The Best of Intentions: Applying Lessons Learned from Haiti Earthquake Relief to COVID-19
By Dennis Wajda and Dhvani Badwaik
During a crisis, even the most well-intentioned efforts can have disastrous consequences when plans fail to meet the realities of execution. As any good military strategist will attest, no matter the degree of foresight and preparation, plans never survive first contact with the enemy. The enemy has a vote—and their vote is for uncertainty to win the day. The U. S.-Haiti Earthquake relief response in 2010 underscores how well-intentioned plans can lead to both success and failure during a crisis. Lessons learned from the Haiti crisis management response can be applied to the current COVID-19 pandemic in order to more fully understand how coordination, prioritization and planning efforts affect optimal resource allocation decisions when vulnerable populations are most at risk.
In Operation Unified Response, well-coordinated efforts between the government of Haiti (GOH), the U.S. State Department, UN, USAID and the U.S. Department of Defense resulted in the allocation of critical resources where and when they were most needed. Due to the absence of well-developed institutions in Haiti, U.S. and coalition partners were required to funnel in critical resources throughout each phase of the crisis management response. Civilian and military partners brought immediate life-saving medical treatment, food, water and shelter in the near term and facilitated vital infrastructure-rebuilding projects over the long term. Given the extant institutional deficiencies within Haiti, the overwhelming civil-military response became a critical capacity-building bridge for the nation. However, despite well-intentioned efforts to allocate critical resources, multinational partners failed to incorporate the Haitian population’s more protracted needs in their decision-making process. As such, these capacity-building efforts yielded limited results over time. Isolated from important UN Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) and U.S. military decision-making cycles, key policy makers within the GOH were unable to create lasting beneficial reforms for the larger Haitian population.
In a pandemic, the actors may change, but the circumstances largely stay the same: victims in any disaster have critical, lifesaving needs in the short term and stability-seeking, restorative requirements in the long term. At its core, crisis response seeks to answer a fundamental question: “How can we best place vital resources at the greatest point of need while mitigating the most human suffering?” As Douglass North would have aptly suggested, the actors determine how the “rules of the game” are employed to achieve the most successful response during a crisis. Resource allocation decisions during a pandemic should holistically incorporate key stakeholders and be enacted with the full understanding of the public health, regulatory, safety, and economic implications on the ground. This is difficult to attain when seas are calm, but virtually impossible to achieve against the backdrop of a global pandemic like COVID-19. What can be done?
First, understanding the realities on the ground is critical. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services explains that the Strategic National Stockpile is a limited short-term solution in case of emergency. Therefore, critical acquisition of national resources and efforts to streamline and concentrate critical medical personal protective equipment (PPE) and tests where they are most needed requires seamless coordination and cooperation at the state and federal levels. Successful mobilization and operationalization of resources depends upon the ability of state and federal officials to remove politics from resource allocation decisions so that critical requirements can be prioritized.
Second, anticipate that “the best of intentions” may often involve non-standard resource acquisition strategies that yield sub-optimal short-term outcomes. As previously noted, when resource assessment decisions are made without considering all stakeholders, the most vulnerable populations can be placed at risk. In this case, decisions must be made quickly to either utilize these resources “as-is” in vital need areas, or swiftly redirect them to other critical requirements. For example, on April 3, the Wall Street Journal heralded New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft’s efforts to procure one million KN95 masks from China using the team’s Boeing 767 jet. Despite severe shortages of PPE and hastily approved FDA-waivers for their usage, medical workers at Massachusetts area hospitals remained dubious they could provide the same level of protection as FDA-approved N95 masks. Indeed, when deemed too risky by frontline medical units, many KN95 masks were diverted to nursing homes and secondary medical treatment facilities. In a time of crisis, “good enough” might not win the war, but may help win important battles nonetheless.
Third, during a crisis, when best intentions meet strict federal regulations and guidelines, flexibility and adaptability should become the new rules of the game. The FDA was correct when it did not object to the use of KN95 masks under relaxed rules. However, because laws exist to protect and serve the utilitarian welfare, frontline medical staff have the ultimate veto authority to make decisions beneficial to the safety and well-being of their primary stakeholders.
Finally, lines of communication, though well-intentioned, can be confounded by the noise of misinformation, disinformation, and hubris. A whole-of-government approach that is undergirded by clear and transparent understanding of who “realistically” controls resources, who has the power to redeploy them, and what restrictions can be loosened or tightened may provide a clearer blueprint for efficacious resource allocations and poignant crisis response actions. In a pandemic, time, safety, and patient-practitioner well-being cannot be sacrificed for moments of opportunism and aggrandizement.
The Haitian earthquake relief effort is a stark reminder that crises can create overly rigid and centralized structures that hinder permanent solutions. The COVID-19 pandemic compels both practitioners and policy makers to balance rigor and practicality in resource allocation decisions, but these decisions cannot be made in a vacuum. A country’s health and enduring prosperity depend on it.
Dennis Wajda is a doctoral candidate and instructor in Strategic Management and International Business at the University of Miami Herbert Business School. He is a retired US Navy pilot and served as a military fellow at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy from 2011-2012. He led a naval aviation helicopter detachment during the US Haiti Earthquake relief response in 2010 and has extensive overseas experience in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Operations. His research interests encompass strategic leadership and firms’ strategic response to changes in the political and regulatory environment over time.
Dhvani Badwaik is a doctoral candidate and instructor in Strategic Management at the University of Connecticut School of Business. Her research interests encompass economic short-termism and long-term thinking and emphasize the roles of time horizon and stakeholder perspectives in strategic decision-making. She has worked at the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Dell Technologies, and Intel.
“Haiti Earthquake Relief- Operation Unified Response 2010” by Expert Infantry is licensed under CC BY 2.0
