Canton on Emergency Management

03/05/2025

02/27/2025

It’s Past Time To Adopt A Code of Ethics

As emergency management evolves from a technical discipline to a profession, one of the hallmarks that we have been lacking is a code of ethics. A code of ethics has many functions but the most important by far is that it establishes a framework for decision making that ensures that our actions are morally sound as well as legal. This in turn builds trust and confidence in those we serve. This trust has been badly eroded over the past few years and there has never been a greater need for a code of ethics.
Attempts to develop a code of ethics for emergency management have been going on for several years, both in the academic world and supported by FEMA. Professional organizations such as the International Association of Emergency Management have developed their own but these generally pertain only to members of the organization and have not gained general acceptance within the emergency management community.

To address this need, the FEMA Higher Education Project assembled an Ethics Special Interest Group that drafted a code of ethics in 2021 that was then circulated for review and comment. The document was finalized in 2022 and presented at several emergency management conferences, where it was well received. The document, Code of Ethics and Professional Standards of Conduct for Emergency Management Professionals, consists of two components: a code of ethics that provides a set of “foundational tenets that guide ethical practice and decision-making” and a standard of conduct that presents “professional expectations for all emergency management professionals and extends across all areas of practice as well as individuals’ representation of the profession of emergency management”. In addition, the document includes several appendices that provide guidance on an ethical decision-making process and examples of the application of the code and standards.
The foundational tenets stated in the Code of Conduct are straightforward:

Think ethically, act morally.
Obey the law.
Maximize the good done for people and society, taking into consideration the needs of the most vulnerable.
Respect the rights of people and organizations; fulfill duties and obligations to those served.
Build trusting relationships.
When faced with an ethical dilemma, use an ethical decision-making process.

As with most things, the devil is in the details. To fully implement the code of ethics, it is necessary to understand and follow standards of conduct that identify the responsibilities inherent in the code. The Professional Standards of Conduct consist of 28 standards that detail our responsibilities to affected populations, the public, the environment, colleagues, employers, the profession and ourselves. Here again the document is clearly written and straightforward:

Responsibility to Affected Populations

STANDARD 1: Emergency management professionals recognize that diversity in needs exist and work to provide services without discrimination or preference.

STANDARD 2: Emergency management professionals use their expertise to communicate clearly, effectively, and appropriately regarding risks.

STANDARD 3: Emergency management professionals collaborate with stakeholders to understand vulnerabilities, exposures, threats, and the unique characteristics of communities in determining risk reduction measures.

STANDARD 4: Emergency management professionals advance the development and implementation of programs, plans, strategies, and initiatives to support life safety, reduce or eliminate damage to property and the environment, and support quality of life.

Responsibility to Partners, Stakeholders, and the Public

STANDARD 5: Emergency management professionals create and maintain robust, effective relationships with a wide variety of partners.

STANDARD 6: Emergency management professionals are aware of and operate within applicable laws and regulations.

STANDARD 7: Emergency management professionals educate, inform, and promote change in programs, policies, regulations, and laws that conflict with the professional and effective practice of emergency management.

STANDARD 8: Emergency management professionals accurately represent their qualifications.

STANDARD 9: Emergency management professionals support and guide evidence-based choices and actions by clearly communicating the adverse impacts of hazards and threats based on scientific evidence.

STANDARD 10: Emergency management professionals stay informed about new research, practice standards, relevant tools, and technologies.

STANDARD 11: Emergency management professionals remain current on issues that affect public risk.

STANDARD 12: Emergency management professionals do not engage in or endorse abusive, harassing, or hostile professional relationships.

STANDARD 13: Emergency management professionals make sound fiscal decisions that support effective practice and the stewardship of resources.

Responsibility to the Environment

STANDARD 14: Emergency management professionals understand the interconnectedness, interdependence, and sensitivities between the human, built, cyber, and natural environments.

STANDARD 15: Emergency management professionals seek to protect the natural environment from harm and, where practical, nurture its recovery.

Responsibility to Colleagues

STANDARD 16: Emergency management professionals support and assist other professionals in meeting and elevating emergency management practice.

STANDARD 17: Emergency management professionals respond appropriately to unprofessional and problematic behavior of their colleagues.

Responsibility to Employers

STANDARD 18: Emergency management professionals take direction from employers without deviating from professional standards.

STANDARD 19: Emergency management professionals have a duty to provide employers with all available relevant facts, data, and resources so that they are able make informed decisions.

STANDARD 20: Emergency management professionals, whether in formal or informal leadership roles, have an obligation to use an ethical decision-making model to help create an organizational culture that promotes and encourages professional behavior.

Responsibility to the Profession

STANDARD 21: Emergency management professionals have a duty to further the standing of the profession through their words, behaviors, and actions.

STANDARD 22: Emergency management professionals have an obligation to advocate for a representative and diverse profession.

STANDARD 23: Emergency management professionals promote the continuing development and improvement of their profession.

STANDARD 24: Emergency management professionals support and assist emergency management students in their learning and career development, including opportunities to engage in relevant internships and practicums, participate in training and practice activities, and contribute to meaningful work projects and initiatives.

Responsibility to Self

STANDARD 25: Emergency management professionals have a commitment to lifelong learning and to continually advance their knowledge and skills to serve their community and the profession.

STANDARD 26: Emergency management professionals recognize how their own cultural and social backgrounds, beliefs, values, and biases may affect competent and just service, and strive to make proactive positive changes for the benefit of their constituents.

STANDARD 27: Emergency management professionals are mindful of the ways in which stress can affect their health and well-being and take appropriate self-care measures.

STANDARD 28: Emergency management professionals practice continual self-reflection focused on professional growth and development.

Surprisingly, the document, although generally praised by professional organizations and practitioners, has not been well publicized and consequently has not received much traction in the emergency management community. It has been removed from the FEMA website and is difficult to find in a web search. At a time when our credibility is at a very low ebb, I think it is essential that we create a groundswell of support. I urge you to adopt the Code of Ethics and Professional Standards of Conduct for Emergency Management Professionals in your organization and publicize it anyway you can. It is another milestone in our road to being recognized as professionals.

Note: you can find a copy of the Code of Ethics and Professional Standards of Conduct for Emergency Management Professionals as well as the Principles of Emergency Management and its supplement on my website under Resources: Professional Reference.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 02/27/2025 | Permalink | Comments (0)

01/29/2025

Abolish FEMA? Not A Good Plan.

In an interview with a conservative talk show host on January 22, 2025, the incoming President of the United States said that he would prefer to end FEMA’s federal mission and return responsibility for disaster response to individual states. He reiterated disinformation about FEMA’s response to Hurricanes Milton and Helen in 2024 that he and fellow Republicans had used to discredit the agency, claiming that FEMA had not performed well in the past four years and “got in the way” of effective response.
Comments such as these and the threat to abolish FEMA demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the emergency management system in the United States operates and sets disaster relief back by several hundred years. Disaster relief was originally the responsibility of individual communities and states, and federal assistance was extremely limited. As populations grew and disasters became more complex, the role of the federal government in disaster relief increased. It was understood that disasters, by definition, exceed the resources of the state. FEMA was created to consolidate the various relief programs offered by federal agencies into a cohesive framework.

FEMA has always had a troubled history. It was formed from various programs from other agencies with associated staff, operating cultures, and funding streams. This prevented the FEMA director from being able to reallocate resources to where they were most needed and to adequately respond to disasters. Indeed, the FEMA mission, especially in the early stages of a disaster, was not clearly defined.
But FEMA evolved over time. Administrative problems were overcome, and the agency’s mission became more defined. This was particularly true once politicians began to realize the agency was more effective when led by a professional emergency manager. FEMA’s biggest missteps usually occurred when non-emergency managers served as directors or administrators.

The most visible part of FEMA’s mission is the provision of disaster relief. However, this role is misunderstood by most politicians and the public. FEMA is a small agency and provides very few direct services. Instead, it coordinates the activities of other agencies of the federal government in much the same way local emergency managers coordinate local agencies. FEMA uses a system of mission assignments to reimburse these agencies for their support.
FEMA has also developed a mechanism for disbursing disaster relief funds to disaster victims. In this it relies primarily on a large pool of reservists who handle the application and inspection process. Part of this financial mechanism includes a process for reimbursing local governments for the costs associated with response and recovery. This financial process also relies heavily on reservists to review applications and inspect projects

.
Much of the bad press that FEMA gets, aside from the recent problem of deliberate disinformation, can be traced back to reservists who are insufficiently vetted, trained, and supervised. In addition, FEMA emerging research indicates that disaster policy in the US harms those who need help the most after a disaster. There is no doubt that there is a need for substantive changes to disaster relief policies in the US and to how FEMA operates.

FEMA’s mission, however, goes beyond just disaster relief. Inheriting the planners positioned at local levels by the old Civil Defence programs, FEMA evolved this into a system of all hazards planners. Many local emergency management programs are dependent on FEMA funding for their existence. In evolving this system of planners through training and publications, FEMA has created a national doctrine that governs planning and response. While there is considerable variance in how this doctrine is applied locally, it has bred enough similarity that programs such as the Emergency Management Assistance Compact and local mutual aid agreements allow for cross-agency support. All this would be lost if FEMA were abolished.

On January 26, 2025, the President signed an executive order that established a FEMA Review Council headed by the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense. The Council is charged with assessing FEMA and making recommendations to the President within 180 days on how to improve the agency. On the surface, this seems a reasonable approach that could considerably improve FEMA. However, the President has made it clear that he would like to see FEMA abolished and the responsibility for disaster relief become the responsibility of individual states with relief funds controlled by the White House. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen and will depend on the makeup of the Council.

Even if FEMA survives, there are other proposals contained in Project 2025 that could affect the agency and have a major impact on disaster relief policy:
• Move the agency to the Department of the Interior.
• Combine it with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and move it to the Department of Transportation.
• Increase the disaster cost share from states paying 25% to paying 75% to encourage more state involvement in disaster preparedness.
• Adjust the per capita indicator to raise the threshold for receiving Public Assistance.
• Privatize the National Flood Insurance Program.
• Require all grant recipients to demonstrate that they comply with federal law, and that their mission and actions support the broader homeland security mission.
• Eliminate the SBA Disaster Loan Program.
• Clarify the mission of the Strategic National Stockpile as the supplier of last resort to the federal government, state governments, or first responders and key medical staff rather than serving the public.

Between deliberate disinformation and continued emphasis on FEMA’s failures rather than its successes, the public has lost trust in FEMA and the emergency management system. The failure to apply for assistance by disaster victims in Hurricanes Milton and Helene is the most recent example of what lack of trust can create. The threat of tying disaster relief to acceding to political demands in the Southern California Wildfires of 2025 is further eroding trust in the government. Trust is essential to successful disaster relief.

One small ray of hope is a bi-partisan bill introduced Congressmen Jared Moskowitz (D) Florida and Garret Graves (R) Louisiana in 2023. The bill, H.R.5599 - FEMA Independence Act of 2023, would establish FEMA as a cabinet-level independent agency. The bill has been languishing in committee since November 2023 and is unlikely to pass the Republican dominated House and Senate or to be signed by the President.

Emergency managers are not completely powerless. By educating politicians and the public, there may still be time to stop the gutting of a vital agency and begin to regain public trust. Three critical areas need to be addressed:
1. Protest any attempts to abolish FEMA.
2. Demand that the FEMA Administrator be an experienced professional emergency manager.
3. Advocate for passage of H.R. 5599

Posted by Lucien Canton on 01/29/2025 | Permalink | Comments (0)

01/07/2025

11/27/2024

Disinformation and Disasters: A Deadly Combination

An image of Hurricane Milton approaching Florida, as seen from NOAA's GOES-16 satellite at 6:30 p.m. EDT on October 8, 2024. (Image credit: NOAA)

A FEMA supervisor was fired recently for instructing disaster relief workers responding to Hurricane Milton to avoid canvassing homes displaying Trump signs. The FEMA administrator called the supervisor’s actions “reprehensible” and “a clear violation of FEMA’s core values and principles.” While there is no disagreement that emergency managers have a mandate to deliver relief services equally to all victims, regardless of political affiliation, one must wonder if there is more to the story.

The supervisor argues that her teams had been verbally and physically threatened by victims displaying Trump signs, indicating a community trend that created a hostile environment and danger to her workers. She maintains that her actions were taken in accordance with FEMA protocols that stressed avoidance of high-risk environments and that she is being scapegoated to save the agency’s reputation. More importantly, she claims that the problem is widespread and not limited to her area of operations or her team.

Without knowing more detail than has been given in the media, it is difficult to determine the truth of the matter. However, I believe that there is a larger issue here. The root cause was not the hostile response by some disaster victims but rather the actions that created that hostility.

With a close Presidential election less than month away, the Republican campaign had a vested interest in seeing disaster relief operations in Hurricanes Helene and Milton fail or at least appear to fail. Communications guru Art Botterell’s Fourth Law of Emergency Management states, “Perception is reality” and Republicans took full advantage of social media to create the perception that the response was a failure. This included misinformation such as:

FEMA had run out of money because the Disaster Relief Fund had been diverted to provide housing for illegal immigrants. The truth is that funding to support immigration was a separate allocation provided by Congress for that purpose and the Disaster Relief Fund was adequate to deal with the disaster.
FEMA was only providing $7000 to each victim so the agency and no more assistance would be forthcoming. In fact, the $7000 was an initial payment for immediate needs and additional funding would be allocated based on need.
The Biden administration had not reached out to governors of the affected states to offer federal assistance. This was debunked by the Republican governors and mayors of the affected jurisdictions.

The result of this misinformation was predictable. Many victims refused assistance, and first responders and disaster workers were demoralized and threatened. Even meteorologists received death threats. As the rumors spread and were repeated by the Republican campaign, they in turn spawned outlandish conspiracy theories among its supporters such as that the weather was being manipulated to target Republican areas or that FEMA was blocking donations and confiscating and hoarding goods. Elected officials and government workers had to use valuable resources and time to dispel rumors and misinformation, but the sad fact is that truth travels slower than lies. A 2018 MIT study found that a false news story was 70% more likely to be reposted on social media than a true one. Despite a good effort at rumor control by FEMA and the active support of Republican governors and mayors, the efforts of the Republican campaign and its supporters were able to successfully cast doubt on the effectiveness of disaster relief operations.

I’m not naïve enough to believe that politicians have never used disasters to further political agendas. A study of Presidential declarations of disaster for the years 1989-1999 showed that the number of electoral votes in a state and whether it was considered competitive had a great deal of bearing on whether a declaration was granted. According to the findings, a non-competitive state with three electoral votes was 50% less likely to receive a declaration than a competitive state with 20 electoral votes. Even my personal hero, the Marquis de Pombal, used the 1755 Lisbon earthquake to break the power of the Catholic Church in Portugal and to eliminate his adversaries.

What we see here, however, is a blatant disregard for the well-being of disaster victims to further political ambition. Even more egregious is that many of these victims were and still are supporters of the Republican party. This disregard goes against everything to which we in emergency management have dedicated ourselves. More importantly, it destroys trust in a system that relies on the support of the public. As Edward Conley, a veteran of thirty years with FEMA and author of Promote the Dog Sitter: And Other Principles for Leading during Disasters writes, “The more people trust, believe in, and work with our nation’s emergency management system, the better the system works.”

Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle, and we are likely to see similar disinformation operations in future disasters. This means we now, more than ever, must understand and apply the principles of crisis management information. The age when public information officers put out periodic press releases and gave occasional interviews has been gone for some time, overtaken by the 24-hour news cycle. The old conventional wisdom of ignoring ridiculous rumors to avoid giving them creditability is no longer valid in the day of social media. We need the ability to be proactive with our information and nimble enough to react quickly to disinformation. It’s time to rethink the Joint Information Center and our use of social media and to bring them into the 21st century. I’m afraid that disinformation is the way of the future and poses a major threat to those we serve, and we need to be able to counter it. We won’t win, but we need to do better.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 11/27/2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

10/31/2024

Is It Time to Rethink Disaster Legislation?

In a recent opinion piece for The Hill titled Why America needs disaster reform Now former FEMA Administrator Brock Long makes the case that our emergency management system in the United States has become bogged down in bureaucracy and that there is an urgent need for reform. Brock notes that we have close to 90 recovery programs administered by thirty federal agencies, requiring the submission of multiple applications for assistance. The consequence is a confusing bureaucratic maze that creates confusion and duplication and causes delays in the provision of relief funding.

This is not surprising when one considers the haphazard way in which the system developed. Significant change to disaster relief has always been reactive, the result of legislative action in response to focusing events, disasters with high national impact. This reactive approach means that there has never really been a unified emergency management policy or supporting strategy. Indeed, it wasn’t until passage of the Stafford act in 1974 that preparedness and disaster relief were combined in a single piece of legislation and responsibility for disaster relief wasn’t placed under a single agency until the creation of FEMA in 1979.

The creation of FEMA created numerous problems that are in many ways reflective of what we’re dealing with today. Programs, budget, and staff were transferred to FEMA to form the new agency. However, those budgets were paid through separate funding streams and required reporting to multiple congressional oversight committees. The FEMA Director lacked authority to adjust staffing or budgets, and it was years before this issue was resolved.

The reactive approach of creating new programs in response to focusing events continues. In an article titled A Call for Unified Reform in U.S. Disaster Management Legislation: Answering Brock Long’s Vision in the Emergency Management Network, my colleague Todd Devoe identifies ten separate pieces of legislation currently before Congress:

Disaster Assistance Simplification Act – Aims to streamline the disaster assistance process.
Disaster Survivors Fairness Act – Focuses on improving the fairness of aid distribution.
Disaster Relief Fund Replenishment Act – Proposes automatic funding replenishment post-disaster.
Reforming Disaster Recovery Act (H.R. 5940) – Targets improvements in disaster recovery processes.
Resilient AMERICA Act (H.R. 5689) – Encourages pre-disaster mitigation and resilience-building.
Expediting Disaster Recovery Act (H.R. 5774) – Seeks to accelerate recovery timelines.
National Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Strategy Act (H.R. 6461/S. 3531) – Addresses climate adaptation strategies.
Champion Local Efforts to Advance Resiliency (CLEAR) Act (H.R. 7178) – Supports local resilience initiatives.
Natural Disaster Recovery Program Act (H.R. 9750) – Establishes programs to improve natural disaster recovery.
Flood Insurance Program Reform – Focuses on reforming the national flood insurance system.

As Brock points out, the problem goes further than just a complicated bureaucracy. Over the past 20 years, almost 75% of FEMA’s funding has been provided through supplemental allocations to the Disaster Relief Fund, not the annual budget. The result has been that FEMA is limited planning for immediate response and for sustained programs. The need for a reliable and predictable funding stream is critical if FEMA is to be able to prepare and immediately respond to the unexpected.

Perhaps the most urgent need is a strategic one. Brock notes the increasing reliance of local governments on disaster relief funding for the repair of uninsured public infrastructure. The reluctance of local governments to support mitigation efforts and to leverage insurance suggests the need to rethink how such assistance is provided. Brock suggests adjusting cost share rates to reward those governments who support mitigation efforts to increase resilience. He also suggests making use of alternative government funding sources by providing technical assistance to affected jurisdictions to help access programs such as those available under the American Rescue Plan Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act.

These are big ticket items that deal with national policy and strategy. What can a local emergency manager do? Devoe suggests five things you can do and, not surprisingly, they’re already in your job description:

Raise Awareness
Engage with Lawmakers
Collaborate Across Sectors
Participate in Professional Networks
Promote Public and Private Partnerships

I’ve written before of how you can get involved in the political process by leveraging your jurisdiction’s procedure for taking official positions on current or proposed legislation. This is particularly true if you’re from a large jurisdiction that maintains political lobbyists in your state or the national legislatures. If nothing else, consider joining the International Association of Emergency Managers. IAEM has a very effective lobbying team that has been responsible for some significant legislative accomplishments in our best interests.

Developing a comprehensive bill to address multiple programs under multiple agencies may sound like an impossible task and it well may be. There would be tremendous pushback and turf battles but to continue as we are will ultimately lead to failure. FEMA is stretched thin, managing more than 100 disaster recovery efforts, not counting support to other agencies. If ever there was a time to reform emergency management, this is it.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 10/31/2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Canton on Emergency Management

Categories

Search

Follow Me

03/05/2025

02/27/2025

It’s Past Time To Adopt A Code of Ethics

01/29/2025

Abolish FEMA? Not A Good Plan.

01/07/2025

11/27/2024

Disinformation and Disasters: A Deadly Combination

10/31/2024

Is It Time to Rethink Disaster Legislation?

10/01/2024

Disaster Preparedness Video Series

Search

Follow Me

03/05/2025

Featured Articles

Monthly Video

Book of the Month

02/27/2025

01/29/2025

Featured Articles

Monthly Video

Book of the Month

01/07/2025

Featured Article

Monthly Video

Book of the Month

11/27/2024

Featured Articles

10/31/2024

Featured Articles

10/01/2024

Featured Articles

Disaster Preparedness Video Series