Tag Archives: FEMA

Practitioner Comments re FEMA

Posted on by
Reply

This is a first for this website, but the Diva wants to share the opinions and concerns of a sample of people who have made emergency management a career and find the present situation re FEMA perilous. Readers are invited to share their experience; comments will be kept confidential.

(1) From the Diva: I have worked in EM in many capacities since FEMA was created in 1979 – as a researcher, practitioner, consultant, conference participant, and writer/editor of 6 books. Currently I am very concerned with the lack of experience and attitude toward EM shown by the two appointees to the position of FEMA Administrator. A huge amount of knowledge and experience in EM has been lost in the past year.

(2) From a person retired from service in a big city emergency management agency:

“I feel the same way. Decades worth of dedication, hard work, years of training at EMI, certifications, IAEM Certification Levels all for nothing. All the detailed comprehensive emergency management plans and Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plans are worthless. I am no longer relevant as well. The destroyers are in charge of the asylum. I wonder what these geniuses will do when there is a catastrophic national disaster that destroys sections of several states that cross multiple jurisdictional borders. Who then owns the recovery?

I do hope there is a national repository that is archiving the documentation so that it will not be lost because we cannot afford to start all over again reinventing the wheel. Eventually they will be gone so we need to be ready to pick up the pieces.”

(3) From a person recently let go from a high level FEMA job:

“Succession planning is a continual, structured process of identifying and preparing employees for future work performance, which is essential for mission and operational success. An emphasis on professional development to promote succession planning and foster a learning culture has been lacking at FEMA. Effective succession planning is premised on careful monitoring of actual and projected attrition and the effectiveness of retention programs, which focus on retaining employees in key positions, such as field team, branch, and division leaders.

Although the Nov 2024 Strategic Foresight Final Report (AKA the 2050 strategic foresight initiative) identified a number of themes to enhance knowledge transfer and enable the agency to engage in more informed, intentional, and strategic decision-making in the face of uncertainty, the bureaucratic lens has hindered future efforts. At a time when budgetary restraints and human capital management issues within the federal government grow,  qualified and motivated leaders proactively depart to seek roles in the private and public sectors. Well-conceptualized training for managers, supervisors, subject matter experts, and potential successors is needed to address the unique challenges of assisting communities in becoming resilient. It will take years to disseminate key institutional knowledge and strengthen emergency service personnel.

More Background on Current FEMA Dilemma

Posted on by
Reply

From The Hill: Trump wants to make natural disaster victims a state problem
With weather catastrophes becoming more common in the United States these days, communities have counted on two facts.

“First, the federal government has their backs. When state and local resources are insufficient for disaster response and recovery, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) arrives to help. That has been true since President Jimmy Carter created the agency in 1979.

Second, FEMA’s help will be frustrating. Federal assistance will never arrive quickly enough, last long enough, or provide enough resources for people who are traumatized, homeless, without possessions, uninsured and uprooted from schools, neighborhoods and social networks. FEMA’s job is often thankless, but it’s always needed.

However, disaster victims may not be able to count on FEMA much longer. President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have indicated they want the agency to “go away.” More recently, Noem said she will “reorient” the agency. Trump has appointed her to co-chair a FEMA Review Council to “streamline” FEMA so it “delivers rapid, efficient, and mission-focused relief to Americans in need.”

But the administration is not waiting; Trump dismissed the acting head of FEMA last week. He and Noem have pulled billions of dollars out of the agency’s programs to help communities become more disaster resilient, even though the World Economic Forum says effective adaptation strategies can deliver an investment return of $43 per dollar spent. The government says it will no longer track the growing number and cost of big weather disasters.

Trump has also decimated climate science and forecasting at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Last month he dismissed 400 volunteer scientists who analyze and periodically report on anticipated climate impacts in each U.S. region.

Everyone agrees that FEMA, and federal disaster programs generally, need reform. More than 60 disaster programs are scattered across more than 30 federal entities. In recent years, stakeholders and expert organizations have flooded the zone with ideas to improve the government’s disaster responses. The Review Council can benefit from recommendations by the Association of State Floodplain Managers, Harvard Law School, Pew Charitable Trusts, Brookings, the Government Accountability Office, FEMA’s planners and others.”

Should States Shoulder Most of Responsibility for Disasters?

Posted on by
Reply

From the NY Times: Trump Says States Should Manage Disasters. Former FEMA Leaders Agree. “I’d rather see the states take care of their own problems,” the president said. Federal emergency managers from both parties have made the same argument.

“In an interview on Fox News on Wednesday, the president criticized the performance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. “FEMA is going to be a whole big discussion very shortly,” he said. “I’d rather see the states take care of their own problems.”

Mr. Trump continued, “The FEMA is getting in the way of everything.” Referring to Oklahoma, he said: “If they get hit with a tornado or something, let Oklahoma fix it. You don’t need — and then the federal government can help them out with the money.”

Project 2025, the blueprint for a Republican administration that was produced by the Heritage Foundation, calls for flipping the financial burden of response to small disasters so that 75 percent is carried by states and the rest by the federal government. Russell Vought, the chief architect of Project 2025, is Mr. Trump’s pick to run the Office of Management and Budget, where he would significantly shape the federal budget.”

FEMA and Other Federal Agencies are Hurting

Posted on by
Reply

From Newsweek: FEMA and Other Critical Agencies Are on the Verge of Collapse | Opinion

“Hurricanes Helene and Milton are expected to join the grim ranks of Katrina and Sandy as $30 billion-plus tragedies. However, in addition to the damage left in their paths of destruction were the viral conspiracies that infected airwaves and social media feeds in the aftermath.

However, while it would be easy to dismiss Trump’s demented accusations as simple propaganda, there’s a troubling grain of truth: American agencies like FEMA are, in fact, broke—not because they’ve been diverting funds to “ferry illegals,” but because they have been critically underfunded for decades.

Years of offering stopgap funding instead of securing long-term financial stability for once-revered federal programs have left critical agencies powerless to tackle what is now an out-of-control climate emergency. Only last week it was revealed the federal disaster Small Business Administration (SBA) loan program has received 50,000 applications since the twin disasters—but the money has run dry.”

The Conflict at FEMA Between Rhetoric and Actions on Climate Change

Posted on by
3

First as tragedy, then as farce: FEMA still to adapt to climate change. Despite the agency’s attempts to account for bigger storms, its outdated rules leave communities unprepared for disaster.

An in depth look at recent disasters and the problems that FEMA has in dealing with recovery, highlighting needed changes in rules and regulations.

This article from Al Jazeera America relies on a recent report from the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit newsroom based at Boston University and WGBH News that produces investigative reporting and trains the next generation of journalists. The Fund for Investigative Journalism helped fund this report.

FEMA report on 5th Commemoration of Katrina/Rita

Posted on by
1

FEMA has issued its own report, 16 pp., titled Katrina/Rita The 5th Commemoration, August 29, 2010 September 24, 2010. It is a short, bland account of the program areas — individual assistance, public assistance, hazards mitigation, environmental and historic preservation….  Too bad the agency did not make the effort to truly assess its performance and to identify the improvements needed in its recovery approach and framework.

Related Articles

Assessment of FEMA – some positive and negative changes noted

Posted on by
Reply

An invigorated FEMA is on the comeback trail. Do the federal agency’s local partners see any progress? Governing Magazine, August 2010. Among the positive signs the author notes are:

While FEMA may or may not get more power to push federal partners to cooperate in recovery efforts, one very encouraging trend has occurred on the agency’s bureaucracy front. Under President Barack Obama, FEMA regional directors are winning back authority to make rapid, ground-level decisions — latitude that was largely stripped away during the George W. Bush era. That sort of regional-level authority is important, given that the whole emergency management response and recovery game is by its very nature complicated and messy and not given to top-down, one-size-fits-all responses. Dealing with a familiar federal official helps immensely when it comes to communication and coordination around disasters.

As the author noted, FEMA under Craig Fugate has not yet had to deal with any large-to-catastrophic disasters.  The test of fire usually is the most telling.

A more pessimistic account comes from Bill Cumming in his blog posting of August 16, titled, Erosion of FEMA’s Legal Authority. After a lengthy review of executive directives regarding FEMA, Bill notes a constant erosion of authority since the agency was located within the DHS (in 2003).  He concludes by saying:

… I would argue that both TSA and the Coast Guard and all the border security agencies have been badly compromised capability wise by DHS and probably FEMA is the biggest loser in being rolled into DHS. Perhaps this evolution and diminished capabilty is a valid management choice, but given lack of meanngful oversight of DHS by Congress [despite DHS complaints] no more could have been expected. Time will tell whether DHS management choices were correct ones.

Oil Spill Disaster Recovery – June 29 – Deja Vu all over again

Posted on by
2

Since both crisis response and consequence management for the BP Oil Spill Disaster are being handled under the National Contingency Plan (NCP), rather than under the under the Stafford Act and the Presidential Disaster Declaration process, the Coast Guard, EPA, and NOAA are the lead actors.  DHS/FEMA do not have a lead role, but do have a supporting role.

Now that we are in the recovery phases, neither the NCP nor the lead agencies have any experience, nor much regulatory guidance, in how to do consequence management. As a result, they are inventing the recovery process as they go along. Some of us have been wondering why the Administration has chosen not to involve FEMA, which does in fact have experience and guidelines for dealing with affected citizens, businesses, and municipalities.

One more manifestation of the problem of inexperience is how to deal with the convergence of volunteers wanting to help.  See the article titled Extended hands left idle in gulf recovery; gung-ho but untrained, volunteers hit a wall in helping mitigation oil spill. [Wash. Post, June 29.] Once again,  experienced disaster hands know a convergence of volunteers is an expected activity in the aftermath of a disaster.  They are not easy to manage, but there are techniques and precedents for doing so. (Similarly, one can expect a convergence of media and of researchers.)

In short — why are we not using the federal response and recovery frameworks now in place for a Presidential Disaster Declaration (used for post-Katrina recovery) and instead put agencies with
no experience in charge of recovery?

Three Significant New Reports on Federal Recovery Systems

Posted on by
Reply

Three new reports out this week (April 13) address some of the fundamental problems of  the current federal recovery system:

(1) Heritage Foundation. Federalizing Disasters Weakens FEMA — and Hurts Americans Hit by Catastrophes. Report # 2398 by M. Mayer and M. DeBosier. This report discusses both response and recovery phase issues.

(2) DHS, Office of the Inspector General. Efficacy of DHS Grant Programs. Criticism of the existing grant programs, attributing some blame to the enabling legislation.

(3) GAO. Disaster Recovery; FEMA’s Long -term Assistance Was Helpful to State and Local Governments but Had Some Limitations. GAO-10-404. March 2010. The full report is 43 pages long. Click here for the one-page summary.

Currently, there is no comprehensive operational coordinating structure to guide the many federal, state, and local entities involved in disaster recovery.”

On a related note, on March 9, 2010 the Congressional Research Service issued a report: FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis, which discusses the match that state and local governments have to provide when they get a Presidential Disaster Declaration. It covers the history and the reasons for the requirement of matching funds.

The language of the Stafford Act defining cost-shares for the repair, restoration,and replacement of damaged facilities provides that the federal share “shall be not less than 75 percent.”  These provisions have been in effect for over 20 years. While the authority to adjust the cost-share is long standing, the history of FEMA’s administrative adjustments and Congress’legislative actions in this area, are of a more recent vintage.