This study arrived at 12 key findings related to disaster preparedness and resilience, ranging from the nature of stakeholder relationships to the effectiveness of individual initiatives. Taken as a whole, the findings indicate a shift in the emergency management community. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, multiple levels of government within the United States focused on improving communication and interoperability both horizontally and vertically. Since then, the public and private sectors have begun to work together more closely to engage the whole community, reduce costs, improve efficiency, and promote planning and mitigation. This study puts forth several recommendations that encourage decisionmakers at all levels of government and within the private sector to continue the path toward accomplishing these goals and achieving overall resilience.
The first recommendation addresses the first two findings, which reveal the lack of standard, quantifiable readiness and performance metrics for state and local governments to identify gaps, assess needs, and analyze cross-jurisdictional capabilities for disaster preparedness and resilience. DHS should first identify and standardize impact measurements for all THIRAs and AARs, then develop accompanying targets and performance metrics for the core capabilities. To complete this task, DHS should consider involving knowledgeable stakeholders in each core capability area in the development and determination of metrics. Furthermore, DHS should make available more data and analysis of data from the assessments of different jurisdictions. Implementing these changes will strengthen the feedback loop, which represents a crucial part of governmental efforts to improve capabilities at each stage in the emergency management cycle.
The next set of recommendations addresses the importance of promoting hazard mitigation to improve the “withstand” element of resilience. This study found that, despite recent changes, mitigation efforts are still underrepresented in the distribution of grant funding. Pre-and post-disaster mitigation grants should receive a greater share of overall preparedness and response assistance funding. Moreover, the executive branch and Congress can still do more to promote and incentivize mitigation. A joint effort between both branches could include targeted changes to legislation or the alteration of regulations that reflect the successes of recent FEMA pi lot programs for the HMGP, dispute resolution, and/or public assistance alternative procedures. Government and the private sector may wish to examine other methods of mitigation promotion as well, such as low-interest loans and other better borrowing terms, especially to help more small businesses prepare for future disasters. Communities may also benefit from mitigation efforts that account for long-term health and sustainability impacts of disasters. In this case, joint public-private efforts to identify, plan, and implement long-term risk and vulnerability reduction strategies that account for all potential community impacts, such as HIAs, may prove important.
As another means of avoiding future disaster costs to taxpayers, Congress should continue to examine different ways to increase the amount of insured and reinsured assets in the United States. The development of a standard, all-inclusive method for measuring risk and the continued factoring of mitigation efforts into premium rates may help promote sustainable building and land use practices and potentially increase participation of private insurers in high-risk disaster markets, which could lower or prevent significant increase of rates over time. To further incentivize insuring, Congress should limit the availability of assistance to all uninsured infrastructure in communities in SFHAs. For man-made disasters, Congress could potentially reduce future costs to taxpayers by reexamining thresholds for private-sector liability.
Another way of reducing costs and addressing the “adapt” and “rapid response” elements of resilience involves increasing flexibility, efficiency, and management in disaster preparedness and response. The executive branch, Congress, and the private sector have already taken several steps to improve these specific areas, including waiving regulations, authorizing pilot programs, and developing PPPs. The following recommendations attempt to further enhance these initiatives.
For the waiver or suspension of federal statutes and regulations, executive branch agencies should develop a clear framework that includes general and incident-specific waivers, the need for a request, and any limitations or exceptions to inform all jurisdictions of the potential range of requests. At the state and local level, governments should explore available options for transferring risk to the federal government and prepare MOUs to improve flexibility in waiver and credentialing policies for essential response missions. Additionally, all executive branch agencies should explore methods to improve flexibility in establishing mission assignments.
The effects of recent catastrophes have led Congress to increase flexibility in the types and amounts of disaster assistance. Congress should continue this trend in order to further improve scalability of response and recovery assistance. Congressional efforts could also include exercising its oversight role to critically evaluate pilot programs and authorize those that improve management and efficiency. Additionally, Congress could improve the funding flexibility of SAMHSA to address mental health impacts for different disasters.
PPPs engaged at all levels of government help leverage the capabilities of the whole community to improve disaster preparedness and response. FEMA’s NBEOC can enhance its efforts by creating a national database that compiles information on all relevant state regulations and hosting a web portal for verified public and private entities to update and exchange information. State and local PPPs can increase participation and reduce trust and confidentiality issues by writing MOUs that detail responsibilities and guarantee protection and rotating representation from different businesses within an industry. Emergency management agencies should also work with the private sector to continue research and development efforts on exploiting crowdsourced data for better situational awareness.
Given the increasing frequency and magnitude of disasters and the mounting costs to taxpayers, the issue of disaster resilience warrants continued exploration. The purpose of this study was to provide information to decisionmakers in all areas of emergency management on ways to improve disaster resilience. These recommendations are based on research and not-for-attribution interviews with different stakeholders. Ultimately, addressing this issue will require efforts not from just one group but from executive branch, legislative branch, and private-sector partners to engage the whole community and better withstand, adapt, and rapidly respond to disasters.