FEMA Needs a Lifesaver
One year has passed since the tsunami that killed many tens of thousands near the Indian Ocean and nearly four months have passed since Hurricane Katrina brought widespread damage to the Gulf Coast of the United States. While everyone is still celebrating the holidays, the time to make plans for how to fix FEMA has come. Perhaps it will take an effort from all parts of the federal government or perhaps it will be the ideas of an outsider that will prove the best. I am no expert in these matters, but these are just my observations and ideas.
The nation had never been so gripped by something they paid only a moment's worth of attention to each and every morning. As destructive Hurricane Katrina tore a path of chaos and misery, Americans across the country sent their hopes and their prayers south towards the devastated Gulf Coast. In the crucial days that followed, the nation looked on as aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) trickled into the area. Soon after, the emotion of the nation turned to anger at FEMA's slow response.
FEMA had been very slow to respond to the Katrina crisis, especially with the New Orleans area, which had been hardest hit by the storm and had been flooded after parts of the levees surrounding the city were broken. The situation in New Orleans had quickly degenerated residents who were unable to flee the area before the storm were trapped, many of them in the Superdome.(1) The stadium was ill equipped to deal with tens of thousands of people, many of whom had chronic health problems, for the amount of time that it took before all the occupants were able to be evacuated.
The charges that FEMA was slow to respond to the crisis of Hurricane Katrina were emphasized with the fact that parts of the Gulf Coast were already under an active state of emergency from before the hurricane even struck the areas affected.(2) In addition, parts of southeast Louisiana were under another active state of emergency from a previous tropical storm.(3) That FEMA still could not bring supplies in a timely manner to those left behind along the Gulf Coast has sparked public opinion against the federal government.
If the tragedy following Hurricane Katrina were not enough to mass public opinion against the leaders at FEMA and in the federal government, Hurricane Wilma provides another example of FEMA dropping the ball in relief and recovery. The storm, which came approximately two months after Hurricane Katrina, tore through Florida and left many residents without power. Although FEMA personnel were at the disaster area, the arrival of supplies for the residents of Florida that were affected was still slow.(4)
In the weeks that followed the Hurricane Katrina disaster relief disaster, investigations on FEMA Director Michael Brown began to turn up evidence that he was not properly leading FEMA during the Hurricane Katrina crisis. E-mails from Brown have shown that Brown was either looking to do the least possible amount of work in response to the situation or was simply disinterested in doing his job of mobilizing all the resources under FEMA's control to send to the Gulf Coast.(5) Such revelations from the investigation have only fueled the call for changes to be made with FEMA.
The lack of a proper response from FEMA has already had devastating political effects. In 1992, after Hurricane Andrew tore a path of destruction through Florida, incompetance at FEMA delayed the arrival of aid and mobile hospitals for days.(6) This lack of leadership at the agency and with the first President Bush cost him votes in his re-election campaign, which he lost to Bill Clinton.
The current environment about the FEMA Question is rather favorable to change at this time. Public outrage towards the agency and its performance throughout the hurricane crises across the Gulf Coast will lend support to any attempts to change the agency. Although the furor has tempered as days and weeks pass since the deadly hurricanes of 2005, the issue has not disappeared from the public conscience.
Indeed, any plan for FEMA that sounds somewhat sensible will gain massive public support. That support will place pressure on the powers that be to enact such changes, regardless of where the plans have come from, including from a member of the minority Democratic Party.
Many of the members of Congress will face strong challengers to their incumbency in the 2006 elections.
Those of the Republican majority in both the House and the Senate have watched their popularity sink recently, much of it tied to the shrinking support for President Bush. This year, especially, the Republicans in the Congress are seen by the public as not doing their jobs correctly. According to a Harris Poll taken in November, 27% of respondents thought the Republicans in Congress were doing either an excellent or a good job whereas 69% thought the Republicans were either doing fairly or poorly.(7) Those fearful of losing the next election would support any idea that looked like a move for positive change rather than be seen as supporting the status quo.
Democrats will be looking for the opportunity to gain seats in both houses of Congress. They will be quick to seize the chances of having the will of the majority on their side and to be able to attack any Republicans that reject the plans.
Further, the president may very well back change in order to ensure that his party will retain control of the Congress. President Bush has come under fire for the handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. A poll conducted in September by CNN, USA Today, and Gallup show that the president had a 57% disapproval rating on the handling of the crisis.(8) That would be an incentive for change, as what happens to the president may affect the next Congressional elections. Simple Washington politics will fuel the engine for change.
That is not to say that passing such changes through Congress will be easy. There will be a portion of the Congress that will oppose planned changes on other ideological grounds. Anyone seeking to prevent more government spending on FEMA or any other agency would try to block any plans that called for such spending. Also, there may be those that feel that the current setup, with FEMA in the Department of Homeland Security, is the way to go and the only thing that went wrong during the 2005 hurricane season was a lack of planning, leadership, organization, and control.
There could be a number of possible changes to the agency. The plans range from simple ideas to more elaborate plans to overhaul the entire agency. Each plan, from those presented in this paper to plans that may be introduced by politicians or experts in disaster relief, deserve to be considered. The ideas may be taken as a whole or it is possible that they could be modified or combined with another idea.
The simplest option would be to take FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security and to restore it to a Cabinet position. The Director of FEMA formerly held a position in the Cabinet, the circle of advisors that are also in charge of major departments under the President's control.(9) When the Department of Homeland Security was formed in 2002,(10) FEMA was placed within the new, expansive department.(11) Restoring the Director of FEMA's position to Cabinet-level will allow FEMA to attempt to gain as much attention and funding as possible rather than delegating the responsibilities to the Department of Homeland Security, which has many other agencies in various fields under it.
In addition to greater clout, the Director of FEMA, since it would be a Cabinet position, would have to attend a hearing in front of the Senate. The Senate then would be able to approve or reject the nomination. This would help ensure that new appointees to the job would meet minimal requirements and expertise. Brown did not have to face the Senate to gain his job at FEMA. He did not have any experience with emergency preparedness or management. He was the stewards and judges commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association.(12) Had he needed to win confirmation from the Senate, it is possible that he would have either not been appointed to the job or his nomination would be defeated by the Senate.
The only possible opposition to such a change would be from those who would feel that it would create another level of bureaucracy in the same manner that the Department of Homeland Security had done. This would be a false statement. The federal bureaucracy itself wouldn't be any larger. The part that makes up FEMA would merely be shifted from the Department of Homeland Security to its own department. There will be one more person in the Cabinet but the person was already given a job under the current system under Homeland Security. There would be no actual growth in the bureaucracy that makes up the federal government.
Another simple option would be to merely increase the funding for FEMA. The increased funding would go to hiring more personnel and ensuring that the supplies are ready to be dispered to the population.
With the push to reform FEMA and to ensure that those in disaster-stricken areas are given proper relief and medicine, such a proposal could have support, especially from representatives from areas that are likely to see more natural disasters than other areas. The public would likely back this proposal and feel better that there will be support from the government should a disaster strike their area.
The most sophisticated option would be to, in essence, create multiple FEMAs. This plan would formally divide FEMA into operational areas. For instance, there would be a FEMA Northeast Division, which would carry the responsibility for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and all of the New England states. Another FEMA division would carry the burden for the states that are most likely to experience hurricanes.
A possible way to divide FEMA into operational areas.
This plan could gain support across political and geographic divides because each faction will have the opportunity to voice their opinions and have it carry significant weight in the process. The Regional Directors for the divisions in FEMA would be experts in their areas and to the threats that face their divisions. There will also be the safety net of the National FEMA Director that can take charge if there is a catastrophic and/or widespread disaster such as another Hurricane Katrina.
Each FEMA division would have its own stockpile of resources in its control and would be able to function independently should a disaster come to their area. Thus, each area would not have to be as reliant on a national stockpile of reserves nor would it be at the mercy of when those supplies would arrive to the disaster area. Each area might also be able to ask the states within their jurisdiction to help build and maintain such a regional stockpile and to ensure its delivery through roads. Also, each area would be able to rely on the National Guard units that each state has to help provide relief or to provide security.
The National FEMA Director would also have a job to do. This person would oversee the Regional FEMA Directors and ensure that those directors are maintaining an ample supply for their own areas. The National Director can also take control if a disaster affects parts of more than one area. The Director may also be responsible for building and maintaining a national emergency supply stockpile. This stockpile would be used when a regional stockpile would not be enough or if there is a widespread and catastrophic disaster that demands national attention.
This plan can take on ideas from other plans. The National Director may be a Cabinet member with FEMA as a whole becoming its own department. In addition to the National Director overseeing the Regional Directors, the governors of states in an area can also petition to remove their regional director should they feel this person is not fit for the job. Lastly, politics would create a form of checks and balances with the president firing a national or regional director on such grounds. It would be a simple move for the president as public opinion would turn against retaining a director and would harm the president in the polls.
There is also the idea of keeping everything as it is. This may not sit well with the public, who would want to see concrete action taken to reform the agency. However, politicians may support this plan because it doesn't change the landscape of politics in Washington. The president, this current one and future presidents, have seen what happened when an incompetant director was retained for too long and will therefore be quick to replace the director. This would be the simplest idea of all, as the organizational status quo is maintained, just the leadership and control over the agency have changed.
Control would reside solely within the realm of the president and the Homeland Security chief. The leadership will occur whenever either of those people leave or are removed from their jobs. The only hope for positive change in the agency is if more competent leaders are in charge and if planning is done ahead of time.
Hurricanes can be forecast for days in advance and can also be planned for before hurricane season arrives. There will be other disasters that will not come with such a large warning. If FEMA performs this poorly when there is at least two days' notice that a major hurricane will strike a given area, how well can it perform when a disaster occurs instantly? How would it be able to mobilize the resources needed to come to the aid of Americans in peril?
There may be no "magic bullet" that will solve all the problems with FEMA. It may even require some trial and error to find a plan that works best. However, changes have to be made. There are going to be ice storms and blizzards that will affect much of the country as winter approaches and FEMA will need to be able to handle such events. Until those changes are made, there is very little chance that FEMA will perform better than it had during the 2005 hurricane season.
1. Michelle Malkin, Michelle Malkin: KATRINA: SUPERDOME UPDATE.
2. Random, Insane Rants: A Disaster Compounding a Disaster
3. Ibid.
4. CNN, After Wilma, wait frustrates Floridians
5. CNN, 'Can I quit now?' FEMA chief wrote as Katrina raged
6. Daniel Franklin, "The FEMA Phoenix," The Washington Monthly July 1995
7. PollingReport.com Congress: Job Ratings
8. CNN, Bush approval rating at 40 percent
9. PBS, Katrina: The Response
10. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Act of 2002
11. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA History
12. CNN, 'Can I quit now?' FEMA chief wrote as Katrina raged
The nation had never been so gripped by something they paid only a moment's worth of attention to each and every morning. As destructive Hurricane Katrina tore a path of chaos and misery, Americans across the country sent their hopes and their prayers south towards the devastated Gulf Coast. In the crucial days that followed, the nation looked on as aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) trickled into the area. Soon after, the emotion of the nation turned to anger at FEMA's slow response.
FEMA had been very slow to respond to the Katrina crisis, especially with the New Orleans area, which had been hardest hit by the storm and had been flooded after parts of the levees surrounding the city were broken. The situation in New Orleans had quickly degenerated residents who were unable to flee the area before the storm were trapped, many of them in the Superdome.(1) The stadium was ill equipped to deal with tens of thousands of people, many of whom had chronic health problems, for the amount of time that it took before all the occupants were able to be evacuated.
The charges that FEMA was slow to respond to the crisis of Hurricane Katrina were emphasized with the fact that parts of the Gulf Coast were already under an active state of emergency from before the hurricane even struck the areas affected.(2) In addition, parts of southeast Louisiana were under another active state of emergency from a previous tropical storm.(3) That FEMA still could not bring supplies in a timely manner to those left behind along the Gulf Coast has sparked public opinion against the federal government.
If the tragedy following Hurricane Katrina were not enough to mass public opinion against the leaders at FEMA and in the federal government, Hurricane Wilma provides another example of FEMA dropping the ball in relief and recovery. The storm, which came approximately two months after Hurricane Katrina, tore through Florida and left many residents without power. Although FEMA personnel were at the disaster area, the arrival of supplies for the residents of Florida that were affected was still slow.(4)
In the weeks that followed the Hurricane Katrina disaster relief disaster, investigations on FEMA Director Michael Brown began to turn up evidence that he was not properly leading FEMA during the Hurricane Katrina crisis. E-mails from Brown have shown that Brown was either looking to do the least possible amount of work in response to the situation or was simply disinterested in doing his job of mobilizing all the resources under FEMA's control to send to the Gulf Coast.(5) Such revelations from the investigation have only fueled the call for changes to be made with FEMA.
The lack of a proper response from FEMA has already had devastating political effects. In 1992, after Hurricane Andrew tore a path of destruction through Florida, incompetance at FEMA delayed the arrival of aid and mobile hospitals for days.(6) This lack of leadership at the agency and with the first President Bush cost him votes in his re-election campaign, which he lost to Bill Clinton.
The current environment about the FEMA Question is rather favorable to change at this time. Public outrage towards the agency and its performance throughout the hurricane crises across the Gulf Coast will lend support to any attempts to change the agency. Although the furor has tempered as days and weeks pass since the deadly hurricanes of 2005, the issue has not disappeared from the public conscience.
Indeed, any plan for FEMA that sounds somewhat sensible will gain massive public support. That support will place pressure on the powers that be to enact such changes, regardless of where the plans have come from, including from a member of the minority Democratic Party.
Many of the members of Congress will face strong challengers to their incumbency in the 2006 elections.
Those of the Republican majority in both the House and the Senate have watched their popularity sink recently, much of it tied to the shrinking support for President Bush. This year, especially, the Republicans in the Congress are seen by the public as not doing their jobs correctly. According to a Harris Poll taken in November, 27% of respondents thought the Republicans in Congress were doing either an excellent or a good job whereas 69% thought the Republicans were either doing fairly or poorly.(7) Those fearful of losing the next election would support any idea that looked like a move for positive change rather than be seen as supporting the status quo.
Democrats will be looking for the opportunity to gain seats in both houses of Congress. They will be quick to seize the chances of having the will of the majority on their side and to be able to attack any Republicans that reject the plans.
Further, the president may very well back change in order to ensure that his party will retain control of the Congress. President Bush has come under fire for the handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. A poll conducted in September by CNN, USA Today, and Gallup show that the president had a 57% disapproval rating on the handling of the crisis.(8) That would be an incentive for change, as what happens to the president may affect the next Congressional elections. Simple Washington politics will fuel the engine for change.
That is not to say that passing such changes through Congress will be easy. There will be a portion of the Congress that will oppose planned changes on other ideological grounds. Anyone seeking to prevent more government spending on FEMA or any other agency would try to block any plans that called for such spending. Also, there may be those that feel that the current setup, with FEMA in the Department of Homeland Security, is the way to go and the only thing that went wrong during the 2005 hurricane season was a lack of planning, leadership, organization, and control.
There could be a number of possible changes to the agency. The plans range from simple ideas to more elaborate plans to overhaul the entire agency. Each plan, from those presented in this paper to plans that may be introduced by politicians or experts in disaster relief, deserve to be considered. The ideas may be taken as a whole or it is possible that they could be modified or combined with another idea.
The simplest option would be to take FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security and to restore it to a Cabinet position. The Director of FEMA formerly held a position in the Cabinet, the circle of advisors that are also in charge of major departments under the President's control.(9) When the Department of Homeland Security was formed in 2002,(10) FEMA was placed within the new, expansive department.(11) Restoring the Director of FEMA's position to Cabinet-level will allow FEMA to attempt to gain as much attention and funding as possible rather than delegating the responsibilities to the Department of Homeland Security, which has many other agencies in various fields under it.
In addition to greater clout, the Director of FEMA, since it would be a Cabinet position, would have to attend a hearing in front of the Senate. The Senate then would be able to approve or reject the nomination. This would help ensure that new appointees to the job would meet minimal requirements and expertise. Brown did not have to face the Senate to gain his job at FEMA. He did not have any experience with emergency preparedness or management. He was the stewards and judges commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association.(12) Had he needed to win confirmation from the Senate, it is possible that he would have either not been appointed to the job or his nomination would be defeated by the Senate.
The only possible opposition to such a change would be from those who would feel that it would create another level of bureaucracy in the same manner that the Department of Homeland Security had done. This would be a false statement. The federal bureaucracy itself wouldn't be any larger. The part that makes up FEMA would merely be shifted from the Department of Homeland Security to its own department. There will be one more person in the Cabinet but the person was already given a job under the current system under Homeland Security. There would be no actual growth in the bureaucracy that makes up the federal government.
Another simple option would be to merely increase the funding for FEMA. The increased funding would go to hiring more personnel and ensuring that the supplies are ready to be dispered to the population.
With the push to reform FEMA and to ensure that those in disaster-stricken areas are given proper relief and medicine, such a proposal could have support, especially from representatives from areas that are likely to see more natural disasters than other areas. The public would likely back this proposal and feel better that there will be support from the government should a disaster strike their area.
The most sophisticated option would be to, in essence, create multiple FEMAs. This plan would formally divide FEMA into operational areas. For instance, there would be a FEMA Northeast Division, which would carry the responsibility for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and all of the New England states. Another FEMA division would carry the burden for the states that are most likely to experience hurricanes.
A possible way to divide FEMA into operational areas.
This plan could gain support across political and geographic divides because each faction will have the opportunity to voice their opinions and have it carry significant weight in the process. The Regional Directors for the divisions in FEMA would be experts in their areas and to the threats that face their divisions. There will also be the safety net of the National FEMA Director that can take charge if there is a catastrophic and/or widespread disaster such as another Hurricane Katrina.
Each FEMA division would have its own stockpile of resources in its control and would be able to function independently should a disaster come to their area. Thus, each area would not have to be as reliant on a national stockpile of reserves nor would it be at the mercy of when those supplies would arrive to the disaster area. Each area might also be able to ask the states within their jurisdiction to help build and maintain such a regional stockpile and to ensure its delivery through roads. Also, each area would be able to rely on the National Guard units that each state has to help provide relief or to provide security.
The National FEMA Director would also have a job to do. This person would oversee the Regional FEMA Directors and ensure that those directors are maintaining an ample supply for their own areas. The National Director can also take control if a disaster affects parts of more than one area. The Director may also be responsible for building and maintaining a national emergency supply stockpile. This stockpile would be used when a regional stockpile would not be enough or if there is a widespread and catastrophic disaster that demands national attention.
This plan can take on ideas from other plans. The National Director may be a Cabinet member with FEMA as a whole becoming its own department. In addition to the National Director overseeing the Regional Directors, the governors of states in an area can also petition to remove their regional director should they feel this person is not fit for the job. Lastly, politics would create a form of checks and balances with the president firing a national or regional director on such grounds. It would be a simple move for the president as public opinion would turn against retaining a director and would harm the president in the polls.
There is also the idea of keeping everything as it is. This may not sit well with the public, who would want to see concrete action taken to reform the agency. However, politicians may support this plan because it doesn't change the landscape of politics in Washington. The president, this current one and future presidents, have seen what happened when an incompetant director was retained for too long and will therefore be quick to replace the director. This would be the simplest idea of all, as the organizational status quo is maintained, just the leadership and control over the agency have changed.
Control would reside solely within the realm of the president and the Homeland Security chief. The leadership will occur whenever either of those people leave or are removed from their jobs. The only hope for positive change in the agency is if more competent leaders are in charge and if planning is done ahead of time.
Hurricanes can be forecast for days in advance and can also be planned for before hurricane season arrives. There will be other disasters that will not come with such a large warning. If FEMA performs this poorly when there is at least two days' notice that a major hurricane will strike a given area, how well can it perform when a disaster occurs instantly? How would it be able to mobilize the resources needed to come to the aid of Americans in peril?
There may be no "magic bullet" that will solve all the problems with FEMA. It may even require some trial and error to find a plan that works best. However, changes have to be made. There are going to be ice storms and blizzards that will affect much of the country as winter approaches and FEMA will need to be able to handle such events. Until those changes are made, there is very little chance that FEMA will perform better than it had during the 2005 hurricane season.
1. Michelle Malkin, Michelle Malkin: KATRINA: SUPERDOME UPDATE.
2. Random, Insane Rants: A Disaster Compounding a Disaster
3. Ibid.
4. CNN, After Wilma, wait frustrates Floridians
5. CNN, 'Can I quit now?' FEMA chief wrote as Katrina raged
6. Daniel Franklin, "The FEMA Phoenix," The Washington Monthly July 1995
7. PollingReport.com Congress: Job Ratings
8. CNN, Bush approval rating at 40 percent
9. PBS, Katrina: The Response
10. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Act of 2002
11. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA History
12. CNN, 'Can I quit now?' FEMA chief wrote as Katrina raged
posted by Will at 9:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home