Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:45:45.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

US Governmental Spending for Disaster-Related Research, 2011–2016: Characterizing the State of Science Funding Across 5 Professional Disciplines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2019

Thomas D. Kirsch  and
Mark Keim
Thomas D. Kirsch*
Affiliation:
National Center for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Uniformed Services University, Rockville, MD
Mark Keim
Affiliation:
National Center for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Uniformed Services University, Rockville, MD
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Thomas Kirsch, National Center for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Uniformed Services University, 11300 Rockville Pike, Suite 1000, Rockville, MD (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Disaster-related research funding in the United States has not been described. This study characterizes Federal funding for disaster-related research for 5 professional disciplines: medicine, public health, social science, engineering, emergency management.

Methods:

An online key word search was performed using the website, www.USAspending.gov, to identify federal awards, grants, and contracts during 2011–2016. A panel of experts then reviewed each entry for inclusion.

Results:

The search identified 9145 entries, of which 262 (3%) met inclusion criteria. Over 6 years, the Federal Government awarded US $69 325 130 for all disaster-related research. Total funding levels quadrupled in the first 3 years and then halved in the last 3 years. Half of the funding was for engineering, 3 times higher than social sciences and emergency management and 5 times higher than public health and medicine. Ten (11%) institutions received 52% of all funding. The search returned entries for only 12 of the 35 pre-identified disaster-related capabilities; 6 of 12 capabilities appear to have received no funding for at least 2 years.

Conclusion:

US federal funding for disaster-related research is limited and highly variable during 2011–2016. There are no clear reasons for apportionment. There appears to be an absence of prioritization. There does not appear to be a strategy for alignment of research with national disaster policies.

Keywords

disaster medicinedisastershealth policypolicy-makingprofessional disciplines
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 13 , Issue 5-6 , December 2019 , pp. 912 - 919
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 

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

REFERENCES

Swiss Re Institute. Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2017: a year of record-breaking losses. Sigma No. 1/2018. http://media.swissre.com/documents/sigma1_2018_en.pdf. Accessed November 1, 2018.Google Scholar
U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran Chairman. Supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and recovery. 2018. https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/020718-SUPPLEMENTAL-SUMMARY.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2019.Google Scholar
Barbera, JA, Macintyre, AG, Shaw, G, et al. VHA-EMA emergency response and recovery competencies. Washington, DC: George Washington University; 2005.Google Scholar
CDC. Public health preparedness capabilities: national standards for state and local planning. 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/phpr/readiness/capabilities.htm. Accessed November 1, 2018.Google Scholar
FEMA. Core capabilities. Last updated May 2, 2018. https://www.fema.gov/core-capabilities. Accessed November 1, 2018.Google Scholar
Hu, G, Rao, K, Sun, Z. Identification of a detailed function list for public health emergency management using three qualitative methods. Chin Med J. 2007;120(21):1908–1913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sphere Project, Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in disaster response. Geneva: Oxfam Publishing; 2011.Google Scholar
Walsh, L, Subbarao, I, Gebbie, K, et al. Core competencies for disaster medicine and public health. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2012;6:44–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, A, Yeskey, K, Garantziotis, S, et al. Integrating health research into disaster response: the new NIH disaster research response program. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13:676. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13070676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iskander, J, Rose, DA, Ghiya, ND. Science in emergency response at CDC: structure and functions. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(S2):S122–S125. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CDC. Current research. Last updated November 23, 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/research/current.htm. Accessed April 19, 2019.Google Scholar
Shultz, JM, Galea, S. Preparing for the next Harvey, Irma, or Maria– addressing research gaps. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(19):1804–1806. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1712854.Epub 2017 Oct 11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lurie, N, Manolio, T, Patterson, AP, et al. Research as a part of public health emergency response. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(13):1251–1255. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb1209510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Biodefence Science Board. Call to action: include scientific investigations as an integral component of disaster planning and response. Published April 2011. https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=691199. Accessed November 1, 2018.Google Scholar
National Center for Environmental Information. U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters 1980–2018. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2019.Google Scholar
CDC. Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) cooperative agreement. Last updated April 1, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/phpr/readiness/phep.htm. Accessed April 19, 2019.Google Scholar
HHS. Public health and social services emergency fund– justification of estimates for appropriations committees. 2016. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/budget/fy2016/fy2016-public-health-social-services-emergency-budget-justification.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2019.Google Scholar
Boddie, C, Kirk Sell, T, Watson, M. Federal funding for health security in 2017. Health Security. 2015;13(3):186–206. doi: 10.1089/hs.2015.0017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NIH. Estimates of funding for various research, condition, and disease categories (RCDC). https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx. Accessed April 19, 2019.Google Scholar
Shelton, SR, Connor, K, Uscher-Pines, L, et al. Bioterrorism and biological threats dominate federal health security research; other priorities get scant attention. Health Affairs. 2012;31(2). https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birnbaum, ML, Adibhatla, S, Dudek, O, Ramsel-Miller, J. Categorization and analysis of disaster health publications: an inventory. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(5):473–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Institute of Medicine. Research priorities in emergency preparedness and response for public health systems: a letter report. 2008. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12136/research-priorities-in-emergency-preparedness-and-response-for-public-health-systems. Accessed April 19, 2019.Google Scholar
Savoia, E, Lin, L, Bernard, D, et al. Public health system research in public health emergency preparedness in the United States (2009–2015): actionable knowledge base. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(52):e1–e6. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerli, M. Tracking federal funds: USAspending.gov and other data sources. Congressional Research Service. Washington, DC. May 13, 2015. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44027.pdf. Accessed May 8, 2018.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kirsch and Keim supplementary material

Appendices

Download Kirsch and Keim supplementary material(File)
File 17.7 KB