This report examines the disaster resilience efforts of the executive and legislative branches of government and public-private partnerships. Its recommendations are the product of a series of dialogues hosted by the CSIS Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Program and the Irene W. and C.B. Pennington Foundation. Reflecting thoughts, findings, and viewpoints gleaned from the series, the authors provide guidance for officials who want to make progress in bolstering planning, partnerships, and capabilities to address the real, localized, and oftentimes devastating effects of natural disasters.

This report focuses on the institutional foundations that enable-or, at times, hinder-federated approaches to defense. Successful defense collaboration in a budget-constrained environment is predicated on the ability and willingness of the United States to provide assistance and/or equipment to allies and partners. Accordingly, the report describes the context for refining US institutional foundations, as well as findings in key issue areas, such as priorities/strategic guidance, foreign military sales, export controls, technology security and foreign disclosure, and acquisitions and requirements processes. The report also includes actionable recommendations on how the United States and its partners could integrate their defense capabilities in support of shared interests.

Currently, U.S. armed forces are facing a rapidly shifting environment. Even as the major combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq that defined the last decade are coming to an end, a wide variety of new and evolving challenges, both abroad and at home, are confronting the nation's military. The U.S. Army National Guard faces a unique set of dynamics, given its role in domestic as well as overseas operations. As the Army National Guard considers its future, it asked the CSIS Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Program to provide an independent analysis of the strategic-level issues facing the Guard, as well as its evolving roles and missions. This report provides policymakers and practitioners with objective insights and recommendations to assist in outlining potential future responsibilities for the Army National Guard.

In a time of austerity, the U.S. Department of Defense has drawn budgetary savings primarily from reductions in private-sector contracting. The 2000-2012 edition of this report by National Security Program for Industry and Resources (NSPIR) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) examines this trend as well as its broader implications for defense industrial policy. The report analyzes contracting for products, services, and research and development by the U.S. Department of Defense overall and by key components. The 2000-2012 report investigates seven key facets of the defense industrial base and provides detailed answers to pressing acquisition policy questions.

Researching and manufacturing fighters, ships, and tanks are only part of the picture for defense contracts. Contracting for services accounts for over 41 percent of DoD contract obligations in 2018. Services include maintaining equipment, moving people and things, creating software, providing server space, and construction. Service contracting is challenging as services can be difficult to define and measure. But services are increasingly central to the U.S. economy. The Department of Defense seeks to attract new firms that will increase its speed and agility-many of these firms are service providers, e.g., data analytics or cloud computing. CSIS looked at a million contracts to evaluate how three factors influence performance:

1.service complexity

2.contract-management capacity

3.vendor's history working with a DoD contracting office

The existing data fails to explain large differences in contract office performance. More DoD transparency about contracting office capacity could help make a case for further investments.

The report also found that when vendors and contracting offices have a longer history, they tend to have better results. That means DoD needs to think not only about recruiting new partners, but also about helping them succeed.


With the advent of the information age, both commercial industry and the Department of Defense are moving towards complex R&D-intensive systems over the simpler, mass-produced systems of the industrial age. This CSIS report analyzes the historical trends in the relationship of production costs to development costs in complex acquisition programs. To understand this phenomenon, the study team examines it at two different levels. The first is the macro investment level where portfolio management trade-offs are made between aggregate development and procurement and between programs. The second level is individual programs where the ambitions of the program and the underlying technology shape the resources required for a program to complete development.