FEMA and DHS: What's the Difference?

Abstract 

The United States of America has a role in protecting its citizens, property, assets, and territory form both humanmade and natural disasters. The DHS and its agency FEMA have been at the forefront in handling this and, together with other Departments, are battling the Coronavirus Pandemic. Primarily DHS was formed to deter terrorism in America. FEMA, on the other hand, mainly deals with natural disasters. However, there have been calls for FEMA to be separated from DHS because of perceived failures in handling disasters while under DHS. The proponents of its separation from DHS cite bureaucracies, underfunding, and deviation from its core mandate as some of the reasons why it ought to have its independence restored. Those who want it to still be under DHS argue the challenges FEMA faces can be addressed while under DHS. Besides, separating it from DHS will disrupt coordination and preparedness for disasters while also denying it other useful resources such as skilled personnel and direct information sharing. The article presents the arguments for both sides. 

FEMA and DHS 

The primary duty of any government in the world is to protect life and safeguard property. To help attain this, the United States federal government has the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)with a mission of securing the nation from numerous threats, both natural and artificial, that they face internally. Among the many threats include health threats such as the ongoing pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic, the threat of terrorism and natural disasters such as hurricanes (Hurricane Maria 2017), and the wildfires such as of 2018. The Department is a cabinet agency, and thus its head serves as the Secretary DHS in the USA government cabinet. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is one of the 22 departments and agencies that are part of the DHS. Its primary role is narrowed to coordinating responses to a disaster that has occurred within the U.S. and has overwhelmed local and state capabilities. Its mission is to help people before, during, and after disasters with a vision of being a nation prepared. Formed in 1979, FEMA was a standalone agency until 2002, merging with other agencies to form the DHS in an attempt to respond better to the threat of terrorists after the September 1 1 attack. The handling of Hurricane Katrina was the turning point in the questioning of whether FEMA should be a standalone agency or a sub-department within the DHS (Department of Homeland Security, 2019) . 

Different schools of thought have been presented. On one side are the proponents of why FEMA ought to be an independent agency from the DHS. On the other wing are the opponents who think the status quo should maintain FEMA to remain under DHS. Either side has fronted various explanations. One of the key proponents has been the former head of FEMA under the President Bill Clinton Administration, who is credited to have restored confidence in FEMA after a series of failures before his ascendency. Asked about how FEMA can be successful again, the administrator thought that moving FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security was the most appropriate step. Among the opponents has been former military officer Republican nominee for the 2008 presidential elections John McCain, who thought setting up an independent FEMA could not solve anything equating it to moving boxes around. 

FEMA stands to have fewer bureaucracies to bypass in its attempt to deal with disasters if it was a standalone agency. This is mainly because it would eliminate the various bureaucratic steps that have to be bypassed when it is a sub-department in the DHS. James Lee reported to a congress committee in 2004 warning that FEMA is buried beneath a massive bureaucracy of DHS whose only focus was to fight terrorism, ignoring other potential hazards of which FEMA was supposed to be handling. As a standalone entity, FEMA would have the capacity for rapid mobilization of resources to respond to disasters effectively. This is a view shared by other leaders such as the 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton who blamed the expansive bureaucratic nature of DHS as the cause of lack of focus on Disasters by FEMA. Financial oversight by congressional committees has also occasioned the bureaucracies. For the opponents who want FEMA as part of the DHS, they cite the ongoing threat of terrorism to the national security. This will ensure that adequate funding is allocated to DHS so that it realizes both the objectives of FEMA and DHS other missions of protecting the country from the threat of terrorism which is even higher as occasioned by threats from ISIS and ongoing economic sanctions against Iran which may trigger terror attacks in retaliation. This is even more significant given the foreign policies that the current President Trump has put in place that have seen the USA pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal. By FEMA pulling out, this may need a new restructuring of the agency, which may leave a line of weakness that terrorists may take advantage of. The 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Senator Biden has been on record saying moving FEMA out of DHS would disrupt the levels of preparedness and coordination. 

Another argument that the agency needs to be independent of the DHS is that it would guarantee the agency a cabinet-level position. Some have asserted that FEMA could be more effective as a standalone cabinet-level department such as the U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM USA). This means it would have direct access to the President of the United States of America. Having direct access to the President means in times of disasters, the President would be promptly be informed on the progress, and with his executive powers order any further assistance that may be needed without delay. For the opponents, having cabinet-level or direct access to the President does not mean having the president ear. In addition to this, it is essential to bring to light the fact that during emergencies and other disasters, the FEMA director has a direct line to the President as legislated in the Post Katrina Report Act and thus he may seek the President help or give the President advice directly without going through the Secretary of the DHS. Besides, restructuring DHS just for the sake of having FEMA attain a cabinet-level position is unsustainable. This is because constant reshuffling of organizations creates uncertainties about the future and confusion in the missions and roles of organizations. Besides, being too close to the President can be abused politically especially in election years where the President may tend to focus more in cases where reelections are at stake and favor rapid response in states with substantial political influence than those with little influence to presidential results outcome (Coyne, Leeson, & Sobel, 2009) . 

Proponents of an independent FEMA always cite a lack of resources to handle its core mandate as a reason for its failures. This they argue has been occasioned by the fact that the DHS in a bid to consolidate its operation created a central crowdfund for all its agencies leaving FEMA critically starved of this critical resource. Thus, FEMA competes with the other 22 DHS agencies for funding and the department secretary's attention. Opponents of recreating FEMA to be a standalone organization says such a move would result in the opposite, deny its resources. This is because, for disaster response, resources do not just entail funding. Human resources, intelligence from other agencies within the DHS, need for the additional workforce in the event the FEMA is overwhelmed are all critical. In short, for them remaining within DHS gives FEMA the synergistic arrangements and resources that help realize its overall functions. This is best illustrated in the case of Hurricane Katrina, where the Coast Guard, an agency in DHS, handled land and maritime search and rescue operations. Also, the Customs and Border Protection Unit of the DHS protected security to FEMA emergency care goods on transit, avoiding the much costlier Department of Defense for protection (Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, 2009) . 

The proponents of having FEMA as an independent body from DHS always site cases in which FEMA failed because it was under the DHS. This is primarily in the case of Hurricane Katrina in 2006. The agency response was much criticized. There were accusations of lack of coordination, lack of command, and alienation of community and other private volunteer factors that all led to enormous suffering and slow responses. The opponents, on the other hand, interject by saying the failure during Hurricane Katrina was not solely at the agency level but rather all level failure starting from local to state to national level. The blame does not fall on the agency but rather a failure in leadership at different levels to the presidency. To rectify, this segment argues that the post-Katrina reforms should be allowed to work before any further changes are made (Zappile, 2014) . Besides, the opponents cite times before the DHS was established when the responses of FEMA were poor. The experts opposing to mention times when FEMA was a standalone organization yet had disastrous disaster response to crises such as in the slow handling of Hurricane Hugo in 1989 that was mired in many bureaucracies and also Hurricane Andrew in South Florida where FEMA presence was never felt. 

When disasters occur, they tend to end up affecting all parts of society and the government system. Take an example of the Coronavirus Pandemic. It has not only affected the healthcare system but has cut across to shut down economies, shutdown global and local travel, disrupted school calendars, and professional sporting competitions, among other ramifications. This points to the fact that successful disaster response should have an all-inclusive approach as wide sectors are affected. It is based on this that proponents of FEMA believe that for it to deal seamlessly and efficiently with all parts of the government, such as housing and urban development and health that are critical in disaster management, the agency needs to have cabinet-level status. Being an independent agency will enable the agency to share the same platform with these agencies and thus enable it to air its issues clearly as its mission is clear, and thus efficient rapid coordinated responses will be realized. Being a standalone organization will enhance FEMA's cooperative capabilities with other key players in disaster management. This includes not only states and local governments affected but also private disaster services providers who, in most cases, have been known to act with speed, although at higher costs to individuals and communities. To the proponents, this is the best approach as a disaster response that targets to rescue lives need to act fast. For the opponents, moving FEMA will not change this. This is because, in terms of saving lives, first responders are the most critical players when a disaster strikes, and this will not change whether FEMA is independent or within DHS. Better cooperation with emergency medical response teams and transportation security administration will be critical. What is needed is better communication and coordination with other agencies, most of which are part of DHS. Removing FEMA from DHS will thus cut this link with barriers to information sharing, another hurdle, always there among agencies, not in the same Department (Zuckerman & McNeill, 2009) . 

The proponent for having an independent FEMA cite delay in decision-making is why FEMA ought to be hived off DHS. This is because no decision can be made on the ground by the FEMA Administrator without contacting the DHS Secretary in Washington. The performance of any organization, especially in times of crisis, depends on the leadership in place. It is always safe to have experienced firm leaders. The tragedy of FEMA has been that, on some occasions, it has been run by greenhorn political appointees with no formal training and professional credentials on disaster management. Others lack total experience in the sector. Having leaders with either professional competencies in disaster management or experiences in disaster situations such as military leaders, public health officials among others who have had hands-on experience in dealing with disasters will go a long way in steadying the ship. This is because such leaders will set clear cut missions for each agency as it is obvious they cannot all have a lump sum mission imposed on them for efficiency. This is because such leaders always stay ahead of the curve, discern, and solve problems early. Also, they usually know exactly at what time do extra measures such as presidential support come in hand and what kind of engagements or responses need to be done and thus communicate both early or emergently as it may be to the executive, the responders on the ground, communities affected and other agencies involved. Besides, such leaders give timely and clear instructions that leave little room for doubt, thus providing direction. The Northbridge Earthquake Disaster in California was managed well due to strong leadership in contrast to Hurricane Katrina that had poor leadership with the DHS head not stepping into leadership mandate. At the same time, the FEMA Administrator was restricted, leading to disastrous judgments (Kahan, 2013) . 

The debate on whether FEMA needs to be independent of DHS will continue to rage on. The evaluation should recommend the relationship that will realize the most significant benefit for the effectiveness of both the missions of FEMA and DHS. The approach that will result in the building of resilient, functional systems for disaster responses without confusion should be preferred. From the presentations made, one can tell that the issues that are being raised by the proponents of an independent FEMA agency can be adequately handled even when it is under the DHS as long as the issues of bureaucracy, underfinancing, human resource, poor leadership and information system for efficient communication are put in place. Agencies may be merged into one primary Department, and as history has shown, other agencies will continue to be formed. However, what remains constant is that both natural and humanmade threats to Americans will always be there with the Coronavirus Pandemic the latest and arguably the most disastrous of all threats America and, by extension, the world has faced. 

References 

Coyne, C., Leeson, P., & Sobel, R. (2009). The Impact of FEMA Reorganization: Implications for Policy. Mercatus Policy Series . Retrieved from https://www.mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/GCP_MPS_FEMA.pdf 

Department of Homeland Security. (2019). About the Agency . Retrieved from FEMA: https://www.fema.gov/about-agency 

Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General. (2009). Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General FEMA: In or Out? Retrieved from Department of Homeland Security: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_09-25_Feb09.pdf 

Kahan, J. K. (2013). The Two Faces of DHS: Balancing the Department’s Responsibilities. Homeland Security Affairs Journal . Retrieved from https://www.hsaj.org/articles/247 

Zappile, T. (2014). Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280925462_Department_of_Homeland_Security_DHS 

Zuckerman, J., & McNeill, J. B. (2009). Five Reasons Why FEMA Should Stay at DHS . Retrieved from The Heritage Foundation: https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/five-reasons-why-fema-should-stay-dhs