FEMA's evolution from 1803 to COVID-19 response

A History of FEMA and Its Successes and Failures Introduction
As of this writing, more than 67,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus global pandemic, and far more are expected to die before the crisis abates. While other branches of the federal government are struggling to respond to this disaster, one agency that stands out in its response has been the lead federal authority tasked with the nationwide lead, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (hereinafter alternatively “the agency” or “FEMA). While the nation’s chief executive continues to present the public face of the national response, is has been public sector organizations such as FEMA that have been responsible for delivering the goods. The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the relevant literature to describe the history of the Federal Emergency Management up to the present day, followed by an overview of its most notable successes and failures. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning the history of FEMA and its effectiveness over the years are presented in the conclusion.
Review and Analysis History of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Like all other countries, the United States has not been a stranger to disasters and emergencies of all sizes and types since its inception two and a half centuries ago, but the ongoing global coronavirus pandemic has made it clear that the need for an effective, coordinated federal response to both manmade and natural disasters has never been greater than today. Established by executive order of President Jimmy Carter on April 1, 1979, the formal mission of FEMA has always been “to lead America to prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover from disasters with a vision of ‘A Nation Prepared.’”[footnoteRef:2] Indeed, despite some missteps and failures over the years, this fundamental FEMA mandate has represented the agency’s overarching commitment since its inception just over 40 years ago. In this regard, the agency’s Web site emphasizes that, “From day one, FEMA has remained committed to protecting and serving the American people. That commitment to the people we serve and the belief in our survivor centric mission will never change.”[footnoteRef:3] [2: “About the Agency” (2020). Federal Emergency Management Agency. [online] available: https://www.fema.gov/about-agency, p. 2.] [3: “About the Agency” (2020), p. 3.]

Not surprisingly, fulfilling this vitally important commitment over the past four decades has been an especially challenging and even daunting enterprise given FEMA’s broad-based and far-flung nationwide responsibilities combined with the vagaries of Mother Nature and the constant threat of attack by domestic and international terrorist organizations. For example, the agency’s Web site also notes that it is tasked with “coordinating the federal government's role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic disasters, whether natural or man-made, including acts of terror.”[footnoteRef:4] [4: “About the Agency” (2020), p. 3.]

Although FEMA was formally created by executive order in 1979, its actual origins date back to the Congressional Act of 1803 which is widely regarded as the first legislation in the United States that was designed to provide help to an American town following a natural disaster, in this case a New Hampshire town that suffered a major fire. Over the course of the next century, more than one hundred other acts were enacted by the federal government in the United States that specifically addressed many of the more common types of natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and hurricanes.[footnoteRef:5] [5: “About the Agency” (2020), p. 4.]


There were some other legislative initiatives that had a direct impact on the organization and functions of FEMA today, including the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in January 1930 by the U.S. Congress to provide financial assistance to American railroads, financial institutions, and business corporations. In this regard, FEMA reports that, “By the 1930s, when the federal approach to disaster-related events became popular, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was given authority to make disaster loans for repair and reconstruction of certain public facilities following an earthquake, and later, other types of disasters.”[footnoteRef:6] In additi0n, the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads was also authorized in 1934 to provide financial assistance to repair natural disaster-related damages to bridges and highways.[footnoteRef:7] [6: “About the Agency” (2020), p. 4.] [7: “About the Agency” (2020), p. 4.]

Other initiatives during the latter half of the 20th century also contributed to the current incarnation of FEMA, including the Flood Control Act of 1965. This Act authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide a unified, coordinated framework that was headed by the U.S. president for the efficient provision of disaster assistance. Likewise, other important events that occurred in the years just prior to the creation of FEMA which were also formative in shaping its current structure. For example, according to FEMA, “The 1960s and early 1970s brought massive disasters requiring major federal response and recovery operations by Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, established within the Department of Housing and Urban Development.”[footnoteRef:8] In addition, the National Flood Insurance Act was enacted just 3 years prior to the creation of FEMA which created the Federal Insurance Administration that provided the first instances of flood insurance being made available to American homeowners.[footnoteRef:9] [8: “About the Agency” (2020), p. 4.] [9: “About the Agency” (2020), p. 4.]

The decade leading up to the creation of FEMA was especially significant for the agency’s eventual creaton. For example, in 1973, the Flood Disaster Protection Act mandated that homeowners purchase flood insurance for all properties that were located in so-called “Special Flood Hazard Areas,” and the Disaster Relief Act was signed into law in 1974 which created a formal process for presidential disaster declarations.[footnoteRef:10] Further, in response to the addition of the oversight of hazardous substances transportation and nuclear power plants, FEMA had to coordinate the efforts of more than one hundred other federal agencies that played some role in disaster preparedness and mitigation.[footnoteRef:11] [10: “About the Agency” (2020), p. 4.] [11: “About the Agency.” (2020), p. 6.]

Finally, Section 403 of the Stafford Act enacted in 1988 authorized FEMA to provide federal assistance to meet immediate threats to life and property resulting from a major disaster. The act allows for the provision of temporary facilities for schools and other essential community services, when it is related to saving lives and protecting and preserving property or public health and safety.[footnoteRef:12] Just as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration learned the hard way a number of times, though, any types of high profile failures such as the Shuttle disasters create a negative public relations image that is difficult to overcome despite an otherwise successful track record, and this has certainly been the case with FEMA as discussed below. [12: Michele Strickler. (2019, January). “Ports in a Storm: The Role of the Public Library in Times of Crisis.” Collaborative Librarianship, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 11.] FEMA Notable Successes Even as President Bush praised the director of FEMA, Michael Brown, on national television in 2005 by stating, “Brownie, you’re doing a great job!” in response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, tens of thousands of Americans were struggling to stay alive amid the flotsam and jetsam in the aftermath of this history-making storm. The claim by the president was widely derided as so much fluff and “Brownie” was soon out of a job, but the damage to FEMA’s reputation had already been done.
This high-profile failure, however, was not entirely the responsibility of FEMA and the public’s reaction to the agency simply ignored the numerous successes that FEMA had achieved over the years until that dark day in American history.[footnoteRef:13] For example, according an analysis of the agency’s performance, Chapman concludes that: [13: “Trump’s Praise of FEMA Chief Evokes Bush’s Katrina Words.” (2017, August 20). Bloomberg. [online] available: https://fortune.com/2017/08/26/donald-trump-george-bush-harvey-katrina/.]

FEMA became an object of derision as it appeared to sit by helplessly as thousands suffered and died in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But many have forgotten that FEMA responded quickly and effectively to countless emergencies and disasters during the 1990s. Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, the Oklahoma City Bombing, all saw a swift response from FEMA, a sharp contrast to FEMA’s performance after Hurricane Katrina.[footnoteRef:14] [14: Sally Chapman. (2016, April 1). “FEMA and Disaster: A Look at What Worked and What Didn’t From a FEMA Insider.” Center for Homeland Defense and Security. [online] available: https://www. hsdl.org/c/femas-successes-and-failures/.]

In reality, though, it is little wonder that FEMA’s successes go largely unnoticed and appreciated by the American public because much of what the agency does involves preparing for disasters that might not ever occur.
Perhaps even more importantly, however, FEMA’s successes are routinely chalked up by the American public, when they do take notice, to the agency simply “doing its job.” While this straightforward characterization is accurate, it overlooks the fact that – like other coastal nations around the world– the United States is faced with a global environment that is changing in dramatic ways far faster than most climatology experts thought possible and FEMA is confronted with a number of unprecedented challenges on numerous fronts. In this regard, Schmidt and Mojica emphasize that, “Natural disasters are increasing in frequency and severity. Since 1980, the United States has been hit by 219 weather and climate disasters that exceeded $1 billion in damages.”[footnoteRef:15] Indeed, during 2017, three major hurricanes (i.e., Irma, Harvey and Maria) ravaged numerous states, including more than 3,000 deaths in Puerto Rico from Hurricane Maria. These natural disasters were combined with severe wildfire outbreaks in California and the total costs of responding to these events exceeded $306 billion, outdistancing the costs of natural disasters in 2005 of $215 billion, the previous high yearly total.[footnoteRef:16] Against this backdrop, it is apparent that any definition of failure in this context must be gradated to consider the agency’s corresponding successes. [15: Rowan Schmidt and Johnny Mojica. (2019, April). “FEMA Funding for Building Nature-Based Resilient Communities.” Parks & Recreation, vol. 54, no. 4, p. 30.] [16: Schmidt and Mojica (2019), p. 30.]

As noted above, much of the work that is performed by FEMA and the funding it receives is preparatory in nature and these efforts go largely unnoticed unless and until these resources are needed. Likewise, the American public’s view of FEMA’s performance may not take into account the agency’s work to actually prevent future disasters. For example, according to Schmidt and Mojica, “Most of the budget for FEMA is allocated to disaster response. However, FEMA also spends billions of dollars on ‘hazard mitigation,’ assistance to communities to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural disasters.”[footnoteRef:17] [17: Schmidt and Mojica (2019), p. 31.]

To date, though, FEMA’s ability to perform these types of mitigation projects in many cases is entirely dependent upon the executive branch’s directions to do so. Therefore, the potential for FEMA to become the scapegoat for any failures of the executive branch is pronounced, further exacerbating the public’s negative perception of FEMA’s invaluable efforts to protect them. For instance, it was only after the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey in 2017 prompted President Obama to declare a disaster that FEMA was able to offer communities assistance through its Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Although not as high profile as its isolated failures discussed below, FEMA’s effective actions following Hurricane Harvey are especially noteworthy given their contributions to protect affected communities from similar disasters in the future using mitigation strategies such as structure elevation, targeted buyouts, flood-risk-reduction projects, and long-term planning activities.[footnoteRef:18] [18: Schmidt and Mojica (2019, April), p. 31.]

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has also been proactive in developing and implementing environmentally responsible alternatives for improving community resilience to manmade and natural disasters. The fact that these types of investments have been demonstrated to provide a solid return have further fueled interest in FEMA’s disaster mitigation efforts in recent years. For example, according to Schmidt and Mojica, “These advances are reflected in recent policy updates that recognize the economic value of these kinds of investments and have made it easier to access FEMA mitigation funding for land conservation (especially in floodplains) and other nature-based solutions, such as post-wildfire restoration of forested lands, aquifer storage and recovery, wetland and riparian restoration, and green infrastructure.”[footnoteRef:19] In addition, both public and private nonprofit land trusts can apply for FEMA funding for these types of disaster mitigation projects.[footnoteRef:20] Notwithstanding these numerous notable successes, however, the agency has experienced some notable failures (as qualified above and below) and these issues are discussed further below. [19: Schmidt and Mojica (2019, April), p. 32.] [20: Schmidt and Mojica (2019, April), p. 32.] FEMA Notable Failures In a disaster-preparedness context, it is axiomatic that “Success has a hundred fathers and failure is an orphan” and this was clearly the situation that was faced by FEMA in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf of Mexico in general and the City of New Orleans in particular, causing unprecedented damage. Even during its most high-profile failure, though, FEMA was doing a lot of things right and saving countless lives in the process. In this regard, Edwards point out that, “Hurricane Katrina was the most costly natural disaster in American history. Some elements of government response were excellent--warnings from the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, for example--but other aspects of public administration failed under the weight of the event.”[footnoteRef:21] [21: Frances L. Edwards. (2008, Winter). “Obstacles to Disaster Recovery: A Recent Emergency Management Task Force Report Challenges All Levels of Government to Remove Barriers to Effective Community Recovery.” The Public Manager, vol. 37, no. 4, p. 67.]

In response to the Hurricane Katrina debacle, FEMA was reorganized to incorporate a number of new agency partners, a process that meant its current incarnation lacks any meaningful institution memory, a constraint that inevitably affects its ability to fulfill is mandated mission to the American people through no real fault of its own. The agency, however, has taken some expensive steps that have not produced the desired outcomes, and these efforts a typically chalked up as significant failures. For instance, Edwards stresses that, “Some of the post-9/11 efforts have proven cumbersome and even counterproductive, including the fifteen planning scenarios, which drag resources away from planning for seasonal and cyclical natural events and toward preparation for rare weapons of mass destruction.”[footnoteRef:22] [22: Edwards (2008), p. 68.]

More recently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was also assigned the lead responsibility for coordinating the federal response to the coronavirus outbreak and here again the results have been mixed.[footnoteRef:23] Even as the shortcomings of the federal government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic continue to pile up, it is important to note that FEMA’s abilities to respond remain limited by the executive branch’s direction at any given point in time. For instance, McSwane and Tabori recently pointed out that, “The Trump administration has rushed through more than $760 million in contracts outside the usual bidding process during its haphazard coronavirus response. It’s highly unusual for the White House to step into FEMA’s supply bidding process.”[footnoteRef:24] [23: “FEMA: Feds Sitting on Ventilator Stockpile.” (2020, April 3). The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA), p. A3.] [24: J. David McSwane and Yeganeh Torbati. (2020, April 10). “The White House Pushed FEMA To Give its Biggest Coronavirus Contract to a Company That Never Had to Bid.” ProPublica. [online] available: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-white-house-pushed-fema-to-give-its-biggest-coronavirus-contract-to-a-company-that-never-had-to-bid.]

On the other hand, though, the agency’s Web site emphasizes that the FEMA has acted promptly and efficiently when it allowed to do so by the executive branch: “FEMA, HHS and our federal partners are working with state, local, tribal and territorial governments to execute a whole-of-America response to the COVID-19 pandemic to protect the health and safety of the American people.”[footnoteRef:25] In addition, the agency is actively collaborating with public and private sector partners to ensure the integrity of the nation’s supply chain for the delivery of crucial medical supplies and equipment. For this purpose, FEMA has developed a four-pronged straregy that focuses on preservation, acceleration, expansion and allocation and described in Table 1 below. [25: “Coronavirus (COVID-19) Response.” (2020, March). FEMA. [online] available: https://www.fema.gov/coronavirus]




Table 1 Description of FEMA’s Four-Pronged COVID-19 Approach Prong
Description

Preservation
The preservation line of effort focuses on providing federal guidance to responders and the non-medical sector, such as public service (police, fire, EMT), energy distribution and the food industry on how to preserve supplies when possible, tor reduce impact on the medical supply chain.

Acceleration
The acceleration line of effort provides direct results to help meet the demand for personal protective equipment through the industry to allow responders to get supplies they need as fast as possible.

Expansion
The expansion line of effort is charged with generating capacity with both traditional and non-traditional manufacturers, such as adding machinery or by re-tooling assembly lines to produce new products.

Allocation
The allocation of supplies facilitates the distribution of critically needed personal protective equipment to "hot spots" for immediate resupply. States report on supplies and are able to request assistance when they experience a shortage.



Source: “FEMA COVID-19 Supply Chain Task Force: Supply Chain Stabilization” (2020, April 8), FEMA at https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2020/04/08/fema-covid-19-supply-chain-task-force-supply-chain-stabilization
To the Oval Office’s credit, the Supply Chain Task Force that is headed by FEMA is actively coordinating efforts by major private sector vendors to ensure that critical medical supplies that are in short supply are delivered in a timely fashion. In addition, FEMA’s Supply Chain Task Force is also taking the lead in identifying which areas of the country are most in need of critical supplies and is taking the steps that are needed to improve delivery and distribution by communicating this information to supply chain partners.[footnoteRef:26] In other words, even in what will inevitably be regarded as a failure by FEMA, the agency is working hard within its established parameters to fulfill its mission for the American people. [26: “Coronavirus (COVID-19) Response.” (2020, March). FEMA. [online] available: https://www.fema.gov/coronavirus]

Conclusion
Created on April 1, 1979 by executive order of President Jimmy Carter, the research was consistent in showing that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been at the forefront of protecting American communities by not only responding to natural and anthropogenic disasters, but by providing preparedness assistance and administering various mitigation initiatives that are designed to prevent or minimize the damage that is caused by future disasters. Although FEMA has been assigned the responsibility, the research also showed that the agency lacks of the authority to act independent of executive branch direction during and following disasters, though, so it is not surprising that FEMA’s track record has been mixed. Despite its most high-profile failure with respect to the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster, though, the review of the literature was also consistent in showing that FEMA has a long track record of successes to its credit that are frequently overlooked since the bad taste of Katrina is still in the mouths of many Americans today. In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that FEMA will also bear the brunt of much of the criticism that will be directed at the federal government’s response to the Covid-19 global pandemic despite its ongoing efforts to protect the lives and property of more than 300 million Americans.





References “About the Agency” (2020). Federal Emergency Management Agency. [online] available: https://www.fema.gov/about-agency. Chapman. Sally. (2016, April 1). “FEMA and Disaster: A Look at What Worked and What Didn’t From a FEMA Insider.” Center for Homeland Defense and Security. [online] available: https://www. hsdl.org/c/femas-successes-and-failures/. “Coronavirus (COVID-19) Response.” (2020, March). FEMA. [online] available: https://www.fema.gov/coronavirus. Edwards, Frances L.. (2008, Winter). “Obstacles to Disaster Recovery: A Recent Emergency Management Task Force Report Challenges All Levels of Government to Remove Barriers to Effective Community Recovery.” The Public Manager, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 66-69. “FEMA: Feds Sitting on Ventilator Stockpile.” (2020, April 3). The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA), p. A3. McSwane, J. David and Torbati, Yeganeh. (2020, April 10). “The White House Pushed FEMA To Give its Biggest Coronavirus Contract to a Company That Never Had to Bid.” ProPublica. [online] available: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-white-house-pushed-fema-to-give-its-biggest-coronavirus-contract-to-a-company-that-never-had-to-bid. Schmidt, Rowan and Mojica, Johnny. (2019, April). “FEMA Funding for Building Nature-Based Resilient Communities.” Parks & Recreation, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 30-34. Strickler, Michele. (2019, January). “Ports in a Storm: The Role of the Public Library in Times of Crisis.” Collaborative Librarianship, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 11-15. “Trump’s Praise of FEMA Chief Evokes Bush’s Katrina Words.” (2017, August 20). Bloomberg. [online] available: https://fortune.com/2017/08/26/donald-trump-george-bush-harvey-katrina/.