Government Executive - Authors - Joshua D. Filler

Flirting With Disaster

Joshua D. Filler — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Removing FEMA from Homeland Security would only make coordination problems worse.

When the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved a bill to remove the Federal Emergency Management Agency from the Homeland Security Department, its goal was to better position the agency for disaster response. Make no mistake; pulling FEMA out of DHS would be a disaster in itself. What the agency really needs is better support from Congress, better integration with other parts of DHS, and retooling to meet an evolving mission.

A reorganization would waste valuable time and energy when the agency needs to focus on making sure the nation is prepared for all types of hazards. Separating FEMA would clutter the field with yet another independent federal bureaucracy that would compete with DHS for resources, fracture the homeland security community and confuse roles and responsibilities among the two agencies. This at a time when many states are merging their homeland security and emergency management functions.

Would FEMA handle natural hazards response and DHS manage all disaster preparedness but respond only to terrorism incidents? Or would FEMA handle both preparedness and response for natural hazards and DHS do the same in cases of terrorism? What if it's unclear whether an incident is a terrorist attack, accident or natural disaster?

Many say the reason FEMA failed during Hurricane Katrina is that it was hamstrung as an arm of DHS. The Katrina response was a failure largely because New Orleans and Louisiana were woefully unprepared despite receiving tens of millions of dollars to get ready. FEMA failed as well on many fronts, key among them being its inability to recognize the dysfunctional situation in Louisiana and the need for a far more rapid and aggressive federal response.

Some proponents of moving FEMA believe it would offer a chance to relive the glory days of emergency management in the Clinton administration. But those glory days are not what they might seem. During that time, FEMA had not faced a catastrophe anywhere near the scale of the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001 or Hurricane Katrina. The most significant events were the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Northridge earthquake in California in 1994, Oklahoma City's Alfred P. Murrah federal building bombing in 1995 and Hurricane Floyd in 1999. All were major events, some of which also involved criticism of FEMA's response, but the size and scope of damage-and federal resources needed-pale in comparison to larger events. No one really knows how FEMA at that time would have handled a catastrophe that devastated state and local resources.

It's true the agency faces challenges inside DHS, and Congress needs to address them. This includes developing clear lines of responsibility between Homeland Security's National Operations Center and FEMA's National Response Coordination Center; determining which tasks FEMA should manage directly or outsource to other agencies and the private sector, such as the logistics of moving supplies into a disaster zone; and creating an intergovernmental-private sector catastrophic planning framework to minimize the next Katrina-sized event.

FEMA has a critical homeland security mission and needs proper support from Congress, not another reorganization. Retooling the agency and truly integrating it into DHS is the key to success. It's time to get on with it.

Joshua D. Filler is founder and president of Filler Security Strategies Inc. in Washington and was director of state and local government coordination at the Homeland Security Department from 2003 to 2005.

]]>

Paying It Forward

Joshua D. Filler and Timothy L. Beres — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0400

One of the 9/11 commission's many findings was that government's approach to homeland security was fragmented. Agencies often failed to share information or could not communicate adequately during a disaster. In the interest of speeding money to critical programs, some in Congress are considering bypassing the states in the homeland security funding process. Ironically, such a move would force the Homeland Security Department to fund local entities directly through fragmented grant programs.

From the beginning, DHS and Congress determined that most homeland security grants should be distributed first to the states and then down to local governments and spent according to a statewide or regional homeland security plan for prevention, protection, response and recovery activities. The majority of that funding would go to local governments to carry out those activities.

If one were to design the ideal structure to protect against terrorist groups or major catastrophes, the federal system would not be it. It is designed to diffuse power and control through a tripartite federal government with 50 sovereign states; thousands of semiautonomous counties, cities, villages and towns; and tens of thousands of public safety agencies. The states play a key role in integrating the federal government and local agencies in this massive homeland security network, and bypassing them would invite chaos.

Homeland security grants through the states seek to enhance national preparedness and security by integrating capabilities across all levels of government. States have wide operational, legislative/legal, regulatory and financial jurisdiction, whereas local governments' authority usually starts and ends at the city or county limits.

Issues such as strategic planning, information sharing, mass evacuation planning, communications, and the protection of interdependent infrastructure systems demand a broad, statewide perspective that balances national priorities with local needs and maximizes homeland security funds. When states are not allowed to perform this role, the result is misallocation of resources and duplication of effort.

How can state government develop or enforce compliance with an interoperable communications plan if it has no authority over the federal funds allocated for such a plan? And in the absence of such compliance, will the nation ever have inter-operable communications?

The states' role as integrator does not undermine the role local governments play in homeland security. Indeed, the majority of tactical on-the-ground capabilities, such as law enforcement and firefighting operations, reside with local governments.

The federal government must reinvigorate its partnership with the states in developing and implementing homeland security programs. Cutting them out of the funding picture would further fragment government's ability to deal with all threats-manmade and natural. If some states are not performing, the problems should be identified and addressed. But the slowness with which some homeland security funds are spent has little to do with the states and virtually everything to do with antiquated local procurement laws.

States must begin to speak more effectively as a cohesive unit on homeland security issues to ensure that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of their roles and many achievements in protecting the nation.

Joshua D. Filler is former director of the Homeland Security Department's Office of State and Local Government Coordination; Timothy L. Beres is former director of preparedness programs for the agency's Office of Grants and Training.

]]>

Paying It Forward

Joshua D. Filler and Timothy L. Beres — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0400

States must continue to play vital role in homeland security funding.

]]>