“The FEMA Review“

By Jim Mullen

The FEMA Reform Council’s final recommendations have now been put off until at least March of this year. One might ask “Reform what -as in what’s left!” Experienced FEMA staff levels are already reduced; assistance grants are slow-walked or suspended, with only the courts to enforce current contractual obligations. As the devastating winter storms sweep across states whose leadership is often sympathetic with this Administration’s initiatives, might there be a sudden recognition that FEMA, warts and all, was better equipped to support state and local resources before this all started? When a disaster strikes in one’s own backyard, the benefits of a robust federal program often become obvious.  That reality has kept FEMA’s mission alive; many self-styled critics of FEMA have altered their tone after disaster damaged their constituents.

It’s not that FEMA was perfect in fulfilling its mission; I experienced several vexing and unnecessary delays in getting a proclamation approved and the assistance provided for my state. A senior FEMA official once confided to me that delays attributed to FEMA were often held up by the White House Budget Office, and” FEMA took the bullet!”

Here is the real problem, as I see it, with the present approach: The FEMA review is too narrowly focused. Were the current Administration seriously concerned about how disaster services are delivered, a better approach would have been to convene independent organizations like NEMA and IAEM – USA, Big City Emergency Managers and other professional associations, and turn them loose to re-imagine our national emergency management ecosystem. By bringing together dedicated, experienced professionals from said professional associations, a more detailed, thorough and effective analysis of the system at all levels might emerge. Educators, such as those currently working in emergency management degree programs in our colleges and universities, could share their research and expertise with practitioners in the field. Political bias would have been minimized.

Of course, employing such a strategy was not likely given the nihilistic (and dishonest) bias against FEMA that surfaced during the 2024 presidential campaign. And the makeup of the FEMA Review Council suggests that the few members with impeccable emergency management expertise ( I counted 3 or perhaps 4 of the13 members) would have their hands full trying to guide the Council toward a rational and useful report.

So, this FEMA Review may signal an opportunity missed. What if a thorough, non-political assessment of the roles of feds, states and locals and even the private sector reviewed where primary and supplemental responsibility rests for mitigation, community preparedness, response, and recovery? What if those four elements of emergency management could be linked to the critical mission of homeland security? The economic, social and public safety of our population (I did not say citizens!) is an interdependent responsibility, and what affects one part of our nation can have a significant negative impact on the rest. FEMA will indeed require reimagining, but that may have to await a serious inquiry. This isn’t it.