Risk & Resilience Practice

Building resilience:
The history and future of
US crisis management
The crisis management community has made great progress on
building resilience in the past two decades, but much work remains to
prepare for a future of more frequent and damaging disasters.

by Tony D’Emidio, Zoe Fox, Jon Spaner, and Ophelia Usher

© Michael Dunning/Getty Images

August 2022
 Two decades have passed since the tragic events of
9/11 and the subsequent implementation of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002. This landmark
legislation spurred the largest reorganization of
the US federal government since the National
Security Act of 1947, uniting the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) with 21 other
organizations under the newly created Department
of Homeland Security (DHS).1
Since 9/11, the crisis management community has
made great strides in addressing the negative
impacts of disasters on American lives and
livelihoods. Congressional appropriations for
disaster response and recovery have increased to
historic levels, with FEMA allocating $45 billion
between 2017 and 2020 to disaster relief and
financial aid.2 New approaches to recovery and
mitigation have emerged, including the development
of the National Response Framework and the
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
(BRIC) grant program. Federal and state, local, tribal,
and territorial (SLTT) agencies are more integrated
and coordinate more effectively. Indeed, the past
two decades have seen significant progress. Yet
new challenges are emerging, and the crisis
management community will need to work hard to
overcome them over the next 20 years.
In this article, we acknowledge the significant
progress made by the crisis management
community since the signing of the Homeland
Security Act and review the data suggesting that the
We explore five questions that the crisis
management community can consider
to ensure the security, resilience, and
prosperity of communities in the future.
1
Public Law 107–206, US Congress, November 25, 2002; The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, November 2010.
2
Andrew Hurst, “Which states depend the most on FEMA’s aid?,” ValuePenguin, updated June 18, 2021.
3
National incident management system, US Department of Homeland Security, December 2008.
2 Building resilience: The history and future of US crisis management
next two decades may bring more frequent and
worse disasters affecting more people. We then
explore five questions that the community can
consider to ensure the security, resilience, and
prosperity of communities in the future.
Over the past 20 years, the US
disaster management community
has made significant strides
In the two decades since the passage of the
Homeland Security Act, the US crisis management
community has made progress in helping people
before, during, and after disasters (see sidebar, “The
stages of disaster management”). It is important to
acknowledge the many advancements of the past
several years, including improved disaster
management structures and higher levels of funding.
DHS has developed and implemented national
response structures that have improved and
streamlined how local, regional, and national disaster
responders serve communities. For instance, it
launched the National Incident Management System
(NIMS) in 2004 as a preparedness and response
management model designed to standardize and
unify response operations.3 Similarly, FEMA was
instrumental in the creation of the National Response
Framework (NRF), which articulated a set of
overarching emergency principles to assist in
coordinating multiagency and multijurisdictional
responses to disasters.
 FEMA and the federal government have also The stages of disaster management
significantly expanded resources for disaster relief
and preparedness. FEMA’s public assistance
Disaster management functions are often
program, for instance, was 23 percent larger during
grouped into four overlapping phases1:
2010–19 than during the previous decade (2000–
09).4 Between 2017 and 2020, FEMA allocated
— Mitigation. These are actions taken to
$45 billion in disaster relief and financial aid to
prevent or reduce the consequences
communities across the country, of which about
of disasters.
80 percent had been spent by June 2021.5 Additionally,
since 2002, FEMA has provided more than
— Preparedness. This is planning
$52 billion in grants to support state and local
and training implemented for
preparedness investments.6
disaster events that cannot be entirely
mitigated.
However, FEMA is not the only key player in crisis
management at the federal level. According to a report — Response. This means assisting
from the Pew Charitable Trusts, FEMA’s Disaster Relief affected populations in the immediate
Fund, a key funding source for disaster response and aftermath of a disaster.
recovery, represented 44 percent of federal disaster
funds from 2005 to 2014. The remaining 56 percent — Recovery. These are restoration efforts,
was drawn from the budgets of 17 major federal typically following a disaster.
departments and agencies, including the Department
of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the Department of Defense 1
Definitions adopted are based on “Glossary of terms,”
(DOD), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and FEMA, accessed July 7, 2022.

the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS). Other agencies include the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Small Business
Administration (SBA).7
These new structures and investments illustrate
the US government’s progress in responding to
disasters over the past two decades.
The next two decades will likely
witness more frequent and worse
disasters affecting more people
The increased spending on disaster relief and
preparedness is driven, in part, by a greater
awareness of the importance of disaster
management since 9/11. But another driver has
been the increasing frequency and severity of
disasters, as well as increased exposure of
individuals and infrastructure to major risks.
Research suggests that the number of weather-
and climate-related disasters, such as hurricanes,
flooding, and wildfires, is on the rise. In 2021 alone,
in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United
States endured Hurricane Ida, a catastrophic heat
wave in the Pacific Northwest, and an extended
forest fire season in California. Indeed, billion-dollar
weather and climate disasters in the United States
increased from two to three per year in the early
1980s to 22 events in 2020. In fact, 2020 broke
previous records from 2011 and 2017—but 2020 was
not an outlier.8 The average number of billion-dollar

4
“ OpenFEMA dataset: Public assistance funded project details – v1,” FEMA, updated July 17, 2022; Colin Foard, “How states can manage the
challenges of paying for natural disasters,” Pew Charitable Trusts, September 16, 2020.
5
“Which states depend,” updated June 18, 2021.
6
Federal Emergency Management Agency budget overview, Department of Homeland Security, 2021.
7
Colin Foard, “Federal disaster assistance goes beyond FEMA,” Pew Charitable Trusts, September 29, 2017.
8
“Billion-dollar weather and climate disasters” are defined as disasters due to weather or climate with overall inflation-adjusted damages
or costs reaching or exceeding $1 billion. For more, see “Billion-dollar weather and climate disasters,” National Centers for Environmental
Information, accessed July 7, 2022; see also Adam B. Smith, “2020 U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in historical context,”
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), January 8, 2021.

Building resilience: The history and future of US crisis management 3

 events over the past five years is roughly 16 per year,
with each costing an average of $120 billion.
Similarly, disasters on average have become
more severe. According to data collected by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
accumulated cyclone energy (ACE), a proxy for
hurricane activity, has risen noticeably since the
1950s. And eight of the ten most active years for
ACE have occurred since the mid-1990s.9
The same trend can be seen with wildfires.
According to data reported by the National
Interagency Coordination Center, an average of
70,072 wildfires have burned an average of 7 million
acres of territory a year since 2000. This figure is
more than double the average annual acreage
burned in the 1990s (3.3 million acres).10
At the same time, a rising number of Americans are
exposed to disaster harms, exacerbating the impact
of these trends. The real estate firm Redfin found
that the population of the 50 US counties most
prone to heat, drought, fire, floods, and storms grew
from 2016 to 2020, while the 50 counties with the
lowest risk saw populations decline.11 Additionally,
maps from climate data analysts at First Street
Foundation show that 70 percent more buildings in
the United States are vulnerable to flood risk than
previously thought.12 And without question, lower-
income communities are at greater risk during
disasters.13 Moreover, they receive disproportionately
less relief funding than other communities.
Risks from climate- and weather-related disasters
are also amplified by the state of the nation’s
infrastructure. The population of the United States
has more than doubled since the 1960s, when most
of the country’s major infrastructure was designed,
and much of this infrastructure is now reaching the
end of its expected lifetime.14 According to the World
Economic Forum, the United States ranked 13th
globally for infrastructure quality in 2019, down from
fifth in 2002.15
Chronic underinvestment contributes to the country’s
infrastructure challenges. In its 2021 “report card”
on American infrastructure, the American Society
of Civil Engineers estimated that the United States
faces an infrastructure investment gap of nearly
$2.6 trillion this decade that, if unaddressed, could
cost $10 trillion in lost GDP by 2039.16
Gaps in infrastructure spending can have serious
ramifications for disaster management. As a
National Academy study explains, “If a community
has weakened infrastructure, like a human body
with a compromised immune system, it will not
withstand trauma as well as one in good health.”17
The disaster community can think about how
mitigation and preparedness can strengthen
national infrastructure so that communities can
better respond to the trauma of disasters.
The disaster management community
can answer five questions to help prepare
communities for future disasters
The United States experienced 230 events
presidentially recognized as emergencies or
disasters in 2020, surpassing the previous high of
128 declarations in 2011. And the country will likely
face more frequent and worse disasters over the
next 20 years than it faced in the past 20 years.
To continue to protect people’s lives and livelihoods,
the crisis management community could reevaluate
the roles and responsibilities of major stakeholders,
including federal and SLTT organizations, as well as
communities, individuals, and private-sector

9
“Climate change indicators: Tropical cyclone activity,” US Environmental Protection Agency, updated April 2021.
10
“Wildfire statistics,” Congressional Research Service, updated June 1, 2022.
11
Lily Katz and Sebastian Sandoval-Olascoaga, “More people are moving in than out of areas facing high risk from climate change,” Redfin News,
updated September 8, 2021.
12
“Flood Factor,” Risk Factor, accessed July 18, 2022.
13
G
 reater impact: How disasters affect people of low socioeconomic status, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) and Disaster Technical Assistance Center (DTAC), July 2017.
14
James McBride and Anshu Siripurapu, “The state of U.S. infrastructure,” Council on Foreign Relations, updated November 8, 2021.
15
The global competitiveness report 2019, Country Profile: United States (p. 582), World Economic Forum, 2019.
16
2021 report card for America’s infrastructure, American Society of Civil Engineers, December 2020.
17
Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative, illustrated edition, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2012.

4 Building resilience: The history and future of US crisis management

 institutions. The community can also consider
how best to ensure that all peoples’ lives and
livelihoods are better protected and preserved
with available resources.
In light of these considerations, the crisis manage-
ment community can collectively answer
five questions to help ensure success over the
next two decades.
Question 1: How can federal and SLTT
agencies coordinate and collaborate to spur
successful outcomes?
Disaster management must succeed across a
complex stakeholder environment, with some of
the most engaged and influential responders
being the federal government and state and local
agencies. In the United States, government disaster
response is coordinated across local, state, and
federal agencies through NIMS. Once a federal
emergency has been declared, FEMA normally
becomes the lead agency coordinating the
response, with HUD, the SBA, and numerous other
stakeholder agencies also playing key roles,
including ensuring equity during long-term recovery.
The consequences of poor coordination can be
serious. FEMA cited lack of coordination as a major
failing following Hurricane Sandy in 2012.18 The
result was widespread confusion.
Over the next two decades, the community can
improve coordination of crisis management in a few
primary ways.
Clarifying roles can improve coordination and
collaboration across federal, state, and local
agencies. In the midst of disaster recovery and
response, it can be difficult to determine which
entity owns a particular task and how best to liaise
with other stakeholders. Crisis managers at all levels
could take the lead in engaging with policy makers
to clarify roles and responsibilities across levels to
meet future demands; they could also lead in
adjusting existing coordination models where
appropriate to ensure that communities are better
served during and after disasters.
18
Hurricane Sandy FEMA after-action report, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), July 1, 2013.
19
Disaster recovery: Recent disasters highlight progress and challenges, US Government Accountability Office, October 22, 2019.
Building resilience: The history and future of US crisis management
Another area in which improved coordination could
occur is long-term recovery efforts. The Government
Accountability Office has targeted long-term
recovery as an area in which coordination challenges
are particularly acute, largely due to complex
documentation requirements that slow down local
partners’ efforts.19 Streamlining requirements and
developing better frameworks for long-term recovery
coordination could prove a particularly fruitful area for
improving efficacy over the next two decades.
Funding uncertainty is another major variable and
friction point. For example, funding from HUD’s
disaster recovery block grants is contingent on ad
hoc congressional appropriations. As a result, crisis
managers have limited lead times or visibility into
budgets to plan and coordinate their efforts. Policy
makers could consider more stable funding models
here and elsewhere to facilitate better strategic
planning and coordination among partners.
Finally, with the rise of big data and greater
technological proficiency throughout the disaster
management community, there could be new ways
to leverage technology to assist in response
coordination and collaboration. For instance,
technology could be used to identify people who are
currently missing opportunities for assistance or
who are least prepared for a disaster within a
community. Such information could help target
emergency response and assist in matching
resources to those in need.
Question 2: What role could the private sector
play in mitigation, preparedness, response,
and recovery?
Too often, crisis management is seen as a public-
sector endeavor, usually led by FEMA with
coordination from state and local agencies and first
responders. However, the private sector can serve
an important role across all aspects of disaster
management, from mitigation and preparedness to
response and recovery.
About 40 percent of all US fixed assets are held by
the private sector, according to the Bureau of
Economic Analysis.20 And according to data from
5
 the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of January 2022,
the private sector employs more than 129 million
Americans, representing about 80 percent of the US
labor force.21 Moreover, the private sector can play a
pivotal role in formulating disaster-related incentive
structures—especially through insurance markets—
that influence behaviors and approaches related to
risk. Absent engagement from the private sector,
the United States will not reach its full potential in
terms of resilience.
Indeed, in the United States, successful approaches
to preparedness, recovery, and response have often
involved the private sector, and several companies
have made significant efforts to highlight the
importance of disaster management and assist in
recovery efforts. The home improvement retailer
Home Depot, for instance, partners with FEMA to
offer preparedness workshops, supply checklists,
and guides to help people prepare their properties
for extreme weather, while Walmart uses its website
to promote preparedness among employees and to
provide tips on preparedness and other disaster
information.22 Numerous companies have provided
significant funding to support disaster relief and
recovery. For example, Bank of the West, eBay
Foundation, and General Motors are among the
major donors to the Center for Disaster Philanthropy’s
recovery fund.23 And the private sector has increased
its contributions to disaster relief in recent years:
the share of disaster relief contributions from the
500 largest US companies increased from less than
20 percent in 1990 to more than 95 percent in 2014.24
However, the private sector could play an even
bigger role in disaster management. One action the
sector could take is to provide incentives for people
to live in areas less exposed to risk. In many cases,
resilience investments are more cost-effective than
disaster relief and recovery investments. For
instance, companies could harness evidence-based
research to develop more sophisticated premium
models to help contain risk and improve resilience,
ultimately saving time and resources for insurers
and homeowners. The National Flood Insurance
Program, for example, offers insurance discounts of
up to 45 percent based on the Community Rating
System—a voluntary incentives program that
encourages communities to exceed the minimum
floodplain management requirements.25 Private
insurers could replicate this model. Similarly, the
California Earthquake Authority offers premium
discounts of up to 25 percent for seismic retrofits to
support mitigation efforts.26
Another way that private-sector institutions can
support crisis management and long-term recovery is
by using their platforms to communicate to the public
about the importance of preparing for, responding to,
and recovering from disasters. The private sector
could encourage individuals to undertake resilience
efforts in their local communities and to assist in
disaster response and recovery.
Question 3: How can the community
encourage more individuals to assist with
crisis management?
Crisis management is not only for the public and
private sectors. Individuals can play an active role in
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. To
date, much of the community’s focus at the individual
level has been on response. But the disaster
management community has the potential to play a
more active role in helping individuals with
preparedness, which is arguably where they could
play the largest role. Indeed, individuals sometimes
make disasters worse through actions including
failing to invest in resilience for homes in at-risk areas,
failing to clear brush on properties in areas prone
to wildfires, or neglecting to develop reasonable
preparedness plans for natural disasters.

20
 aken as a percentage of private nonresidential fixed assets out of total fixed assets for 2020. For more, see “National income and product
T
accounts,” US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, updated August 19, 2021.
21
“Employment, hours, and earnings from the Current Employment Statistics Survey,” US Bureau of Labor Statistics, as reported by FRED
Economic Data, accessed July 8, 2022.
22
Anita Chandra, Shaela Moen, and Clarissa Sellers, What role does the private sector have in supporting disaster recovery, and what challenges
does it face in doing so?, RAND Corporation, 2016.
23
“CDP disaster recovery fund,” Center for Disaster Philanthropy, accessed July 8, 2022.
24
“Giving after disasters,” Harvard Business Review, January 2019, Volume 97, Number 1.
25
National Flood Insurance Program: The current rating structure and risk rating 2.0, Congressional Research Service, updated April 4, 2022.
26
“Brace and bolt grants,” California Earthquake Authority, accessed July 8, 2022.

6 Building resilience: The history and future of US crisis management

 Over the next two decades, the disaster
management community could
encourage the public to assist with
crisis management by reviewing
the effectiveness of existing programs.
Over the next two decades, the disaster
management community could encourage the
public to assist with crisis management by reviewing
the effectiveness of existing programs. One current
program is FEMA’s Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT) program, which educates
volunteers about disaster preparedness. CERT
volunteers are often called upon to assist first
responders during emergencies. The crisis
management community could review CERT’s
effectiveness in order to identify best practices that
could be scaled throughout CERT (and in other similar
programs) to engage as much of the public as
possible during preparedness and response. Another
important program, FEMA’s Youth Preparedness
Council (YPC), created in 2012, could improve the
pipeline to critical disaster management occupations.
The crisis management community also could educate
the public about mitigation and preparedness and
provide incentives for investing in such efforts for their
properties and places of work. One existing model is
the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, which
requires all residential-property insurers in the state to
offer wind mitigation credits, thereby encouraging
individuals to invest in building features that reduce
damage due to wind. Policy makers and insurers could
develop similar programs to address different hazards,
and SLTT agencies could partner with corporations
and nonprofits to provide more information about how
homeowners and small businesses can improve their
mitigation and preparedness efforts—in addition to
why it matters.
27
Natural hazard mitigation saves: 2019 report, National Institute of Building Sciences, December 2019.
28
Title 42, Chapter 68: Disaster Relief, Section 5121, US Code, accessed July 8, 2022.
Building resilience: The history and future of US crisis management
Question 4: What is the right level and mix of
investments for crisis management?
Determining the right investment mix for crisis
management is essential—and difficult. In addition
to understanding the right level and mix of
investments needed to support response and
recovery, it is particularly important for the crisis
management community to understand what is
needed to improve resilience (that is, for mitigation,
prevention, and preparedness).
According to a 2019 report from the National Institute
of Building Sciences, every dollar invested by the
federal government in mitigation saves society $6 in
recovery costs.27 Despite this, resilience necessarily
competes with immediate spending needs such as
education and healthcare, as well as with urgent
response and recovery activities. Accordingly,
resilience investments are often difficult to prioritize,
especially since policy makers often see them as
expensive, short-term costs.
The Stafford Act (1988), which forms the key
legislative framework for American disaster
management through its system of presidential
disaster declarations, also limits resilience
investments.28 While the act references mitigation
measures as they relate to reducing losses from
disasters, it primarily focuses on reimbursements for
response activities.
To determine the appropriate mix of investment
across mitigation, prevention, preparedness,
7
 response, and recovery, disaster managers could
consider new frameworks and approaches—
especially in the mitigation space—for determining
the effectiveness of investments across crisis
management investment portfolios. FEMA’s
National Mitigation Investment Strategy represents
forward progress, but more could be done to make
the assessment of disaster management
investments both more quantitatively rigorous and
easier to communicate to policy makers.29
Looking ahead, crisis management practitioners
could think more creatively about developing new
and better ways to quantify and communicate the
value of crisis management investments. Resilience
return on investment (RROI), which was recently
championed by Resilience Shift,30 a partnership
between Lloyd’s Register and the Arup Group, is a
promising metric. Calculation of expected RROI for
various crisis management activities could be a
powerful tool for clarifying trade-offs and helping
prioritize disaster management investments. This
approach could help with not only immediate
budgetary considerations but also the development
of more widely applicable best practices that could
be syndicated and replicated by public-sector
agencies around the country at the federal, state,
and local levels. While it might be difficult to
calculate expected RROI on mitigation and
preparedness, even tentative or rough expected
RROIs could be useful to policy makers. And broad
use of an RROI methodology for assessing disaster
management investments might prompt
stakeholders to collect data that will help to refine
and improve RROI calculations over time.
Question 5: How could equitable recovery
be factored into conversations about crisis
management?
Communities of color are disproportionately
affected by natural disasters in part because they
29
National mitigation investment strategy, US Department of Homeland Security Mitigation Framework Leadership Group, August 2019.
30
Peter J. Hall et al., Resilience return on investment (RROI): Agenda setting scoping studies summary report, Resilience Shift, June 30, 2017.
31
C aroline Ratcliffe et al., Insult to injury: Natural disasters and residents’ financial health, Urban Institute Opportunity and Ownership Initiative,
April 2019.
32
“Natural disasters widen racial wealth gap,” ScienceDaily, August 20, 2018.
33
“FEMA defines equity in its mission of making programs more accessible,” Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), September 9,
2021.
34
“DHS announces changes to individual assistance policies to advance equity for disaster survivors,” US Department of Homeland Security,
September 2, 2021.
8 Building resilience: The history and future of US crisis management
have less access to response resources. Limited
resources, in turn, can inhibit long-term recovery.
Indeed, on average, people living in communities of
color experience a 31-point decline in their credit
scores following disaster events, compared
with a decline of four points among residents in
predominantly White communities, based on data
from 15 natural disasters between 2011 and 2014.31
In addition, Black and Latino households that
experience natural disasters lose $27,000 to
$29,000, on average, while White households gain
$126,000, based on wealth data from 3,500 families
between 1999 and 2013.32
The current administration has prioritized equity in
its policy making. In 2021, FEMA announced a new
definition of equity—“[t]he consistent and
systematic fair, just and impartial treatment of all
individuals”—and launched a portfolio of new equity
initiatives (including expanding assistance for
housing and disaster-caused disability).33 Going
forward, equity can be interwoven in every aspect of
crisis management, and the crisis management
community can identify the causes of inequity and
work diligently to eliminate them.
The causes of inequity in crisis management are
multifarious but include postdisaster documentation
requirements, postdisaster replacement policies,
and manual processes required at the local level to
secure funds. In recovery, for instance, an obstacle
for disadvantaged communities can be the
requirement for verification (such as titles to houses)
to receive relief aid, as detailed by FEMA in 2021.
FEMA has recently acted to accept a wider range of
verification documents to ensure equity.34 But in
light of this barrier, policy makers could also
consider additional ways of modifying verification
requirements in other contexts so that recovery
funds and assistance are allocated more equitably.
 The structure of recovery aid is another source of
inequitable outcomes. Typically, recovery aid
supports replacement costs for damaged or lost
property, but the inspectors sent to verify damage
may not be able confirm that damage was caused by
the disaster. For example, if a roof that was
damaged in a disaster was due to be replaced,
inspectors may cite lack of maintenance as the
cause of damage, and the applicant may not receive
help in replacing the roof.35 Policy makers could take
these factors into account when designing recovery
aid funding formulas in order to achieve more
equitable outcomes across communities.
Finally, funding distribution still relies heavily on
affected individuals to take action. A large number
of funds may become available to individuals
affected by presidential-declared disasters,
including FEMA’s Transitional Shelter Assistance
and Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
contingency funds; SBA’s Disaster Loan Assistance
and Community Development Block Grant Disaster
Recovery funds; the Department of Labor’s Disaster
Unemployment Assistance; and the Department of
Tony D’Emidio and Jon Spaner are partners in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office, where Zoe Fox is a consultant;
Ophelia Usher is an associate partner in the Stamford office.
The authors wish to thank Florinda Bartoli and Charles Drummond for their contributions to this article.
Copyright © 2022 McKinsey & Company. All rights reserved.
35
 ebecca Hersher and Ryan Kellman, “Why FEMA aid is unavailable to many who need it the most,” NPR, June 29, 2021.
R
36
Insult to injury, April 2019.
Building resilience: The history and future of US crisis management
Agriculture’s Disaster Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program.36 Navigating the different
requirements of each of these programs can be
challenging—especially as people juggle the effects
of the disaster. The crisis management community
could simplify the process for receiving funds from
this web of programs and, in particular, help low-
income and historically disadvantaged communities
access the funds they are entitled to.
The crisis management community has made a great
deal of progress since the implementation of the
Homeland Security Act. However, the work of crisis
management never ends, and there will be many
more challenges in the coming years.
The questions posed above could help the crisis
management community approach the future in a
more integrated and coherent way—and build on the
foundation established in the years since 9/11 to
create more secure, equitable, and resilient
communities across the United States.
9