An “After-Action Review” of Los Angeles County’s response to the disastrous Eaton and Palisades Fires found that numerous gaps remain in the recovery and repopulation process.

The County’s Board of Supervisors commissioned the review, and consultant agency McChrystal Group conducted it through system reviews, official interviews, and public surveys. The consultants recommended multiple systems or resources the County should implement across six focus areas, including communications, recovery, repopulation, shelter, public health, and volunteer and donations management.

Numerous survivors of the Eaton and Palisades Fires confronted a fractured and confusing recovery process in the aftermath of the disaster, according to the report. The many jurisdictional distinctions across LA County led to unclear and inconsistent information about recovery needs.

That issue was compounded by the outpouring of support from multiple different organizations and nonprofits, which made it difficult for residents to “sort through the noise.” Even at county-operated Disaster Recovery Centers, which consultants said helped consolidate services for residents, survivors had to repeatedly verify identity, residence, ownership, or eligibility depending on whether they were applying for FEMA assistance, replacement records, insurance claims, or other support programs.

“The evacuation and repopulation process was chaotic and deeply stressful … residents had to make decisions with incomplete or conflicting information … there was little on-site guidance about safety, documentation, or next steps,” according to a respondent to the public survey featured in the report by consultants. “Los Angeles County could improve this process by providing more consistent and centralized communication, clearer timelines and criteria for … reentry, and on-the-ground support teams.”

This feedback led consultants’ recommendations to largely focus on the streamlining of disaster operations before the next tragedy happens. The recommendations, sorted by cost and time to implement, included:

Near-Term (Low to Moderate Cost)

• Standardize recovery governance and operating procedures.
• Formalize agreements with nonprofit and community-based partners.
• Improve public information systems, resident intake processes, accessibility and multilingual communications.
• Strengthen grant identification and reimbursement management capabilities.

Mid-Term (Moderate Cost)

• Establish dedicated recovery coordination and grants management positions.
• Expand disaster case management and community navigation services.
• Implement integrated recovery data and case-tracking systems.

Long-Term (Higher Cost)

• Create a permanent countywide recovery and resilience capability that integrates recovery planning, climate adaptation, community resilience, and cross-sector coordination under a common governance framework.
• Establish dedicated funding reserves or recurring appropriations to sustain critical recovery functions between disasters.

“Prioritizing permanent capabilities that can be scaled during major incidents would improve operational readiness, accelerate recovery outcomes, enhance service considerations, and reduce the costs associated with repeatedly standing up temporary recovery structures after each climate-related disaster,” the consultants said in the report.

Click here to read the full report.