What Happened to the FEMA Review Council’s Final Report?

Posted on December 30, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

Like many emergency managers, I was anticipating the release of the overdue final report of the FEMA Review Council. If you’ve read my previous blog posts on the Council, you’ll know I did not have very high expectations for the report. However, as a former FEMA employee I am well aware of the need for major changes to the organization and I had hoped that the Council’s report would at least provide areas for negotiation about FEMA’s future.

I was further encouraged by the leak of a draft of the report to CNN which suggested that FEMA would survive as an agency, albeit with a major rebranding and remaining under the Department of Homeland Security. There were clearly additional problems, such as the recommendation that 50% of the FEMA workforce be cut and raising the threshold for disaster assistance, but these were issues that could be resolved through congressional debate.

It was not to be. At literally the last minute, the meeting to release the report was cancelled, ostensibly because senior Whitehouse officials hadn’t received the latest version of the report. There were also rumours that the President was unhappy with the report, that DHS was embarrassed by the leak, or there was internal dissent among Council members over DHS edits. As of this writing, there has been no word on when or if the FEMA Review Council will meet to release the final report.

More concerning is evidence of undue influence on the final report by the Director of DHS. A US News and World report in November quoted AP sources that reported that the original draft report was in excess of 160 pages. The original draft went beyond just reforming FEMA to consider major policy changes. It included nine “key principles,” including reforming public assistance, flood insurance, direct assistance to survivors, and improving rural resilience. It also recommended changes to the Stafford Act. There have even been suggestions that several Council members supported making FEMA an independent agency, although I have no evidence this was included in the original draft. The DHS Director and her advisor edited the draft, removing content and adding changes, ending with a final draft of only 20 pages. Significantly, it eliminated all mention of mitigation and slashes preparedness dollars for local emergency management agencies.

Emergency management and particular FEMA have always been based on continuous improvement. We learn from disasters and try to improve our policies and tactics to support future response operations. In 2009, Claire Rubin and her created created a timeline that highlighted this commitment to improvement. The timeline identifies major focusing events from 2008 to 2018 and the resulting legislation and programs resulting from lessons learned. Setting aside the work of the Council and ignoring their recommendations completely abrogates this commitment.

So, what can we do about? There are several things that come to mind. Frankly, I don’t think the 20-page DHS report is going to enjoy much credibility. We should use the political clout of our jurisdictions and constituencies to demand the release of the original report. Remember that the report contains recommendations that might require congressional approval and we can lobby for or against them. However, they can serve as the basis for open discussion on how to improve emergency management in the United States. I would also demand a public comment period on the recommendations. The public comments viewed by the Council overwhelmingly supported FEMA.

Another option is to completely ignore the recommendations of the Council and support the FEMA Act of 2025 (H.R. 4669). The Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025 is a bipartisan bill that makes FEMA a cabinet-level agency, shifts from reimbursement to grant-based funding for states, streamlines aid, and boosts mitigation efforts, with provisions for quicker funds, simplified applications, and better equity for survivors. As of September 3, it has passed out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and is awaiting a floor vote. The Speaker of the House has shown no interest in bringing it to a vote.

The bill is hefty, amounting to some 207 pages. But it is also comprehensive, addressing reforms for public assistance, individual assistance, and mitigation and allows for transparency in agency operations. It also aims to streamline disaster funding by providing block grants for small disasters. It may not be perfect, but it would go a long way to improving emergency management. I urge you to use the political power of your jurisdictions and constituencies to support this important bill.

Mythmaking: Turning Fact Into Fiction

Posted on November 26, 2025November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

If you’ve been following my blog for any length of time, you’re probably aware that I have a penchant for history. I believe history has a lot to teach us and there are common themes that seem to repeat throughout history that have a bearing on current affairs. For example, Barbara Tuchman’s A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century takes its title from her premise that the crises of the 14th century were reflected in the late 20th century. Similarly, Heather Cox Richardson’s Wounded Knee: Party Politics and the Road to an American Massacre describes political corruption in the late 19th century that is eerily similar to what we are observing with the current administration.

However, one of the most interesting issues for me has always been the truth behind myths. In many cases, we find that many myths do have a historical basis. The problem is that the facts behind a myth are often altered for a variety of reasons. We must ask ourselves what it is that makes myth so enduring and why do they persist, even when the truth is well known.

Some of variation between reality and myth is understandable and can be put down to misinformation that has changed in the retelling of an event. A myth is often the product of oral tradition, and it may be centuries before it is written down. Consider the classic works of Homer, The Iliad and The Odyssey. Homer is believed to have composed them as an oral recitation some 400 years after the events at Troy and were not written down until over 200 years later.

In other cases, events may be deliberately exaggerated to inspire. The Battle of Roncevaux Pass in 875 CE that resulted in the death of the legendary French knight Roland was an ambush of Charlemagne’s rearguard by Basque soldiers in retaliation for his burning of Pamplona. However, the myth changed the Basque to Saracens and had Roland dying heroically, creating one of the most influential myths of the Middle Ages.

Exaggeration can sometimes cross the line into deliberate disinformation, done for political purposes. Nero’s fabled fiddling while Rome burned in 64 CE was propaganda fomented by his political enemies. He was, in fact, heavily involved in coordinating relief efforts. During World War I, British newspapers were instrumental in spreading a false narrative that the Germans had a processing plant that boiled the corpses of dead soldiers to make oil, fat, and soap, dehumanizing the German army and turning public opinion against what was perceived as a brutal enemy.

In addition to misinformation and disinformation, mythmaking also relies on those that create the myths. We’ve mentioned Homer, who may or may not actually existed, but other poets have done their bit. The myth of Paul Revere’s famous “midnight ride” is famous because of the poem written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow during the American Civil War to inspire patriotism. There were two other riders riding with him that night and a young girl of 16, Sybil Ludington, rode 40 miles, twice the distance of Revere, to bring the warning to the militia of a British attack on Danbury. Horatius defending the bridge at Rome against the Etruscans in 508 BCE might have been just a footnote in history if not for Thomas Babington Macaulay’s famous poem. And what would have become of the charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava in 1854 if Alfred Lord Tennyson had not written his famous poem?

Our modern world has largely turned away from poetry, but the mythmakers still exist and are even more effective with advent of social media. X recently unveiled a new feature that reveals the location of users and the results demonstrate that mythmakers are still very much with us. According to news stories, a large percentage of high‑profile MAGA and related right‑wing influencers are based outside the U.S. and thought to be foreign actors using social media to try to reshape American society. Here are some examples gleaned from media sources:
• America First, 67,000 followers, Bangladesh.
• Americaman: 15,000 followers, Indonesia.
• American Patriot: 140,000 followers, Chile.
• Dark Maga: 15,000 followers, Thailand.
• IvankaNews: one million followers, Nigeria.
• MAGA & World: 3,000 followers, East Asia and the Pacific.
• Maga Nadine: 390,000 followers, Morocco.
• MAGA Scope: 51,000 followers, Nigeria, while MAGA Beacon is based in south Asia.
• MAGA: 1000 followers, Germany.
• MAGANationX: 400,000 followers, eastern Europe.

This brings us to the third component of mythmaking: the need for people to believe in the myth. Myths are accepted because people want to believe them. Myths frequently mirror beliefs already held by the recipient, what psychologists call confirmation bias, or speak to emotions that resonant strongly with the recipient. In addition, constant repetition of disinformation creates what psychologists call the illusory truth effect, where the constant repetition of a statement makes it more likely to be believed as true. This is why changing peoples’ minds with facts really has little success when a myth has taken hold. There will always be those who are not prepared to surrender closely held beliefs. For the rest, the only leverage we have is to go after the source: the misinformation or disinformation that is at the root of the myth.

In Technology We Trust

Posted on November 26, 2025November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

Guest Contribution by Michael Martinet, CEM

Go to a trade show, ANY trade show, and technology vendors of one sort or another, be they physical equipment or digital services, are the dominant presence. Nowhere is this more the case, than at an emergency management, disaster response, terrorism, or crisis management conference.
These cutting-edge technologies, especially including Artificial Intelligence, promise deliverance from whatever shortfalls bedevil the viewer’s respective discipline or program. If there’s a problem, there’s allegedly a technology fix on display, be it faster, more accurate, or more omnisciently able to analyze the respective data.

As is often the case, the individual technology not only promises to provide solutions to both the current perceived problem(s), and whatever unpleasant problems may possibly pop up in the indistinct near future.

Naturally, there is an often-substantial upcharge for these future features, and there is also the matter of the associated training costs, and the annual maintenance fees to maintain the usefulness and viability of the particular product or service in question. Thus, the actual life cycle costs can often be quite indeterminate; especially when the application of the technology turns out to be a spectacular flop.
Twenty or so years ago, in Southern California, during a very large wild fire, a notification technology, as advertised, sent an evacuation warning out to the community via local television, at THREE o’clock in the morning, a brain-dead mis-application of a possibly otherwise useful tool, insofar as almost all of the viewing public would have been asleep at that time.

On the flip side of the coin, the 2018 Hawaii false missile alert sent the Islands into a thoroughly confused status. Approximately one-quarter of the residents believed the alert, and nearly the same fraction did not believe the broadcast, with almost one-half not knowing either way.

An important consideration in the procurement and application of any technology are the inherent promises which the product or system promises to deliver, albeit usually under ideal conditions. Few technological solutions(?) will be able to deliver all that is promised.

Some years ago, I worked with a city of 140,000 population, within a much larger metropolitan area which also had a major petroleum refinery. Thanks to and because of the presence of the refinery, the city had no less than seven different types of notification protocols and technologies, due in part to the unpleasant fact that no single protocol or technology could guarantee 100% notification in the event of a problem at the refinery.

In one instance, when the warning sirens went off, the prevailing winds were blowing opposite from their normal flow, and the sound of the sirens were heard in a neighboring city, where the citizens had no idea what the siren’s warning meant, and naturally the city in which the sirens were located got less than the planned level of warning.

Technology is only a crude tool when mis-applied. It’s using a hammer to cut a board and using a saw to pound a nail.

The key element always is effective, proper, and understanding human control of the technology.
Looking back at the tragic floods that affected Texas this past summer, one of the frequently raised questions was regarding the lack of warning sirens. The sheriff was allegedly asleep, the emergency manager was supposedly off sick, and many of the locals were not concerned in spite of the broadcast warnings. What good would warning sirens have done to bring this picture into sharp actionable focus and actually save lives?

Just weeks earlier, in St. Louis, the responsible parties allegedly failed to use the existing warning siren system when a devastating tornado struck the City. The siren system was, by the way, very old, and apparently ill-maintained, so there’s no way to know if it would have worked, and if so, its warning was believed and acted upon by the citizens.

In the emergency management world, technology often presents the promise of timely and effective warning, often delivering neither. Sometimes indeed it is a failure of the technology itself, but quite often the failure resides in the hands and minds of the human behind the magic button.

Until humans wake up and take serious account of their responsibilities to their citizens will the ephemeral promise of technology begin to be even slightly realized. Signing off on the purchase order for a specific technology is not in and of itself a solution, it is the beginning of a very long-term and serious commitment.

Michael Martinet is Principal with The Martinet Group, LLC, specializing in teaching Disaster Finance and Cost Recovery programs. He is the author of Fighting With FEMA: A Practical Regulations Handbook.

Returning EM Responsibilities to the States. How’s That Working For You?

Posted on September 26, 2025November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

As we’re all aware, the current administration has constantly stated that they want to return responsibility for disaster relief back to the states. The mechanism to accomplish this is largely through either the elimination or significant restructuring of FEMA and transferring responsibility for administration of the Disaster Relief Fund to the Whitehouse. While we could debate the usefulness of a FEMA with no access to relief funds, the sad fact is that the Whitehouse is already calling the shots on relief funding.

In the past, the President made the decision on declaring a disaster quickly. During my time at FEMA Region IX, it was not unusual to come to work in the morning and be on a plane that evening. Now requests are not processed as received but are batch processed, delaying a response by weeks or even months. According to data compiled by Carnegie’s Disaster Dollar Database, disaster requests are being processed on roughly a bi-monthly basis. The data shows one gap of fifty-one days between July and September, despite a series of severe storms and flooding in the Midwest and Great Plains.

So, what’s the big deal? The problem is that without a declaration FEMA has no authority to provide the direct federal response needed in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. This means it can not deploy, establish a joint field office, or fund mission assignments to other federal agencies. This is important because, by definition, a disaster exceeds the resources available to state and local governments and direct federal response becomes critical in filling the gap. In addition, the federal government has specialized resources not normally available in most states.

The public perception is that FEMA is all about providing disaster relief funding, forgetting this direct response mission. However, programs such as Individual Assistance are also dependent on the timing of a Presidential Disaster Declaration. FEMA cannot take applications for assistance without the funding provided by a declaration, meaning that immediate assistance to displaced survivors suffers from substantial delays. This translates to no immediate assistance such as intermediate sheltering or home repair funds.

To make matters worse, while the Disaster Relief Fund is still solvent, it is expected to end the fiscal year with a barely positive balance according to the August report to Congress. Consequently, FEMA has been operating as if under an Immediate Needs Status by prioritizing immediate response needs over reimbursing jurisdictions for recovery activities. What this means is that jurisdictions in recovery mode are suffering substantial delays in reimbursements, with a resultant impact on municipal budgets. In some cases, the delayed funding can far exceed a jurisdictions annual budget.

The delays in deploying FEMA and reimbursing jurisdictions for recovery expenditures share a common thread: the desire to reduce the impact on the Disaster Relief Fund and prevent the need to request additional funding from Congress before the end of the fiscal year. This a clear case of prioritizing appearance over substance. Given the high likelihood that there will be a government shutdown, the situation is liable to get worse before it improves.

The problem is compounded by the refusal of the administration to recognize the importance of mitigation. On April 4, the President became the first President in 27 years to refuse a request for disaster mitigation funding in a Presidential Disaster Declaration for Virginia. In an April 21^st memo, then FEMA Administrator Cameron Hamilton recommended that the President not automatically approve funding for hazard mitigation in disaster declarations and this has largely been the case since.

Also in April, FEMA ended the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), cancelled all BRIC applications from Fiscal Years 2020-2023, and froze $3.6 billion of unspent funds that had been approved for states. The BRIC program was the successor to the Pre-disaster Mitigation Program and was intended to assist communities in preparing for disasters before they occurred. Since funds were allocated and applications approved, many communities had already let contracts and begun capital projects, and the cancellation of federal funding will mean the cancellation of many of these initiatives.

This is the emergency management program we are being offered by the Republican Administration. Expect to handle a crisis that exceeds your resources without the deployment of federal resources to assist. Be prepared to fund relief for individuals and communities. Find your own funding to make your community safer. There’s talk of block grants that can be used by states, but will you be able to administer it? Given the administration’s demonstrated unwillingness to spend money already allocated for disaster relief, can you be assured it will even be available?

Yeah, how’s that working for you?

IAEM-USA Petition Update

Posted on September 25, 2025November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

In last month’s blog, Fighting Back, I asked you to consider signing a petition calling for the International Association of Emergency Managers to enforce its Code of Conduct. While the petition was not formally sent to IAEM, has responded to the concerns we raised in the petition. I recently received the following message regarding IAEM’s response.

Hello friends,

Thank you for adding your name to our petition asking that IAEM enforce its Professional Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Given IAEM’s response to the petition as outlined below, we have decided not to formally send the petition to the IAEM Board of Directors at this time. Below are the four requests included in our letter, and a summary of how IAEM has addressed our requests:

1. Issue a clear statement clarifying the role of emergency managers in the United States and condemning the participation of emergency managers in detaining persons perceived to be immigrants. On September 4, 2025, IAEM released a written statement making the organization’s position clear that “emergency management exists to safeguard lives and property, protect communities, and foster resilience through thoughtful, evidence-based strategies”; that “[e]very decision we make should reflect our responsibility to uphold public trust”; and that “[a]bove all, emergency managers should do what they can to ensure emergency management remains a discipline rooted in compassion and service to all people as we work to build safer communities.” https://www.iaem.org/Groups/Councils-Global-Regions/IAEM-USA-Council/August-2025-President-Statement.
2. Hold those who have violated the current Code of Conduct accountable by revoking their Certified Emergency Manager (CEM®) or Associate Emergency Manager (AEM®) credentials of those who participate in an official capacity in depriving members of their community of their rights.
   In a separate statement issued on September 3, 2025, to IAEM member and CEM Matt Green, the IAEM Presidential team stated that it has engaged with the Certification Commission leadership “to examine potential implications for applications that reference any work completed in the planning, construction, and operation of any detention facility for immigrants anywhere in the US and around the world,” and has “emphasized that the Commission must ensure its processes are prepared to evaluate applications that include experience within detention facilities.” The statement further indicates that the Presidential team has directed the Commission to “ensure we conduct a fair evaluation of emergency management work while confirming, and being absolutely certain, that no activity described in an application violates IAEM’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Additionally, they will continue to ensure that any experience or documentation submitted upholds the principles of emergency management.” https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c-e1cON6NrSi5ehn9O2vertw08YECy3c.
   IAEM further indicates in this statement that it has “coordinated with IAEM’s legal counsel and the Executive Director to ensure operational readiness to address any complaint that is received, supported by evidence, involving an IAEM member or AEM®/CEM® certification holder. Should any member suspect that another member, or a certificate holder, is violating the code or engaging in illegal activity, our system and processes stand ready to evaluate each complaint . . . .” https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c-e1cON6NrSi5ehn9O2vertw08YECy3c.
   The IAEM complaint process can be found at https://www.iaem.org/Complaint-Procedure.
3. Update the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct to make it clear that emergency managers who participate in an official capacity in depriving members of their community of their rights violate the Code and may be disciplined as a result
   For now, given IAEM’s statements as cited above, it appears the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct addresses the issues presented by participation in depriving people perceived to be immigrants of their rights. See https://www.iaem.org/Portals/25/documents/Bylaws%20and%20Apps/IAEM-USA-APPs-Board-Approved.pdf. (p. 29-31.) For example, the Code provides that “IAEM-USA members have a primary duty of loyalty to the communities they serve and the environments they impact. Their work should uphold high ethical standards and respect for human dignity.” (p. 29.) In addition, the Code requires that members of IAEM act with respect for “the people we serve through compliance with the laws, regulations, and recognized standards is essential in maintaining integrity and trust in our professional and community relationships.”
   Similar requirements apply to those who have achieved IAEM certification as an AEM® or CEM®. See https://www.iaem.org/Portals/IAEMcertified/Documents/Resources/Professional-Ethics-and-Conduct-Guide.pdf.
4. Keep members of the profession informed on a regular basis as to the steps IAEM-USA is taking to address this issue
   The statements issued by IAEM are a good first step in communicating IAEM’s position and its willingness to enforce the Code in the event of violations. We believe IAEM can do a better job of being transparent in their disciplinary actions while still maintaining privacy, but that is an issue for another day.

All that said, we encourage you to contact IAEM directly to express your thoughts, especially if you feel that the points in our letter were not fully addressed. We believe it is especially important that IAEM hear from anyone who made a decision to renew, rejoin, or to leave the organization based on these issues. We also believe it is particularly important for IAEM to hear from people who refrained from signing the petition out of fear. Anything we can collectively do to address that fear will only help the organization and the profession.

Sincerely,

Nathaniel Matthews-Trigg, MPH, CEM
Sarah Miller, PhD, CEM
Edie Schaffer, JD, CEM

Powered by WordPress

Fighting Back

Posted on August 27, 2025December 29, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

In troubled times such as these one of the biggest problems for many people is a feeling of powerlessness as we face a much stronger opponent. In lieu of my usual article, I’d like to offer two options for making our collective voices heard.

The first is an email I just received from my colleague, Edie Schaffer, in which she calls for the International Association of Emergency Managers to enforce its Code of Conduct. Edie writes:

I am reaching out to ask you, as a current or former member of the International Association of Emergency Managers-USA Council (IAEM-USA), or as someone who has achieved the CEM® or AEM® credential from IAEM, to join me in signing a petition to the Board of Directors of IAEM-USA. The petition calls on the IAEM-USA Board to protect our profession by making it clear that emergency managers in the United States who assist in detaining people perceived to be immigrants are acting outside the scope of the profession and may be disciplined.

Over the past months, we have seen a growing number of emergency management agencies actively assisting federal immigration officials in establishing and operating detention centers for immigrants. These actions violate IAEM-USA’s Professional Code of Conduct, which provides that:

• Emergency managers must “[s]erve communities with dedication, fairness, and impartiality”;
• IAEM-USA “does not tolerate discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, or other protected characteristics”; and
• Emergency managers must “[t]reat . . . the public with dignity and respect.”

Yet, despite the apparent violations of its Code of Conduct by emergency managers who participate in detaining persons perceived to be immigrants, IAEM-USA has taken no action.

The petition calls on the IAEM-USA Board of Directors to take the following steps:

• Issue a clear public statement clarifying the role of emergency managers in the United States and condemning the participation of emergency managers in detaining persons perceived to be immigrants.
• Hold those who have violated the current Code of Conduct accountable by revoking their Certified Emergency Manager (CEM®) or Associate Emergency Manager (AEM®) credentials of those who participate in an official capacity in depriving members of their community of their rights.
• Update the Code of Conduct to make it clear that emergency managers who participate in an official capacity in depriving members of their community of their rights violate the Code and may be disciplined as a result.
• Keep members of the profession informed on a regular basis as to the steps IAEM-USA is taking to address this issue.

I hope you will join me in signing the petition, which is here: https://forms.gle/A8czpL8iyQAyZw66A

I also encourage you to share the link to the petition with colleagues you trust who are either current or former members of IAEM-USA, or who have earned the AEM or CEM credential.

Even if you are not a member of IAEM, the actions that Edie describes also violate the Foundational Tennents our recently adopted Code of Ethics and Professional Standards of Conduct for Emergency Managers Professionals. You can find a copy on my website at https://luciencanton.com/?page_id=293. If we are ever to truly become a profession, enforceable ethical standards are essential. I encourage you to review and sign the petition. You do not have to be a member of IAEM to sign the petition.

The second option is to support the recent action by a group of FEMA employees who recently sent a letter to Congress stating that the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) “… introduced safeguards to ensure the shortcomings of disaster preparation and response would not be repeated. However, two decades later, FEMA is enacting processes and leadership structures that echo the conditions PKEMRA was designed to prevent” (see the full document at https://www.standupforscience.net/fema-katrina-declaration ).

The letter identifies six “Statements of Opposition” that the signatories oppose:

• The reduction in capability of FEMA to perform its missions.
• The ongoing failure to appoint a qualified FEMA administrator, as required by law.
• The elimination of life- and cost-saving risk reduction programs.
• Interference with preparedness programs that build capacity for state, local, tribal, and territorial partners.
• The censorship of climate science, environmental protection, and efforts to ensure all communities have access to information, resources, and support.
• The reduction of FEMA’s disaster workforce.

Further, the signatories petition Congress to:

• Establish FEMA as a cabinet-level independent agency in the executive branch.
• Defend the agency from further interference from DHS, including illegal impoundments of appropriated funding; ensuring FEMA retains its full authority, responsibilities, functions, and capabilities to perform its missions.
• Protect FEMA employees from politically motivated firings and ensure continued protection under merit-based personnel systems.
• Demand transparency from OMB, DOGE, and FEMA leadership regarding internal employment policies and future agency reductions.

Given the current political climate, this is an incredible act of bravery on the part of the 191 signatories, particularly the 36 who have allowed their names to be used. I encourage you to read their petition and to add your name to their Statement of Solidarity and Support https://www.standupforscience.net/katrina-declaration-support-statement.

These may seem like small steps that may have little impact, but I assure you that unless we make our voices heard, nothing will change for the better.

Who’s Really In Charge of a Disaster?

Posted on July 31, 2025December 29, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

At the second public meeting of the FEMA Review Council on July 9^th, the Secretary of Homeland Security repeated in her opening statement much of the disinformation that has been circulating about FEMA. Among these was the need to return leadership for disasters to the state. This need to “stop FEMA from supplanting the states” was a theme that was repeated by many of the speakers. With August being designated Emergency Management Awareness Month, this question of who leads in a disaster is one that should be addressed with the public.

The role of the federal government in disaster relief is one that has evolved over time, largely in response to focusing events, major disasters that created a demand for action by the federal government. Initially, however, disaster relief was considered a state responsibility. The Constitution does not assign specific powers for disaster relief to the federal government, so under the 10^th Amendment, these powers were assumed to be reserved to the states. This issue would resurface frequently as the federal disaster bureaucracy developed.

In those occasions where the federal government did involve itself in disaster relief, it was as the result of individual bills and was normally limited to economic relief from federal excise taxes. There were exceptions, such as compensation for citizens following the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-94) and the War of 1812 and the land transference scheme following the New Madrid earthquake in 1811 but generally the federal government did not provide general relief bills. By the end of the 19^th Century, however, general relief bills were becoming increasingly common, despite claims that such relief was unconstitutional. By the beginning of the 20^th Century a combination of factors such the growth of urban areas with their concentration of people and complex infrastructure, major disasters such as the Great Chicago Fire (1871, the Johnston Flood (1889), and the San Francisco earthquake and fires (1906), and the emerging role of the American Red Cross in disaster relief led to an increased role of the federal government in disaster relief and the beginnings of a disaster bureaucracy.

Despite the growth of the disaster bureaucracy, the leadership of state and local governments in disaster relief was never in question, sometimes to the detriment of citizens. In Plagues in the Nation: How Epidemics Shaped America, historian Polly J. Price traces how the commitment to states’ rights and individual liberties often hindered the response to epidemics. In the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, where Herbert Hoover served as what later become the Federal Coordination Officer, Hoover worked through state governors and local officials rather than taking direct charge.

When FEMA was created in 1979, it was through a transfer of existing funding programs from other agencies. FEMA was considered at the time as a “third responder” that would provide relief funds following a disaster. This would change following Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and particularly Hurricane Andrew in 1992 where FEMA was accused of taking too long to respond. The reason given by FEMA was that the Stafford Act required a governor’s request before FEMA could act. This criticism and the continued public demand would result in changes that allowed FEMA to pre-deploy personnel and resources in anticipation of a major disaster.

Despite this new role, FEMA was expected to defer to the state. FEMA personnel could be deployed to a state emergency operations center to ensure rapid response to state requests for direct federal assistance and, following an event, could establish a Joint Field Office with state representatives but the Stafford Act is clear that the state and, by extension, the local government has the lead on response:

302 (c) When the President determines assistance under this Act is necessary, he shall request that the Governor of the affected State designate a State coordinating officer for the purpose of coordinating State and local disaster assistance efforts with those of the Federal Government.

303 The President shall form emergency support teams of Federal personnel to be deployed in an area affected by a major disaster or emergency. Such emergency support teams shall assist the Federal coordinating officer in carrying out his responsibilities pursuant to this Act…Each emergency response team shall work in coordination with State and local officials and onsite personnel associated with a particular incident.

401…as a prerequisite to major disaster assistance under this Act, the Governor shall take appropriate response action under State law and direct execution of the State’s emergency plan.

So, what’s the problem? The most visible part of FEMA’s response is the Individual Assistance Program. It is also the one that creates the most visible problems. It is a convoluted program that involves multiple funding streams and relies heavily on verification by contract employees with often limited training and familiarity with FEMA regulations. State and local agencies have limited involvement with the program. There is considerable research that strongly suggests that the program is skewed against people of color and those with low incomes. Many attempts have been made over the years to improve the program with limited results. Reforming this program would go a long way to improving both the delivery of disaster relief to survivors and to enhancing the reputation of the agency.

To be clear, both by law and by tradition, state and local governments are responsible for disasters affecting their communities. When they request assistance from the federal government, the Stafford Act requires:

302 Such a request shall be based on a finding that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the affected local governments and that Federal assistance is necessary.

That federal assistance is provided at the request of and in coordination with state and local governments. FEMA does not supplant, it supports.