Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

Review of emergency management for highrisk Victorian communities

Authorised and published by the Victorian Government, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne.

October 2019 ISBN 978-1-922262-21-9 [pdf/online/MS word] Š State of Victoria 2018 Unless indicated otherwise, this work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au It is a condition of this Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence that you must give credit to the original author who is the State of Victoria.

If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format telephone (03) 8684 7900 or email igem@igem.vic.gov.au Inspector-General for Emergency Management GPO Box 4356, Melbourne, Victoria 3001 Telephone: (03) 8684 7900 Email: igem@igem.vic.gov.au This publication is available in PDF and Word format on www.igem.vic.gov.au

Contents Acronyms….. ............................................................................................................................... 5 Executive summary ..................................................................................................................... 9 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 15

1.1

Objective of the review ................................................................................................ 15

1.2

Scope of the review ..................................................................................................... 15

1.3

Approach ..................................................................................................................... 16

1.4

Limitations ................................................................................................................... 18

1.5

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... 18

2

Background ................................................................................................................. 19

2.1

Vulnerability in emergencies........................................................................................ 19

2.2

Definitions of high-risk communities ............................................................................ 21

2.3

Relationship between high-risk, vulnerability and resilience ........................................ 23

2.4

Types of hazards and high-risk communities .............................................................. 25

3

Emergency management sector governance arrangements for protecting high-risk communities and individuals ........................................................ 28

3.1

Key policy and legislative arrangements ..................................................................... 28

3.2

Emergency management sector reform ...................................................................... 30

4

Emergency management sector approach to managing high-risk communities.......... 32

4.1

Geographic considerations to managing high-risk communities................................ 323

4.2

Local government ........................................................................................................ 38

4.3

Emergency management organisations ...................................................................... 40

4.4

Community support organisations ............................................................................... 63

4.5

Collaborations between CSOs and the sector ............................................................. 67

5

Continuous improvement of Victoria’s approach to managing high-risk communities .................................................................................................. 69

5.1

Sector evaluation and review ...................................................................................... 69

5.2

Barriers and enablers to improvement ........................................................................ 72

6

Other considerations ................................................................................................... 74

6.1

National Disability Insurance Scheme ......................................................................... 74

6.2

Leadership................................................................................................................... 77

6.3

Resources ................................................................................................................... 79

6.4

Intra-sector relationships ............................................................................................. 80

4

7

Leading practice .......................................................................................................... 81

7.1

Identifying high-risk communities using social vulnerability indices ............................. 82

7.2

Leading practice examples .......................................................................................... 83

8

Concluding remarks .................................................................................................... 87

Appendix 1: Factors influencing sensitivity to hazard ................................................................ 89 Appendix 2: Legislative framework, strategies and plans .......................................................... 91 Appendix 3: Services provided under the DHHS Emergency Preparedness Policy for Clients and Services ......................................................................................... 95 References.. .............................................................................................................................. 96

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

Acronyms AV

Ambulance Victoria

BARR

Bushfire At-Risk Register

CAET

Community Assessment and Engagement Tool

CALD

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

CBBM

Community Based Bushfire Management

CBEM

Community Based Emergency Management

CERA

Community Emergency Risk Assessment

CFA

Country Fire Authority

COAG

Council of Australian Governments

CSO

Community Service Organisation

DEDJTR

Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

DELWP

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

DET

Department of Education and Training

DHHS

Department of Health and Human Services

DPC

Department of Premier and Cabinet

EM-COP

Emergency Management Common Operating Picture

EMMV

Emergency Management Manual Victoria

EMV

Emergency Management Victoria

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency (USA)

HACC

Home and Community Care

HACC PYP

Home and Community Care Program for Younger People

IGEM

Inspector-General for Emergency Management

LGA

Local Government Area

LGV

Local Government Victoria

MEMP

Municipal Emergency Management Plan

MEMPC

Municipal Emergency Management Planning Committee

MERP

Municipal Emergency Resourcing Program

MFB

Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board

NDIS

National Disability Insurance Scheme

NGO

Non-Government Organisation

5

6

PUGRC

Peri Urban Group of Rural Councils

RRR

Residential Risk Referrals

SAP

Strategic Action Plan

SBMP

Strategic Bushfire Management Planning

SCRC

State Crisis and Resilience Council

SERRP

State Emergency Relief and Recovery Plan

SHERP

State Health Emergency Response Plan

V-BERAP

Victorian Built Environment Risk Assessment Process

VBRC

Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission

VCC

Victorian Council of Churches

VCC-EM

Victorian Council of Churches Emergencies Ministry

VCOSS

Victorian Council of Social Service

VERMS

Victorian Emergency Risk Management System

VFR

Vulnerable Facilities Register

VFRR

Victorian Fire Risk Register

VFRR-B

Victorian Fire Risk Register - Bushfire

VicPol

Victoria Police

VICSES

Victorian State Emergency Service

VPE

Vulnerable People in Emergencies Policy

VPR

Vulnerable Persons Register

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

7

Glossary 1986 Act

Emergency Management Act 1986

2013 Act

Emergency Management Act 2013

all communities, all emergencies

This is a broad approach and is underpinned by ‘working in conjunction with communities, government, agencies and business’ and captured in the ’we work as one’ sector principle.

all hazards, all agencies

Approach based on networked arrangements and greater interoperability (Emergency Management Act 2013).

Black Saturday

Refers to the devastating 2009 Victorian bushfires which occurred throughout late January to February 2009.

Department

A body existing by virtue of an order made under the Public Administration Act 2004.

Governance

Refers to emergency management governance arrangements.

High-risk

Communities and individuals who have the potential to be adversely affected by a disaster or emergency and who, because of the circumstances in their everyday lives, require significant and coordinated priority intervention, response and support from a variety of government and nongovernment organisations and the broader community for their safety.

Resilience

The capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses and systems to survive, adapt and thrive no matter what kind of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience.

As defined in the Emergency Management Act 2013: (a) the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (b) the Country Fire Authority

Responder agency

(c) the Victoria State Emergency Service Authority (d) the Secretary to the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (e) any other agency prescribed to be a responder agency.

8

The minister

Minister for Emergency Services

The review

IGEM’s Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities.

The (emergency management) sector

The emergency management sector as defined in section 3 of the Emergency Management Act 2013; the sector comprising all agencies, bodies, departments and other persons who have a responsibility, function or other role in emergency management.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

9

Executive summary Over the years Victoria has faced a range of large-scale disasters which have tested the state’s emergency management arrangements. Reviews such as the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (VBRC) and the Review of the 2010-11 Flood Warnings and Response have highlighted the severity of impacts on communities, and in particular communities and individuals with social vulnerabilities. For example the VBRC expressed its grave concerns that 44 per cent of people who died in the 2009 bushfires were identified as vulnerable.

This report assesses Victoria’s emergency management sector arrangements for identifying, preparing and protecting high-risk communities. This includes identification of opportunities for improvement in line with leading practice. In this review, high-risk focuses on communities and individuals that face both social vulnerabilities and high hazard risk (natural hazards and structural fires), meaning they require additional consideration and support for emergencies.

The report highlights the importance of determining an agreed definition of high-risk communities to promote clarity and collaboration for the emergency management sector (the sector).

Victorian context As Victoria’s population increases, Melbourne and regional cities are expanding further into natural and rural landscapes that pose a range of potential hazards. Rapidly developing areas take time to establish the necessary infrastructure and services, including emergency service infrastructure. This can lead to a range of challenges including issues with access and egress for communities and emergency services during emergencies.

Metropolitan communities face other challenges. For example increased high rise development creates issues evacuating large numbers of people safely, especially where there are mobility and/or medical issues associated with high-risk individuals.

This review highlights the range of social vulnerabilities that intersect the differing hazard landscapes of metropolitan, peri-urban and rural Victorian landscapes. Relevant social considerations include physical and cognitive impairments, social connection, local knowledge of hazard risk and language and cultural differences. All of these factors can impact on the community engagement, planning and response arrangements required for effective planning and response.

Victoria’s ‘all communities, all emergencies’ approach to emergency management is leading to improved integration of communities into all phases of emergency management. The review identified that these current reforms to Victoria’s emergency management sector align and support the improvements for high-risk communities outlined, and that the sector has many of the foundations required to transition to a leading practice model for high-risk communities over time.

Work to date There are numerous sector initiatives, partnerships and research projects related to vulnerability and high-risk communities identified in this review. It is evident that vulnerability considerations are becoming more prevalent as research continues to strengthen the link between social vulnerability and preventable fatalities from hazards.

Across the sector the community focused approach is leading to a recognition of the importance of local knowledge and connection for effective emergency management. The InspectorGeneral for Emergency Management (IGEM) cited numerous examples of local partnerships, engagement and information collection that support bottom up (local intelligence) processes for high-risk communities, most notably the Victoria State Emergency Service’s Community Emergency Risk Assessment tool used by local councils.

10

Sector partnerships and collaboration were observed for some specific sub-sets of high-risk communities. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB) and the Country Fire Authority (CFA) are all working on improved identification of hoarding and squalor. DHHS identified there needs to be a sector-wide collaborative approach to adequately manage this issue [1]. Likewise, IGEM has identified the need for a sector-wide collaborative approach for all high-risk Victorian communities.

Local governments play an important role in emergency management for high-risk communities, including coordination of resource arrangements and support services and administration of lists of vulnerable people and facilities. The review highlighted the wealth of place-based knowledge that local governments hold in partnership with Community Service Organisations (CSOs).

IGEM recommends the sector increase collaboration with CSOs and local government to better integrate local intelligence and strengthen networks to support emergency management arrangements for Victoria’s high-risk communities.

Community resilience focus Broadly, the Victorian emergency management sector approach to emergency management for high-risk communities focuses on building community resilience. This approach has been formalised by both Emergency Management Victoria (EMV) and DHHS. The approach supports strong community consultation and involvement, which is advocated by local government and CSOs. IGEM identified through this review that a community resilience focus is not enough to identify high-risk communities and individuals who require targeted support. There is a risk under current arrangements that high-risk individuals may ‘fall through the gaps’. As important as the community resilience focus is, protecting the most high-risk communities relies on a targeted and coordinated approach to sector research, policy and practice and sound intelligence to support decisions.

Continuous improvement Across the sector there are many successful programs and activities that focus on emergency management for high-risk communities and individuals. These range from high level policies for people with vulnerabilities, through to specific locally based programs run by agencies. Strong leadership is seen from both the DHHS and EMV, however, further clarity around respective roles and direction for high-risk communities would facilitate improved alignment of initiatives at state, regional and municipal tiers.

IGEM found that evaluation and review of programs across the sector are inconsistent. Some initiatives were thoroughly evaluated while others, due to time, resourcing and/or other capacity constraints, were not. However, IGEM identified that the foundations of a continuous improvement approach to emergency management for high-risk communities have been laid.

These foundations can be seen by the establishment of the Community Emergency Risk Assessment (CERA) and through the close ties that exist between emergency service organisations, local government and CSOs and research organisations. Further, there are a suite of existing databases and platforms that capture knowledge and facilitate sector-wide data sharing and communications.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Local governments and CSOs have traditionally provided a crucial link to individuals with vulnerabilities, in many cases through the delivery of home and community care services.

However, stakeholders expressed concern that reforms to these services through the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme may be detrimental to these relationships. IGEM identified that ongoing work is required to ensure the transition delivers improvements in emergency management arrangements for high-risk communities and individuals.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

11

Leading practice To identity areas for improvement within Victoria, IGEM looked to leading practice examples of emergency management policy and programs for high-risk communities, both nationally and internationally. Analysis showed that leading practice requires a multi-level approach to emergency management for high-risk communities, involving the use of indices, scenario building and participation. This approach can detect the detail and layers of social vulnerability that exist in high-risk communities.

IGEM found that leading practice for high-risk communities in the Victorian emergency management sector is still developing, and identified a number of improvements required for the sector to transition to leading practice. The report provides an overview of contemporary research and practice from national and international perspectives to support the sector’s transition.

Where to from here An opportunity exists for the sector to collectively identify and address issues associated with high-risk communities through a multidisciplinary leading practice approach. This will require additional leadership, clarity and collaboration to align current research, policy and practice to drive improvements for emergency management arrangements for Victoria’s high-risk communities.

The Victorian Government’s Community Based Emergency Management framework for collaboration between government, emergency agencies, communities, business and nongovernment organisations released in 2018 provides one example of a potential vehicle to support the findings and recommendations outlined in this review. Further, suitable governance structures are provided through the State Crisis and Resilience Council Subcommittees to drive a renewed focus and collaborative approach for high-risk communities.

Observations, findings and recommendations IGEM provides the following observations, findings and recommendations to support the improvement of emergency management for high risk Victorian communities.

OBSERVATION 1 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management observed that concerns surrounding privacy, data quality and data entry are all potential considerations for limiting the sector’s access to sensitive information. There is scope for improved cross-sector clarity, centralisation, coordination and sharing of intelligence to support decisions at all levels of government and across all hazards. This will also support the development of leading practice system level and place-based intelligence of Victoria’s high-risk communities.

FINDING 1 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that there is no common understanding or comprehensive definition of high-risk communities and individuals in the Victorian emergency management sector.

12

FINDING 2 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that there are important foundations that will support the continuous improvement of Victoria’s emergency management approach to high-risk communities and individuals including: 

the close ties that exist between a majority of Victoria’s emergency management sector organisations and the Victorian community



the significant databases and platforms that have been developed to improve communications, knowledge capture and intelligence sharing



the competent research professionals and networks embedded across the sector.

FINDING 3 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that there are multiple examples of successful place-based programs and networks focussed on building community resilience and/or reducing social vulnerabilities to emergencies.

FINDING 4 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that there is a lack of formal referral requirements for individuals who meet some but not all of the eligibility requirements of the Vulnerable Persons Register. The review highlighted that follow-up actions and referral processes vary across local government councils.

FINDING 5 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that there was insufficient processes and forums for Community Service Organisations (CSO) to discuss and share insights and views. Increased collaboration between CSOs and the emergency management sector would further strengthen current planning and response arrangements for high-risk individuals and communities.

FINDING 6 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that effective evaluation and evidence-based practice are associated with emergency management sector organisations that have appointed an individual or team with appropriate expertise and resources to undertake this work or leveraged academic partnerships.

FINDING 7 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that the sector is starting to create databases and collate community information to inform decision making. This is an emerging process and there is potential for agencies to collaborate and share information to reduce duplication, improve access, increase information quality and broaden the scope of resulting databases.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

13

FINDING 8 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that vertical and horizontal relationships are important to deliver an effective approach to addressing the needs of high risk communities and individuals in emergencies.

FINDING 9 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that there is a current lack of clarity within the emergency management sector around the respective roles of Emergency Management Victoria (EMV) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) with regard to high-risk communities.

While the review identified positive developments in this area, improved clarity will increase the extent to which EMV and DHHS can leverage off their respective strengths and support a coordinated and collaborative approach.

FINDING 10 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that local governments, community service organisations and communities are best placed to identify the individuals most at risk in their municipality.

FINDING 11 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management found the development of an index of vulnerability provides a strong basis for targeting resources to groups who are vulnerable.

This approach will highlight the strengths and deficiencies of current emergency management arrangements so that capacity building initiatives can be developed, targeted and continuously improved over time.

RECOMMENDATION 1 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) lead the development of an agreed definition of highrisk communities and individuals.

The development of an appropriate definition will require broad engagement with the Victorian emergency management sector organisations and build on the findings of this report, and other relevant reviews, including the DHHS review of Vulnerable People in Emergencies policy.

14

RECOMMENDATION 2 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that Victoria State Emergency Service continue with its development and application of the Community Emergency Risk Assessment (CERA) model as an important source of place-based intelligence of local hazards and vulnerabilities.

The development should provide for:  

improved accountability for the translation of CERA assessments into mitigation outcomes state-wide improved place-based data capture and integration into system level (state and regional) intelligence and decision making platforms.

This will require the support of Emergency Management Victoria, the Department of Health and Human Services and key responder agencies

RECOMMENDATION 3 The Inspector General for Emergency Management recommends that Emergency Management Victoria, in consultation with community service organisations, lead the development and implementation of a plan to: 





develop and implement an engagement strategy to improve collaboration and information sharing between the emergency management sector and community service organisations integrate sector-wide place-based and system level intelligence relevant to high-risk communities and individuals to support effective emergency management decisions across all phases of emergencies develop sector capability and capacity for spatial identification of high-risk communities.

The plan should be developed and implemented through a working group with oversight by State Crisis and Resilience Council or relevant subcommittee. The plan will require consideration of findings provided in this and other relevant reviews, including the Department of Health and Human Services review of the Vulnerable People in Emergencies policy and the Local Government Victoria review of local government emergency management capacity and capability.

RECOMMENDATION 4 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Department of Health and Human Services, with the support of the emergency management and community service sector, continue to monitor the roll out of the National Disability Insurance Scheme to ensure: 

high-risk individuals are transitioned appropriately



the reforms accommodate appropriate emergency management training of carers to support high-risk individuals’ planning for emergencies



that appropriate and consistent mechanisms are in place to facilitate the provision of local intelligence regarding high-risk individuals and communities to emergency management decision makers across the sector.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

1

15

Introduction

The Inspector-General for Emergency Management (IGEM) is a legislated appointment established under the Emergency Management Act 2013 (2013 Act) to: 

provide assurance to the government and the community in respect of emergency management arrangements in Victoria



foster continuous improvement of emergency management in Victoria.

Supporting the achievement of these objectives, IGEM undertakes system-wide reviews, including reviews of the emergency management functions of responder agencies and government departments as defined under section 64(1)(b) of the 2013 Act. These reviews are based on an annual forward plan of reviews developed by IGEM in consultation with the emergency management sector (the sector) and shared with the Minister for Emergency Services (the minister). In addition, IGEM may also conduct reviews at the request of the minister under the provisions of section 64(1)(c) of the 2013 Act. All of IGEM’s assurance activities are guided by the Monitoring and Assurance Framework for Emergency Management which provides the foundation for a coordinated and collaborative approach to sector-wide assurance.

1.1 Objective of the review The objective of the review is to identify and assess current arrangements in Victoria’s emergency management sector for identifying, preparing and protecting high-risk communities.

This includes the identification of opportunities for improvement in line with leading practice.

1.2 Scope of the review IGEM has utilised the following definition of ‘high-risk’ for the review into emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities: Individuals and communities who have the potential to be adversely affected by a disaster or emergency and who, because of the circumstances in their everyday lives, require significant and coordinated priority intervention, response and support from a variety of government and non-government organisations and the broader community for their safety and recovery.

This has been adapted from a definition of vulnerability in a 2013 report prepared for the Australian and South Australian governments [1]. The use of the term high-risk community is perceived as generally preferable to the concept of vulnerability, which may be seen as disempowering [2]. The use of the term vulnerability, including social vulnerability, in the discussion that follows will be in the sense of social vulnerability rather than a status [2].

In scope The review will encompass: 

natural hazards and structural fires



protocols and processes related to identifying, planning for and protecting high-risk communities from the impact of emergencies in scope for this review



the adequacy of intelligence collected to identify high-risk communities and current continuous improvement processes



the coordination of intelligence sharing, planning and response in relation to protecting high-risk communities



the adequacy of governance arrangements and their alignment with current legislative and policy frameworks



consideration of leading practice approaches and contemporary research for comparative analysis.

16

The review will focus primarily on the preparation and response phases of emergency management.

Out of scope The review does not examine: 

non-natural hazards (except structural fires)



protocols and processes related to prevention and recovery phases of emergency management



legislation, policies, regulations and standards outside of the human services and emergency management sector (for example building codes).

IGEM acknowledges that prevention and recovery are important considerations for high-risk communities. This is reflected in the inclusion of recovery in the above definition. However, given the breadth of the review topic and stakeholders directly involved, a decision was made to focus primarily on the planning and response phases to ensure a comprehensive overview and assessment could be provided.

Key stakeholders consulted The stakeholders directly engaged to support the review include: 

Australian Red Cross



Country Fire Authority (CFA)



Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR)



Department of Education and Training (DET)



Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)



Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)



Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC)



Emergency Management Victoria (EMV)



Local Government Victoria (LGV)



Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB)



Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV)



Northern Grampians Shire Council



South Gippsland Shire Council



Victorian Council of Churches (VCC)



Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS)



Victoria Police (VicPol)



Victoria State Emergency Service (VICSES)



Warrnambool City Council



Wyndham City Council



Yarra City Council



Yarra Ranges Council

1.3 Approach The review aims to undertake a broad assessment of current arrangements in place for affording effective planning and response to Victorian communities and individuals who are at the highest risk in emergencies. This includes consideration of current legislation, policy and practices, and the extent to which they are aligned, coordinated, targeted and contemporary.

Victoria has considerable geographic diversity in its built, social and natural landscapes. To account for this diversity, the review considers the intersection between socio-demographic vulnerabilities and high hazard risks from metro, peri-urban, regional and local perspectives.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

17

Local governments and community service organisations (CSOs) provide a crucial link between the emergency management and community services sectors. As such, the review includes consultation with staff from six Local Government Areas (LGAs), a range of CSOs, peak bodies and representative organisations and individual community members (community surveys and focus groups from within the six LGAs).

The six LGAs were selected to ensure a range of geographic (two metropolitan, two peri-urban and two rural) and hazard characteristics were considered. This included capturing a diversity of LGA staff and community insights and experience of how current arrangements translate in practice.

A further important consideration is how information and intelligence is captured and utilised by relevant agencies to support effective decision-making. This includes consideration of how place-based and system-level data are utilised and coordinated across the sector.

Lines of enquiry The review has developed evidence-based findings and recommendations to support continuous improvement of the emergency management sector based on the following lines of enquiry: (a) To what extent are current arrangements across Victoria’s emergency management sector effective for identifying, planning for and protecting high-risk communities? (b) What are the overarching governance arrangements for managing the impact of emergencies on high-risk communities? (c) How does Victoria’s emergency management sector know whether current practices for protecting high-risk communities are meeting objectives?

Information sources IGEM gathered information and analysed data from a number of sources to prepare this report and form its findings, observations and recommendations.

These included: 

key stakeholder submissions



interviews with key stakeholders



desktop analysis including relevant legislation, policies, initiatives, reports and guidelines



third party literature review



third party telephone survey involving over 600 participants across six LGAs



community focus groups (follow up with survey participants)



stakeholder submissions and feedback on the draft report.

18

1.4 Limitations Bias and limitations are inherent in all data collection methods, however, the methodology employed has sought to reduce limitations and potential bias in the following ways: 

the use of a mixed-methods approach enabling data triangulation against the lines of enquiry



the use of an independent third party provider to undertake a literature review to enable comparative analysis and verification of findings



the use of an independent third party provider to undertake the community survey and analysis within the six LGAs



drawing on the expertise of a wide range of responder agency and CSO staff and subject matter experts to contribute to, review and validate findings



sound project management principles to maximise transparency of process, manage risks and limitations, and ensure data and other forms of supporting evidence are stored appropriately.

IGEM acknowledges the depth and breadth of the review topic limits the review to focusing on a subset of the key stakeholders that contribute to supporting high-risk Victorian communities in emergencies. While every effort has been made to involve as many of the relevant organisations and agencies as possible, IGEM acknowledges that there are other views that have not been incorporated. This limitation has been taken into consideration when developing the key findings and recommendations.

1.5 Acknowledgements IGEM is grateful for the assistance of all individuals and organisations that contributed to this review, in particular, the immediate, open and honest communication from key stakeholders and communities that greatly assisted IGEM in progressing the development of this report.

The responsiveness of those involved to requests for information and in facilitating and contributing to interviews with relevant representatives is appreciated.

The willingness and commitment to providing insight, information and evidence to support this review is a positive affirmation of the sector’s commitment to continuous improvement of Victoria’s emergency management arrangements.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

19

2 Background 2.1 Vulnerability in emergencies 'The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members' (Source: Quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi)

As a part of a developed nation, most Victorians have expectations of being able to participate in the opportunities that the State and community offer such as employment, housing, education and health services. Australians overall have a reasonable level of resilience, either through their own capabilities, their networks or through available support services.

Regardless of societal structures, there remains periods when circumstances in people’s lives means they need additional support from government or community. During, or in the aftermath of emergencies, some people will similarly need additional support, either because of the emergency, their location, or because of other individual circumstances.

Support groups, welfare agencies, local government and other support agencies can provide this role. The purpose of such ‘social’ services is to reduce vulnerability and promote inclusion.

Victoria’s emergency management sector organisations deliver services universally, many operating with a strong volunteer component and having a legislated basis for receiving funding.

These emergency management sector organisations are ideally placed to provide leadership and direction to support those people most in need during an emergency.

The emergency management system tries to ensure that those who need support receive it, and that no-one is excluded. Those in care settings and institutions or with high levels of vulnerability have a strong (and at times legislated) support system to assist them during emergencies. Advanced identification and planning for those likely to need special support during an emergency occurs. However, it is dependent on a range of factors including the strength of personal support networks and the support available from government, CSOs and other non-government organisations (NGOs). This can be imperfect, and many may not receive what they need.

Image: Ermolaev Alexander / Shutterstock.com

20

2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission Vulnerability of individuals and communities to disasters was a key focus of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (VBRC) in the aftermath of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires. The VBRC expressed its grave concerns that 44 per cent of the people who died in bushfires had ‘vulnerabilities’ [3]. They included young people, older people and people suffering from an identifiable or protracted ailment or disability.

The VBRC identified that vulnerability affects different people at different times depending on the circumstances of their everyday life. It also found that the extent of vulnerability depends upon two key factors: 

the capacity and ability of a person to take certain actions during emergencies



proximity of a person to a hazard or high-risk bushfire area.

The VBRC examined the emergency management frameworks and practices being followed in 2009 by state and local government to identify lessons and recommend improvements. As part of its inquiry, the VBRC scrutinised Municipal Emergency Management Plans (MEMPs) that each LGA MEMP Committee (MEMPC) is required to prepare for local council consideration under the Emergency Management Act 1986 (1986 Act). The VBRC was highly critical that the 1986 Act did not require local councils to include specific arrangements in MEMPs for populations who were vulnerable or high-risk.

Further, the VBRC identified that media releases did not carry any particular advice for communities and individuals that were vulnerable or high-risk, leaving many exposed [3].

In its final report, the VBRC emphasised that the Victorian Government and municipal councils devise a separate mechanism of issuing early warnings and provide special support and attention to the needs of people who are at high-risk [4]. Similarly, while suggesting changes in ‘stay or go policy’, the recommendations of the VBRC stressed to discourage children and people who are vulnerable from staying and defending properties.

Recommendation 3 of the VBRC requested the State establish mechanisms for helping municipal councils to undertake local planning that tailors bushfire safety options to the needs of individual communities. In doing this planning, VBRC recommended councils: 

urgently develop local plans that contain contingency options such as evacuation and shelter for communities at risk of bushfire



document in MEMPs and other relevant plans facilities where vulnerable people are likely to be situated—for example, aged care facilities, hospitals, schools and child care centres



compile and maintain a list of vulnerable residents who need tailored advice of a recommendation to evacuate and provide this list to local police and anyone else with prearranged responsibility for helping vulnerable residents evacuate.

As part of their emergency management planning process people who are vulnerable will need to ‘opt in’ for this service [3].

The DHHS Vulnerable People in Emergencies (VPE) policy (currently under review) (see Section 4.3 pp. 49) was developed in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation 5 of the VBRC report requested the State to engage in building a more comprehensive strategy of evacuation encouraging and supporting people who are vulnerable to relocate early, including the development of assisted evacuation plans [3, 4]. Similarly, the VBRC requested CFA to review its guidelines for non-residential buildings with special emphasis on emergency management planning and fire protection measures that accommodate people who are vulnerable, for example; schools, aged care facilities, child care centres, and hospitals.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

21

The VBRC also identified the importance of social research (Recommendation 65) when it recommended ‘establishing a national centre for bushfire research in collaboration with other Australian jurisdictions to support pure, applied and long-term research in the physical, biological and social sciences’ [3, 4].

Since the VBRC, there have been many changes in emergency management policy for people who are vulnerable, such as the establishment of a Vulnerable Persons Register (VPR). The VPR, along with other programs and policies are discussed in detail throughout this report.

2.2 Definitions of high-risk communities One of the first challenges when reviewing the concept of high-risk communities is to ensure that the sector has a common understanding and definition of what high-risk means in an emergency management context.

IGEM notes that there is still some work to be done within the sector to arrive at an agreed definition, and that there are a number of interrelated concepts such as vulnerability, resilience and high-risk that require further clarification and agreement to promote collaboration and alignment across the sector.

Based on the third party literature review, a working definition of a high-risk individual or community should recognise that hazard exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity1 are all influenced by the individual’s position in the physical and social world [5]. Adaptive capacity influences vulnerability by reducing potential impacts through preparedness, prevention and response characteristics, and by anticipating, avoiding, coping with and recovering from the hazard.

The definition of a high-risk individual or community that can provide an effective basis for Victorian policy should recognise the factors separating those who are vulnerable from those who are at high-risk. The key difference is the extent of assistance required and how quickly, during a disaster event, that assistance is required.

These variables are relevant because the everyday circumstances of high-risk communities and individuals mean they have fewer resources or capacity to respond in a timely and effective way compared to those who are vulnerable. High-risk individuals and communities are also at greater risk of harm than others who are vulnerable due to this lack of resources and capacity.

High-risk individuals and communities therefore need to receive priority assistance during a disaster event.

A working definition of a high-risk individual or community that incorporates the need for additional and priority assistance has been adapted for this review as: Individuals and communities who have the potential to be adversely affected by a disaster or emergency and who, because of the circumstances in their everyday lives, require significant and coordinated priority intervention, response and support from a variety of government and non-government organisations and the broader community for their safety.

This definition can be applied at the individual and community level to inform policy and program development and identify and target high-risk individuals and communities.

1 Adaptive capacity is the capacity of a system to adapt if the environment where the system that exists is changing. It is applied to ecological systems and human social systems.

22

Terminology in Victoria’s emergency management sector It is clear that the language surrounding high-risk communities creates uncertainty in emergency management. Discussions surrounding high-risk communities were often muddied by overall emergency risk and many stakeholders interviewed discussed community risks from hazards more broadly.

‘We consider all persons vulnerable in an emergency’ (Source: Stakeholder representative)

Throughout the process of this review, the terms vulnerable and vulnerability were identified as commonly used and seemed to involve less ambiguity than ‘high-risk’ during stakeholder discussions. For example, the DHHS VPE policy [6] considers vulnerability in a similar way to the definition of high-risk in this review. IGEM notes that high-risk is one choice of terms, and the sector may agree on another, the importance is achieving a shared understanding and purpose.

EMV documentation tends to promote community resilience with limited direct reference to highrisk or vulnerable communities. However, specific risk factors (such as chronic disease, social disadvantage and lower social cohesion) are outlined for consideration in EMV’s Strategic Plan [7]. Stakeholder representatives were very aware of the problems associated with categorising individuals and groups, noting that high-risk and vulnerable labels can be disempowering, insulting and/or reliance promoting.

‘I think we make people more vulnerable by calling them vulnerable’ (Source: Stakeholder representative)

The sector would benefit from further clarity on high-risk communities to improve understanding of policy, practice and planning. An agreed definition would need to be flexible in its application as the specific characteristics of those who may need help or assistance is likely to vary across the state.

‘If you can’t even get that [a common definition], how on earth are you going to get joined up in terms of how you work together to deliver a service?’

(Source: Responder agency stakeholder)

Further, a definition or term that separates hazard risk (for example, bushfire risk) from personbased risk (for example, flood plain residents) is important to drive specific resilience building activities and support initiatives for those within the community who are most in need.

FINDING 1 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that there is no common understanding or comprehensive definition of high-risk communities and individuals in the Victorian emergency management sector.

RECOMMENDATION 1 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) lead the development of an agreed definition of highrisk communities and individuals.

The development of an appropriate definition will require broad engagement with the Victorian emergency management sector organisations and build on the findings of this report, and other relevant reviews, including the DHHS review of Vulnerable People in Emergencies policy.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

23

2.3 Relationship between high-risk, vulnerability and resilience High-risk and vulnerability Vulnerable and high-risk in the context of emergency management are used in an interchangeable manner. This review considers high-risk communities to be a subset of vulnerable communities that are exposed to a high risk of hazard.

Vulnerability is a broad term and is not always associated with higher hazard risk. Referring to vulnerability in the sector can lead to efforts being made to support communities who may not need specific intervention during an emergency, but who are considered vulnerable from an economic, health or social welfare point of view. This confusion can lead to ineffective distribution of resources in planning and response and highlights the importance of a clear definition and shared terminology surrounding high-risk communities.

High-risk can be temporary, seasonal and sporadic as well as chronic. It is also dynamic – individuals may become increasingly high-risk over time based on a number of risk factors.

Likewise, vulnerabilities can be reduced or mitigated through emergency planning and resilience building activities at both an individual and community level.

To capture the views of the community IGEM commissioned a telephone survey of LGAs. Nearly one in five of participants surveyed recognised that they had a limited ability to respond to an emergency threat. Participants identified the need to care for animals (27 per cent) and for dependents (30 per cent) and their own or household member’s medical condition as limiting their response to an emergency threat. Disability and impaired mobility were also key factors in limiting their emergency response.

Survey participants who identified as having limited abilities were also more likely to require assistance in preparing their property against the hazard or with evacuating. However, IGEM notes that not all the participants who identified limitations (e.g. caring for pets) would meet the definition of high risk in this review.

Image: Shmelly50 / Shutterstock

24

Definition of resilience The concept of resilience incorporates the capacity to respond, to prepare, to learn and adapt.

EMV defines resilience as ‘… the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses and systems to survive, adapt and thrive, no matter what kind of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience’ [8]. The following elements are commonly included in definitions of resilience: 

ability or capacity to withstand and recover, to ’bounce back‘ from an event



adaptation and learning through experience of the hazard event



risk reduction activities including planning, anticipating and adapting



improvement following the emergency event and the ability to bounce forward [9].

Resilience and vulnerability The concept of resilience was mainstreamed in emergency management through the 2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction [10] with Australian emergency management doctrine acknowledging the concept in the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience [11]. Their definition was resource focused, meaning those with more resources are able to be more resilient [10], and it placed responsibility on victims by individualising social vulnerability and obscuring structural inequalities [12, 13].

It has been argued resilience is the opposite of vulnerability, involving individual and community preparedness against hazard, to be less vulnerable and achieve a higher level of resilience [1417]. However, vulnerability and a lack of resilience are not equal. Vulnerability focuses on conditions within the system before disaster, reflected in exposure and sensitivity [18].

The concept of high-risk individuals and communities places a clear focus on the need to consider the circumstances of people who may lack economic, social or cultural resources to be able to look after themselves in a disaster situation. A resilience focus, while appropriate at a whole-of-community level, risks diverting attention away from the most marginalised groups [19, 20]. Therefore a focus on high-risk communities and individuals would complement current arrangements targeting whole-of-community resilience, through separately identifying and prioritising those most at need of support in emergencies.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

25

Figure 1: Key considerations in emergency planning for communities

2.4 Types of hazards and high-risk communities Hazards and emergencies experienced in Victoria are diverse and affect communities differently depending on a number of factors including the type of hazard, experience with past hazards, the geography of the landscape, and socio-demographic characteristics. These features influence the exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of high-risk communities in emergency management.

26

Exposure Exposure to hazard is influenced by geographic location and the condition of the built environment including age of buildings, supply of energy, water and fuel, communications services and transport infrastructure. Exposure can be defined by physical location, especially in relation to bushfire and flood. Storm and extreme heat are less readily spatially defined.

Bushfire-prone areas can be readily defined as they largely depend on environmental characteristics. The severity and patterns of bushfire are significantly related to human activities including land use, settlement patterns, and vegetation management. Population and housing density are also critical factors [21, 22].

Heatwave in Australia is defined as a period of three days or more during which the effects of excess heat and heat stress is unusual for the local climate [23]. DHHS provide information on extreme heat and heatwaves, [24] including a heat health alert facility. The State Extreme Heat Sub-plan defines extreme heat as a ‘sustained period of high temperatures or a single day of higher than average temperature for that time of the year’ [25].

The literature suggests that urban residents, such as those of greater Melbourne and large regional cities in Victoria, will be exposed to the effect of heatwaves [26] and the associated impacts on energy supply, water, communications services and transport infrastructure. It is likely that exposure will also be influenced by the built environment, including age of buildings, materials, design and layout, ventilation, insulation, cooling technologies [27] and access to parks, gardens or green areas [28] to create cool spaces.

Heatwave (Image: Emergency Management Victoria)

Sensitivity There is limited research on the sensitivity of communities and individuals to hazards. Factors influencing vulnerability will be different in each LGA, highlighting the importance of understanding differing social dimensions in the various geographic areas susceptible to hazard [22].

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

27

Studies have shown sensitivities to hazards may include: 

people on low income with limited means to insure against the consequences of bushfire or prepare for hazards and are therefore disproportionally impacted by disasters [29]



people living alone, elderly, young, and those who need special assistance and may need help from others during an emergency [22]



people accessing rental housing, as generally rentals are not as well maintained as owneroccupied homes. Renters are also likely to take fewer actions to protect property [30, 31]



recent immigrants who may be vulnerable to hazards due to their differing cultural backgrounds, racial and ethnic inequality [29]



visitors and tourists who may be unfamiliar with local hazard risk and response planning and may be relatively isolated from the general community making them more vulnerable [32].

People suffering from conditions that reduce their cognitive capacities, who lack support networks are also more susceptible to hazards, in particular heatwave. For example medication may negatively impact a person’s thermal regulation, placing stress on cardiovascular and respiratory systems [33].

Appendix 1 lists the range of factors reflected in the literature that influence the susceptibility of individuals and communities to the hazards that are prevalent in Victoria. The literature has been interpreted to an extent to rationalise some of the characteristics and measures of hazard sensitivity. There has been no attempt in the literature to compare the importance of factors influencing the extent of sensitivity by different hazards. Therefore, the factors listed in Appendix 1 (Table 1) are undifferentiated by hazard, although a subjective sorting of these factors may be possible.

Adaptive capacity Exposure and sensitivity to hazard can be moderated through long term protective actions by householders, including mitigation and planning [34]. The following are some of the factors that influence the capacity of individuals and communities to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from hazard: 

wealth, poverty, race and age can influence bushfire preparation and mitigation since people with greater economic and social resources may be insulated from impacts due to better preparation [35, 36]



lack of education, literacy and language skills place people at a disadvantage in seeking information and applying for assistance during and following a disaster [37]



property ownership may also affect involvement in bushfire mitigation programs, renters having lower personal investment in maintaining and protecting property [38] and limited control over landscaping and fire resistant building materials [39]



access to social networks have been shown to reduce vulnerability by providing access to other people’s emotional, social and economic resources [40, 41].

These factors are amenable to influence and change through targeted initiatives and actions by government and non-government organisations. This is an important consideration as most of the factors influencing exposure and sensitivity to hazard may only be addressed at a societal or macro level.

3 Emergency management sector governance arrangements for protecting high-risk communities and individuals 3.1 Key policy and legislative arrangements This part of the report outlines the legislative basis for managing emergencies in Victoria that either define or reference high-risk, vulnerable or resilient communities, or have responsibility (direct or potential) for these communities.

National legislation, policies and strategies National legislation Although all states and territories have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, emergency management legislation, there is no Commonwealth legislation specific to emergency management.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, provides for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and may potentially influence CSOs that interact with high-risk individuals and communities (see Section 6 pp. 74 for more information on the NDIS).

National policies and strategies National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (2011) In terms of high-risk communities, the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, noted that ‘… factors that can influence disaster resilience include remoteness, population density and mobility, socioeconomic status, age profile, and percentage of population for whom English is a second language" [11]. It also acknowledged that it is the poorest and the most vulnerable that are hardest hit by disasters.

National emergency management for Aboriginal communities Released in 2007 by the Australian Government, Keeping Our Mob Safe: A national emergency management strategy for remote Indigenous communities [42], highlighted the impact of hazards and emergency events on Aboriginal communities, and noted that it can be greater due to geographical and social remoteness.

The strategy has also identified multiple issues relating to Aboriginal communities that those working in the emergency management sector need to be aware of. These include cultural appropriateness, effective engagement, the collaborative approach and empowerment of individuals and communities.

Victorian legislation Key state legislation related to the protection of high-risk individuals and communities from hazards includes: 

Emergency Management Act 1986



Emergency Management Act 2013



Country Fire Authority (Volunteer Protection and Community Safety) Act 2003



Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act 1958



Victoria State Emergency Service Act 2005



Local Government Act 1989.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

29

Victorian policies and strategies In addition to the state legislation already mentioned, there are also various key sector guidance documents in place to assist in planning and managing high-risk and vulnerable communities in Victoria.

The Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV) provides a key policy and planning framework for the sector. The EMMV considers that emergency management ‘involves the plans, structures and arrangements established to bring together the activities of government and non-government organisations in a coordinated way to deal with the whole spectrum of emergency needs including prevention, response and recovery’ [43].

Key relevant Victorian documents include: 

State Emergency Response Plan (SERP)



State Emergency Relief and Recovery Plan (SERRP)



State Health Emergency Response Plan



Vulnerable People in Emergency Policy



Emergency Preparedness Policy for Clients and Services.

A more comprehensive list of the key legislative frameworks, strategies and plans is provided in Appendix 2.

State emergency management priorities The State has endorsed a set of operational priorities to underpin and guide decisions made during emergencies, especially when faced with concurrent risks or competing priorities. The priorities, as listed in the SERP, are applicable to the roles and actions taken at the municipal level, and have been reflected in the MEMPs of Victorian municipal councils.

The priorities serve as the initial guidance for operational planning processes and have been applied in the Joint Standard Operating Procedures (JSOPs) for Incident Action Planning (SOPJ03.03) and the Regional Operations Plan (SOP-J03.17).

Other relevant legislative requirements There are also other relevant legislative requirements, standards or procedures that must be addressed. Although these are not specifically related to emergency management, they may potentially impact on communities that are high-risk or vulnerable.

These include: 

Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006



enforcement of Building Regulations



risk assessments of caravan parks



enforcing compliance of Caravan Parks’ Emergency Management Plans



notifying the MFB’s Hoarding Notification System when hoarders are identified within metropolitan areas.



AS 3959 – Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas



AS 4083 – Planning for Emergencies in Health Care Facilities



AS 3745 – Planning for Emergencies in Facilities



Essential Services Act 1958 (with amendments as at 17 November 2011).

High-risk communities may include individuals who are receiving support services through inhome or facility-based care and as such, the business and service continuity plans, and emergency management plans are relevant governance structures. This may include aged-care facilities, disability support service providers and child care providers. While the specific plans fall beyond the scope of this review, monitoring and assurance of these plans is an important consideration for the sector.

30

Charter of Human Rights The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 is Victorian legislation that sets out basic rights, freedoms and responsibilities for all Victorians. It guides the relationship between government and community through requiring public authorities (state and local government) and those delivering services on behalf of government to act consistently with the charter.

The right to liberty and security of person is one of the 20 fundamental human rights protected in the charter. More specifically ‘that reasonable steps must be taken to ensure the physical safety of people who are in danger of physical harm’ [44].

3.2 Emergency management sector reform One of the priorities of the Victoria Emergency Management Strategic Action Plan (SAP) is to deliver streamlined and contemporary legislation, policy, operating arrangements and plans.

The aim is to ensure that these instruments will clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities of community, all tiers of government, non-government organisations, agencies and businesses to better integrate the management of emergencies.

Of the four emergency management reforms under this SAP priority, three have relevance to the protection of communities at high-risk, these are: 

the Emergency Management Legislation Amendment (Planning) Bill 2018



Emergency Management Planning Guidelines



The roll out of Part 7A of the Emergency Management Amendment Act 2013 (Critical Infrastructure Resilience).

The Emergency Management Legislation Amendment (Planning) Bill 2018 As of 20 February 2018, the Emergency Management Legislation Amendment (Planning) Bill 2018 (the Bill) had been introduced to Parliament [45]. As stated in the Bill’s Exposure Draft, a single over-arching framework will be introduced which will provide a comprehensive basis for planning at state, regional and municipal levels. This framework will underpin an effective, ’all communities, all emergencies‘, integrated approach to planning, while preserving the important role of industry and hazard-specific arrangements.

Emergency Management Planning Guidelines EMV has approached this action through a project to develop the planning guidelines to underpin the preparation of emergency management plans at a municipal, regional and state level, as part of the broader suite of legislative reforms.

Emergency management plans will provide a significant mechanism to enable stakeholders to clarify their roles and responsibilities in managing emergencies, including: 

specifying the roles and responsibilities of organisations in relation to emergency management



developing plans in a collaborative manner that reflects the importance of community in emergency management planning.

This action is well progressed, however, completion is contingent on the passage of the Bill through Parliament.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

31

Critical infrastructure resilience On 1 July 2015, Part 7A of the 2013 Act (Critical Infrastructure Resilience) came into effect, providing for the new emergency risk management arrangements for Victoria’s critical infrastructure resilience. Under the new arrangements, EMV has the lead role in maintaining and coordinating whole-of-government strategy and policy for critical infrastructure resilience in Victoria.

The Critical Infrastructure All Sectors Resilience Report [46] was released in December 2016 after endorsement by the State Crisis and Resilience Council (SCRC) in October 2016. This report provides an overview of the resilience of Victoria’s critical infrastructure industry sectors.

It highlights the collaborative partnerships between industry and the Victorian Government to reduce the impact of, and consequence from, natural disasters and other emergencies on people, infrastructure, the economy and the environment.

4 Emergency management sector approach to managing high-risk communities There is strong leadership from both EMV and DHHS to invest in resilience building for both individuals and communities. This complements existing practice in Victorian health, human services and economic sectors. The approach supports and promotes community consultation and involvement, which is advocated for by local government and CSOs. A resilience-building approach in emergency management for high-risk communities is a sensible extension of practice that is occurring in other domains, and in many cases has been occurring for some time. Formal acknowledgment of this approach has been documented by both DHHS and EMV, notably in the Community Resilience Framework [47].

The focus on community resilience building for high-risk communities is tempered by an acknowledgement that some individuals and groups will require targeted support and assistance.

There is concern among some stakeholders that the community resilience focus will lead to very high-risk individuals ‘falling through the gaps’. This is recognised in literature in health contexts with suggestions that community resilience building initiatives can increase health inequalities as the effects of the initiatives can be unequally distributed in favour of the community members who have less vulnerabilities [48].

IGEM notes that a resilience focus, while very positive and appropriate at a whole-of-community level, can divert attention away from the most marginalised groups [19, 20]. Community resilience rightfully remains a strong focus for the sector, however, protecting the most high-risk individuals and communities is an important requirement of policy, legislation and practice based on an individual’s human rights [44]. Strategies to address the needs of these high-risk communities remains a priority in the ongoing reform across the sector as demonstrated through reviews of the Vulnerable Persons in Emergencies policy and implementation of community resilience frameworks.

‘Absolutely no doubt, we have a responsibility as a government to ensure that nobody is left behind, so to speak.’

(Source: Government stakeholder)

Family completing their bushfire survival plan (Image: Country Fire Authority)

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

33

4.1 Geographic considerations to managing high-risk communities Metropolitan Melbourne is a diverse and populous city, home to more than 4.8 million people. The population density (on average) is 453 people per square kilometre, making it the most densely populated city in Australia. The population is expected to grow to eight million by 2050, a figure that has prompted significant planning and investment in infrastructure, residential redevelopment, transport and environment.

New high-density developments are accelerating over time, which has important implications for emergency management and high-risk communities. Evacuating people from multi-story buildings is problematic for many reasons due to the number of people required to leave.

However, individuals with mobility issues including children, older adults, and people with other physical or cognitive impairments, often require assistance and/or planning for emergencies.

Overall, a growing population, greater housing density, congested roads and numerous health services can increase the complexity in identifying high-risk communities and individuals, and assisting them before and during an emergency.

Metropolitan Melbourne (Image: Nils Versemann / Shutterstock.com)

Melbourne is exposed to a number of hazards considered in this review: structural fire, heatwave, flood, storm and earthquake. MFB, VICSES, Ambulance Victoria (AV) and Victoria Police (VicPol) are key responder agencies for these emergencies. However, the urban environment and higher population density also increases the risk of other hazards including pandemic events, power failure, significant chemical or biohazard exposure, and terrorism.

While these hazards are beyond the scope of this review, there is a greater diversity in the potential hazards urban residents are exposed to.

Stakeholders were concerned that the current legislation and emergency management policies place an emphasis on bushfire hazards and do not provide adequate focus on high-risk individuals and communities in urban settings. The metropolitan local government stakeholders discussed using structured risk assessment tools such as the Community Emergency Risk Assessment (CERA) to guide their MEMP sub-plans. This was evidenced by examples of highquality metropolitan planning and risk assessments across the sector targeting high-risk communities and individuals (see Section 4.3 pp. 49).

34

However, IGEM notes that more work is required to align and coordinate information, intelligence, planning and response arrangements for high-risk communities and individuals, including those in metropolitan areas. For example, high-risk communities are not necessarily identified and considered consistently in current formal risk assessment and planning processes, and specific tools such as the VPR do not apply in the metropolitan areas due to funding arrangements only being applicable in the 64 councils covered by the Country Fire Act 1958.

Although many of the high-risk individuals will be connected with health and social services, the number and diversity of these individuals makes comprehensive identification of these communities overwhelming. Stakeholders cited London’s 2017 Grenfell Tower fire as an example of the impact emergencies can have in an urban setting and a worrying reminder of the importance of maintaining a focus on hazard risk to high-risk individuals in cities.

They're obsessed with peri-urban, rural. What's going to happen when it goes down in Melbourne?

(Source: Stakeholder interview)

There was a suggestion that community resilience and preparedness for emergencies was quite poor in greater Melbourne, with stakeholders indicating that many high-risk individuals rely on calling Triple Zero (000).

While this is an appropriate response in a small, discrete event, there was concern that high-risk individuals in greater Melbourne are very reliant on responder assistance. This was evident in the community survey and focus group results that showed a general lack of understanding of emergency management sector arrangements (for example sector agency responsibilities for different hazards and geographical areas) and high levels of expectation on VicPol to support communities during emergencies. ‘Part of the anecdotal stuff that we got back from these [metropolitan] sessions were that people are unprepared for taking responsibility for their own safety in an enormous way.

Which I guess is no surprise to us’ (Source: Stakeholder interview)

Community feedback also highlighted that awareness of the risk of natural hazards is more limited within the Melbourne metropolitan area compared to peri-urban and rural areas. For example, the threat of heatwave which is significant in urban environments, was generally downplayed in relation to its relative risk, in part because hot weather is normalised compared to other hazards.

Metropolitan community perceptions of risk were raised by residents near areas of potential hazard such as bushland, grassland and waterways. Individuals and households in these areas had considered more comprehensive emergency plans and actions, however, in many cases these plans were not documented or tested. There was also a lack of response or suggestions among survey participants of how people and communities that were most vulnerable could be helped by other community members in an urban context.

Peri-urban Peri-urban refers to the interface of built up areas characterised by a mix of urban and nonurban land uses and the natural environment [49]. Peri-urban communities are located at the interface between urban and rural areas and are often the focus of significant development activity. As the population and assets of peri-urban areas increases, so does the risk of an emergency event.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

35

In Victoria, there are effectively two regions which may be considered peri-urban, and varying definitions across the sector. The two most commonly identified regions are the: 

inner region – within 100 km of Melbourne and Geelong



outer region – encompassing the shires of Surf Coast, Golden Plains, Moorabool, Macedon Ranges, Mitchell, Murrindindi, Baw Baw and Bass Coast (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Victoria’s outer peri-urban region

Source: IGEM

Peri-Urban Risk Mitigation Framework In Victoria, peri-urban risk is associated most frequently with bushfire and grassfire and is a particular issue on the outer reaches of Melbourne and major regional cities such as Bendigo.

This was reflected in the community survey where participants living in the shires that have periurban characteristics, such as Yarra Ranges and South Gippsland, had preparations in place for grassfire more so than the other shires surveyed. Several participants stated that if confronted with a grassfire they would head ‘two streets back’ in line with the recent Victorian Government awareness campaign.

In 2014, the SCRC’s Risk and Resilience Sub-Committee established a Peri-Urban Reference Group to identify five priority Melbourne peri-urban communities with high bushfire risk and limited options for access and egress, and to determine the efficacy of mitigation and resilience strategies for those areas [49].

36

Grassfire that burned to the edge of homes in the Donnybrook area (Image: Keith Pakenham)

The reference group was formed in part due to a number of grassfire events in peri-urban municipalities which highlighted issues such as poor planning for access and egress. As a result the Peri-Urban Risk Mitigation Framework (the framework) was drafted.

The framework sets out an approach to guide Victorian Government in mitigating peri-urban emergency risk, and highlights the need for collaboration across agencies and all levels of government.

The approach is an eight step process which includes: 

understanding the landscape context, including the strengths and vulnerabilities of the community



understanding the nature of the hazard



setting risk mitigation objectives



identifying, assessing and evaluating the risk



identifying options which may address the risk



assessing risk mitigation options against transparent criteria.

The framework outlines different options for mitigating risk to peri-urban communities over time.

In particular, it can be used to gauge the value of longer-term risk mitigation options, such as infrastructure investment, and how actions can contribute to building community resilience [50].

The development of the framework was rolled into the SAP as Priority F – ’define a process for understanding and mitigating the consequence for communities that are at high-risk of experiencing an emergency, such as those in peri-urban areas‘ and was endorsed by the SCRC in November 2016.

The framework is currently informing state-wide projects, including: the development of ministerial guidelines to support integrated emergency management planning; the delivery of the Victorian Fire Management Strategy and Safer Together; and the delivery of other related SAP actions including Land Use Planning and Emergency Management Plans for Peri-urban areas [50].

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

37

Peri-Urban Group of Rural Councils The Peri-Urban Group of Rural Councils (PUGRC) was formed in 2007 in response to concerns around the lack of a comprehensive vision for the peri-urban region of Melbourne and Geelong, and to highlight the strengths and challenges of the region. The inaugural member councils were Bass Coast, Baw Baw, Golden Plains, Macedon Ranges, Moorabool, Mitchell, Murrindindi and Surf Coast [51]. These councils border the growth zones of both Melbourne, Geelong and the regional cites of Ballarat and Bendigo.

The purpose of the PUGRC is to strengthen the region through four key areas: support, protection, recognition and enhancement. High-risk community considerations are not currently a focus of the groups remit, however, the group provides a useful network for the sector to leverage the improvements and opportunities identified in this review.

Regional Approximately 25 per cent of Victorians live in regional and rural areas. People living in regional areas may live in communities that look and operate in a similar manner to peri-urban or metropolitan communities. However, communities may also be made up of individuals and families living on large properties with considerable distance between neighbours and local townships. People may have to travel long distances to health and support services, community facilities and major transport routes.

Ballarat, Victoria (Image: Parks Victoria)

Regional Victoria also includes areas of high growth with changing demographics. Many regional areas attract lower income families due to more affordable housing opportunities (rental and ownership) as well as ‘sea/tree changers’ who are choosing to move away from busy cities to more natural environments, often in retirement. There has been a recent focus on secondary migration to regional areas, encouraging people to move from Melbourne to regional towns.

There is also a trend for the populations of some regional areas to become older as retirees move in and younger people leave in search of education and employment [52]. These social changes lead to community diversity in familiarity with the natural environment and associated hazard risks.

38

4.2 Local government The review highlights the important role local government undertake in identifying high-risk communities and coordinating resource arrangements for their safety during an emergency.

Local government also provide services directly, or coordinate services to high-risk communities, providing a critical link. Local governments are required to develop a MEMP, a VPR and a Vulnerable Facilities Register (VFR). LGAs are supported by intelligence from other partners (e.g. CSOs) in compiling the VPR. Local government also develop, promote and coordinate a range of local initiatives to support high-risk communities in emergencies. Examples of leading practice local government initiatives are provided under Section 7.2 pp. 83 of this report. Local governments generally hold a wealth of place-based knowledge of social vulnerabilities and hazard risks that exist within their municipality. However, local governments are diverse organisations, and in many municipalities resources can be stretched across a broad range of responsibilities and functions.

The capacity and capability of local government to effectively administer their emergency management functions was under review by Local Government Victoria (LGV) at the time of preparing this report. The findings of LGV’s review will further support decisions around sector improvement.

In this review, IGEM observed a range of strengths and inconsistencies in relation to local government planning and response arrangements for high-risk communities. One of the key strengths identified is the use of CERA to capture place-based knowledge about hazards and vulnerabilities. This process, facilitated by VICSES, enables MEMPCs across the state to identify hazard risk through a unified process centred on place-based knowledge.

Due to CERA’s alignment with leading practice, it is covered in more detail in Section 7.2 pp.

83. However, as outlined below, in many cases further work is required within local governments to translate CERA risk assessments into hazard treatment plans.

Another important consideration for local government and high-risk communities is the transition of state-based community services, which have been traditionally delivered through municipal councils, to a national model under the NDIS. This topic is discussed under Section 6.1 pp. 74.

Municipal hazard analysis and risk assessment IGEM engaged six local governments in this review to assess how Victoria’s emergency management planning and response arrangements for high-risk communities are enacted locally. This included metropolitan councils (Yarra City and Wyndham City), councils with periurban characteristics (South Gippsland and Yarra Ranges) and regional councils (Northern Grampians and Warrnambool).

This section provides an overview of how the six local governments have identified and prioritised hazards at a local level, and the associated treatment plans in place to address priority hazards. As outlined, the municipal councils have been supported by VICSES through facilitating hazard assessments using the CERA tool (Section 4.3 pp. 57).

The CERA process involves engagement of the MEMPC and in some cases community representatives and subject matter experts. The CERA includes a minor annual review and a major review conducted every three years. The MEMPC monitors progress of treatment plans through reports from the Municipal Emergency Resource Officer.

CERA provides useful place-based knowledge to assess hazard risk, however, a number of councils have not developed treatment plans that align with the CERA assessment (for example some have treatment plans for medium hazard risk and not for other hazards with high-risk ratings). This is in part due to the resources, collaboration and time required to develop the treatment plans.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

39

Yarra City Yarra City last reviewed its hazard risk using the CERA in early 2018. The working group comprised MEMPC members, subject matter experts and representatives of the community.

Nine hazards were identified for review which were then presented by the subject matter expert back to the CERA Working Group. The subject matter expert provided specialist knowledge and evidence to inform the Risk Review Working Group about the risk, and identify contributing factors, potential impacts, and possible improvement opportunities. This information was used to identify priority risks.

The treatment plans developed cover three hazards identified as medium risk (heatwave, pandemic and flood). However, there are two hazards identified (terrorism and utilities interruption) that do not have treatment plans and a working group has been formed to review these.

The MEMPC has invited community representatives to be an active part of the emergency risk assessment process, and to be involved in the committee and its exercises.

Wyndham City Wyndham City last undertook the CERA assessment in 2015. Treatment plans were developed at the municipal and agency level to mitigate identified risks.

The treatment plans cover two high hazard risks (heatwave and human pandemic) and two medium risk hazards (storm/flash flood and bushfire/grassfire). There are four other high-risk hazards that do not currently have treatment plans in place, including industrial fire, hazmat related hazards and service disruption.

Yarra Ranges Yarra Ranges is an area prone to hazards, due in part to the interface between urban development and bushland.

Yarra Ranges uses the CERA to inform its Community Emergency Risk Management Plan (CERMP). Yarra Ranges also leverages the CERA outputs to inform the MEMP and other related documents and processes for example, Municipal Health Plans.

The CERMP underpins the MEMP in providing a mechanism for the identification of hazards, the determination of risks associated with those hazards, and how those risks are to be managed. The CERMP comprises a risk register and risk treatment plan for the Yarra Ranges municipality.

The CERMP risk identification using CERA built upon previous risk assessments and was further validated through both community and MEMPC consultations.

The council has undertaken considerable work to develop 13 treatment plans across all hazards identified and assessed at the time of writing.

South Gippsland South Gippsland’s MEMPC risk working group was convened by VICSES in early 2015 to undertake a hazard risk assessment using the CERA tool.

Ten hazards were identified for review, however, there were no hazards identified as high-risk and treatment plans have been developed for flood, structural and bush fire, pandemic and heatwave.

Northern Grampians Northern Grampians’ MEMPC undertook CERA in 2017. The review process looked at the consequence and likelihood of the identified risk as well as current controls and mitigation strategies.

40

Eight hazards were identified as high-risk. Additional planning to mitigate and respond to these risks has been undertaken by the MEMPC with the assistance of emergency response agencies and partner organisations. The council has completed three treatment plans and nine others are in progress.

Warrnambool City Warrnambool City used the CERA tool to identify priority risks in 2017. The process identified 15 hazards and three treatment plans were developed for one high-risk hazard (bushfire), and two medium hazard risks (flood and pandemic). Two other high hazard risks do not currently have treatment plans in place (storm and hazardous materials release).

4.3 Emergency management organisations The following section provides an overview of key sector organisations and their associated policies, initiatives, partnerships and intelligence in relation to protecting high-risk individuals and communities from hazards.

The overview includes examples from state, regional and local contexts.

Country Fire Authority Fire Ready for Community Care Providers program CFA has been supporting care service providers, and home and community care (HACC) workers with guidance regarding working in high-risk bushfire areas. In turn, these providers are able to assist their clients to make better decisions concerning home or residential fire safety.

This program is the only one in Victoria specifically designed to reach vulnerable clients and patients living in high-risk areas to assist them with adopting a leave early plan.

Due to the success of the program, CFA is currently working towards developing it into an online program and have promoted it through networks such as Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS). In addition, it is working with MFB, who also jointly developed an accompanying newsletter that goes out to care providers regarding various safety-related topics [53, 54].

Connections Matter – Engaging Disadvantaged Communities and People CFA is developing a model for engaging with disadvantaged communities [55]. In the absence of any policy on this matter, it has also completed a draft policy position paper called Connections Matter – Engaging Disadvantaged Communities and People. The position paper is aimed at understanding change at an organisational level and how the organisation can transition towards a strength-based approach.2 Findings from the paper show that CFA needs to consider the extensiveness of diversity in the community and the factors of vulnerability that affect people. The strength-based approach shifts the focus from vulnerable individuals or groups, to increasing the capability of CFA volunteers to helping the community become more resilient and safe, and ultimately reduce those vulnerabilities in the community.

Community engagement framework According to the CFA, current emergency management planning is focused on fire safety alone and does not provide enough attention to other risks and hazards [56]. Interviews with CFA personnel highlighted that there should be more attention on broader community development.

2 Rather than focusing on someone or a community being ‘vulnerable’ a strengths-based approach shifts the emphasis to strengths and increasing the capacity for people to make themselves safer and more resilient, working with the tools and abilities already available to them.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

41

CFA is currently increasing its levels of community engagement through the Community engagement framework to strengthen linkages and grow community confidence in CFA and contribute to a safer and more resilient Victorian community. The figure below shows the principles and goals of the framework.

Figure 3: CFA community engagement framework principles and goals

The Summer Fire Safety Campaign: Local Initiatives Program Initiated in 2013–14 by the Victorian Government and CFA, the Summer Fire Safety Campaign Local Initiatives Program aims to ‘… build and empower community leadership and develop awareness, shared responsibility and self-reliance, to ultimately strengthen community resilience’ to encourage locally-led engagement initiatives that could potentially support Victoria’s Community Based Emergency Management (CBEM) approach.

The CBEM approach enables the community to more easily identify local needs to develop creative and innovative solutions, while simultaneously empowering the community and raising awareness of shared responsibilities.

The program provided CFA and other agencies with access to grants to deliver fire safety messages. The Variable Messaging Signs Project is one of the most well-known and recognised methods of delivering key summer messaging direct to the community, now in 80 locations ranging from peri-urban to rural areas.

Property Advice Services CFA’s Property Advice Services (PAS) portfolio includes three services developed to provide detailed advice to people in high-risk areas about their specific bushfire risk.

These include [57]: 

Property Advice Visit Service



Street Bushfire Advice Service



Home Bushfire Advice Service

42

Hoarding notification CFA’s hoarding notification form can be completed by firefighters and care providers. The information is processed centrally and a care provider is then notified. Unlike MFB, CFA does not have resources to proactively go out to the community to deliver interventions or make inspections. However, identified individuals are mapped on the CFA’s computer-aided dispatch software to identify the potential of increased fire risk.

Home of a pensioner who suffers from compulsive hoarding (Image: Evgeny Pylayev / Shutterstock.com)

The Victorian Fire Risk Register – Bushfire The Victorian Fire Risk Register – Bushfire (VFRR-B) identifies assets at risk from bushfire and determines the level of risk posed to that asset. The VFRR-B also outlines the treatment/mitigation mechanisms in place and the agencies responsible for minimising the effects of a bushfire.

The register was developed as part of the Victorian Government’s Integrated Fire Management Planning process, and carried Municipal Fire Management Planning Committees members including local government, fire services, public land managers, utilities and community groups.

The VFRR-B is currently managed by a centralised support team at the CFA Headquarters.

The VFRR-B process has taken place in the 66 municipalities within CFA boundaries. The data that the VFRR-B utilises for its identification process is based on the most up-to-date information available at the time of collection.

Assets can be divided into four categories: human settlement, economic, environmental and cultural. In assessing the human settlement assets, the VFRR-B will also take into consideration the vulnerability of the community based on the ‘… access and egress, water supply, construction standards of properties and the likelihood of properties and property owners being prepared for bushfire’.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

43

Residential fire safety research program and mapping tool Using this tool, CFA has identified and attended 10 high-risk areas in one CFA district based on the frequency, number of incidents that take place, and the varying types of vulnerable groups [58].

CFA is continuously engaged in various research programs to provide a better evidence base to inform the design of strategies and interventions. Research programs include: 

bushfire and grassfire



residential fire safety



non-residential structure fires.

Through conducting residential fire safety research, CFA aims to assist local level service delivery planning to more accurately target local high-risk areas.

In terms of community vulnerability, the use of the residential fire safety mapping tool has found that some of the most prevalent socio-demographic factors affecting the increase of incidents occurring include where occupants are: 

in a public rental arrangement



over 65 years old



unemployed.

Collaboration There is an understanding that due to the multitude of different vulnerability factors, the organisation alone is not able to tackle all of the challenges without taking an outreach approach. CFA recognises that it is necessary to work with other organisations, particularly in instances where others hold more specific intelligence on vulnerability, such as CSOs. One recently formed relationship is between the CFA and Neighbourhood Houses Victoria.

Through an official agreement announced in February 2018, the two organisations now work closely on matters affecting ‘… community resilience, local emergency management, prevention and community preparedness in Victoria’ [59].

In terms of the CFA’s emergency management planning, there is increased attention on facilities that have the highest risk of fire according to the Bushfire At-Risk Register (BARR), particularly schools. This is due to the complex planning that is often required for a range of different scenarios and issues related to each Fire Danger Rating.

As mentioned in this report’s section on VICSES (see pp. 55), CFA and VICSES are working collaboratively in the disaster resilience schools program to provide community engagement education and training.

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Councils and Emergencies Project DELWP is working with its LGV branch to form a better understanding of Victoria’s high-risk communities through the Councils and Emergencies Project. The Councils and Emergencies Project is listed in the SAP as Priority B. Councils and emergencies consultation paper DELWP developed the Councils and Emergencies Consultation Paper [60] following an extensive consultation process in 2016 and 2017 with members of councils, emergency response agencies, Victorian Government departments and non-government organisations.

44

Detailed within the report is a list of 154 responsibilities and actions, and the level of support that each one maintains. In terms of people who are vulnerable, the results revealed that more than half of the respondents from the consultation process did not support having to lead the maintenance and administration of the VPR. Close to two thirds of the respondents did however support the profiling of the community to identify and record what makes people vulnerable in emergencies and to work with agencies to establish a plan to support those community members who are most vulnerable.

The report also identified that some municipalities will need to function at a higher level due to the increased risk to emergencies based on their particular environment. Subsequently, the aim of phase two of the Councils and Emergencies Project is ‘Understand councils’ emergency management capability and capacity, based on the identified needs and risk profile of each individual municipality’.

Councils and emergencies position paper In conjunction with the consultation paper, DELWP has also developed the Councils and emergencies position paper [61]. The purpose of this document is to clarify and confirm the responsibilities and actions that councils undertake for the betterment of their local communities.

The creation of these two documents signified the completion of phase one (Figure 4) of DELWP and LGV’s goal to clarify and confirm the emergency management responsibilities and activities of local governments.

According to the position paper, a council’s emergency management responsibilities relevant to this review, and activities before an emergency include: 

developing and maintaining a list of facilities where vulnerable people are situated



appointing a VPR coordinator to administer the municipality’s VPR



undertaking emergency planning and VPR screening for council’s home and community care program for younger people (Home and Community Care Program for Younger People: HACC PYP)



undertaking the VPR screening process for people not attached to a funded agency and verifying the details of any unattached person on the register twice annually.

Figure 4: Phases of the Councils and Emergencies Project

(Source: Councils in Emergencies Consultation Report, DELWP)

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

45

Safer Together The Safer Together report released by DELWP has made recommendations for the development of a whole-of-sector community resilience framework by 2017–18 [62]. The development of the framework will be based on engagement with people living in high-risk communities to plan for bushfire management. It was also identified that fire agencies need to build stronger partnerships with the different communities.

DELWP is planning to deliver a range of workshops aimed at multi-agency planning teams, as part of Strategic Bushfire Management Planning (SBMP) under the Safer Together program.

The workshops will provide information, data and planning tools as a means of identifying and planning for high-risk communities.

Some of the workshops include: 

Landscape Context Workshop [63]



Estimating Peak Population: Techniques and Challenges [64]



VFRR-B and Safer Together [65]

One document that complements the SBMP is ‘Risk assessment tables’ [66]. While pending approval, this document aims to help planning teams determine the likelihood and consequences of individuals and communities to assess their risk and accurately develop a strategy.

The SBMP process also provides planning teams with a Technical methods reference document as a means of sharing existing plans, strategies and understandings of risk across the state to enable agencies to deliver a joint bushfire management strategy [67].

Community Based Bushfire Management The Community Based Bushfire Management (CBBM) approach was developed as a means of involving local communities in the decision-making process concerning bushfire management, and as part of the implementation of the Safer Together approach to working with high-risk communities [68]. The key focus areas of the CBBM will align with the CBEM and enable the facilitation of communities to work with organisations.

Under the CBBM, five key focus areas that are used to guide ongoing community-based relationships include: 

connecting people and their networks



using local knowledge



understanding values, hazards and risks



developing goals and solutions



continuing to learn, share and improve.

Community Based Bushfire Management Guidance Package Following the preliminary review, the CBBM Guidance Package was developed to provide more information regarding the key principles and process of effective CBBM [69]. According to the document, it is about agencies and communities working collaboratively, sharing and valuing knowledge, enabling communities to make decisions, and developing local solutions to reduce the bushfire risk [69].

The Municipal Emergency Resourcing Program DELWP’s Municipal Emergency Resourcing Program (MERP) provides $4.6 million per year, shared across 64 local councils. One of the MERP’s primary objectives is the ‘effective delivery of emergency management responsibilities established in legislation, state plans and policies including the EMMV and the VPE Program’. One of the five MERP aims for the funding is to support LGAs to ‘… coordinate work to support vulnerable people in emergencies’.

46

Effective Engagement Kit DELWP’s Effective Engagement Kit is designed for departmental personnel and practitioners committed to engaging with the community. The kit includes three books: 

Book 1: an introduction to engagement



Book 2: the engagement planning workbook



Book 3: the engagement toolkit, plus a CD-ROM

The materials demonstrate the department’s commitment to engaging with the diverse Victorian community through the use of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Public Participation Spectrum.

The agency has also specifically outlined particular demographics of people from different backgrounds, needs, values and aspirations who they believe are the most ‘overlooked or who face additional barriers to participation’. These groups include: 

indigenous



culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD)



young people



seniors



people with disabilities.

2016 Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy and Regional Floodplain Management Strategy One of DELWP’s responsibilities is to ensure that the appropriate steps are undertaken in the event of a flood on land under its management. This is achieved through directions set by the 2016 Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy [70], in addition to technical improvements from the 1998 Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy. The 2016 strategy was developed in accordance to the Victorian Government’s response to the Review of the 2010-11 Flood Warnings & Response (Victorian Floods Review).

The strategy has five core aims: 

assessing flood risks and sharing information



avoiding or minimising future risks



reducing existing risks



managing residual risks



implementing the actions.

Following the release of the 2016 Strategy, DELWP developed a separate set of Regional Floodplain Management Strategies in consultation with a range of representatives from local governments, VICSES, Catchment Management Authorities, stakeholders and communities [71].

At a regional level, the aims are slightly different from the State’s. The aims are to: 

build flood resilience



reduce flood risks



avoid future flood risks



manage residual flood risks



protect floodplains for their ecological and cultural values.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

47

Floodwaters (Image: Keith Pakenham)

Research Projects According to DELWP, ‘vulnerability’ is still considered a new area of research/focus. As such, it is still trying to determine how all the department’s available data can be better organised, analysed and validated.

DELWP partner with national and Victorian universities and agencies to undertake research, including projects relating to vulnerable communities: Smoke impacts on community health and social perceptions [72], and the Severe Fire Behaviour – Improved planning responses reports [73].

The Smoke impacts report looks at the management of community health responses to smoke using knowledge of the physiological and psychological response of vulnerable communities, and the likely levels of smoke these groups may encounter through a better understanding of smoke emissions. The Severe Fire Behaviour report looks at better management and planning around bushfires.

DELWP has partnered with the University of Melbourne in the study ’Exploring the construction of memory and place in repeat disaster landscapes: Transforming shared responsibility and community’ [74]. The research aims to analyse current community-led planning projects to determine barriers, enablers, benefits and opportunities. Furthermore, the project aims to help build community resilience through implementing improvements to existing practice.

DELWP has also collaborated with the University of Melbourne to deliver Strategies and tools for incorporating values of the Victorian public in strategic bushfire risk decision making [75].

This report provides a range of tools and strategies to assist DELWP in understanding the values of the Victorian community to inform its communication and strategic bushfire management plans, policy and decision-making.

Department of Education and Training The Department of Education and Training (DET) has a duty of care to provide a safe environment for vulnerable children and young people in its care. Across Victoria there are 1535 government schools, comprising 1766 campuses and approximately 600,000 students [76].

In regards to natural hazards, DET has provided extensive examples of school bushfire preparedness. For example the Guidelines for Bushfire Preparedness - Registered Schools, endorsed by the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRAQ) lists the requirements of schools for bushfire preparedness [77].

48

Schools at high risk of bushfire In response to the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, DET established a BARR which identified Victorian Schools located in high-risk bushfire areas. All schools and early childhood services on the BARR are closed on Code Red days in their weather district.

DET has undertaken internal and external reviews of its approach to bushfire risk mitigation since Black Saturday. Based on review recommendations, DET has refined its approach to school bushfire preparedness through: 

Engaging with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to design and implement a triaged approach to the BARR. This approach is based on defined bushfire prone areas and refined hazard metrics.



Pre-emptive closure or relocation of schools on forecast days of extreme fire danger.



Assessment of educational facilities for grassfire risk and potential inclusion on the BARR. Initial assessment has identified 526 facilities at risk of grassfire [76].

DET has developed and tested a draft methodology for the refined approach. This approach was being considered for approval at the time of this review.

DET and CFA working together with families for enhanced community engagement – The BARR School Engagement Program DET provides some strong examples of collaboration. The BARR School Engagement Program was initiated to work with families and the impact of schools closing on days of Extreme and Code Red Fire Danger Rating.

The program was initiated in DET’s South East Region with 19 schools at the highest risk on the BARR. Joint meetings were run with each school, DET and CFA. Individual engagement programs were developed for each school, with activities ranging from: 

CFA attending an existing school event



bushfire planning workshops



‘meet at the gate’ education trailer displays.

Information kits were also developed for each family to further inform their understanding of risk and planning.

An evaluation found that the program was considered extremely successful. The combination of local knowledge, resources and support ensured that the outcomes were appropriate, welldesigned and targeted.

Through additional partnering between CFA and DET this tailored engagement program could be replicated across Victoria [78, 79].

CFA and Anglesea Primary School – Survive and Thrive The Survive and Thrive collaboration between Anglesea Primary School and CFA, is a fire education scheme integrated into the student curriculum as weekly fire education sessions: 

Grade 4 students learn about the history of major bushfires and meet people who have experienced them.



Grade 5 students learn about how the surrounding environment affects fires and the strategies that firefighters use. The students also learn teaching methods so they can impart their knowledge to family and friends.



Grade 6 students consolidate what they have learned and present to other primary schools in their region.

Survive and Thrive has been considered a success and strong relationships have been developed between CFA, Anglesea Primary School and the community. The program is also being used by the University of Melbourne as evidence relating to the capacity of children to have an active role in bushfire safety.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

49

Students with Disabilities Transport Program The Students with Disabilities Transport Program provides transport assistance for eligible students attending government specialist schools.

Introduction of new technology to the program, such as the electronic manifest, will see buses equipped with GPS tracking providing authorised users with an automated roll call of students who get on or off the bus. At any point in time users can see where the bus is, how many students are on the buses, and the contact details of students’ carers.

The centralised database allows DET, schools and Public Transport Victoria (PTV) to leverage the system to implement effective emergency management policies and procedures [80].

Department of Health and Human Services DHHS holds a broad range of responsibilities to support vulnerable Victorians, including a key priority in preparing for and responding to emergencies.

Vulnerable People in Emergencies policy DHHS introduced the Vulnerable People in Emergencies policy (VPE policy) in 2011 in response to VBRC recommendations. The policy aimed to establish mechanisms for helping municipal councils undertake local planning to tailor bushfire safety options to the needs of individual communities.

The policy was again updated in 2015 in response to the Victorian Floods Review, to better reflect the all hazards, all agencies approach to emergency management.

For the purposes of this policy, a ‘vulnerable person’ is someone ‘frail, and/or physically or cognitively impaired; and unable to comprehend warnings and directions and/or respond in an emergency situation’. Those meeting this definition and who ‘cannot identify personal or community support networks to help them in an emergency’ are to be considered for inclusion on the VPR. The policy (shown in Figure 5) is designed to improve the safety of vulnerable people in regional and rural Victoria by: 

facilitating emergency planning with vulnerable people



developing lists of vulnerable people at the local government level which are made available to police and others with responsibility for helping vulnerable residents evacuate during an emergency



developing local lists of facilities where vulnerable people may gather or be located.

This policy requires funded agencies to aid emergency planning by identifying and supporting people who are vulnerable and at risk in their community. At the time of this report, the VPE policy’s governing arrangements were under review.

50

Figure 5: Vulnerable Persons in Emergencies policy scope

(Source: DHHS Vulnerable People in Emergencies – Guideline 1 – Planning and Screening)

Through feedback from key stakeholders, IGEM found that the roll-out of the NDIS, introduction to the Commonwealth Home Support Programme (CHSP) and associated changes to funding arrangements for the HACC-PYP have impacted the department's capability to regulate the emergency preparedness and response activities of service providers in support of their clients.

This has prompted the current review of the policy.

The review of the VPE policy is also a timely opportunity for the emergency management and community services sectors to further enhance the policy’s governance arrangements to better support communities who are vulnerable before, during and after emergencies.

Vulnerable People in Emergencies guidelines Three guidelines support the VPE policy: 

Guideline 1 - Planning and screening [81]



Guideline 2 - Vulnerable Persons Registers [82]



Quick guide for funded agencies and municipal councils [83]

Developed specifically to help the agency and the wider emergency management sector in supporting vulnerable communities, these resources provide information regarding definitions, vulnerable facilities, emergency planning and screening and resources.

However, one of the most important documents relates to the description of the VPR including how information is collected/obtained, stored and managed.

Emergency preparedness policy for clients and services The DHHS Emergency Preparedness Policy for Clients and Services [84] guides the emergency preparedness and response arrangements of services delivered, funded or regulated by the department. Details of the service types can be found in Appendix 3.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

51

Four supporting documents provide more details on the types of emergencies, planning, emergency responses, and contacting the department in an emergency: 

Relocation, sheltering and evacuation guide



Reference guide and glossary



Implementation tables for the human services sector



What to do in a fire, flood or other emergency (a poster describing what to do if a facility is under threat).

Administration and implementation of the Vulnerable Persons Register DHHS is responsible for the administration of the VPE policy and oversees the contract arrangements associated with the VPR, Red Cross, and service providers. However, the responsibility of administering the contact details of vulnerable community members belong to the councils. The responsibility for providing the contact details for the VPR to councils rests with service providers, which may be internal or external to the council. The councils are required to update the list twice a year.

DHHS has also provided training and information sessions and at the time of the review was focused on training new disability service providers in Victoria.

Although DHHS has more responsibilities for vulnerable people due to its statutory, service delivery and funding functions, addressing these needs involves considerable collaboration between a range of government and non-government organisations.

Plans and programs Through its Keeping in touch program, DHHS keeps a register of public housing tenants aged 75 years and over who live by themselves, and who choose for a trained customer service officer to contact them once a week. In cases where contact cannot be made over multiple attempts then the next of kin or emergency services will be contacted.

Reviews and evaluations According to comments from DHHS, the 2016 report, Targeting zero [85], the review of hospital safety and quality assurance in Victoria, altered the way the department approaches its roles and responsibilities. As part of the change, the department has since focused more on coordinating and building a better and more robust system around how vulnerable people are managed, rather than focusing on providing advice to other agencies. As such, the new changes alter the system to be more service focused.

For example, in some cases where power has been out for an extended period of time, DHHS will respond by contacting the local council, or activating CSOs such as Red Cross or VCC to potentially visit vulnerable people. Another example of the change in the DHHS system was seen during the 2015 Wye River Fire, when DHHS staff were mobilised quickly to conduct outreach work in the initial response stage of the emergency.

State Health Emergency Response Plan Under the planning for vulnerable people in emergencies section of the State Health Emergency Response Plan (SHERP) it is noted that there needs to be consideration for vulnerable people and their ability to respond safely in an emergency [86]. This refers to those who have a physical or cognitive impairment, are unable to understand emergency warnings and directions or are unable to respond in an emergency situation.

Heat health plan (2015) Some other documents related to high-risk communities include the Heat health plan for Victoria [87], which notes that everyone is vulnerable to extreme heat, however people over 65 years, people with a pre-existing medical condition, people taking medication, people living alone, homeless or socially isolated, are more vulnerable.

52

Responding to people sleeping rough in extreme weather policy Another relevant document relating to the vulnerable community is the Responding to people who are sleeping rough in extreme weather policy [88]. Similar to the heat plan, this policy identifies specific actions and objectives that DHHS is working towards implementing. IGEM notes that this policy was being evaluated at the time of writing by DHHS’ Safeguarding and Community Services and Emergency Management branches.

Hoarding and squalor Similar to CFA, DHHS recognise the risks associated with people who hoard or live in squalor.

As such, DHHS released the Hoarding and Squalor Discussion Paper 2012 [89] complemented

by Hoarding and squalor: A practical resource for service providers [1].

DHHS states that there needs to be a sector-wide collaborative approach to adequately manage the issue [1]. Some of the services involved in the response to hoarding and squalor situations are listed in the practical resource for service providers such as, MFB, CFA, VicPol or AV. Additionally, council functional units such as Environmental Health, HACC and Local Laws also become aware of hoarding locations in the course of their duties.

Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board MFB delivers a broad range of different programs, systems and research projects that are specifically targeting vulnerable people and communities. A selection is presented below.

Victorian Built Environment Risk Assessment Process MFB is working in partnership with CFA and local councils to establish Victoria’s first dataset focusing on structure fire and hazardous materials risks. The development of the Victorian Built Environment Risk Assessment Process (V-BERAP) was informed through extensive consultation with other agencies including DELWP, VICSES, VicRoads and EMV. The VBERAP will also incorporate knowledge from current and historical data [90].

The V-BERAP aims to provide the fire services and local councils with a rigorous and consistent approach to understanding structure fire and hazardous materials risks in built environments.

The step-by-step risk assessment process is underpinned by the International Organization for Standardization 31000 Risk management – Principles and guidelines [90].

Through this process, the agencies are able to target specific subsets of vulnerable communities to determine trends and risks, to guide emergency and fire management planning, develop targeted risk treatments and improve collaboration throughout the emergency management sector [90].

The V-BERAP is included in the 2016–17 CERA findings report – complementary Victorian risk programs. It is also noted that the V-BERAP is regarded as a complementary process while the CERA itself is the overarching process [90].

Since being endorsed by the State Fire Management Committee in May 2015, the V-BERAP has been tested and validated across six municipalities and expected to be rolled out across Victoria in the next two years [90]. However, CFA had requested that this product be assessed using the State Fire Management Planning Committee Common Assessment Framework. An assessment had not occurred at time of writing. CFA has a concern that the assessment does not support the granularity required to deliver targeted programs.

Victorian Emergency Risk Management System Founded on the Victorian Emergency Risk Management System (VERMS) framework, VERMS is being developed to be a ‘comprehensive, simple-to-use, web-based risk management system founded on the V-BERAP framework’ [91].

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

53

VERMS will aim to accommodate for a range of hazards in different geographical areas.

Currently in the design stage of its development cycle, VERMS will be available to all Victorian emergency management planning committees once complete.

Hoarding notification system Following a preliminary meeting with MFB, IGEM received various documents related to the MFB’s hoarding notification system. These include the Hoarding notification pack [92], Electronic hoarding notification form [93] and Discontinuation of hoarding notification form [94].

MFB has identified that hoarding increases the risk of fire and associated risk to the occupant, neighbours and responding firefighters. The hoarding notification system enables place-based risk assessments to be captured spatially. MFB also provides specific information on hoarding and mitigation to the community. Additionally, the community is able to refer properties to the system. The intelligence enables MFB responder crews to increase their preparedness and safety when they are called to a property on the system.

The hoarding notification system will be expanded into the Operational Residential Risk system to include alerts for properties in which the occupant uses medical oxygen (risk of explosion) or where the occupant has significant disability and is unable to transfer without assistance.

The documents contained in the notification pack noted that all MFB personnel are required to identify occupants within its Metropolitan District with a hoarding level of five (see Figure 6) [92] or higher, and who have at least one smoke alarm. These documents are a good example of how the MFB works to better protect high-risk and vulnerable communities.

Figure 6: Clutter image rating scale that MFB uses to determine if occupants are hoarders

According to the MFB, it has received additional funding to expand its hoarding notification system to now include properties that are known to have occupants with a disability who cannot transfer independently. Furthermore, community members are now able to self-refer to be registered on a database, rather than only being identified during an emergency response.

54

Residential risk referrals Residential risk referrals (RRR) (also known as, Reporting an Ops Fire Safety Issue – Residential) are increasingly becoming a standard practice of the MFB. The RRR was initially developed as a response by MFB firefighters who had identified high-risk community members through emergency response. This system is the first of its kind to be adopted by an Australian fire service.

According to the MFB the RRR operates in the following method [95]: 

firefighters respond to an emergency incident at a residence



firefighters identify an ongoing risk related to safety



firefighters refer for follow up



the issue is assessed and referred to an external agency or program for further assessment, support or intervention.

A review conducted by the Worcester Polytechnic Institute [96] found that the application of the RRR process is effective in identifying risks, most notably those associated with hoarding, access and egress, and disability.

Similar to the findings from the various interviews and supplementary documents, the Worcester Polytechnic Institute found that despite any formal training in identifying at-risk individuals, fire fighters were successful in recognising individuals with mental health, high fire risk behaviour, and lack of insight/capacity [96]. Furthermore, in addition to fires, firefighters were able to identify ongoing risks at a variety of different incidents.

Basic Home Fire Safety Training Materials MFB has expanded its reach though the development of the Basic Home Fire Safety Training Materials. These are adopted by Registered Training Organisations that deliver community services and health industry training qualifications associated with fire safety. The training materials comprise of a Learning Resource, Delivery and Assessment Tool and Participant Workbook. The information covers: 

fire



high fire risk groups



behaviour that contribute to fire injury and fatalities in the home



smoke alarms



fire safety and social housing



all hazards – assisting clients in their planning and preparation.

National fire services also recommend their use for informal training for induction and skills maintenance by community care agencies. This has been endorsed by the Coroners Court of Victoria. The Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing had also endorsed the use of the training materials for this purpose and being consistent with and aligned to specific sections of the Home Care Common Standards of the Commonwealth Aged Care Act. Research projects MFB also undertakes internal and collaborative research, including A strategic analysis of preventable residential fire fatalities, that aims to develop a deeper understanding about the victims of preventable residential fire fatalities in Australia. The research will identify sociodemographic characteristics and the common linkages that groups of victims may have.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

55

Research undertaken in 2011 identified the overrepresentation of community care recipients in residential fire fatalities. MFB is currently the lead end user on behalf of AFAC’s Community Engagement Technical Group, in a project funded via a Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre Tactical Research Grant. This project aims to identify the incidence of residential fire fatalities nationwide since 2004, in particular within the community care sector.

Since 2011 MFB has undertaken or been involved in a range of relevant research to; improve fire education, develop the Residential Risk Referrals process, reduce hoarding and squalor related incidents, identify preventable fire fatalities of older people and people with disabilities, and identify behavioural and attitudinal characteristics concerning home fire safety in Victoria.

Victoria State Emergency Service In a departure from VICSES’ usual approach to emergency management where the hazard is the primary concern, the agency now focuses on vulnerable people first, before considering the hazard.

VICSES has completed a risk assessment for all LGA ports, airports and some health services.

This identified ‘communities’ as the interest group and not by the LGA itself. The assessment looks at what assets are most valued, key vulnerabilities, and if impacted, what needs to be recovered.

Through the shift to a community-centred approach VICSES aims to: 

build better resilience



create more targeted programs



produce leading practice



increase public participation.

VICSES Community Resilience Strategy 2016–19 This Community Resilience Strategy provides guidance to VICSES personnel in creating safer and more resilient communities [97] guided by three strategic objectives: building capacity, increasing collaboration and fostering connections (see Figure 7).

The strategy complements the Community Resilience Framework [47] for Victoria’s emergency management sector as well as the Victorian Government’s Strategic Framework to Strengthen Victoria’s Social Cohesion and the Resilience of its Communities [98].

Figure 7: VICSES Community Resilience Strategy – Strategic objectives, goals and outcomes

56

VICSES Service Delivery Strategy 2015-2025 Under its 10 year Service Delivery Strategy, VICSES aims to deliver a stronger platform for advocacy. In looking at the strategy’s ‘macro’ based themes, it has identified that changing settlement patterns, in combination with an increasingly aging population, will become a significant driver impacting its service delivery [99].

Further to the issue of aging populations, VICSES has also noted that there needs to be more discussion to determine if there are other individuals or groups within the community who are likely to require more help or special attention.

Overall, as part of the VICSES frontline service delivery, the strategy has identified the need to focus on risk profiles including: 

significant risks and ratings



changing risks



vulnerable communities.

Local knowledge According to VICSES one of the key parts to managing and planning for emergencies is by obtaining knowledge from local communities and organisations.

Local knowledge provides valuable ‘on the ground’ understanding from those who are most familiar with the area and its environment. Working with a community-driven process, VICSES enables local residents to have a shared understanding and to take ownership of various priorities and actions during an emergency event.

Some initiatives VICSES is intending to incorporate include: 

identifying and working with existing networks that are a source of local knowledge



identifying community observers to provide information and observations during emergencies



identifying community observers within relevant emergency plans including Municipal Flood Emergency Plans



establishing command and control arrangements with other emergency service providers [100].

Caravan park owner’s emergency management plan VICSES identifies many of its vulnerable individuals through the caravan park emergency management planning tool [101].

VICSES has partnered with various Victorian emergency management sector organisations to develop an emergency management plan template and guidance manual as a means of assisting Victorian caravan park owners to develop emergency management plans. In addition to hardcopy materials, information and materials can also be accessed through an online tool.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

57

Caravan destroyed by fire (Image: CFA Communities & Communication)

Community Emergency Risk Assessment CERA is a process used to identify risks and vulnerabilities that the community may face at a local government level, and provide options to limit or remove these risks [102].

It is designed to provide a framework where the community can have input in the decisionmaking process by combining local knowledge with more formal emergency management planning knowledge. One particular community group that the CERA focuses on are those who are considered to be vulnerable.

One of the strengths of the CERA process is that it allows the MEMPC to be more engaged in the decision-making process and prompts committee members to give more consideration to each hazard. However, there is a concern that the decision-making process can also be subjective based on how emergency and risk-related information is presented to the committee and the MEMPC attendance on the day.

According to VICSES, there are two sources of data that the CERA draws its information from – local knowledge, in the expertise from local agency contacts (MEMPC members) as well as community representation where possible. However, engagement with the community becomes more difficult with larger urban communities.

Stakeholder feedback on CERA According to EMV, the CERA process has worked well in identifying particular natural hazards and risks. However, several stakeholders noted that more work needs to be done to translate the risks identified through CERA into action plans [101].

58

Local government feedback included that: 

the CERA does not sufficiently involve the community, noting that many of the MEMPC members are local to the area



the process can be slow and cumbersome limiting the engagement of some emergency management stakeholders



there is good support for the process from VICSES and CFA



the CERA should be also done at a broader scale (e.g. regional)



the CERA needs to be better translated into actions.

At the time of this review, Wyndham City Council was preparing to undertake a modified version of the CERA [103]. The council surveyed 150 to 200 community members at various council events in order to better capture community feedback on key hazards into the CERA process.

Through this event, it was found that there were no new risks that the council were not already aware of or considering.

It was noted at the time of this review, Yarra City Council was preparing to run a CERA workshop to review the different emergency risks and draw on local community knowledge.

RECOMMENDATION 2 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that Victoria State Emergency Service continue with its development and application of the Community Emergency Risk Assessment (CERA) model as an important source of place-based intelligence of local hazards and vulnerabilities.

The development should provide for:  

improved accountability for the translation of CERA assessments into mitigation outcomes state-wide improved place-based data capture and integration into system level (state and regional) intelligence and decision making platforms.

This will require the support of Emergency Management Victoria, the Department of Health and Human Services and key responder agencies Culturally and linguistically diverse programs In terms of delivering messages to the community, VICSES noted that it recognises resilience as a community development goal. The aim is to collaborate with people from various (CALD) networks, and provide them with the ability to deliver the messages on behalf of VICSES in order to effectively and efficiently reach the largest number of people.

VICSES is also looking at traditional community education and CALD programs, such as DELWP’s Effective Engagement: building relationships with community and other stakeholders.

Partnerships In addition to collaborating with the primary responder agencies, VICSES also works closely with various community-based services such as Red Cross. For example, IGEM notes that VICSES is about to undertake a pilot program in collaboration with Red Cross and will adopt RediPlan in place of the existing VICSES Home Emergency Plan to assist people to plan for multiple hazards. If successful, the program will be rolled out nationally [101].

Working in collaboration, VICSES and CFA have also partnered to develop a new joint training program with the focus of assisting units and brigades in engaging with CALD communities [104].

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

59

Research VICSES noted that it has completed a significant amount of work in analysing the Wyndham footprint as a growth corridor. Due to the significant population growth, Wyndham was identified as one of the six fastest growing LGAs in Victoria. As such, it was included in the VICSES Service Delivery Strategy as one of the geographic areas requiring further planning to identify various hazards and risks. The first stage in managing the growth area is through engagement of local volunteers to gain local knowledge.

Victoria Police In a major emergency, VicPol is the lead agency responsible for evacuation [105]. Municipal councils must provide access to a VPR and VFR to local police and others with a pre-arranged responsibility for helping vulnerable residents to evacuate. These are detailed in the MEMP and activated through incident management protocols.

Through this arrangement, VicPol is better informed to manage and respond to a variety of emergencies, particularly where additional information and advice is needed to identify an individual or know where people with vulnerabilities are located. In addition to responding to emergencies, the VPR and VFR may also be accessed for planning activities including both training and exercise.

VicPol notes that the VPR is built into the Incident Control Centre structure and acts as a key component of any Incident Police Operation Centre (IPOC) [106]. This was demonstrated recently during the Dartmoor fires where the local IPOC directed personnel to identify and door knock multiple individuals from the VPR. One of the issues raised by VicPol however, relates to the siloing of vital information during an emergency [106]. Power companies have developed lists of vulnerable people who are power dependent (such as those who are reliant on respirators, dialysis machines, air conditioners or require refrigeration for critical medication) to meet obligations under Section 5.7 of the Electricity Distribution Code ‘… in the event of a widespread supply incident, a distributor must inform DHHS of the street address of these customers where it is likely that electricity supply will be disrupted for a period greater than 24 hours‘ [107].

Due to the potential for extended power disruptions over large and highly populated areas, VicPol noted process improvements are required in the timely and consistent provision of this information [106].

Another issue identified by VicPol is the inefficiencies surrounding the use of the VPR [106].

VicPol notes that councils do not have access to their neighbouring local governments’ records via the VPR and are further hindered in some instances by poor communication between local governments. The issue of information sharing and access is considered further in section 5.1 pp. 70.

Partnerships One successful partnership noted by VicPol takes place in the Grampians, where local police have been working with DHHS to compile a list of ‘hyper critical patients’ who are unable to wait 24 hours before being provided with assistance [106]. According to VicPol, the process readily identifies these people and provides them general assistance or connects them with an appropriate care provider in emergencies.

VicPol is also closely partnered with Red Cross to deliver Register. Find. Reunite. [108]. In regard to this program, VicPol is responsible for the activation, registration, and coordination while Red Cross is responsible for managing and operating it.

60

VicPol Multicultural Media Unit is another resource utilised in times of emergencies. Through this unit, it is possible to engage and inform people from a ‘CALD background, with a disability or with a mental illness as well as their families or carers who may experience additional challenges in relation to communication.’ [109].

VicPol works closely with EMV and other strategic partners to share information, intelligence and provide support [106].

Emergency Management Victoria EMV has been tasked with delivering significant components of Victoria’s emergency management reform agenda, identified in the Emergency Management Reform White Paper 2012 and detailed in the 2013 Act. EMV is working towards providing state-level policy that focuses on connecting the sector and the community to achieve a safer and more resilient Victoria.

EMV’s Strategic plan 2020 The EMV Strategic Plan 2020, outlines its main objective of setting state-level policy to ensure that: ‘… the individual functions delivered by emergency management organisations integrate – efficiently and effectively - to serve the community’s needs, and that cohesive planning and resilience efforts are driven and maintained before, during and after emergencies to keep communities safe.’

Under the Strategic Plan, connections with the different stakeholders are seen as vital in trying to: 

maximise the ability of the emergency management sector to work together and achieve joined up outcomes that are community focused



lead and facilitate key initiatives focused on system-wide reform with integrated policy, strategy, planning, investment and procurement



ensure a stronger emphasis on shared responsibility, community resilience, consequence management and post emergency recovery activities



embed emergency management across government, agencies and business



lead and coordinate emergency preparedness, response and recovery with the emergency management sector and community.

EMV plays a lead role in working with various communities, government, agencies and businesses to achieve the objective of this shared emergency management vision for a safer and more resilient community.

Modern Emergency Management System for Victoria The 2016 document, Modern Emergency Management System for Victoria, identified the increase in diversity and challenges faced by the Victorian community. As a result, the future of the emergency management sector will need to focus on more than the traditional prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery processes [110]. It will involve developing programs specifically designed for the different community networks, connections and structures.

According to EMV, more focus is placed on community resilience approaches, which has an emphasis on community wellbeing, liveability, sustainability and viability.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

61

Community Resilience Framework for Emergency Management Following the Modern Emergency Management System for Victoria, EMV released the Community Resilience Framework for Emergency Management, which outlines Victoria’s diverse range of communities, consisting of people from more than 200 countries and 260 cultural and linguistic backgrounds [47]. These diverse communities have varying needs, capabilities and expectations. As such, the sector is required to operate effectively in supporting these communities.

According to EMV, communities experience varying and complex ‘shared resilience challenges’ that require them to work together to become resilient. Some of the demographic challenges that the framework noted concern the rapidly growing Victorian population, the decline in some rural areas, aging, decreasing household size, the increase in people living alone and increasing diversity.

Emergency Management Diversity and Inclusion Framework EMV has also developed the Emergency Management Diversity and Inclusion Framework in an effort to support the sector to better reflect and connect with diverse communities [111].

Through this framework EMV works towards providing a new direction for the sector, as well as providing new policies and practices to change and promote diversity. The framework consists of four key areas: Lead; Listen and learn; Act to create opportunities; and Be accountable (see Table 1).

Table 1: Emergency management diversity and inclusion framework themes

Source: EMV [111]

Resilient Recovery: Discussion Paper Although recovery is outside the scope of the current review, EMV has identified the need to ‘engage, connect and understand Victoria’s most vulnerable communities’ as one of its key priorities [8].

A key part of EMV’s Resilient Recovery: Discussion Paper was the proposed resilient recovery model which is focused on community connection, wellbeing, liveability, sustainability and viability [112]. In the model, community connection is defined as ‘community systems and networks are understood, informed and work together to participate in planning and leading recovery though to long-term resilience’. This is intended to be achieved through community profiles, emergency management planning, communication and intelligence sharing.

62

State Emergency Response Plan Sub-Plans The SERP (Part 3 of the EMMV) includes 11 sub-plans for specific hazards and emergencies.

The Emergency Management Commissioner has identified the protection and preservation of life as a state strategic control priority, and specifies the safety of vulnerable community members in particular. EMV led the preparation of each sub-plan and specified lead agencies responsible for overall administration of each plan and various actions within each plan as required. Several sub-plans outline specific preparedness and response actions that relate to high-risk communities.

The Victorian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza [113], the Extreme Heat SubPlan [114] and the State Electricity and Gas Supply Sub-Plan [107] all identify specific actions regarding high-risk communities, with DHHS identified in each sub-plan as having key responsibilities for planning and assisting high-risk individuals.

For example, the State Electricity and Gas Supply Sub-Plan which DELWP have oversight for, outlines the responsibilities for power-dependent customers, power companies and DHHS for ensuring customers who rely on power are identified and assisted in a major power outage. The Public Transport Disruption Sub-Plan [115] outlines consequences for vulnerable people through additional stress on road networks and the State Bushfire Plan [116] and the State Maritime Emergencies (non-search and rescue) Plan [117] list vulnerable people as being a special population for consideration.

Emergency management sector core capabilities EMV has also developed another set of documents associated to the core capabilities of the emergency management sector [118]. The intended goal of developing the documents was to assist the sector in understanding the challenges and capabilities in relation to helping the community withstand and recover from emergencies.

According to EMV, these documents are particularly important as Victoria faces an increase in the frequency and intensity of emergency incidents. These documents include: 

Victorian Emergency Management Capability Blueprint 2015-2025 [119]



Victorian Preparedness Goal [120]



Victorian Preparedness Framework [118].

In terms of building community resilience, EMV has noted that the sector needs to enable communities and organisations to better connect, use local knowledge, understand stresses and shocks, and develop goals and solutions so that people can support each other to make safer and more informed decisions before, during and after emergencies and further outlines the critical tasks to increase community safety (see Table 2).

Table 2: Critical tasks the community and organisations can undertake to strengthen community safety and resilience before, during and after emergencies.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

63

FINDING 2 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that there are important foundations that will support the continuous improvement of Victoria’s emergency management approach to high-risk communities and individuals including: 

the close ties that exist between a majority of Victoria’s emergency management sector organisations and the Victorian community



the significant databases and platforms that have been developed to improve communications, knowledge capture and intelligence sharing



the competent research professionals and networks embedded across the sector.

4.4 Community support organisations In Australia, CSOs play a vital role in emergency management and are recognised as key support networks for governments and responder agencies. This review found that CSOs are well placed to be included in emergency management committees and forums [121] and have close ties and networks within local communities.

CSOs are often referred to as non-traditional stakeholders, given that emergency management is not typically their sole or primary remit. CSOs are commonly characterised as apolitical, compassionate service providers, however, there is also a large amount of strategic planning and relief expertise housed within these organisations. Further, these organisations have the ability to mobilise and coordinate large numbers of volunteers quickly in support of emergency planning, relief and recovery efforts.

There are numerous organisations that can be classified as CSOs. This review focuses on a few of the agencies who operate across the state, summarising their operations and capacity.

The review directly engaged some key contributors (VCC, Red Cross and Salvation Army) and the key representative organisation VCOSS. This selection is not to undermine or detract from the numerous other agencies who provide strong support in community service and emergency management.

IGEM notes that locally based CSOs hold important local knowledge, intelligence and networks that can be leveraged to support effective and fit for purpose emergency management arrangements for high-risk individuals and communities.

Victorian Council of Social Service VCOSS operates at a system level to optimise the involvement of CSOs, ensuring that the capacity of these organisations is understood and valued in the sector. They represent the values of CSOs through policy development and advocacy [122].

VCOSS has a remit to facilitate collaborative working relationships between CSOs and other entities involved in social and community services. They work with a range of state and local government bodies to schedule forums, working papers, submissions and committees that address emergency management, with a focus on communities and individuals who have vulnerabilities.

VCOSS is a member of the SCRC Relief and Recovery Sub-Committee and the State Relief and Recovery Team. VCOSS works closely with large CSOs such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army but also represents many smaller, localised organisations.

64

Australian Red Cross The Australian Red Cross (Red Cross) is a well-respected agency in Australia with its longstanding involvement in Victoria’s emergency management arrangements. The Australian Red Cross works before, during and after emergencies in Victoria, and at all government levels. Its core services include outreach, planning, single emergency incidents, psychological first aid, relief coordination and long term recovery.

It has demonstrated capacity to deliver relief and recovery activities, and over time Red Cross has developed additional capability in planning and readiness activities. Red Cross identifies and acts in accordance with principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence and is ultimately guided by the needs of people who are vulnerable without discrimination [123].

Red Cross positions itself to facilitate cross-sector cooperation and discussion to connect research, policy and practice across agencies [121]. It has a unique collaboration with the business community through involvement with the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities, serving as the only not-for-profit member.

The Roundtable aims to work collaboratively with government to increase investment in building safer and more resilient communities that can withstand natural disasters.

Red Cross personnel (Image: Department of Health and Human Services)

Government Red Cross interacts with all tiers of government through representation on a number of committees related to emergency management. These include the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Committee, the State Emergency Management Team and the State Relief and Recovery Team, the National Disaster Resilience Roundtable, and MEMPC’s to assist with the development of MEMPs. It also supports EMV and DHHS in the coordination of relief activities at both state and regional levels [124]. Further, Red Cross was involved in the development of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience and has involvement at all levels of government where people who are vulnerable are concerned.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

65

The DHHS VPE Policy identifies the role of Red Cross in supporting individuals to prepare for emergencies. Agencies who provide personal care, support and/or case management services to clients living in the community and identify high-risk individuals can request Red Cross to engage with these people for emergency preparedness activities. As part of this engagement, Red Cross can refer individuals for whom preparedness activities are not sufficient or appropriate back to the local council for inclusion on the VPR. Community service Red Cross has strong connections with communities and specifically support for individuals who experience social isolation. It has dedicated programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities, transitional migrant communities and individuals who are or have been incarcerated. There is particular emphasis on the communities considered to be most vulnerable, with priority communities determined based on a range of demographic features and experience. The focus of these programs is on building social capital and resilience.

Red Cross strongly advocates for local, place-based approaches, meaningful community involvement and leadership, with an emphasis on resilience building. Its involvement with communities through these programs and other local initiatives builds social licence, relationships and trust. It also captures important community knowledge that can be leveraged for emergency management. Red Cross also develops important networks of local leaders and other individuals who can represent their communities in emergency planning, relief and recovery operations.

REDiPlan Red Cross has developed a comprehensive planning workbook, REDiPlan, for use by individuals in either an independent or guided capacity. The workbook has been refined over multiple iterations and encourages people to prepare for an emergency. REDiPlan encourages people to prepare for an emergency and invest in their community’s readiness for an emergency.

The workbook is available for the whole community and is underpinned by a philosophy of resilience building. Individuals are encouraged to complete a series of activities to increase their knowledge, community connections and preparedness for emergencies.

The guide is available in different languages and is written in a manner that is inclusive of cultural values, cognitive and physical abilities and social circumstances. The plan can be completed as part of a welfare service visit or with the assistance of family members.

Multiple stakeholders from local government and other CSOs discussed using the REDiPlan as a tool for emergency management with high-risk individuals and communities. Importantly, there are specific guides available for individuals with a disability and seniors, which include prompts for individuals to consider their particular health and mobility status.

The recently released Get Prepared App takes the REDiPlan into users smart phones, and provides the user with key information and advice on getting prepared for emergencies. Behind the app, Red Cross will draw on the de-identified data to understand Australians and their emergency preparedness.

Register. Find. Reunite.

Register. Find. Reunite. is offered in collaboration with state and territory governments that can be used by police, emergency management agencies and community members to register and locate individuals during emergencies.

The service is activated for all people directly affected by emergencies and does not specifically cater to people with vulnerabilities beyond those imposed by the emergency itself. Separated children and young people are considered a high priority and specific actions are outlined to reunite children with their families in an effort to minimise the adverse effects of the emergency and optimise recovery.

66

Red Cross also prepares an extensive guide for relief centre planning that includes information regarding separated persons registration requirements [125].

Victorian Council of Churches The VCC is a peak body of member churches who provide membership representation to community and government. The VCC represents 10 faith groups, 26 cultural groups and communicates in more than 50 languages. The member churches collectively have more than 1700 trained volunteers willing to provide assistance to the Victorian public [126].

The VCC Emergencies Ministry (VCC EM) provide training for its volunteers and support local and state government agencies. It has strong and formal connections with DHHS and EMV and is identified in the EMMV, SERP and SHERP as a provider of risk mitigation, response and relief and recovery services.

VCC EM representatives sit on the State Emergency Relief Group, regional emergency management planning committees and MEMPC. The VCC EM undertakes community consultation and scoping through church connections and has conducted work to identify cultural diversity and discuss the associated vulnerabilities within those communities.

The Salvation Army The Salvation Army has been operating in Australia for more than 130 years. It aims to give marginalised and vulnerable people an opportunity to participate in society.

The Salvation Army is the largest provider of services for the homeless in Australia, assisting 26,500 individuals in 183 services across the country [48]. It provides assistance in a number of other social issues including family violence, unemployment, addiction and recovery, youth services and disaster/crisis support.

The Salvation Army previously operated as two territories, Australia Southern and Australia Eastern, but is transitioning to a single Australia territory. This transition started in 2016 and is expected to be completed by January 2019. Currently the Southern territory (which includes Victoria) consists of 471 officers and another 4700 employees.

More than 15,000 volunteers participate in a range of initiatives coordinated by The Salvation Army. The volunteer base is growing and increased by 10 per cent in 2017. The Salvation Army conducts numerous fundraising drives directly with the public and through partnerships with commercial organisations. It engages with government through the submission of papers, reports and data as a means of advocating for their clients and the community.

During an emergency, The Salvation Army has a responsibility under the SERRP to provide material aid (for example, food, clothing, and bedding). The Salvation Army works closely with large CSOs (for example Red Cross and VCC) and smaller community organisations during an emergency. It has contact with these organisations on a regular basis due to their ongoing presence in the community working with vulnerable people. It also has strong networks with high-risk communities due to activities outside of emergency management.

FINDING 3 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that there are multiple examples of successful place-based programs and networks focussed on building community resilience and/or reducing social vulnerabilities to emergencies.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

67

4.5 Collaborations between CSOs and the sector There is a trend for CSOs to take a resilience-building approach to community vulnerabilities and undertake initiatives that address vulnerability through strengthening community, rather than ‘fixing’ people’s problems for them. This alignment of philosophy enhances the ability of CSOs to work collaboratively with each other and the broader emergency management sector.

Many organisations within the emergency management sector cite numerous examples of collaborative working arrangements with CSOs with positive outcomes regarding high-risk communities. The benefits of positive relationships at a local level (for example with local government) include: the development of trust within the community; an understanding of the needs of the community and high-risk individuals; and shared operational knowledge of emergency management planning activities.

Regular contact between CSO personnel and high-risk individuals will not typically focus on emergency planning. However, there is an opportunity for personnel to assess an individual’s ability to respond appropriately during an emergency and discuss referral actions or risk mitigation strategies. Depending on the hazard risk (for example, heatwave, bushfire or flood), various referrals or activities (as outlined in this review) may be initiated. The current reforms of the CSO sector provide an opportunity for a nationally consistent accreditation of CSO personnel to competently fulfil this role.

Currently there are variations in the formality of emergency planning processes. In some instances, local government will refer individuals to specific programs or services run by CSOs. This often occurred in cases where high-risk people did not meet the criteria for inclusion on the VPR. At other times, non-government health service providers or family members may seek to link individuals with CSOs. There is no defined referral process or feedback loop to ensure that referrals have been acted upon and/or the individual has made necessary actions to plan for emergencies.

VICSES and VCC volunteers (Image: Victorian Council of Churches)

68

Vulnerable people are often included in CSO emergency planning activities via the individual networks of staff and volunteers operating in their community. This process is effective and potentially stronger than state or municipality-wide defined procedures. However, this system is fragile and relies on good local relationships, proactive referrals and follow-ups from various individuals in the community, as well as active participation from the individual.

In response and recovery phases of emergencies, emergency relief CSOs consider the whole community to have been made vulnerable and provide support to the community as a whole.

High-risk individuals within the broader community are likely to need additional or different support in order to experience a positive and timely recovery. Existing relationships with local CSOs can facilitate efficient, effective and appropriate support.

FINDING 4 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that there is a lack of formal referral requirements for individuals who meet some but not all of the eligibility requirements of the Vulnerable Persons Register. The review highlighted that follow-up actions and referral processes vary across local government councils.

FINDING 5 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that there was insufficient processes and forums for Community Service Organisations (CSO) to discuss and share insights and views. Increased collaboration between CSOs and the emergency management sector would further strengthen current planning and response arrangements for high-risk individuals and communities.

RECOMMENDATION 3 The Inspector General for Emergency Management recommends that Emergency Management Victoria, in consultation with community service organisations, lead the development and implementation of a plan to: 





develop and implement an engagement strategy to improve collaboration and information sharing between the emergency management sector and community service organisations integrate sector-wide place-based and system level intelligence relevant to high-risk communities and individuals to support effective emergency management decisions across all phases of emergencies develop sector capability and capacity for spatial identification of high-risk communities.

The plan should be developed and implemented through a working group with oversight by State Crisis and Resilience Council or relevant subcommittee. The plan will require consideration of findings provided in this and other relevant reviews, including the Department of Health and Human Services review of the Vulnerable People in Emergencies policy and the Local Government Victoria review of local government emergency management capacity and capability.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

69

5 Continuous improvement of Victoria’s approach to managing high-risk communities Across the sector, there is a significant amount of interest and activity surrounding high-risk communities. The types of activities vary and range from high-level policy considerations of people with vulnerabilities, to specific place-based programs and services run by emergency management sector organisations.

Needs assessments, evaluation and data collection over time will allow for evidence-based initiatives and continuous improvement within the sector. Needs assessments using existing or collected data can identify priority community sub-groups in an evidence-based manner, as well as providing baseline data for evaluation.

Continuous improvement relies on thorough and unbiased evaluation of past and current practice regarding high-risk communities, and incorporating lessons identified to inform future initiatives. Evaluations and needs assessments are not simple or straightforward processes, and the complexity of high-risk communities makes continuous improvement across the sector difficult, albeit necessary.

5.1 Sector evaluation and review Evaluation and review of relevant initiatives is somewhat sporadic across the sector, with some initiatives being thoroughly evaluated while others lack evaluation due to time, resourcing and capacity constraints. Evaluation is a ‘hard sell’, particularly in responder agencies and among organisations who are already stretched for resources. Data collection, analysis and interpretation requires investment in personnel capability and capacity.

To support decision-making, DET, MFB, VICSES and LSV provided multiple examples of using data that is not their own. These agencies seek out data that is useful to them and incorporate it into their planning and evaluation. Other sector agencies and organisations also highlighted collaborations to share information and data for planning and response purposes.

EMV has a focus on an outcomes-driven approach to emergency management. To ensure outcomes are being achieved and documented, some organisations may require additional training, guidance and/or resources for evaluation and monitoring. EMV may be able to assist agencies to identify and access relevant or historical data that is collected as part of business as usual in other organisations.

Across the sector, effective evaluation and evidence-based decision-making was evident in organisations who were able to appoint an appropriately skilled person or team. This led to a range of benefits to these organisations through improved understanding of their environment and communities to support evidence-based decision-making. Further there were many examples provided of effective partnerships between the sector and academic institutions to build important links between research, policy and practice.

FINDING 6 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that effective evaluation and evidence-based practice are associated with emergency management sector organisations that have appointed an individual or team with appropriate expertise and resources to undertake this work or leveraged academic partnerships.

70

Information and data collection There are many sources of data that relate to high-risk communities. Multiple organisations collect information, and there are various platforms available for data sharing and storage. Data that many organisations hold would be useful during all planning activities before, during and after an emergency to provide an evidence base for decision making on mitigating impacts on high-risk communities.

Stakeholders across the sector consistently talked about an awareness of ‘lists’ of vulnerable people, however there was limited access to these lists, limited understanding of who owned the information, and an inability to collate the information at a system level.

The nature of high-risk communities means that individuals are likely, however not guaranteed, to have contact with various government, not-for-profit and CSOs for purposes not related to emergency management. These contact points serve as potential sources of data and information regarding the numbers, characteristics and locations of high-risk. Individuals reserve the right to not be included on government registers (for example, individuals may request not to be included on the VPR).

Sharing of data needs to be carefully considered to maintain privacy and confidentiality, however, restricted access can reduce the ability of agencies to coordinate preparedness and response activities. There are provisions under the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 for information to be shared in emergencies when there is a countervailing public interest to do so with the laws developed in a manner where life and safety have primacy over privacy [127].

Stakeholders cited the limited access to the VPR as an example of data restriction inhibiting a coordinated and timely response.

OBSERVATION 1 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management observed that concerns surrounding privacy, data quality and data entry are all potential considerations for limiting the sector’s access to sensitive information. There is scope for improved cross-sector clarity, centralisation, coordination and sharing of intelligence to support decisions at all levels of government and across all hazards. This will also support the development of leading practice system level and place-based intelligence of Victoria’s high-risk communities.

Data collation and storage The Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities produced a report on the importance of creating a data platform and investing in disaster and emergency management research [128]. The report recognises many barriers and costs of data collection and sharing but advocated that end users and decision-makers would benefit from quick and simple access to comprehensive data platforms for planning and response purposes.

The Roundtable proposed a model of data collation where foundational data (see Figure 8 p.

71) would include factors relating to sociodemographic factors and vulnerability. Its recommendations are based on national recognition that extensive data exists, however, it is restricted, costly to collect, poorly coordinated, lacks standardisation, and is difficult to share.

The Roundtable made several recommendations including that the Australian Government should: 

establish and develop a data collection platform



allow transparent access



remove barriers for end-users



develop a prioritisation framework to direct investment based on the data and research in the platform.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

71

EMV is currently leading the development of data collection and reporting tools including the Emergency Management Common Operating Picture (EM-COP) web-based system, which will include information specifically relevant to high-risk communities. EM-COP is currently in use across the sector and serves as a portal for many sources of information. Information provided to the sector through this platform is subject to continuous development.

There are several examples of community profiling and data-basing occurring across the sector.

EMV is leading a community profile project indexing a variety of data to increase overall knowledge of community and their resilience. This project is part of EMV’s response to the SAP (Action A6) and associated with an ongoing initiative to increase community knowledge. Other agencies are also developing databases of information that describes the community. For example, hoarding registers, residential risk referrals and the power dependency list.

It is worthwhile noting that while data-basing is an elegant approach to informing practice and policy, complete reliance on data is problematic. Each community is unique and personal risk circumstances will transpire differently according to contextual conditions over time. As such, templates for data collection and reporting need to be carefully considered to ensure relevant information is collected and can be used efficiently in practice.

Further, high-risk communities are particularly complex with circumstances being quite dynamic and transient. Keeping the data up to date will be an ongoing challenge and relying on data that identifies individuals requires careful management. In some cases, individuals at high-risk will inherently be disconnected from government services, and local knowledge should be considered in combination with data retrieved from any platforms developed. Closer involvement of local CSOs will assist in maintaining contemporary knowledge of high-risk communities and in interpreting the associated data.

Figure 8: Data and research inputs for optimal decision-making on resilience investments

Source: Deloitte Access Economics, Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities (2014)

72

FINDING 7 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that the sector is starting to create databases and collate community information to inform decision making. This is an emerging process and there is potential for agencies to collaborate and share information to reduce duplication, improve access, increase information quality and broaden the scope of resulting databases.

5.2 Barriers and enablers to improvement Barriers A global focus on resilience in disaster management and response policy and practice has existed for more than 12 years. This has overshadowed a research and policy focus on disaster management and response for socially vulnerable communities, limiting the research basis for leading practice improvement for high-risk communities. IGEM notes there is relevant research including climate change vulnerabilities, and the development of vulnerability indices, originating with the work of Cutter in the early part of this century [30, 129].

IGEM’s examination of the Victorian emergency management sector’s tools and planning processes relating to high-risk communities identifies an opportunity for leading edge policy development of the social justice implications of a resilience focused approach [28]. As identified in this review, there is no commonly accepted definition of high-risk in emergency management and few examples of leading practice strategies, policies or programs relating to communities vulnerable to hazard across the world (see Section 2.2 pp. 21).

Victorian emergency management reform has considerably altered governance arrangements.

However, emergency management agencies continue to have primary responsibility for hazard response, to a large extent involving a predominant organisational culture of command and control. This culture is in transition in Victoria to bring communities into the forefront of decision making, however, historically it has served as a barrier to a social justice agenda that would place greater emphasis on high-risk communities. The command and control culture may also limit collaboration between emergency agencies and non-government organisations, such as the CSOs with long-term involvement in providing support and advice to high-risk individuals and communities.

Enablers The progressive reform of the Victorian emergency management arrangements provides potential pathways for the development of strategies, policies and programs of engagement, education and support for those at high risk from hazard.

Most Victorian emergency management agencies have close ties with their communities, including through the state’s strong volunteer network. Most also have community engagement strategies, programs and capabilities, including personnel with considerable experience. This infrastructure provides an important basis for the extensive community engagement work that is required to address the needs of those at high-risk from hazards.

There is considerable effort required to develop a means of identifying high-risk communities spatially. This may include the use of a social vulnerability index, placed-based data (e.g.

CERA), community consultation and complex mathematical and computer modelling. Work will be necessary using these quantitative and qualitative methodologies to identify high-risk individuals and communities and establish clear rationale for education and support programs.

With the implementation of these programs, evaluation and research will be necessary to provide data for continuous improvement.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

73

The VBRC highlighted the importance of long term research in the physical, biological and social sciences. VBRC recommendation 65 led to the establishment of the national Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre to drive and coordinate interdisciplinary bushfire research across Australia. Victoria supports this work and has experienced and competent research professionals working across the sector. IGEM notes that an important opportunity exists to leverage and coordinate these resources towards improving the sectors evidence base, communication and decision making for high-risk communities.

Much of the work required to build a framework of engagement and support for those at highrisk from hazards will require considerable cross-agency and department cooperation and collaboration. Victorian emergency management sector governance structures can provide the basis for this collaboration. For example, the community of research practice that has formed within the emergency management sector may provide a preliminary basis to facilitate consideration of methodological, logistical and practical issues in developing a social vulnerability index or other relevant tool.

The Victorian Government’s CBEM framework for collaboration between government, emergency agencies, communities, business and non-government organisations [130] was recently developed and in the initial phase of implementation at the time of writing. This initiative has the potential to provide a real and effective vehicle for meaningful involvement by not-forprofits and CSOs. IGEM supports a focus on strong and ongoing government commitment to integrate CSOs and NFPs into information, communication and decision making processes to better address the needs of high-risk communities.

FINDING 8 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that vertical and horizontal relationships are important to deliver an effective approach to addressing the needs of high risk communities and individuals in emergencies.

6 Other considerations 6.1 National Disability Insurance Scheme Health service providers, along with specialist disability services are seen as one of the best groups of professionals to support those at high risk. The service providers offer support to people with disabilities and mental illness by way of disability support, addressing physical health and capabilities, psychosocial health and specialised support for children and young adults. However, major reform associated with the NDIS will change the way these services are provided to people and may affect support arrangements for vulnerable community members prior to and during emergencies.

Services for people with a disability Specialist service providers play an important role in the lives of those vulnerable or high-risk Victorians living in their homes. Some services people receive have previously been provided by the HACC. There are a vast array of services that provide direct treatment and support for the medical and physical health needs of the individual, as well as many services that support individuals to lead independent lifestyles and increase wellbeing. Staff may provide personal care such as showering and dressing, meal delivery, cleaning and taking people to their medical appointments. Staff providing these services have a strong sense of an individual’s capabilities and their family and community support networks due to their ongoing relationship with the client.

Local government is one of many organisations that are funded to provide these supports.

However, these arrangements were facing significant changes at the time of writing. Funding and management of the HACC program changed on 1 July 2016 when access to services became based on age. Services for older people (people aged 65 and over and Aboriginal people aged 50 and over) became funded and managed by the Commonwealth Department of Health through the CHSP. The CHSP provides similar types of services that were provided by the HACC program. Older people who were getting HACC services at 30 June 2016 continue to get these services under the CHSP from their existing provider(s). Younger people who received HACC services now transitioning to the NDIS, will continue to receive these services, although funding transitions to the NDIS. Individuals will have their cases reviewed, and individualised support packages will be developed to support building capacity, choice and control.

A number of local councils have indicated they will not register as NDIS providers. These changes to local government service delivery will influence how emergency management is coordinated in Victoria. Without the leverage provided to DHHS through direct funding, it is yet to be confirmed how state emergency management requirements for people at high risk will be monitored and evaluated. Victoria will invest $2.5 billion a year in the NDIS when the scheme is fully operational and will continue to play an active governance oversight role through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Disability Reform Council.

Emergency management and the NDIS There is a concern among stakeholders that the NDIS will have a detrimental impact on the current support arrangements for vulnerable community members prior to and during emergencies. Local government have traditionally provided support to vulnerable community members to help prepare and support them when an emergency occurs, with a common perception being that this contact was facilitated through HACC and other funded health and social services. For example one council noted it has 80 officers who interact daily with residents, another noted that it has eight to 10 people on the VPR, however there are a further 1600 service recipients who they have contact with.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

75

Under the current model, DHHS has the ability to govern and monitor emergency preparedness arrangements across their client portfolio due to their direct funding of health services. As the NDIS reaches full implementation, there is concern that both local and State Government will lose direct contact and associated intelligence of high-risk communities. Concerns of the potential impact of these changes were raised consistently across stakeholders engaged. The general themes were: 

loss of (State Government) funding levers to implement or enforce regulatory frameworks, policy and practice in relation to high-risk communities



fragmentation – currently a large pool of people are connected to a ‘system’ of service providers within LGAs. The move to NDIS will lead to a significantly larger cohort of service providers and add complexity to capturing consistent place-based intelligence of high-risk communities



the transition to increased private sector service providers with commercial interests in relation to profit and client confidentiality may limit intelligence gathering and sharing



loss of councils as service providers may impact on the consistency, coordination and effectiveness of support for high-risk communities during emergencies.

Opportunities to address the gaps The NDIS is a significant and important funding commitment to improve support for many Australians with vulnerabilities. IGEM notes, despite the challenges and concerns expressed, it also provides an important opportunity for nationally consistent and robust emergency management arrangements for people at high risk. The NDIS principles and objectives, and state contributions to the overall funding, provide levers to introduce the planning, preparedness and support activities related to emergencies for NDIS recipients. The NDIS should enable people with a disability to maximise an independent lifestyle and give families and carer’s confidence that people will receive the care and support they need, including support to prepare and respond appropriately to hazards.

The NDIS is being implemented in stages. The stakeholders interviewed identified a number of opportunities to address the gaps in the new service model, particularly during the implementation phase: 

the period of planning for clients. NDIS and My Aged Care have assessment and planning phases. These periods would be the opportune time for engagement between clients and the sector, especially service providers, Local Area Coordinators and support coordinators in ensuring that the needs of vulnerable individuals in emergencies is part of the planning conversation



State Government retains responsibility for overall planning for vulnerable people in emergencies.



the State Government could utilise a training provider (such as Red Cross, CFA) to assist NDIS registered providers to address emergency preparedness and planning capability.

IGEM notes DHHS is undertaking considerable work to ensure effective transition under the NDIS.

76

Image: Tyler Olsen / Shutterstock

RECOMMENDATION 4 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management recommends that the Department of Health and Human Services, with the support of the emergency management and community service sector, continue to monitor the roll out of the National Disability Insurance Scheme to ensure: 

high-risk individuals are transitioned appropriately



the reforms accommodate appropriate emergency management training of carers to support high-risk individuals’ planning for emergencies



that appropriate and consistent mechanisms are in place to facilitate the provision of local intelligence regarding high-risk individuals and communities to emergency management decision makers across the sector.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

77

6.2 Leadership Sector leadership High-risk communities are often made vulnerable by a range of circumstances which affect their lives in multiple ways, not just their ability to plan for and respond to emergencies. Emergency management sector organisations require line of sight and ongoing collaboration and engagement across relevant policies, legislation, regulations, networks, intelligence and reforms to provide effective and efficient safeguards for high-risk communities.

Clarity regarding the span of control, roles and responsibilities of EMV and DHHS would be useful as both organisations have a strong motivation to ensure high-risk communities are prioritised in emergency management. The findings of the review suggest that further collaboration between EMV and DHHS as leaders for high-risk community emergency management will support improved outcomes.

Lessons from Victoria’s tragic Thunderstorm Asthma event in 2016 led to an improved integration between the emergency management and health portfolios, resulting in better coordination, communication, intelligence gathering, and information dissemination across both disciplines during emergencies. Likewise for high-risk communities, cross disciplinary leadership and integration is required to better afford protection to those in most need.

FINDING 9 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that there is a current lack of clarity within the emergency management sector around the respective roles of Emergency Management Victoria (EMV) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) with regard to high-risk communities.

While the review identified positive developments in this area, improved clarity will increase the extent to which EMV and DHHS can leverage off their respective strengths and support a coordinated and collaborative approach.

Local government The role of local government in planning and responding to the needs of high-risk communities in emergencies varied across the councils. Local government often report being required to ‘fill the gaps’ and make things work for their particular community. While this approach lends itself well to tailoring state and regional initiatives, there is some informality. Much of the good practice observed is based on strong relationships and the good will of council personnel.

Stakeholders noted that local government was best placed to identify the individuals most at risk in their community, however, follow-up actions and the referral process varied across councils.

Further structure and guidance regarding the identification of high-risk individuals would be useful to streamline data collection, improve place-based intelligence, and clarify roles and responsibilities of organisations operating in the community. Clarity of local government roles in light of their resources and capacity is important for their own practices and for communication across the sector. This will also lead to greater sustainability throughout periods of change and staff turnover.

FINDING 10 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management finds that local governments, community service organisations and communities are best placed to identify the individuals most at risk in their municipality.

78

Encouraging grassroots leadership and innovation The review identified a strong preference for localised interventions that reflect the particular needs of the high-risk communities and individuals living in the area.

Place-based, community-led initiatives were shown to have good outcomes for high-risk communities. Leadership styles that facilitate community ownership and local leadership should continue to be encouraged throughout the sector and role modelling of these leadership styles from state and regional leaders.

Sector leaders can develop training and support structures to ensure there is sufficient knowledge and skills across the sector to better identify and integrate high-risk communities in emergency management.

There are clearly defined pathways outlining the interaction between state, regional and local agencies, and individuals. The approach is tiered in nature and communication should flow back and forth accordingly for both top-down and bottom-up approaches. This is advocated across the sector, but there is general agreement that this pathway of communication requires strengthening.

The reasons for ‘skipping’ links in the chain of communication are normally to speed up the transfer of information and ensure that decision makers have accurate, firsthand information.

While well-intentioned, the breakdown may be particularly detrimental when working with highrisk communities as trust and understanding within the community are essential for positive response and recovery outcomes.

Community planning (Image: Emergency Management Victoria)

Further, there are some high-risk communities who may have heightened fear and distrust of authority (for example uniformed personnel) which can increase the trauma of an emergency event or make efforts to interact ineffective or counterproductive.

State agencies who wish to be involved in community initiatives can follow the pathways through to community touch-points and participate as observers or equal members of community based committees.

Empowering communities to lead local initiatives can decrease some of the burden for local government who are able to move into a broader coordination and facilitation role. Importantly it can create local ownership and establish unique communication channels into high-risk communities that may not have been otherwise possible.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

79

For example, Yarra Ranges’ MEMPC is deliberately not chaired by council, and the Wyndham City gives leadership opportunities to existing informal leaders of communities (gatekeepers) considered to be at greater risk during emergencies. Both examples have resulted in greater buy-in from communities and enhanced local knowledge of high-risk communities.

The risk of this approach is for the sector to lose sight of activities occurring, or for efforts to be misguided. However, with close collaboration in the initial stages, the risks can be mitigated and very strong community led programs can emerge.

6.3 Resources The sector’s current approach for managing high-risk communities has a strong focus on building community resilience, however, there is evidence demonstrating the need for tailored interventions addressing the needs of high-risk individuals. Enhancing the focus and coordination on high-risk communities will require significant time, staff and resources.

Identifying high-risk individuals, and working with them to develop emergency management strategies, is more resource intensive than community resilience-building initiatives as a more tailored approach is necessary.

Stakeholders who represented local councils were clear that resources are currently stretched in emergency management. While some tasks can be synchronised with existing health or social services, there is limited resource capacity to expand or extend their interaction with highrisk communities without additional funding or consolidation of existing services. The current review by LGV of local government emergency management capacity and capability will provide additional insights and opportunities for improved resourcing.

The review has found that there is a subset of high-risk individuals who are ineligible for inclusion on the VPR, yet would not automatically participate in or benefit from community resilience initiatives. Consequently, incorporating these people into policies and operations will require additional resourcing and/or broadening the scope of existing initiatives.

Funding is currently provided to local organisations (including local government) for the assessment of individuals for inclusion on the VPR, with local government also funded to administer the register. This process involves contact with individuals who ultimately are not included on the register but have vulnerabilities that make them high-risk. As outlined in Section 4.5 pp. 67, opportunities exist to improve referral processes across LGAs to ensure high-risk individuals who are not eligible are connected with appropriate emergency management information and support services.

Through collaboration between state, regional and local government, CSOs provide a crucial conduit for identifying high-risk individuals and planning for and addressing their emergency management needs. This is already happening across the state in various capacities and could be modified in a way that ensures better documentation and assurance that the needs of highrisk communities and individuals are being addressed.

Across the sector, there was a general acceptance that limited resources needed to be used sustainably to safeguard emergency management arrangements. Local organisations and CSOs collaborated regionally and with commercial or not-for-profit partners to source government funding. Personnel cited creative and innovative ways of incorporating emergency management for high-risk communities into business-as-usual activities and community-led organisations.

80

6.4 Intra-sector relationships Relationships are extremely important for emergency management and can overcome limited resources and personnel in separate organisations. Good relationships across the sector create an understanding and realistic expectations of capacity for emergency planning and response.

They also lead to organisations operating in a complementary manner and sharing resources and expertise as appropriate.

The review highlighted numerous collaborations across Victoria’s emergency management sector organisations and academic institutions. These networks and arrangements offer further opportunities to consolidate information, resources, research and practice more efficiently and effectively to achieve improved outcomes for high-risk communities.

Improved knowledge sharing across the sector regarding successful programs, databases of vulnerable people and current activities would help to reduce duplication and allow local organisations and local government to build on the lessons learned by other organisations.

However, relationships are fragile and do not necessarily transfer in cases of staff turnover.

Further, strong relationships require work, time and good will.

Yarra Ranges for example, has a strong and productive relationship with the federal Department of Human Services. The department interacts with high-risk individuals and communities and was invited to sit on the municipal planning, relief and recovery committees.

This relationship has been developed based on the presence of the federal office in the municipality and the proactive nature of both the council and the department.

Embedding individuals and organisations into emergency management committees can help to improve relationships across the sector, and strengthen emergency management knowledge and capability within each agency.

Departments and agencies who have multi-dimensional but important roles in emergency management at certain (or all) phases (for example local and state government, and VicPol) need supportive relationships and networks to ensure they have the foresight, capacity and capability to deliver on their commitments to the sector when required.

There is a role for leaders in emergency management to provide support, networks and structures for organisations who step into emergency management for isolated periods of time (for example businesses and non-government organisations).

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

81

7 Leading practice This section discusses leading practice methods for identifying high-risk individuals and communities and engaging them in programs to better manage the consequences of emergencies. It suggests the need for a multi-level approach to assessment of programs and priorities, which involves the use of indices, scenario building and participatory approaches [131]. Commencing with an overview of leading practice based on a third party literature review, the section then provides a range of national and international examples that can inform future improvements.

A multi-level approach is desirable because top-down assessments using vulnerability indices cannot reflect the detail and layers of social vulnerability. The review highlights the importance of top down approaches (e.g. indices, population demographics) complemented by bottom-up assessments that allow inputs from a variety of stakeholders, including those with extensive local experience with groups and individuals who are vulnerable [28].

The Victorian Government has political leadership to address disaster risk reduction [50] and emergency service governance [132]. However, government architecture that would support leading practice for development and implementation of policy and programs that are directed at those at high risk from hazard is still developing.

The Victorian emergency management sector can achieve leading practice in identifying and engaging high-risk communities and managing impacts on them by basing the development of strategy, policy and programs on extensive stakeholder knowledge and experience, including: 

emergency management practitioners



non-government organisations and not-for-profits



high-risk individuals and communities



research and academic institutions.

Collaboration, cooperation and participation of all stakeholders should drive the process. The difference in the nature and impact of bushfire, grassfire, flood, storm and extreme heat must be recognised and incorporated into policy and programs.

Analysing hazards at local, regional and state levels provides for a sound basis for addressing the needs of those at high-risk from hazards. Actions taken to address the issues they face should be aimed at improving their well-being, a characteristic of resilient communities that has been well recognised by the Victorian Government [133].

Leading practice will define, identify and engage high-risk individuals and communities by using a multi-level approach involving: 

the development of top down approaches (e.g. social vulnerability indices, system level intelligence) that identify target regions, suburbs and neighbourhoods



engagement of key community informants for scenario development and place-based intelligence



engagement with high-risk communities in broad participatory processes to develop actions that meet their specific needs.

An example of engagement with high-risk communities and representative organisations was provided through the Diversity in Disaster Conference held in Melbourne in April 2018.

82

7.1 Identifying high-risk communities using social vulnerability indices Social vulnerability indices that are scalable and cost effective, using existing data sources (such as censes and government data) and local intelligence generated through consultative methods, provides a robust framework for identifying high-risk communities. Expert input can be used to weigh indicators and use the results to rank households, communities and cities by their vulnerability and adaptive capacity [134-137].

This approach is highly useful because it can be used for targeting, allowing for communities who are vulnerable to be identified, ranked and prioritised for programs and services.

Appropriately spatially targeted measurement provides insights for emergency service agencies on the: 

geographic location of high-risk communities



general nature of community vulnerability (for example, elderly, low-income, socially or linguistically isolated)



nature of possible risks to the community



elements of preparedness and response programs most appropriate to the community



general parameters of agency response to an emergency event.

Indices do, however, have shortcomings as they can oversimplify complex relationships between variables. Practitioners also risk using indicators that are easily accessible but do not measure vulnerability well and/or exclude data that may be highly valid and representative [19].

FINDING 11 The Inspector-General for Emergency Management found the development of an index of vulnerability provides a strong basis for targeting resources to groups who are vulnerable.

This approach will highlight the strengths and deficiencies of current emergency management arrangements so that capacity building initiatives can be developed, targeted and continuously improved over time.

The top-down assessment provided should be complemented by a bottom-up assessment from a variety of stakeholders including the groups and individuals that form a part of the high-risk community and the CSOs that serve them. These bottom-up assessments include scenario approaches, and community and key stakeholder participation.

Scenario approaches Scenarios are storylines developed from possible emergency situations. Enacting a scenario can produce new knowledge and insights which are used to simulate discussion and reflection and can inform decision-making.

The scenario is a means of involving high-risk communities, and traditional and non-traditional emergency management stakeholders and providers in exploring and clarifying complex emergency environments. Scenarios are generally local in scale and depict varying local hazard circumstances using accessible language.

This approach is an innovative means of developing appropriate preparedness and response programs for high-risk communities by involving key community informants. It permits mutual learning, sharing of existing knowledge and the development of new knowledge.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

83

Warrnambool City Council – A scenario approach On 12 September 2017 the Warrnambool City Council held a multi-agency training exercise – Exercise Poldark – that brought the CFA, VICSES, AV and VicPol together to respond to a real time simulation of an armed offender on a plane landing at Warrnambool Airport. The plane landed safely, however, while taxiing the plane crashed into the terminal building. There were 12 injured and the building was structurally damaged. There were over 120 people participating, including community members.

The learnings from this exercise led to the ‘South West Emergency Management Capability Forum – Collaborating for Success’ in April 2018. One of the most significant learnings was that agencies do not have a full understanding of each other’s capability. The community was subsequently invited to talk with the agencies to focus on shared responsibility.

Community participation Community participation and consultation recognises that local knowledge of high-risk communities is the basis for leading practice design and implementation of initiatives tailored to meet the needs of local groups and conditions [138]. Local stakeholders are best placed to identify local vulnerabilities, describe the local context and develop the appropriate means to measure and address them.

Participation also creates a degree of commitment from the community that is necessary to support actions and policy change that is based on trust and ownership between the community and the sector agencies [139].

Engagement with the community also provides access to data from assessments and surveys that have been conducted by non-government organisations and community-based groups through local government and locally-based organisations and committees.

7.2 Leading practice examples The following provides examples and case studies of leading practice emergency management for high-risk communities, both nationally and internationally. The international and national examples provide a useful perspective that could be adapted into the Victorian context.

CERA and community participation As discussed previously, the CERA tool is a Victorian example of an established community participation process using scenarios. CERA provides local government with a consistent framework in which to consider and understand the likely consequences of emergency events on people, infrastructure and activities.

CERA allows for community representatives, experts and emergency service agencies to collaboratively identify and prioritise potential emergency risks, taking into account the vulnerability of the community to develop plans and emergency preparedness measures.

In addition, CERA provides a valuable base upon which a more sophisticated approach can be built involving the identification of high-risk communities using vulnerability indices and the use of targeted scenario and community participation approaches. It also importantly provides place-based data in a consistent format across the 79 LGAs that can be collated and analysed to support system intelligence and inform sector decision making.

84

Case study - FEMA – Office of Disability Integration and Coordination In 2010, the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established the Office of Disability Integration and Coordination to lead its commitment to achieve whole-ofcommunity emergency management, inclusive of individuals with disabilities.

Each of the 10 FEMA regions is staffed with a Regional Disability Integration Specialist who provides guidance, training and tools for facilitating disability-inclusive emergency preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation.

The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 2006 established the requirement for a FEMA Disability Coordinator and new requirements for disability inclusion.

Regional Disability Integration Specialists work closely with the states to ensure that their disaster planning is inclusive of people with disabilities and others with access and functional needs. Simultaneously, they work with local non-profit disability groups to reach the disability community, encouraging them to participate in federal, state, local, and community emergency planning meetings.

The Partnership for Inclusive Disaster Strategies provides a useful example of the connection between FEMA and the not-for-profit sector to achieve more inclusive emergency management.

The Partnership for Inclusive Disaster Strategies In July 2015, FEMA announced an agreement with Portlight Strategies, a not-for-profit, crossdisability disaster relief and recovery organisation to strengthen the relationship between the agency, the disability community leadership and emergency management.

The partnership is an example of an agreement between the US government and the not-forprofit sector that aims to provide equal access and full inclusion for the whole community before, during and after an emergency. The partnership was born out of unmet needs of the disability community during previous disasters such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

The aim of the partnership is being achieved through: 

holding emergency responders and the Red Cross more accountable to their obligations to provide equal access



more robust and accountable relationships between the grass roots, organisational leaders, local, state and federal emergency management



development of state and local disability inclusive emergency management coalitions led by disability leaders and emergency managers.

Members represent the disability community at all levels of governmental and nongovernmental meetings from neighbourhood forums though to legislative hearings.

The partnership acknowledges the need to improve capacity when responding to the needs of the whole-of-community during an emergency. Capacity gaps need to be filled with committed and knowledgeable individuals and organisations. The partnership is also committed to measuring outcomes to identify gaps and drive progress.

Case study – Red Cross Community Assessment and Engagement Tool The subject of this case study is Australian Red Cross’ approach to communication with highrisk communities through the use of the Community Assessment and Engagement Tool (CAET). CAET provides a well-developed example of an organisation that has moved from a vulnerability-based approach to a strengths-based approach to assist in improving disaster impacts on communities.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

85

Australian Red Cross acknowledge the importance of four capacities that can allow people to ‘bounce back’ from disasters. These capacities are knowledge, connections, security and wellbeing and are referred to as ‘adaptive capacities’: 

Knowledge – a knowledge of hazards and local histories can help to make informed decisions



Connections – good and trusted community networks provide a connection to place



Security – financial security can safeguard against loss of assets and livelihoods



Wellbeing – being in good health improves the ability to cope with challenges and disruptions due to emergencies.

The CAET was developed by Red Cross to assist its personnel in prioritising the community’s preparedness needs or further guiding planning activities in a community that is already actively engaged.

The CEAT can further inform the Red Cross disaster preparedness guide REDiPlan.

The CAET has four stages: assess, plan, implement and monitor. Each stage has multiple elements and is supported with tools and templates to assist Red Cross personnel with engaging the community and people in a preparedness conversation.

Case study – the crunch model Developed in 1994, the crunch model, also known as the disaster pressure and release model, views that a disaster is the result of an interaction between two forces – vulnerability and the exposure to hazards.

Oxfam is an international non-government human rights organisation that works to mitigate disasters with an emphasis on strengthening the capacity of communities. It has adapted the crunch model to take into consideration how men and women experience different types and levels of vulnerability to disasters.

The crunch model can aid policy makers and researchers to understand people’s vulnerability to disasters. The model places an emphasis on the ways that social systems operate to generate disasters by making people vulnerable [140]. To reduce the risk of a disaster, the vulnerability of people exposed to the hazard must be reduced and their capacities strengthened.

According to the model, root causes of vulnerability such as lack of access to power structures and resources, and limiting political and economic systems, result in dynamic pressures and cause persisting unsafe conditions which can lead to the progression of vulnerability.

In 2012 Oxfam commenced the Building resilience of women and men to disaster and climate risks project. Oxfam applied the crunch model to collect and analyse the vulnerabilities and capacities of men and women facing climate change in Vietnam. The project aimed to improve the skills of poor communities to identify climate and disaster risks, to increase the productivity and income of farmers and to increase the access to clean water.

The use of the crunch model allowed Oxfam to analyse the information gathered at the community level. Several gender-specific disaster risk reduction measures were identified that could be further explored, such as vocational training opportunities for women [141].

86

Case study - Western Australia – Emergency Risk Management Local Government Handbook The Emergency Risk Management Local Government Handbook has been produced by the Government of Western Australia Office of Emergency Management. The handbook, which has strong similarities to CERA, was developed to guide local councils in the emergency management process and build a comprehensive understanding of the risks posed to the community.

The handbook recognises that risk varies significantly across the diverse groups and individuals that make up a community and the best way to capture this is in a community-centred, localised workshop environment. Workshops give the community and stakeholders the opportunity to openly exchange information and build a comprehensive understanding of risk that are posed to the community [119].

The handbook provided the basis for the development of the Tasmanian Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines by the Tasmanian State Emergency Management Committee. The adaption of the handbook to the Tasmanian environment was in collaboration with the Western Australia Office of Emergency Management [142].

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

87

8 Concluding remarks Victoria’s emergency management sector has been through significant and important reforms over the past decade. As a result the sector is better coordinated and integrated across state, regional and local tiers, with improved governance, partnerships, communication platforms and intelligence. The culture of the sector is transitioning to bring communities to the forefront of decision-making.

VBRC findings highlighted the importance of identifying and affording specific attention to the preparation and response requirements of high-risk communities and individuals. Almost 10 years since the 2009 Victorian Bushfires, this review has identified significant room for improved focus and coordination of our emergency management, human services and academic sectors to transition to leading practice.

Lessons from Victoria’s tragic 2016 thunderstorm asthma event led to an improved integration between the emergency management and health portfolios. Similarly for high-risk communities, cross disciplinary leadership and integration is required to better afford protection to those in most need.

Likewise, current reforms associated with the NDIS must be carefully monitored by Victoria’s emergency management and health portfolios to ensure improved outcomes can be realised both in Victoria and nationally for high-risk communities.

IGEM notes that the current reviews of local government capacity and capability by LGV, and of the VPE policy by DHHS will provide timely and important information to support continuous improvement objectives outlined in this review.

Way forward The sector is focused on building community resilience, consistent with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction [143]. This has limited the focus on high-risk communities based in part on the proposition that vulnerability is the flip side of resilience [19, 20, 144].

Given the overarching resilience focus within the sector, there is a pressing need for an inprinciple commitment to addressing the issues of high-risk individuals and communities. Highrisk communities are the most likely to be significantly impacted in emergencies, and in many instances are disconnected from broader community initiatives.

The Victorian Vulnerable People in Emergencies policy has defined a vulnerable person as ‘someone living in the community who is frail, and or physically or cognitively impaired; and unable to comprehend warnings and directions and/or respond in an emergency situation‘ [145].

This definition may address the purposes of DHHS in establishing the VPR, however, it is inadequate for comprehensively defining and identifying high-risk individuals and communities for emergency planning purposes.

A comprehensive definition of high-risk communities and individuals needs to be carefully considered and agreed by the Victorian emergency management sector. This review provides a starting point for this work, and recommends that any definition includes the areas of social vulnerability and hazard risk. An agreed definition is important to provide clarity and a shared purpose for the sector.

High-risk individuals and communities need to be spatially and socio-economically identifiable using contemporary and leading technologies, methodologies and techniques. This will support decisions across the all communities, all hazards spectrum. IGEM notes this is a complicated task that will require dedicated partnerships, resources, extensive consultation, research and continuous improvement to accomplish.

88

The non-government sector including the Australian Red Cross and VCOSS have had longterm involvement with people who are at high-risk from hazards. By more effectively harnessing the insights and expertise of the CSO sector, the Victorian emergency management sector can significantly improve protection afforded to high-risk individuals and communities. Direct engagement with high-risk individuals and representative organisations through forums (for example the Diversity in Disaster Conference held in Melbourne in April 2018) are required to better tailor emergency management arrangements and increase preparedness.

This review highlights the importance of assessment of high-risk community programs and intelligence to support continuous improvement. This work could be further coordinated and supported through existing emergency management agency and sector research programs. A focus on this work would lead to improved integration of existing knowledge, research and data and require considerable new commitments to collect additional data on a regular, coordinated and continuous basis.

IGEM believes that this review, and others discussed, will provide the clarity and direction required to adopt a world-leading approach. Victoria’s emergency management sector is well placed to undertake this challenge in order to better safeguard communities and individuals who are most vulnerable.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

89

Appendix 1: Factors influencing sensitivity to hazard Table 1: Factors influencing sensitivity to hazard

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS

MEASURE

Demographic characteristic

Age

Elderly 65 years + 5 years and under Median Age

Race and ethnicity

Born overseas Recent immigrant Ethnic minorities

Household structure

Household size Female headed household + with 3 or more children Older single female household

Gender

Women

Functional needs

Language other than English spoken at home Limited English language proficiency

Language proficiency

Requiring assistance or care (Disability) Frailty Mobility

Socio-economic status

Income

Household income Ratio of low income Number income earners in household Receipt of full pension or benefit

Wealth

Value of home (property) Living space per household member Below poverty line Proportion of household income spent on necessities

Education

Completed year 10 or below

Occupation

Unemployed Employed in service industry Employed in informal sector

Health characteristics

Access to healthcare

GPs/head Hospital beds/head Distance to medical services

Stress

Cognitive impairment/ ill health

Disease

Chronic/ long term illness

90

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS

MEASURE

Neighbourhood characteristics

Transportation

Extensiveness of transport network Availability of public transport

Population density

Population/ area

Housing

Age of housing Housing density Living in an institution Living in a caravan/ mobile home

Resource dependency

Employed in primary sector

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

91

Appendix 2: Legislative framework, strategies and plans Table 1

KEY LEGISLATION AND STATE PLANS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF EMERGENCIES IN VICTORIA Fire/Bushfire

Flood event

Emergency Management Act 2013

Emergency Management Act Victoria 1986

Emergency Management Act 1986

Victoria State Emergency Service Act 2005

Country Fire Authority Act 1958

Water Act 1989

Metropolitan Fire Brigades Act 1958

Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994

Forests Act 1958

Meteorological Act 1955 (Commonwealth)

Electricity Safety Act 1998

Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV) State Emergency Response Plan

Earthquake

State Emergency Relief and Recovery Plan

Emergency Management Act 2013

State Health Emergency Response Plan

Emergency Management Act 1986 Victoria State Emergency Service Act 2005 Essential Services Act 1958 Planning and Environment Act 1989 Local Government Act 1989 Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV)

Extreme heat

Storm

Emergency Management Act 2013

Emergency Management Act 2013

Emergency Management Act 1986

Emergency Management Act 1986

Local Government Act 1989

Victoria State Emergency Service Act 2005

Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008

Essential Services Act 1958

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Planning and Environment Act 1989

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986

Local Government Act 1989

Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV) Meteorology Act 1955 (Commonwealth) State Emergency Response Plan

Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV)

State Emergency Relief and Recovery Plan

State Emergency Response Plan

92

Relevant legislation with regard to high-risk communities Table 2

KEY LEGISLATION RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF HIGH-RISK INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES Emergency Management Act 1986 Section 20 requires municipal councils to prepare and maintain MEMPs. These plans must identify the municipal resources available for use for emergency prevention, response and recovery, and how they will be utilised for these purposes.

Emergency Management Act 2013 The purpose of this Act is to amend the EM Act 1986. The EM Act 2013 is the empowering legislation for command, control and coordination of emergencies in Victoria. The EM Act 2013 is designed to ensure that the management of emergencies is organised within a structure that facilitates planning, preparedness, operational coordination and community participation.

Country Fire Authority (Volunteer Protection and Community Safety) Act 2003 The purpose of this Act is to amend the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 to improve protection for volunteers and to enhance community safety.

Metropolitan Fire Brigades Act 1958 MFB has the responsibility for all communities within its boundaries when performing its functions.

However, with regard to high-risk communities, it appears that s.55D of this Act may support particular measures for people with vulnerabilities, such as hoarders.

Forests Act 1958 Under s. 62AA of the Act, the Secretary for DELWP has a duty to warn the community in relation to fires in State forests, national parks and protected public land for the purpose of protecting life and property.

Victoria State Emergency Service Act 2005 This Act amended the Victorian State Emergency Service Act 1987 to improve the operation and effectiveness of VICSES. VICSES is a volunteer-based organisation, providing emergency assistance to minimise the impact of emergencies and strengthen the community’s capacity to plan, respond and recover, when emergencies occur.

Planning and Environment Act 1987 The purpose of this Act is to establish a framework for planning the use, development and protection of land in Victoria for the interests of all Victorians. As stated in the Act, the objectives of planning in Victoria include: to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community.

Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 This Act provides a new legislative scheme which promotes and protects public health and wellbeing in Victoria. The Act strengthens local government’s role to protect, improve and promote public health and wellbeing within the local community.

Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 There are sections of the Act that may impact on the emergency management of high-risk communities: s.8 (right to recognition and equality before the law); s.9 (right to life); s.12 (right to freedom of movement); s.17 (right to protection of families and children); s.19 (cultural rights); s.20 (property rights).

Residential Tenancies (Caravan Parks and Movable Dwellings Registration and Standards) Regulations 2010 Section 22 of the regulations requires all caravan park owners to have an emergency management plan, including a risk assessment. This regulation is particularly important given that many are in flood plain areas. Caravan parks accommodate a range of high-risk groups of people, including those unfamiliar with the area, such as tourists or seasonal workers, people who are transient or at risk of homelessness, and/or people in a lower socio economic demographic.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

93

Table 3

KEY SECTOR GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV) The EMMV contains the policy and planning documents for emergency management in Victoria. The manual provides information and guidance on emergency management, the roles of the various organisations within them, and the planning and management arrangements that bring all the different elements together.

Strategic Action Plan (updates 2016-2019 and 2017-2020) The SAP outlines four themes and eight state-wide strategic priorities, with 31 corresponding actions to support Victoria in achieving its emergency management vision of ‘safer and more resilient communities’. The SAP states that high-risk exists in the emergency context where there is a hazard combined with an exposed population that is vulnerable, including its assets.

State Emergency Response Plan The SERP details the Victorian arrangements for the coordinated response to emergencies by all agencies with a role or responsibility in relation to emergency response. Chapter 5 of the SERP outlines the arrangements for protecting people before, during and after an emergency.

State Health Emergency Response Plan (Third Edition 2013) The SHERP is the framework for a coordinated health approach during emergencies. It recognises children as a vulnerable part of the community during an emergency event, and states that their level of vulnerability increases if the adults who support them are also affected by the emergency.

Community Resilience Framework for Emergency Management The Community Resilience Framework identifies those communities who may be more vulnerable in emergency events: According to the framework, there are seven broad community resilience characteristics: safe and well connected, inclusive and empowered, dynamic and diverse local economy, sustainable built and natural environment, culturally rich and vibrant, democratic and engaged, and reflective and aware. The inference is that where these community resilience characteristics are absent or weak, the community will be at higher-risk.

Vulnerable People in Emergencies Policy DHHS introduced the Vulnerable People in Emergencies Policy in 2011 in response to recommendations from the 2009 VBRC. This policy is highly relevant to the review and currently under review by DHHS.

94

Table 4

LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES Local Government Act 1989 The Local Government Act 1989 requires local councils to advocate the interests of their local community to other communities and governments, and plan for and provide services and facilities for the local community. It also requires them to discharge the duties, powers and functions of other Acts for their communities.

Municipal Emergency Management Plans MEMPs must be prepared by councils under section 20 of the EM Act (1986). These plans must identify the municipal resources available for use in emergency prevention, response and recovery, and how they will be utilised for these purposes.

Neighbourhood Safer Places and Community Fire Refuges Section 20 of the EM Act (1986) also requires councils that have part or all of their area in a CFA area (as defined under the Country Fire Authority Act 1958) to identify and designate neighbourhood safer places and community fire refuges. Neighbourhood Safer Places are locations of last resort and are intended to provide sanctuary for people from the immediate life threatening effects of a bushfire.

Vulnerable Persons Register and Vulnerable Facilities Register The VPRs are databases administered and maintained by local governments across the 64 municipal councils whose boundaries are within or partly within the CFA boundary.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

Appendix 3: Services provided under the DHHS Emergency Preparedness Policy for Clients and Services Table 5: Services provided under the DHHS Emergency Preparedness Policy for Clients and Services

SECTOR

SERVICE TYPE

Disability

All host family arrangements (including Family Options) Day services Disability supported accommodation Community-based respite Facility-based respite Residential institutions

Health

Community-based and residential drug and alcohol services Community health programs Facility-based and in-home subacute services Hospitals and health service facility-based acute care

Mental health

Community-managed services (formerly psychiatric disability rehabilitation and support services) Residential services

Out-of-home care

Foster care Kinship care Lead tenant Residential care

Public and community housing

Community housing Crisis accommodation and homelessness services Public housing Transitional housing

Sport and recreation

State-owned residential camps State-owned sport and recreation facilities

95

96

References [1]

Department of Health and Human Services, "Hoarding and squalor - A practical resource for service providers," State of Victoria, 2013.

[2]

Whittaker, J, Handmer, J, & Mercer, D. (2012). "Vulnerability to bushfires in rural Australia: A case study from East Gippsland, Victoria," Journal of Rural Studies, vol.

28, 161-173.

[3]

Parliament of Victoria, "2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Volumes 1 - 4)," State of Victoria, 2010.

[4]

Parliament of Victoria, "2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (Final Report)," State of Victoria, 2010.

[5]

Dow, K. (1992). "Exploring differences in our common future(s): The meaning of vulnerability to global environmental change," Geoforum, vol. 23, 417-436.

[6]

Department of Health and Human Services, "Vulnerable people in emergencies policy," State of Victoria, 2018.

[7]

Emergency Management Victoria, "EMV's Strategic Plan 2020," State of Victoria, 2017.

[8]

Emergency Management Victoria, "Resilient Recovery Discussion Paper," State of Victoria, 2017.

[9]

Manyena, B, O'Brien, G, O'Keefe, P, & Rose, J. (2011). "Disaster resilience: A bounce back or bounce forward ability?," Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, vol. 16, 417-424.

[10]

Tierney, K, The Social Roots of Risk: Producing Disasters, Promoting Resilience: Stanford University Press, 2014.

[11]

Council of Australian Governments. (2011). National strategy for disaster resilience.

[12]

Hayward, B. (2013). "Rethinking resilience: Reflections on the earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, 2010 and 2011," Ecology and Society, vol. 18.

[13]

Vilcan, T. (2017). "Articulating resilience in practice: Chains of responsibilisation, failure points and political contestation," Resilience, vol. 5, 29-43.

[14]

Cimellaro, G, Reinhorn, A, & Bruneau, M. (2010). "Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience," Engineering Structures, vol. 32, 3639 – 3649.

[15]

Gallopin, G. (2006). "Linkages between vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity," Global Environmental Change, vol. 16, 293 – 303.

[16]

Klein, R, Nicholls, R, & Thomalla, F. (2003). "Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept?," Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, vol. 5, 35 – 45.

[17]

Cutter, S, Barnes, L, Berry, M, Burton, C, Evans, E, & Webb, J. (2008). "A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters," Global Environmental Change, vol. 18, 598 – 606.

[18]

Vogel, C, Moser, S, Kasperson, R, & Dabelko, G. (2007). "Linking vulnerability, adaptation and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships," Global Environmental Change, vol. 17, 349 – 364.

[19]

Keating, A, Campbell, K, Szoenyi, M, McQuistan, C, Nash, D, & Burer, M. (2017).

"Development and testing of a community flood resilience measurement tool," Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, vol. 17, 77.

[20]

Levine, S, "Assessing resilience: why quantification misses the point," Humanitarian Policy Group (ODI) 2014.

[21]

Syphard, A, Radeloff, V C, Keeley, J, Hawbaker, T, Clayton, M K, Stewart, S, et al.

(2007). "Human influence on California regimes," Ecological Applications, vol. 17, 1388 – 1402.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

97

[22]

Hawbaker, T, Radeloff, V C, Stewart, S, Hammer, R, Keuler, N, & Clayton, M K. (2013). "Human and biophysical influences on fire recurrence in the United States," Ecological Applications, vol. 23, 565 – 582.

[23]

Nairn, J & Fawcett, R, "Defining heat waves: Heat wave defined as a heat – impact event servicing all community and business sectors in Australia," The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Kent Town, South Australia 2013.

[24]

Department of Health and Human Services. (2017, October). Extreme heat and heatwaves ed.). Available: https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/environmentalhealth/climate-weather-and-public-health/heatwaves-and-extreme-heat

[25]

Emergency Management Victoria, "Extreme Heat Sub-Plan" in State Emergency Response Plan, State of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, 2017.

[26]

Hajat, S, Kovats, R S, & Lachowycz, K. (2007). "Heat-related and cold-related deaths in England and Wales: Who is at risk?," Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 64, 93-100.

[27]

Pincetl, S, Chester, M, & Eisenman, D. (2016). "Urban heat stress vulnerability in the US Southwest: The role of sociotechnical systems," Sustainability, vol. 8, 842.

[28]

Benzie, M, Harvey, A, Burningham, K, Hodgson, N, & Siddiqi, A, "Vulnerability to heatwaves and drought: Case studies of adaptation to climate change in South-West England," Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2011.

[29]

Wood, N J, Burton, C G, & Cutter, S L. (2010). "Community variations in social vulnerability to Cascadia-related tsunamis in the U.S. Pacific Northwest," Natural Hazards, vol. 52, 369-389.

[30]

Cutter, S L, Boruff, B J, & Shirley, W L. (2003). "Social vulnerability to environmental hazards," Social Science Quarterly, vol. 84, 242-261.

[31]

Kuhlicke, C, Scolobig, A, Tapsell, S, Steinfuhrer, A, & De Marchi, B. (2011).

"Contextualising social vulnerability: Findings from case studies across Europe," Natural Hazards, vol. 58, 789 – 810.

[32]

Granger, K. (2003). "Quantifying storm tide risk in Cairns," Natural Hazards, vol. 30, 165 – 185.

[33]

Hansen, A, Bi, P, Nitschke, M, Pisaniello, D, Newbury, J, & Kitson, A. (2011).

"Perceptions of heat-susceptibility in older persons: Barriers to adaptation," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 8, 4714.

[34]

Dickinson, K, Brenkert-Smith, H, Champ, P, & Flores, N. (2015). "Catching fire? Social interactions, beliefs, and wildfire risk mitigation behaviors," Society and Natural Resources, vol. 28, 807-824.

[35]

Collins, T W. (2005). "Households, forest, and fire hazard vulnerability in the American West: A case study of a California community," Environmental Hazards, vol. 6, 23 – 37.

[36]

Poudyal, N C, Johnson-Gaither, C, Goodrick, S, Bowker, J M, & Gan, J. (2012).

"Locating spatial variation in the association between wildland fire risk and social vulnerability across six southern states," Environmental Management, vol. 49, 623635.

[37]

Morrow, B H. (1999). "Identifying and mapping community vulnerability," Disasters, vol.

23, 1-18.

[38]

Gaither, C, Poudyal, N, Goodrick, S, Bowker, J, Malone, S, & Gan, J. (2011). "Wildland fire risk in social vulnerability in the south-eastern United States: An exploratory spatial data analysis approach," Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 13, 24 – 36.

[39]

Carroll, M, Cohn, P, Seesholtz, D, & Higgins, L. (2005). "Fire as a galvanizing and fragmenting influence on communities: The case of the Rodeo–Chediski fire," Society and Natural Resources, vol. 18, 301-320.

[40]

Adler, K F, Natural disasters as a catalyst for social capital: A study of the 500 year flood in cedar rapids. Iowa, USA: The University Press of America, 2014.

98

[41]

Nakagawa, Y S, R. (2004). "Social capital: A missing link to disaster recovery," International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, vol. 22, 5 – 34.

[42]

Attorney-General's Department, "Keeping Our Mob Safe," Commonwealth of Australia, 2007.

[43]

Lin, B B & Morefield, P E. (2011). "The vulnerability cube: A multi-dimensional framework for assessing relative vulnerability," Environmental Management, vol. 48, 631-643.

[44]

Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, "The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities - A guide for Victorian public sector workers", 2014.

[45]

Engage Victoria. Emergency Management Legislation Amendment (Planning) Bill 2017 ed.). Available: https://engage.vic.gov.au/emergency-management-legislationamendment-planning-bill-2016

[46]

"Victoria's Critical Infrastructure All Sectors Resilience Report," State of Victoria, 2016.

[47]

Emergency Management Victoria, "Community Resilience Framework For Emergency Management," State of Victoria, 2017.

[48]

Frohlich, K L & Potvin, L. (2008). "Transcending the Known in Public Health Practice," Government, Politics and Law, vol. 98, 216 - 221.

[49]

"State Crisis and Resilience Council Agenda Paper - Meeting No. 23 " State of Victoria, 2014.

[50]

Emergency Management Victoria, "Victorian Emergency Management Strategic Action Plan: Update # 2, 2017 – 2020," State of Victoria, 2017.

[51]

Peri Urban Group of Rural Councils. History. Available: http://pugrc.vic.gov.au/aboutus/history/

[52]

Regional Australia Institute, "Talking Point: The Foundations of Regional Australia," 2014.

[53]

Metropolitan Fire Brigade, "Community Care Sector Newsletter," State of Victoria, 2018.

[54]

Country Fire Authority, "Community Care Newsletter Issue 1 " State of Victoria, 2018.

[55]

Country Fire Authority, "Connections matter - engaging disadvantaged communities & people - Draft V1.2," State of Victoria.

[56]

Country Fire Authority, "CFA Community Engagement Framework," State of Victoria.

[57]

Country Fire Authority, "Property Advice Visit Service (PAVS) Business Process Definition," State of Victoria, 2015.

[58]

Country Fire Authority, "Residential Fire Safety Mapping Tool Presentation," State of Victoria, 2018.

[59]

Country Fire Authority, "Letter - Collaboration between Country Fire Authority and Neighbourhood Houses Victoria," State of Victoria, 2018.

[60]

Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, "Councils and emergencies consultation report," State of Victoria, 2017.

[61]

Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, "Councils and emergencies position paper," State of Victoria, 2017.

[62]

Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, "Safer together," State of Victoria, 2015.

[63]

Emergency Management Victoria; Country Fire Authority and Forest Fire Management Victoria, "Landscape Context Workshop," State of Victoria, 2018.

[64]

Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, "Estimating Peak Population," State of Victoria, 2015.

[65]

Country Fire Authority, "Safer Together Presentation," State of Victoria, 2018.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

99

[66]

Emergency Management Victoria, Country Fire Authority, & Forest Fire Management Victoria, "Strategic Bushfire Management Planning Risk Assessment Tables," State of Victoria.

[67]

Emergency Management Victoria, Country Fire Authority, & Forest Fire Management Victoria, "Strategic Bushfire Management Planning Process - Technical Methods Reference Document," State of Victoria, 2018.

[68]

Rhodes, A, "Preliminary Review Community Based Bushfire Management Initiative," 2017.

[69]

Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, "Community based bushfire management - Guidance Package 2018," State of Victoria.

[70]

Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, "Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy," State of Victoria, 2016.

[71]

Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, "Corangamite Regional Floodplain Management Strategy," State of Victoria, 2018.

[72]

Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, "Annual Report 2017," State of Victoria, 2017.

[73]

Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, "Annual Report 2015-16 " State of Victoria, 2016.

[74]

Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, "Bushfires and Knowledge Forest Fire and Regions Groups, Science Catalogue 2017-18," State of Victoria, 2017.

[75]

Williams, K, Ford, R, & Rawluk, A, "Strategies and tools for incorporating values of the Victorian public in strategic bushfire risk decision making," Melbourne, Australia 2017.

[76]

Department of Education and Training, "Submission Proposal to Security and Emergency Management Committee," State of Victoria.

[77]

"Guidelines for Bushfire Preparedness - Registered Schools," State of Victoria, 2017.

[78]

Country Fire Authority, "Case Study: Enhanced Community Engagement," State of Victoria, 2018.

[79]

Country Fire Authority, "Case Study: Enhanced Community Engagement CFA/DET Engagement with Families at High Bushfire Risk Schools," State of Victoria.

[80]

Department of Education and Training, "Student Transport, Delivery of reform initiatives," State of Victoria, 2018.

[81]

Department of Health and Human Services, "Vulnerable people in emergencies Guideline 1 - Planning and screening," State of Victoria, 2015.

[82]

Department of Health and Human Services, "Vulnerable people in emergencies Guideline 2 - Vulnerable Persons Registers," State of Victoria, 2015.

[83]

Department of Health and Human Services, "Vulnerable Persons Registers - Getting started quick guide for funded agencies and municipal councils," State of Victoria, 2015.

[84]

Department of Health and Human Services, "Emergency preparedness policy for clients and services," State of Victoria, 2016.

[85]

Department of Health and Human Services, "Report of the Review of Hospital Safety and Quality Assurance in Victoria," State of Victoria, 2016.

[86]

Department of Health and Human Services, "State Health Emergency Response Plan: Victorian pre-hospital and hospital response plan for emergency incidents," State of Victoria, 2013.

[87]

Department of Health and Human Services, "Heat Health Plan for Victoria," State of Victoria, 2015.

[88]

Department of Health and Human Services, "Responding to people who are sleeping rough in extreme weather," State of Victoria, 2017.

100

[89]

Department of Health and Human Services, "Discussion paper - hoarding and squalor," State of Victoria, 2012.

[90]

Victoria State Emergency Service, "Community Emergency Risk Assessment Findings Report 2016-2017," State of Victoria, 2017.

[91]

Metropolitan Fire Brigade, "Annual report 2014-2015," State of Victoria, 2015.

[92]

Metropolitan Fire Brigade, "Hoarding notification system pack," State of Victoria, 2018.

[93]

Metropolitan Fire Brigade, "Form: Hoarding property notification," State of Victoria, 2018.

[94]

Metropolitan Fire Brigade, "Form: Discontinuation of hoarding notification," State of Victoria, 2018.

[95]

Metropolitan Fire Brigade, "Residential Risk Referrals," State of Victoria, 2017.

[96]

Metropolitan Fire Brigade, "A Review of Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB) Residential Risk Referral Process," State of Victoria, 2016.

[97]

Victoria State Emergency Service, "VICSES Community Resilience Strategy," State of Victoria, 2016.

[98]

Department of Premier and Cabinet, "Strategic Framework to Strengthen Victoria’s Social Cohesion and the Resilience of its Communities," State of Victoria, 2015.

[99]

Victoria State Emergency Service, "Service Delivery Strategy 2015 - 2025, Final Report " 2018.

[100]

Victoria State Emergency Service, "Fact Sheet - Local Knowledge," State of Victoria.

[101]

Victoria State Emergency Service, "Interview transcripts," 2018.

[102]

Victoria State Emergency Service, "Community Emergency Risk Assessment Workbook," State of Victoria, 2014.

[103]

Wyndham City Council, "Interview transcripts," 2018.

[104]

Victoria State Emergency Service, "Annual Report 2016-2017," State of Victoria, 2017.

[105]

Emergency Management Victoria, "Joint Standard Operating Procedure J03.12," State of Victoria, 2016.

[106]

Victoria Police, "Interview transcripts," 2018.

[107]

Emergency Management Victoria, "State Emergency Response Plan electricity and gas supply disruption Sub-Plan", Emergency Management Victoria: State of Victoria, 2016.

[108]

Australian Red Cross, "Emergency relief handbook," 2013.

[109]

Australian Red Cross, "Emergency relief handbook: A planning guide 2013," 2013.

[110]

Emergency Management Victoria, "A Modern Emergency Management System for Victoria," State of Victoria, 2015.

[111]

Emergency Management Victoria, "The Emergency Management Diversity and Inclusion Framework," State of Victoria, 2016.

[112]

Emergency Management Victoria, "Resilient Recovery: Discussion Paper," State of Victoria, 2017.

[113]

"Victorian health management plan for pandemic influenza," State of Victoria, 2014.

[114]

Emergency Management Victoria, "Extreme Heat Sub-Plan": State of Victoria, 2014.

[115]

Emergency Management Victoria, "State Public Transport Disruption Sub-Plan": State of Victoria, 2016.

[116]

Emergency Management Victoria, "State Bushfire Plan": State of Victoria, 2014.

[117]

Emergency Management Victoria, "State Maritime Emergencies (non-search and rescue) Plan": State of Victoria, 2016.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

101

[118]

Emergency Management Victoria, "Victorian Preparedness Framework," State of Victoria, 2017.

[119]

Emergency Management Victoria, "Victorian Emergency Management Capability Blueprint 2015 – 2025," State of Victoria.

[120]

Emergency Management Victoria, "Victorian Preparedness Goal - Emergency Management Sector Core Capabilities," State of Victoria, 2016.

[121]

Australian Red Cross, "Beyond the Blanket: The role of not-for-profits and non traditional stakeholders in emergency management - 2nd National Disaster Resilience Roundtable Report," 2014.

[122]

Victorian Council of Social Service, "Annual Report 2016-17," Melbourne, Australia 2017.

[123]

Australian Red Cross, "Code of Conduct," 2011.

[124]

Emergency Management Victoria, "State Emergency Relief and Recovery Plan (Part 4)," Melbourne, Australia, 2015.

[125]

Australian Red Cross, "Preferred Sheltering Practices for Emergency Sheltering in Australia," 2015.

[126]

Victorian Council of Churches, "Interview transcripts", 2018.

[127]

Commissioner for Privacy and Data Protection, "Information sheet: Emergencies and privacy" vol. 0.7, 2016.

[128]

Deloitte Access Economics, "Building an open platform for natural disaster resilience decisions," Sydney Australia, 2014.

[129]

Cutter, S L, Mitchell, J T, & Scott, M S. (2000). "Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: A case study of georgetown county, South Carolina," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 90, 713-737.

[130]

Emergency Management Victoria, "Community Based Emergency Management (Overview)," Melbourne Australia, 2016.

[131]

Moret, W, "Vulnerability assessment methodologies: A review of the literature," United States Agency for International Aid, Washington DC, 2014.

[132]

Department of Justice and Regulation. (2017, 11 /11/2017). Safer Communities/Emergencies. 1. Available: http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/safer+communities/emergencies/

[133]

Emergency Management Victoria, Department of Justice and Regulation, "Community Resilience Framework for Emergency Management," Victorian Government, 2017.

[134]

Birkmann, J, Cardona, O D, Carreño, M L, Barbat, A H, Pelling, M, Schneiderbauer, S, et al. (2013). "Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: The MOVE framework," Natural Hazards, vol. 67, 193-211.

[135]

Birkmann, J, Cardona, O D, Carreño, M L, Barbat, A H, Pelling, M, Schneiderbauer, S, et al., "Theoretical and Conceptual Framework for the Assessment of Vulnerability to Natural Hazards and Climate Change in Europe: The MOVE Framework," in Assessment of Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: A European Perspective, J Birkmann, S. Kienburger, and D.E. Alexander, Ed., 1 ed, 2014, pp. 1-19.

[136]

Cutter, S L, Boruff, B J, & Lynn Shirley, W, "Social vulnerability to environmental hazards," in Hazards, Vulnerability and Environmental Justice, ed, 2012, pp. 115-131.

[137]

Cutter, S L&Finch, C. (2008). "Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, 2301-2306.

[138]

Enarson, E, "Identifying and addressing social vulnerabilities," in Emergency management: Principles and practice for local government, W Waugh & K Tierney, Eds., 1 ed Washington, DC.: ICMA Press, 2007, pp. 257-278.

[139]

Gaillard, J & Mercer, J. (2013). "From knowledge to action: Bridging gaps in disaster risk reduction," Progress in human geography, vol. 37, 93-114.

102

[140]

Wisner, B, Blaikie, P, Cannon, T, & Davis, I, At risk: Natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters, 2nd ed. London, England: Routledge, 2004.

[141]

Hai, V M, Smyth, I, & Coles, A, "Building gender into vulnerability analysis; an example using the 'Crunch' model," in The Routledge Handbook of Gender and Development, 1 ed, 2015, p. 547.

[142]

Department of Police Fire and Emergency Management, "Tasmanian Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines - TERAG 2017," State of Tasmania, 2017.

[143]

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, "Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: 2015-2030," United Nations, Geneva Switzerland, 2015.

[144]

Zhou, H, Wang, J, & Wan, J. (2010). "Resilience to natural hazards: A geographic perspective," Natural Hazards, vol. 53, 21 – 41.

[145]

Department of Health and Human Services, "Vulnerable People in Emergencies," State of Victoria, 2015.

Review of emergency management for high-risk Victorian communities

<< INSIDE BACK COVER >>

103