It’s been a stressful time for emergency management as of late. Obviously, a lot of attention is focused on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its unknown future. This unknown future stems from criticisms of efficiency and effectiveness, and accusations of fraud. Some have said FEMA is a bloated, overly bureaucratic agency that isn’t agile enough to have optimal efficiency. While some claims may have substantial truth to them, other claims are exaggerated, while some have been proven false. Changes are being enacted, discussed, and speculated.
A council is being formed to advise on the future of FEMA, but changes are already occurring. The National Advisory Council has been disbanded; FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute and partner National Fire Academy have had their operations suspended pending a review of curricula (by who and for what seems to be unknown); employees have been laid off; documents and other information have been removed from the FEMA website; and orders are in place to remove all references to certain concepts and programs related to things such as climate change and equity – which are relevant and important to what we do.
But it’s not just FEMA that will feel current and potential impacts. FEMA has a great deal of impact on emergency management systems across the nation and abroad. Policies, directives, funding, programs, and ideas that FEMA implements, even if not intended to be applied at a state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) level, often are. FEMA’s mission is comprehensive, supporting preparedness through doctrine, training, exercises, and grants; disaster response through coordination of resources, specialized teams, and incident management; and disaster recovery and mitigation through doctrine, processes, and grants. And these are just broad examples. FEMA is also not the only federal agency that does emergency management. A vast majority of federal agencies do. While some have their own inherent authorities, FEMA’s job is to coordinate them all, and not just for the benefit of SLTTs, but also for all branches of the federal government.
The changes that have occurred already within FEMA and other federal emergency management partners, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and components of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), along with the specter of changes to come has led to an abundance of speculation across emergency management. Some of this speculation seems reasonable, while other speculation seems greatly misinformed and shows that even some who work in emergency management don’t understand emergency management. (example: The Director of the Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness stated that “disaster response is generally organized into three stages – each with different levels of oversight. Local officials handle the initial response during the first 72 hours after a disaster, the state then handles the second phase from 3 to 14 days after the event, and FEMA’s role typically begins after two weeks”. This is not an emergency management concept in the US. If it were, it would be outlined in the National Response Framework.)
A common complaint in this mess of rhetoric is that local governments don’t have enough control before, during, and after disasters. These statements are clearly made by those who are misinformed on the emergency management system in place in the United States. Again, I point to the National Response Framework, which clearly reinforces that emergency management broadly and disaster response specifically is supposed to be a locally executed program, supported at the state and federal level. States’ rights are a significant part of our Constitution, and most states are home rule states. Even those states which are governed by Dillon’s Rule (where local governments have only the powers explicitly granted to them by law) still have local governments with significant responsibility for their communities. In the United States, emergency management, like other functions, operates under a federalist construct, meaning that SLTTs have primary authority and responsibility for managing emergencies. The federal government then serves to provide support when SLTTs are overwhelmed. This is the foundation of the National Response Framework.
On March 4th of this year, a Congressional Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology convened a hearing entitled “Future of FEMA: Perspectives from the Emergency Management Community”. Leadership of the subcommittee seemed to not be certain of the purpose of this hearing as there were two differing statements of purpose given at different times – the first was to assess the current role of FEMA. The second was to solicit feedback from stakeholders which can guide the White House council in what areas can be reformed. While there may be some overlap between these two statements of purpose, they are yet very different. The hearing included very brief testimony from four witnesses engaged in emergency management. Speaking to the first statement of purpose, while most of the testimony given was thoughtful and relevant, I’d barely say that four brief statements (plus some Q&A) qualify as an assessment. As for the second statement of purpose, given that the White House’s council hasn’t even been formed, I’m not sure that anything from this hearing would be submitted to or considered by the council. Even if it were, I think specific statements may require more context, substantiation, and explanation.
One common theme I’ve heard from many, including some of those who gave testimony at this Congressional Subcommittee, is that FEMA’s disaster recovery funding is overly bureaucratic and takes too long to get into the hands of local governments. Many have been promoting the replacement of this funding system with block grants, which would give grant recipients (SLTTs) quicker access to funds and more control over how they are used. A current example of such a program is FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grants administered by FEMA’s hazard mitigation program. If you are interested, pros and cons of block grants are detailed fairly well in this GAO report and this CRS report.
While I agree that block grants can deliver the funds faster and allow for more flexibility in spending, there are some concerns I have with accountability, especially since there seems to be little standard in how block grants are audited. Block grants can also be strongly subjected to political pressures, which can result in disparities of effectiveness of the intent of the grant. While I acknowledge that FEMA’s disaster recovery grant program is highly bureaucratic, it is so for a reason – checks and balances. For example, the Public Assistance program imposes checks at every step before, during, and after a project, ensuring that the grantees are in fact even eligible to receive the funds; reviewing and approving a detailed project plan to ensure that the project is reasonable given disaster damages, that the project will improve upon what was previously in place; that the project follows applicable codes and standards; and that the project undergoes environmental and cultural impact reviews; among other things. Each of these items is verified during and after project implementation. These are all activities necessary to ensure that the project is a good investment of taxpayer dollars. Block grants tend not to have these kinds of checks and balances associated with them, which leads to a lot of concern.
I certainly acknowledge that most things can be improved upon. There are almost always efficiencies to be gained, but agencies and systems should be reviewed by those who have knowledge of those functions and why those systems are in place. Cuts should not be indiscriminate. I’ll also suggest that for any wholesale changes to things such as disaster recovery, laws, such as the Stafford Act, may need to be changed. This cannot be done at the whim of an administration. I’ll also agree that, even within the bounds of a federalist system, SLTTs should be more responsible, resilient, and invested in their emergency management programs. For decades SLTT emergency management programs have been funded at significant levels by grant programs such as the annual Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG). This causes significant concern for sustainability and continuity, and it has been a recent worry by many that grant programs like this will be summarily done away with (note that other SLTT programs like public health have similar grant funding streams). Obviously, this would decimate emergency management programs which were not prepared to shoulder these budgets, resulting in losses of numerous component programs, jobs, and capabilities across all phases of emergency management. With these grant programs in place for decades, there was rarely any incentive for SLTTs to self-fund these programs to any significant extent, so I think SLTTs and elected officials should be held blameless for not doing so. If there were to be a disengagement of federal funding, in whole or in part, for these programs, I suggest that it should be a phased approach, giving SLTTs a period of time, perhaps even ten years, to assess funding needs and develop budget plans to incrementally absorb these costs. Doing so will help ensure the sustainment of programs and services for their communities and stakeholders.
Change is coming. As stated in my post from a few weeks ago, we must take advantage of the opportunity, whether we like the circumstances or not. I also recognize that we may not have much control of what happens. While it’s long been the concept that where FEMA goes, so does the nation (at least in terms of emergency management), we may be forced to disengage from that concept. We may need to forge our own path forward. Depending on the direction taken and the leadership that may rise, we may see a new era in emergency management. Will emergency management as a function fail? No. It won’t. We will find a way. We must keep in mind that governance is a marathon, not a sprint.
I’m reminded of a statement by Calvin Coolidge which I’ve reflected on for much of my adult life:
Press on. Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverance. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. Press on!
©2025 Tim Riecker, CEDP
The Contrarian Emergency Manager 