Current Course of Action

Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 

Since the failure of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina, the federal government has been rewriting policy and procedure in order to better prepare our nation for disaster in the future. The first major step that has been taken is the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, which essentially returns more power to FEMA. Some of the benefits of this act include:

• Eliminates much of the bureaucratic ‘red tape’ that FEMA officials attributed their delay to.
• Avoids problems such as having to wait for state officials to “officially request” help.
• Allows for FEMA to have greater contact and influence with local and state officials, and at the same time remain in direct contact with large figures in the federal government.

Having a more focused relationship with state and local authorities, as well as having increased power as its own agency under the DHS, FEMA should now be able to analyze specific needs and pre-position disaster relief assets effectively.

National Response Framework 

The National Response Framework (NRF) was created to replace the previous National Response Plan and work in harmony with the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. Major advances of this new framework include:

• Clearly establishes and outlines the roles of each level of the government (local, state, and federal) in a disaster situation.
• Defines FEMA as the ‘agency in charge’ during a national emergency.
• Eliminates a great deal of the confusion that the National Response Plan had generated.

The previous response plan was ultimately focused on the response of the federal government to a disaster. Now, with the new plan, the response to disaster is considered on all levels of government, even non-government organizations such as the American Red Cross. The new way of thinking in the NRF should prove extremely beneficial in future situations.

Recommendations for Future Action

 Remove FEMA from DHS 

The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act and the National Response Framework have been major advancements for FEMA since Hurricane Katrina. However, even with these new policies, in order to allow FEMA to be fully effective additional steps must be taken.

Step 1- Remove FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security altogether.

Giving FEMA increased power in the DHS under the Reform Act will certainly help, but FEMA’s ability to respond to emergencies is still liable to get tied up under the DHS umbrella.

Step 2- Remove the heavy focus on terrorism.

Although FEMA should still be prepared for a terrorist attack, the goal of the agency is emergency management. Emergency management involves responding to all forms of disaster, whether they are natural or man-made. Under the DHS, FEMA does not receive the level of funding that it requires because a higher percentage is allocated to preventing terrorism.

Step 3- Make FEMA an independent agency that is granted cabinet status.

If FEMA were a cabinet-grade agency, it would have significantly greater funding, as well as an immediate connection to the President. This critical link would ensure that any issues or dangers could be immediately and forcefully brought to the President’s attention. This may not seem very important at first, but consider how much different the outcome of Katrina could have been if FEMA had cabinet status and brought the issue of the weakening levees to immediate attention. If the levees had been marked as a high priority and were properly repaired, much of the disaster and enormous recovery costs could have been avoided.

Move from Reactive to Proactive 

Even if FEMA possesses the power and funding to launch a response, it will still be inefficient if the agency continues to operate on a reactive basis. What FEMA needs to do in the future is to sit down now with representatives of the various state and local agencies and begin to generate more area-specific guidelines and procedures. Again, this can be accomplished in a few simple steps:

Step 1- Go to high-risk states such as Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, California, etc, analyze their current weaknesses and prepare for the unique hazards they may face.

Step 2- Establish procedures on how to communicate and work together if these emergencies were to actually occur.

Step 3- Understand where responsibilities fall in order to reduce confusion. Local authorities need to be able to communicate where specific problems are located, and then FEMA can take this information and relay it to the proper personnel.

If this proactive approach is combined with the new National Response Framework, the result will be a smooth, timely, and efficient response to national emergencies.

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall just east of New Orleans as a category 4 storm. Strong winds and heavy rainfall battered the city, and began a systematic failure of the levees that protected it from the waters of the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain. New Orleans was completely flooded, and left the Federal Emergency Management Agency facing the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. Unfortunately, as we all witnessed, their response to this disaster was abysmal and caused national criticism. Three years later, many people are now wondering… what has been done?

Current Course of Action

 Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 

Since the failure of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina, the federal government has been rewriting policy and procedure in order to better prepare our nation for disaster in the future. The first major step that has been taken is the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. The overall objective of this act is to return more power to FEMA. The increase in power should help to eliminate some of the bureaucratic ‘red tape’ that FEMA officials attributed much of their delay to. This change will now avoid problems such as having to wait for state officials to “officially request” help before FEMA can begin the bulk of its relief operations. This will also allow for FEMA to have greater contact and influence with local and state officials, and at the same time remain in direct contact with large figures in the federal government. Having a more focused relationship with state and local authorities, as well as having increased power as its own agency under the DHS, FEMA should now be able to analyze specific needs and pre-position disaster relief assets effectively.

 National Response Framework 

The National Response Framework was created to replace the previous National Response Plan and work in harmony with the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. It went into effect on March 22, 2008. What the National Response Framework, or NRF, does is clearly establish and outline the roles of each level of the government (local, state, and federal) in a disaster situation. Also, unlike its predecessor, the NRF clearly defines FEMA as having the authority to manage a natural disaster. This major piece of language establishes FEMA as the ‘agency in charge’ during a national emergency. This eliminates a great deal of the confusion that the National Response Plan had generated when it defined the DHS as in charge and left gray areas of responsibility. The previous response plan was ultimately focused on the response of the federal government to a disaster. Now, with the new plan, the response to disaster is considered on all levels of government, even non-government organizations such as the American Red Cross. The new way of thinking in the NRF should prove extremely beneficial in future situations.

Recommendations for Future Action

 Removing FEMA from DHS

As previously stated, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act and the National Response Framework have been major advancements for FEMA since Hurricane Katrina. However, even with these new policies, in order to allow FEMA to be fully effective additional steps must be taken. The most critical advancement that needs to be made is to remove FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security altogether. Giving FEMA increased power in the DHS under the Reform Act will certainly help, but FEMA’s ability to respond to emergencies is still liable to get tied up under the DHS umbrella. In order to achieve the highest level of disaster response, FEMA would need to be an independent agency that is granted cabinet status. By removing FEMA from the DHS it would remove the heavy focus on terrorism. Although FEMA should still be prepared for a terrorist attack, the goal of the agency is emergency management. Emergency management involves responding to all forms of disaster, whether they are natural or man-made. Under the DHS, FEMA does not receive the level of funding that it requires because a higher percentage is allocated to preventing terrorism. If FEMA were a cabinet-grade agency, it would have significantly greater funding, as well as an immediate connection to the President. This critical link would ensure that any issues or dangers could be immediately and forcefully brought to the President’s attention. This may not seem very important at first, but consider how much different the outcome of Katrina could have been if FEMA had cabinet status and could have brought an issue such as the weakening levees of New Orleans to immediate attention. If the levees had been marked as a high priority and were properly repaired, much of the disaster and enormous recovery costs could have been avoided.

 Moving From Reactive to Proactive 

Even if FEMA possesses the power and funding to launch a response, it will still be inefficient if the agency continues to operate on a reactive basis. What FEMA needs to do in the future is to sit down now with representatives of the various state and local agencies and begin to generate more area-specific guidelines and procedures. This means, most importantly, going to high-risk states such as Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, California, etc, and preparing for the unique hazards they face and their current weaknesses. If FEMA had met with representatives from Mississippi and Louisiana agencies, they could have worked together to identify what possible problems they may face, and established procedures on how they would communicate and work together if they were to actually occur. Therefore, there would be an understanding of where responsibilities fell, which would reduce confusion. Local authorities would have been able to communicate where specific problems were located, and then FEMA could take this information and relay it to the proper personnel. If this proactive approach is combined with the new National Response Framework, the result will be a smooth, timely, and efficient response to national emergencies.