emse232

On Monday, November 25, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Bill, which will create a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This action will have a great impact on communications within the federal emergency management arena. Specifically, the relationship between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Director and the President of the United States - a relationship that has been nurtured over the past decade to a point of refined excellence - has the potential to be greatly changed, as does the internal communications between the FEMA Director and FEMA employees.
   According to President Bush, “The new [Department of Homeland Security] will analyze threats, will guard our borders and airports, protect our critical infrastructure and coordinate the response of our nation to future emergencies.” (1) The motivation for this reorganization comes with our nation’s new war against terror and our need to be better prepared against a terrorist attack. In a speech the President gave at the signing of the bill, he stated 5 agenda items for the new DHS. These are:
1.   Analyze intelligence on terrorist threats
2.   Focus efforts to face challenges of cyber-terrorism, nuclear, chemical and biological terrorism
3.   Consolidate emergency management resources for state and local governments
4.   Bring together agencies responsible for border, coastline, and transportation security
5.   Work with state and local officials to prepare our response to any future terrorist attacks (1)
These agenda items place the roles and responsibility of FEMA near the bottom of the list, and show that there will be diminishing communications between the President and the FEMA Director, and this will most likely have ripple effects on the communications between the FEMA Director and the agency itself. The President’s plan does stipulate that the new Department would “maintain FEMA’s procedures for aiding recovery from natural and terrorist disasters,” however; this involves the addition of at least four new levels of government in the chain of command used to communicate a disaster and implement a Presidential disaster declaration. (2)This will not help the American citizens in a time or crisis or disaster, which is what FEMA is tasked to do.

Emergency Management prior to September 11, 2001
On March 31, 1979, the Carter Administration passed Executive Order 12127, establishing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The new agency was designed to streamline the more than 100 agencies involved in some aspects of risk and disasters. The plan for FEMA outlined several underlying organizational principles:

1.   Federal authorities tasked to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to major civil emergencies should be supervised by one official responsible to the President and given attention by other officials at the highest level.
2.   The system would require the most efficient use of all available resources.
3.   Emergency responsibilities should be an extension of federal agencies, no longer just state and local government.
4.   Federal hazard mitigation should be closely linked with emergency preparedness and response functions.

Carter’s intentions were grand, but it took more than a decade for FEMA’s goals to be met. In fact, FEMA was almost abolished before it was able to show the nation and its government the value and importance of emergency management, starting in the 1990s.
When the Clinton administration took office in 1993, President Clinton appointed James Lee Witt as Director of FEMA. This was a monumental account for the organization as it represented the first time that the President and FEMA Director had a working relationship prior to taking on the task of federal emergency management. Witt was also the first agency head that came to the position with experience in emergency management, having previously served as the Director of the Arkansas Office of Emergency Services for four years. (4)

Mr. Witt was faced with leading an organization that was continuously failing at its job and losing the support of the American people, and Congress. Witt had experience in emergency management though, and as a skilled politician, he understood the importance of building partnerships and meeting customers’ needs. These needed changes were not something he could bring to FEMA overnight, though. Witt went to Congress and to the President and asked for time to make changes. Undeniably, Witt’s healthy personal and working relationship with the President bought him the time he needed. Within two years, Witt had effectively changed the organization and its image among the American citizens and the federal government. In February 1996, Clinton elevated Mr. Witt to cabinet status – the first for a FEMA Director, and further amplified the message that FEMA was there to stay. (3)

Witt was the first FEMA Director to establish a strategic plan and he revise FEMA’s mission statement. Part of what Witt saw as a positive change in reviving the agency was eliminating 2 layers of management and abolishing two major directors. In a sense, eliminating the number of rungs in the ladder between the agency employees and their director. Witt’s success in reviving FEMA was recognized by President Clinton and VP Gore as “a model for successful government.” The agency received increasing public attention and honors for its revitalization and focus on customer service. (4)

Continuing the tradition of interpersonal communications as a key link in effective emergency management, President George W. Bush nominated Joseph Allbaugh as FEMA Director after the administration change in 2001. At the time of appointment, Allbaugh was considered part of President Bush’s “iron triangle” (Karen Hughes – former White House Counsel and Karl Rove – senior White House advisor were the other parts of the triangle).

Allbaugh was a long-time aide for Bush, he previously served as chief of staff to Governor Bush from 1995-1999, and prior to that worked as campaign manager for President Bush’s first gubernatorial campaign in 1994. The American Red Cross stated at the time of Allbaugh’s appointment to FEMA, “Clearly, President Bush, as the honorary chairman of the Red Cross, understands the importance of disaster mitigation and disaster response by making a close advisor the leader of FEMA”. (6)
The change in the role of the FEMA Director during the Clinton and Bush administrations, from that of not only reporting directly to the President but also being his confidante, had a ripple effect on what FEMA was able to do for the nation. Directors Witt and Allbaugh have been able to develop their own agendas, mission statements, and strategic plans. They have brought customer service front and center, and have helped get FEMA recognized for being a personable agency - there to aid disaster victims, not some bureaucratic agency out to protect its own interests.

The relationships that the Presidents and Directors shared allowed FEMA to operate with less reporting requirements, and helped the agency stay focused on its goals. FEMA’s authority also worked its way to the State and local levels as well, where these governments were given “on-the-ground authority” to use judgment and flexibility to attack particular hazards. These accomplishments in organization and communications, starting with the relationship of the President and FEMA Director and reaching down within FEMA and into state and local governments, have allowed the United States to achieve the best emergency management system in the world, hands down. (7)

Changes in Emergency Management since September 11, 2001
Similar to the idea for a streamlined organization responsible for the more than 100 agencies involved in some aspects of risk and disasters set forth by former President Carter in 1979, President Bush’s 2002 plan for the new Department of Homeland Security underscores the fact that “no one single government agency has homeland security as its primary mission. In fact, responsibilities for homeland security are dispersed among more than 100 different government organizations.” (2)

The complicating factor for FEMA in this plan is obvious. At one time, an abundance of federal and state agencies were consolidated to form FEMA. Today, FEMA is one of the many agencies that will be consolidated to form the DHS. The reporting requirements for FEMA will quadruple, and this will certainly affect its focus, and its ability to see out its mission.

What was once the nation’s mission to protect, prepare for, and respond to its citizens in the event of any civilian emergency – and thus saw to the creation of FEMA – has shifted almost completely to the protection of our nation from “unknown threats of the future.” (2) FEMA’s new mission will most likely be centered on terror-based threats. The ability to protect people from natural hazards, an effort that has come so far in the past decade, may soon be forgotten. Though, that may not be totally true, after all two sentences on the fourth page of the 24 page plan for the DHS, do state that:

“The new Department would have a number of functions that are not directly related to securing the homeland against terrorism. For instance, through FEMA, it would be responsible for mitigating the effects of natural disasters.” (2)

Focusing on how this new plan will effect communications between the FEMA and the President during a time of a natural disaster, it is plain to see that the reorganization would place numerous layers of government between these two positions that would deter from FEMA’s timely performance during a crisis or disaster. Today a State’s Governor (or territory CEO) requests a Presidential Disaster Declaration (PDD) through their regional FEMA office. This requests is passed to the FEMA Headquarters and from the FEMA Director to the President. In the DHS, which does intend to maintain the FEMA’s procedures for aiding recovery from natural and terrorist disasters, the chain would now involve at least the addition of an Undersecretary from the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response (DHS), and the Secretary of the DHS themselves, if not also any Deputy or Undersecretaries from these offices. With the reorganization, the new Department of Homeland Security will have to report to 26 committees and 62 sub-committees of Congress that currently have oversight of the programs it will capture under its Office of the Director.

In a time of national crisis, placing filters between these two Executives may best be described as playing the “telephone game”. For those not familiar, in the “telephone game” one player starts out with a message and passes it on to the next player. The message is passed in private from player to player until it reaches its destination, at which point the message is communicated again to all players involved. History shows that the message is never identical to the message the first player started the game with. At the Federal Emergency Management level, in a time of crisis, this is not a risk we should be accepting.
The following are a few key points outlined in the Mercatus Center study on FEMA written after the reorganization under the Clinton/Witt administration:
1.    FEMA and its employees have decision-making authority that matches their roles and responsibilities.
2.    FEMA has a clear mission focusing on preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery for all types of disasters
3.    Since 1993 FEMA's culture changed from a formal, bureaucratic culture focused on processes, to a less formal, action-oriented culture focused on results.
4.    FEMA has enunciated a list of core values, and there is evidence that the values actually influence behavior in the organization. (8)

As an independent organization that reports directly to the President, FEMA is able to maintain these key competencies. However, when FEMA gets realigned into the new DHS, they will at best have diminished decision-making authority. Their mission will weigh heavily on preparedness and response to a terrorist incident, if not do so completely. Being moved to a “chain-in-the-command”, down from an independent organization, they would have no choice but to succumb to the bureaucratic culture again.
In the Emergency Management world, the customers served include the general public, elected officials, community and business leaders, and the media. Each of these customers is unique in their needs, and a good communications strategy addresses all of them individually. (9) At the same time, in the professional world, the most important customer to many businesses is the “one that pays”. FEMA, as an independent federal government agency, has maintained the ability to focus on the needs of its true customer – the American citizen. Being realigned deep within the chain of command of the DHS, not only will FEMA be tasked to meet the needs of the citizens, but for its livelihood and for that of its employees, FEMA will now need to “make the grade” to numerous levels of government appointees that it will report to. Focus from providing a needed service to citizens may easily be hampered by the need to meet the demands of any new mission statements or strategic plans set forth by its new chain of command.

The Future of Emergency Management
FEMA and the Federal Response Plan worked on September 11, 2001. There is no need to reinvent or duplicate this process for the benefit of the DHS and the nation’s effort to protect its citizens from the next terrorist attack. It is clear though, from the response and recovery aspects, that FEMA is the right organization to support the DHS, and work with the Emergency Preparedness and Response Division, to meet their mission requirements. FEMA has the established plan, resources, and experience to fulfill this need; as has been proven for the past decade. However, realigning the organization into the DHS allows for as many adverse, as it does beneficial, affects.

President Bush himself remarked on the importance of the communications link between the President and FEMA Director during Allbaugh’s appointment stating, “FEMA is an incredibly important part of a president’s team. The person who runs FEMA is someone who must have the trust of the President. Because the person who runs FEMA is the first voice, often times, of someone whose life has been turned upside down hears from.” (5)

An effective communications strategy provides timely and accurate information to the public during all phases of a crisis or disaster. Not only is communicating the right message critical in EM, but the timely transmission of the message is as well. Emergency managers must be able to communicate critical information to their staff, partners, the public and the media. (9) Every level of government that information must pass through before reaching its target audience will affect both the accuracy of information and the time in which it takes to be transmitted. Neither of these effects will lend credibility to FEMA or the new parent organization.

Therefore, a balance must be reached between where FEMA stands now, and where it is inevitably headed in the DHS realignment. There is good reason to link FEMA and its operations in to the DHS, however, some degree of separation must exist in order to preserve FEMA’s ability to protect America from all hazards, not just terrorist attacks. In that regard, FEMA should remain an independent agency.
In order to work with DHS and enable our nation to prepare and respond to terror-related disasters, however, they will need to report to the new Secretary of DHS. Realigning FEMA as an independent agency that reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Defense, would eliminate the single line of communications between FEMA and the President but it would not separate them so far that the agency no longer has the ability to establish its own mission and strategic plan – and use the support of the White House and Congress to do so.

Internally, FEMA could retain its focus and its programs on mitigation and building disaster resistant communities. It could continue to operate - at the needed levels -the United States Fire Administration and the National Flood Insurance and mitigation programs. After all, since September 11, 2001, FEMA has responded to about 100 times more natural disasters then terrorist acts. Having fewer reporting requirements would also enable FEMA and its staff to be action-oriented and not focused on “checking boxes” to make sure their agency is doing okay in the eyes of its superiors.

CONCLUSION
In all instances of reorganization, including past restructuring of FEMA itself, it can be expected that agencies and employees both will “bunker down” to protect themselves, their assets, and their established, comfortable work practices from effects of the changes. However, in the case of the stand-up of the DHS and the reorganization of FEMA to within this new “super agency”, the attempt to protect FEMA from being lost in the shuffle should not be seen as a selfish act, but rather as an attempt to provide continuous protection of the American people from the hazards that are most likely to effect them – natural disasters, not a terrorist attack.
It is understandable that to meet the needs of the nation, the requirements set forth by the President and approved by Congress for the new Department of Homeland Security, must be adhered to. Moving FEMA to the DHS would greatly improve the new Department’s Directorate of Emergency Response and Preparedness, but at the same time would hinder FEMA’s current capabilities to protect our nation and see to the response during all types of crisis and disasters. Therefore, FEMA should be realigned to report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Defense, but should not be completely integrated into the new super agency.

REFERENCES
1.    Mintz, John. “President Bush Signs Homeland Security Bill.” Washington Post. November 25, 2002.

2.    Bush, George W. “The Department of Homeland Security.” June 2002.

3.    Haddow, George et. Al. The Historical Context of Emergency Management. Chapter 1. October 2001.

4.    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). “About FEMA.” http://www.app1.fema.gov/about/witt/htm January 2001.

5.    Ferullo, Mike. “Bush Designates Allbaugh FEMA director, Rove as Senior White House advisor.” CNN.com January 4, 2001. http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/04/bush.announce/

6.    Long, Cynthia. “Former Bush Chief of Staff to Head FEMA.” DisasterRelief.org January 4, 2001.

7.    FEMA. Library: “Remarks for James L. Witt, Director.” November 5, 1997. http://www.fema.gov/library/wittspch7.shtm

8.    Mercatus Center at George Mason University. “FEMA Case Study.” http://www.mercatus.org/fema/summary.html

9.    Haddow, George, et. Al. “The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Communications.” Chapter 7. October 2001