Developing Indicators for Measuring Resilience in Carlisle, PA

Maxwell Lee, Matthew Pasquali and Olivia Termini

Spring 2017

Table of Contents

Introduction        2

Literature Review        4

Fall 2016 Summary of Results        13

Spring 2017 Research Goals and Methods        19

Spring 2017 Focus Group Summaries        22

Indicators        26

Recommendations        34

Discussion        36

Conclusion        37

Appendix        39

References        41

Introduction

Resilient is a term that each person, town, and country should strive to obtain. On an individual level it equates to toughness, strength and flexibility. Similarly, at a community level it means building better networks and relationships and the ability to respond to stress more effectively, therefore ensuring a better quality of life for all. For our purposes, resilience can be defined as the ability of a city to function allowing those working and living in the city to not only survive, but thrive when faced with any stresses or shocks (Arup, 2015).  Resilient communities continuously work to improve weaknesses. Measures taken can help preemptively prepare cities to be lesser affected by disasters before they happen, make them more likely to rebound from disasters quicker, and allow protocols to be carried out easily and without much fuss while disasters are occurring. Due to rising threats of climate change, resilience is vital to a community’s success. Strong communities are resilient ones. Resilience to economic, social, and environmental stresses will help ensure a community is adequately prepared for any stress that may occur. Community resilience not only helps prepare a community for disaster, but it also builds a stronger relationship among community members.  Creating and developing a framework that provides communities with the ability to systematically measure factors that contribute to their resiliency is pertinent to making data driven decisions for community development. A data driven approach will aid and facilitate conversation regarding actions the Carlisle Borough must take to improve its resilience.

In Fall 2016, 16 students in Dickinson College’s SUST 301 Building Sustainable Communities class taught by Neil Leary, the Director of Dickinson College’s Center for Sustainability Education, engaged in a research project with the surrounding community. Their goal was to provide a benchmark measurement of resiliency in Carlisle, Pennsylvania using the City Resilience Index (CRI).  This framework was developed by Arup with support from the Rockefeller Foundation.  The students were divided into four research teams and were tasked with collecting data through quantitative research of various written sources and qualitative personal interviews with community members. The CRI was used to compute a resiliency profile and the data was analyzed for Carlisle’s strengths and weaknesses. After the framework was developed, the students met with over 30 community members to discuss and validate the research results with the goal of making targeted changes to the community based on the CRI’s results. The figure below represents our research process from Fall 2016. For this semester’s research, we are beginning at the “review and revise” stage to tailor the resiliency framework to Carlisle.

Figure 1:

In Spring 2017, we continued the community resilience research by looking more deeply into two of the four dimensions provided by the CRI that were identified as pertinent to reassess in gauging Carlisle’s overall resilience. These were Health & Wellbeing and Economy & Society. Based on the research from last semester, these were the two dimensions that had the most room for improvement in Carlisle and therefore needed more attention. Additionally, in our community workshop, these were two sectors mentioned in the large group discussion. Lastly, economy and health are baseline essentials to a healthy and vibrant community.

This semester, we wanted to continue the conversation that was started in 2016 with the community. So, we centered our research around strategically selecting members of focus groups based on our two dimensions Health & Wellbeing and Economy & Society. Ultimately, we desired our research to provide Carlisle with a data driven, straightforward way to draw attention to problems that may arise in the community. Also, we wanted to allow Carlisle a way to track their resilience progress. This research will help the community facilitate more conversation in a more precise way and will ultimately help them identify problems using data and hopefully make changes based on the trends they see. Our primary goal for this semester was to develop indicators for a framework that can be used by the Carlisle Borough to sustainably track its resilience. We strived to develop a set of indicators and information concerning where the data can be found in a straightforward way for Carlisle Borough Employees to track resilience progress over time.

Literature Review

Achieving resilience includes strengthening all aspects of one’s community including health, social services, infrastructure, civil society, economics, including the relationships between these sectors. A thorough and comprehensible framework to measure community resilience is pertinent in order to prioritize needs of the community, create change, and monitor the changes made to the community to track progress. By drawing on other cities, frameworks, methods, indicators, and metrics, cities and communities can personalize, develop, and formalize a mechanism to help them make targeted changes to the community and become more resilient. The purpose of this literature review is to assess the City Resilience Index, the framework that the “Building Sustainable Communities” course used to assess resilience in Carlisle during Fall 2016 research, as well as other frameworks that are designed to measure resiliency.  Ultimately, the goal is to combine various frameworks to develop a specialized way to measure resilience in Carlisle.

Arup. “City Resilience Index - Understanding and measuring city resilience” The Rockefeller Foundation.

        This paper provides an overview for the City Resilience Index, a framework for judging resilience that encompasses 4 dimensions, 3 goals within those dimensions, and multiple indicators for each goal. Each of these hits of a specific theme, ranging from Economy and Society to Infrastructure and Ecosystems. The publication adopts a working definition of city resilience as “[describing] the capacity of cities to function, so that the people living and working in cities – particularly the poor and vulnerable – survive and thrive no matter what stresses or shocks they encounter.” This working definition varies from ones found in frameworks that revolve solely around recovering from disasters as this one includes knowledge that bettering qualities of lives of the vulnerable lower classes is a key tenet of overall resilience. Facilitating connections between different areas of the community is also key in establishing overall resilience. The importance of measuring the change in resilience over time rather than comparing resilience between cities is stressed. This framework is ideal for filling out, identifying areas in which to improve resilience, spending time improving on these weaknesses, and then revisiting the framework in a few years to see if the areas needed improved resilience have changed. The document lays out how the framework was developed and discusses how learning from case studies, past trials, and literature all helped inform the framework. The document then continues to talk about the qualities of resilient cities. These characteristics are: reflective, robust, redundant, flexible, resourceful, integrated, and inclusive. After defining these characteristics, the documents continues to provide an overview of each of the indicators, describing them in relation to overall resilience. Resilience cities are said to include high levels of all of these characteristics, including connections between different areas.

        The strengths of this framework are that it is very encompassing and well thought out. There was a lot of planning and research put into constructing the framework, evident through the narrative of how the framework was conceived and also the comprehensiveness of the indicators and definitions of city resilience. The alpha program was implemented in cities all over the world to test how well it could work. The Building Sustainable Communities course utilized the beta framework last semester to gauge Carlisle’s resilience.. The downsides are that the framework is very subjective - the ratings given for different indicators depends greatly on the subjectiveness of the researchers that are filling out the framework. As the framework is very comprehensive, it is very time-consuming to complete, meaning small boroughs such as Carlisle might not desire to set aside resources to fill this framework out every couple of years. This being said, the framework provides an excellent, broad overview of city resilience based off both quantitative information and qualitative information, providing an accurate narrative of resilience.

Brose, Dominic A., and (U.S.) National Research Council. 2015. Developing a Framework for Measuring Community Resilience: : Summary of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2015. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed January 25, 2017)

On September 5th 2014, the Resilient America Roundtable of the National Academies hosted the workshop Measures of Community Resilience: From Lessons Learned to Lessons Applied in Washington, D.C.  Their goal was to develop a framework and indicators to measure community resilience.  The shift from pure disaster management and recovery to a more comprehensive model of resiliency will allow communities to circumvent problems they may have in the future and build the ability to bounce back from problems the community may be predisposed to.  There is no one size fits all framework for resiliency.  Even though each community has different risk factors, each indicator or measurement must include, at the least, vulnerable populations, critical and environmental infrastructure, social factors, and built infrastructure.

Some examples of measuring tools that are in use or have been used include the Index for Disaster Risk Management (InforRm) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), developed by the Joint Research Centre, which assesses vulnerability through three dimensions of risk: Hazards & Exposure, Vulnerability, and Lack of Coping Capacity and 53 core indicators.  It was designed to provide a common evidenced based approach for global humanitarian risk analyses and ranks countries based on the likelihood of them needing international aid and score countries on a risk scale from 1-10. It is a global approach designed to compare countries as opposed to resiliency on a city level. Thus, it is too broad for a community like Carlisle. On the other hand, ABAG focused on the overall sustainability, equity, and resiliency of the San Francisco Bay Area. Discussions about ABAG were framed around knowledge, people, organization and place which line up with the CRI’s indicators of governance and planning, health and wellbeing, economy and society, and urban systems and services. ABAG held the Loma Prieta 25 Symposium in honor of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake to promote legislative programs that improved building codes, update condo buildings, financially incentivized people to improve seismic safety, and establish a Lifelines Council. They had problems with the excessive amount of partners and mainly focused on assessments and vulnerabilities. They are working on creating a resilience inventory, a success metric, and a prototype methodology to help other communities plan and build resiliency.
        The development of these indexes overall helped to create more sustainable and worthwhile dialogue among key stakeholders at the workshop with a goal of ultimately their communities. Part of the workshop included breakout sessions where each group’s goal was to develop components of each category (vulnerable populations, critical and environmental infrastructure, social factors, and built infrastructure), objectives for the components, and a way to measure each component. The completed tables published by this exercise (shown below) are a helpful example of crafting resiliency indicators. The breakout session exercise would be a helpful way to personalize resilience to a specific community.

Figure 2.

From this exercise and other input, the four characteristics evolved to six, which included social/wellness environment, human environment, financial/economic environment, physical-built environment, natural environment, and governance/leadership environment. The workshop concluded that building resilience requires a cultural shift, use of data that is already gathered and new ways to measure it, and active sustained efforts from the community to personalize frameworks.

Bergstrand, Kelly, Brian Mayer, Babette Brumback, and Yi Zhang. 2015. "Assessing the Relationship Between Social Vulnerability and Community Resilience to Hazards." Social Indicators Research 122, no. 2: 391-409. SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed January 25, 2017).

Bergstrand et al. study social vulnerability and community resilience in counties across the United States in hopes of finding a correlation between the two. In their study, assessing vulnerability focused on disaster management and the ability a community has to respond to and bounce back from disaster. Infrastructure and social factors such as poverty, health status, and economic inequality were also examined through the vulnerability scope. The assessment of community resilience focused on problem-solving, efficiency, and adaptability. The four key properties of resilient communities, identified by Bergstrand et al. include: robustness, redundancy, rapidity, and resourcefulness. These four properties help facilitate economic development, social capital, spread of information and communication, and community competence.

Bergstrand et al. utilize several statistical approaches to examine social vulnerability and community resilience. Social vulnerability and community resilience were assessed by using the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) and the Community Resilience Index. These two indices differ in calculating resiliency. The SoVI uses data from the US Census website and USA Counties website. Data is provided at a county level from various secondary sources. The SoVI tool also uses data from the US Census Bureau. By using these sources, requisite data was assembled for over 3,000 counties across the country. For any missing values, a median value was imputed into the data. As a result of the SoVI, 30 variables concerning vulnerability within a county were established. The Community Resilience Index relies on two main components when measuring resilience: an Economic Development Index and a Social Capital Index. Data for the Community Resilience Index  is collected from the 2008 presidential elections, the US Census website, USA Counties website, and the American Community Survey from 2010. As a result of the Community Resilience Index, 10 variables relating to an Economic Development Index and seven variables relating to the Social Capital Index were established. Although these sources use some of the same sources, different variables are measured and assessed by each tool.

Statistical correlations, t-tests, and the Moran’s I, a measure of spatial autocorrelation, helped interpret data found by the SoVI and Community Resilience Index. Results from these reports indicated there is indeed a correlation between social vulnerability and resiliency. Higher vulnerability tends to correlate with lower resiliency, and vice versa. New at-risk areas were better identified by the usage of two indexes rather than using one alone.

The strength of this measuring tool is that it uses two indexes rather than one. This helps to get a more accurate representation of communities because they were assessed with two different techniques. This tool was also strengthened by the statistical analysis of the results. Because two indexes were used, statistics are important to correlate the results and offer us with more accurate results. A limitation in this tool is that data was primarily, if not all, quantitative. The U.S Census database, data from the 2008 presidential elections, the American Community Survey and the Association of Religion Data Archives were the main sources of data for this study. Qualitative data was overlooked with this tool, although it would be very difficult to get qualitative data when conducting resiliency for over 3,000 counties. Overall, this measuring tool seemed to work better than just the City Resilience Index alone. This measuring tool used the Community Resilience Index and the SoVI for supplemental data. By combining data from the these two indices, more variables were identified and assessed at a county level.

Mojtahedi, S. Mohammad H., and Bee-Lan Oo. "Development of an index to measure stakeholder approaches toward disasters in the built environment." Procedia Economics and Finance 18 (2014): 95-102.

Mojtahedi and Oo examine measurement tools to assess stakeholder’s responses to disasters in Australia. Extensive research has been conducted regarding key stakeholders playing a reactive role rather than proactive role in disaster risk management, however not much research has been conducted to “measure stakeholders’ proactive and/or reactive approaches and their overall response to disaster.” When dealing with disasters, a reactive approach or a proactive approach can be taken. Mojtahedi and Oo claim that most stakeholders take reactive approaches, meaning once the disaster occurs, stakeholders begin to react to the disaster and put a plan into action. This differs from a proactive approach because a proactive approach is taking action before a disaster occurs. It looks at mitigating the potential of a disaster before it happens, preparedness in dealing with a disaster, and recovery efforts in the event of a disaster striking their community. Mojtahedi and Oo aimed to create such a framework that measures stakeholders’ proactive approaches because Australian Councils have frequently chosen a reactive approach rather than proactive. A proactive approach can help provide a more dynamic picture of disaster, compare vulnerability between different communities, establish a more efficient allocation of scarce resources, assess disaster risk “more effectively and accurately,” and understand “community preparedness.”

Data for this research came from multiple Australian Bureaus as well as through a “web-based structured survey.” Data regarding transport infrastructure and flooding dated back to 1982. Stakeholders from 74 local government areas were surveyed about information regarding their approach to flood disasters. Only 36 of these local governments responded. While a response rate of 48% is relatively low, a statistical analysis was still able to be performed. The Stakeholder Disaster Response Index (SDRI) was then used to compare approaches taken by stakeholders and describe “relative contributions of socio-economic, built environment and stakeholder’s attributes.” The Importance Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) was used to develop scores on various indicators regarding Disaster Risk Management (DRM). This revealed that proactive approach is the most important when establishing SDRI. Such an approach should be taken by communities when selecting indicators of resilience. The conclusion of this study states that developing a proactive procedure rather than reactive, stakeholders could be better assessed on a regular basis and focus on the stakeholder’s, power, legitimacy, and urgency.

This measuring tool is strong because it’s a tool used to better measure preparedness. While it’s important to properly react after a disaster, it’s just as important, if not more important to be properly proactive and prepared for a disaster. This tool is successful in assessing proactiveness. A limitation in this tool is that it only measures one disaster, flooding, in Australia. However, the concept of this tool is useful for all communities. As a whole, this tool is not as diverse or multidisciplinary as Arup’s CRI because it looks at only one aspect of community resilience. This tool is very useful and possibly more useful in measuring disaster preparedness than the Arup’s CRI, but is limited to just that. Arup’s CRI encompasses more aspects of city resilience. It also incorporates information and correlates it with a proactive approach. For example, one way in which Arup’s CRI measures disaster management is by examining the amount of emergency responders there are in a community, and looks at all disaster management plans within the community. By using that information, a proactive approach could be taken by ensuring there are enough emergency responders in the event of a disaster and that there is a plan in place for all potential disasters.

Sharifi, Ayyoob. 2016. "A Critical Review of Selected Tools for Assessing Community Resilience." Ecological Indicators 69: 629-647.

This paper provides an overview of 36 selected mechanisms for measuring community resilience. Sharifi describes how measuring community resilience is a necessary tactic to take in order to prepare adequately for possible disasters by reducing associated risks. Sharifi defines resilience more specifically as being able to plan for, absorb, recover from, and adapt to hazards. This is a definition that is limited to disasters. These measuring techniques attempt to quantify resilience, a very broad and nuanced subject, in a tangible result that makes it easier to work with. The main methods used to evaluate these measuring systems included: “being comprehensive, acknowledging cross-scale relationships, capturing temporal dynamism, addressing uncertainties, employing participatory approaches, and developing action plans.” It is important for any community resilience assessment system to contain these aspects, as taken together these help paint a holistic picture of how effectively a community can respond to a variety of hazards. Studies conducted should contain both primary and secondary data (surveys/interviews and historical records/data collection). There is also an emphasis placed on measuring both quantitative and qualitative information to be able to effectively paint a narrative. The proper way to present results from the measurement tools is by informing communities of strength and weaknesses in relation to resilience in addition to how they can improve resilience efforts, avoiding the notion that positive results cause communities to become complacent with the idea of resilience. Five common dimensions were identified as areas the community resilience assessment tools must address to cover all grounds: environmental, social, economic, built environment and infrastructure, and institutional, with associated sub-indicators and resilience criteria. The 36 tools were compared against each other for the six prior qualities of comprehensive community resilience assessment models. There was no complete community resilience measurement model produced from the tests that could be applied to any community. The specific measurement tool that would work best varies from community to community, depending on scope of the research, the information available, and a number of other factors.

Strengths of this document include that it provides a variety of descriptions relating community resilience assessment tools, allowing us to compare differences between the frameworks. It also has a relatively comprehensive listing of these tools and associated indicators to assure that assessments of community resilience touch on a variety of important topics. By applying principles gained from this paper, the scope of our research is informed - what aspects of the community to research and how to research these areas. The literature cited in this paper allows for in depth delving into documents that would potentially benefit and further our own research. This document is relatively inconclusive to our goal of developing a framework for resilience measurements and indicator development. It provides a very good platform for assessing different community resilience measurement tools, but is lacking in terms of specific indicators that are helpful in certain circumstances. Instead, the tool provides a list of indices, lists their characteristics, and lets the researchers who are evaluating the specific index to use choose which aspects they deem important enough to include in assessing resilience. This might be a benefit in the long run, however, as it provides communities the abilities to construct indicator lists that are more applicable to the specific communities. The paper’s main weakness is that it has a limited definition of resilience, missing out of the nuanced nature of community resilience, and how interconnected it is with social measures and indicators. Taking these aspects into account would provide for a more holistic framework. This is not a substitute for Arup’s CRI as it does not provide a framework to assess community resilience. Judging from the evaluations of the index, the CRI appears as an adequate framework to use in measuring community resilience - it takes information from a variety of sources and informs a wide array of indicators that help provide an overview of overall community resilience.

Sherrieb, Kathleen, Fran H. Norris, and Sandro Galea. "Measuring Capacities for Community Resilience (English)." Social Indicators Research 99, no. 2: 227-247. Francis, EBSCOhost (accessed March 5, 2017).

This study looked into the effectiveness of indicators in two major areas: economic and social capital. Key indicators to measure economic capital include: level of economic resources, degree of quality in resource distribution, and diversity in economic resources. Social capital involves social support/participation and community bonds. This study was implemented over a broad scale, reviewing a total of 82 counties in Mississippi. The information used in this study was accessed through databases. No information was gained from interviews, focus groups, or surveys; the research team attempted to draw conclusions to the specific questions purely from quantitative data. The team then compared results with expected outcomes based on prior knowledge of counties. Their findings were largely in line with expectations based on previous knowledge and studies conducted on the counties. By the end of the process, the team kept 17 of 88 initial indicators  as they most accurately informed questions relating to community resilience and vulnerability However, these indicators were selected due to their specific application to the surrounding communities, and therefore would not necessarily relate to other areas. To determine such an accurate indicator list, similar tests would have to occur in areas to which indicators will be applied. Most of the indicators looked at information on a county level as opposed to an individual level. The research was positively validated against the Social Vulnerability Index (SOVI), which went against prior hypotheses that the research would correlate negatively with the index. This was due to the fact that the measures used by the two tools represented different areas and concepts. The SOVI represents a limited insight into community vulnerability to environmental disasters, but usage of the framework greatly depends on information available.

There were several strengths and weaknesses relating to the tool that help it inform our own research about measuring community resilience. The strengths of measuring tool include that gaining information from databases is more efficient than conducting surveys or interviews. The work was also based on a clearly defined theoretical model that related to connecting resources to community resilience, which made separating the sources and outcomes of community resilience straightforward. The survey data incorporated validated, unbiased records, allowing the results to be viewed as significant. Weaknesses of measuring tool include that the specific indicators used might only be applicable to counties in the state of MS, so applying them to other scenarios or regions must be accompanied by reviewing and altering the indicators accordingly. The limitations of the data (purely archival) were very apparent, and constrained the specific areas of research that could be fully covered. As a result, the indicators were limited to topics that had specific information readily available. Taking purely archived quantitative research gives potential for results to be black and white as opposed to telling a narrative, which would be more apparent through surveys or interviews. This framework also did not incorporate the health sector directly, so we would have to supplement it with another framework if we were to adopt this strategy. Overall, this indicator list was helpful in providing a base background knowledge for quantitative social measures that provide some insight into overall resilience. However, a method like this should not be relied upon alone, as the ability to create a narrative with purely quantitative information is severely lacking. Used in conjunction with a framework that allows for the stronger narrative presence of focus groups and interviews to be included in indicator selection and answering, this method of answering questions quantitatively would be helpful in determining community resilience.

After reviewing this literature, we found that the more relevant resilience frameworks that benefit surrounding communities are developed when community members are actively engaged in the framework conception and construction process. One way to do this is to facilitate focus groups and provide them with a basic resiliency structure, allowing them to tailor it to their own community. Community resilience measuring frameworks must be specialized to the specific community in which you are trying to gauge resilience. Measuring tools should encompass a mix of quantitative and qualitative data from the community in order to paint an accurate picture of overall community resilience. We found that by using multiple measuring tools, more accurate frameworks can be developed. Resiliency is something that should be continually measured with all sectors of a strong community including the public and private sectors.  Communities should work to identify weaknesses that systematically affect other facets of resiliency.  Once a city develops their initial framework and measurements, they should work to refine the original framework in order to sustainably build toward resiliency. Including new indicators that come up as ways to measure resilience is a way of adapting over time and can help communities overcome unforeseen challenges.  

Fall 2016 Summary of Results

        In the Fall 2016 semester, we were a part of a class that researched resilience of Carlisle exclusively using the CRI framework. The class was divided into four groups, and each group looked at a different dimension of overall resilience. The four dimensions are: Health and Wellbeing, Economy and Society, Infrastructure and Ecosystems, and Governance and Planning. Between the four dimensions, 52 indicators were measured and assessed for resilience. Once these 52 indicators were scored on a scale of 1, not resilient, to 5, resilient, scores were inputted into Arup’s Resilience Index (Figure 3). Summaries of each dimension, including descriptions of the framework for each section and a review of findings, follow.

Figure 3. Carlisle’s Resilience Index Profile generated by Arup with data from student research

Health and Wellbeing

This section has three major goals in determining city resilience: minimal human vulnerability, diverse livelihood and employment, and effective safeguards to human health and life. Overall, this dimension refers to the livelihood of borough residents and workers. Issues such as access food, water, and shelter are considered. There are also considered measures of how well the city supports a variety of opportunities for employment, making sure there are options present for many different and diverse career paths. Lastly, this section focused on how well a city was able to protect health of the population through emergency service provisions, such as health care programs (Arup, 2016).

Specifically, the research last semester focused on researching various areas of health and wellbeing, including citizen participation and awareness, crime and policing, culture, education, support and welfare, and health. In terms of health, basic needs of members of the community were assessed such as affordable and available healthcare, sufficient resources for support and welfare of community members, and the relationship between community members and local police. Availability of food for all socioeconomic classes was also examined. In Carlisle, citizen participation was identified as a way the borough can improve upon its resilience. When speaking to members involved in council meetings, it was frequently noted that participation at council meetings is very low, and citizens rarely attend such meetings. Along with this, it was identified that youth engagement within the community is limited to almost none.

Education within the borough was relatively highly spoken about, especially when compared to other local schools. There is a wide range of honors and elective courses given the size of the school district. There are also vo-tech opportunities for students that wish to pursue a trade rather than having to go to a different school. Diversity among the student population is also a positive when assessing educational resilience of the borough. Teachers are required to go through Excellence and Equity training to better understand unique needs of students that come from underprivileged backgrounds. General support and welfare were spoken about in good regards. Carlisle has multiple organizations that help provide support and welfare for community members such as United Way of Carlisle and Cumberland County, Hope Station, Carlisle Cares, Cumberland County Habitat for Humanity, and the Employment Skills Center. These public organizations help provide support and welfare to community members in need for help. Relationships among organizations and volunteers helping such organizations was spoken highly of as well.

Improving cultural divides within the community is another improvement that should be addressed in the health and wellbeing aspect of resilience. Neighborhood divides based upon socioeconomic status is very pertinent in Carlisle. Separation by economic class often influences race diversity within neighborhoods. While Carlisle is not generally a diverse place, this can still impact cultural resilience of Carlisle, although it was noted that many people generally have a positive outlook on their living situation within their smaller community. A positive of cultural resilience in Carlisle is Hope Station. Hope Station provides a place of cohesiveness for children after school and also provides a place for those of African American descent a place to feel included.

While Project Share provides as a valuable resource for providing food to those in need, a concern over food resources during the winter months was raised when measuring food-related resilience. Understanding why people are in need of food is also an issue Carlisle must focus on. Simply providing food is not enough and more should be done to help encourage people to become less dependant on places like Project Share and learn from events that have lead them to become food insecure. The local police department has built and maintained a reputable relationship among community members. This helps to deter crime. Crime is also deterred by the presence of open communication lines and crime-watch areas, police officer visits to local schools, and open forums facilitated by the Carlisle Police Department.

Economy and Society

        This dimension has three major components to it, collective identity and community support, comprehensive security and rule of law, and sustainable economy. Largely, the main theme of this section was how cities were organized: how different systems and structures within the borough interact and function together. Rule of law and fiscal management tactics are also considered in this topic. Lastly, the atmosphere within a community is important - how well a city does of encouraging open and comfortable spaces for cultural practices to be carried out is measured (Arup, 2016).

The research last semester measured various aspects of the topic such as employment, business, finance and economy, budget, and city data. Employment looked at job opportunity for all classes within the borough. Business, finance and economy was broken down into eight industries: education, food processing and agribusiness, healthcare, manufacturing, military, professional services, tourism, and transportation and warehousing. The budget of the borough was assessed to look at how up to date it is, its’ role with disaster risk reduction, and innovative development plans. Because Carlisle is a county seat, the borough is responsible for keeping taking of data for the borough itself as well as the county.

An area in improvement for the borough is seen in regards to employment. Currently, there is a lack of a strong middle class within the borough as a result of the job opportunity. The distribution industry in Carlisle provides jobs, but they are low paying and are not sustainable for family. Other job opportunities are found at Dickinson College or with the borough itself. These are the higher paying opportunities for residents. As a result of this, distribution of wealth is seen as an issue. Carlisle must also be wary of the stability of the distribution sector. After losing three large manufacturing plants within the last decade, Carlisle could eventually lose business in the distribution sector as well. With over 600 residents working in this sector, the borough must be wary of the longevity of their employment.

Business, Finance and Economy is an area where stakeholders have diverging opinions. Unification over favored industries is not evident as some community members are in favor of the distribution sector, while others claim healthcare or downtown are Carlisle’s biggest assets. This being said, such diversity of business is a strength of Carlisle. The attractiveness of downtown is a positive influence on tourism to the area, which ultimately helps the local economy. Assets such as the Cumberland Area Economic Development Corporation (CAEDC), the Downtown Carlisle Association (DCA), and the Carlisle Area Chamber of Commerce (COC) help attract individuals and business to Carlisle, boosting the economy. Dickinson College, The Pennsylvania State University Dickinson Law School, the US Army War College, and the proximity to major cities also play a role in boosting the economy.

Carlisle’s budget is a strength due to its comprehensiveness. With control over diverse revenue streams, an up to date and extensive budget, and an ability to provide everyday government services. Development plans have been created in regards to stormwater management and economic diversification. Carlisle is responsible for gathering borough wide data as well as county wide data. This is advantageous for the borough because the data that is collected is very thorough. Data is available through borough documents such as The Comprehensive Plan, the Annual Budget, and the Urban Redevelopment Plan.

Infrastructure and Ecosystems

        This section relates to the physical infrastructure in Carlisle - the quality of the built place and atmosphere that provides for and connects residents in the borough. The goals in this dimension are: reduced exposure and fragility, effective provision of critical services, and reliable mobility and communications. Many factors, such as the strength of current built and natural ecosystems that protect humans from hazards, are quantified. Services such as water distribution, power supply, and waste management are measured in terms of how well they function during disasters to maintain service provisions in the borough (Arup, 2016).

Overall, Carlisle scored well in many aspects of infrastructure and ecosystems on the City Resilience Index framework. Carlisle excels in providing critical services and utilities to the public. Ranging from fresh drinking water and sanitation services to information and communication technology and energy, these areas benefit borough residents in all areas of life. There are many backups in place to assurance continuity of services in case a disaster or other unforeseen circumstance renders Carlisle’s current technology incapable of serving public demands. These backups are able to be relied upon under a moment’s notice, but can not service 100% of the borough’s demands. In times when the borough relies on these backups, usage of these resources must be curtailed.

Infrastructure in Carlisle is aging. Some infrastructure (energy) is updated on an as-needed basis, whenever sections of infrastructure need to be upgraded for capacity increases. Others, such as stormwater drainage, has not been upgraded in a long time and is very faulty. There are plans to upgrade these areas, but it is costly for the borough and will disrupt traffic patterns in the downtown. It is still a necessary measure for the borough to take to ensure that stormwater services will be offered in critical times.

Affordable housing in Carlisle is less than ideal. There is a shortage of truly affordable houses, and the affordable houses that do come available for residents are in unideal conditions. There are long waiting lists to be granted access to these houses, and the waiting list can be frustrating to operate as housing is assigned on an as-needed basis. Available space for development in the brownfield sites provides opportunities for more potential affordable housing properties.Carlisle has a positive relationship with its surrounding environment. There are also very positive aspects to the surrounding ecosystems. These include stake parks and forests, hunting grounds, and fishing streams. Carlisle’s location is a valley is helpful for disaster aversion, and the fertile farmland in the valley is beneficial for local farms providing food. Thus, tourism and protection are two ways that Carlisle benefits from the environment. These must be maintained moving forward.

Transportation in Carlisle is improving but not ideal. The road diet, implemented a few years ago, has not been proved to be effective or ineffective in relation to reducing traffic in the downtown area and making transportation safer for pedestrians. Diverting large truck traffic out of the downtown area has helped these areas. These were its intended goals. The upcoming urban redevelopment plan for the brownfield sites provides the borough an opportunity to reduce traffic by implementing roundabouts and more options to travel around the downtown area besides using High or Hanover street. Public transportation is lacking: the Carlisle Circulator, the current major public transportation network, is being discontinued after its third year due to ridership issues. A public transportation system could be better utilized by the borough if it were more specialized to fit specific ridership patterns and better connect the borough to surrounding municipalities.

Governance and Planning

        This final dimension is largely about quantifying the knowledge in the borough. The main goals include: effective leadership and management, empowered stakeholders, and integrated development planning. Possessing quality information information is a very important trait of a resilient city, as it allows locations to learn from the past in preparation for the future to avoid past mistakes. This is largely driven by effective management, taking the form of an inclusive government that takes business and social society into consideration. Stakeholders in the community must be benefitted and empowered by being granted access to information and education so they are able to make informed decisions concerning their livelihood. The city should also have a vision as to future development that is in line with city desires, in an attempt to make sure development that occurs happens in future interest of the city (Arup, 2016).

From our research on this dimension, we found that Carlisle has already developed plans to improve aging infrastructure. The borough has an Environmental Protection Agency Grant for the Area Wide Plan which calls for the implementation of a Stormwater Park on Fairgrounds Ave and the Matrix Project found in the Carlisle Urban Redevelopment Plan which focuses on Transportation, Green Infrastructure, and Stormwater Management projects. There are over 16 individual projects recommendations for Green Infrastructure and Stormwater Management that are in place as well. We recommended that Carlisle should look to updating buildings to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified, within the borough’s building codes. LEED certification should be a priority during construction projects. LEED certification ensures that buildings are best designed to be environmentally friendly, energy efficient, and sustainably designed. Perhaps a mandate in building codes asking for solar panels to be placed on top of large buildings (i.e. the Borough’s abundant warehouses) could be implemented.

Also, we recommended that Carlisle should ensure that their plans for sustainable development of the three brown field sites (Carlisle Tire & Wheel Site, IAC/Masland Site, and 759 Hamilton Street) within the borough follow their plans. Implementing more grid like street systems will not only mitigate traffic congestion, but will also better connect the community. Replacing traffic lights with rotaries is another land development plan that should be highly considered for the borough. This will help to increase traffic flow and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from cars that are usually stopped at a red light. Also, developing streets to be more biker friendly is another goal Carlisle should to aspire to achieve.

Next, as far communication, we learned that Carlisle needs to improve its public education and outreach to their constituents. Parts of the website are up to date and there is a lot of information available to the public, however some sections such as Agendas & Minutes must be updated. Some Council and committee minutes and agendas are both up to date. However, committees such as the Public Safety Committee hasn’t been updated almost all year. The agendas for these public meetings are present for this committee, but the minutes for these meetings haven’t been updated since February. Lastly, we found that the borough needs to work on their resource output in times of emergency. When speaking to various community members within the borough, often it was noted that communication between nonprofit organizations and the borough are lackluster. More often than not, these nonprofit organizations are left alone without any assistance from the Borough to provide for the homeless. Ultimately, there is no borough plan for the homeless in times of emergency. They must go to one of the few local nonprofit shelters in hopes they will be able to provide temporary shelter in the event of extreme temperatures or precipitation.

Summary of Four Dimensions

Our research from the fall concluded that overall, Carlisle is a resilient community. When measuring the four dimensions and examining the Resilience Index profile for Carlisle, strengths and weaknesses of the borough arose. Both Governance and Planning as well as Infrastructure and Ecosystems scored relatively well by Arup’s Resilience Index profile. The other two dimensions, Health and Wellbeing and Economy and Society, did not score as highly, noting areas of weakness in the borough. In terms of Health and Wellbeing, Carlisle scored well in regards to minimizing human vulnerability, but displayed weaknesses in diverse livelihoods and employment and providing safeguards to human health. Research of the borough suggested that there is a lack of access to food and shelter in times of necessity, especially for those of whom are homeless. Economy and Society showed a strength in having a comprehensive security and rule of law, but lacked in collective identity and community support, as well as a sustainable economy. A lack of a middle class in Carlisle was identified. An issue of adequate wages arose too, indicating a lack jobs with family sustaining wages. The loss of three manufacturing plants within the last decade hurts overall borough resilience.

Spring 2017 Research Goals and Methods

Our primary goals for the research follow:

1. Identify, develop, and refine several goals for the two dimensions (Health & Wellbeing, Economy & Society) and indicators within those goals to serve as a framework that will allow Carlisle a way to sustainably measure the resiliency indicators over time.
2. Provide resiliency recommendations and plan to allow Carlisle to sustainably strive for improvement in resiliency.  
3. Execution of a community presentation with the goal of educating community partners including the Greater Carlisle Project (GCP) and the Borough of Carlisle.
4. Build long lasting relationships with the Carlisle community and break the stigma of separation between the Dickinson and Carlisle communities.

The research approach consisted of four total focus group meetings with community members, data collection research from quantitative sources and individual interviews as necessary. The main informant were the focus groups, two for Health & Wellbeing, and two for Economy & Society. The participants for each of the focus groups were picked based on their profession and knowledge of Carlisle. Additionally, data and information from the Fall 2016 were analyzed and other published information, data, and documents were consulted as necessary.  

Research Methods

Continuing on the research that was completed by the Building Sustainable Community class at Dickinson College in Fall 2016, our first step was to assess literature to compare other resilience measuring frameworks to the one the class utilized. This framework was the City Resilience Index (CRI). We then used findings from the reports published by the class to identify broad areas that needed better indicators to fully assess resilience. Based on information present in the CRI framework, we concluded that two areas, “Health and Wellbeing” and “Economy and Society” could benefit from added Carlisle-specific indicators. The other two dimensions, “Governance and Planning” and “Infrastructure and Ecosystems” were adequate in terms of indicator satisfaction. We searched for documents on a variety of web databases using keywords such as “city resilience framework,” “urban resilience,” “resilience measurement,” “resilience framework measuring tool,” “city resilience measurement,” “community resilience measurement,” and “resilience framework.” We came across a wide array of documents from this search. To narrow literature down further to specific texts to review, we limited the search to frameworks that measured resilience. We were left with a handful of sources: a few case studies of how resilience was measured in different cities, and a document comparing a wide array of resilience measurement tools. Reviewing these sources left us with a better idea of a holistic framework for resilience containing indicators that would be potentially pertinent to a smaller city such as Carlisle.

We decided that, although they were many different mechanisms for measuring resilience, each with their own benefits and hardships, the best ways of measuring resilience for a borough would be to develop a framework that was tailored to a specific location. We maintain that Arup’s CRI is a good framework to use to provide insight into many different areas of city’s resilience to establish an adequate baseline level that could be revisited every few years to measure changed and improvements in resilience. However, is was not specific enough to Carlisle to touch upon many areas that factor into Carlisle’s resilience as a borough, such as reduced lunches granted in relation to poverty levels. As a result, our goal this semester was to develop a set of indicators that could be utilized to measure areas of resilience in Carlisle that Arup’s CRI did not encompass. We intend these indicators to be utilized in addition to Arup’s CRI when measuring resilience to provide the most holistic overview of resilience in the borough. Ideally these frameworks and indicators would be revisited to measure resilience occur every few years, allowing the community to see how resilience is changing over time. This will help in determining whether or not measures taken by the borough to improve resilience were effective in improving this value or not, in addition to pinpointing exactly where better measures need to be taken in improving borough resilience.

The majority of our work was spent on creating indicators that were specific to measuring resilience in Carlisle. This was accomplished through executing focus groups. Focus groups were chosen as the ideal method to determine these indicators due to the fact that they are very helpful is talking about issues from many different sides, taking many different important opinions and viewpoints into account. The focus groups were facilitated by preparing an outline of topics to talk about in relation to the focus group title (Health and Wellbeing or Economy and Society), and leading the discussion through this outline generally. However, if conversation strayed from the outline we were follow it and press it further, considering findings from these discussions with other factors in constructing the final list of indicators. Key informants to attend these focus groups were identified based on their knowledge on special parts of the community, such as emergency medical services or employment skills. A series of four focus groups were organized - the first two were two talk generally about broad indicators in relation to “Health and Wellbeing” and “Economy and Society” for Carlisle. The second two were to discuss these indicators in greater detail and how Carlisle would be able to measure these indicators. These indicators were compiled and will ideally be used in conjunction with the CRI in the future to assess borough resilience every few years.

The Research Dialogues

In our research, we found The Research Dialogues, “a public-private collaboration that works to build climate-resilient communities through facilitated dialogues among scientists, practitioners, and community leaders” (Resilience Dialogues). The collaborative program assists local governments in assessing vulnerability within their community, helps community organizers incorporate diversity into resilience planning, aids county managers and urban planners with in-depth consultation, works to ensure long-term infrastructure investments in the private sector, and examines health risks caused by weather and climatic events. This year, 10 communities will participate in an online beta test co-managed by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the American Geophysical Union’s Thriving Earth Exchange. Community leaders of the 10 communities and subject matter experts will collaborate to identify “local climate adaptation risks and opportunities” as well as “the most relevant and useful resources” (Resilience Dialogues). The borough of Carlisle was selected to be one of the 10 beta communities after another community dropped out. Unfortunately, this was a last minute decision made by The Resilience Dialogues and community leaders of Carlisle could not commit time to participate.  

The Resilience Dialogues plans to expand their collaborative conversations to more communities in 2018. Should Carlisle be selected to participate, we recommend community leaders to do so. Engaging in a discussion about improving community resilience with national experts and other community leaders could prove to be beneficial in improving the borough’s resiliency. Prior to the online conversation, community members develop questions about methods and planning practices for climate adaption, hazard mitigation, and infrastructure investments. During the actual conversation, areas of resiliency such as identifying potential climate impacts, hazard mitigation planning, and resilience building are all discussed. At the conclusion of the dialogue, a compilation of resources is to be collected for vulnerability assessments, resilience building, infrastructure design, extreme events, and hazard mitigation planning. Carlisle should seriously consider participating if given the chance. Assessing these topics with field experts and leaders of other communities can help Carlisle prepare for the potential risks posed by the changing climate.

Focus Group Informants

These informants were selected to provide input to our research in developing indicators due to their prior experience with the borough. They each attended at least one focus group.

• Susan Armstrong, Assistant Borough Manager
• Matt Candland, Borough Manager
• Michelle Crowley, Chamber of Commerce President
• Shireen Farr, Chief Operating Officer, Department of Commerce
• Nathan Harig, Assistant Chief, Cumberland Goodwill EMS
• Brenda Landis, Multimedia Specialist, Dickinson College
• Neil Leary, Director of Center for Sustainability Education, Dickinson College
• Kate Molinaro, Community Development Director, Cumberland County Housing and Redevelopment Authorities
• Mark Price, Labor Economist, Keystone Research Center
• Becca Raley, Executive Director, Partnership for Better Health
• Robin Scaer, Executive Director of YWCA Carlisle
• Kirk Stoner, Cumberland County Director of Planning
• Margaret Weitzel, Executive Director, Employment Skills Center
• Tim Whalen, Executive Director at Cumberland County Housing and Redevelopment Authorities
• Rebecca Yearick, Downtown Program Services Manager and Communications Manager, Cumberland County Housing and Redevelopment Authorities.

Specific questions asked in the focus groups can be found in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.

Spring 2017 Focus Group Summaries

Key points discussed in each of the focus groups are summarized here. Generally, the first focus groups in each dimension were intended to talk about issues in Carlisle related to the respective dimension and the second focus groups were to discuss indicators we could develop to quantify these problems, as well as how to measure them.

Health and Wellbeing focus group 1: There was a large focus on grassroots organizing with focusing on giving power to the people. Social media use was discussed in its ability to appeal to borough residents. A lack of communication between organizations especially non-profits was noted as a problem. Warehouse jobs were talked about in relation to the fact that they can be bridge jobs between unemployment and permanent jobs, but overall warehouses are not desired by community as they are not long term employment options. However, they are easy and effective in the short term. Related to low wage jobs was a lack of safe and affordable housing, which is an issue as wages aren’t growing. This results in concentrated sections of poverty in the borough. There is a great presence of nonprofits in the borough that serve vital roles. However, there is a lack of motivation in people to seek out these opportunities, and thus they do not benefit from such programs. United Way is a positive resource for the borough. Carlisle hasn’t outwardly thought about how to act with changes in affordable care act, which it should do in bettering resilience. Currently, Carlisle’s emergency medical care is great,

Health and Wellbeing focus group 2: Carlisle’s healthcare is good if you can afford it, but it is costly for a lot of people. However, people will be seen no matter what situation. There is currently pressure on state to increase medicaid. Carlisle experiences very poor mental health levels due to behavioral issues. A possible way to measure these numbers is with occupied beds in medical centers. The opiate crisis is a current health issue, which is related to crime and apathy. It could be a good idea to increase organizations in Carlisle to engage residents. Higher levels in community engagement can be correlated with less of an opioid epidemic. There should also be a better focus to make borough programs proactive instead of reactive. Methods to increase nonprofit communication were discussed. Voting engagement rates were brought up as a potential signal of community engagement. Methods to compare Carlisle to surrounding boroughs was discussed, specifically in relation to Westchester. Measuring unemployment and underemployment in Carlisle is a hard task.

Economy and Society focus group 1: Overall characteristics of resilient boroughs were discussed at the beginning of the focus group. Talks about Carlisle’s current economy focused around minimum wage jobs and necessary increased trainings to attempt to teach skills to residents to increase marketability. Borough investment to save failing plants helped with overall recovery, as more jobs were preserved. Carlisle’s status as county seat helps with increasing employment opportunities. Carlisle is a bedroom community for other boroughs, which is undesirable. There were talks on how to get residents to live and work in Carlisle instead of commuting out for employment. Carlisle’s socioeconomic spread was discussed in relation to the segmented presence in the borough between 4 geographic sections. There are dangers of concentrating poverty, which is bad because some of the sections have areas of concentrated poverty. Reasons for current wealth concentrations were discussed, as well as ways to measure community perception of both crime and wealth spread. The effectiveness of policing and justice systems were decided to be adequate. The presence of private institutions (colleges) in community was decided to be both a good and bad attribute, depending on perspective taken. The largest worries on borough in the near future relate to jobs and housing.

Economy and Society focus group 2: There are lots of good medicare resources in the borough. Issues the borough faces include a high management turnover in local operations, but this currently has the borough set up for a positive future. There is a lack of a cohesive community. CADEC’s role in targeting new businesses was discussed. There are high amounts of ethnicity diversity in different areas of the borough, but overall the borough is not as diverse as ideal. Like regional trends, Carlisle is experiencing a decrease in church-attending population. The borough is looking for changes in community engagement, and is trying to find better ways of engaging residents. Ways to measure affordable housing in the borough were discussed. Problems such as finding a living wage job were rehashed again. Perception of crime was brought up in relation to the fact that it is overblown. The disparities in school quality were also discussed.

Final Resilience Workshop

After presenting our work to the community during the community presentation, we broke up into two separate groups. Each group discussed the developed indicators in relation to whether or not they made sense in measuring as well as how to measure them. Summaries of the discussions held at each table and lists of participants follow.

Focus Group 1--Jessica Clark, Matt Pasquali, Safronia Perry, Shalom Staub, Helen Takacs, and Olivia Termini

The focus group focused on health insurance, affordable housing, perception of crime, and touched upon sustainable wages. The purpose of the discussion was to create a short list of measurable indicators that Carlisle could use to continue measuring resiliency regarding these topics. For health insurance, we discussed ways to assess the percentage of people that have adequate healthcare coverage. It was discussed that Pam Price at Sadler Health Center could have some information regarding the amount of residents that don’t have health insurance. Looking at emergency room usage could be used as a measure as that number is typically higher in areas with people that do not have health coverage, indicating lower resilience levels.

For affordable housing, the group spoke about looking into the school districts in Carlisle, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) information, and Partners for Better Health. Looking at the percentage of students currently on the free and reduced lunch program as well as graduation rates can help gain a sense of how many families are in need of affordable housing options. Looking at statistics from HUD can help gain a better perspective of the availability and demand for affordable housing. Working with Partners for Better Health to create some type of “resilience dashboard” that could be used as an interactive database was also discussed as a possibility to help measure affordable housing in Carlisle. Using this information, along with looking at MIT’s living wages data, could be used to help measure sustainable wages in Carlisle as well.

The group decided that those three areas, health insurance, affordable housing, and sustainable wages all fit together in one larger category. There was a general consensus that the fourth topic of discussion, perception of crime, must be addressed, but as its own entity. It was suggested that this issue be tackled via other measurement tactics because it does not necessarily relate fully to the other three topics.

Focus Group 2--Matt Candland, Neil Leary, Max Lee, Nathan Harig, Susan Rose, Christina Spielbauer

        The focus group focused on health insurance, opioid use, recreation, reduced lunches, homeless population, and affordable housing. Health insurance discussions focused on payer mix of percentage of population that pays for medical services with private, medicare, medicaid, and self-pay services. A large shift in population using medicaid and self pay indicates a less personally resilience society and is a warning sign. Opioids were discussed in relation to emergency treatments and hospitalizations. Poverty and painkiller prescriptions can be seen underlying cause of the epidemic. Recreation can be quantified in terms of numbers of people participating in parks and recreation programs, but this number is hard to attain. The community center is used mainly by residents in the direct neighborhood, and it might be better to expand this to engage a larger radius of residents.

Reduced lunches were discussed in capacity to measure the amount of families living below the poverty level, as the two align very closely. There is a desire to see as many students as possible using this program, but at the same time this number should be trending down, which is not currently present. The percentage of students receiving reduced lunches is still increasing, but this might be due to the fact that more families are filling out the paperwork. This information on eligible families is hard to attain. There are many homeless students in Carlisle, which is a large issue that should be addressed. There is a possibility of using the number of students who fall under the McKinney Vento Act, which addresses the needs of homeless school children, as a measure of resilience.

Affordable housing was brought up in relation to percentage of renters vs percentage of owners. This ratio changes quickly, and ideally it is better to have more homeowners than renters. However, this is up for debate, so using this as an indicator is not helpful in gauging resilience. Code violations in relation to housing standards could be a useful measure, but only when combined with other housing indicators. These violations are only known if tenants report them, and renters might believe that these reports could jeopardize their housing situation, so they have incentives to not report poor arrangements. The borough can encourage affordable housing options by changing zoning ordinances. Reducing the minimum size for an apartment could reduce landlord costs, making more housing affordable as smaller options would be present.

        An overarching theme present was to focus on the United Way survey as a potential source of data to gauge resilience in relation to many of these indicators. Future workers could incorporate the developed indicators from this research project into the survey to be able to produce results relation to measuring Carlisle’s resilience.

Indicators

These indicators were largely developed from the Spring 2017 focus group discussions, pinpointing Carlisle-specific metrics that could be measured based off of borough data. The indicators fit into the two sections we had outlined earlier: Health and Wellbeing and Economy and Society. Each indicator is listed with the corresponding CRI goal that it would fit into. This is to ensure that a wide array of goals were touched upon, to show that all aspects of Health and Wellbeing and Economy and Society were considered when constructing this list. The four highest priority indicators are listed after the section. Lists of the indicators with descriptions as to why each one is important to measure resilience in Carlisle follow:

Health & Wellbeing

1) How many workforce skill programs does Carlisle have? How many people are enrolled in these programs?

CRI Goal: Diverse Livelihood and employment

This indicators fits into a larger scope of relevant skills and training sphere. In conducting the focus groups, issues of workers being unskilled were brought up. This hurts resilience, as workers with fewer skills are less valuable to companies, resulting in high turnover rates. Making sure all workers have access to a variety of programs to pick up workforce-specific trainings, such as warehouse machinery trainings, is a way to make workers more valuable to companies. This also will ideally increase wages, allowing residents to be able to provide for families easier. Is it important that there are many of these programs present, and that residents seek out and enroll in them.

2) How long is the average person’s commute?

        CRI Goal: Diverse livelihood and employment

This aligns with the above indicators in the larger frame of strong integration with regional and global economies. Commute time is another way to measure how many people are entering/leaving the borough to work. Shorter commute times are more ideal, as they indicate the possibility that residents seek alternative means of transport to travel to work, bettering livelihoods. This also means that people with shorter commutes would be able to spend more time with families or in their communities instead of in a car.

3) What percentage of students receive at least a high school degree?

CRI Goal: Diverse livelihood and employment

This indicator is important in gauging education levels in the borough. It is important that students complete schooling to at least a high school degree before leaving for the workforce so they are more valuable to the workforce. Thus, they will be at a better point to provide for families later in life. This helps overall resilience of the borough as these residents will be better able to find job security, helping improve economic diversity and sustainability within the borough.

4) How many students in Carlisle’s school system receive free or reduced lunches?

CRI Goal: Minimal human vulnerability

This indicator is very helpful in gauging overall poverty levels within the borough. Schools give students lunches based on their family's economic standing. In the past, the amount of Carlisle residents below the poverty line has been strongly correlated with the amount of Carlisle students receiving free or reduced lunches. Measuring this indicator is a way to gauge how many people of Carlisle live below the poverty line and thus would be more affected by a disaster, as poor and minority groups are affected disproportionately higher than richer groups by disasters.

5) How often are housing codes violated? How are violations dealt with? How public is this information? How many vouchers are used?

CRI Goal: Minimal human vulnerability

This indicator falls into a larger category of safe, affordable, and decent housing. Through our focus groups, issues relating to desirable affordable housing options arose. Affordable housing options are undesirable to live in as they are generally in poor conditions that violate housing codes. This is a result of landlords who do not care about living conditions of residents living in these affordable houses. Having affordable housing of a livable standard is a very important factor in a resilient community, as it is the foundation of a stable life. Thus, measuring violations in housing codes and understand the scales of and responses to violations is key in determining the desirability of affordable housing in the borough.

6) How are income and wealth distributed across Carlisle?

        CRI Goal: Diverse livelihood and employment

During the first economy and society focus group, it became apparent that Carlisle is divided into four distinct communities, that correlate with geographic location: Northwest, Southwest, Southeast, and Northeast. These areas all have different socioeconomic standings, with some being above average and some being below average in terms of income. This is a problem with concentrated poverty. Having a more even spread of income throughout the borough would be more ideal. This could be incorporated by encouraging integration of socioeconomic classes through a variety of actions, eliminating the four sectors of Carlisle.

7) How many residents can be fed by emergency food reserves?

CRI Goal: Minimal human vulnerability

This indicator is important in gauging response during and directly after a disaster that impacts food sources in the borough. It is important to have food storages that are extensive enough to feed many borough residents after a disaster, as this degree of preparation is ideal in terms of recovering from the disaster. Ideally, the distribution system of these food reserves would be uniform and fast, allowing all residents equal access to emergency food.

8) How many residents can be housed by emergency housing sources?

CRI Goal: Minimal human vulnerability

This indicator is similar to the above one in the sense that it measures how many people can be efficiently housed during a disaster that would displace residents from permanent housing. Research conducted in the Fall 2016 semester pointed out the fact that there are minimal plans in place to house displaced residents. Although Carlisle has never experienced a massive disaster that has displaced many people from permanent housing, having a backup plan would be beneficial in case such a chance event occurs. Having a backup plan in place would also help speed up reaction times and make responses to disasters less hectic and more calculated, which are important factors to take.

9) How many residents have health insurance? How many residents utilize public healthcare options?

CRI Goal: Effective safeguards to human life and health

This is an important indicator to assess the overall health preparedness of the borough. From focus groups, it was evident that emergency medical services in the borough were very good. Affording these services is another measure, which is why it is important that as many residents as possible have access to some form of healthcare. This will also make recovering from disasters easier, as health complications will be less expensive for those with health insure than without. Data for these indicators can be found in online databases. Sub-indicators can include “Are there any issues with emergency medical care?” and “Are there any issues with emergency response services?”, in order to cover any issues that might arise in either of these fields that are not currently present.

Economy & Society

1)  How does the perception of crime relate to the state of crime in the borough?

CRI Goal: Comprehensive security and rule of law

Another topic brought up in our focus groups repeatedly was the perception of crime in the borough. Allegedly, Carlisle is a safe place, and there is evidence that supports this. However, there is a common narrative among residents and visitors of Carlisle claiming that the borough is not a safe place. It is important to change this perception to increase a sense of community within the borough. Believing that the borough has a high crime rate impacts social capital as community members are less likely to spend time outside due to fear. This indicator can be measured by comparing people’s opinions about crime statistics to the true statistics.

2) For how long do residents in the lowest income bracket hold jobs?

        CRI Goal: Collective identity and community support

In our first economy and society focus group, the issue of high job turnover came up. Residents hold low paying jobs (such as warehouse ones) for short periods of time, before leaving for a similar job with slightly better pay (even if benefits are lacking). This is a problem, as low job stability generally means that residents are not able to work up through the work structure to establish higher paying jobs. It also means residents spend more time looking for employment, taking time away from better alternatives. Job security is also important in terms of economic hardships, as it generally would indicate a higher chance of people keeping jobs and still generating income.

3) How many hours each week do residents in the lowest income bracket work?

        CRI Goal: Collective identity and community support

Knowing how much time someone spends working in a week is important in figuring out how much time outside of a workplace environment they have to potentially spend time with family, increasing social capital. The amount of hours worked also generally correlates with how well the job pays - for many residents, working more hours to provide for a family means the pay is worse than someone who works less hours to provide the same amount of money. This indicator could also include “How many jobs does the average Carlisle resident work?”, as working fewer jobs (1) is more desirable than working many jobs. This is due to the fact that working more jobs means work is probably lower paying. This fits into the larger category of a diverse economic base. In calculating these values, comparing the low wage entry level positions present in Carlisle to national living wage standards using data from Carlisle Area Economic Development Corporation (CAEDC) would be very useful.

4) What percentage of Carlisle’s workforce commute into the borough to work? What percentage of Carlisle’s residents commute out of the borough to work?

        CRI Goal: Collective identity and community support

This indicator fits into the larger category of a strong integration with regional and global communities. Ideally, residents in Carlisle would work in Carlisle, so few people would be commuting out of the borough to work. This is not currently the case, as through focus groups we were informed that many residents commute to Harrisburg to work. While having opportunities for increased jobs in the surrounding areas is a potential benefit for resilience, overall it is better for the borough to have residents who work and live in the space place, as it increases investment in the community and strengthens a positive community presence. Having workers commute into the borough to work is adequate if few residents commute outside of the borough, as it would be a sign of a successful economy in the downtown area.

5) How many new businesses does Carlisle attract yearly? What sectors do a lot of these businesses fall into? How many businesses leave the borough yearly?

CRI Goal: Sustainable economy

These indicators relate to local business development and innovation. Taken together, these indicators help frame the topic of how businesses are coming into the borough, how unique they are, and whether or not the businesses are filling a desired service. This stems from the fact that the food related industry is very prominent downtown, as there are many different options for eating and relating dining needs. Attracting a diverse business base to the borough is important in terms of resilience, as it means that the business base is more likely to adapt to changing preferences of Carlisle residents. Having all businesses fall into few major sectors is not beneficial for overall resilience, as it means that it is likely to be hurt greatly if Carlisle residents change opinions on desired businesses in the borough.

6) Number of redundant non-profit services offered.

        CRI Goal: Sustainable economy

There are many nonprofit organizations in Carlisle, but communication between them, especially in regards to emergency response during disasters, is not clear. Having clear roles designated and improving communication between these organizations would go a long way in improving response capabilities of the current nonprofit infrastructure in the borough. This is also important in determining exactly what responses need to occur and who needs to take them. This fits into a larger theme of collective identity and mutual support in the borough. In determining this response it would be helpful in comparing similar programs that are offered by both nonprofits and Carlisle to see if there are redundancies anywhere in the planning structure.

7) How many public recreational activities does the borough have to increase identity? What percentage of citizens participate in at least one event or activity?

        CRI Goal: Collective identity and community support

These indicators fit into a larger category of strong borough-wide identity and culture. Social capital is a very important factors in determining the resilience of a borough, and social capital is increased when community members are actively engaged with each other in planned events. It is key that a resilient community have many offerings for community programs that appeal to wide demographic and interest ranges that are also well attended. Thus, there will be options for all community members, in which they can seek out enjoyment.

8) What percentage of citizens participate in local government? What percentage of citizens vote?

        CRI Goal: Collective identity and community support

Is it important that community residents have a say in the way that the borough is run, including which issues should be prioritized and making sure all residents opinions are accounted for. One way for this to occur is through local government. Being involved with planning events and the way the borough is heading is important in a resilient community, as unity support, while it does an adequate job it shows that the needs of the public are being taken into account and addressed on a larger scale. Participating in government should be broken down into two sections, voting and physical presence in government. Physical governmental presence includes residents attending borough council meetings and residents serving governmental roles/terms.

9) Are there any issues with security and rule of law/comprehensive security?

CRI Goal: Collective identity and community support

Due to focus groups results, we concluded that overall police force is strong in Carlisle and should not be a focus of measuring resiliency. However, this is liable to change in the future, so reassessing every few years to see if overall policing has improved or worsened since the last resilience measurement. This is important in seeing if any additional measures need to be considered in bettering policing throughout time, making sure to maintain a high functioning police force.

        While all goals were touched upon by this list, it is obvious that some goals were given more attention than others in amount of indicators that talk about them. Specifically, collective identity and community support has many indicators that speak to that, while sustainable economy does not. This could indicate that Carlisle need to improve upon collective identity and community support, while it does adequate in relation to possessing a sustainable economy.

4 targeted indicators prior to final presentation

For our community presentation that was held on 5/5/17, we chose 4 indicators from these lists, two from the Health & Wellbeing category and two from the Economy & Society to category to present to the group and allow for discussion and validation of these indicators. The four that were chosen were health insurance and use of public health care, affordable housing, perception of crime, and sustainable wages. Each community leader was given a one page document with information the information below to help aid the conversation.

1. Health insurance and use of public health care should serve as an indicator under the Health & Wellbeing category. Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 focus groups identified that emergency medical services in the Borough are decent. However, affording medical services is a different problem. Focus groups Fall 2016 had raised the question that health care may be an issue in the next few years because of federal cuts. We proposed that this should be measured by the number of insured individuals and the number of people who utilize health care services in Carlisle.
2. Affordable housing was also proposed as an indicator under the Health & Wellbeing category. The issue of affordable housing was brought up in Fall 2016 focus groups as an important focus of Carlisle’s issues. Spring 2017 focus groups pointed out that “affordable” housing options are undesirable to live in as they are generally in poor conditions that violate housing codes. Affordable housing is defined as housing that is more than 30% of a resident’s income. We proposed that this is measured through code violations, members involved in Cumberland County Housing and Redevelopment Authority programming, and number of housing vouchers used.
3. Perception of crime fell under the Economy & Society category. Both the Fall 2016 and the Spring 2017 focus groups identified the “4 sectors” of Carlisle and discussed the perceived high crime rates in Carlisle. A focus on this indicator would help bring more families and businesses to the Borough. We proposed to provide crime rates of Carlisle vs. national averages and other similar Boroughs.  
4. Lasltly, sustainable wages would fall under the Economy & Society category. The ability to have a “living wage” was discussed in Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 focus groups. Also, the relationship between a living wage and finding affordable housing is a serious consideration for Carlisle’s resiliency moving forward. There was discussion of a lack of middle class that reflects trends nationwide. We proposed to provide measurements of the average income and length of jobs held in Carlisle and the average amount of hours that are worked in a week. Focus would be given to residents in middle to lower class.

4  developed indicators at the conclusion of our research

After our community presentation that was held on 5/517, we refined our list of 4 indicators that we believe Carlisle should focus on. The four that were chosen were health insurance and use of public health care, affordable housing, number of free and reduced lunches, and percentage of high school graduates. Due to the fact that these indicators are broad reaching and inform many areas of community resilience, it was decided to not place them into specific CRI goals as that would be limiting. We believe that together, these indicators touch upon a wide array of CRI goals and areas important in measuring resilience. We ultimately hope that other researchers and the community work to refine and build upon the list below.

1. Number of residents utilizing public or private health care. Ideally a large number of residents would have health care through private organizations, as that insures that the borough has the highest likelihood of being paid for services. Large amounts of residents without healthcare or with public healthcare mean lower levels of resilience for the borough. This indicator was discussed as hard to measure but necessary. While it needs more development, possible ways to measure this would be using Census Bureau data which is represented in the figures on this website: http://www.towncharts.com/Pennsylvania/Healthcare/Carlisle-borough-PA-Healthcare-data.html . Other possible ways to measure would be through emergency room use at local hospitals and data that is used by the Partnership for a Better Health.
2. Affordable housing was also proposed as an indicator under the Health & Wellbeing category. This is a large issue, but ways to measure the indicator were highly debated. Adding questions into United Way’s surveys to get information on numbers of residents living in affordable housing options was one way of gaining information on this indicator. HUD could also assist in providing this information. Additionally, the American Community Survey provides estimates of the percentage of income is spent on housing. Cumberland County data can be accessed here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ei2reg27vohrw4/americancommunitysurveydata.pdf?dl=0 . The American Community survey can potentially provide most of the data that is needed for resiliency measurements: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml .
3. Number of students receiving free or reduced lunches was an indicator that was identified as important in the community workshop. This is very closely correlated to the amount of families living in poverty. Measuring this would be an accurate way to track poverty levels of the borough. This can relate to many larger-reaching spheres, including crime levels, number of drug users, graduation rates, affordable economies, family-sustainable wages, and more. This is a list from Carlisle School District which describes which children are eligible for free and reduced lunches: http://www.carlisle.k12.ma.us/cms/lib010/MA01907515/Centricity/Domain/182/FreeandReduced.pdf . This is where the data can be found for the amount of children on free and reduced lunches in Carlisle: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/2720-school-lunch--students-eligible-for-free-or-reduced-price-lunch#detailed/10/5541/false/1600,1536,1460,1249,1120/any/10324,10325 .
4. Graduation rate from Carlisle high school was identified as the final indicator worth devoting a large amount of attention to through our community workshop. Similar to the above indicator, this indicator has potential to speak to a large amount of areas in Carlisle. Measuring this one indicator would help inform many areas of community resilience, such as affordable housing, family-sustainable wages, crime levels, poverty levels, and more. This wesbite provides some relevant data http://www.towncharts.com/Pennsylvania/Education/Carlisle-borough-PA-Education-data.html , which was once again provides by the American Community Survey. If this indicator is used, we could potentially use the data directly from the American Community Survey and other Census Bureau data to create the resilience dashboard.

Recommendations

Based on our research for the last year, we would like to provide three recommendations for Carlisle’s next steps.

1. Add Carlisle Indicators to United Way of Carlisle’s Next Community Needs Assessment

In September 2011, the United Way of Carlisle and Cumberland County partnered with the the Institute of State and Regional Affairs (ISRA) at Penn State Harrisburg to conduct a Community Needs Assessment with the goal of helping the United Way of Carlisle and the community to track and better understand their local community strengths and weaknesses. The ISRA completed 4 reports on specific topics including: an in-depth interview of community stakeholders, focus groups, community survey of residents, and demographic and socioeconomic background research. They also provide a final report that provides recommendations.

The Community Needs Assessment identified several of the same issue areas that our research identified including a strength of social services provided in Carlisle, but a weaknesses in the lack of affordable housing and ability to pay medical services. They talk about how the closing of the manufacturing facilities, and therefore widespread unemployment, and decreased funding federally has created a need for Carlisle to be up to the challenge of addressing their weaknesses and increasing their strengths. This needs assessment fits perfectly within the goals of measuring community resilience of Carlisle. Our recommendation is to work together with the United Way of Carlisle to include the developed indicators that were found through the resilience research in Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 within their questions for the needs assessment. The next needs assessment is planned to be conducted in the next few years.

2. Look to Develop a Resilience Dashboard Using Data From Our Proposed Indicators

In our final presentation, one of the focus groups suggested that we look into developing a Resilience Dashboard that consists of the indicators that we developed and the data associated with it available in live time. This would include the development of a web page and possibly an app for cell phones. This would increase transparency with the resilience work in the borough as well as provide citizens a way to be connected to the work that has been done. This would require more research, but there are many cities who have resilience dashboards. Our suggestion would be to start with the National Resilience Dashboard Task Force Initiative, found at http://us.resiliencesystem.org/sites/default/files/Resilience_Dashboards5jpeg.pdf. It provides an overview of several examples of resilience dashboards including New York and San Francisco. Additionally, the Partnership for Resilience and Preparedness (PREP) provides examples of current resilience dashboards including Sonoma County, Porto Alegre and the University of Washington found at http://www.prepdata.org/dashboards  Additionally, this interactive map scheme https://datausa.io/profile/geo/carlisle-pa/ from datausa provides an all encompassing view of Carlisle. We may be able to imitate these dashboards, or create our own design. In the future, as more indicators are identified, they can be added to the dashboard.

3. Participate in the Resilience Dialogues

As previously mentioned, during the course of the Spring 2017 research, Carlisle was selected to participate as one of the 10 beta communities after another community dropped out. Due to time constraints and the short notice, Carlisle community leaders were unable to accept the invitation to participate.  The Resilience Dialogues plans to expand their collaborative conversations to more communities in 2018 and we recommend that community leaders take the opportunity to engage in discussion with national experts and other community leaders from around the country. Additionally, after participation in the dialogues, Carlisle would be provided with resources for vulnerability assessments, resilience building, infrastructure design, extreme event preparation, and hazard mitigation planning. Participation would allow resilience discussions to continue and provide Carlisle with strategies to prepare for potential problems and disasters.

Discussion

Last semester, in the Building Sustainable Communities SUST 301 course taught by Neil Leary, students researched four overarching dimensions of study, measuring resilience for each using the City Resilience Index tool. The four dimensions of study included: Economy and Society, Health and Wellbeing, Governance and Planning, and Infrastructure and Ecosystems. Reports were generated in regards to each area of study, including current measures taken in the borough to address these areas of resilience and how the borough can improve overall resilience in the future. This semester, these reports were reviewed and a summary of each area of study was compiled.  After review, we concluded that we would focus on Economy and Society, and Health and Wellbeing because they had more areas that needed improvement than the other two dimensions. In order to gain a better perspective of these two study areas, two focus groups with key members of the community were conducted for each area of study. These focus groups helped include key members of the community on the same table to speak about the positives and negatives of these two study areas. As a result of these discussions, in conjunction with last semester’s research, we concluded that there are four main indicators Carlisle should address in terms of resiliency.

The major indicators that are most important for Carlisle to address include: healthcare, affordable housing, graduation rates, and poverty levels. These specific areas are what Carlisle should look to measure and in order to improve upon community resilience.

With changes to healthcare occurring in the new administration, it is crucial that Carlisle’s healthcare system is ready to respond to any changes that may occur. Availability to Medicare and Medicaid, or other public healthcare opportunities, is vital to community members. Carlisle has the infrastructure in place to serve people with very high quality medical care, boasting the Carlisle Regional Medical Center, Holy Spirit Hospital, and Sadler Health Center as quality health care options. Affordable health care must be made available to community members, as increasing the amount of Carlisle residents with some form of adequate health care is a very important quality in increasing borough resilience. This is important in assuring that residents can remain in good health without having to go bankrupt in paying off medical bills.

        Offering more attractive affordable housing options in Carlisle is another way to improve upon resilience. Currently, the majority of the affordable housing options offered by the borough is either not actually affordable or is not quality housing. Having housing options called affordable while they are not actually affordable is a cause and result of the lack of middle wage jobs in the borough. Affordable housing and sustainable jobs with family sustainable wages coincide. Without family sustainable wages, community members are unable to acquire affordable housing offered by the borough. Carlisle must look to expand its middle class so there is more opportunity for residents to buy affordable housing while simultaneously providing for families. Expanding the middle class will also assist in reducing the degree that wealth is concentrated in the borough, evening the socioeconomic spread across the borough.

        Number of free and reduced lunches and graduation rate work together to provide information relating to a wide array of community areas, including crime rates, poverty levels and sustainable jobs. Ideally, all students graduate from high school so they are more marketable in the future, increasing the ability to find better paying jobs. Reduced lunches work to track the  poverty level. Ideally, there is a trend in decreasing numbers of students receiving this service, as this would indicate lower levels of poverty. Similarly, as many families as possible should be utilizing the program, as it is a way to improve overall resilience.

        At the conclusion of our research, a community resilience workshop was held with members from the community. We presented our research to the community members and broke up into two focus groups, discussing these four identified indicators. These focus groups helped to identify ways to measure these indicators so resilience can be measured and assessed over time. We came to conclusion it would be best to have fewer indicators. By looking at information from school districts, HUD, and other community health resources such as Partners for Better Health, Carlisle should have the tools necessary to measure resilience for affordable housing, healthcare, and sustainable wages.

Conclusion

        Carlisle is an overall resilient borough. There are always areas of improvement, but overall Carlisle has been doing a great job striving for resiliency. In the future, Carlisle can use the communities of West Chester, Lancaster, Chambersburg, and other similar towns to compare between indicators of resilience. Carlisle can do so by extending their boundaries with nearby municipalities such as Mechanicsburg, Boiling Springs, and Newville. In future studies of community resilience in Carlisle, the indicators previously mentioned should be reassessed in conjunction with the CRI to observe if borough resilience has improved. Future studies may also look to towns Carlisle aspires to be to see what they are doing to achieve community resilience. Perhaps a more rigorous study can be conducted that works to integrate ideas from community members and students at Dickinson that initiate the implementation of plans. We of course, recommend starting with our three recommendations. Future studies could help develop these changes (outlined earlier) in Carlisle. Ultimately, it is up to the community to step up and take strides towards improving weaknesses and solidifying Carlisle’s strengths.

Appendix

Appendix 1: Lists of questions asked in Health and Wellbeing focus groups. Bold questions are important questions that we wanted to make sure to focus attention on.

1. What is community resilience?  What do you think we mean by this term?

1. What does it mean to you?
2. What kinds of characteristics are important to you in terms of building a resilient community?

2. Health & Wellbeing

1. Diverse Livelihood and Employment-Max

1. Can you describe the labor policies present in Carlisle?

1. Are they generally fair? Inclusive?

2. What supportive financial mechanisms are in place?
3. How are livelihoods protected after a shock?

2. Minimal Human Vulnerability-Olivia

1. To what extent does Carlisle offer safe and affordable housing?
2. Do all Carlisle residents have adequate and an affordable energy supply? What are the mechanisms in place that ensure this?

1. Access to safe drinking water?
2. Effective sanitation?
3. Sufficient and affordable food supply?

3. Effective Safeguards to Human Health and Life-Olivia

1. What are public health systems like in Carlisle? Do all people have access to adequate and quality healthcare they need?
2. How effective is emergency medical care in Carlisle?
3. How effective are emergency response services?

Final Questions:

1. Like previously mentioned, we are looking to develop indicators to measure and quantify the resilience of Carlisle specifically. Based on this conversation, what measurable indicators are necessary in determining Carlisle’s resilience?
2. What keeps you up at night?

Appendix 2: List of questions asked in Economy and Society focus groups. Certain questions are bolded due to their important and were given a higher priority in making sure there was ample attention paid to them.

1. What kinds of characteristics are important to you in terms of building a resilient community?
2. Economy & Society:

1. Sustainable Economy

1. What is your opinion about Carlisle’s Economy?

1. How do you define sustainable economy?

2. Does Carlisle do an adequate job managing public finances? To what extent?
3. What measures are in place around business continuity plans relating to vulnerable economic sectors, such as small businesses?
4. To what extent does Carlisle have a robust, diverse economy?
5. How well does Carlisle do at attracting diverse businesses to come to the borough?

1. How well is Carlisle’s economy integrated with and connected to larger economic systems in surrounding areas?

2. Collective Identity and Mutual Support

1. What is your opinion on active community engagement and strong social networks in Carlisle?
2. Does Carlisle have social structures that affect its status?
3. What is community resilience?  What do you think we mean by this term?

1. What does it mean to you?

4.  provide adequate support for individuals, households, and local communities?
5. Is the Carlisle community cohesive and harmonized? If so, how? If not, what can be be done to improve cohesiveness?
6. Do you think all citizens and cultures feel a strong sense of belonging in the borough?

1. How actively engaged are citizens? What are some ways to improve citizen participation?

3. Comprehensive Security and Rule of Law

1. How would you describe the safety of the Carlisle borough?
2. To what extent are systems that fight corruption and promote justice fair and transparent?
3. How confident are you in the effectiveness of policing measures within the borough? 

1. What mechanisms are in place to effectively deter crime?

4. How accessible, effective, and affordable are mechanisms that promote justice and resolve civil disputes?

Final Questions:

1. We are looking to develop indicators to measure and quantify the resilience of Carlisle specifically.  Based on this conversation, what measurable indicators are necessary in determining Carlisle’s resilience?
2. What keeps you up at night?

References

Arup. “City Resilience Index - Understanding and measuring city resilience” The Rockefeller Foundation. 2015.

Arup. Inside The CRI: Reference Guide. 2016. Web. 24 Apr. 2017.

Bailey, Olivia, Logan Hartlaub, Ellen Hiestch, and Natalie Smith. “Community Resilience in Carlisle: Engagement and Wellbeing.” The Greater Carlisle Project.

Bergstrand, Kelly, Brian Mayer, Babette Brumback, and Yi Zhang. 2015. "Assessing the Relationship Between Social Vulnerability and Community Resilience to Hazards." Social Indicators Research 122, no. 2: 391-409. SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed January 25, 2017).

Brose, Dominic A., and (U.S.) National Research Council. 2015. Developing a Framework for Measuring Community Resilience: : Summary of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2015. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed January 25, 2017).

Bureau, US Census. "American Community Survey (ACS)." Census.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2017.

“Carlisle Comprehensive Plan.” (n.d.): n. Pag. Carlisle Borough. Carlisle Citizens and                Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, 14 Feb. 2002. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

"Carlisle, Pennsylvania Healthcare Data." Carlisle PA Healthcare data. N.p., n.d. Web. 122 May 2017.

Center for Survey Research Penn State Harrisburg . "In Depth Interview with Community                Stakeholders « United Way of Carlisle & Cumberland County." United Way of Carlisle  Cumberland County In Depth Interview with Community Stakeholders
Comments. N.p.,  n.d. Web. 09 May 2017.

Data Access and Dissemination Systems (DADS). "American FactFinder." N.p., 05 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 May 2017.

Devlin, Meggie, Claire Jordy, Greg Oldsey, and Valerie Weiner. “Community Resilience in Carlisle: Economy and Society.” The Greater Carlisle Project.

Huang, Jessica, Matthew Pasquali, Nomi Small, and Olivia Termini. “Community Resilience in Carlisle: Governance and Planning.” The Greater Carlisle Project.

"INFORM is a global, open-source risk assessment for humanitarian crises and disasters. It can support decisions about prevention, preparedness and response." InfoRM. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.

Lee, Max, Wesley Lickus, Madie Ritter, and Emma Weaver. “Community Resilience in Carlisle: Infrastructure and Ecosystems” The Greater Carlisle Project.

Mojtahedi, S. Mohammad H., and Bee-Lan Oo. "Development of an index to measure stakeholder approaches toward disasters in the built environment." Procedia Economics and Finance 18 (2014): 95-102.

"Resilience Dialogues." Home | Resilience Dialogues. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2017. <http://resiliencedialogues.org/>.

Sharifi, Ayyoob. 2016. "A Critical Review of Selected Tools for Assessing Community Resilience." Ecological Indicators 69: 629-647.

Sherrieb, Kathleen, Fran H. Norris, and Sandro Galea. "Measuring Capacities for Community Resilience (English)." Social Indicators Research 99, no. 2: 227-247. Francis, EBSCOhost (accessed March 5, 2017).