Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
FEMA should be Independent Again
Since the commencement of World War II, Presidents and Congress have formulated, debated, and revised management responsibilities for emergency administration (Carafano and Weitz, 2015). Some of the significant dilemmatic questions that have been the context of the debate over the past sixty years and that are specifically applicable today in the ‘FEMA Out or In’ discussion involve: what the authoritative borders of the organization charged with emergency administration should be; how the duty for emerging or new challenges should be assigned; whether it is right to differentiate between manmade and natural calamities; what ‘all hazards,’ and what components need to be there in an organization with an all-threats mission; what the interaction between crisis administration and outcome administration should be; and what the cooperation among the national, local and State governments should be present during a calamity, and if the interactions should vary in the emergence of a calamity.
I think FEMA should be made independent again. FEMA should never be folded into the DHS. The first regulation of innovation in government should be compatible with the first regulation of medicine “First, do no harm.” As we end various weeks of hearings on what went down with the government’s reaction to Katrina Hurricane, it is precise that combining the DHS, this regulation was violated (DeLorenzo, 2017). I am a great fan of the establishment of this department. Any person who has been employed in the National government and been hidden to the years of infighting and dysfunctional management among the national workers at our nation’s borders recognizes that a combination of customs and immigration into a coherent item was long overdue.
But the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, should never have been included in this department. When Senator Lieberman and Susan Collins asserted their exhaustive and excellent sequences of hearings on what went down, they should avoid the lure to ‘appoint a bi-partisan commission’ or to aid DHS Secretary Chertoff ‘reestablish’ FEMA, as had lamented to do (Carafano and Weitz, 2015). They should refute and restore FEMA status to independent as an agency that talks directly to the President with the duty of implementing the State’s National Response Strategy.
Pros of Removing FEMA from DHS Structure
The first advantage of removing FEMA from the DHS structure is that it would make the agency independent and thus more effective in their responsibilities. In recent reports, experts displayed that the relationship between the two organizations has a dispute of priorities and interests. Due to this, why would FEMA be part of DHS and it can stand alone? Thus, making FEMA independent would essentially have more power in managing its endeavors of the American citizens in cases of preparedness and management of calamities. Also, FEMA should be returned to its purpose of directing the National emergency response effort.
With them returning to the role of managing Federal emergency response effort, you will have to agree with the argument that FRP should be reestablished. The reason is that with every person is attempting to become the chief; this has resulted to failure to interact at all stages which implies that most departments will not be able to effectively lead at any cause. With that being lamented, reestablishing the strategy and putting FEMA manager in charge of a calamity will similarly bring all department managers into play claiming FEMA manager to manage all departments appropriately. Additionally; this will ensure FEMA controls the calamity without any significant challenges.
Cons of Removing FEMA from DHS
There are several disadvantages of removing FEMA in the DHS structure; the first is that it will not make the United States of America safe from acts of natural disasters or terrorism. Also, we should stop reshuffling the deck because, since its invention, DHS has encountered nine significant reestablishments. On the other hand, more federalization in America is quite a bad idea. The federalization of calamities encourages local and State governments to be less prepared when calamity occurs because they know that the National government will intervene. Also, various leaders on both sides have displayed support for keeping FEMA in the DHS structure.
The Challenges Facing FEMA Responding to Disasters
The first challenge was conceptual. The aftermath was that we were taken by the significance of being able to react to a terrorist threat that we forgot something that Katrina Hurricane brought home to us. In the most fundamental approaches, when it comes to response, a calamity is a calamity. A troubled, careless employee high on drugs at a nuclear plant can be a threat as a terrorist with a bomb. After that, some individuals require food, water, and medicine and areas that need cleaning up. Another challenge was predictable. Agencies that are independently folded into big new departments with “new” missions are vulnerable to encounter a period of uncertainty in which they lose their stand and will end up not knowing what their purpose is.
For instance, grant establishment was discarded from FEMA and taken to a new-department wide in a trial to consolidate funding. Then, when grants were done, local administrators complained that they could not get funds for the things they were frightened about. FEMA precisely has been scrambled since being folded into the new DHS and, indeed, restoring its freedom would go a long way toward mending the damage done by that transition (DeLorenzo, 2017). But, while developing independence of the agency to rebuild its direct interaction to the White House, it wouldn’t assert that the State’s federal emergency administration apparatus would be back to the responsibility of competent emergency administrators.
Strategies to Lessen these Challenges
Thus, a presidential commitment to the selection of a competent emergency administrator as director of FEMA would be significant (DeLorenzo, 2017). The choice of skilled emergency administrators at other stages would also be essential. The new agency would not be like the ‘old FEMA.’ Like any other public agency, the agency has encountered a continuous brain drain as competent executives and managers have transferred to more friendly agencies or went to the private sector for monetary reasons and, to put it precisely, appreciation of their skills and knowledge.
A good number of FEMA workers who remain are counting the time spent there until they escape. DHS has not been a welcoming place for work. Often budget cuts, reorganizations, and frustration over the lack of comprehension of emergency management at the highest stages have harshly degraded the agency’s enthusiastic and experienced taskforce. FEMA workers had volunteered routinely for calamity work during the Witt period without being asked to deploy. The work environment has also varied since the “golden era” of FEMA. The NRP (National Response Plan) that coordinates national calamity efforts centralizes decision procedures (Perrow, 2015). Depending on decisions done in Washington interferes with calamity response, disputes with local and State decision procedures, and hinders the kind of relationship essential to make effective use of private and volunteer resources.
Thus, the new FEMA requires a robust regional orientation to redevelop working interactions with its local and State counterparts. Threat mitigation and Calamity preparedness have to be under the compatible organizational roof for the all-hazards method to work. Similarly, the NFP requires to be rewritten to lessen disputes with local and State management, better utilize private and NGO resources, and improve position national agencies for calamities in which they should be in a facilitating, rather than lead role (Perrow, 2015). The NIMS (National Incident Management System) should also be revised to reflect our context of shared governance. Reconsidering the assumptions that have steered the organization and functionality of the DHS will be essential to affirm that FEMA can coordinate national efforts with those of local and State governments.
Summary
In summary, independence might not save FEMA. Still, it will improve the likelihood that we can mend the federal’s capacity to deal with calamities such as the 9/11 attacks and Katrina Hurricane. Also, it may facilitate the probability that we can save the Department of Homeland Security from itself.
References
Carafano, J., & Weitz, R. (2015). The truth about FEMA: Analysis and Proposals. The Heritage Foundation.
DeLorenzo, M. (2017). FEMA and the Merger with DHS: Did it Impact FEMA’s Autonomy and Performance? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago).
Perrow, C. (2015, October). Using organizations: The case of FEMA. In Online forum and essays]–Social Science Research Council.