Allocating Scarce Relief After a Flood
A preliminary assessment team is distributing relief after a flood in a union of 4,200 households. The team has 1,200 dry-food packs, 400 tarpaulins, and 600 water-purification tablets. Three wards report damage: Ward 1 (1,100 households, 260 fully damaged), Ward 2 (900 households, 410 fully damaged), Ward 3 (1,600 households, 180 fully damaged). Ward 4 (600 households) is accessible only by boat and has not yet been assessed. The team leader has one day and must submit an allocation plan. Local politicians are pressing for their wards to be prioritised, and one ward member claims his ward has 700 fully damaged houses, which conflicts with the team's own count of 260. The team must decide the allocation and how to handle the disputed claim.
1. Propose an allocation of the three relief items and justify the basis.
Read the worked answer
The allocation should be needs-based, not pressure-based. Using fully damaged households as the primary indicator: Ward 1 has 260, Ward 2 has 410, Ward 3 has 180, totalling 850 assessed fully damaged households. Ward 4 is unassessed and must be reserved for.
A defensible split: reserve 15-20% of each item for Ward 4 pending assessment, then distribute the remainder in proportion to fully damaged households. For food packs, 1,000 available after reserve, split 260:410:180 gives roughly 306, 482, 212. For tarpaulins, 330 after reserve, split gives about 101, 159, 70. For tablets, 500 after reserve, split gives about 153, 241, 106.
The reasoning should state that the basis is damage severity, not population or political pressure, and that the reserve protects the unassessed ward from being crowded out. A good answer also notes that the team should record the formula and the reserve so the decision is transparent and reviewable, and that partial damage should be handled in a second round if stocks permit.
2. How should the team handle the ward member's claim of 700 fully damaged houses?
Read the worked answer
The claim conflicts with the team's own count of 260 and must be verified before it changes the allocation. The team should not accept it on assertion, nor dismiss it rudely. The correct step is to ask the ward member to identify specific locations or households, then conduct a rapid spot-check of a sample of the claimed additional damage within the available day.
If the spot-check supports a higher figure, the count should be revised and the allocation recalculated. If it does not, the team should record the claim, the verification method, and the reason for not accepting it, and inform the ward member in writing. The team should also check whether the discrepancy arises from a definitional difference, such as counting partially damaged houses as fully damaged.
The judgement being tested is independence under pressure. A strong answer says the team's duty is to the affected households, that political pressure is not a lawful basis for allocation, and that a transparent, documented verification protects both the team and the claimants.