 

collect over $8.5 billion in annual passenger fares. Transit plays many roles in 

maintaining social, economic, and environmental systems, including providing 

affordable and less-polluting commute alternatives for workers, as well as access to 

services for individuals with access and functional needs. The latter is especially 

important in disaster response and recovery. For disaster response purposes, transit 

provides an evacuation method for many of the individuals who are most 

disproportionately affected, including people without access to their own 

transportation and people with disabilities. For recovery purposes, transit is important 

for helping individuals who may be disproportionately impacted to access medical and 

social services, as well as their places of employment. Given the importance of transit 

for disaster response and recovery for individuals who are disproportionately 

impacted, particularly individuals with disabilities, transit station accessibility is a 

critical requirement for resilient communities.

Water Sector 

Emergency Support 

Water and wastewater services are vital for human activity and the Nation’s economy, 

as well as preventing disease and protecting the environment. . If communities cannot 

ensure water service during emergencies during emergencies, critical services, such 

as firefighting and health care (hospitals), and other dependent and interdependent 

sectors, such as energy, transportation, and food and agriculture, would suffer 

damaging effects. As a result, the recovery time is prolonged. To increase resilience, 

communities should have plans to ensure continuity of operations, including 

procedures designed to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from all hazards. 

*Energy Assurance The U.S. energy infrastructure fuels the economy of the 21st century. Without a stable 

energy supply, health and welfare are threatened, and the U.S. economy cannot 

function. The Energy Sector is uniquely critical because it provides an “enabling 

function” across all other critical infrastructure. During emergencies, power service 

disruptions can have cascading impacts on other systems that pose additional health 

and safety risks (e.g. inability to heat or cool homes, provide potable water, treat 

sewage or stormwater runoff, or communicate with emergency responders). Energy 

assurance planning to identify supply disruption risks and vulnerabilities and reduce 

future health, safety and economic impacts improves overall resilience capacity.

*Telecommunications

Accessibility

Telecommunications services are integral to the U.S. economy, underlying the 

operations of all businesses, public safety organizations, and government. Over the 

last 25 years, communications infrastructure evolved from predominantly a provider 

of voice services into a diverse, interconnected industry using terrestrial, satellite, and 

wireless transmission systems. It is critical to ensure that vital voice and data circuits 

and other telecommunications services are available and accessible when necessary to 

maintain a state of readiness or respond to and manage an event or crisis.

Dam Safety As of the 2013 update, the National Inventory of Dams (NID) included information 

for more than 87,000 dams. As a critical part of our nation’s infrastructure, dams 

provide benefits that all Americans enjoy, such as flood risk reduction, hydropower 

generation, water supply, and recreation. However, due to the nature of water 

storage, dams can pose a flooding risk to nearby and downstream communities. 

Dam hazards can occur in a number of ways. Dam failure, or the destruction of a dam, 

can occur from a natural hazard event, failure or incorrect operation of a project feature 

that compromises the structure, or by intentionally destructive human actions. Failures 

can lead to devastating loss of life and property for downstream areas. Overtopping of 

a dam can contribute to non-breach inundation risks or lead to possible failure of the 

structure.
▪ NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL ALIGNMENT ▪

Table 1, continued

▪ Page 12 ▪

Indicator Resilience Relevance

Integrated 

Infrastructure Sector 

Preparedness 

The resilience of community infrastructure systems depends not just on the 

functioning of each individual infrastructure sector, but on how sectors collectively 

anticipate and address system interdependencies that can have a ripple effect in a 

hazard event. Community medical services, for example, rely on access to 

telecommunications services, which in turn depend on the continuity of electric power 

in an emergency. When one system is impacted, the risk of a cascading effect of loss 

and damage can be significant, and communities need to assess, plan, and prepare for 

the continuity of services across sectors in a disaster.

Natural and Cultural Resources Core Capability

Water Conservation Water supply is vulnerable to climate variability and national security threats. Water 

demand will grow as the U.S. population increases; extended dry periods will cause 

reductions in the quantity of water available, leading to increased challenges in 

meeting the demands for domestic water use. Water conservation and water efficiency 

(i.e., changes in technology) can increase community resilience by improving the 

reliability of existing water supplies, reducing the impacts of drought, and, in some 

cases, providing conserved water for other necessary uses, such as agricultural or 

environmental needs.

Wetlands 

Conservation 

Wetlands enhance community resilience to hazards and climate change by serving as 

natural buffers or protective barriers. Wetlands aid in mitigating the severity of 

hurricanes and coastal flooding. They accomplish this by decreasing the area of open 

water available for wind to form waves, increasing the drag on water movement and 

thereby reducing the amplitude of storm surges, reducing direct wind effects on the 

water surface, and directly absorbing wave energy. Conserving, protecting, and 

restoring wetlands can increase community resilience capacity by decreasing floodrelated risks and helping reduce the economic and environmental consequences of 

hazard and climate events. In addition, wetlands act as “carbon sinks,” which can 

mitigate the severity of potential future climate changes.

Forest Conservation Forest cover enhances community resilience to hazards and climate change by 

providing natural protection from hazards and serving as a carbon sink. Trees can 

intercept snow and rainfall, can reduce landslide hazards, and can increase the waterholding capacity of the soil by building up an organic layer. Tree canopies may 

mitigate adverse climate impacts by reducing radiative transfers both to the ground 

and into the atmosphere. Forests can also reduce soil erosion and peak flows 

and affect windspeeds. Protecting forests and restoring managed or degraded 

forests can be a vital contribution to reducing anthropogenic emissions and 

aiding societal adaptation to unavoidable climate change. 

Habitat Quality Habitat quality is an indicator of ecosystem health and may be critically linked to 

community economic and societal well-being. This is especially true in areas with 

significant reliance on natural resources-based sectors, such as fisheries, forestry, 

recreation, and tourism. Resilient aquatic habitats are critical to fish and wildlife, 

water conservation, flood control and people. These habitats provide for recreational, 

commercial, and subsistence fishing; boating; fish and wildlife viewing; and other 

uses that support local economies and contribute to economic well-being. Activities 

that prevent degradation of fish habitats and/or increase the overall health of fish and 

other aquatic organisms can maintain or improve the ecological resilience of aquatic 

resources and maintain or improve the resilience capacity of resource-dependent 

communities.
▪ NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL ALIGNMENT ▪

Table 1, continued

▪ Page 13 ▪

Indicator Resilience Relevance

*Cultural Resources

Protection 

In the same way that biological diversity increases the resilience of natural systems, 

cultural diversity can increase the resilience of social systems. The maintenance of 

cultural diversity into the future, and the knowledge, innovations, and outlooks it 

contains, increase the capacity of human systems to adapt to, and cope with, change. 

Cultural heritage, as a key component of cultural diversity, is a critical consideration 

for any strategy to build the resilience of communities. Promoting the protection of 

cultural heritage is necessary because of its intrinsic historic or artistic value and

because it provides the fundamental spiritual and psychosocial support and sense of 

belonging communities need during the disaster recovery phase; it also contributes to 

building resilience to disasters and climate change. (See Heritage and Resilience: 

Issues and Opportunities for Reducing Disaster Risks.)

Threats and Hazards Identification Core Capability

Risk Identification Risk identification allows decision-makers, responders, and community members to 

understand potential risks better, which allows for implementation of informed actions 

to reduce risk and increase resilience. Those who have identified and assessed 

potential risks are more capable of mitigating, preparing for, responding to, and 

recovering from disasters. Threat and hazard risks are constantly evolving and 

connected to multiple variables. Resilient communities understand that risk 

identification is not a static task; rather, risk identification is an activity that 

communities must conduct continuously over time. A wide variety of actions, such as 

conducting formalized risk and threat assessments, conducting scientific risk studies 

and mapping geologic risk areas, and collecting information about public awareness 

of risk, may constitute risk identification. Local communities participate in risk 

identification through a variety of federally sponsored activities, including Risk 

Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk MAP), Threat and Hazard Identification 

and Risk Assessment (THIRA), and pre-project planning.

Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment Core Capability

Risk Data For communities and the agencies that serve them to better mitigate, prepare for, 

respond to, and recover from disasters, it is essential to understand the risks from 

hazards and climate change. Understanding risk involves obtaining accurate data to 

assess the risk. Scientific and technological advancements now make it possible to 

improve foundational risk data continuously. The improved risk data become a critical 

part of the evolution of the risk identification, assessment, understanding, and action 

continuum.

Risk Awareness Based on scientific information about risks and vulnerabilities, risk awareness targets 

desired changes in individual behaviors or perceptions. Assessments of risk perception 

and awareness can track progress toward targeted outcomes and inform the 

development and improvement of risk communication strategies and tools. Because

different community stakeholders have different responsibilities and desired 

behaviors, understanding and effectively targeting risk awareness outcomes for 

different groups is essential. For example, risk awareness goals targeting local 

officials responsible for land-use regulations or building codes would be different 

from the risk awareness goals targeting household preparedness for the public. 

Communities can improve resilience capacity through effective risk awareness 

strategies.
▪ NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL ALIGNMENT ▪

Table 1, continued

▪ Page 14 ▪

Indicator Resilience Relevance

Community 

Preparedness 

Community preparedness generally focuses on the pre-event actions that residents, 

businesses, governments, and emergency responders can take to respond to a disaster

effectively. For residents and businesses, this includes basic steps, such as developing 

household or business emergency plans and securing backup energy, communication, 

food, and water supplies. For local governments, community preparedness includes 

having well-planned, organized, trained, and equipped emergency operations.

Communities build resilience capacity by ensuring that emergency operations plans 

are in place across critical service delivery agencies and that contingencies are in place 

for continued delivery of critical services during disruptions of operations. 

Planning Core Capability

Mitigation Planning Hazard mitigation planning is a process that State, Territorial, Tribal, and local 

governments use to identify risks and vulnerabilities associated with natural hazards, 

and to develop long-term strategies for protecting people and property during future 

events. Unlike other types of disaster-related planning, mitigation planning focuses

specifically on ending the cycle of repeated disaster damage. Local hazard mitigation 

plans enable communities to identify broad strategies and specific actions they can 

take to protect lives and property. Examples of mitigation actions that a local hazard 

mitigation plan might include are projects designed to physically protect assets – such 

as elevating homes at risk of flooding or retrofitting key critical facilities against 

seismic or wind hazards – or broader regulatory actions that require community-wide 

use of disaster-resistant building codes or standards. Developing a local hazard 

mitigation plan is a critical, foundational step for a community to shape a sound 

overall disaster resilience strategy.

Planning Integration Emergency managers or public safety personnel often conduct assessments of and 

planning for hazards and climate risks. Although these stakeholders are among the 

most important in the process, integrating safety planning beyond public safety 

departments is integral to enhancing community resilience. For example, local 

planning, engineering, maintenance, parks and recreation, or administration 

departments make many decisions that directly affect public safety and resilience. By 

integrating public safety and resilience considerations into these decision-making 

processes, communities can select projects, plans, and long-term visions that achieve 

their goals, while also maximizing public safety and resilience benefits. By fully 

integrating hazard considerations into all types of local government planning, 

communities ensure that their implementation activities are more resilient. Planning 

integration is essential to long-term community resilience. Well-planned long-term 

vulnerability reduction is holistic and tied into comprehensive planning and 

management, linking mitigation goals to other community goals, such as actions and 

incentives to improve overall residential property values, business continuity, natural 

resource conservation, school safety, or transit reliability. 

Community Resilience Core Capability

Collaborative 

Networks 

Communities and the agencies that serve them that are able to mitigate, prepare for, 

respond to, and recover from disasters in a planned, intentional, and collaborative 

manner tend to be highly resilient. Collaboration can be challenging, as local agencies 

can operate with a “silo” mentality, only focusing on the specific goals of that agency. 

Additionally, the diverse range of stakeholders present in most communities can make 

meaningful collaboration difficult. To withstand and recover, it is essential that whole 

communities, including those public agencies with interest in the communities, work 

effectively together to anticipate, mitigate, and respond to risks and disasters.
▪ NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL ALIGNMENT ▪

Table 1, continued

▪ Page 15 ▪

Indicator Resilience Relevance

Civic Capacity Social connectedness is a critically important element of community resilience 

capacity. Socially isolated individuals are less resilient than socially connected 

individuals are because they have less access to shared resources and are vulnerable 

to mental health challenges. At the community level, concentrated levels of isolation 

are a major factor of community vulnerability. Understanding the level of civic 

engagement and capacity within communities can help determine the level of social 

connectedness that exists. People are more empowered to help one another after a 

major disturbance in communities in which members are regularly involved in each 

other’s lives. Volunteering is one way to enhance social connectedness, both for the 

people who are volunteering and for the people who benefit from the volunteer work. 

Volunteering can help make people healthier and less likely to be unemployed for an 

extended period. Volunteer work can also help ensure that people who may be 

disproportionately impacted are prepared for and able to respond to hazard events.

Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction Core Capability

Building Codes Design and construction play a major role in the ability of a structure to withstand 

impacts from a hazard. Building codes are legal requirements that set minimum 

material and design standards for construction. Many communities in the United 

States have minimum standard building codes. In addition, many, but not all States 

have adopted statewide building codes that address disaster-resistant standards for 

most building types. Some States and communities choose to go beyond minimum 

standards. For example, some building codes focus on higher requirements for energy 

and water efficiency; others focus on mitigating specific hazards, such as flooding or 

tornadoes. Building requirements that mitigate the impacts of hazards shift costs to 

the front end of the project, requiring slightly higher construction costs with the 

intention of significantly reducing recovery repairs, risk of injury, and loss of life.

Accurate identification of hazards and performance levels with the application of 

appropriate building codes increases resilience. 

Higher Standards Prescriptive requirements, where satisfactory performance means meeting the

minimum requirements, form the basis for many development standards. Long-term 

vulnerability reduction requires looking beyond minimum standards to reliabilitybased performance criteria that can improve the overall resilience of the built 

environment across a community. To improve their resilience capacity, communities

should adopt codes and standards that encourage and incentivize risk-appropriate 

actions that exceed minimum requirements when necessary to meet resilience 

performance targets. 

Mitigation Investment Funding availability is crucial to enabling the implementation of hazard mitigation 

plans and to building, rebuilding or otherwise sustaining physical community 

structures or systems to reduce or avoid future losses. Tracking mitigation investment 

opportunities provides a way to gauge how attuned communities are to the need and 

opportunities for rebuilding with future hazard protection in mind. Mitigation 

investment to reduce long-term vulnerabilities can take many forms including 

hardening structures, building protective or diversionary structures around roads and 

highway systems or public utilities, or removing structures or facilities from high-risk 

zones such as Special Flood Hazard Areas shown on National Flood Insurance 

Program (NFIP) flood maps. 

* Note: The project team added the indicators marked with an asterisk late in the project, based on stakeholder input.

Because they were not part of the original set of indicators used to explore potential measures, Appendix B. Assessing 

Potential National-Level Measures does not reflect these indicators.
▪ Page 16 ▪

PROPOSED NATIONALLEVEL MEASURES

This section of the Draft Concept Paper summarizes progress toward developing national-level measures 

to support the indicator framework introduced earlier. The proposed measures identified in Table 2 are 

representative of a subset of the key community resilience factors reflected by the indicators. In most cases, 

the single proposed measure linked to an individual indicator does not reflect the breadth of the indicator

fully or adequately. Accordingly, the proposed measures may be useful in quantifying some aspects of the 

indicators, but most are not stand-alone proxies for the indicators. The proposed measures, accompanied 

by the context of the indicators, build an effective narrative about community resilience capacity.

The project team explored numerous Federal programs and agency datasets for potential use in quantifying 

and tracking key national-level outcomes related to the community resilience indicators. The team limited 

their identification and development of proposed measures to readily available Federal datasets that met 

key prioritization and consistency criteria. The list of proposed measures presented in Table 2 does not 

reflect all of the datasets examined. Table 2 also does not include all measures that the team evaluated or 

measures recommended for consideration by participating agencies. Additional opportunities exist to 

explore, develop, and refine measures further by building off the resources collected through this initial 

effort. 

The project team initially explored measurement options for nearly all indicators under the framework, but 

the “Proposed Measures” below only represent those that were: (1) fully developed for national-level data 

analysis; (2) successfully coordinated with data providers; and (3) approved by contributing agencies for 

use in this context. Appendix B. Assessing Potential National-Level Measures, along with the associated 

web mapping application developed by the team, provides additional details about the proposed measures

listed in Table 2, including those listed below. Appendix B also includes narratives about measures that the 

team considered for the project, but did not develop fully for various reasons.

▪ Detailed descriptions of the proposed measures;

▪ Access to the source data used to develop the proposed measures;

▪ Access to the “transformed” State-level or community-level data developed for use in an initial

baseline analysis; and

▪ Baseline analysis results and national-level summaries.
▪ PROPOSED NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES ▪

▪ Page 17 ▪

Table 2. Proposed National-Level Measures 

Indicator Measure National-Level Baseline Summary

Housing Core Capability

Housing Condition Proposed Measure: Percentage of 

households living with at least one of 

four severe housing problems (5-year 

average)

Percentage of total households living with 

at least one of four severe housing 

problems (nationally and for each State) 

In the U.S., approximately 42.7 million of 

116.4 million households (37 percent) have 

one of the four severe housing problems.

Housing Affordability Proposed Measure: Percentage of 

households that are cost burdened 

(monthly housing costs, including 

utilities, exceed 30 percent of 

monthly income)

Percentage of households living in counties 

with monthly housing costs exceeding 30 

percent of monthly income (nationally and

for each State) 

For the period of 2008-2012, the 5-year 

average national cost-burdened housing rate 

was approximately 32 percent.

Health and Social Services Core Capability

Health Care 

Availability 

Proposed Measure: Number of 

primary care physicians per 100,000 

residents 

Number of primary care physicians per 

100,000 residents, for the (nationally and 

for each State) 

The U.S. has approximately 78 primary 

care physicians per 100,000 residents.

Healthy Behaviors Proposed Measure: Percentage of 

adult population not participating in 

leisure time physical activity 

Percentage of adults who do not participate 

in leisure time physical exercise (nationally 

and for each State) 

Nationwide, approximately 26.3 percent of 

Americans do not participate in leisure time 

physical exercise. 

Environmental 

Health 

TBD – Various options explored 

using available data; further 

investigation needed for developing

proposed measure

No baseline

Economic Recovery Core Capability

State and Local 

Government 

Revenues

TBD – Future consideration needed 

for developing proposed measure

No baseline

Employment 

Opportunity 

Proposed Measure: 3-year average 

unemployment rate

3-year average unemployment rate 

(nationally and for each State) 

From 2012 through 2014, the 3-year 

average national unemployment rate was 

7.25 percent. 

Income Proposed Measure: Per capita income Per capita income (nationally and for each 

State)

In 2013, the national per capita income was 

$46,049.
▪ PROPOSED NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES ▪

Table 2, continued

▪ Page 18 ▪

Indicator Measure National-Level Baseline Summary

Infrastructure Systems Core Capability

Roadway Conditions TBD – Various options explored 

using available data; further 

investigation needed for developing 

proposed measure

No baseline

Transportation 

Connectivity

Proposed Measure: Percentage of 

public transportation passenger

terminals with intermodal 

connectivity

Percentage of public transportation 

passenger terminals with intermodal 

connectivity (nationally and for each State)

Nationwide, 56 percent of public 

transportation passenger terminals have 

intermodal connectivity.

Transit Accessibility Proposed Measure: Percentage of 

transit system stations in compliance 

with Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) accessibility requirements

Percentage of transit system stations in 

compliance with ADA accessibility 

requirements (nationally and for each State) 

In 2013, approximately 78 percent of transit 

stations in the Federal Transit 

Administration National Transit Database 

were ADA compliant and, therefore, 

accessible to people with disabilities.

Water Sector 

Emergency Support 

Proposed Measure: Number of States 

with Mutual Aid and Assistance 

Agreements in place through 

Water/Wastewater Agency Response 

Network (WARN)

Number of States with WARN agreements 

in place in 2015 (49 total) 

Energy Assurance TBD – Future consideration needed 

for developing proposed measure

No baseline

Telecommunications 

Accessibility 

TBD – Future consideration needed 

for developing proposed measure

No baseline

Dam Safety TBD – Various options explored 

using available data; further 

investigation needed for developing 

proposed measure 

No baseline

Integrated 

Infrastructure Sector 

Preparedness 

TBD – Various options explored 

using available data; further 

investigation needed for developing 

proposed measure

No baseline

Natural and Cultural Resources Core Capability

Water Conservation Proposed Measure: Per capita water 

use for all domestic uses

Per capita water use for all domestic uses,

(nationally and for each State) 

In 2010, national per capita water use was 

approximately 88 gallons per day.

Wetlands 

Conservation 

TBD – Various options explored 

using available data; further 

investigation needed for developing 

proposed measure

No baseline
▪ PROPOSED NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES ▪

Table 2, continued

▪ Page 19 ▪

Indicator Measure National-Level Baseline Summary

Forest Conservation TBD – Various options explored 

using available data; further 

investigation needed for developing 

proposed measure

No baseline

Habitat Quality TBD – Various options explored 

using available data; further 

investigation needed for developing 

proposed measure

No baseline

Cultural Resources 

Protection 

TBD – Future consideration needed 

for developing proposed measure

No baseline

Threats and Hazards Identification Core Capability

Risk Identification TBD – Various options explored 

using available data; further 

investigation needed for developing 

proposed measure

No baseline.

Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment Core Capability

Risk Data TBD – Various options explored 

using available data; further 

investigation needed for development 

of proposed measures

No baseline

Risk Awareness TBD – Various options explored 

using available data; further 

investigation needed for developing 

proposed measure 

No baseline

Community 

Preparedness 

Proposed Measure: Number of sites 

designated as StormReady® and/or 

TsunamiReady® 

[Note: This measure is specific to a 

single community preparedness 

program. Additional exploration of 

measures required for a more 

complete representation of the 

indicator.]

Number of designated StormReady®

and/or TsunamiReady® sites (nationally

and for each State) 

As of February 2016, 2,402 StormReady® 

and TsunamiReady® sites exist nationwide.

Planning Core Capability

Mitigation Planning Proposed Measure: Percentage of 

population residing in communities 

covered by a current local hazard 

mitigation plan 

Percentage of the population residing in 

communities covered by a current local 

hazard mitigation plan (nationally and for 

each State) 

As of December 31, 2015, over 82 percent 

of the Nation’s population (excluding U.S. 

Territories) lives in a community with a 

current local hazard mitigation plan.

Planning Integration TBD – Various options explored 

using available data; further 

investigation needed for developing 

proposed measure

No baseline
▪ PROPOSED NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES ▪

Table 2, continued

▪ Page 20 ▪

Indicator Measure National-Level Baseline Summary

Community Resilience Core Capability

Collaborative 

Networks 

TBD – Various options explored 

using available data; further 

investigation needed for developing 

proposed measure

No baseline

Civic Capacity Proposed Measure: Percentage of 

individuals surveyed who performed 

volunteer activities for or through an 

organization during the preceding 

12-month period 

[Note: This measure is specific to a 

single element of social 

connectedness. Additional 

exploration of measures required for 

a more complete representation of 

the indicator.]

Percentage of individuals surveyed who 

performed volunteer activities for or 

through an organization during the 

preceding 12-month period (nationally and 

for each State) 

Nationwide in 2014, 25.3 percent of the 

individuals surveyed volunteered during the 

previous year.

Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction Core Capability

Building Codes Proposed Measure: Percentage of 

reporting communities that are 

subject to one or more hazards 

(seismic, hurricane, or flood) that 

have adopted building codes with

disaster resistance provisions

Percentage of reporting communities that 

are subject to one or more hazards (seismic, 

hurricane, or flood) and have adopted 

building codes with disaster resistance 

provisions (nationally and for each State) 

As of 2015, approximately 60 percent of 

the Nation’s jurisdictions that are subject to 

seismic, hurricane, or flood hazards had 

adopted a building code with disaster

resistance provisions.

Higher Standards Proposed Measure: Percentage of 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP)-participating communities 

enrolled in the Community Rating 

System (CRS) with a CRS rating of 

Class 5 or better 

[Note: This measure is specific to a 

single “higher standard” program. 

Additional measures should be 

explored for more complete 

representation of the indicator.] 

Percentage of NFIP-participating 

communities enrolled in the CRS with a 

CRS rating of Class 5 or better (nationally 

and for each State) 

As of the date of this report, 113 of the 

22,875 NFIP-participating communities 

(0.5 percent) enrolled in the CRS have a

CRS rating of Class 5 or better. 

Mitigation 

Investment 

Proposed Measure: Percentage of 

total public infrastructure disaster 

relief funds spent on Section 406 

(Stafford Act) Mitigation for disasters

in the preceding 5-year period 

[Note: This measure is specific to 

disaster declaration areas and does 

not reflect nationwide coverage.] 

No baseline

Considered: Percentage of total public 

infrastructure disaster relief funds spent on 

Section 406 Mitigation for disasters in the 

preceding 5-year period (nationally and for 

each State) 
▪ PROPOSED NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES ▪

Table 2, continued

▪ Page 21 ▪

Indicator Measure National-Level Baseline Summary

Proposed Measure: Percentage of 

Small Business Administration 

(SBA) home disaster loan funds spent 

on mitigation assistance 

[Note: This measure is specific to 

disaster declaration areas and does 

not reflect nationwide coverage.]

Percentage of SBA home disaster loan 

funds spent on mitigation assistance, for 

each State that provided SBA home disaster 

loans 

In 2014, in the 28 States that reported SBA 

home disaster loans, loan recipients spent 

an average of 0.5 percent of loan funds on 

mitigation assistance.
▪ Page 22 ▪

DATA ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY

Table 3 provides a list of the publicly available Federal community-scale datasets that were either (a) used 

as source data for the proposed national-level measures listed in Table 3, or (b) identified as potentially 

relevant data for development of additional national-level measures under the indicator framework. Given 

the potential relevance of these data to many of the community resilience indicators in this Draft Concept 

Paper, Table 3 provides links to possible resources in related resilience indicators and assessment activities, 

for stakeholders to use. Appendix B. Summary of Indicators and Sources provides a more comprehensive 

summary of project data sources. 

Table 3. Federal Resources for Relevant Community-Level Data 

Dataset and Access Link Description

Relationship to Indicators and Proposed 

Measures

HUD Comprehensive 

Housing Affordability 

Strategy (CHAS) Data 

The Comprehensive Housing 

Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data,

provided by the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), offers a wide range of 

information about housing conditions.

Source data used for proposed measures 

of Housing Condition Indicator and 

Housing Affordability Indicator 

HHS Area Health 

Resources Files (AHRF)

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) AHRF provides a 

comprehensive set of data offering a 

broad range of health resources and 

information, including the number of 

primary care physicians and local 

population.

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Health Care Availability Indicator
▪ DATA ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY ▪

Table 3, continued

▪ Page 23 ▪

Dataset and Access Link Description

Relationship to Indicators and Proposed 

Measures

CDC Diabetes CountyLevel DataThe Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) collects data and 

trends of diagnosed diabetes, obesity, 

and leisure-time physical inactivity at 

the national, State, and county levels. 

Information includes (1) State- and 

county-level data in the U.S., (2) data 

on how counties compare with each 

other, and (3) maps and motion charts 

to examine how changes in diabetes 

coincide with changes in obesity over 

time and by location.

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Healthy Behaviors Indicator

EPA 2011 NATA 

Assessment Results

The National Air Toxics Assessment 

(NATA), developed by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), provides modeled estimates of 

respiratory disease risk as the result of 

exposure to toxic air contaminants. 

Potential data source for future measure 

of Environmental Health Indicator

EDA Innovation Index Developed through an Economic 

Development Administration (EDA)-

sponsored effort, the Innovation Index 

highlights factors that indicate a region 

is more or less ready to participate in 

the knowledge economy. The index 

provides regional-scale data that can 

help communities understand how they

compare to the nation, other regions, 

and States in terms of innovation 

capacity and innovation results. 

Potential data source for future measure 

of Economic Health/Sector Strength 

Indicator

BLS Local Area 

Unemployment Statistics

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

provides annual unemployment 

estimates for each county and State 

nationwide. Because unemployment 

data may have wide year-to-year 

variability, this BLS report provides 3-

year unemployment rate averages.

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Employment Opportunity Indicator

BEA Local Area 

Personal Income

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 

(BEA) provides per capita local area 

personal income, which BEA 

calculates as the total personal income 

of the residents of a given area divided 

by the resident population of the area. 

BEA measures personal income before 

the deduction of personal income taxes 

and other personal taxes and reports it

in current dollars.

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Income Indicator

BTS Intermodal 

Passenger Connectivity 

Database 

The Intermodal Passenger 

Connectivity Database (IPCD), 

managed by the U.S. Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS), 

provides a national quantification of 

the degree of connectivity in the 

passenger transportation system.

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Transportation Connectivity 

Indicator
▪ DATA ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY ▪

Table 3, continued

▪ Page 24 ▪

Dataset and Access Link Description

Relationship to Indicators and Proposed 

Measures

FTA National Transit 

Database (NTD): 

Passenger Stations

The Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) provides national transit system 

data through the National Transit 

Database (NTD). U.S. Congress 

established the NTD to be the primary 

national source for transit system 

information and statistics. By statute, 

recipients or beneficiaries of certain 

grants from the FTA must submit data 

to the NTD. As part of the data 

submission, local transit authorities 

report on the number of total transit 

stations, as well as the number of 

transit stations that are ADAcompliant.

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Transit Accessibility Indicator

Water/Wastewater 

Agency Response 

Networks (WARNs)

(Note: Data were 

provided by EPA partner 

organization, American 

Water Works 

Association)

EPA encourages States to establish 

WARNs to provide methods whereby 

water/wastewater utilities provide and 

receive emergency aid and assistance 

necessary due to sustained or 

anticipated damage from natural or 

human-caused incidents.

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Water Sector Emergency Support 

Indicator 

NTIA National 

Broadband Map

The National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) 

created the National Broadband Map 

(NBM) in collaboration with the 

Federal Communications Commission, 

and in partnership with 50 States, five 

Territories, and the District of 

Columbia. The NBM provides maps 

and downloadable data on broadband 

availability across every neighborhood 

in the United States. First published in 

February 2011, NTIA updated the 

NBM every 6 months through April 

2015 with data from the State 

Broadband Initiative. NTIA currently 

collects broadband deployment data 

from service providers every 2 years. 

Potential data source for future measure 

of Telecommunications Accessibility 

Indicator
▪ DATA ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY ▪

Table 3, continued

▪ Page 25 ▪

Dataset and Access Link Description

Relationship to Indicators and Proposed 

Measures

USACE National 

Inventory of Dams

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) maintains the National 

Inventory of Dams (NID) in close 

collaboration with FEMA and State 

regulatory offices. Dams in the NID 

must meet at least one of the following 

criteria; (1) High hazard classification 

- loss of one human life is likely if the 

dam fails, (2) Significant hazard 

classification - possible loss of human 

life and likely significant property or 

environmental destruction, (3) Equal 

or exceed 25 feet in height and exceed 

15 acre-feet in storage, and (4) Equal 

or exceed 50 acre-feet storage and 

exceed 6 feet in height.

Potential data source for future measure 

of Dam Safety Indicator

USACE National Levee 

Database

The USACE-maintained National 

Levee Database (NLD) is a dynamic, 

searchable inventory of information 

about levees and a key resource 

supporting decisions and actions 

affecting levee safety. The NLD

provides information about the 

location and condition of levees and 

floodwalls, as well as reports, 

inspection summaries, and other 

related records. The NLD includes 

detailed information about the levees 

in the National Levee Safety Program, 

as well as a growing library of 

available information on levees outside 

of the USACE program.

Potential data source for future measure 

of Dam Safety Indicator

USGS Water Use 

Information for the 

Nation

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

tracks the estimated use of water 

nationwide, including the public 

supply deliveries for domestic use. 

USGS collects the data from counties 

every 5 years for the national water use 

report.

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Water Conservation Indicator

Land Cover for the 

Conterminous United 

States - Forests

This EPA EnviroAtlas dataset 

represents the percentage of land area 

that is classified as forest land cover, 

modified forest land cover, and natural 

land cover in each subwatershed (12-

digit Hydrologic Unit Classification, or 

HUC). (The EPA EnviroAtlas uses the 

National Land Cover Database

(NLCD) for these data.) 

Potential data source for future 

measures of Wetlands Conservation 

Indicator
▪ DATA ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY ▪

Table 3, continued

▪ Page 26 ▪

Dataset and Access Link Description

Relationship to Indicators and Proposed 

Measures

USDA USFS Forest 

Inventory and Analysis 

Program

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Forest 

Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program

provides the information needed to 

assess America's forests. The FIA 

Program reports on status and trends in 

forest area and location; in the species, 

size, and health of trees; in total tree 

growth, mortality, and removals by 

harvest; in wood production and 

utilization rates by various products; 

and in forest land ownership.

Potential data source for future 

measures of Forest Conservation 

Indicator

Protected Lands for the 

Conterminous United 

States

This EPA EnviroAtlas dataset 

illustrates the percent of land within a 

subwatershed (12-digit HUC) that has 

legally recognized easements for 

conservation or other protections in 

place to restrict human use or 

development. These data include both 

public and private land. (The EPA 

EnviroAtlas uses the USGS Protected 

Areas Database of the United States 

for these data.) 

Potential data source for future 

measures of Wetlands Conservation 

Indicator and Forest Conservation 

Indicator

USGS National Fish 

Habitat Partnership Data 

System

In support of the National Fish Habitat 

Partnership (NFHP), the USGS works 

with partners and stakeholders to 

gather data in support of conducting a 

condition assessment of fluvial water 

bodies throughout the U.S.). The 

dataset is available to NFHP 

participants and other users interested 

in acquiring consistently organized 

information characterizing river 

systems over larger regions.

Potential data source for future measure 

of Habitat Quality Indicator

Percent Stream Buffer 

Zone As Natural Land 

Cover for the 

Conterminous United 

States

This EPA EnviroAtlas dataset shows 

the percentage of land area within a 

30-meter buffer zone along the 

National Hydrography Dataset highresolution stream network, and along 

water bodies (such as lakes and ponds) 

that are connected via flow to the 

streams, that is classified as forest land 

cover, modified forest land cover, and 

natural land cover using the NLCD for 

each Watershed Boundary Dataset 12-

digit HUC in the conterminous U.S.

Potential data source for future measure 

of Habitat Quality Indicator

NOAA StormReady and 

TsunamiReady Sites

The National Weather Service 

provides data about StormReady® and 

TsunamiReady® sites, ranging in 

geographic scale from States to 

counties, to specific commercial and 

educational sites. 

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Community Preparedness Indicator
▪ DATA ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY ▪

Table 3, continued

▪ Page 27 ▪

Dataset and Access Link Description

Relationship to Indicators and Proposed 

Measures

FEMA Hazard Mitigation 

Plan Status

FEMA requires State, Tribal, and local 

governments to develop and adopt 

hazard mitigation plans as a condition 

for receiving certain types of nonemergency disaster assistance, 

including funding for mitigation 

projects. Jurisdictions must update 

their hazard mitigation plans and resubmit them for FEMA approval every 

5 years to maintain eligibility. The data 

provided indicate the status of hazard 

mitigation plans in local jurisdictions 

across the nation. 

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Hazard Mitigation Planning Indicator

Corporation for National 

and Community Service

(CNCS) Volunteering 

and Civic Life in 

America

The CNCS site provides a

comprehensive look at volunteering 

and civic life in the 50 States and 51 

cities across the U.S. Data include

volunteer rates and rankings, civic 

engagement trends, and analysis.

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Civic Capacity Indicator

ISO Building Codes 

Effectiveness Grading 

Schedule (BCEGS)

(Note: ISO developed the 

community- level BCEGS 

data. The link above is 

for aggregated Statelevel data, which were

used by permission from 

ISO. Users may obtain 

community-specific 

BCEGS data directly 

from ISO.) 

The Insurance Services Office (ISO)

BCEGS® program assesses the 

building codes in effect in a particular 

community and how the community 

enforces them, with special emphasis 

on mitigating losses from natural 

hazards. ISO assigns each municipality 

a Building Code Effectiveness 

Classification from 1 (exemplary 

commitment to building-code 

enforcement) to 10 for both 

commercial and residential 

construction. 

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Building Codes Indicator

FEMA Community 

Rating System 

Communities and their 

Classes

The Community Rating System (CRS) 

is a voluntary incentive program 

through which FEMA recognizes and 

encourages community floodplain 

management activities that exceed the 

minimum NFIP requirements. The data 

provided are from the most recent 

Flood Insurance Agent's Manual 

containing current and historical 

listings of all CRS communities, their 

class, and insurance discount.

Source data used for proposed measure 

of Higher Standards Indicator
▪ Page A-1 ▪

RESILIENCE INDICATOR

CATEGORIZATION

TAXONOMY

An overview of the taxonomy to improve how the Federal Government communicates the intended 

objectives and outcomes from their community resilience indicators, metrics, standards, and related 

resources appears in Table A-1.

Table A.1. Community Resilience Taxonomy Structure

NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL ALIGNMENT

Mission Areas

Prevention Preventing, avoiding, or stopping a threatened or an actual act of terrorism.

Protection Protecting our citizens, residents, visitors, assets, systems, and networks against the 

greatest threats and hazards in a manner that allows our interests, aspirations, and way of 

life to thrive.

Mitigation Mitigating the loss of life and property by lessening the impact of future disasters.

Response Responding quickly to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic

human needs in the aftermath of an incident.

Recovery Recovering through a focus on the timely restoration, strengthening, and revitalization of

infrastructure, housing, and the economy, as well as the health, social, cultural, historic, 

and environmental fabric of communities affected by an incident.

Core Capabilities

Planning -

Prevention

Conduct a systematic process engaging the whole community as appropriate in the 

development of executable strategic, operational, and/or tactical-level approaches to meet 

defined objectives.

Planning -

Protection

Conduct a systematic process engaging the whole community as appropriate in the 

development of executable strategic, operational, and/or tactical-level approaches to meet 

defined objectives.

Planning -

Mitigation

Conduct a systematic process engaging the whole community as appropriate in the 

development of executable strategic, operational, and/or tactical-level approaches to meet 

defined objectives.

Planning -

Response 

Conduct a systematic process engaging the whole community as appropriate in the 

development of executable strategic, operational, and/or tactical-level approaches to meet 

defined objectives.
APPENDIX A. RESILIENCE INDICATOR CATEGORIZATION TAXONOMY

Table A-1, continued

▪ Page A-2 ▪

Planning -

Recovery

Conduct a systematic process engaging the whole community as appropriate in the 

development of executable strategic, operational, and/or tactical-level approaches to meet 

defined objectives.

Public Information 

and Warning - 

Prevention

Deliver coordinated, prompt, reliable, and actionable information to the whole community 

through the use of clear, consistent, accessible, and culturally and linguistically 

appropriate methods to effectively relay information regarding any threat or hazard, as 

well as the actions being taken and the assistance being made available, as appropriate.

Public Information 

and Warning - 

Protection

Deliver coordinated, prompt, reliable, and actionable information to the whole community 

through the use of clear, consistent, accessible, and culturally and linguistically 

appropriate methods to effectively relay information regarding any threat or hazard, as 

well as the actions being taken and the assistance being made available, as appropriate.

Public Information 

and Warning - 

Mitigation

Deliver coordinated, prompt, reliable, and actionable information to the whole community 

through the use of clear, consistent, accessible, and culturally and linguistically 

appropriate methods to effectively relay information regarding any threat or hazard, as 

well as the actions being taken and the assistance being made available, as appropriate.

Public Information 

and Warning - 

Response 

Deliver coordinated, prompt, reliable, and actionable information to the whole community 

through the use of clear, consistent, accessible, and culturally and linguistically 

appropriate methods to effectively relay information regarding any threat or hazard, as 

well as the actions being taken and the assistance being made available, as appropriate.

Public Information 

and Warning - 

Recovery

Deliver coordinated, prompt, reliable, and actionable information to the whole community 

through the use of clear, consistent, accessible, and culturally and linguistically 

appropriate methods to effectively relay information regarding any threat or hazard, as 

well as the actions being taken and the assistance being made available, as appropriate.

Operational 

Coordination - 

Prevention

Establish and maintain a unified and coordinated operational structure and process that 

appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders and supports the execution of core 

capabilities.

Operational 

Coordination - 

Protection

Establish and maintain a unified and coordinated operational structure and process that 

appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders and supports the execution of core 

capabilities.

Operational 

Coordination - 

Mitigation

Establish and maintain a unified and coordinated operational structure and process that 

appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders and supports the execution of core 

capabilities.

Operational 

Coordination - 

Response 

Establish and maintain a unified and coordinated operational structure and process that 

appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders and supports the execution of core 

capabilities.

Operational 

Coordination - 

Recovery

Establish and maintain a unified and coordinated operational structure and process that 

appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders and supports the execution of core 

capabilities.

Prevention

Forensics and 

Attribution

Conduct forensic analysis and attribute terrorist acts (including the means and methods of 

terrorism) to their source, to include forensic analysis as well as attribution for an attack 

and for the preparation for an attack in an effort to prevent initial or follow-on acts and/or 

swiftly develop counter-options.

Intelligence and 

Information 

Sharing - 

Prevention

Provide timely, accurate, and actionable information resulting from the planning, 

direction, collection, exploitation, processing, analysis, production, dissemination, 

evaluation, and feedback of available information concerning physical and cyber threats 

to the United States, its people, property, or interests; the development, proliferation, or 

use of WMDs; or any other matter bearing on U.S. national or homeland security by local, 

state, tribal, territorial, Federal, and other stakeholders. Information sharing is the ability 

to exchange intelligence, information, data, or knowledge among government or private 

sector entities, as appropriate.
APPENDIX A. RESILIENCE INDICATOR CATEGORIZATION TAXONOMY

Table A-1, continued

▪ Page A-3 ▪

Interdiction and 

Disruption - 

Prevention

Delay, divert, intercept, halt, apprehend, or secure threats and/or hazards.

Screening, Search, 

and Detection - 

Prevention

Identify, discover, or locate threats and/or hazards through active and passive surveillance 

and search procedures. This may include the use of systematic examinations and 

assessments, biosurveillance, sensor technologies, or physical investigation and 

intelligence.

Protection

Intelligence and 

Information 

Sharing - 

Protection

Provide timely, accurate, and actionable information resulting from the planning, 

direction, collection, exploitation, processing, analysis, production, dissemination, 

evaluation, and feedback of available information concerning physical and cyber threats 

to the United States, its people, property, or interests; the development, proliferation, or 

use of Weapons of Mass Destruction; or any other matter bearing on U.S. national or 

homeland security by local, State, Tribal, Territorial, Federal, and other stakeholders. 

Information sharing is the ability to exchange intelligence, information, data, or 

knowledge among government or private sector entities, as appropriate.

Interdiction and 

Disruption - 

Protection

Delay, divert, intercept, halt, apprehend, or secure threats and/or hazards.

Screening, Search, 

and Detection - 

Protection

Identify, discover, or locate threats and/or hazards through active and passive surveillance 

and search procedures. This may include the use of systematic examinations and 

assessments, biosurveillance, sensor technologies, or physical investigation and 

intelligence.

Access Control 

and Identity 

Verification

Apply and support necessary physical, technological, and cyber measures to control 

admittance to critical locations and systems.

Cybersecurity Protect against damage to, the unauthorized use of, and/or the exploitation of (and, if 

needed, the restoration of) electronic communications systems and services (and the 

information contained therein).

Physical 

Protective 

Measures

Implement and maintain risk-informed countermeasures and policies protecting people, 

borders, structures, materials, products, and systems associated with key operational 

activities and critical infrastructure sectors.

Risk Management 

for Protection 

Programs and 

Activities

Identify, assess, and prioritize risks to inform Protection activities, countermeasures, and 

investments.

Supply Chain 

Integrity and 

Security

Strengthen the security and resilience of the supply chain. 

Mitigation

Community 

Resilience

Enable the recognition, understanding, communication of, and planning for risk and 

empower individuals and communities to make informed risk management decisions 

necessary to adapt to, withstand, and quickly recover from future incidents.

Long-term 

Vulnerability 

Reduction

Build and sustain resilient systems, communities, and critical infrastructure and key 

resources lifelines to reduce their vulnerability to natural, technological, and humancaused threats and hazards by lessening the likelihood, severity, and duration of the 

adverse consequences.

Risk and Disaster 

Resilience 

Assessment 

Assess risk and disaster resilience so that decision makers, responders, and community 

members can take informed action to reduce their entity’s risk and increase their 

resilience.
APPENDIX A. RESILIENCE INDICATOR CATEGORIZATION TAXONOMY

Table A-1, continued

▪ Page A-4 ▪

Threats and 

Hazard 

Identification

Identify the threats and hazards that occur in the geographic area; determine the frequency 

and magnitude; and incorporate this into analysis and planning processes to clearly 

understand the needs of a community or entity.

Response

Critical 

Transportation

Provide transportation (including infrastructure access and accessible transportation 

services) for response priority objectives, including the evacuation of people and animals, 

and the delivery of vital response personnel, equipment, and services into the affected 

areas.

Environmental 

Response/Health 

and Safety

Conduct appropriate measures to ensure the protection of the health and safety of the 

public and workers, as well as the environment, from all-hazards in support of responder 

operations and the affected communities.

Fatality 

Management 

Services

Provide fatality management services, including decedent remains recovery and victim 

identification, working with local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal 

authorities to provide mortuary processes, temporary storage or permanent internment 

solutions, sharing information with mass care services for the purpose of reunifying 

family members and caregivers with missing persons/remains, and providing counseling 

to the bereaved.

Fire Management 

and Suppression

Provide structural, wildland, and specialized firefighting capabilities to manage and 

suppress fires of all types, kinds, and complexities while protecting the lives, property, 

and the environment in the affected area.

Infrastructure 

Systems - 

Response 

Stabilize critical infrastructure functions, minimize health and safety threats, and 

efficiently restore and revitalize systems and services to support a viable, resilient 

community.

Mass Care 

Services

Deliver essential commodities, equipment, and services in support of impacted 

communities and survivors, to include emergency power and fuel support, as well as the 

coordination of access to community staples. Synchronize logistics capabilities and enable 

the restoration of impacted supply chains.

Mass Search and 

Rescue Operations

Provide life-sustaining and human services to the affected population, to include 

hydration, feeding, sheltering, temporary housing, evacuee support, reunification, and 

distribution of emergency supplies.

On-scene Security, 

Protection, and 

Law Enforcement

Deliver traditional and atypical search and rescue capabilities, including personnel, 

services, animals, and assets to survivors in need, with the goal of saving the greatest 

number of endangered lives in the shortest time possible.

Operational 

Communications

Ensure a safe and secure environment through law enforcement and related security and 

protection operations for people and communities located within affected areas and also 

for response personnel engaged in lifesaving and life-sustaining operations.

Logistics and 

Supply Chain 

Management

Ensure the capacity for timely communications in support of security, situational 

awareness, and operations by any and all means available, among and between affected 

communities in the impact area and all response forces.

Public Health, 

Healthcare, and 

Emergency 

Medical Services

Provide lifesaving medical treatment via Emergency Medical Services and related 

operations and avoid additional disease and injury by providing targeted public health, 

medical, and behavioral health support, and products to all affected populations.

Situational 

Assessment 

Provide all decision-makers with decision-relevant information regarding the nature and 

extent of the hazard, any cascading effects, and the status of the response.

Recovery

Infrastructure 

Systems - 

Recovery

Stabilize critical infrastructure functions, minimize health and safety threats, and 

efficiently restore and revitalize systems and services to support a viable, resilient 

community.
APPENDIX A. RESILIENCE INDICATOR CATEGORIZATION TAXONOMY

Table A-1, continued

▪ Page A-5 ▪

Economic 

Recovery

Return economic and business activities (including food and agriculture) to a healthy state 

and develop new business and employment opportunities that result in an economically 

viable community.

Health and Social 

Services

Restore and improve health and social services capabilities and networks to promote the 

resilience, independence, health (including behavioral health), and well-being of the 

whole community.

Housing Implement housing solutions that effectively support the needs of the whole community 

and contribute to its sustainability and resilience.

Natural and 

Cultural Resources

Protect natural and cultural resources and historic properties through appropriate 

planning, mitigation, response, and recovery actions to preserve, conserve, rehabilitate, 

and restore them consistent with post-disaster community priorities and best practices and 

in compliance with applicable environmental and historic preservation laws and executive 

orders.

CATEGORIZATION 

Geographic Scope (Includes National; Regional (multi-State); State; Local Community)

Regions

Urban Includes areas that are urban.

Suburban Includes areas that are suburban (less densely populated, but urbanized).

Exurban Includes areas that are suburban (less densely populated and outside the typical 

commuting radius). 

Rural Includes areas that are rural.

Coastal Includes areas on the coast of a large body of water (e.g., oceans and Great Lakes).

Interior: Riverine Includes areas not near a coast, but near a major river.

Interior: 

Nonriverine

Includes areas not near a coast or a major river.

All Hazards (Resource is generally applicable to all hazards)

Natural Threat / 

Hazards

As defined in existing statute and/or regulation.

Technological 

Threat / Hazard

As defined in existing statute and/or regulation.

Human-caused 

Threat / Hazard

As defined in existing statute and/or regulation.

Critical 

Infrastructure 

Sector

As defined in Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-21 and the National Infrastructure 

Protection Plan (NIPP). 

Climate Change

Climate Change 

Adaptation

Resource intended to support community adaptation to climate change impacts.

Climate Change 

Mitigation

Resource intended to support community efforts to mitigate climate changes.

Changing weather 

patterns

Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Severe weather Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.
APPENDIX A. RESILIENCE INDICATOR CATEGORIZATION TAXONOMY

Table A-1, continued

▪ Page A-6 ▪

Extreme 

temperatures

Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Drought Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Flood Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Salt water 

intrusion

Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Sea-level rise Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Storm surges Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Increased 

atmospheric water 

retention

Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Warming oceans Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Debris flows Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Upward shift of 

natural snowreliability line

Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Polar ice melt Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Glacier melt Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Permafrost melt Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Change in ice 

cover

Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Other Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Other Description Includes threats and hazards caused by or exacerbated by climate changes.

Resilience Themes

Community Resilience Capacity

Access and 

Functional Needs

Includes the capacity of the community to consider, include, and integrate the needs of 

populations with access and functional needs.

Economic 

Resilience

Includes the capacity of the community adapt to and recover from incidents that impact

the local or regional economy.

Health Resilience Includes the capacity of the community to adapt to and recover from incidents that impact 

the public health of the population and public health infrastructure.

Housing 

Resilience

Includes the capacity of the community to adapt to and recover from incidents that impact 

the housing stock, the affordability of housing, and the accessibility of housing.

Sustainability Includes the capacity of the community to integrate concepts of sustainable building, 

energy use, commodity consumption, and other related activities.

Community 

Planning

Includes the capacity of the community to plan regarding community resilience-building 

issues. 

Social 

Connectedness

Includes the capacity of the community to engage and employ formal and informal social 

networks to build the overall resilience of the community as a whole, vulnerable 

populations, and areas affected by incidents.
APPENDIX A. RESILIENCE INDICATOR CATEGORIZATION TAXONOMY

Table A-1, continued

▪ Page A-7 ▪

Infrastructure Systems Resilience

Facility Guidance Includes guidance for building resilience into existing facilities for achieving higher levels 

of performance, survivability, or other related criteria.

Construction Includes guidance for constructing facilities to achieve higher levels of performance, 

survivability, or other related criteria.

Assessment Includes guidance for assessing the performance of existing facilities in meeting

resilience-driven targets.

Water 

Infrastructure

Includes guidance for assessing, evaluating, or building water and wastewater systems to 

meet resilience-driven targets.

Critical 

Infrastructures

Includes guidance that applies broadly to critical infrastructures in meeting resiliencedriven targets.

Ecosystem and Natural Resource Resilience

Water Includes the capacity of hydrological systems to be resilient to threats and hazards.

Fisheries Includes the capacity of fisheries to be resilient to threats and hazards.

Agriculture Includes the capacity for agriculture (production agriculture and livestock) to be resilient 

to threats and hazards.

Wildlife Includes the capacity of wildlife ecologies to be resilient to threats and hazards.

Cultural Resources Includes the capacity of cultural assets and resources to be resilient to threats and hazards.

Risk and Resilience Assessment

Threat and Hazard 

Identification

Includes the capacity to identify, evaluate, and measure threats and hazards to 

communities and infrastructure.

Risk Analysis Includes the capacity to conduct analysis of known risks, evaluating probability, impact, 

and consequences to a community.

Resiliency 

Assessment 

Includes the capacity to conduct aggregate analyses of multiple variables that can suggest 

the degree to which a community is able to reach its resilience targets.
▪ Page B-1 ▪

ASSESSING POTENTIAL

NATIONAL-LEVEL

MEASURES

PURPOSE

The information included in this appendix comprehensively summarizes and presents the initial work of 

the project team in exploring national-level measures for use in tracking trends and progress across a wide 

range of community resilience indicators or factors. Data availability was a limiting factor for identifying 

and developing highly effective measures across the entire conceptual indicator framework. The team 

encountered challenges in identifying and accessing relevant Federal data sources with national coverage 

at consistent scales. Because of data challenges and gaps, this Concept Paper only includes fully developed 

proposed measures for some of the indicators. Many of the remaining indicators include descriptions of 

measures that were considered or evaluated by the team, but could not be more fully developed for various 

reasons. 

CAVEATS AND LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSED MEASURES

Scoring: The project team did not select the proposed measures based on their value or utility for composite 

indexing, community comparison, or scoring. The proposed measures consider possible uses of Federal 

program-based information in identifying relevant national-level trends in community resilience capacitybuilding activities and outcomes. The team did not develop the proposed measures to support comparative 

assessment of resilience capacity among States or communities. 

Data Aggregation: Baseline assessments for the proposed measures include results aggregated into Statelevel and national-level summaries, even when the underlying data are at a community scale. The team 

summarized and presented aggregated results because the primary goal driving the development of these 

measures was to demonstrate how they might be used nationally for tracking community resilience 

capacity-building trends over time. The team also recognized that further examination of the communitylevel project data for indicator-related uses at different scales was possible; however, it was beyond the 

scope of the current effort. 
APPENDIX B. ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-2 ▪

Indicator Representation: Some key issues and concerns raised by stakeholders thus far about the limited 

nature of the proposed measures for indicator representation include: 

▪ Current proposed measures generally have either a flood-related or a broad multihazard resiliencerelated emphasis. They do not fully represent a wide range of hazard and climate risks and

vulnerabilities.

▪ Current proposed measures do not fully represent relevant infrastructure sectors. Contributors noted

concerns over the absence of measures related to key utility sectors, such as energy and

telecommunications. Private parties own and operate the vast majority of the nation's energy

infrastructure; due to its complexity, scope, and interconnected nature, the Federal Government

does not provide a systematic assessment of resilience within the energy sector at the community

level.

▪ Current proposed measures generally emphasize urban issues and priorities. Contributors noted that

they do not adequately account for rural considerations.

▪ Current proposed measures do not adequately cover U.S. Territory interests.

▪ Current proposed measures do not reflect Tribal communities as separate from States or counties.

SUMMARY OF ACCOMPANYING WEB MAPPING 

APPLICATION

A Geographic Information System (GIS) web mapping application that provides a visual representation of 

the data distribution for the proposed measures supplements this appendix. The GIS web mapping 

application also provides access to the State-level or county-level findings, as well as to the original agency 

datasets used to develop the measures. The GIS web mapping application is available at 

http://arcg.is/1RPElqB.

GIS Web Mapping Application Contents

The GIS web mapping application contains two primary components: (1) indicator dataset navigation bar, 

and (2) map body. 

The navigation bar provides access for each indicator with a proposed measure, as well as the ability to 

toggle between specific indicators to investigate the proposed measures geographically. The dataset

navigation bar also includes a legend and a link to a downloadable zip file containing a local version of the 

hosted dataset, the original source data (where they are publicly available), and the data disclaimer. 

The map body visually displays the aggregated data for the selected measure. A muted dark gray canvas 

serves as the base map, and users have the ability to pan around and zoom in or zoom out, allowing them

to investigate areas of interest further. Additionally, a user’s selection of a State or county enables a popup 

functionality that allows the user to view several key attributes and download data if desired.

Figure B-1is a screenshot from the GIS web mapping application. Readers are encouraged to use the web 

mapping application to directly view and interact with data for proposed measures. 
APPENDIX B. ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-3 ▪

Figure B-1. Web Mapping Application Screen Shot

Web Mapping Application Format

The web mapping application is a static product. A future operational goal could be to configure the 

application to allow Federal agencies to update their data contributions regularly, especially for tracking 

the progress of certain measures over time. For this to be successful, Federal agencies will need to publish 

datasets as industry-standard web services – that is, Representational State Transfer (REST) or Web Map 

Service (WMS) – that permit open access and download of the associated data. The long-term strategy is 

to encourage Federal agencies to publish data that are relevant to resilience assessment in easily accessible 

and usable formats that lend themselves to both statistical and geospatial analysis, thus making the data 

publicly available for use by communities, academics, and other agencies as a data.gov initiative.

ORGANIZATION

The remaining sections of this appendix are organized and presented by indicator and aligned with the 

indicator descriptions in Table 2 in the main body of this Draft Concept Paper. For ease of presentation and 

reference, the team numbered the indicators represented in this appendix, as shown in Figure B-2. 

This appendix does not include all of the indicators introduced in the main body of this Draft Concept 

Paper. MitFLG representatives recommended several additions during the interagency review process. 

Additional effort would be required to explore and develop proposed measures for new indicators.
APPENDIX B. ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-4 ▪

Figure B-2. Organization of Indicators to Relevant Core Capabilities
APPENDIX B. ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-5 ▪

Summary of Proposed Measures

Table B-1 presents information on proposed national-level measures and baselines associated with various 

indicators of community resilience capacity. The proposed measures are only a subset of possible relevant 

options. As mentioned in the main body of this Draft Concept Paper, they reflect project-driven time and 

resource limitations, including dependence on readily available Federal geospatial datasets with nationwide 

coverage at county (preferred) or State (minimum) levels. The sections of this appendix that follow Table 

B-1 provide additional information on each of the proposed measures considered by the project team. 

Table B-1. Proposed Indicator Framework with Illustrative Measures

Core 

Capability Indicator Proposed Measure Baseline

Tracking National 

Progress

Housing Indicator 1: 

Housing 

Condition

Percentage of 

households living 

with at least one 

of four severe 

housing problems 

(5-year average)

[HUD 

Comprehensive 

Housing 

Affordability 

Strategy Housing 

Conditions Data]

Percentage of total 

households living with at 

least one of four severe 

housing problems, 

(nationally and for each 

State) 

Nationwide, approximately 

42.7 million of 116.4 

million households

(37 percent) have one of 

the four severe housing 

problems.

Decreases in these 

percentages over time 

generally indicate 

improving housing 

conditions. Reductions 

in State-level 

percentages (especially 

those higher than the 

national average) could 

indicate significant 

progress in related 

capacity building at 

community levels.

Housing Indicator 2: 

Housing 

Affordability

Percentage of 

households that 

are cost burdened 

(monthly housing 

costs, including 

utilities, exceed 

30 percent of 

monthly income)

[HUD 

Comprehensive 

Housing 

Affordability 

Strategy]

Percentage of households 

living in counties with 

monthly housing costs 

exceeding 30 percent of 

monthly income

(nationally and for each 

State) 

From 2008 through 2012, 

the 5-year average national 

cost-burdened housing rate 

was approximately 32 

percent.

Decreases in these 

percentages generally 

indicate improved 

housing affordability 

relative to average 

income. Reductions in 

State-level percentages 

over time could indicate 

progress in related 

capacity-building 

efforts at community 

levels.

Health and 

Social 

Services

Indicator 3: 

Health Care 

Availability

Number of 

primary care 

physicians per 

100,000 residents

[HHS Area 

Health Resources 

Files]

Number of primary care 

physicians per 100,000 

residents (nationally and 

for each State). 

The U.S. has

approximately 78 primary 

care physicians per 

100,000 residents.

Increases in this 

number generally 

indicate improved 

health care related 

capacity. Increases in 

State-level averages, 

especially for those 

States below the 

national average, could 

represent significant 

progress in capacitybuilding efforts at 

community levels. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

Table B-1, continued

▪ Page B-6 ▪

Core 

Capability Indicator Proposed Measure Baseline

Tracking National 

Progress

Health and 

Social 

Services

Indicator 4: 

Healthy 

Behaviors

Percentage of 

adult population

not participating

in leisure time 

physical activity

[CDC Diabetes 

County Level 

Data]

Percentage of adults not 

participating in leisure 

time physical activity

(nationally and for each 

State). 

Nationwide, approximately 

26.3 percent of Americans 

are not participating in 

leisure time physical 

activity. 

Decreases in these

percentages reflect 

healthier lifestyle 

behaviors. Reductions 

in State-level 

percentages could 

indicate progress in 

related capacitybuilding efforts at 

community levels. 

Health and 

Social 

Services

Indicator 5: 

Environmental 

Health

No measure at 

this time*

No baseline* No measure at this 

time*

Economic 

Recovery

Indicator 6: 

Employment 

Opportunity

3-year average 

unemployment 

rate

[U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics

Local Area 

Unemployment 

Statistics]

3-year average 

unemployment rate

(nationally and for each 

State) 

From 2012 through 2014, 

the 3-year average national 

unemployment rate was 

7.25 percent.

Decreases in these rates 

generally reflect 

improvement in 

employment conditions. 

Reductions in Statelevel rates over time 

(especially in States 

with rates exceeding the 

national average) could 

indicate progress in 

related capacitybuilding efforts at 

community levels. 

Economic 

Recovery

Indicator 7: 

Income

Per capita income

[U.S. Bureau of 

Economic 

Analysis Local 

Area Personal 

Income]

Per capita income 

(nationally and for each 

State) 

In 2013, the national per 

capita income was 

$46,049.

Increases in per capita 

income generally reflect 

improvements in 

economic conditions. 

Increases in State-level 

per capita income over 

time (especially in 

States below the 

national average) could 

indicate progress in 

related capacitybuilding efforts at 

community levels.

Infrastructure 

Systems

Indicator 8: 

Roadway 

Conditions

No measure at 

this time*

No baseline* No measure at this 

time*
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

Table B-1, continued

▪ Page B-7 ▪

Core 

Capability Indicator Proposed Measure Baseline

Tracking National 

Progress

Infrastructure 

Systems

Indicator 9: 

Transportation 

Connectivity

Percentage of 

public 

transportation 

passenger 

terminals with 

intermodal 

connectivity

[U.S. Bureau of 

Transportation 

Statistics

Intermodal 

Passenger 

Connectivity 

Database)

Percentage of public 

transportation passenger 

terminals with intermodal 

connectivity (nationally

and for each State) 

Nationwide, 56 percent of 

public transportation 

passenger terminals have 

intermodal connectivity.

Increasing percentages 

of intermodal 

connectivity for public 

transportation 

passenger terminals 

generally reflect 

increased transportation 

choices/options.

Increases in State-level 

percentages over time 

could indicate progress 

in related capacitybuilding efforts at 

community levels.

Infrastructure 

Systems

Indicator 10: 

Transit 

Accessibility

Percentage of 

transit system 

stations in 

compliance with 

American with 

Disabilities Act of 

1990 (ADA) 

accessibility 

requirements 

[Federal Transit 

Administration

National Transit 

Database (NTD): 

Transit Stations]

Percentage of transit 

system stations in 

compliance with ADA 

accessibility requirements

(nationally and for each 

State) 

In 2013, approximately 78 

percent of transit stations 

in the NTD were ADA 

compliant and, therefore, 

accessible to people with 

disabilities.

This is a regulatory 

requirement, so 100

percent compliance 

reflects desired 

outcomes. In the few 

instances where Statelevel percentages are 

relatively low in 

comparison to the 

national percentage, 

increases could indicate 

substantial progress in 

related capacitybuilding efforts at 

community levels. In 

States where current 

percentages are 

relatively high (nearing 

100 percent), related 

capacity-building 

efforts could focus on 

improvements that go 

beyond the minimum 

regulatory 

requirements.

Infrastructure 

Systems

Indicator 11: 

Water Sector 

Emergency 

Support

Number of States 

with Mutual Aid 

and Assistance 

Agreements in 

place through 

Water/Wastewater 

Agency Response 

Networks 

(WARN) 

[American Water 

Works 

Association 

WARN]

Number of States with 

WARN agreements in 

place in 2015 (49 total) 

Establishing and 

maintaining WARN 

coverage in all 50 

States reflects a basic 

level of water sector 

emergency support 

capacity. Additional 

State and local 

capacity-building 

efforts could focus on 

maintaining State 

participation and 

expanding the number 

of communities with 

WARN agreements.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

Table B-1, continued

▪ Page B-8 ▪

Core 

Capability Indicator Proposed Measure Baseline

Tracking National 

Progress

Infrastructure 

Systems

Indicator 12: 

Dam Safety

No measure at 

this time*

Considered: 

Percentage of 

high hazard 

potential dams 

with an updated 

Emergency 

Action Plan 

(EAP)

[FEMA and 

USACE EAP 

inventory]

No baseline* No measure at this 

time*

Considered: Percentage 

of dams covered by 

updated EAPs is a 

potential measure of 

community resilience to 

flooding. While EAPs 

are essential to dam 

safety, EAPs alone do

not sufficiently capture 

resilience to damrelated flood hazard. 

Exploring other 

measures is appropriate. 

Infrastructure 

Systems

Indicator 13: 

Integrated 

Infrastructure

Sector 

Preparedness

No measure at 

this time*

Considered: 

Number of 

communities 

participating in 

DHS Regional 

Resilience 

Assessment 

Program (RRAP) 

assessments, as a 

measure of 

community-level 

infrastructure 

sector 

involvement in 

cross-sector 

dependency 

planning.

[DHS RRAP].

No baseline* No measure at this 

time*

Considered: Increased 

community 

participation in RRAP 

was explored as a 

measure of 

infrastructure 

preparedness capacity 

at community levels. A 

weakness was the high 

level of variability 

between RRAP projects 

in terms of the ratio of 

community participants 

to Federal, State, and 

private owners and 

operators of critical 

infrastructure.

Natural and 

Cultural 

Resources

Indicator 14: 

Water 

Conservation

Per capita water 

use for all 

domestic uses

[USGS National 

Water Use 

Report]

Per capita water use for all 

domestic uses (nationally

and for each State) 

In 2010, the average

national per capita water 

use for all domestic uses 

was approximately 88 

gallons per day.

Decreasing per capita 

water use generally 

reflects improved water 

conservation. Decreases 

in State-level per capita 

water use over time 

(especially where they 

exceed national and 

regional averages) 

could indicate 

significant progress in 

related community 

capacity-building 

efforts. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

Table B-1, continued

▪ Page B-9 ▪

Core 

Capability Indicator Proposed Measure Baseline

Tracking National 

Progress

Natural and 

Cultural 

Resources

Indicator 15: 

Wetlands 

Conservation

No measure at 

this time*

Considered: 

Extent (in square 

miles) of wetlands 

land cover change 

in coastal 

watershed 

counties

[NOAA Coastal 

Change Analysis 

Program]

No baseline* No measure at this 

time*

Considered: Decreasing

coastal wetlands loss 

generally reflects 

improved wetlands 

conservation. Statelevel decreases in 

wetlands losses over 

time (especially in 

States with losses above 

the national average) 

could indicate 

significant progress in 

related community 

capacity-building 

efforts. 

Natural and 

Cultural 

Resources

Indicator 16: 

Forest 

Conservation

No measure at 

this time*

Considered: 

Extent (in square 

miles) of forest 

land cover change 

in coastal 

watershed 

counties

[NOAA Coastal 

Change Analysis 

Program]

No baseline* No measure at this 

time*

Considered: Decreasing 

forest loss generally 

reflects improved forest 

conservation outcomes. 

State-level decreases in 

forest losses over time 

(especially in States 

with losses above the 

national average) could 

indicate significant 

progress in related 

community capacitybuilding efforts.

Natural and 

Cultural 

Resources

Indicator 17: 

Habitat 

Quality

No measure at 

this time*

Considered: 

Kilometers of 

scored stream 

reaches with 

Cumulative 

Habitat Condition 

Index scores 

(reflecting 

degradation risk) 

of high or very 

high

[USGS National 

Fish Habitat 

Partnership Data]

No baseline* No measure at this 

time*

Considered: Decreasing

habitat degradation 

risks generally reflects 

improved habitat 

quality. Decreases over 

time in State-level 

percentages of land area 

at a high or very high 

risk for degraded 

habitat could indicate 

progress in related 

community capacitybuilding efforts. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

Table B-1, continued

▪ Page B-10 ▪

Core 

Capability Indicator Proposed Measure Baseline

Tracking National 

Progress

Threats and 

Hazards 

Identification

Indicator 18: 

Risk 

Identification

No measure at 

this time*

Considered: 

Percentage of the 

population 

enabled with new 

or improved flood 

risk products and 

tools

[FEMA Risk 

Mapping, 

Assessment, and 

Planning Program

Deployment 

Metric] 

No baseline* No measure at this 

time*

Considered: Through 

the Risk MAP 

deployment metric, 

FEMA tracks the 

percentage of the U.S. 

population living in 

areas covered by 

recently initiated flood 

hazard mapping 

activities. Strengths of 

the measure include 

national coverage and 

the use of quality 

standards. Weaknesses 

include significant 

variability in both 

community 

involvement and the 

timeframes for starting 

and completing studies. 

Additional or 

alternative metrics 

should be explored.

Risk and 

Disaster 

Resilience 

Assessment 

Indicator 19: 

Risk Data

No measure at 

this time*

Considered: 

Percentage of 

square miles with 

elevation data that 

meets the USGS

3-Dimension 

Elevation 

Program (3DEP)

initiative baselevel 

specifications

[USGS 3DEP] 

No baseline* No measure at this 

time*

Considered: Increasing 

3DEP coverage reflects 

improved availability of 

high-resolution data for 

use in numerous riskrelated mapping, 

modeling, and 

assessment efforts and 

is consistent with 

desired 3DEP program 

outcomes. 

Improvements in the 

State percentages over

time could indicate 

progress in related 

community capacitybuilding efforts.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

Table B-1, continued

▪ Page B-11 ▪

Core 

Capability Indicator Proposed Measure Baseline

Tracking National 

Progress

Risk and 

Disaster 

Resilience 

Assessment 

Indicator 20: 

Risk 

Awareness

No measure at 

this time*

Considered: 

Percentage of 

community 

leaders surveyed 

who are aware of 

community flood 

risks

[FEMA 

Community 

Leadership 

Survey]

No baseline* No measure at this 

time*

Considered: Increases

in the percentage of 

community leaders over

time could indicate 

progress in related 

community capacitybuilding efforts. A 

weakness of the 

measure is the survey 

relies heavily on 

feedback from local 

floodplain management 

officials; therefore, it 

may over-represent 

local community 

leaders’ risk awareness.

Risk and 

Disaster 

Resilience 

Assessment 

Indicator 21: 

Community 

Preparedness

Number of sites 

designated as 

StormReady® 

and/or 

TsunamiReady® 

[NWS 

StormReady® 

and 

TsunamiReady®)

Number of sites designated

as StormReady® and/or 

TsunamiReady® 

(nationally and for each 

State) 

As of February 2016, 

2,402 StormReady® and 

TsunamiReady® sites 

exist nationwide.

Increasing this number 

reflects improvements 

consistent with desired 

StormReady® and 

TsunamiReady® 

program outcomes. 

Increases in the State 

numbers over time 

could indicate progress 

in related community 

capacity-building 

efforts.

Planning Indicator 22: 

Mitigation 

Planning

Percentage of 

population 

residing in 

communities 

covered by a 

current local 

hazard mitigation 

plan

[FEMA National 

Mitigation 

Planning 

Program]

Percentage of the 

population residing in 

communities covered by a 

current local hazard 

mitigation plan (nationally

and for each State) 

As of December 31, 2015, 

over 82 percent of the 

Nation’s population 

(excluding U.S. 

Territories) lives in a 

community with a current 

local hazard mitigation 

plan. 

Increasing the

percentage of 

population covered by a 

current hazard 

mitigation plan reflects 

improvements 

consistent with desired 

National Hazard 

Mitigation Planning 

Program outcomes. 

Increases in the State 

percentages over time 

could indicate progress 

in related community 

capacity-building 

efforts.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

Table B-1, continued

▪ Page B-12 ▪

Core 

Capability Indicator Proposed Measure Baseline

Tracking National 

Progress

Planning Indicator 23: 

Planning 

Integration

No measure at 

this time*

Considered: 

Percentage of 

coastal population 

benefiting from 

the integration of 

hazard 

management into 

coastal planning

[NOAA National 

Coastal Zone 

Management 

Program]

No baseline* No measure at this 

time*

Considered: A high 

percentage generally 

reflects desired coastal 

management program 

outcomes. In most 

coastal States, capacitybuilding efforts are 

expressly included; 

future reporting efforts 

will focus on capturing 

local capacity-building 

outcomes.

Community 

Resilience

Indicator 24: 

Collaborative 

Networks

No measure at 

this time*

Considered and 

included for 

illustrative and 

discussion 

purposes: States 

with State-led 

interagency 

collaboration 

supporting 

disaster risk 

reduction efforts, 

as illustrated by 

USACE Silver 

Jackets program 

State Team 

measure.

No baseline* No measure at this 

time*

Considered: One facet 

of community resilience 

is the capacity to 

engage 

intergovernmental 

collaboration (Federal, 

State, local, Tribal) 

around flood risk 

management as well as 

other disaster risk 

management. Silver 

Jackets team and 

project data provide a 

potential measure of 

this capacity. Exploring 

other potential 

measures in 

combination with, or as 

an alternative to, Silver 

Jackets is appropriate. 

Community 

Resilience

Indicator 25: 

Civic 

Capacity

Percentage of 

individuals 

surveyed who 

performed 

volunteer 

activities for or 

through an 

organization 

during the 

preceding 12-

month period

[Corporation for 

National and 

Community 

Service, Current 

Population 

Survey]

Percentage of individuals 

surveyed who performed 

volunteer activities for or 

through an organization 

during the preceding 12-

month period (nationally

and for each State). 

Nationwide in 2014, 25.3 

percent of the individuals 

surveyed had performed 

volunteer activities during 

the previous year.

Increasing percentages 

generally reflect 

increases in the overall

resilience capacity of 

communities. Increases 

in State-level 

percentages over time 

could indicate 

substantial progress in 

related capacitybuilding efforts at 

community levels.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

Table B-1, continued

▪ Page B-13 ▪

Core 

Capability Indicator Proposed Measure Baseline

Tracking National 

Progress

Long-Term 

Vulnerability 

Reduction

Indicator 26: 

Building 

Codes

Percentage of 

reporting 

communities that 

are subject to one 

or more hazards 

(seismic, 

hurricane or 

floods) that have 

adopted building 

codes with 

disaster resistance 

provisions

[Insurance 

Services 

Office/FEMA 

Building Code 

Effectiveness 

Grading Schedule 

State by State 

Summary of 

Community 

Adoptions]

Percentage of reporting 

communities that are 

subject to one or more 

hazards (seismic, 

hurricane, or flood) and

that have adopted building 

codes with disaster 

resistance provisions

(nationally and for each 

State). 

As of 2015, approximately 

60 percent of the Nation’s 

jurisdictions that are 

subject to seismic, 

hurricane, or flood hazards 

had adopted a building 

code with disaster-specific 

provisions.

Increasing code 

adoptions by at-risk 

communities should 

reflect an increase in 

the overall resilience of 

the built environment.

Increasing State-level 

percentages over time 

could indicate 

substantial progress in 

related capacitybuilding efforts at 

community levels.

Long-Term 

Vulnerability 

Reduction

Indicator 27: 

Higher 

Standards

Percentage of 

National Flood 

Insurance 

Program (NFIP)-

participating 

communities

enrolled in the 

Community 

Rating System 

(CRS with a CRS 

rating of Class 5 

or better

[FEMA CRS 

Communities and 

their Classes]

Percentage of NFIPparticipating communities 

enrolled in the CRS with a 

CRS rating of Class 5 or 

better (nationally and for 

each State) 

As of the date of this 

report, 113 of the 22,875 

NFIP-participating 

communities (0.5 percent) 

enrolled in the CRS have a

CRS rating of Class 5 or 

better. 

Increasing percentages 

represent voluntary 

actions taken by 

communities to apply 

standards that exceed 

minimum NFIP 

requirements. Many of 

these capacity-building 

actions relate to other 

indicators. Increasing 

this percentage reflects 

improvements 

consistent with desired 

CRS outcomes. 

Increases in State-level 

percentages over time 

could indicate 

substantial progress in 

related capacitybuilding efforts at 

community levels.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

Table B-1, continued

▪ Page B-14 ▪

Core 

Capability Indicator Proposed Measure Baseline

Tracking National 

Progress

Long-Term 

Vulnerability 

Reduction

Indicator 28: 

Mitigation 

Investment

No measure at 

this time*

Considered: 

Percentage of 

total public 

infrastructure 

disaster relief 

funds spent on 

Section 406 

(Stafford Act) 

Mitigation for 

disasters in the 

preceding 5-year 

period

[FEMA 

Enterprise Data 

Warehouse 

EMMIE Public 

Assistance Data]

No baseline*

Considered: Percentage of 

total public infrastructure 

disaster relief funds spent 

on Section 406 Mitigation 

for disasters in the 

preceding 5-year period

(nationally and for each 

State) 

No measure at this 

time*

Considered: Increasing 

Section 406 Mitigation 

spending could indicate 

a corresponding 

increase in State and 

community capacity to 

reduce long-term risk to 

public infrastructure.

Because Section 406 

Mitigation represents 

only a portion of overall 

mitigation assistance 

available to 

communities (other 

sources of funding 

include FEMA Hazard 

Mitigation Assistance 

programs and HUD 

Community 

Development Block 

Grant disaster grants), 

other measures should 

be considered. 

Long-Term 

Vulnerability 

Reduction

Indicator 28: 

Mitigation 

Investment

Percentage of 

SBA home 

disaster loan 

funds spent on 

mitigation 

assistance

[SBA Disaster 

Loans] 

Percentage of SBA home 

disaster loan funds spent 

on mitigation assistance

(nationally and for each 

State that report SBA 

home disaster loans) 

In 2014, in the 28 States 

that reported SBA home 

disaster loans, loan 

recipients spent an average 

of 0.5 percent of loan 

funds on mitigation 

assistance.

Increasing the SBA

loan- based mitigation 

investment over time 

could indicate 

substantial progress in 

related capacitybuilding efforts at

community levels.

*For those indicators with no baseline or no measure at this time, further discussion and investigation into the potential

programs to support the desired indicator are necessary and ongoing.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-15 ▪

Indicator 1: Housing Condition

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Families living in housing units that are well maintained and consistent with current building standards are 

typically more resilient to hazards than families that are living in poor housing conditions. Substandard 

housing may be more susceptible to the impacts of hazards, resulting in property damage, injury, or death 

during an event and extensive repair costs in both time and money after an event. These costs are especially 

challenging for the typically lower-income families that occupy housing units with severe problems. 

Communities taking actions to reduce high concentrations of substandard housing are increasing 

community resilience capacity by improving housing quality and reducing the housing-related disaster 

vulnerabilities.

PROPOSED MEASURE

Proposed Measure: Percentage of households living with at least one of four severe housing 

problems (5-year average) 

Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, provided by the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD), offer a wide range of information about housing conditions. The CHAS 

data used for this report are the percentage of households living with one of four severe housing problems 

(5-year average). The four housing problems are (1) incomplete kitchen facilities, (2) incomplete plumbing 

facilities, (3) more than one person per room, and (4) rental or mortgage costs that are greater than 50 

percent of household income. CHAS data are the best available data for this topic; the four housing 

problems serve as a proxy for overall housing condition. 

For Indicator 1: Housing Condition, the GIS web mapping application, available at http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, 

presents the percentage of occupied households living with at least one of the four severe housing problems 

mentioned above. 

Indicator 1: Housing Condition

Proposed Measure: Percentage of households living with at least one of four severe housing 

problems (5- year average)

Data Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Housing Conditions 

Data

Data Publisher: HUD Year: 2008-2012 (5-Year Average)

Data Download: http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/data_download_chas.html
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-16 ▪

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY 

Nationwide, approximately 42.7 million of 116.4 million (37 percent) households have one of the four 

severe housing problems. At the State level, the percentage of total housing units with one of four housing 

problems ranges from 22 to 49 percent. Table B-2 presents the percentage of occupied housing units with 

severe housing problems for all 50 States, Washington DC, and Puerto Rico. At the county level, the range 

of housing units with severe problems is 3 to 76 percent. 

Lower rates of housing problems reflect higher housing-related community resilience capacity. Decreases 

in the percentage of housing units with these severe housing problems would demonstrate capacity-building 

progress over time. 

Table B-2. Number and Percentage of Housing Units

with One of Four Severe Housing Problems by State 

State Percentage

U.S. 37

AL 30

AK 37

AZ 38

AR 29

CA 49

CO 36

CT 40

DE 34

DC 40

FL 43

GA 36

HI 48

ID 33

State Percentage

IL 37

IN 29

IA 25

KS 28

KY 29

LA 30

ME 34

MD 37

MA 38

MI 34

MN 32

MS 32

MO 30

MT 31

State Percentage

NE 27

NV 43

NH 37

NJ 44

NM 33

NY 42

NC 33

ND 22

OH 32

OK 28

OR 40

PA 32

RI 40

SC 32

State Percentage

SD 25

TN 31

TX 34

UT 33

VT 37

VA 34

WA 38

WV 23

WI 33

WY 25

PR 46

Note: Values shown are for 

2008-2012

*This section provides a State-level aggregation of community- or county-level data. See the map viewer

for detailed local datasets.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-17 ▪

Indicator 2: Housing Affordability

RESILIENCE INDICATOR RELEVANCE 

Households not overburdened by housing costs are able to invest in property enhancements, have financial 

flexibility for post-disaster uncertainties, and generally have more capacity to absorb and bounce back from 

unanticipated events. The availability of affordable and accessible housing affects the resilience capacity 

of vulnerable individuals and households, and is especially critical to effective disaster recovery at the 

community scale. Understanding and overcoming housing affordability and accessibility challenges 

improves community resilience capacity at multiple levels.

PROPOSED MEASURE

Proposed Measure: Percentage of households that are cost burdened (monthly housing costs, 

including utilities, exceed 30 percent of monthly income).

CHAS data, provided by HUD, offer a wide range of information about housing conditions. The CHAS 

data used for this measure provide the percentage of households spending more than 30 percent of their 

income on housing costs, including utilities.2

 

For Indicator 2: Housing Affordability, the GIS web mapping application, available at 

http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, presents the 5-year average (2008-2012) percentage of cost-burdened (overpaying) 

households at the county level. 

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

For the period of 2008-2012, the 5-year average national cost-burdened housing rate was approximately 32 

percent. In other words, roughly one in three households in the U.S. were spending more than 30 percent 

of their income on housing and utilities. At the county level, the rate of overpayment ranges from 

approximately 5 percent to nearly 50 percent. Counties with high cost-burdened housing rates have more 

housing affordability and accessibility challenges and less community resilience capacity. A reduction in 

2 The 30-percent threshold is a payment standard used by HUD and the USDA and ensures that households do not 

have excessive rent burdens and do have income available for non-housing living expenses.

Indicator 2: Housing Affordability

Proposed Measure: Percentage of households that are cost burdened (monthly housing costs, 

including utilities, exceed 30 percent of monthly income) 

Indicator Data: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)

Data Publisher: HUD Year: 2008-2012 (5-Year Average)

Data Download: http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/data_download_chas.html
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-18 ▪

the overpayment rate over time reflects improved housing affordability and accessibility and indicates 

progress in building housing-related community resilience capacity. Table B-3 presents the 5-year average 

overpayment rates by State. 

Table B-3. Percentage of Cost-Burdened and Severely Cost-Burdened Households by State

(2008-2012 5-Year Averages) 

State Percent 

U.S. 32

AL 27

AK 27

AZ 33

AR 25

CA 40

CO 33

CT 37

DE 31

DC 36

FL 39

GA 32

HI 37

ID 29

State Percent 

IL 33

IN 26

IA 23

KS 25

KY 26

LA 27

ME 31

MD 34

MA 36

MI 32

MN 29

MS 28

MO 27

MT 28

State Percent 

NE 24

NV 38

NH 35

NJ 40

NM 28

NY 37

NC 30

ND 20

OH 29

OK 25

OR 35

PA 30

RI 37

SC 29

State Percent 

SD 22

TN 28

TX 28

UT 29

VT 34

VA 31

WA 34

WV 21

WI 30

WY 22

Source: HUD 2008-2012 

CHAS 5-Year Averages 

*This section provides a State-level aggregation of community- or county-level data. See the map viewer

for detailed local datasets.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-19 ▪

Indicator 3: Health Care Availability 

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

As noted in the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, health care organizations play a key role in community 

resilience.

3 Communities with high concentrations of primary care physicians tend to have higher levels of 

overall physical and mental health.4 High levels of baseline community health are important for resilience 

because communities with healthy residents are better able to absorb the impacts of, and recover from, 

disasters. Primary care physician accessibility also is important for disaster response and recovery, when 

many injuries or health-related impacts may result from an event. 

PROPOSED MEASURE

Proposed Measure: Number of primary care physicians per 100,000 residents

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) Area Health Resources Files (AHRF) provides 

a comprehensive set of data offering a broad range of health resources and information, including the 

number of primary care physicians among local populations. A greater concentration of primary care 

physicians implies that health care options are more accessible.

For Indicator 3: Health Care Availability, the GIS web mapping application, available at 

http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, presents the number of primary care physicians per 100,000 residents for each 

county in the U.S. 

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

In the U.S., approximately 78 primary care physicians are available per 100,000 residents. At the county 

level, the number of primary care physicians per 100,000 residents ranges from 0 to over 400, with the 

average being around 50. Generally, communities with lower rates of primary care physician availability

have more challenges with health-related resilience capacity. Although the relationship between the number

of primary care physicians and the populations they serve is complicated, an increase in primary care 

3 https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/human-health/building-climate-resilience-health-sector

4 Cutter, Susan, Kevin Ash, and Christopher Emrich. 2014. “The Geographies of Community Disaster Resilience.” 

Global Environmental Change: 29. Page 65-77.

Indicator 3:Health Care Availability

Proposed Measure: Number of primary care physicians per 100,000 residents

Data Source: Area Health Resources Files

Data Publisher: U.S. Department of Health and Human Service Year: 2013

Data Download: http://ahrf.hrsa.gov/download.htm
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-20 ▪

physicians per 100,000 residents would generally reflect capacity-building progress. Table B-4 presents 

primary care physician concentrations for each State and the District of Columbia. 

Table B-4. Primary Care Physicians per 100,000 Residents, by State (2013)

State

Primary Care 

Physicians 

per 100,000 

Residents

U.S. 78

AL 64

AK 87

AZ 69

AR 66

CA 81

CO 85

CT 86

DE 75

DC 124

FL 75

GA 67

HI 89

State

Primary Care 

Physicians 

per 100,000 

Residents

ID 65

IL 81

IN 68

IA 75

KS 76

KY 68

LA 66

ME 110

MD 92

MA 108

MI 81

MN 93

MS 54

State

Primary Care 

Physicians 

per 100,000 

Residents

MO 71

MT 78

NE 76

NV 59

NH 94

NJ 87

NM 77

NY 85

NC 73

ND 85

OH 77

OK 66

OR 96

State

Primary Care 

Physicians 

per 100,000 

Residents

PA 83

RI 95

SC 69

SD 79

TN 74

TX 63

UT 60

VT 114

VA 78

WA 87

WV 78

WI 83

WY 69

*This section provides a State-level aggregation of community- or county-level data. See the map viewer

for detailed local datasets.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-21 ▪

Indicator 4: Healthy Behaviors 

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Resilient communities promote individual and community physical, behavioral, and social health to 

strengthen their communities for daily, as well as extreme, challenges. In general, communities with good 

baseline mental and physical health are more resilient to disasters than communities with high 

concentrations of health-related needs are. Individual mental and physical health and resilience is important 

for community resilience because healthy, socially connected, prepared people make for stronger 

communities that are better able to withstand, manage, and recover from disasters. Promoting wellness and 

encouraging healthy behaviors alongside disaster preparedness can help communities face everyday 

challenges as well as major disruptions or disasters.

PROPOSED MEASURE

Proposed Measure: Percentage of adult population that does not participate in any leisure-time 

physical activity 

Leisure time physical activity is critical to overall health, both physical and mental. As noted by the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), regular physical activity helps improve overall health and 

fitness and reduces personal risk for many chronic diseases. Communities with high concentrations of 

physical inactivity tend to have poorer health, including higher rates of diabetes. The CDC collects data on 

physical activity at the county and State level. As part of its data collection process, the CDC asks survey 

respondents:

During the past month, other than your regular job, did you participate in any physical 

activities or exercises such as running, calisthenics, golf, gardening, or walking for 

exercise?

Respondents who answer “no” indicate that they do not participate in any leisure time physical activity. A 

higher percentage of inactive residents implies poorer physical and mental health. 

Indicator 4:Healthy Behaviors

Proposed Measure: Percentage of adult population that does not participate in any leisure-time 

physical activity

Data Source: Diabetes County Level Data 

Data Publisher: CDC Year: 2013

Data Download: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/county.html
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-22 ▪

For Indicator 4, the GIS web mapping application, available at http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, presents the ageadjusted percentage of the population that does not participate in any leisure time activity, for each county 

in the U.S.

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

Nationwide, approximately 26.3 percent of Americans are not physically active outside of their workplace. 

Inactivity at the county level ranges from 9.3 percent to 40.6 percent. A reduction in these inactivity rates 

over time, especially in communities with higher than average rates, would indicate improvements in 

health-related resilience capacity. Table B-5 presents physical inactivity concentrations for each State and 

the District of Columbia.

5

 

Table B-5. Percentage of Adults Who Engage in No Leisure-Time Physical Activity (2013)

State Percentage

U.S. 26.3

AL 31.5

AK 22.3

AZ 25.2

AR 34.4

CA 21.4

CO 17.9

CT 24.9

DE 27.8

DC 19.5

FL 27.7

GA 27.2

HI 22.1

ID 23.7

IL 25.1

IN 31.0

KS 26.5

State Percentage

KY 30.2

LA 32.2

ME 23.3

MD 25.3

MA 23.5

MI 24.4

MN 23.5

MS 38.1

MO 28.3

MT 22.5

NE 25.3

NV 23.7

NH 22.4

NJ 26.8

NM 24.3

NY 26.7

ND 27.6

State Percentage

OH 28.5

OK 33.0

OR 18.5

PA 26.3

RI 26.9

SC 26.9

SD 23.8

TN 37.2

TX 30.1

UT 20.6

VT 20.5

VA 25.5

WA 20.0

WV 31.4

WI 23.8

WY 25.1

*This section provides a State-level aggregation of community- or county-level data. See the map viewer

for detailed local datasets.

5 County-level data are for 2012 and come from the CDC diabetes data website 

(http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/county.html). State data are not publicly available for this resource; State and 

national estimates were obtained from the same method and author (CDC) but were published for 2013. The State- level data are available at http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/DNPAO/index.html. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-23 ▪

Indicator 5: Environmental Health

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

A number of environmental factors, such as air and water quality, can directly affect individual and 

community health status. Areas with concentrated environmental health risks can increase disaster impacts 

by increasing underlying vulnerabilities and amplifying the impact on individuals with access and 

functional needs. Poor air quality contributes to health conditions including cancers, cardiovascular disease, 

asthma, and other illnesses that can compound disaster vulnerabilities. In addition, many areas with high 

environmental health hazard risks also face other socioeconomic challenges that can exacerbate disaster 

impacts. Improving environmental health and reducing the prevalence of related diseases increases 

community resilience capacity.

PROPOSED MEASURE 

Although the project team explored a number of options related to air and water quality, the team did not 

identify an appropriate Federal dataset that met minimum project criteria for this indicator. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-24 ▪

Indicator 6: Employment Opportunity

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

A community’s general economic vitality and employment levels, among several other factors6 are related. 

High employment rates indicate community stability and a general economic ability to absorb disaster 

impacts and recover quickly. Communities with high unemployment, on the other hand, tend to have more 

residents who are disproportionately impacted in disasters. The factors that lead to unemployment at the 

local level vary greatly from community to community and can often represent structural or entrenched 

conditions that may be very difficult to change with local actions. The unemployment rate also does little 

to tell a story about labor market participation, or the types of industry, work, and working conditions 

present in a community. For instance, if unemployment rates are low but one or two employers are primarily 

responsible for employment in the community, the community may be more vulnerable than indicated by 

the unemployment rate alone. As such, employment opportunity should be just one of many variables used

when considering a community’s economic vitality and resiliency. 

PROPOSED MEASURE

Proposed Measure: 3-year average unemployment rate

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics provides annual unemployment estimates for each county and State in 

the U.S. Unemployment data may have wide year-to-year variability; therefore, this report provides 3-year 

unemployment rate averages. 

For Indicator 6: Employment Opportunity, the GIS web mapping application, available at 

http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, presents the 3-year average (2012-2014) unemployment rate by county. 

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

From 2012 through 2014, the 3-year average national unemployment rate was 7.25 percent. The 3-year 

average unemployment rate at the county level ranged from 1.2 percent to 25.7 percent. Counties with lower 

6 Cutter, Susan, Kevin Ash, and Christopher Emrich. 2014. “The Geographies of Community Disaster Resilience.” 

Global Environmental Change: 29. Page 65-77.

Indicator 6 –Employment Opportunity

Proposed Measure: 3-year average unemployment rate

Data Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics

Data Publisher: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)Year: 2012-2014

Data Download: http://www.bls.gov/lau/tables.htm
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-25 ▪

unemployment levels would be more likely to have economic stability and vitality. A reduction in the 

unemployment rate would generally indicate progress in building community resilience capacity. Table B-6

shows the 3-year average unemployment rates for each State and the District of Columbia. 

Table B-6. Unemployment Rate by State (3-Year Average, 2012-2014)

State Unemployment Rate

U.S. 7.25

AL 7.33

AK 6.93

AZ 7.70

AR 7.03

CA 8.93

CO 6.53

CT 7.53

DE 6.53

DC 8.43

FL 7.37

GA 8.20

HI 5.07

ID 6.03

IL 8.40

IN 7.33

IA 4.73

KS 5.20

State Unemployment Rate

KY 7.57

LA 6.73

ME 6.60

MD 6.47

MA 6.40

MI 8.43

MN 4.87

MS 8.50

MO 6.60

MT 5.37

NE 3.70

NV 9.50

NH 4.97

NJ 8.03

NM 6.83

NY 7.50

NC 7.73

ND 2.93

State Unemployment Rate

OH 6.87

OK 5.03

OR 7.87

PA 7.03

RI 9.13

SC 7.73

SD 3.83

TN 7.43

TX 6.00

UT 4.63

VT 4.50

VA 5.63

WA 7.10

WV 6.90

WI 6.43

WY 4.77

*This section provides a State-level aggregation of community- or county-level data. See the map viewer

for detailed local datasets.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-26 ▪

Indicator 7: Income 

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Across sociodemographic groups, income builds adaptive capacity and allows individuals to prepare for, 

respond to, and recover from disasters. Individuals with low incomes are less likely to have access to highquality housing units, social support networks, or other resources to limit their exposure to hazards. They 

are also less able to recover and rebuild their quality of life when disaster results in the destruction of their 

property or adverse impacts to their health. They may be unable to afford housing in a new location, or pay

for repairs and disaster-related medical bills. Conversely, higher income individuals tend to live in higher 

quality, more resilient housing and have the financial capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recover from 

disasters. Given how closely income and resilience capacity are related, a significant need and opportunity 

exists to improve local community resilience capacity through economic development initiatives and 

programs. Additional information, such as income distribution, cost of living ratios, and poverty thresholds, 

is necessary for a more in-depth perspective on income-related capacity and vulnerabilities.

PROPOSED MEASURE

Proposed Measure: Per capita income

The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides per capita local area personal income, which BEA 

calculates as the total personal income of the residents of a given area divided by the resident population of 

the area. BEA uses the U.S. Census Bureau annual mid-year population estimates to determine the resident 

population at the county level. Local area personal income includes the following: (1) sum of wages and 

salaries; (2) supplements to wages and salaries; (3) proprietors' income with inventory valuation and capital 

consumption adjustments; (4) rental income of persons with capital consumption adjustment; (5) personal 

dividend income; (6) personal interest income; and (7) personal current transfer receipts, less contributions 

for government social insurance, plus the adjustment for residence. BEA measures personal income before 

the deduction of personal income taxes and other personal taxes reports it in current dollars. 

For Indicator 7: Income, the GIS web mapping application, available at http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, presents

per capita income ranges by county. 

Indicator 7:Income 

Proposed Measure: Per capita income

Data Source: Local Area Personal Income

Data Publisher: BEA Year: 2015

Data Download: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/lapi/lapi_newsrelease.htm
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-27 ▪

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

In 2013, the national per capita income was $46,049. Per capita income at the county level ranged from 

$17,536 to $121,632. In general, those communities with higher per capita income have higher economic 

resilience capacity. An increase in per capita income over time, especially for communities below national 

or regional averages, would generally indicate resilience capacity-building progress. Table B-7 presents the 

per capita income for each State and the District of Columbia. 

Table B-7. Per Capita Income by State* (2013)

State Per Capita Income

U.S. $46,049

AL $36,481

AK $50,150

AZ $36,983

AR $36,698

CA $48,434

CO $46,897

CT $60,658

DE $44,815

DC $75,329

FL $41,497

GA $37,845

HI $45,204

ID $36,146

IL $46,980

IN $38,622

IA $44,763

KS $44,417

State Per Capita Income

KY $36,214

LA $41,204

ME $40,924

MD $53,826

MA $57,248

MI $39,055

MN $47,500

MS $33,913

MO $40,663

MT $39,366

NE $47,157

NV $39,235

NH $51,013

NJ $55,386

NM $35,965

NY $54,462

NC $38,683

ND $53,182

State Per Capita Income

OH $41,049

OK $41,861

OR $39,848

PA $46,202

RI $46,989

SC $35,831

SD $46,039

TN $39,558

TX $43,862

UT $36,640

VT $45,483

VA $48,838

WA $47,717

WV $35,533

WI $43,244

WY $52,826

*This section provides a State-level aggregation of community- or county-level data. See the map viewer

for detailed local datasets.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-28 ▪

Indicator 8: Roadway Conditions

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

A community’s transportation system is the core of its economy and its disaster response and recovery 

system. In the response phase of a disaster, sufficient transportation infrastructure ensures that residents can 

evacuate and emergency responders can reach areas in need. After a disaster, functioning transportation 

infrastructure is critical for economic and physical recovery. Roads and bridges are a critical part of the 

transportation network. 

Bridges traverse significant geological features, including canyons, rivers, and water bodies, that interrupt 

the roadway path. Bridge loss during a disaster can dramatically increase the time for emergency responders 

to reach a disaster area or reduce the ability for individuals to evacuate. Poor physical conditions may have 

a negative impact on a bridge’s ability to maintain its intended function to convey highway traffic during 

and after a disaster, as well as affect its performance. 

PROPOSED MEASURE

Although the project team explored a number of measurement options related to road and bridge function, 

the team did not identify an appropriate Federal dataset that met minimum project criteria for this indicator.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-29 ▪

Indicator 9: Transportation Connectivity

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Transportation alternatives provide several resilience-related benefits. Good transportation options and 

alternatives make places more attractive for economic development and give people more options for 

walking, bicycling, and other active transportation methods, thereby improving individual health. 

Redundancies in key transportation systems and the availability of transportation alternatives can also be 

critical to community recovery. Transportation alternatives rely on the availability of adequate multimodal 

infrastructure and effective connectivity between different modes. Public transportation terminals that only 

serve a single mode of transportation are more exposed to impacts from service disruption, while 

multimodal stations have redundant systems in place. For example, if an earthquake buckles train rails, a 

multimodal station that has the capacity to provide bus, airplane, or ferry service allows evacuations to 

occur under a different transportation mode.

The emergency response efforts undertaken for Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Katrina illustrate the 

importance of public transportation options during an emergency event. During certain events, access to 

buses, airplanes, trains, and ferries is critical for mass evacuation. Public transportation terminals are often

strategically important during evacuation as the public knows where they are, they are generally in areas 

accessible to the public, and they provide easy staging areas for evacuation vehicles. 

PROPOSED MEASURE

Proposed Measure: Percentage of public transportation passenger terminals with intermodal 

connectivity

The Intermodal Passenger Connectivity Database (IPCD), managed by the U.S. Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS), provides a national quantification of the degree of connectivity in the passenger 

transportation system.7 BTS collects the data on an ongoing basis. As the passenger transportation system 

7 The IPCD does not include on-demand transportation (i.e., hotel shuttles, taxis, private transportation services, 

paratransit). The IPCD only includes the scheduled passenger transportation modes such as intercity, commuter and 

transit rail; scheduled air service; intercity and transit bus; and intercity and transit ferry services. 

Indicator 9: Transportation Connectivity

Proposed Measure: Percentage of public transportation passenger terminals with intermodal 

connectivity

Data Source: Intermodal Passenger Connectivity Database (IPCD)

Data Publisher: Bureau of Transportation Statistics Year: August 2013

Data Download: http://www.transtats.bts.gov/IPCD.aspx?DB_ID=640andLink=0
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-30 ▪

changes daily, data updates for specific facilities may lag behind actual change dates; however, it is valid 

to use the data to present an overall picture and analyze long-term progress toward increased connectivity.8

For Indicator 9: Transportation Connectivity, the GIS web mapping application, available at 

http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, presents the percentage of public transportation terminals with intermodal 

connectivity, by State.

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

Nationwide, 56 percent of public transportation terminals have intermodal connectivity. Table B-8 presents 

the percentage of public transportation terminals with intermodal connectivity for each State and the District 

of Columbia. An increase over time in the percentage of public transportation passenger terminals with 

intermodal connectivity would indicate improved resilience capacity.

Table B-8. Percentage of Intermodal Public Transportation Facilities by State (2013)

State

Percentage 

Intermodal

U.S. 56.0

AL 27.3

AK 10.4

AZ 57.9

AR 30.8

CA 77.1

CO 40.7

CT 67.1

DE 100.0

DC 95.9

FL 73.9

GA 52.7

HI 14.3

ID 16.3

IL 77.4

IN 39.0

IA 38.6

KS 25.0

State

Percentage 

Intermodal

KY 36.0

LA 50.9

ME 35.1

MD 78.7

MA 67.1

MI 30.4

MN 43.3

MS 14.3

MO 40.0

MT 13.6

NE 3.3

NV 64.0

NH 43.6

NJ 63.4

NM 29.5

NY 63.4

NC 50.5

ND 16.2

State

Percentage 

Intermodal

OH 44.5

OK 17.9

OR 53.9

PA 49.8

RI 56.0

SC 26.8

SD 10.7

TN 45.5

TX 50.5

UT 65.8

VT 50.0

VA 71.8

WA 66.9

WV 32.1

WI 41.6

WY 17.1

8 Data summaries presented here are from the IPCD on August 2013. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-31 ▪

Indicator 10: Transit Accessibility 

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE 

The national transit system is composed of hundreds of local transit providers that operate over 140,000 

vehicles, travel over 48 billion annual passenger miles, and collect over $8.5 billion in annual passenger 

fares.9 Transit plays many roles in maintaining social, economic, and environmental systems, including 

providing affordable and less polluting commute alternatives for workers, as well as access to services for

individuals with access and functional needs. The latter is especially important in disaster response and 

recovery. For disaster response purposes, transit provides an evacuation method for many of the individuals 

who are most disproportionately impacted, including people without access to their own transportation and 

people with disabilities. For recovery purposes, transit is important for helping individuals who may be 

disproportionately impacted to access medical and social services, as well as their places of employment. 

Given the importance of transit for disaster response and recovery for individuals who are 

disproportionately impacted, particularly individuals with disabilities, transit station accessibility is a 

critical requirement for resilient communities. 

PROPOSED MEASURE

Proposed Measure: Percentage of transit system stations in compliance with ADA accessibility 

requirements 

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides national transit system data through the National 

Transit Database (NTD). The U.S. Congress established the NTD to be the Nation’s primary source for 

transit system information and statistics. By statute, recipients or beneficiaries of certain grants from the 

FTA must submit data to the NTD.10 As part of this data submission, local transit authorities report on both 

the total number of transit stations and the number of transit stations that are compliant with the 

requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). These data generally reflect urban 

accessibility conditions; future efforts should include pursuing additional data to better reflect rural 

accessibility conditions. 

9 http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/ntd.htm

10 http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/ntd.htm

Indicator 10:Transit Accessibility

Proposed Measure: Percentage of transit system stations in compliance with ADA accessibility 

requirements

Data Source: National Transit Database (NTD): Transit Stations

Data Publisher: Federal Transit Administration Year: 2013

Data Download: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/datbase/2013_database/

201320Transit20Station.xls
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-32 ▪

For Indicator 10: Transit Accessibility, the GIS web mapping application, available at 

http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, presents information on the States with less than 100 percent of transit system 

stations in compliance with ADA accessibility requirements.

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

In 2013, approximately 78 percent of the transit stations in the NTD were ADA compliant and therefore 

accessible to people with disabilities. At the State level, the percentage of stations that are ADA compliant

ranges from 40 to 100 percent. Table B-9 presents information on the percentage of ADA-compliant transit 

stations in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. ADA requirements are mandatory; 

therefore, national and State totals should be moving toward 100 percent compliance over time. 

Table B-9. ADA-Compliant Transit Stations in the NTD by State (2013) 

State

ADACompliant 

Stations

Total 

Stations

Percent 

ADACompliant 

Stations

U.S. 4,103 5,262 78

AK 14 14 100

AL 12 12 100

AR 3 3 100

AZ 43 43 100

CA 701 707 99

CO 66 66 100

CT 13 14 93

DC 86 86 100

DE 9 9 100

FL 123 123 100

GA 67 67 100

HI 4 4 100

IA 10 10 100

ID 2 2 100

IL 315 431 73

IN 29 36 81

KS 3 3 100

KY 6 6 100

LA 28 28 100

MA 284 363 78

MD 82 100 82

ME 4 4 100

MI 31 32 97

MN 117 119 98

MO 77 85 91

MS 8 8 100

State

ADACompliant 

Stations

Total 

Stations

Percent 

ADACompliant 

Stations

MT 19 19 100

NC 48 48 100

ND 4 4 100

NE 2 2 100

NH 10 10 100

NJ 205 312 66

NM 18 18 100

NV 16 16 100

NY 316 795 40

OH 73 100 73

OK 10 10 100

OR 77 78 99

PA 300 600 50

PR 78 78 100

RI 1 1 100

SC 10 10 100

SD 2 2 100

TN 30 30 100

TX 369 369 100

UT 102 102 100

VA 59 60 98

VT 2 2 100

WA 178 182 98

WI 19 21 90

WV 18 18 100

WY 0 4 0
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-33 ▪

Indicator 11: Water Sector Emergency 

Support

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Water and wastewater services are vital for human activity and the Nation’s economy, as well as preventing 

disease and protecting the environment. If communities cannot ensure water service during emergencies, 

critical services, such as firefighting and health care (hospitals), as well as other dependent and 

interdependent sectors, such as energy, transportation, and food and agriculture, would suffer damaging 

effects. As a result, the recovery time is prolonged. To increase resilience, communities should have plans 

to ensure continuity of operations, including procedures designed to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover 

from all hazards. 

PROPOSED MEASURE

Proposed Measure: Number of States with Mutual Aid and Assistance Agreements in place 

through WARN

EPA, per Presidential Policy Directive 21, is the Federal lead for strengthening the security and resilience 

of the Nation’s water and wastewater infrastructure. As the Federal lead, EPA has encouraged the 

establishment of Water/Wastewater Agency Response Networks (WARNs), which are networks or utilitieshelping-utilities governed by a common mutual aid and assistance agreement, in each State. WARNs 

provide a means whereby water and wastewater utilities provide and receive emergency aid and assistance 

necessary due to sustained or anticipated damages from natural or human-caused incidents. Intrastate 

emergency aid and assistance may include personnel, equipment, materials, and other associated services 

to restore critical operations impacted during an emergency. 

For Indicator 11: Water Sector Emergency Support, the GIS web mapping application, available at 

http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, presents information on the States with established WARNs. 

Indicator 11: Water Sector Emergency Support

Proposed Measure: States with Mutual Aid and Assistance Agreements in place through WARN

Data Source: Water/Wastewater Agency Response Networks (WARN)

Data Publisher: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Year: 2015

Data Download: http://www.NationalWARN.org
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-34 ▪

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

The National Capital Region and 49 States have established WARNs. While Mississippi does not have an 

official WARN, it does have a mutual aid program through EPA. Statewide WARNs provide a single 

agreement to access water resources through the State. Communities located in States with established 

WARNs are more resilient because communities and States can use the WARNs to respond quickly to 

incidents of any size, from minor well malfunctions to complete service disruptions, with or without a 

government emergency declaration. 

Tracking whether States have mutual aid and assistance programs in place through WARNs is the most 

basic level of water mutual aid resilience measurement. The level of resilience increases with the number 

of utilities that are members of the WARNs and the percentage of the State’s population served by those 

WARNs. Future collection and tracking of local agreements could provide a more robust measure of 

resilience. 

States also can increase resilience by integrating WARNs with interstate mutual aid and assistance 

agreements, such as the National Emergency Management Agency Emergency Management Assistance 

Compact.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-35 ▪

Indicator 12: Dam Safety

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

As of the 2013 update, the National Inventory of Dams (NID) including information for more than 87,000 

dams. As a critical part of our nation’s infrastructure, dams provide benefits that all Americans enjoy, such 

as flood risk reduction, hydropower generation, water supply, and recreation. However, due to the nature 

of water storage, dams can pose a flooding risk to nearby and downstream communities. Dam hazards can 

occur in a number of ways. Dam failure, or the destruction of a dam, can occur from a natural hazard event, 

failure or incorrect operation of a project feature that compromises the structure, or by intentionally 

destructive human actions. Failures can lead to devastating loss of life and property for downstream areas. 

Overtopping of a dam can contribute to non-breach inundation risks or lead to possible failure of the 

structure. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) compiles the NID from 68 sources, including 18 Federal 

agencies, 49 States, and Puerto Rico. The information collected includes a classification of the dam’s hazard 

potential. The FEMA Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety classifies high hazard potential to a structure 

“where failure or mis-operation will probably cause loss of human life”; significant hazard potential to a 

structure “where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life but can cause economic 

loss, environmental damage, disruption to lifeline facilities, or can impact other concerns”; and low hazard 

potential to a structure “where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life and low 

economic and/or environmental losses.” 

The NID also collects related data, such as owner information, geometry, and Emergency Action Plan 

status. The NID does not include every dam in the U.S. Dams not meeting the minimum criteria for 

inclusion in the pose no threat to human life, very little economic damage (limited to dam owner), and are 

small in height and storage.

PROPOSED MEASURE

The project team has not fully developed a proposed measure for this indicator.

Considered Measure: Percentage of high hazard potential dams with an updated Emergency 

Action Plan (EAP) 

The project team considered using the percentage of high hazard potential dams with an updated EAP by 

State as a measure to support Indicator 12: Dam Safety. However, this measure is insufficient on its own to 

quantify dam safety. Additional indicators, such as an emergency evacuation plan, a hazard mitigation plan, 

and action to mitigate dam infrastructure-specific risks, are also important.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-36 ▪

FEMA provides guidelines for developing EAPs for dams. An EAP is a formal document that identifies 

potential emergency conditions at a dam and specifies actions that dam owners/operators must follow to 

minimize loss of life and property damage. EAPs should include the following: 11

1. Actions the dam owner will take to moderate or alleviate a problem at the dam;

2. Actions the dam owner will take, and in coordination with emergency management, authorities, to

respond to incidents or emergencies related to the dam;

3. Procedures dam owners will follow to issue early warning and notification messages to responsible

downstream emergency management authorities;

4. Inundation maps to help dam owners and emergency management authorities identify critical

infrastructure and population-at-risk sites that may require protective measures, warning, and

evacuation planning; and

5. Delineation of the responsibilities of all those involved in managing an incident or emergency and

how the responsibilities should be coordinated.

11 http://www.fema.gov/media-library- data/5b20db599c212f77fd5e85d256f471a3/EAP%20Federal%20Guidelines_FEMA%20P-64.pdf
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-37 ▪

Indicator 13: Integrated Infrastructure 

Sector Preparedness

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

The resilience of community infrastructure systems depends not just on the functioning of each individual 

infrastructure sector, but on how sectors collectively anticipate and address system interdependencies that 

can have a ripple effect in a hazard event. Community medical services, for example, rely on access to 

telecommunications services, which in turn depend on the continuity of electric power in an emergency. 

When one system is impacted, the risk of a cascading effect of loss and damage can be significant, and 

communities need to assess, plan, and prepare for the continuity of services across sectors in a disaster. 

PROPOSED MEASURES

The project team has not fully developed a proposed measure for this indicator. 

One Federal program with potentially relevant data for consideration is the Regional Resiliency Assessment 

Program (RRAP). The RRAP is a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-led cooperative 

assessment of specific critical infrastructure within a designated geographic area and a regional analysis of 

the surrounding infrastructure. The RRAP addresses a range of hazards that could have regionally and 

nationally significant consequences. Each RRAP project will typically include yearlong data collection and 

analysis, followed by continued technical assistance in support of resilience. 

Each year, DHS selects voluntary, non-regulatory RRAP projects with input and guidance from Federal 

and State partners. The range of critical infrastructure facilities, systems, and services covered by RRAP 

include chemical and nuclear, commercial, communications and information, manufacturing, dams, 

national defense, emergency services, energy, financial, food and agriculture, government, transportation, 

water and wastewater. The program’s goal is to mitigate the Nation’s risk of loss of life and physical and 

economic damage from natural and manmade hazards by: 

▪ Assessing critical infrastructure on a regional level, focusing on threats, vulnerabilities, and

consequences from an all-hazards perspective;

▪ Identifying critical infrastructure dependencies, interdependencies, cascading effects, and

resilience characteristics and gaps;

▪ Assessing the integrated preparedness and protection capabilities of critical infrastructure owners

and operators and emergency planning and response organizations; and

▪ Coordinating protection and response planning efforts to enhance resilience and address security

gaps within the geographic region.

The culmination of RRAP activities, research, and analysis is a Resiliency Assessment. A Resiliency 

Assessment documents project results and findings, including key regional resilience gaps and options for 

addressing these shortfalls. Facility owners and operators, regional organizations, and government agencies 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-38 ▪

can use the results to help guide strategic investments in equipment, planning, training, and resources to 

enhance the resilience and security of facilities, surrounding communities, and entire regions.

RRAP data reflect the involvement of local communities in RRAP assessments, which may vary based on 

project scope. RRAP also involves numerous other participants, such as Federal and State agencies and 

private owners and operators of critical infrastructure not reflected in the dataset, who may or may not be 

located within the community in question. More importantly, RRAPs vary from region to region depending 

on existing infrastructure and community buy-in. When combined with other Federal programs, RRAPs 

could be a useful community resilience metric. Using the RRAP as a community resilience indicator 

presents the following challenges:

▪ RRAP data used in the reports reflects local community participation and may not include Federal,

State, and/or private sector data, or all key members of a community.

▪ RRAPs vary from region to region depending on the existing infrastructure and the assessment

scope producing variation in data. In some cases, RRAPs will consider sub-elements of a

community. In others, they will consider infrastructure issues that span multiple States.

▪ The number of RRAPs executed each year expands or contracts based on appropriated funding

levels.

▪ For community-level tracking, RRAP data would need to be desegregated. When data are

desegregated, the result is that there is absent participant data – Federal, State, and private owners

and operators are absent — and thus the data may not accurately reflect the program and meet the

indicator criteria.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-39 ▪

Indicator 14: Water Conservation 

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE 

Water supply is vulnerable to climate variability. Water demand will grow as the U.S. population increases; 

extended dry periods may cause a reduction in the quantity of water available, leading to increased 

challenges to meeting the demands for domestic water use. Water conservation and water efficiency (i.e., 

changes in technology) can increase community resilience by improving the reliability of existing water 

supplies, reducing the impacts of drought, and, in some cases, providing conserved water for other 

necessary uses, such as agricultural or environmental needs. 

PROPOSED MEASURE 

Proposed Measure: Per capita water use for all domestic uses

USGS tracks the estimated use of water in the U.S., including total domestic use. Domestic water use 

includes indoor and outdoor uses at residences, such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes 

and dishes, flushing toilets, watering lawns and gardens, and maintaining pools. Domestic water use also 

includes potable and non-potable water provided to households by a public water supplier (domestic 

deliveries) and self-supplied water use. Users typically draw self-supplied domestic water from a private 

source, such as a well. Per capita water use for domestic uses as a metric to represent water conservation is 

valuable, but is also limited because water use does not account for available water supply. This limitation

is important to consider when reviewing the supporting data. The USGS collects data every 5 years for the 

national water use report. 

For Indicator 14: Water Conservation, the GIS web mapping application, available at 

http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, presents the domestic, publicly supplied per capita water use at the State level in

2010.

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

In 2010, national per capita water use was approximate 88 gallons per day. The lowest recorded per capita 

domestic water use for a State was 51 gallons per day, and the highest was 168 gallons per day. Table B-10

presents information on domestic, publicly supplied per capita water use for the 50 States, the District of 

Indicator 14: Water Conservation

Proposed Measure: Per capita water use for all domestic uses

Data Source: USGS National Water Use Report

Data Publisher: USGS Year: 2010

Data Download: http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2010/index.html
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-40 ▪

Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). For the relationship between resilience and 

domestic water use, areas with lower per capita domestic water use represent higher resilience capacity 

related to water conservation. Reduced per capita rates of water use over time would be an indicator or 

community resilience capacity-building progress represented by.

Table B-10. Domestic, Publicly Supplied Per Capita Water Use by State* (2010)

State

Per Capita Use 

(gallons/day)

U.S. 88

AL 76

AK 90

AZ 147

AR 106

CA 108

CO 111

CT 75

DE 80

DC 125

FL 87

GA 79

HI 144

ID 168

IL 80

IN 76

IA 65

KS 73

State

Per Capita Use 

(gallons/day)

KY 67

LA 104

ME 55

MD 103

MA 65

MI 79

MN 62

MS 100

MO 88

MT 107

NE 95

NV 134

NH 70

NJ 80

NM 90

NY 79

NC 70

ND 80

State

Per Capita Use 

(gallons/day)

OH 66

OK 85

OR 113

PA 59

PR 62

RI 72

SC 100

SD 93

TN 80

TX 92

USVI 60

UT 167

VT 64

VA 75

WA 111

WV 80

WI 51

WY 144
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-41 ▪

Indicator 15: Wetlands Conservation

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Wetlands enhance community resilience to hazards and climate change by serving as natural buffers or 

protective barriers. Wetlands aid in mitigating the severity of hurricanes and resulting flooding. They 

accomplish this by decreasing the area of open water available for wind to form waves, increasing the drag 

on water movement and thereby reducing the amplitude of storm surges, reducing direct wind effects on 

the water surface, and directly absorbing wave energy. Conserving, protecting, and restoring wetlands can 

increase community resilience capacity by decreasing flood-related risks and helping reduce the economic 

and environmental consequences of hazard and climate events. In addition, wetlands act as “carbon sinks,” 

which can mitigate the severity of potential future climate changes.

PROPOSED MEASURE 

The project team has not fully developed a proposed measure for this indicator. 

Considered Measure: Extent (in square miles) of wetlands land cover change in coastal watershed 

counties (5 years)

The Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP), run by the NOAA Office for Coastal Management 

(OCM), measures regional land cover and change for the coastal regions of the U.S.12,13 OCM updates the

data every 5 years. 

The team considered using extent (in square miles) of wetlands land cover change in coastal watershed 

counties over 5 years as a measure to support Indicator 15: Wetlands Conservation. However, this dataset 

covers the coastal areas of the Nation, not the entire U.S. OCM and others should investigate developing a 

national-level dataset reporting on wetlands conservation for future inclusion in this project.

12 The mapped areas include coastal intertidal areas, wetlands, and adjacent uplands. The mapped land cover classes 

have been identified as features that can be accurately and consistently derived primarily through remote sensing 

and have been targeted as important indicators of coastal ecosystems.

13 The National Wetlands Inventory, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, may be another data source to 

be considered in the future for this measure.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-42 ▪

Indicator 16: Forest Conservation

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Forest cover enhances community resilience to hazards and climate change by providing natural protection 

from hazards and serving as a carbon sink. Trees can intercept snow and rainfall, can reduce landslide 

hazards, and can increase the water-holding capacity of the soil by building up an organic layer. Tree 

canopies may mitigate adverse climate impacts by reducing radiative transfers both to the ground and into 

the atmosphere. Forests can also reduce soil erosion and peak flows and affect windspeeds. Protecting 

forests and restoring managed or degraded forests can be a vital contribution to reducing anthropogenic 

emissions and aiding societal adaptation to unavoidable climate change. 

PROPOSED MEASURE 

The project team has not fully developed a proposed measure for this indicator. 

Considered Measure: Extent (in square miles) of forest land cover change in coastal watershed 

counties (5 years)

Through the C-CAP, OCM measures regional land cover and change for the coastal regions of the U.S. As 

mentioned earlier, OCM updates the data every 5 years. 

The team considered using the extent (in square miles) of forest land cover change in coastal watershed 

counties over 5 years as a measure to support Indicator 16: Forest Conservation. However, this dataset 

covers the coastal areas of the Nation, not the entire U.S. OCM and others should investigate developing a

national-level dataset reporting on forest conservation for future inclusion in this project. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-43 ▪

Indicator 17: Habitat Quality

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Habitat quality is an indicator of ecosystem health and may be critically linked to community economic 

and societal well-being. This is especially true in areas with significant reliance on natural resources-based 

sectors, such as fisheries, forestry, recreation, and tourism. Resilient aquatic habitats are critical to fish and 

wildlife, water conservation, flood control, and people. These habitats provide for recreational, commercial, 

and subsistence fishing; boating; fish and wildlife viewing; and other uses that support local economies and 

contribute to economic well-being. Activities that prevent degradation of fish habitats and/or increase the 

overall health of fish and other aquatic organisms can maintain or improve the ecological resilience of 

aquatic resources and maintain or improve the resilience capacity of resource-dependent communities.

PROPOSED MEASURE

The project team has not fully developed a proposed measure for this indicator. 

Considered Measure: Kilometers of scored stream reaches with CHCI scores (reflecting 

degradation risk) of high or very high

The National Fish Habitat Partnership (NFHP) collects, assesses, and produces the stream habitat condition 

index for streams throughout the contiguous U.S., including the District of Columbia. The index reports the 

risk of current habitat degradation. The assessment uses risk of habitat degradation instead of known habitat 

degradation because no agency has measured habitat condition objectively or consistently for a majority of 

aquatic habitats in the U.S. As a result, the index focuses on anthropogenic or human disturbance factors

that are responsible for degrading habitat, rather than using direct measurements of habitat condition. 

The team considered using the kilometers of scored stream reaches with cumulative habitat condition index 

(CHCI) scores reflecting degradation risk of high or very high as a measure to support Indicator 17: Habitat 

Quality; however, the CHCI dataset is specific to assessing watershed health and aquatic habitats. Indicator 

17 includes various types of habitats; it is not exclusively aquatic. The team should consider measures of 

habitat conditions other than aquatic habitats in the future. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-44 ▪

Indicator 18: Risk Identification

RESILIENCE ACTION RELEVANCE 

Risk identification allows decision makers, responders, and community members to understand potential 

risks better, which allows for implementation of informed actions to reduce risk and increase resilience. 

Those who have identified and assessed potential risks are more capable of mitigating, preparing for, 

responding to, and recovering from disasters. Threat and hazard risks are constantly evolving and connected 

to multiple variables. Resilient communities understand that risk identification is not a static task; rather, 

risk identification is an activity that communities must conduct continuously over time. A wide variety of 

actions, such as conducting formalized risk and threat assessments, conducting scientific risk studies and 

mapping geologic risk areas, and collecting information about public awareness of risk, may constitute risk 

identification. Local communities participate in risk identification through a variety of federally sponsored 

activities, including Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk MAP), Threat and Hazard 

Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA), and pre-project planning.

PROPOSED MEASURE 

The project team has not fully developed a proposed measure for this indicator. 

Considered Measure: Percentage of the population enabled with new or improved flood risk 

products and tools

Systematically available public data on community-level risk identification was not easily accessible. 

Although the team considered using a number of possible measures of community risk identification action, 

none was selected for this project. 

One consideration was measuring the deployment of the FEMA Risk MAP program, a flood-focused effort.

Through the Risk MAP program, FEMA works with Federal, State, Tribal, and local partners across the 

United States to identify flood risk and help reduce that risk. Through the program, FEMA provides highquality flood hazard maps and information, tools to better assess the risk from flooding, and planning and 

outreach support to communities to help them take action to reduce (or mitigate) flood risk. Risk MAP 

projects are tailored to the needs of communities and may involve different products and services. For more 

information about the Risk MAP program, see http://www.fema.gov/risk-mapping-assessment-andplanning-risk-map. 

To monitor its success in meeting the Risk MAP program vision, FEMA must understand the extent of Risk 

MAP product delivery and how to measure increases in both community flood risk awareness and the scope 

of actions communities are taking to reduce flood risk. Therefore, FEMA uses several metrics to measure 

the success of the Risk MAP program. One such metric is Risk MAP deployment. Risk MAP deployment 

must ensure an understanding of the difference between “risk” and “hazard” and create a dialogue on how 

flood risk data should find its way into day-to-day decisions as well as mitigation and other comprehensive 

plans. Risk MAP deployment is measured as the percentage of population where the local Risk MAP 

dialogue and study process has been initiated and is calculated by dividing the total population within the 

appropriate Risk MAP project footprint by the total national population, based on 2010 Census data. The 

Risk MAP coverage metric considers whether the Risk MAP project has funded watershed-based Discovery 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-45 ▪

projects as well as certain Risk MAP Flood Risk Products, including the Flood Risk Map, Flood Risk 

Report, and Flood Risk Database, which includes various Flood Risk Datasets. There are additional special 

considerations for Risk MAP projects involving coastal and levee analyses. Through Fiscal Year 2015, Risk 

MAP deployment covered roughly 60 percent of the U.S. population. Strengths of the Risk MAP 

deployment measure include that it is available nationally and the risk identification process meets data 

quality standards that FEMA has established for the Nation. 

Apparent drawbacks to the measure also exist. While communities covered by Risk MAP deployment are 

likely to be more resilient to flooding-related events, due to the availability of studies, maps, and plans to 

support flood risk mitigation, the availability of flood risk products following deployment in each 

geographic area varies widely. The extent of community involvement in deployment-related actions is also 

highly variable across geographic areas, and communities may have limited control over deployment 

activities. Therefore, the team should consider additional or alternative metrics to Risk MAP deployment.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-46 ▪

Indicator 19: Risk Data

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

For communities and the agencies that serve them to better mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover

from disasters, it is essential to understand the risks from hazards and climate change. Understanding risk 

involves obtaining accurate data to assess the risk. Scientific and technological advancements now make it 

possible to improve foundational risk data continuously. The improved risk data become a critical part of 

the evolution of the risk identification, assessment, understanding, and action continuum.

One example of these recent technological advances is the ability to obtain three-dimensional (3D) 

elevation data. Such 3D elevation data are essential for flood mitigation, conservation management, 

infrastructure development, national security, and many other applications. Having accurate, current 

elevation data greatly assists in efforts to recognize, understand, communicate, plan, and address risks from 

disaster and climate change. FEMA expects that a national 3D elevation data program could allow for more 

efficient updating of its flood maps. These 3D data could provide significant benefits to the communities 

and citizens that are customers of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), making updated 

information available to affected communities and homeowners more quickly.

PROPOSED MEASURE

The project team has not fully developed a proposed measure for this indicator.

Considered Measure: Percentage of the area (in square miles) with elevation data that meet 3DEP 

base-level specifications

USGS is implementing the 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) initiative in response to the need for high-quality 

topographic data and a wide range of other 3D representations of the natural and constructed features in the 

U.S. The 3DEP initiative supports the acquisition of high-quality light detection and ranging (lidar) data 

and interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data, which are just a portion of the elevation datasets 

collected nationally. The team considered using the percentage of the area (in square miles) with elevation 

data that meet 3DEP base-level specifications as a measure to support Indicator 19: Risk Data; however, 

this dataset does not comprehensively represent risk data for the Nation. The team and others should 

consider measures of risk data collection other than through the 3DEP initiative in the future.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-47 ▪

Indicator 20: Risk Awareness

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Based on scientific information about risks and vulnerabilities, risk awareness targets desired changes in 

individual behaviors or perceptions. Assessments of risk perception and awareness can track progress 

toward targeted outcomes and inform the development and improvement of risk communication strategies 

and tools. Because different community stakeholders have different responsibilities and desired behaviors, 

understanding and effectively targeting risk awareness outcomes for different groups is essential. Risk 

awareness goals targeting local officials responsible for land-use regulations or building codes would be 

different from the risk awareness goals targeting household preparedness for the public. Communities can 

improve resilience capacity through effective risk awareness strategies.

PROPOSED MEASURE 

The project team has not fully developed a proposed measure for this indicator. 

Considered Measure: Percentage of community leaders surveyed who are aware of community 

flood risks

FEMA conducts an annual online survey of community leaders affiliated with the NFIP. As part of this 

survey, FEMA measures the percentage of local officials who are “aware” of their community’s flood risk. 

In the 2015 survey, FEMA asked community leaders whether the following statement was true or false for 

their community:

Your community’s flood risk can change over time due to new weather patterns, 

development, and other factors.

The team considered using community leaders’ responses to the above statement as a measure to support 

Indicator 20: Risk Awareness; however, the team determined that a survey of community leaders where the 

survey population is predominantly associated with the NFIP might not sufficiently represent the local 

leadership population in the U.S. The team and others should explore other surveys specific to flood risk 

awareness and surveys that may address broader hazard risk awareness. The team should determine whether 

other risk awareness data, such as information in the USACE Levee Screening Tool, would be useful in

developing a better metric in the future.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-48 ▪

Indicator 21: Community Preparedness 

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Community preparedness generally focuses on the pre-event actions that residents, businesses, 

governments, and emergency responders can take to respond to a disaster effectively. For residents and 

businesses, this includes basic risk-appropriate steps, such as developing household or business emergency 

plans and securing backup energy, communication, food, and water supplies. For local governments, 

community preparedness includes having well-planned, organized, trained, and equipped emergency 

operations. Communities build resilience capacity by ensuring that emergency operations plans are in place 

across critical service delivery agencies and that contingencies are in place for continued delivery of critical 

services during disruption of operations. 

On average annually, Americans cope with 100,000 thunderstorms; 26,000 severe thunderstorms; 5,000 

floods; 1,300 tornadoes; and 2 deadly hurricanes that make landfall. Approximately 98 percent of all 

presidentially declared disasters are weather related, leading to 650 deaths per year and about $15 billion 

in damage.14 The ability of government, residential, and commercial entities to prepare for weather-related 

impacts with risk-appropriate actions contributes greatly to a community’s resilience to these disasters.

PROPOSED MEASURE

Proposed Measure: Number of sites designated as StormReady® and/or TsunamiReady® 

The National Weather Service (NWS) administers the StormReady® and TsunamiReady® programs, 

nationwide community preparedness initiatives that use a grassroots approach to help communities develop 

plans to handle all types of weather hazards. The programs encourage communities to improve local 

hazardous weather operations by providing emergency managers with clear-cut guidelines on how to do so. 

A community must meet the following criteria to receive an official StormReady® designation: 

▪ Establish a 24-hour warning point and emergency operations center;

▪ Have more than one way to receive weather hazard warnings and forecasts and to alert the public;

14 http://www.stormready.noaa.gov/

Indicator 21: Community Preparedness

Proposed Measure: Number of sites designated as StormReady® and/or TsunamiReady® 

Data Source: StormReady® and TsunamiReady® 

Data Publisher: National Weather Service (NWS) Year: 2015

Data Download: http://www.stormready.noaa.gov/communities.shtml 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-49 ▪

▪ Create a system that monitors weather conditions locally;

▪ Promote the importance of public readiness through community seminars; and

▪ Develop a formal hazardous weather plan, which includes training weather hazard spotters and

holding emergency exercises.

The NWS provides data about StormReady®-participating communities and sites ranging in geographic 

scale from States to counties to specific commercial and educational sites.

The NWS also administers the TsunamiReady® program. TsunamiReady® is a voluntary community 

recognition program that promotes tsunami hazard preparedness as an active collaboration among Federal, 

State/Territorial, and local emergency management agencies, community leaders, and the public. The main 

goal of the program is to improve public safety before, during, and after tsunami emergencies. The program

aims to do this by establishing guidelines for a standard level of capability to mitigate, prepare for, and 

respond to a tsunami and by working with communities to help them meet the program guidelines and 

ultimately receive the TsunamiReady® designation. 

For Indicator 21: Community Preparedness, the GIS web mapping application, available at 

http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, presents the range of StormReady® and/or TsunamiReady® designated sites by 

State. 

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

As of February 2016, 2,402 StormReady® and TsunamiReady® sites exist nationwide. Table B-11

provides the number of StormReady® and/or TsunamiReady® sites, by State. State site totals range from 

5 to 177. An increase in the number of StormReady® or TsunamiReady® designated sites over time would 

be a good indicator of progress. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-50 ▪

Table B-11. Number of Sites Designated as StormReady® or TsunamiReady® by State (2015)

State

StormReady® 

and/or 

TsunamiReady®

Sites

U.S. 2,402

AL 58

AK 21

AZ 19

AR 34

CA 103

CO 37

CT 9

DE 5

FL 126

GA 111

HI 11

ID 177

IL 120

IN 50

IA 36

KS 45

State

StormReady® 

and/or 

TsunamiReady®

Sites

KY 57

LA 26

ME 11

MD 16

MA 21

MI 52

MN 32

MS 60

MO 81

MT 53

NE 29

NV 20

NH 0

NJ 23

NM 23

NY 40

NC 81

State

StormReady® 

and/or 

TsunamiReady®

Sites

ND 46

OH 32

OK 101

OR 34

PA 82

RI 7

SC 59

SD 29

TN 77

TX 166

UT 21

VT 2

VA 54

WA 59

WV 11

WI 20

WY 15
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-51 ▪

Indicator 22: Mitigation Planning 

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Hazard mitigation planning is a process that State, Territorial, Tribal, and local governments use to identify 

risks and vulnerabilities associated with natural hazards, and to develop long-term strategies for protecting 

people and property during future events. Unlike other types of disaster-related planning, mitigation 

planning focuses specifically on ending the cycle of repeated disaster damage. Local hazard mitigation 

plans enable communities to identify broad strategies and specific actions they can take to protect lives and 

property. Examples of mitigation actions that a local hazard mitigation plan might include are projects 

designed to physically protect assets – such as elevating homes at risk of flooding or retrofitting key critical 

facilities against seismic or wind hazards – or broader regulatory actions that require community-wide use 

of disaster-resistant building codes or standards. Developing a local hazard mitigation plan is a critical, 

foundational step for a community to shape a sound overall disaster resilience strategy. 

Jurisdictions need to develop and adopt FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans as a condition for 

receiving project grants under the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs. FEMA, 

therefore, provides guidance and tools regarding hazard mitigation plan development. In partnership with 

States, FEMA reviews and approves local hazard mitigation plans. 

PROPOSED MEASURE

Proposed Measure: Percentage of population residing in communities covered by a current local 

hazard mitigation plan

FEMA reports the "Percent of the U.S. population (excluding territories) covered by planned mitigation 

strategies” as a national performance measure. Specifically, this measure tracks the percentage of the U.S. 

population (not counting the populations of U.S. Territories) living in communities with current local 

hazard mitigation plans, and therefore benefiting from the plans’ value to their communities in terms of 

capacity building, mitigation strategy, and eligibility for FEMA grants. 

To calculate the measure, FEMA sums the population of each community with a local hazard mitigation

plan approved by FEMA (or designated approvable pending the local government’s official adoption of the 

plan) to determine an overall percentage of the national population. National population coverage and how 

Indicator 22: Mitigation Planning

Proposed Measure: Percentage of population residing in communities covered by a current local 

hazard mitigation plan

Data Source: National Mitigation Planning Program

Data Publisher: FEMA Year: 2015

Data Download: https://hazards.fema.gov/gis/nfhl/rest/services/MPP/MPP_GIS/MapServer

(a map service accessible via Geographic Information System software)
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-52 ▪

that coverage varies geographically provides information about the level of community interest in and 

capacity for hazard mitigation, as well as about eligibility for FEMA HMA project grants. FEMA maintains 

a database tracking the status of State, Territoryl, Tribal, and local jurisdictions with hazard mitigation 

plans. FEMA updates the database at least quarterly, and members of the public can interact with geographic 

data from the system via a GIS service.

For Indicator 22: Mitigation Planning, the GIS web mapping application, available at 

http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, presents the percentage of the population residing in communities covered by a 

current local hazard mitigation plan. 

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

As of December 31, 2015, FEMA has designated the local hazard mitigation plans for 22,706 communities 

as “approved” or “approvable-pending-adoption.” Over 82 percent of the U.S. population (excluding U.S. 

Territories) lives in a community with an approved or approvable-pending-adoption hazard mitigation plan. 

Table B-12 provides a breakdown of the data by State, indicating the percentage of each State population 

living in communities with current local hazard mitigation plans. Among the States, the percentage of the 

population covered by current hazard mitigation plans ranges from 44 to 100 percent. Together with other 

factors, population coverage by local hazard mitigation plans may contribute to greater community-level 

resilience in the States.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-53 ▪

Table B-12. Percentage of Population Covered by Current Local Hazard Mitigation Plans, by State

(as of Fiscal Year 2016, Quarter 1) 

State

2010 Census 

Population

Population 

Covered by 

Current 

Plans

Percent

U.S.* 308,745,538 254,902,333 82.6

AL 4,779,736 3,130,325 65.5

AK 710,231 611,076 86.0

AZ 6,392,017 6,113,732 95.6

AR 2,915,918 1,280,148 43.9

CA** 37,253,956 23,937,915 64.3

CO 5,029,196 2,608,486 51.9

CT 3,574,097 3,477,642 97.3

DE 897,934 706,568 78.7

DC 601,723 601,723 100.0

FL**++ 18,801,310 16,944,424 90.1

GA** 9,687,653 9,287,039 95.9

HI 1,360,301 1,360,211 100.0

ID 1,567,582 1,253,103 79.9

IL 12,830,632 11,186,021 87.2

IN 6,483,802 3,040,382 46.9

IA**++ 3,046,355 3,020,195 99.1

KS 2,853,118 2,844,626 99.7

KY** 4,339,367 3,028,360 69.8

LA 4,533,372 4,499,176 99.2

ME 1,328,361 1,321,888 99.5

MD 5,773,552 5,672,444 98.2

MA 6,547,629 3,681,149 56.2

MI 9,883,640 8,009,275 81.0

MN 5,303,925 3,183,003 60.0

MS 2,967,297 2,751,218 92.7

MO**++ 5,988,927 5,910,018 98.7

State

2010 Census 

Population

Population 

Covered by 

Current 

Plans

Percent

MT 989,415 892,061 90.2

NE 1,826,341 1,661,927 91.0

NV** 2,700,551 2,254,831 83.5

NH 1,316,470 1,232,478 93.6

NJ 8,791,894 8,148,953 92.7

NM 2,059,179 1,663,536 80.8

NY 19,378,102 16,878,366 87.1

NC** 9,535,483 9,338,212 97.9

ND 672,591 563,198 83.7

OH** 11,536,504 10,188,349 88.3

OK 3,751,351 2,714,214 72.4

OR** 3,831,074 2,993,435 78.1

PA 12,702,379 12,518,977 98.6

RI 1,052,567 725,282 68.9

SC 4,625,364 4,250,350 91.9

SD 814,180 541,509 66.5

TN 6,346,105 5,532,949 87.2

TX 25,145,561 21,005,768 83.5

UT 2,763,885 2,155,472 78.0

VT 625,741 451,208 72.1

VA 8,001,024 7,998,407 100.0

WA** 6,724,540 5,002,610 74.4

WV 1,852,994 1,638,734 88.4

WI**++ 5,686,986 4,647,557 81.7

WY 563,626 443,803 78.7

* Excluding U.S. Territories

** States with enhanced State hazard mitigation plans, reflecting comprehensive State mitigation programs with 

strong grants management capabilities. Enhanced status confers eligibility for increased funds under the FEMA 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program following a disaster declaration.

++ States granted Program Administration by States authority by FEMA, which includes delegated review authority 

for local hazard mitigation plans. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-54 ▪

Indicator 23: Planning Integration 

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Emergency managers or public safety personnel often conduct assessments of and planning for hazards and 

climate risks. Although these stakeholders are among the most important in the process, integrating safety 

planning beyond public safety departments is integral to enhancing community resilience. For example, 

local planning, engineering, maintenance, parks and recreation, or administration departments make many 

decisions that directly affect public safety and resilience. By integrating public safety and resilience 

considerations into these decision-making processes, communities can select projects, plans, and long-term 

visions that achieve their goals, while also maximizing public safety and resilience benefits. By fully 

integrating hazard considerations into all types of local government planning, communities ensure that their 

implementation activities are more resilient. Planning integration is essential to long-term community 

resilience. Well-planned long-term vulnerability reduction is holistic and tied into comprehensive planning 

and management, linking mitigation goals to other community goals, such as actions and incentives to 

improve overall residential property values, business continuity, natural resource conservation, school 

safety, or transit reliability. 

PROPOSED MEASURE

The project team has not fully developed a proposed measure for this indicator. 

Considered Measure: Percentage of coastal population benefiting from the integration of hazard 

management into coastal planning

U.S. coastal communities are home to more than 160 million people and generate more than one-half of the 

U.S. economic output. Coastal areas are susceptible to a number of natural hazards, including coastal 

storms, flooding, coastal erosion, tsunami, and sea level rise, which climate change will exacerbate. These 

hazards threaten lives, property, infrastructure, the natural environment, and, ultimately, economies. Each 

year, coastal hazards result in hundreds of millions (sometimes billions) of dollars in damage and associated 

costs. 

The U.S. Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972 to address the challenge of 

continued growth in the coastal zone. This Act provides for the management of the nation’s coastal 

resources, including the Great Lakes. The goal is to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to 

restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone.” The National Coastal Zone Management 

Program, administered by NOAA, and State coastal management programs implement the CZMA. The 

integration of hazards into the comprehensive planning process is critical for community resilience, 

particularly in the coastal zone, where nearly all development is subject to potential hazards.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-55 ▪

The Coastal Zone Enhancement Program, which is part of the National Coastal Zone Management Program,

provides incentives to States to enhance their State programs within nine key areas: 

▪ Wetlands;

▪ Coastal hazards;

▪ Public access;

▪ Marine debris;

▪ Cumulative and secondary impacts;

▪ Special area management planning;

▪ Ocean and Great Lakes resources;

▪ Energy and government facility siting; and

▪ Aquaculture.

Examples of coastal hazard enhancements include improved risk assessment procedures, multihazard 

planning, education, sea-level rise assessment, coastal climate change adaptation, interjurisdictional hazard 

mitigation coordination, post-disaster recovery planning, land use management, and NFIP and CRS 

integration with coastal planning. NOAA collects data on State coastal management programs to track the 

inclusion of these key areas in program updates.

The NOAA Coastal Zone Enhancement Program captures planning integration for coastal States, but does 

not reflect community-level data for the entire U.S. Other agencies, including EPA, HUD, and FEMA, also 

have grants or programs related to integrated planning; however, at this time, those agencies were unable 

to provide adequate datasets for this project. The project team and others should investigate communitylevel planning integration data for the entire Nation further for inclusion in this project.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-56 ▪

Indicator 24: Collaborative Networks

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Communities and the agencies that serve them that are able to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover 

from disasters in a planned, intentional, and collaborative manner tend to be highly resilient. Collaboration 

can be challenging, as local agencies can operate with a “silo” mentality, only focusing on the specific goals 

of that agency. Additionally, the diverse range of stakeholders present in most communities can make 

meaningful capacity difficult. To withstand and recover, it is essential that whole communities, including 

those public agencies with interest in the communities, work together to anticipate, mitigate, and respond 

to risks and disasters. 

PROPOSED MEASURE 

The project team has not fully developed a proposed measure for this indicator. 

While the team explored a number of options related to collaborative networks, the team was unable to 

identify an appropriate Federal dataset that met minimum project criteria for this indicator. The team 

explored one optional measure for illustrative purposes--the percentage of States with State-led interagency 

collaborations supporting disaster risk-reduction efforts (USACE Silver Jackets Program).

The USACE Silver Jackets Program aims to create or supplement continuous mechanisms to achieve 

collaborative solutions for State-prioritized community flood risk issues and implement those solutions. 

The Silver Jackets Program leverages and optimizes resources from multiple State, Federal, Tribal, and 

local agencies to reduce flood and natural disaster risk and enhance response and recovery efforts when 

disasters occur. Silver Jackets Teams are developed and led at the State level with Federal support. 

Individual programs of the participating agencies provide the resources for activities led by the Silver 

Jackets Teams within the constraints of their available budgets. At a minimum, each Silver Jackets Team 

includes the State Hazard Mitigation Officer, the State NFIP Coordinator, a FEMA representative, and a 

USACE representative. As the team lead, the State may invite additional participation from both 

governmental and nongovernmental representatives. 

As of 2015, 86 percent of the States and the District of Columbia have Silver Jacket Teams that have 

initiated projects entailing USACE technical or planning assistance. Communities located within States 

with Silver Jacket Teams are likely to be more resilient to disasters due to the teams’ ability to leverage 

multiagency program resources, collaboratively solve issues, present a unified interagency message, and 

facilitate integrated post-disaster recovery solutions. However, the amount of community-level benefit from 

collaboration occurring within each State with a Silver Jackets team varies significantly. The level of Silver 

Jackets project activity identifies differences to some extent, but the Silver Jackets project data are only a 

partial capture of overall collaborative activity. 

While Silver Jackets remains an important program with strong relevance to the level of collaboration, the 

team and others should consider additional measures. For example, Citizen Corps Whole Community 

Councils, a FEMA-supported activity, bring government and community leaders together to involve the 

whole community in all phases of emergency management and community preparedness to strengthen local 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-57 ▪

resilience. As of December 31, 2014, 1,887 local Councils were registered. These Councils provide “a 

platform” for whole community collaboration. Citizen Corps Councils are inclusive of non-governmental 

resources as well. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-58 ▪

Indicator 25: Civic Capacity 

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Social connectedness is a critically important element of community resilience capacity. Socially isolated 

individuals are less resilient than socially connected individuals are because they have less access to shared 

resources and are vulnerable to mental health challenges. At the community level, concentrated levels of 

isolation are a major factor of community vulnerability. Understanding the level of civic engagement and 

capacity within communities can help determine the level of social connectedness that exists. People are 

more empowered to help one another after a major disturbance in communities in which members are 

regularly involved in each other’s lives. Volunteering is one way to enhance social connectedness, both for 

the people who are volunteering and for the people who benefit from the volunteer work. Volunteering can 

help make people healthier and less likely to be unemployed for an extended period.

15,16 Volunteer work 

can also help ensure that people who may be disproportionately impacted are prepared for, and able to 

respond to, hazard events. 

PROPOSED MEASURE

Proposed Measure: Percentage of individuals surveyed who performed volunteer activities for 

or through an organization during the preceding 12-month period

The Current Population Survey (CPS), conducted monthly by the U.S. Census Bureau, includes two 

supplements: the Volunteer Supplement and the Civic Supplement. The Corporation for National and

Community Service (CNCS) compiles information from these two supplements and, as part of 

administering the Volunteering and Civic Life in America website, makes the data publicly available. 

Among the data made available are the volunteer rates per State.17 

15 http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/07_0506_hbr.pdf

16 http://www.ncoc.net/index.php?download=114kcfl1427 17 The volunteer rate is the percentage of individuals who responded on the CPS Volunteer Supplement that they 

had performed unpaid volunteer activities at any point during the 12-month period that preceded the survey for or 

through an organization.

Indicator 25: Civic Capacity 

Proposed Measure: Percentage of individuals surveyed who performed volunteer activities for or 

through an organization during the preceding 12-month period

Data Source: Current Population Survey

Data Publisher: Corporation for National and Community Service Year: 2014

Data Download: http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/rankings.cfm
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-59 ▪

For Indicator 25: Civic Capacity, the GIS web mapping application, available at http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, 

presents the percentage of individuals surveyed, by State, who performed volunteer activities for or through 

an organization during the 12-month period preceding the 2014 CPS.

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

Across the Nation, 25.3 percent of individuals surveyed have volunteered during the previous year. Table 

B-13 lists the percentage of individuals in each State and the District of Columbia who volunteered for or 

through an organization during the 12-month period preceding the 2014 CPS. The individual percentages 

range from 17.4 percent to 46.0 percent. Increasing the percentage of individuals surveyed who performed 

volunteer activities for or through an organization during the preceding 12-month period would indicate 

improved resilience.

Table B-13. Percentage of Individuals Volunteering by State (2014)

State Percentage

AL 24.1

AK 34.3

AZ 23.3

AR 20.5

CA 24.6

CO 30.9

CT 28.9

DE 26.1

DC 31.3

FL 20.1

GA 23.3

HI 23.4

ID 35.8

State Percentage

IL 25.9

IN 27.5

IA 33.0

KS 35.1

KY 23.8

LA 17.4

ME 31.9

MD 28.2

MA 25.2

MI 27.4

MN 35.3

MS 24.7

MO 30.2

State Percentage

MT 30.4

NE 34.6

NV 19.4

NH 27.8

NJ 22.5

NM 25.5

NY 19.2

NC 26.3

ND 29.7

OH 26.6

OK 25.8

OR 32.7

PA 27.0

State Percentage

RI 23.8

SC 23.1

SD 34.1

TN 25.0

TX 23.2

UT 46.0

VT 34.7

VA 30.1

WA 32.9

WV 20.8

WI 35.4

WY 28.8
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-60 ▪

Indicator 26: Building Codes

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Design and construction play a major role in the ability of a structure to withstand impacts from a hazard. 

Building codes are legal requirements that set minimum material and design standards for construction. 

Many communities in the United States have minimum standard building codes. Additionally, many but 

not all States have adopted statewide building codes that address disaster-resistant standards for most 

building types. Some States and communities choose to go beyond minimum standards. For example, some 

building codes focus on higher requirements for energy and water efficiency; others focus on mitigating 

specific hazards, such as flooding or tornadoes. Building requirements that mitigate the impacts of hazards 

shift costs to the front end of the project, requiring slightly higher construction costs with the intention of 

significantly reducing recovery repairs, risk of injury, and loss of life. Accurate identification of hazards 

and performance levels with the application of appropriate building codes increases resilience.

PROPOSED MEASURE 

Proposed Measure: Percentage of reporting communities that are subject to one or more 

hazards (seismic, hurricane, or flood) that have adopted building codes with 

disaster resistance provisions 

The Insurance Services Office (ISO) tracks building code effectiveness through the Building Code 

Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS). The BCEGS State by State Summary of Community Adoptions 

dataset identifies the number of jurisdictions by State and the number of jurisdictions subject to one or more 

hazards (seismic, hurricane, or flood) that have adopted building codes with disaster provisions.18 

For Indicator 26: Building Codes, the GIS web mapping application, available at http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, 

presents the percentage of reporting communities, by State, that are subject to one or more hazards and 

have adopted building codes with disaster resistance provisions. 

18 Total number of reporting jurisdictions for each State is based on jurisdictions who participated in the BCEGS 

survey performed by ISO or were provided by Building Code Adoption Tracking Research. Jurisdictions include, 

but are not limited to, cities, towns, townships, boroughs, villages, counties, and parishes. 

Indicator 26:Building Codes

Proposed Measure: Percentage of reporting communities that are subject to one or more hazards 

(seismic, hurricane, or flood) that have adopted building codes with disaster 

resistance provisions

Data Source: Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule State by State Summary of 

Community Adoptions

Data Publisher: Insurance Services Office/FEMA Year: 2015
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-61 ▪

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

As of 2015, approximately 60 percent of the Nation’s jurisdictions that are subject to seismic, hurricane, or 

flood hazard had adopted a building code with disaster provisions. Table B-14 provides the percentage of 

jurisdictions subject to one or more hazards that have adopted building codes with disaster provisions for 

each State and the District of Columbia. Hazard-based building code coverage ranges from 0 percent at the 

low end to 97 percent at the high end. Communities that have building codes with disaster provisions are 

likely to have more resilient structures; therefore, those communities would be more resilient over time. An 

increase in the percentage of jurisdictions with disaster provision building codes would generally indicate 

progress. 

Table B-14. Jurisdictions Subject to One or More Hazards (Seismic, Flood, Wind)

That Have Adopted Building Codes with Disaster Provisions, by State (2015)

Stat

e

Total 

Jurisdiction

s

Percentage of 

Jurisdictions Subject to 

One or More Hazards 

That Have Adopted 

Building Codes with 

Disaster Provisions

U.S. 23,569 60

AL 246 62

AK 15 53

AZ 77 53

AR 94 91

CA 761 82

CO 203 33

CT 181 2

DE 151 30

FL 935 95

GA 532 76

HI 4 0

ID 11 73

IL 400 52

IN 516 66

IA 168 72

KS 97 2

KY 446 77

LA 74 86

ME 112 79

MD 695 68

MA 348 23

MI 1,506 26

MN 794 57

MS 336 3

MO 275 73

Stat

e

Total 

Jurisdiction

s

Percentage of 

Jurisdictions Subject to 

One or More Hazards 

That Have Adopted 

Building Codes with 

Disaster Provisions

MT 46 41

NE 103 76

NV 78 91

NH 116 89

NJ 1,349 47

NM 35 97

NY 1,282 89

NC 702 73

ND 75 51

OH 2,784 82

OK 120 88

OR 188 92

PA 3,755 82

RI 41 27

SC 280 84

SD 33 63

TN 188 56

TX 465 65

UT 229 56

VT 6 0

VA 814 77

WA 26 92

WV 169 45

WI 1,666 0

WY 42 63
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-62 ▪

Indicator 27: Higher Standards 

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Prescriptive requirements, where satisfactory performance means meeting the minimum requirements, form 

the basis for many development standards. Long-term vulnerability reduction requires looking beyond 

minimum standards to reliability-based performance criteria that can improve the overall resilience of the 

built environment across a community. To improve their resilience capacity, communities should adopt

codes and standards that encourage and incentivize risk-appropriate actions that exceed minimum 

requirements when necessary to meet resilience performance targets. 

Flooding is the highest-impact single hazard in the Nation. The U.S. Treasury reports that, between 1980 

and 2013, floods caused an estimated $260 billion in damage. Devastation from flooding can affect every 

aspect of a community, resulting in loss of life and long-term impairment to livelihoods, property values, 

and the environment. 

The NFIP is a federally backed insurance program that provides communities with products and incentives 

to reduce their risk from flooding and more quickly recover from flooding events. The NFIP covers more 

than $1.23 trillion in assets against flood damage and affords opportunities for managing climate-related 

risks. 

When communities agree to participate in the NFIP, they are agreeing to follow certain practices that reduce 

flood risk. By encouraging land-use practices that limit and reduce the number of structures in identified

flood hazard areas, communities participating in the NFIP will have fewer losses from a given flood event 

compared to losses experienced during previous flood events. In addition to meeting the minimum 

requirements of the NFIP, communities that want to take extra steps to reduce their flood risk can participate 

in the CRS. 

Indicator 27: Higher Standards

Proposed Measure: Percentage of NFIP-participating communities enrolled in the CRS with a CRS 

rating of Class 5 or better

Data Source: Community Rating System Communities and their Classes

Data Publisher: FEMA Year: 2015

Data Download: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/15846
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-63 ▪

PROPOSED MEASURE 

Proposed Measure: Percentage of NFIP-participating communities enrolled in CRS with a CRS 

rating of Class 5 or better

CRS is a voluntary program that recognizes and rewards communities for taking additional steps to reduce 

their risk of flooding. Some of the resilience values associated with higher floodplain management 

standards, especially in high-risk areas, include increased community livability, livelihood stability, 

environmental stewardship, higher property values, and health and recreation. By participating, 

communities earn credit points that determine classifications. There are 10 CRS Classes: Class 1 requires 

the most credit points and provides the largest flood insurance premium reduction (45 percent), while Class 

10 means the community does not participate in the CRS or has not earned the minimum required credit 

points, and residents receive no premium reduction. The CRS Classes are based on completion of 19 

creditable activities organized into four categories: (1) Public Information; (2) Mapping and Regulations; 

(3) Flood Damage Reduction; and (4) Warning and Response

Creditable actions equating to higher scores include those listed below.

▪ Public Information

o

o

o

Maintain FEMA Elevation Certificates for new construction in the floodplain. 

Send information about local flood hazards, flood insurance, flood protection structures, and/or 

natural and beneficial functions of floodplains to community residents. 

Maintain flood insurance and flood protection information and resources in the community 

public library or on a community website. 

▪ Mapping and Regulations

o

o

o

o

Guarantee that currently vacant floodplain parcels will not be developed. 

Require soil tests or engineered foundations. 

Require compensatory storage. 

Regulate new construction to minimize erosion and protect or improve water quality. 

▪ Flood Damage Reduction

o

o

o

Prepare, adopt, implement, and maintain/update a comprehensive hazard mitigation plan. 

Acquire and/or relocate floodprone structures to remove them from high-risk areas19. 

Conduct periodic inspections of all channels and retention basins and remove all debris. 

▪ Warning and Response

o

o

Provide early flood warnings to the public, and have a detailed flood response plan keyed to 

flood crest predictions. 

Maintain existing levees not otherwise credited in the flood insurance rating system that 

provide some flood protection. 

19 High-risk areas typically are labeled on flood maps as the V zone or A zone. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-64 ▪

For Indicator 27: Higher Standards, the GIS web mapping application, available at http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, 

presents the range of insured flood risk communities that are also CRS communities with a Class 5 or better 

rating at the State level.

BASELINE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

As of the date of this report, 1,368 of 22,875 NFIP-participating communities (5.9 percent) participate in 

the CRS. Rating classifications vary by community and State. The City of Roseville, California, is the only 

CRS Class 1 community, meaning reduction in premiums for flood insurance policyholders in high-risk 

areas (also referred to as Special Flood Hazard Areas) of at least 45 percent. More than 100 communities 

have a CRS ranking of at least Class 5, indicating substantial community investments in risk reduction and 

substantial reductions (at least 25 percent) for flood insurance policyholders in high-risk areas. State 

participation ranges from 0 percent to nearly 6 percent. 

States and communities with higher rates of CRS participation should respond to and recover from disasters 

more effectively than other communities recover; therefore, those States and communities should be more 

resilient. Table B-15 provides NFIP and CRS community participation information for all States and Puerto 

Rico. 

For the purpose of this report, the project team considered communities with a CRS rating of Class 5 

through Class 1 the most resilient. However, all levels of CRS and NFIP participation are important for 

reducing local risk and protecting lives and property. FEMA continues to encourage NFIP-participating

communities to enroll in the CRS and encourages CRS communities to consider expanding their portfolio 

of activities.

Table B-15. NFIP and CRS Participation by State (2015)

State

Total Number 

of CRS 

Communities

Number of

Communities in 

CRS Classes 1-5

Number of 

Communities 

in CRS 

Classes 6-9

Total Number of 

NFIP 

Participating 

Communities

Percentage of 

NFIP Communities 

in CRS Classes 1-5

U.S. 1,368 113 1,255 22,875 0.5

AL 14 0 14 450 0.0

AK 6 0 6 32 0.0

AZ 26 3 23 108 2.8

AR 16 0 16 428 0.0

CA 90 7 83 526 1.3

CO 46 4 42 260 1.5

CT 7 0 7 177 0.0

DE 11 0 11 49 0.0

FL 219 26 193 472 5.5

GA 50 3 47 578 0.5

HI 2 0 2 4 0.0

ID 20 0 20 176 0.0

IL 60 11 49 970 1.1

IN 33 0 33 452 0.0

IA 6 1 5 690 0.1

KS 31 0 31 459 0.0

KY 27 1 26 353 0.3
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

Table B-15, continued

▪ Page B-65 ▪

State

Total Number 

of CRS 

Communities

Number of

Communities in 

CRS Classes 1-5

Number of 

Communities 

in CRS 

Classes 6-9

Total Number of 

NFIP 

Participating 

Communities

Percentage of 

NFIP Communities 

in CRS Classes 1-5

LA 42 0 42 318 0.0

ME 17 0 17 985 0.0

MD 13 1 12 145 0.7

MA 15 0 15 341 0.0

MI 22 1 21 1,015 0.1

MN 7 2 5 630 0.3

MS 32 2 30 346 0.6

MO 7 1 6 688 0.1

MT 12 0 12 136 0.0

NE 6 1 5 416 0.2

NV 10 2 8 34 5.9

NH 4 0 4 217 0.0

NJ 73 12 61 552 2.2

NM 11 0 11 108 0.0

NY 32 0 32 1,511 0.0

NC 86 2 82 616 0.64

ND 2 1 1 334 0.3

OH 14 0 14 805 0.0

OK 12 4 8 427 0.9

OR 27 1 26 271 0.4

PA 25 0 25 2,465 0.0

PR 1 0 1 5 0.0

RI 8 0 8 40 0.0

SC 43 3 40 250 1.2

SD 5 0 5 234 0.0

TN 14 0 14 418 0.0

TX 62 5 57 1,371 0.4

UT 11 0 11 214 0.0

VT 3 0 3 248 0.0

VA 23 0 23 296 0.0

WA 36 15 21 294 5.1

WV 7 0 7 283 0.0

WI 17 2 15 593 0.3

WY 5 0 5 85 0.0

More information on the CRS and CRS participating communities is accessible through the FEMA website 

at http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-rating-system. 

The NFIP Community Status Book, which is accessible through http://www.fema.gov/national-floodinsurance-program/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book, provides a complete listing 

of NFIP-participating communities. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-66 ▪

Indicator 28: Mitigation Investment

INDICATOR RESILIENCE RELEVANCE

Funding availability is crucial to enabling the implementation of hazard mitigation plans and to building, 

rebuilding, or otherwise sustaining physical community structures or systems to reduce or avoid future 

losses. Tracking mitigation investment opportunities provides a way to gauge how attuned communities are 

to the need and opportunities for rebuilding with future hazard protection in mind. Mitigation investment

to reduce long-term vulnerabilities can take many forms, including hardening structures; building protective 

or diversionary structures around roads and highway systems or public utilities; or removing structures or 

facilities from high-risk zones, such as Special Flood Hazard Areas shown on NFIP maps. 

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISASTER RELIEF FUNDS

Proposed Measure 

The project team has not fully developed a proposed measure for this indicator. 

Considered Measure: Percentage of total public infrastructure disaster relief funds spent on 

Section 406 Mitigation for disasters in the preceding 5-year period

A major portion of Federal disaster assistance to State, Territory, Tribal, and local governments is devoted 

to the repair and restoration of damaged public infrastructure and facilities. Public infrastructure is a broad 

classification that encompasses the physical structures and systems supporting community health and social 

services, transportation, financial institutions, fire and police, power, communications, water and 

wastewater, and cultural and natural resources. FEMA distributes disaster recovery assistance for public 

infrastructure through its Public Assistance Program. Disaster events can cause damage to public structures; 

Indicator 28: MitigationInvestment

Public Infrastructure Disaster Relief Funds

Proposed Measure: Percentage of total public infrastructure disaster relief funds spent on Section 

406 Mitigation for disasters in the preceding 5-year period (considered but 

data provides rough estimates of actual spending at this stage only)

Data Source: Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW) EMMIE Public Assistance Data

Data Publisher: FEMA Year: 2011 –2016

Voluntary Hazard Mitigation Loans

Proposed Measure: Percentage of SBA home disaster loan funds spent on mitigation assistance

Data Source: SBA Disaster Loans

Data Publisher: SBA Year: 2014
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-67 ▪

when this happens, States and communities should take advantage of opportunities to restore them in a way 

that reduces the risk of repeated disaster losses in the future.

Section 406 Mitigation is the portion of Federal public assistance that allows damaged public infrastructure 

to be restored using loss-reduction measures that go beyond current applicable construction standards. The 

measures applied must be cost-effective in preventing repetitive future damages. By promoting measures 

that reduce future losses to life and property, Section 406 Mitigation funds help to build and maintain 

disaster-resilient communities. 

Many communities take advantage of the availability of Section 406 Mitigation funds, while others lack a 

basic awareness of their availability and the resilience benefits they create. Communities can use Section 

406 Mitigation funds in coordination with other Federal mitigation assistance. In some cases, communities 

can combine Section 406 Mitigation funds with other Federal mitigation assistance for the same projects 

and facilities to cover the total costs of necessary improvements. FEMA is working proactively to enhance 

the capacity to use Section 406 Mitigation funds by creating new procedures and pilot programs that help 

to target mitigation opportunities early in a disaster. Local community awareness in creating the demand 

for mitigation is essential.

Section 406 Mitigation funds provide some sense of the amount of post-disaster spending devoted to 

reducing future disaster losses. However, this measure is limited because not all public assistance funding 

that reduces the risk of damage in future disasters is Section 406 Mitigation funding. Communities may not 

use Public Assistance funds for hazard mitigation in cases such as the following: 

▪ For improvements to facilities that were not damaged in the declared disaster. While communities

can use other Federal mitigation assistance, such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, to

improve undamaged public structures, communities may only apply Section 406 Mitigation funds

may to damaged structures.

▪ For improvements that are required by building codes. For example, when a local, State, tribal,

territorial, or insular area government already requires the use of the most current disaster-resistant

codes and standards, this is not considered Section 406 Mitigation because restoration to applicable

building requirements is already funded.

While Section 406 Hazard Mitigation spending is compelling as a potential indicator of resilience, the

interagency team did not include Section 406 data as a proposed measure in this appendix; however, it may 

be included in the future. Section 406 spending is a nationwide dataset capable of capturing broad trends in 

long-term risk reduction decision-making after a disaster. However, current Section 406 spending may be 

incomplete for some applications and areas of the U.S. Reporting system improvements are underway. 

Additionally, Section 406 spending provides only one stream of activity that indicates overall communitylevel mitigation spending. 

Section 406 spending and other indicators of mitigation spending covered in this appendix, such as SBA 

Mitigation Loans, are worthy of consideration. Additionally, the FEMA HMA grant programs and the HUD 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) disaster grants provide national mitigation assistance to 

communities. The project team and others should consider the use of measures associated with the FEMA 

HMA grant programs and the HUD CDBG disaster grants program for Indicator 28: Mitigation Investment. 
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-68 ▪

VOLUNTARY HAZARD MITIGATION LOANS

Proposed Measure

Proposed Measure: Percentage of SBA home disaster loan funds spent on mitigation assistance

In addition to grants for disaster assistance, businesses, private nonprofit organizations, homeowners, and 

renters may qualify for SBA home disaster loans to help them recover from disasters. While most SBA 

home loans are devoted to restoring buildings and facilities to existing codes and standards, qualifying 

property owners may also be eligible for additional funds to cover the cost of improvements that will protect 

the property against future damage. Property owners may use these mitigation loans to cover “above code” 

activities such as additional freeboard to elevate a qualifying home or business, or the addition of retaining 

walls. SBA provides mitigation loan money in addition to the amount of the approved overall disaster loan, 

up to an additional 20 percent over the total amount of disaster damage to real estate and/or leasehold 

improvements, to a maximum of $200,000 for home loans and total loan amount of $2 million for business 

loans. 

SBA home disaster mitigation loans provide a measure of voluntary mitigation, meaning the improvements 

provided by the mitigation portion of the loan are not required, but the loan recipient has been educated 

about the value of hazard mitigation and has elected to request the additional amount to protect against 

future losses and damage. The SBA tracks the amount of voluntary mitigation and works in collaboration 

with other Federal agencies to promote voluntary mitigation.

SBA tracks home and business loan voluntary mitigation. As the SBA and other Federal agencies work to 

improve community-level understanding of the value of voluntary mitigation, more individuals may take 

advantage of the additional 20-percent allowance. However, these data may not necessarily result in an 

upward trend, because governments at all levels continue to work to improve and encourage local disaster

resistance code requirements. 

For Indicator 28: Mitigation Investment, the GIS web mapping application, available at 

http://arcg.is/1RPElqB, presents the percentage of SBA home disaster loan funds spent on mitigation 

assistance.

Baseline Analysis and Summary

Nationwide, in 2014, property owners spent an average of 0.5 percent of SBA home disaster loan funding

on mitigation assistance in the 28 States that reported SBA home disaster loans. 

Table B-16 lists the State-level percentages for those States that reported SBA home disaster loans. An 

increase in the percentage of SBA home disaster loan funds spent on mitigation assistance would indicate 

that communities and property owners are taking steps toward improving resilience.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES

▪ Page B-69 ▪

Table B-16. Percentage of SBA Home Disaster Loan Funds

Spent on Mitigation Assistance (2014)

State

Average

Percent 

AL 0.21

AR 0.00

AZ 0.28

CA 0.00

CT 0.00

FL 0.59

IA 1.52

IL 0.00

State

Average

Percent

IN 0.00

KS 0.00

MA 0.00

MD 1.03

MI 4.14

MN 0.00

MO 0.00

MS 0.00

State

Average

Percent

NC 0.37

NE 0.00

NY 0.13

OH 1.32

OK 0.00

PA 0.00

SD 0.19

TN 0.11

State

Average

Percent

TX 0.35

UT 0.00

WA 0.00

WI 0.00

Note: Only States that 

reported SBA home disaster 

loans are included here.

*This section provides a State-level aggregation of community- or county-level data. See the map viewer

for detailed local datasets.
APPENDIX B. ASSESSING POTENTIAL NATIONAL-LEVEL MEASURES 

▪ Page B-70 ▪

List of Citations

Articles and resources used in support of the report narrative are listed below. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Diabetes Data, www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/county.html

Corporation for National & Community Service. 2007. The Health Benefits of Volunteering: A 

Review of Recent Research. www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/07_0506_hbr.pdf

Cutter, Susan, Kevin Ash, and Christopher Emrich. 2014. “The Geographies of Community Disaster 

Resilience.” Global Environmental Change: 29. Page 65-77.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013. Federal Guidelines for Emergency Action 

Planning for Dams (FEMA Publication No. P-64). www.fema.gov/media-librarydata/5b20db599c212f77fd5e85d256f471a3/EAP%20Federal%20Guidelines_FEMA%20P-64.pdf

Kazmierczak, A. and Carter, J. 2010. Adaptation of climate change using green and blue 

infrastructure. A database of case studies. www.grabseu.org/membersArea/files/Database_Final_no_hyperlinks.pdf

NCOC (National Conference on Citizenship). 2012. Civic Health and Unemployment II: The Case 

Builds. www.ncoc.net/index.php?download=114kcfl1427

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 2015. Community Resilience Planning Guide 

for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems Volume I.

www.nist.gov/el/resilience/upload/NIST_Guide_Volume_1_042515_For-Web-2.pdf

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2015. US Climate Resilience Toolkit - 

Building Health Care Sector Resilience. https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/human-health/buildingclimate-resilience-health-sector

NTD (National Transit Database). 2015. “What is the National Transit Database?” 

http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/ntd.htm

NWS (National Weather Service). 2016. “National Weather Service: StormReady!” 

www.stormready.noaa.gov/
APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF INDICATORS AND SOURCES

▪ Page C-1 ▪

SUMMARY OF

INDICATORS AND SOURCES

The project team considered a number of Federal datasets and data sources during the assessment of 

community resilience indicators summarized in this Draft Concept Paper. Table C-1 summarizes the 

datasets and data sources that the team identified for use in this paper by core capability and resilience 

indicator.
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF INDICATORS AND SOURCES

▪ Page C-2 ▪

Table C-1. Summary of Datasets Identified for Evaluating Community Resilience Indicators

Indicator Dataset Name Description of Dataset

Where to Get It

Map Service Authoritative Source

Core Capability – Housing

Indicator 1: 

Housing 

Conditions 

Comprehensive 

Housing 

Affordability 

Strategy (CHAS) 

Housing Conditions 

Data

The CHAS data, provided by the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), offers a wide range 

of information about housing conditions. 

The CHAS data used for this dataset is the 

percentage of households living with one 

of four severe housing problems (5-year

average). The four housing problems are 

(1) incomplete kitchen facilities, (2) 

incomplete plumbing facilities, (3) more 

than 1 person per room, and (4) rental or 

mortgage costs that are greater than 50 

percent of household income. 

County-level percentage of 

households living with at 

least one of four severe 

housing problems

HUD CHAS Data Download 

Page

Indicator 2: 

Housing 

Affordability

Comprehensive 

Housing 

Affordability 

Strategy (CHAS)

The CHAS data, provided by HUD, offers 

a wide range of information about housing 

conditions. The CHAS data used for this 

dataset is the percent of households 

spending more than 30 percent of their 

income on housing costs including 

utilities. 

County-level percentage of 

households that are cost 

burdened

HUD CHAS Data Download 

Page

Core Capability – Health and Social Services

Indicator 3: 

Health Care 

Availability

Area Health 

Resources Files

(AHRF)

The U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services AHRF provides a 

comprehensive set of data offering a broad 

range of health resources and information, 

including the number of primary care 

physicians and local population.

County-level primary care 

physicians per 100,000 

population

Area Health Resources Files 

(AHRF)
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF INDICATORS AND SOURCES

Table C-1, continued

▪ Page C-3 ▪

Indicator Dataset Name Description of Dataset

Where to Get It

Map Service Authoritative Source

Indicator 4: 

Healthy 

Behaviors

Diabetes County 

Level Data

The Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) collects data on 

physical activity at the county and State 

level. As part of its data collection process, 

the CDC asks survey respondents, "During 

the past month, other than your regular 

job, did you participate in any physical 

activities or exercises such as running, 

calisthenics, golf, gardening, or walking 

for exercise?" Respondents who answer 

“no” indicate that they do not participate 

in any leisure time physical activity.

County-level percentage of 

adult population not 

participating in leisure time 

physical activities

CDC Diabetes County-Level 

Data

Core Capability – Economic Recovery

Indicator 6: 

Employment 

Opportunity

Local Area 

Unemployment 

Statistics

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

provides annual unemployment estimates 

for each county and State in the U.S. 

Because unemployment data may have 

wide year-to-year variability, this report 

provides 3-year unemployment rate 

averages. 

County-level 3-year average 

unemployment rate

Local Area Unemployment 

Statistics

Indicator 7: 

Income

Local Area Personal 

Income

The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 

provides per capita local area personal 

income, which is calculated as the total 

personal income of the residents of a given 

area divided by the resident population of 

the area. Personal income is measured 

before the deduction of personal income 

taxes and other personal taxes and is 

reported in current dollars.

County-level per capita 

income

Local Area Personal Income, 

2014

Core Capability – Infrastructure Systems

Indicator 9: 

Transportation 

Connectivity

Intermodal 

Passenger 

Connectivity 

Database (IPCD)

The IPCD, managed by the U.S. Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, provides a 

national quantification of the degree of 

connectivity in the passenger 

transportation system. 

State-level percentage of 

public transportation 

passenger terminals with 

intermodal connectivity

Intermodal Passenger 

Connectivity Database (IPCD)
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF INDICATORS AND SOURCES

Table C-1, continued

▪ Page C-4 ▪

Indicator Dataset Name Description of Dataset

Where to Get It

Map Service Authoritative Source

Indicator 10:

Transit 

Accessibility

National Transit 

Database (NTD): 

Transit Stations

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

provides national transit system data 

through NTD. U.S. Congress established 

the NTD to be the primary national source 

for transit system information and 

statistics. By statute, recipients or 

beneficiaries of certain grants from the 

FTA must submit data to the NTD. As part 

of the data submission, local transit 

authorities report on the number of total 

transit stations, as well as the number of 

transit stations that are compliant with 

accessibility requirements of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 

States with <100% percent 

of transit system stations in 

compliance with 

accessibility requirements of 

Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990

NTD 2013 Transit Stations

Indicator 11: 

Water Sector 

Emergency 

Support

Water/Wastewater 

Agency Response 

Networks (WARNs)

The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency encourages States to establish 

WARNs to provide methods whereby 

water/wastewater utilities provide and 

receive emergency aid and assistance 

necessary due to sustained or anticipated 

damages from natural or human-caused 

incidents. 

States with Mutual Aid and 

Assistance Agreements in 

place through the 

Water/Wastewater Agency 

Response Network

Water/Wastewater Agency 

Response Network

Core Capability – Natural and Cultural Resources

Indicator 14: 

Water 

Conservation

USGS National 

Water Use Report

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

tracks the estimated use of water in the 

U.S., including the public supply 

deliveries for domestic use. USGS collects 

the data from counties every 5 years for 

the national water use report.

State-level per capita water 

use for all domestic uses

Estimated Use of Water in the 

U.S. County-Level Data for 

2010
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF INDICATORS AND SOURCES

Table C-1, continued

▪ Page C-5 ▪

Indicator Dataset Name Description of Dataset

Where to Get It

Map Service Authoritative Source

Core Capability – Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment

Indicator 21: 

Community 

Preparedness

StormReady® and 

TsunamiReady

The National Weather Service provides 

data about StormReady® and 

TsunamiReady® sites ranging in 

geographic scale from States, to counties, 

to specific commercial and educational 

sites.

State-level number of 

StormReady® and/or 

TsunamiReady® designated 

sites

National Weather Service -

StormReady® Communities

Core Capability – Planning

Indicator 22: 

Mitigation 

Planning

National Mitigation 

Planning Program

The Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) is responsible for 

approving local hazard mitigation plans. 

FEMA maintains a database of 

communities with "approved" and 

"approvable-pending-adoption" local 

hazard mitigation plans, along with their 

populations. FEMA updates the database 

at least quarterly.

State-level percentage of 

population residing in 

communities covered by a 

current local hazard 

mitigation plan

A map service accessible via 

Geographic Information System 

software

Core Capability – Community Resilience

Indicator 25: 

Civic Capacity

Current Population 

Survey (CPS)

The CPS, conducted monthly by the U.S. 

Census Bureau, includes two supplements: 

the Volunteer Supplement and the Civic 

Supplement. The Corporation for National 

and Community Service compiles 

information from these two supplements 

and, as part of administering the 

Volunteering and Civic Life in America 

website, makes the data publicly available. 

Part of the data made available is the 

volunteer rates per State.

State-level percentage of 

individuals surveyed who 

performed volunteer 

activities for or through an 

organization during the 

preceding 12- month period

Volunteering and Civic Life in 

America
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF INDICATORS AND SOURCES

Table C-1, continued

▪ Page C-6 ▪

Indicator Dataset Name Description of Dataset

Where to Get It

Map Service Authoritative Source

Core Capability – Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction

Indicator 26: 

Building Codes

Building Code 

Effectiveness 

Grading Schedule

(BCEGS)

The Insurance Services Office (ISO) 

tracks building code effectiveness through 

the BCEGS. The dataset identifies the 

number of jurisdictions by State and the 

number of jurisdictions subject to one or 

more hazards (seismic, hurricane, or flood) 

that have adopted building codes with 

disaster-specific provisions

State-level percentage of 

reporting communities that 

are subject to one or more 

hazards (seismic, hurricane 

or floods) that have adopted 

building codes with disaster 

resistance provisions

ISO

Indicator 27: 

Higher Standards

Community Rating

System (CRS) 

Communities and 

their Classes

FEMA tracks National Flood Insurance 

Program (NFIP) enrollment and CRS 

classification for all jurisdictions in the 

U.S. The data identifies the number of 

NFIP-participating jurisdictions by State, 

the number of CRS jurisdictions by State, 

and the CRS class rating for each CRS 

participant.

State-level percentage of 

insured flood risk 

communities enrolled in the 

Community Rating System 

(CRS) with a significant 

number of CRS activities

CRS Communities and their 

Classes; NFIP Community 

Status Book

Indicator 28: 

Mitigation 

Investment

Public Infrastructure 

Disaster Relief 

Funds

FEMA tracks Public Infrastructure 

recovery funding spent on hazard 

mitigation for each State. 

County level percentage of 

total Public Infrastructure 

disaster relief funds spent on 

406 Mitigation for disasters 

in the preceding 5-year 

period

FEMA

Indicator 28: 

Mitigation 

Investment

Voluntary Hazard 

Mitigation Loans 

(SBA) 

The Small Business Administration (SBA)

has disaster loans available to businesses, 

private nonprofit organizations, 

homeowners, and renters. 

Percentage of SBA home 

disaster loan funds spent on 

mitigation assistance

SBA
▪ Page D-1 ▪

LIST OFACRONYMS AND

ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms and abbreviations that appear in this Draft Concept Paper are:

3DEP Three-Dimension Elevation Program 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

AHRF Area Health Resources Files

AWWA American Water Works Association

BCEGS Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule

BEA U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

BTS U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics

C-CAP Coastal Change Analysis Program

CDBG Community Development Block Grant (Program)

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CHAS Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy

CHCI Cumulative Habitat Condition Index

CNCS Corporation for National and Community Service

CPS Current Population Survey

CRS Community Rating System

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce
APPENDIX D: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

▪ Page D-2 ▪

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

EAP Emergency Action Plan

EDA U.S. Economic Development Administration

EDW Enterprise Data Warehouse

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis (Program 

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GIS Geographic Information System

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Classification

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

ifsar Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar

IPCD Intermodal Passenger Connectivity Database

ISO Insurance Services Office

lidar Light Detection and Ranging

MitFLG Mitigation Framework Leadership Group

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment

NBM National Broadband Map

NFHP National Fish Habitat Partnership

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NID National Inventory of Dams

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NLCD National Land Cover Dataset 

NLD National Levee Database

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPG National Performance Goal

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
APPENDIX D: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

▪ Page D-3 ▪

NTD National Transit Database 

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration

NWS National Weather Service

OCM Office for Coastal Management

pdf Portable Document Format

PPD Presidential Policy Directive

REST Representational State Transfer

Risk MAP Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (program)

RRAP Regional Resiliency Assessment Program

SBA Small Business Administration

THIRA Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WARN Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network

WMS Web Map Service