President Obama will enter office at a time of problems
unprecedented
in number, complexity, and concern for the well-being of the
nation.
Among them is national security, both from international and
domestic
threats.The nation became fixated on the threat of terrorism after
9/11 and was
jolted again by natural hazards in 2005: Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,
andWilma.
The interaction of natural hazards (such as hurricanes) and human
actions (such
as engineering failures, the lack of wise land-use mitigation, weak
building
codes, poor wetlands preservation, and unenforced zoning) had
disastrous outcomes
for the Gulf Coast, including the Great Flood of New Orleans in
2005
and the devastation of Galveston in 2008. Following another season
of California
wildfires, the Federal EmergencyManagementAgency (FEMA) warned
in late 2008 of likely damages from a catastrophic earthquake in
the New
Madrid Seismic Zone,which covers Alabama,Arkansas, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky,
Mississippi,Missouri, andTennessee and includes 44 million people.
This first forum article summarizes key emergency management (EM)
issues
facing the Obama administration.Topics include whether FEMA will be
in or out of the U.S.Department of Homeland Security (DHS), recent
changes
in FEMA, and several other FEMA-related concerns. It also
introduces the other
articles in our forum, the latest in a continuing series assembled
by theAmerican
Society for Public Administration (ASPA) KatrinaTask Force
(KTF).Status of FEMA
Housed in DHS,FEMA coordinates the national governments
role in preparing for, preventing,mitigating the
effects of, and recovering from all types of domestic disasters.
Since its creation after 9/11,DHS has seen a clash
of cultures.Ways to find and kill terrorists and eliminate
their sources of funding sharply contrast with the predominant
state and local focus on the most common
threats to life and property, those stemming from natural
hazards.Design flaws were the primary cause of the 2007
Minnesota bridge collapse and the 2005 failed levees in
New Orleans (contributing to the Great Flood), which
drew attention to unintentional human-made catastrophes
that can interact with natural hazards.
Conflicting Focuses?
Many emergency managers and their professional organizations
argue that DHS primarily focuses on crisis
management that prevents acts of terrorism through law
enforcement, immigration policies, and other means.
FEMA, on the other hand, emphasizes disaster consequence
management for all hazards.The claim is that the
effectiveness of both DHS and FEMA is hampered by the
latters current placement.The Obama transition team is
being asked to recommend the removal of FEMA from
DHS and its restoration as an independent agency reporting
directly to the president,with a director that serves
as a member of the presidents cabinet.That would parallel
the historical state and local organization for dealing
with the most typical emergencies and disasters where
they occurlocallywhich has no need for the kinds of
intelligence associated with terrorists.
Others argue that, in its short tenure,DHS has already
gone through much reorganization and that the Obama
administration needs some lead-time to assess FEMA performance
in DHS.When it was created, optimistic forecasts
were that it would take five to ten years for DHS
to become fully functional.The Homeland Security
PresidentialTransition
Initiative (HSPTI),which included Obama-
Biden transition team members, recommended delaying
a decision on FEMA until the outcome of the
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) in late
2009.The thinking was that maintaining the status quo
in the first year would avoid unnecessary instability and
confusion at a time of elevated risk.The HSPTI also argued
that deferring a decision on FEMA would provide
time for the Obama administration to consult with congressional
leadership and build support for any major
changes that may be contemplated within the QHSR
process. Oversight of DHS involves some eighty-eight
committees and subcommittees.
Rebuilding
In early January 2009, the president-elect is expected
to resolve whether to defer a decision on FEMA movement
on the basis of a senior leadership decision memorandum
concerning whether to wait until after the
QHSR.The Center forAmerican Progress andTheThird
Way has written a book for release in January 2009 aimed
at the new administration, Change for America:A Progressive
Blueprint for the 44th President. John Podesta, president
of the center, is also cochair of the Obama transition team.
The national security section of the book has a chapter
on FEMA,written by James LeeWitt,President Clintons
FEMA director and widely believed to be the future
presidents selection for directing FEMA for at least
a year through any proposed changes. In his chapter,Rebuilding
a Once ProudAgency,Witt argues the need for
reassessing and rebuilding FEMA from the ground up.He
traces myriad serious organizational, legal, relational, and
leadership issues that challenge FEMAs ability to achieve
its mission.Witt suggests an agency cultural change and
decisive action to restore public confidence, including such
early priorities as rethinking FEMA within DHS, professionalizing
and depoliticizing agency activities, empowering
its regional offices, and strengthening relationships
with state and local counterparts.Over the long
term,Witt stresses the need for FEMA to professionalize
EM as a discipline, review agency staffing levels to provide
better customer support, and further reduce bureaucratic
red tape in the delivery of agency services and
programs.
There appears to be serious thought of integrating
theWhite House Homeland Security Council within the
National Security and Domestic Policy Councils,but having
an assistant to the president (and deputy national security
advisor) oversee homeland security policy functions.
A homeland security summit with federal, state, local, and
private-sector leaders has been suggested for late March
2009 to review the state of intergovernmental cooperation.
As of this writing, the president-elect and selectedgovernors and
mayors from the ten cities at greatest risk
are tentatively scheduled to meet in late December.The
DHS secretary is scheduled to meet with state homeland
security advisors,working in part through the National
Governors Association Homeland Security Advisors
Committee, in late January 2009.DHS is scheduled to review
homeland security presidential directives (HSPDs)
in late February and prepare new or revised HSPDs in
mid-March.
Congressional Influence
The homeland security community would like to have
these issues settled before turning to FEMAs placement.
Those most concerned with FEMA fear that domestic crisis
management will be neglected if a decision is not made
on FEMA quickly. Others are concentrating on changes
in the Stafford Act, which is under the oversight of congressional
public works committees, which are not usually
concerned with domestic crisis management and support
removing FEMA from DHS.
The House Homeland Security Committee chair,
Rep. Bennie G.Thompson (D-MS), has said that he opposes
removing FEMA, arguing that recent changes truly
make it a new FEMA, which can work well within
DHS. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Chair of the Senate
Homeland Security and GovernmentalAffairs Committee,
has not commented on FEMA since the presidential election
but has opposed a move in the years since Katrina.
A New FEMA?
The Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act of 2006
gave FEMA a quasi-independent status similar to the U.S.
Coast Guard. FEMA regained a preparedness directorate
and now takes the lead for preparedness once again.The
head was renamed an administrator, and new positions for
preparedness were created.Congress required Senate confirmation
for the administrator,who must have EM credentials,
and for four deputy administrators.Among other
changes, an Office of Health Affairs was created.
A number of changes in FEMAs response function
were also made post-Katrina.The National Response Plan
(NRP),first tested by Katrina, showed a number of flaws.
Some provisions of the NRP were not put into effect because
of a delay by the DHS secretary in designating the
hurricane as a catastrophic incident before landfall.
Leadership roles were unclear, contributing to a disjointed
federal response.The NRP didnt have the detailed, specific
plans needed for assistance provision and coordination,
and its supporting catastrophic provisions lacked detailed
and robust implementation plans.
FEMA has struggled with its role in housing victims
of disasters and has been beset with fraud,waste, and abuse
problems.Budgets and emphases regarding terrorists and
consequence management have been continuous but
somewhat abated by recent changes.Never before asked
to lead an extensive recovery process, as needed for New
Orleans, FEMA managed a recovery that could easily
be categorized as a second catastrophe.
Post-Katrina,DHS reworked the NRP to develop a
National Response Framework (NRF) as its successor for
a new FEMA.Although there were problems, the NRF
involved a broad array of stakeholders at all levels of government
and was designed to be scalable, flexible, and
adaptable; always be in effect; and articulate clear roles and
responsibilities among federal, state, and local officials.
FEMAs authority to coordinate federal disaster operations
has been restored, although management responsibilities
during a disaster response remain with officials in DHS
headquarters.FEMA now makes the operational decisions
about deployment of federal resources, and it no longer
has to wait on the DHS secretary to designate an incident
of national significance before initiating an aggressive
response.Plans for dealing with different types of crises
are articulated in the NRF though it is not well tested and
there are already calls for revision.
Other FEMA Issues
Whether FEMA stays in DHS or not, a host of other
EM issues face the president. FEMA has long had an
excess of noncareer executives, and President Obama will
be asked not only to eliminate patronage but also to look
toward careerists with institutional memory in the field.
Mitigation
The cornerstone of EM is mitigation. In the presidential
transition book,Witt highlights the need for FEMA
leadership on mitigating hazards through work with state
and local EM and providing more resources and less-restrictive
funding to support state and local all-hazards EM
capability. In the years since 9/11, federal interest and dollars
in mitigation focused more on terrorists than floodplain
maps, stringent building codes, zoning ordinances,
retrofitting buildings, relocating structures, preserving
open space and wetlands, and flood proofing.
FEMA needs to build the capacity of subnational governments
that have the greatest mitigation responsibili-ties. Mitigation can
reduce the loss of life and property
by lessening the impact of disasters.Safer communities are
created when mitigation tools are used to reduce chances
of losses to life and property. Mitigation enables the resilience
of individuals and communitiespreparing
them to recover more quickly from a disasterand lessens
the financial impact of disasters for individuals, businesses,
and governments.
Risk Analysis
Central to mitigation are risk and vulnerability
analyses, especially if cost is a significant qualification.Because
state and local governments have the primary authority
in this area but usually lack resources, a challenge
for the national government is to shape FEMAs Mitigation
Directorate to address the effects of natural hazards
through mitigation activities. President Obamas FEMA
will be asked to develop a stronger intergovernmental hazard
mitigation policy system that captures the intent of
the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to focus mitigation
on pre-disaster rather than post-disaster efforts.
Public Readiness
The very first responders to a disaster are members
of the public as victims or witnesses. Government is increasingly
expected to play a role in shifting from a culture
of reaction to one of preparedness. Despite years of
widely varying tragic disasters, evidence is sparse that we
are becoming individually more self-reliant. Increased efforts
toward this change began post-9/11 and -Katrina,
but progress has been slow, and the new administration
will be expected to devote more effort to preparedness
beyond the training and exercises important for traditional
first responders.Two combat wars, a permanentWar on
Terrorism, and the current fiscal crisis suggest that President
Obama has much to do to change public expectations,
including getting the public to understand the individuals
role when a disaster strikes and before
government can do much.
Civil-Military Relations
The Obama administration faces a host of issues regarding
the interface between the military and the EM
community. By 2011, the U.S. military hopes to activate
and train an estimated twenty thousand service members
for specialized domestic operations under the direction
of the U.S.Northern Command (NORTHCOM).One
unit became operational on October 1,2008, and two others
are expected to be equipped and assigned by 2011.Already,
there are about eighty National Guard and Reserve
units,with a total of six thousand troops, in support of local
and state officials nationwide.These and the NORTHCOM
units are to be trained to respond to a domestic
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield
explosive (CBRNE) attack.
Katrina revealed substantial confusion regarding
NORTHCOMs role and a resultant slow response. Its
units are intended to help respond to terrorist attacks or
disasters stemming from natural hazards. They have
unique training in logistics and medicine and consist of
medical personnel, chemical decontamination experts, and
logistics and engineering personnel.Libertarians and other
groups concerned with guarding civil liberties are uneasy
about how closely the military will be involved with
law enforcement issues falling under a states jurisdiction
possibly undermining the 130-year-old federal law, the
Posse ComitatusAct,which restricts the militarys role in
domestic law enforcement. Some claim that the new
homeland emphasis may strain the military.
The Obama administration will have to clarify
NORTHCOMs mission during catastrophic events as well
as the role of the National Guard as a support unit to civil
authorities.Funding for the changes is still unclear.During
the general election campaign, now Vice President
elect Biden proposed making the head of the
National Guard part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Posse
Comitatus Act, as well as numerous powers and authorities
of the states and national government, will likely be
revisited in the near term to forge the role of the military
in disaster response and recovery.
The threshold for military action in supplementing
the states during a disaster is unsettled.The magnitude of
a threat, vulnerability of communities and the nation, and
consequences of the disaster in terms of loss of life and
property or the threat to national security should be of
the highest concern in shaping the EMsystem.The United
States still has not examined key issues among and between
governments in terms of the threshold of severity
size, scope, nature, and consequences of a disaster
eventthat should define if and when the national government
or the military should have greater authority.
Forum Articles
The forum articles that follow offer much for practicing
emergency managers and others interested in EM,
which centers on saving lives and property. In particular,those who
make decisions on the future of EM will find
useful advice.
Dr. Frances L. Edwards has become the recorder of
the annual meeting ofASPAs KTF,which takes the form
of an interactive discussion at each years national ASPA
conference.Each year, she writes the KTF annual report.
Obstacles to Disaster Recoveryis her lively and insightful
summary of the spring 2008 meeting,which captures the
analyses and views of the KTF members,both practitioners
and academics.
In Assessing the Risk to Rail andTransit Systems,
Dr.William L.Waugh Jr. examines the need for improved
risk management to set policy priorities and guide resource
allocations at all levels.During tight financial times,ways
to move sound risk analysis forward in economical ways
should be welcomed by anyone involved with EM.
Dr.Richard Sylves offers public managers important
dos and donts in developing working relationships with
voluntary nonprofit,charitable organizations that coordinate
services to disaster victims.PublicManagers,VolunteerOrganizations,
and Disasters explains why public organizations
need assistance from voluntary organizations to support
victims and responders.The article offers sound advice,
especially for working with organizations that may
disagree with those in need, such as undocumented aliens,
corrections parolees, and others.
Disaster law has emerged as a popular field of study.
In his article,An EssentialTeam:Local Emergency Managers
and Legal Counsel,William C.Nicholson, a lawyer
and professor, offers an informed contribution that focuses
on proactive steps that local communities can take
to mitigate legal liability.Getting lawyers and emergency
managers to interact in productive ways can result in
fewer lawsuits lost by the local government, greater safety,
better legal compliance, and increased funding and
reimbursement.
Dr.Frances L.Edwards and IsabelleAfawubo provide
a concise overview of financial assistance programs for areas
affected by a disaster in their article,Show Me the
Money: Financial Recovery after Disaster.This is done
within a broader discussion regarding the special needs
for revenue by local governments in disaster areas.Biloxi,
Mississippi, is used as an example of ways that communities
can lessen their losses.