Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:45:53.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complex, Humanitarian Emergencies: III. Measures of Effectiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Frederick M. Burkle Jr. ,
Katherine A.W. McGrady ,
Sandra L. Newett ,
John J. Nelson ,
Jonathan T. Dworken ,
William H. Lyerly Jr. ,
Andrew S. Natsios  and
Scott R. Lillibridge
Frederick M. Burkle Jr.*
Affiliation:
Professor of Pediatrics, Surgery, and Public Health, Chairman, Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Surgery, John A. Burns School of Medicine, Honolulu, Hawaii
Katherine A.W. McGrady
Affiliation:
Research Staff, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia
Sandra L. Newett
Affiliation:
Research Staff, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia
John J. Nelson
Affiliation:
Center for Naval Analyses Representative, First Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, California
Jonathan T. Dworken
Affiliation:
Center for Naval Analyses Representative, Third Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan
William H. Lyerly Jr.
Affiliation:
Bureau for Africa, Agency for International Development, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C.
Andrew S. Natsios
Affiliation:
Vice President and Executive Director, World Vision Relief and Development, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Scott R. Lillibridge
Affiliation:
Disaster Assessment and Epidemiology Section, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia
*
University of Hawaii, John A. Burns School of Medicine, 1319 Punahou Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96826USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Complex humanitarian emergencies lack a mechanism to coordinate, communicate, assess, and evaluate response and outcome for the major participants (United Nations, Intenational Committee of the Red Cross, non-governmental organizations and military forces). Success in these emergencies will depend on the ability to accomplish agreed upon measures of effectiveness (MOEs). A recent civil-military humanitarian exercise demonstrated the ability of participants to develop consensus-driven MOEs. These MOEs combined security measures utilized by the military with humanitarian indicators recognized by relief organizations. Measures of effectiveness have the potential to be a unifying disaster management tool and a partial solution to the communication and coordination problems inherent in these complex emergencies.

Keywords

humanitarianInternational Committee of the Red Crossliaisonmeasures of effectivenessmilitarymilitary medicinemorbidity ratesmortality ratesnongovernmental organizationsoutcomesecuritytransportationUnited Nationsviolencewater
Type
Special Reports
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 48 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance: OFDA Annual Report FY 1992. Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C., 1992, p 42.Google Scholar
2. Pan American Health Organization: International humanitarian assistance. Disasters: Preparedness and mitigation in the Americas. PAHO 1992;50:1–7.Google Scholar
3. The Economist: The UN crawls to the rescue. World Press Review 1994; September: 12–14.Google Scholar
4. Raisbeck, G: How the choice of measures of effectiveness constrains operational analysis. Interfaces 1979;9:85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Dworken, JT: Measures of effectiveness (MOEs) for humanitarian intervention: Restore Hope and beyond. Center for Naval Analyses. Working paper 27, 1993.Google Scholar
6. Nelson, JJ, Newett, SL, McGrady, KAW, Dworken, JT: Emerald Express '94: How the planning process supported humanitarian assistance operations. After Action Report. I MEF, Camp Pendleton, Calif., 1994.Google Scholar
7. Toole, MJ, Foster, S: Famines. In the public health consequences of disasters. Centers for Disease Control Monograph. CDC, Atlanta, Ga., 1989:79–89.Google Scholar
8. Miller, R, Glazer, H, Hill, L, et al. : Measures. In: Sweet, R, Metersky, M, Sovereign, M (eds): Command and Control Evaluation Workshop. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey Calif., January 1985, p 6.1–6.26.Google Scholar
9. Anderberg, MR: MOEs for drug interdiction: Simple tests expose critical flaws. Center for Naval Analyses. Research Memorandum 91-48, Sept. 1991:1.1–5.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Multi-service procedures for foreign humanitarian assistance operations: worldwide coordination. Air Land Sea Application Center, Langley, Va. Final draft, October 1993.Google Scholar
11. Toole, MJ, Makiki, RM: Famine-affected, refugee, and displaced populations: Recommendations for public health issues. MMWR 1992:41:27–40:Google Scholar
12. American Red Cross: News Release. ARC National Headquarters, Washington, D.C., June 1994: pp 1–2.Google Scholar
13. Destexhe, A: Genocide and justice: Letters. Economist. 23 July 1994, p 8.Google Scholar
14. Hunger 1993: Annual Report. Bread for the World, Silver Spring, Md., 1993.Google Scholar
15. Zwi, A, Ugalde, A: Political violence in the third world: A public health issue. Health Policy and Planning 1991;6:203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Dennehy, EJ, Doll, WJ, Harper, GP, et al. : A blue helmet combat force. John F. Kennedy School of Government. National Security Program Policy Analysis Paper 93-01.Google Scholar