Fighting Back

Posted on August 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Fighting Back

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, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Who’s Really In Charge of a Disaster?

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.

Is It Possible to Save FEMA?

Posted on June 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Is It Possible to Save FEMA?

Last month I offered some thoughts on why I thought that the fate of FEMA had already been decided (Is FEMA a “Dead Man Walking?). Sadly, this has proven to be prophetic. On June 10, the President announced that he would dismantle FEMA after the hurricane season, which ends on November 30^th and shift responsibility for response and recovery to the states. Diminished funding for disaster relief would be disbursed directly from the President’s office.

This renders moot any report that might be prepared by the FEMA Review Council. As I mentioned last April (President Names FEMA Review Council Members: Can You Say, “Stacked Deck?”), the Council membership is clearly stacked against FEMA and the Council has not exactly been making much effort. It’s inaugural meeting was just held on May 20. You can view the proceedings at https://www.dhs.gov/medialibrary/assets/video/60813.

Of note were remarks by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who co-chairs the Council along with the Secretary of Defence, in which she stated:

Let me be clear about the future of this agency. The president wants it to be eliminated as it exists. So, I don’t want you to go into this thinking that we’re going to make a little tweak here, a little delegation of authority over here, that we’re going to maybe cut a few dollars somewhere. No, FEMA should no longer exist as it is. He wants this to be a new agency, something that understands its role in emergency response. That is our direction from the President of the United States. And as we go forward, everything will be viewed from that lens.

It is clear from this and other comments that many members of the Council are continuing to confuse immediate response, which has always been the responsibility of local government, with the disaster relief FEMA provides. This is a bit surprising, considering that many of the Council members have had direct experience with FEMA support in disasters.

It will be interesting to see how the Council will be able to follow these marching orders and recommend dismantling FEMA when much of the input they are receiving suggests just the opposite. You may recall that in March, DHS requested public input on their experiences with FEMA. By the time the comment period closed on May 15, over 11,000 comments were received. Of those, over 99% were supportive of FEMA and its mission and urged that the agency continue, albeit with good-faith reforms. You can find a breakdown of the data at  https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/FEMA_RFI-Summary_of_Public_Comments-FINAL.pdf.

In addition to this show of public support, on April 14, over 40 community organizations signed a letter to Congress opposing the dismantling of FEMA. National emergency management organizations such as the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) and the National Emergency Managers Association (NEMA) also oppose the dismantling of FEMA and support reform.

Given this level of support, can FEMA be saved? It’s clear that the Republican administration has already decided that FEMA must go, so any attempt to save and reform FEMA will be an uphill battle. However, the executive branch does not have the authority to dismantle an agency; that can only be done by Congress. Pressure on legislators may yield results.

So, what can be done? Here are some ideas:

• Educate elected officials at all levels: IAEM is launching an initiative to make August National Emergency Management Awareness Month. The initiative is essentially a coordinated outreach program intended to reach elected leaders, private sector and nonprofit leaders, and organizational or community decision-makers. The IAEM website contains suggestions for activities and provides resources to help.
• Mobilize your constituency: Emergency managers don’t often think of themselves as having a constituency, but volunteers that support us such as Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), Red Cross shelter teams, and HAM radio groups have already demonstrated a commitment to emergency management. They may well be willing to help with outreach and advocacy and letter writing campaigns.
• Encourage “official positions” – Many jurisdictions have a procedure for taking official positions on proposed legislation. Learn the process and propose having your jurisdiction support the continuation of FEMA.
• Leverage lobbyists – Large jurisdictions often maintain paid lobbyists at the state and federal levels. They support a jurisdiction’s official positions at those levels. If your jurisdiction has a team of lobbyists, learn how to use them.
• Participate in emergency management organizations: Join your state emergency management organization and encourage them to take an official position supporting FEMA. Consider joining IAEM, which has a team that lobbies Congress on our behalf.
• Monitor and support proposed reform legislation: There are several bills in Congress intended to reform FEMA. For example, R.5599 – FEMA Independence Act of 2023 would make FEMA an independent agency and return it to cabinet rank. In May, Representatives Sam Graves (R-MO) and Rick Larsen (D-WA) released a “discussion draft” of the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025. The draft bill proposes making FEMA an independent cabinet agency and would mandate many of the reforms that have been suggested over the years. It is essential that you be aware of bills like these and, as appropriate, support them using the methods described above.

Having spent seven years with FEMA, I well know that the agency is not perfect. But over the years, I have seen it grow and adapt under the guidance of professional emergency managers like James Lee Witt and Craig Fugate. It is light years ahead of where it was when I started and has helped build an emergency management system that is not perfect but still damn effective. Dismantling the agency would negate all the gains we have made over the last seven decades. We can’t let this happen.

Is FEMA a “Dead Man Walking?”

Posted on May 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Is FEMA a “Dead Man Walking?”

On May 7, the Acting FEMA Administrator, Cameron Hamilton, appeared before the House Appropriations Committee. Hamilton has few qualifications for the job beyond loyalty to the President. So, it came as a stunning surprise when he praised the FEMA staff as “one of the greatest workforces in the entire federal government” and provide a realistic appraisal of needed improvements in the agency. When questioned about the possibility of eliminating FEMA, he replied, “As the senior advisor to the President on disasters and emergency management, and to the Secretary of Homeland Security, I do not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.” Hamilton made it clear that this was his recommendation and that the decision about FEMA’s continued existence was not his to make but rather the responsibility of the President and Congress.

Cameron Hamilton was fired on May 8.

While no reason was given for Hamilton’s firing, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem had testified the previous day, “President Trump has been very clear since the beginning that he believes that FEMA and its response in many, many circumstances has failed the American people, and that FEMA, as it exists today, should be eliminated in empowering states to respond to disasters with federal government support.” Noem’s comments and Hamilton’s firing for apparently expressing a conflicting opinion, is yet another indicator that FEMA is on the chopping block.

Hamilton was replaced by David Richardson, Assistant Secretary, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, a part-timer with no emergency management experience. According to CNN, Richardson has replaced over half a dozen long-time FEMA leaders with DHS staffers who have no experience in emergency management or senior management. Like Richardson, they are part-timers who will be splitting their FEMA duties with their current DHS duties. In a meeting with FEMA employees, Richardson threatened that he would “run over” any of the staff that resisted his intentions to implement the President’s agenda and stated. “I, and I alone in FEMA, speak for FEMA.” Employees later told CBS that the speech was “unhinged” and “terrifying.”

Richardson has stated that FEMA has no plan in place for the hurricane season that begins on June 1^st. This is not surprising, considering that FEMA lost some 200 employees immediately and over 1000 employees (about 20% of the existing workforce) are expected to take a voluntary buyout. Since many of these employees were assigned to response duties, this represents a significant loss of experience and talent at a critical time for the agency Recall that a 2022 GAO report found that FEMA was understaffed by at least 35%. This is coupled with the cancellation of funding for preparedness and mitigation programs intended to help jurisdictions prepare for disasters such as the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. With the lack of plan, a shortage of experienced response staff, the departure of many leaders, and low morale, FEMA is poorly positioned to deal with a major disaster. It will most likely fail catastrophically, adding further fuel to Republican demands for its elimination.

A further indicator that the elimination of FEMA has already been decided is the composition of the FEMA Review Committee. Of the thirteen members of the committee, only three are emergency managers, two of whom are from Republican states. The governor of one of those states is also on the committee, raising doubts that his emergency manager will stray far from the party line. In all, eleven of the committee members are Republicans. You can find more information in my recent article, President Names FEMA Review Council Members: Can You Say, “Stacked Deck?”

So where does the elimination of FEMA leave us? When Republican officials complain about FEMA, they tend to focus on recovery programs. They do not seem to realize that FEMA does not manage a disaster; that is the job of the state and local governments. What FEMA does is coordinate the delivery of direct federal assistance by tasking and reimbursing federal agencies as requested. Are state agencies prepared to coordinate and reimburse the activities of some numerous federal agencies? Does the financial and legislative authority even exist for this?

With regards to recovery programs, FEMA has been accused of being overly bureaucratic. It’s fair criticism but a lot of it is because FEMA must meet application requirements put into place by Congress to reduce fraud. Are states prepared to manage these programs? Do they have sufficient staff to conduct inspections, determine eligibility, disburse funds, and pursue fraudulent claims? What about determining eligible costs for response activities or auditing reconstruction costs?

There are other ways to reduce recovery bureaucracy and streamline the delivery of assistance. On May 8, Representatives Sam Graves (R-MO) and Rick Larsen (D-WA) released draft legislation that would significantly reform FEMA. The bill, Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025, would return FEMA to a cabinet position, streamline the public assistance program and reduce the backlog of disasters to be closed out, and simplify application for and delivery of individual assistance. In short, it attempts to address the real problems that hamper FEMA rather than just eliminating the agency to score political points.

But disaster assistance is still only a drop in the bucket. In my recent article, What the Public Doesn’t Know About FEMA, I wrote about the many “behind the scenes" missions that FEMA has. This includes the grants that fund many emergency management offices. Without this funding, many small offices would close unless their costs are assumed by state or local governments. FEMA serves as a source of doctrine that brings cohesion to emergency response. This doctrine provides a basis for both higher education curricula and for professional training by both public and private agencies. Losing FEMA means the end of the cohesive emergency management system that has taken over seven decades to build. Once it is gone, it can never be replaced.

The phrase, “Dead Man Walking” is commonly used to describe a person on their way to execution or someone in a doomed or untenable situation. The deck appears stacked against FEMA but if the President’s own appointee can find the courage to speak the truth, there may still be hope. To quote Dr. Martin Luther King, “Only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars.”

President Names FEMA Review Council Members: Can You Say, “Stacked Deck?”

Posted on April 30, 2025August 28, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on President Names FEMA Review Council Members: Can You Say, “Stacked Deck?”

On January 24, 2025, the President established the Council to Assess the Federal Emergency Management Agency through Executive Order 14180, Council to Assess the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The goal of the FEMA Review Council is to advise the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, on the existing ability of FEMA to capably and impartially address disasters occurring within the United States and shall advise the President on all recommended changes related to FEMA to best serve the national interest.

On April 28th, the President appointed several new members to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Review Council. Appointed Members:

1. Co-Chair: Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem
2. Co-Chair: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth
3. Greg Abbott, Governor, State of Texas
4. Phil Bryant, Former Governor, State of Mississippi
5. Jane Castor, Mayor, City of Tampa, Florida
6. Mark Cooper, Former Chief of Staff, Governor John Bel Edwards
7. Rosie Cordero-Stutz, Sheriff, Miami-Dade County
8. Evan Greenberg, CEO, Chubb Limited
9. Kevin Guthrie, Executive Director, Florida Division of Emergency Management
10. W. Nim Kidd, Chief, Texas Division of Emergency Management
11. Michael Whatley, Chairman, Republican National Committee
12. Glenn Youngkin, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia
13. Robert J. Fenton, Jr., Region 9 Administrator and two-time Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency

It’s no secret that FEMA needs reform. From its beginning, it has struggled to streamline a system of disaster assistance that is convoluted and bureaucratic. As we are coming to realize, many of our disaster assistance policies do little to help those most in need. This is the result of a combination of factors, many beyond FEMA’s control. But the agency has evolved and has improved over the years.

Many emergency managers have seen the formation of the Council as a long overdue opportunity to reform FEMA. However, the membership of the Council as recently announced by the President does little to indicate that this assessment will be fair and impartial.

First, let’s consider the obvious issue of political affiliation. Instead of a bipartisan commission, five of the six elected officials on the Council are Republican, as are the two co-chairs. The sole exception is the Mayor of Tampa, Jane Castor. The chairman of the Republican National Committee is also included on the Council, an individual with no role in government or experience in emergency management.

The Council includes a representative of the insurance industry, Evan Greenberg, the CEO of Chubb Limited. While the Chubb PAC has provided roughly equal funding to both parties, in the past four years Mr. Greenberg has personally donated over $22,000 to Republican candidates and only $5,600 to Democrats.

Turning to the three emergency managers on the Council, two are from Republican dominated states, Texas and Florida. Both states have already made it clear that they believe that FEMA should be abolished. The Governor of Texas is a member of the Council, which may or may not influence the participation of Mr. Kidd. That being said, both these gentlemen are well qualified, professional emergency managers and their inclusion on the Council is appropriate. This leaves us with the third emergency manager on the Council and the sole representative of FEMA, Robert Fenton. I’ve known Bob since he joined FEMA and have the highest regard for his professional competence and personal integrity. His presence on the Council is a win for emergency management.

So much for the Council. I think the next question is, “Who’s missing?” Aside from the obvious need for bipartisan membership from both parties, there are major gaps. The first is the academic community. Numerous academics have been studying FEMA over the years from a historical and sociological perspective. They create the specialized body of knowledge that provides the basis of emergency management policy and over the years have contributed to both the formation and several reorganizations of FEMA.

Another obvious gap is the absence of past FEMA Administrators who are respected in the emergency management community, such as James Lee Witt or Craig Fugate. Where are those who can speak for local emergency managers? Issues at the state level and in big city disasters often do not reflect what happens at the local level. This is particularly true for tribal governments and communities like Guam or Puerto Rico. What about the many agencies that work with FEMA in a disaster? Shouldn’t VOAD be part of any assessment of FEMA?

I’m not suggesting that we create an enormous Council, and I recognize that the Council can hold hearings that include testimony for multiple participants. What I am suggesting is that the current makeup of the Council, the ones who will make the final decisions, is clearly biased against FEMA and many have already made up their minds. I have little hope that the result will be a clear and balanced appraisal of an agency that, despite the need for reform, is still one of the best in the world at what is does.

What the Public Doesn’t Know About FEMA

Posted on March 28, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on What the Public Doesn’t Know About FEMA

My brother in Los Angeles called the other day to wish me a happy birthday. After the usual pleasantries and catching up on family, our talk turned to the current situation in the United States. Oddly, for two siblings who were raised in the same environment, we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Fortunately, we have sufficient affection for each other to be able to discuss issues amicably with the understanding that we won’t be able to change each other’s minds.

My brother said that he thought returning emergency management responsibilities to the states was not a bad idea. He also felt that FEMA wasn’t really needed. As we talked, I realized that all he really knew about emergency management and FEMA’s role was what he was hearing on the news and most of that was the misinformation spouted by the current administration. It made me wonder what it is we’re not telling the public.

The only thing the public hears is FEMA’s recovery mission. I say “recovery” because little mention is made of FEMA’s role in coordinating the response of multiple federal agencies. FEMA not only distributes disaster relief funds from programs under its control, but also coordinates funding provided through the programs of other agencies such as the Small Business Administration. All these programs were created by Congress and have different regulations imposed by their implementing legislation. Most of the public don’t realize that many of the programs FEMA disburses directly were originally administered by other federal agencies. FEMA was created to consolidate these various programs into a single agency and to serve as the primary source of disaster relief funding.

FEMA also coordinates direct federal assistance provided by responding agencies through a system of mission assignments. This allows FEMA to tap any needed resources available in the federal system. This might be specialized teams such as a Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT) or an Urban Search and Rescue Team (USAR), teams that are drawn from local governments but trained, equipped, and funded by FEMA. Direct federal assistance might include resources such as emergency power generation provided by the Corps of Engineers or technical assistance in determining increased fire load provided by the US Forest Service. There have been times where FEMA tasked the US Navy to provide hospital ships to support relief operations or the Air Force and Coast Guard for aerial assets for transportation and reconnaissance.

Sometimes FEMA is called on to solve unusual problems directly. Following the Northridge earthquake, we were tasked on short notice to find a circus tent to support local merchants. In the Pacific we had to purchase and deploy desalination units for remote islands that had contaminated water lenses and worked with GSA to locate and airlift a critical part to keep a local government vessel operational. During the recovery from Hurricane Iniki, we worked with the Corps of Engineers to transport ice from Oahu to Kauai until local companies could regain operations using FEMA supplied generators. In Puerto Rico after Hurricane Marylyn, we found ourselves having to assemble portable toilets for distribution across the island.

Like many, my brother believes FEMA is a bloated, inefficient agency. However, FEMA is an extremely small agency, having less than 5,000 permanent full and part-time employees distributed over ten regional offices and the Washington DC headquarters. During disaster response, the agency can call on approximately 7,800 Reservists who fill disaster management roles and 8,900 Cadre On Call Recovery/Recovery Employees (CORE), temporary employees on 2-to-4-year appointments who support disaster related activities. FEMA can also hire locally when deployed to a disaster area.

However, not all these employees are deployable assets. Only about 10,000 are assigned to incident management. Others provide incident support, ancillary support, and mission essential support services to deployed incident management staff, as well as to FEMA more generally. According to a May 2023 GAO report, FEMA Disaster Workforce: Actions Needed to Improve Hiring Data and Address Staffing Gaps, in 2022 FEMA had a staffing gap of 35% across all categories. Hardly a bloated agency considering the increase in frequency and ferocity of disasters.

So, what do the remainder of FEMA employees do? Almost a third of FEMA’s budget is devoted grants intended to increase local communities’ ability to respond to disasters. These include mitigation programs such as the National Flood Insurance Program and national security programs such as the Urban Areas Security Initiative and Port Security Grants. One critical grant is the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) that provides funding to local emergency management offices to enhance emergency planning. Grants are also provided for specific threats such as dam safety and firefighting. FEMA funds numerous training and education programs such as the US Fire Administration, the Emergency Management Institute (now The National Disaster & Emergency Management University), and the Center for Homeland Defence and Security. FEMA also provides funds to help local governments deal with homelessness and hunger, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP). FEMA even plays a role in supporting the US NATO mission by advocating for national preparedness and resilience. FEMA hosted "The Resilience Dialogue: Strengthening our Communities to Meet the Future," at the 2024 NATO Summit which focused on these key areas

                But it is in advancing the professionalization of emergency management that I believe FEMA has made its biggest contribution. By developing doctrine, we have moved towards a standardized system of emergency planning and response that allows us to share resources and provide mutual aid. The development of the National Incident Management System and adoption of the Incident Command System was a major step forward, Concepts such as Whole Community and Lifelines have improved our ability to involve communities in emergency planning.

                FEMA has further supported professionalization through the Emergency Management Institute. Not only has FEMA provide onsite and remote training for practitioners, but its Higher Education Program has helped develop the curricula that is shaping the next generation of emergency managers. More importantly, its ability and willingness to fund working groups devoted to professional development has given us the long-needed definition of emergency management, the Principles of Emergency Management, and our Code of Ethics and Professional Standards of Conduct.

                The Secretary for Homeland Security announced at a recent cabinet meeting that she intends to eliminate FEMA, fueling speculation that the review council directed by the President in January will be cancelled. This suggests that changes to the agency will be made without consultation with the emergency management community. We need to focus the discussion away from just the failures of relief operations and ensure that the pre-disaster mission of FEMA is given equal weight. We all agree that FEMA needs review and improvement but not at the expense of turning the clock back almost a hundred years.

It’s Past Time To Adopt A Code of Ethics

Posted on February 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on It’s Past Time To Adopt A Code of Ethics

As emergency management evolves from a technical discipline to a profession, one of the hallmarks that we have been lacking is a code of ethics. A code of ethics has many functions but the most important by far is that it establishes a framework for decision making that ensures that our actions are morally sound as well as legal. This in turn builds trust and confidence in those we serve. This trust has been badly eroded over the past few years and there has never been a greater need for a code of ethics.
Attempts to develop a code of ethics for emergency management have been going on for several years, both in the academic world and supported by FEMA. Professional organizations such as the International Association of Emergency Management have developed their own but these generally pertain only to members of the organization and have not gained general acceptance within the emergency management community.

To address this need, the FEMA Higher Education Project assembled an Ethics Special Interest Group that drafted a code of ethics in 2021 that was then circulated for review and comment. The document was finalized in 2022 and presented at several emergency management conferences, where it was well received. The document, Code of Ethics and Professional Standards of Conduct for Emergency Management Professionals, consists of two components: a code of ethics that provides a set of “foundational tenets that guide ethical practice and decision-making” and a standard of conduct that presents “professional expectations for all emergency management professionals and extends across all areas of practice as well as individuals’ representation of the profession of emergency management”. In addition, the document includes several appendices that provide guidance on an ethical decision-making process and examples of the application of the code and standards.
The foundational tenets stated in the Code of Conduct are straightforward:

1. Think ethically, act morally.
2. Obey the law.
3. Maximize the good done for people and society, taking into consideration the needs of the most vulnerable.
4. Respect the rights of people and organizations; fulfill duties and obligations to those served.
5. Build trusting relationships.
6. When faced with an ethical dilemma, use an ethical decision-making process.

As with most things, the devil is in the details. To fully implement the code of ethics, it is necessary to understand and follow standards of conduct that identify the responsibilities inherent in the code. The Professional Standards of Conduct consist of 28 standards that detail our responsibilities to affected populations, the public, the environment, colleagues, employers, the profession and ourselves. Here again the document is clearly written and straightforward:

Responsibility to Affected Populations

STANDARD 1: Emergency management professionals recognize that diversity in needs exist and work to provide services without discrimination or preference.

STANDARD 2: Emergency management professionals use their expertise to communicate clearly, effectively, and appropriately regarding risks.

STANDARD 3: Emergency management professionals collaborate with stakeholders to understand vulnerabilities, exposures, threats, and the unique characteristics of communities in determining risk reduction measures.

STANDARD 4: Emergency management professionals advance the development and implementation of programs, plans, strategies, and initiatives to support life safety, reduce or eliminate damage to property and the environment, and support quality of life.

Responsibility to Partners, Stakeholders, and the Public

STANDARD 5: Emergency management professionals create and maintain robust, effective relationships with a wide variety of partners.

STANDARD 6: Emergency management professionals are aware of and operate within applicable laws and regulations.

STANDARD 7: Emergency management professionals educate, inform, and promote change in programs, policies, regulations, and laws that conflict with the professional and effective practice of emergency management.

STANDARD 8: Emergency management professionals accurately represent their qualifications.

STANDARD 9: Emergency management professionals support and guide evidence-based choices and actions by clearly communicating the adverse impacts of hazards and threats based on scientific evidence.

STANDARD 10: Emergency management professionals stay informed about new research, practice standards, relevant tools, and technologies.

STANDARD 11: Emergency management professionals remain current on issues that affect public risk.

STANDARD 12: Emergency management professionals do not engage in or endorse abusive, harassing, or hostile professional relationships.

STANDARD 13: Emergency management professionals make sound fiscal decisions that support effective practice and the stewardship of resources.

Responsibility to the Environment

STANDARD 14: Emergency management professionals understand the interconnectedness, interdependence, and sensitivities between the human, built, cyber, and natural environments.

STANDARD 15: Emergency management professionals seek to protect the natural environment from harm and, where practical, nurture its recovery.

Responsibility to Colleagues

STANDARD 16: Emergency management professionals support and assist other professionals in meeting and elevating emergency management practice.

STANDARD 17: Emergency management professionals respond appropriately to unprofessional and problematic behavior of their colleagues.

Responsibility to Employers

STANDARD 18: Emergency management professionals take direction from employers without deviating from professional standards.

STANDARD 19: Emergency management professionals have a duty to provide employers with all available relevant facts, data, and resources so that they are able make informed decisions.

STANDARD 20: Emergency management professionals, whether in formal or informal leadership roles, have an obligation to use an ethical decision-making model to help create an organizational culture that promotes and encourages professional behavior.

Responsibility to the Profession

STANDARD 21: Emergency management professionals have a duty to further the standing of the profession through their words, behaviors, and actions.

STANDARD 22: Emergency management professionals have an obligation to advocate for a representative and diverse profession.

STANDARD 23: Emergency management professionals promote the continuing development and improvement of their profession.

STANDARD 24: Emergency management professionals support and assist emergency management students in their learning and career development, including opportunities to engage in relevant internships and practicums, participate in training and practice activities, and contribute to meaningful work projects and initiatives.

Responsibility to Self

STANDARD 25: Emergency management professionals have a commitment to lifelong learning and to continually advance their knowledge and skills to serve their community and the profession.

STANDARD 26: Emergency management professionals recognize how their own cultural and social backgrounds, beliefs, values, and biases may affect competent and just service, and strive to make proactive positive changes for the benefit of their constituents.

STANDARD 27: Emergency management professionals are mindful of the ways in which stress can affect their health and well-being and take appropriate self-care measures.

STANDARD 28: Emergency management professionals practice continual self-reflection focused on professional growth and development.

Surprisingly, the document, although generally praised by professional organizations and practitioners, has not been well publicized and consequently has not received much traction in the emergency management community. It has been removed from the FEMA website and is difficult to find in a web search. At a time when our credibility is at a very low ebb, I think it is essential that we create a groundswell of support. I urge you to adopt the Code of Ethics and Professional Standards of Conduct for Emergency Management Professionals in your organization and publicize it anyway you can. It is another milestone in our road to being recognized as professionals.

Note: you can find a copy of the Code of Ethics and Professional Standards of Conduct for Emergency Management Professionals as well as the Principles of Emergency Management and its supplement on my website under Resources: Professional Reference.

Abolish FEMA? Not A Good Plan.

Posted on January 29, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Abolish FEMA? Not A Good Plan.

In an interview with a conservative talk show host on January 22, 2025, the incoming President of the United States said that he would prefer to end FEMA’s federal mission and return responsibility for disaster response to individual states. He reiterated disinformation about FEMA’s response to Hurricanes Milton and Helen in 2024 that he and fellow Republicans had used to discredit the agency, claiming that FEMA had not performed well in the past four years and “got in the way” of effective response.
Comments such as these and the threat to abolish FEMA demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the emergency management system in the United States operates and sets disaster relief back by several hundred years. Disaster relief was originally the responsibility of individual communities and states, and federal assistance was extremely limited. As populations grew and disasters became more complex, the role of the federal government in disaster relief increased. It was understood that disasters, by definition, exceed the resources of the state. FEMA was created to consolidate the various relief programs offered by federal agencies into a cohesive framework.

FEMA has always had a troubled history. It was formed from various programs from other agencies with associated staff, operating cultures, and funding streams. This prevented the FEMA director from being able to reallocate resources to where they were most needed and to adequately respond to disasters. Indeed, the FEMA mission, especially in the early stages of a disaster, was not clearly defined.
But FEMA evolved over time. Administrative problems were overcome, and the agency’s mission became more defined. This was particularly true once politicians began to realize the agency was more effective when led by a professional emergency manager. FEMA’s biggest missteps usually occurred when non-emergency managers served as directors or administrators.

The most visible part of FEMA’s mission is the provision of disaster relief. However, this role is misunderstood by most politicians and the public. FEMA is a small agency and provides very few direct services. Instead, it coordinates the activities of other agencies of the federal government in much the same way local emergency managers coordinate local agencies. FEMA uses a system of mission assignments to reimburse these agencies for their support.
FEMA has also developed a mechanism for disbursing disaster relief funds to disaster victims. In this it relies primarily on a large pool of reservists who handle the application and inspection process. Part of this financial mechanism includes a process for reimbursing local governments for the costs associated with response and recovery. This financial process also relies heavily on reservists to review applications and inspect projects

.
Much of the bad press that FEMA gets, aside from the recent problem of deliberate disinformation, can be traced back to reservists who are insufficiently vetted, trained, and supervised. In addition, FEMA emerging research indicates that disaster policy in the US harms those who need help the most after a disaster. There is no doubt that there is a need for substantive changes to disaster relief policies in the US and to how FEMA operates.

FEMA’s mission, however, goes beyond just disaster relief. Inheriting the planners positioned at local levels by the old Civil Defence programs, FEMA evolved this into a system of all hazards planners. Many local emergency management programs are dependent on FEMA funding for their existence. In evolving this system of planners through training and publications, FEMA has created a national doctrine that governs planning and response. While there is considerable variance in how this doctrine is applied locally, it has bred enough similarity that programs such as the Emergency Management Assistance Compact and local mutual aid agreements allow for cross-agency support. All this would be lost if FEMA were abolished.

On January 26, 2025, the President signed an executive order that established a FEMA Review Council headed by the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense. The Council is charged with assessing FEMA and making recommendations to the President within 180 days on how to improve the agency. On the surface, this seems a reasonable approach that could considerably improve FEMA. However, the President has made it clear that he would like to see FEMA abolished and the responsibility for disaster relief become the responsibility of individual states with relief funds controlled by the White House. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen and will depend on the makeup of the Council.

Even if FEMA survives, there are other proposals contained in Project 2025 that could affect the agency and have a major impact on disaster relief policy:
• Move the agency to the Department of the Interior.
• Combine it with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and move it to the Department of Transportation.
• Increase the disaster cost share from states paying 25% to paying 75% to encourage more state involvement in disaster preparedness.
• Adjust the per capita indicator to raise the threshold for receiving Public Assistance.
• Privatize the National Flood Insurance Program.
• Require all grant recipients to demonstrate that they comply with federal law, and that their mission and actions support the broader homeland security mission.
• Eliminate the SBA Disaster Loan Program.
• Clarify the mission of the Strategic National Stockpile as the supplier of last resort to the federal government, state governments, or first responders and key medical staff rather than serving the public.

Between deliberate disinformation and continued emphasis on FEMA’s failures rather than its successes, the public has lost trust in FEMA and the emergency management system. The failure to apply for assistance by disaster victims in Hurricanes Milton and Helene is the most recent example of what lack of trust can create. The threat of tying disaster relief to acceding to political demands in the Southern California Wildfires of 2025 is further eroding trust in the government. Trust is essential to successful disaster relief.

One small ray of hope is a bi-partisan bill introduced Congressmen Jared Moskowitz (D) Florida and Garret Graves (R) Louisiana in 2023. The bill, H.R.5599 – FEMA Independence Act of 2023, would establish FEMA as a cabinet-level independent agency. The bill has been languishing in committee since November 2023 and is unlikely to pass the Republican dominated House and Senate or to be signed by the President.

Emergency managers are not completely powerless. By educating politicians and the public, there may still be time to stop the gutting of a vital agency and begin to regain public trust. Three critical areas need to be addressed:
1. Protest any attempts to abolish FEMA.
2. Demand that the FEMA Administrator be an experienced professional emergency manager.
3. Advocate for passage of H.R. 5599