Abstract
The paper’s purpose is to research the pros and cons of FEMA’s exclusion from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The paper also focuses on FEMA’s challenges and possible solutions regarding responding to disasters. The findings state that DHS was created in response to the terrorist attacks in 2001. Conversely, FEMA was established to provide relief during times of national emergency. The main points hold that by removing FEMA from DHS, there will be a reduction in bureaucracy within DHS, thus enabling it to be more effective in attaining its mission. Furthermore, the removal cons include hardship of role executions, confusion in disaster management response, thus leading to more harm to the people, and reduced funding for FEMA.
The funding and coordination challenges can be solved by Congress paying close attention to the FEMA requisites and making it independent to reduce bureaucracy. The research method used is scholarly research, which refers to systematically studying a topic to produce new knowledge or deepen understanding. Conclusively, FEMA plays a key role in disaster management in the United States, and its removal from DHS will greatly affect it financially and functionally.
Introduction
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a Cabinet-level department of the United States federal government with the primary responsibility of protecting the homeland. The Homeland Security Act created the department following the attacks on September 11, 2001 (Farmer et al., 2020). Conversely, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was founded in 1978 by an executive order from then-president Jimmy Carter in response to a series of devastating natural disasters, most notably Hurricane Katrina in 2005 (Rushefsky, 2017). FEMA faces a few challenges, and its removal from DHS will both negatively and positively impact disaster management, DHS, and itself.
Pros of Removing FEMA from the DHS Structure
There are several pros for removing FEMA from the DHS structure. First, it would facilitate a more simplified emergency management procedure, minimize bureaucracy, and produce a more affordable emergency management system (CostsSledge & Thomas, 2019). Second, it would allow for greater state flexibility and local control in responding to emergencies, which will strengthen national security by focusing on the primary mission of DHS: preventing terrorist attacks.
Reducing Bureaucracy and Management Cost
The DHS was created in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. FEMA was placed within DHS; the DHS’s goal was to create a more coordinated response to emergencies and disasters. However, many argue that placing FEMA within DHS has resulted in more bureaucracy and red tape rather than a more coordinated response (Jennings et al., 2017). Removing FEMA from DHS would reduce bureaucracy by consolidating agencies within the same department, thus improving communication and coordination between agencies and making them more effective in responding to emergencies.
Enabling DHS to Attain Its Mission
FEMA is a part of the DHS, and it might be removed from DHS as part of the proposed reorganization of DHS; this will allow more flexibility and local control in responding to emergencies. Under the proposed reorganization, FEMA would become an independent agency, reporting directly to the president (Knapp, 2020). This independence will give FEMA more autonomy in responding to emergencies and make FEMA less bureaucratic and more effective. The proposed reorganization aims to improve the country’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies. Moreover, DHS will be better able to achieve its mission of preventing terrorist attacks if FEMA is removed from its purview because FEMA’s primary focus is on disaster relief, not terrorism prevention (Farmer et al., 2020). With FEMA out of the picture, DHS can concentrate its resources on activities that are more relevant to its mission.
Cons to Removing FEMA from the DHS Structure
Conversely, there are a few cons to removing FEMA from the DHS structure. One con is that it would be more difficult for FEMA to coordinate with other federal agencies in the event of a natural disaster. This coordination hardship is because FEMA would not have direct access to the information and resources of other agencies, as it will not be part of DHS (Sanfilippo et al., 2020). Another limitation is that it could result in confusion among states and local governments about who is responsible for responding to emergencies, thus leading to a delay in the response time to emergencies. Finally, another disadvantage is that it will decrease FEMA funding because it will no longer be part of the larger department.
Challenges FEMA Faces in Responding to Disasters
Funding and coordination are the key challenges facing FEMA in responding to disasters. FEMA is often challenged in providing relief to those affected by a disaster due to inadequate funds. For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, FEMA was criticized for being insufficiently prepared and having too little money to assist the victims. Later, this criticism was largely attributed to the fact that FEMA’s budget had been cut by $1 billion since President Trump took office (Schroeder, 2018). Similarly, after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, it was reported that FEMA had only little funds available to provide relief, which was insufficient given the magnitude of the disaster to be $108 billion (Perkiss & Moerman, 2020). FEMA needs stable funding to plan effectively for and respond to emergencies.
In addition, FEMA faces coordination issues when performing its functions. When responding to disasters, it coordinates its efforts with local and state emergency management agencies and private sector partners. This coordination is essential to ensure that resources are properly allocated and that all necessary assistance is provided to those affected by the disaster. The coordination process can be difficult due to the many different organizations involved and the various priorities that they may have (Jennings et al., 2017). In order to facilitate coordination, FEMA establishes liaisons with these organizations and provides them with regular updates on its plans and activities.
What Strategies Should Occur to Lessen these Challenges
The solution concerning financial constraints is to have appropriate funds allocated in advance so that FEMA is not placed in the position of having to ask for emergency supplemental funding. In recent years, Congress has been reluctant to provide the requisite funding for FEMA, placing the agency in a difficult position (Schroeder, 2018). In addition, the current administration has proposed cuts to FEMA’s budget that would compound the problem.
One way to lessen FEMA’s challenge would be for Congress to offer more funding for its operations in terms of regular budget allotments and supplemental emergency funding (Schroeder, 2018). This funding would ensure that FEMA has the resources to respond promptly and effectively to disasters. The coordination challenges can be lessened by making FEMA an independent agency so that it does not require a long chain of consultation before acting.
Conclusion
In summary, FEMA’s role is to support state, local, and tribal governments in the United States during times of emergency or disaster. As an agency, FEMA has been working with DHS, which is responsible for offering protection in the United States. Different institutions and individuals have been supporting the removal of FEMA from the DHS structure. The pros are that FEMA can operate more quickly and efficiently without the red tape of DHS due to eliminated bureaucracy and lengthy coordination. Furthermore, congress can act faster in processing FEMA financial requisites to enable it to respond to disasters effectively.
References
Farmer, C. M., Whipkey, K., & Chamberlin, M. (2020). Programs addressing psychological health and resilience in the U.S. Department of homeland security. Rand health quarterly, 9(1), 8. Web.
Jennings, E. A., Arlikatti, S., Andrew, S. A., & Kim, K. (2017). Adoption of information and communication technologies (ICTs) by local emergency management agencies in the United States. International Review of Public Administration, 22(2), 193-210. Web.
Knapp, H. (2020). Managing an administrative emergency: Establishing FEMA as an independent agency. Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review, 31, 231. Web.
Perkiss, S., & Moerman, L. (2020). Hurricane Katrina: Exploring justice and fairness as a sociology of common good (s). Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 67, 102022. Web.
Rushefsky, M. E. (2017). Public policy in the united states: Challenges, opportunities, and changes. Routledge.
Sanfilippo, M. R., Shvartzshnaider, Y., Reyes, I., Nissenbaum, H., & Egelman, S. (2020). Disaster privacy/privacy disaster. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(9), 1002-1014. Web.
Schroeder, S. C. (2018). Does America’s new disaster relief law provide the relief america needs. Houston Law Review, 56, 1177. Web.
Sledge, D., & Thomas, H. F. (2019). From disaster response to community recovery: Nongovernmental entities, government, and public health. American Journal of Public Health, 109(3), 437-444. Web.