– Executive Summary –
In the initial chaos of a national-level crisis, who gets lifesaving federal resources first? The stakes are high, and the decisions can mean the difference between life and death. A robust volume of research explores managing crisis, logistical constraints during crisis, and decision-making frameworks and considerations. Yet, the United States lacks a clear “choice architecture” for prioritizing and adjudicating limited resources during catastrophic, complex disasters that impact multiple states.[1] Incidents such as Hurricane Katrina; Hurricane Sandy; Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria; the COVID-19 pandemic; and Hurricanes Helene and Milton have exposed gaps in coordination structures and technology that undermine the timely and effective distribution of lifesaving and life-sustaining assistance in the initial onset of a crisis. While significant progress has been made since Hurricane Katrina and the crises that followed (with the revision and implementation of the National Response Framework, National Incident Management System, National Qualification System and associated resource typing), there is still room for improvement to ready the nation for response in a resource constrained environment.[2]
Drawing inspiration from the U.S. military’s contested logistics discipline, this thesis addresses the question: How can the United States improve resource prioritization and adjudication during the initial response to a crisis? To answer this, the research employs a two-phase methodology. Phase one is a descriptive gap analysis examining existing policies, practices, and technologies to identify shortcomings in resource prioritization, focusing on who is responsible for resource adjudication decisions, what guides their decisions, and how resource prioritization and adjudication is conducted during national-level crises.
This thesis finds there are at least 32 current laws, regulations, and policies referencing federal resource prioritization and adjudication, but no single policy outlining which government positions and elected officials make national-level resource adjudication decisions during a crisis. Several crisis coordination practices, such as White House and National Security Council involvement, a national-level resource adjudication cell of data analysts, and area command across New York and New Jersey, are documented in COVID-19 and Hurricane Sandy after-action reports but notably absent from existing policy.[3] There is also a lack of consensus on how lifesaving and life-sustaining resources should be prioritized across multiple American communities that need help during a crisis. Several current technologies and equipment support decision-making and last mile delivery; however, further investment in artificial intelligence, unmanned aerial systems, and autonomous ATVs (4 x 4) can improve emergency management resource prioritization and broaden distribution strategies.
The second phase of the research uses a comparative analysis of an East Coast double-strike hurricane scenario as a foresight exercise to demonstrate current gaps and opportunities in resource prioritization and adjudication.[4] The fictional double-strike hurricane scenario(s), generated with ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, illustrate complex, multi-state responses requiring adjudication of similar needs across southeast Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Based on initial impacts, both geographic areas require lifesaving and life-sustaining federal assistance for urban search and rescue; hospital decompression; temporary emergency power; route clearance and repair to transportation networks; and food and water distribution. Scenario 2025 demonstrates current gaps in resource prioritization and adjudication while Scenario 2040 illustrates potential improvements and opportunities for investment. By envisioning the potential application of contested logistics approaches and updated policy in future emergency management response operations, this strategic foresight exercise examines how improvements and investments could transform crisis response in the United States.
Specifically, the thesis explores developing and maintaining an inventory or roster of available federal resources and strategic reserve to improve the limited availability of resources and ease resource adjudication and allocation decision-making during crisis.[5] Additionally, examination of pre-positioning; use of waivers; transportation networks and supply chain (redundancy and contingency planning); use of technology such as unmanned aerial systems, autonomous ATVs, and artificial intelligence; and investment in technical interoperability of information technology systems reveals opportunities to improve resource allocation and distribution strategies.[6]
National-level crises that require decision-makers to manage scarce resources are likely to increase in frequency and intensity, so the United States should strengthen existing choice architecture for resource prioritization and adjudication.[7] Updated policy on who makes resource prioritization decisions, consensus building on how resources should be prioritized across multiple American communities, and investment in technology and equipment for last-mile delivery and decision-support can improve national-level resource prioritization and adjudication during crisis in the United States. Similarly, further development of partnerships across different levels of American federalism can help organizations understand and narrow capability gaps that will likely require federal assistance during the next crisis.[8]
Equally critical is educating the American public on realistic expectations of federal response capabilities and capacity during the initial stages of a crisis. Fostering individual and community preparedness can reduce reliance on strained systems and demand for federal resources. Empowering communities with the tools and knowledge to sustain themselves in the early phases of a crisis can cultivate a more resilient, self-reliant American public.
[1] Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: The Final Edition (New York: Penguin Books, 2021), 122–23.
[2] Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Response Framework (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2019), https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/NRF_FINALApproved_2011028.pdf; Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Incident Management System (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2023), https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/nims; Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Incident Management System Incident Complexity Guide: Planning, Preparedness and Training (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2021), https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nims-incident-complexity-guide.pdf; Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Resource Typing Library Tool,” PrepToolkit, accessed November 16, 2024, https://rtlt.preptoolkit.fema.gov/Public.
[3] Olson Group, New York State COVID-19 After Action Report (Albany, NY: New York State Executive Chamber, 2024), https://www.olsongroupltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/NYS-COVID-19-After-Action-Report-06142024-FINAL.pdf; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Pandemic Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Initial Assessment Report (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2021); Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hurricane Sandy FEMA After-Action Report (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2023), https://irp.fas.org/agency/dhs/fema/afteract.pdf.
[4] J. Peter Scoblic, “Learning from the Future,” Harvard Business Review, July 1, 2020, https://hbr.org/2020/07/learning-from-the-future.
[5] Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Deployment Guide (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2019), 29–31; Reut Noham and Michal Tzur, “Designing Humanitarian Supply Chains by Incorporating Actual Post-Disaster Decisions,” European Journal of Operational Research 265, no. 3 (March 2018): 1067, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.08.042.
[6] U.S. Department of the Army, “Contested Deployments: Appendix C,” in Operations, FM 3-0 (Washington, DC: Department of the Army Headquarters, 2022), C-1 to C – 9, https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN36290-FM_3-0-000-WEB-2.pdf; U.S. Marine Corps, Installations and Logistics 2030 (Washington, DC: U.S. Marine Corps, 2023), https://www.marines.mil/Installations-and-Logistics/; U.S. Marine Corps, “Marine Corps Releases Installations and Logistics 2030” (Arlington, VA: U.S. Marine Corps, February 2023), https://www.marines.mil/News/Press-Releases/Press-Release-Display/Article/3307585/marine-corps-releases-installations-and-logistics-2030/; and Megan Gully, “Army Focuses on Contested Logistics – a Threat to Enemy,” U.S. Army, April 3, 2023, https://www.army.mil/article/265428/army_focuses_on_contested_logistics_a_threat_to_enemy.
[7] Robert Roller, “The Future of Emergency Management: Managing Scarcity,” DomPrep Journal 17 (October 2021): 12–15, https://usfa.bibliovation.com/app/work/255609; Allison R. Crimmins and Deepti Singh, “Focus on Compound Events,” Fifth National Climate Assessment (U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, November 14, 2023), https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/chapter/focus-on-1/; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Global Warming of 1.5°C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-Industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2022), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.
[8] Carrie Speranza and Dillon Taylor, “Disaster Diplomats: A New Weapon in Your Community’s Survival Arsenal,” Homeland Security Today, July 27, 2024, https://www.hstoday.us/featured/perspective-disaster-diplomats-a-new-weapon-in-your-communitys-survival-arsenal/; Roller, “The Future of Emergency Management,” 13; James Madison, “Federalist No. 45: The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered,” Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History, January 1788, https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-41-50.
