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.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.