We help organizations understand their exposure, prioritize resilience investments, and build strategies that are practical, actionable, and built to evolve. Our work spans the full risk landscape — climate and physical risk, operational vulnerability, infrastructure exposure, and long-horizon strategic uncertainty. Climate change is one of the most consequential risk domains we work in and anchors a significant share of our practice — but the same analytical framework applies wherever the stakes are high and the future is genuinely uncertain.
Discuss a resilience projectRisk and resilience planning is most valuable where the stakes are high, the data is complex, and decisions have consequences that stretch years or decades into the future.
Cities, counties, utilities, and planning departments managing infrastructure exposure, long-term capital planning, and emergency preparedness across multiple risk dimensions — climate, operational, and financial.
Organizations managing physical assets — real estate, transportation networks, utilities, water systems — that need to understand, quantify, and plan around risk exposure across their portfolio.
Businesses, nonprofits, and institutions making capital commitments, strategic plans, or investment decisions that span years or decades — where uncertainty needs to be structured and planned for, not ignored.
Risk is real but genuinely uncertain — in kind, magnitude, and timing. These are the gaps we help organizations close.
Organizations know risk matters but struggle to identify which specific hazards apply to their location, assets, or operations — and how to think about likelihood, magnitude, and timeframe.
Multiple resilience options are on the table but there's no framework for comparing them — cost, feasibility, community benefit, and risk reduction all need to be weighed simultaneously.
Federal, state, and private funding for resilience work is available but competitive and complex to navigate. Organizations need well-supported assessments and strategies to access it.
Technical risk assessments need to be translated clearly for elected officials, boards, community members, and partners who have different levels of technical background — without losing the nuance that makes them useful.
Deliverables are designed for use — in strategic plans, capital budgets, board presentations, grant applications, and stakeholder engagement.
Structured analysis of the hazards and vulnerabilities most relevant to your organization — with probability and severity estimates over relevant time horizons. Climate assessments draw on NOAA, FEMA, NASA, and peer-reviewed projections; operational and strategic assessments draw on your internal data and relevant external benchmarks.
Forward-looking scenario comparisons that explore how different risk trajectories affect your organization — helping you plan for a range of futures rather than a single point estimate.
A prioritized, actionable set of resilience strategies — with cost estimates, feasibility assessments, and sequencing recommendations — that leadership can act on and stakeholders can understand.
Help embedding risk and resilience considerations into your existing capital planning, budget cycles, and strategic planning processes — so resilience isn't a separate track but part of how you operate.
Risk and resilience planning is most effective when it's built with your organization — grounded in your specific context, constraints, and stakeholders.
We learn your geography, assets, organizational priorities, and stakeholder landscape before any analysis begins.
We synthesize available data, scientific projections, and local context into a clear risk picture across relevant hazards and timeframes.
We work with your team and stakeholders to develop resilience options — grounded in what's technically feasible, financially viable, and politically realistic.
We help communicate findings, support funding applications, and advise as strategies move from plan to action.
Real engagements — the problems and solutions are real, names and specific details are generalized.
Standard flood risk assessment relies heavily on FEMA flood zone designations and historical insurance claim data. But those inputs share a structural blind spot: properties outside mapped flood zones are systematically underinsured, which means when they flood, claims are rarely filed. The absence of claims gets misread as the absence of risk.
Fifty years of claim data showed certain areas as low-risk. No existing maps flagged them. But that record reflected insurance behavior — not what actually happened on the ground. The real signal was hiding in a different dataset entirely.
Rather than relying on insurance claims — which are only filed where insurance exists — we turned to FEMA individual assistance applications filed after storm events. Emergency aid requests don't require a flood insurance policy. They get filed by anyone who experienced damage, regardless of whether they were in a mapped flood zone or carried coverage.
That data told a fundamentally different story. Areas that had never generated meaningful insurance claims had in fact experienced flood damage — documented through aid applications that had simply never been connected to risk modeling. Cross-referencing aid application patterns against flood zone boundaries revealed a meaningful gap: communities with real, recurring flood exposure that neither the maps nor the claim data had ever surfaced.
From there the methodology extends in two directions. First, areas that share geographical and contextual characteristics with identified hidden-risk communities can be flagged as likely candidates before damage occurs. Second, as climate patterns shift the frequency and severity of infrequent events, the same framework can be applied prospectively to map where risk is likely to emerge next.
It depends on the risk type. For climate and physical risk, we draw on publicly available scientific datasets — NOAA, FEMA, NASA, state climate offices, and peer-reviewed projections. For operational and strategic risk assessments, we work with your internal data alongside relevant external benchmarks. We're transparent about sources and their limitations in every assessment we produce.
We use scenario-based analysis rather than point estimates precisely because risk projections carry inherent uncertainty. We help you plan for a range of futures — typically exploring lower-end and higher-end scenarios — so resilience decisions are robust across multiple possible trajectories, not just the most likely one.
Yes — and for climate and infrastructure risk work, this is often a primary goal. We structure assessments and resilience plans to meet federal funding program requirements (BRIC, HMGP, IRA, and others) and can assist with the technical sections of grant applications.
A focused assessment for a single risk type or organizational scope typically takes 6–10 weeks. A comprehensive multi-risk assessment with full resilience planning runs 3–6 months depending on scope and stakeholder engagement requirements.
Yes — most of our clients are starting from scratch. We've built our process to be accessible to organizations without dedicated risk, sustainability, or planning staff. We guide you through every step and explain our reasoning along the way.
Start with a 30-minute conversation. We'll ask about your organization, your assets, and what decisions you're trying to support — and help you see what a useful assessment looks like for your situation.
Book a Consultation