Is FEMA Fit for Purpose?

Modern governance is the muscle by which our public servants execute the tasks assigned in legislation, framed by the subsequent regulatory pronouncements and delivered in accordance with the established administrative process. Many esteemed scholars have written about the idea that public sector governance is quite astute at delivering known and consistent services to the public; though where they strain is pivoting to new rapid onset events.

I’ve written in the past about the struggle between forces wishing to either take a scalpel or chainsaw to governance structures, specifically within the emergency management (EM) discipline. In non-unitary governments, EM has traditionally been a shared responsibility, across all three levels, with each having a law, bureaucracy and statute-prescribed levels of service. The complex dance between the rules and regulations for the entrance and exit of a particular agency is a choreography known to few.

Public sector governance is complex, but not complicated. Grounded in the desire to protect the resources entrusted, there are often significant levels of oversight baked into the committee, grant application and approval processes. What would seem straightforward is a considerable effort to accomplish. EM has no shortage of bureaucracy; while some is necessary to frame how decisions are made, where responsibility and accountability are assigned and to ensure fiduciary duties are maintained, there are few in the discipline who would argue there is a lack of administrative layers.

Whenever the deliverable from a public sector agency fails to meet expectations, there are two general causes. First, is the most likely, that the expectation of the target audience was outsized or inconsistent with the actual legislated and funded mission. We see this in ad hoc interviews and formal press conferences, where a resident or mayor states they thought the response would be X, but it was Y. It is often simply an unrealistic and uninformed expectation as to the capabilities and capacity of public sector EM that leads the call for change. The second, less likely rationale is that there was a failing within the system, that while it was established and funded to execute a mission, they failed to meet the expected standards. These are harder to identify and longer to investigate, as one quality of public sector agency leadership is that it is uncomfortable with dirty laundry being publicized.

FEMA was constructed with the best on intentions, undergoing multiple changes over its near 50 year reign as the global leader in EM bureaucracy. The level of education courses, application or management systems and governance structures is indeed, awe inspiring. Many often joke that it would be a challenge to make it more complex, not impossible, but difficult.

It is an easy target to simple say a massive beast of administration failed. Intellectually grounded discussions demand a more precise discussion. One to evaluate is whether FEMA, as currently constructed, funded and governed, is the best known methodology and structure - is it “fit for purpose”. There are no shortage of experts, academics, practitioners and interested parties that believe they know there is a better way. I intentionally avoid the use of that word, “better”. It connotes that the current methodological approach is flawed. I prefer “different”, to pose the question to informed parties, if you designed a government agency to delivery X to Y population with Z budget, how would you do that?

This allows for options analysis, a stage some are frightened of due to sunk cost fallacy or the fear of change itself. Opponents often quote a statue, saying the Stafford Act, or another piece of legislation requires “B” to be delivered in a certain way. Public policy allows for amendments to legislation, with modern governance defaulting to rules being embedded in the regulatory framework, which in most jurisdictions doesn’t require the intervention of the legislature. The authority to amend regulations is vested in an office that is created and empowered by legislation.

To answer the question whether FEMA is fit for purpose, we should consider three approaches in one overall analysis. First to consider “what” must happen, the outcomes that must occur. This is a balance between what the EM practitioners and scholars recommend is necessary and what the affected population demands. Simplistic yes, but an agreement between EM and the resident population on what success looks like is the key foundation to any governance re-design. When everyone has a say in how victory is defined, it supports the follow-on tasks.

Second is to consider all three levels of government in the “how”, to examine the existing and new methodologies for creating the “what”. I argue that FEMA should not be re-designed without considering all the levels of government involved in EM. Remodelling a singular level of EM governance will likely create additional frustration, lessen coordination and hamper cooperation. The likely efficient and effective solution lies in a collaboration across the levels of government, not as independent and isolated structures.

This is the options construction phase, the time where all opinions, submissions and ideas are received, heard and brought to the discussion table. Clever, bold and innovative minds exist and flourish in EM, the crazy ideas are usually carved into useful methodological approaches.

We have to learn to listen to ideas that are profoundly different from how EM is delivered, to give all a proper consideration and move forward those that no matter how disruptive they seam, they could deliver the “what”.

Finally, we enter the options analysis phase, which is simply the wargaming of the viable ideas against the criteria previously established for success. Does this idea, this construct deliver what the professionals and residents define as success? Obviously, I have simplified this process to three steps, omitting financial limitations (capacity levels) and a host of other variables. The intent is to present a possible framework to have the debate on how different methodologies could be considered.

The process to create viable options is something that should be integrated in normal policy evaluation processes within government. We should be periodically reviewing our policy, processes, regulations, administrative procedures and our governance structures to ensure they remain fit for purpose and that new, different ideas are considered.

I argue that debating the viable options alongside the current construct is the only roadmap to answering the question whether it is fit for purpose. At this juncture in FEMA within the current political and disaster climate, I know of no greater, more profound time to confirm that we have it right, or that there are adjustments.

Do we have the leadership to consider options for trimming the tree and those for clear cutting the forest? Time will tell.

The answer very well may be we have the most logical system now, but without a comparative analysis, that statement is unsubstantiated.