Introduction
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been in operation since 1979 and has the duty of preventing, mitigating, recovering, and responding to man-made or natural disasters in the United States. The organization has achieved a number of milestones but at the same time has been the center of controversy. Part of this debate has been due to its inefficiency in times of emergency. Stakeholders in the institution assert that the amalgamation of functions that fall under the FEMA umbrella could be the cause of these problems. It is therefore essential to look at the reasons behind the formation of this body so as to place its failures and successes in context.
The Department of Homeland security is only nine years old having incorporated FEMA, customs and border protection, citizenship and immigration services, and research in science and technology into one body. It was created with the aim of protecting the United States from attacks that could either be natural or man-made. However, its formation was prompted by the September eleventh attacks and one can assert that the hurried nature of its formation may have set up the body for a letdown. The paper shall examine the reasons for the establishment of DHS to examine the plausibility of the latter statement.
History of FEMA
FEMA’s origins go as far back as the nineteenth century when Congress passed the 1803 congressional Act that was designed to mitigate New Hampshire’s losses after a fire attack. More than a hundred years later, in the 1930s, it became clear that people needed certain levels of financial support during emergencies and the Reconstruction finance corporation was given the mandate of offering this kind of support at such times especially for public facilities, the Bureau of public roads was also supposed to carry out the same duty although its mandate mostly covered roads as well as bridges.
In that same decade, it became necessary to establish legislation that dealt with floods as the country was particularly vulnerable to them hence the Flood control Act. Numerous federal agencies were formed so as to cope with such circumstances and it made the process less proactive. These federal agencies would be tailor-made to handle specific emergency needs. (FEMA, 2010)
The nineteen sixties and seventies were characterized by intense levels of disasters and it became evident that such haphazard approaches were not going to be effective in the long run. For example, Hurricane Carla, Hurricane Betsy, Hurricane Camille, and Hurricane Agnes in 1962, 1965, 1969, and 1972 respectively, San Fernando earthquake and Alaskan earthquakes also came in 1971 and 1964 respectively.
All these disasters caused legislators to respond to the problem through a series of laws such as the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. Furthermore, the country had been subjected to a series of man-made disasters as well especially those that occurred in nuclear power plants and caused a release of hazardous materials to the public. In the end, the country had over one hundred federal agencies that all dealt with emergency management. There was a piecemeal approach to the issue and something clearly had to be done. (FEMA, 2010)
Why FEMA was created
At the time when the national Governors Associated were making their recommendations to President Carter, it was very clear that several disaster relief programs were duplicating what had been done earlier. This meant that crucial natural resources were going to waste if the same functions were carried out by two or more bodies. Furthermore, there was no clear policy that streamlined federal relief efforts since some of the policies were supposed to be enacted on the national level while others were restricted to the federal level.
To this end, it became clear that disaster relief was an increasingly complex process that rarely put into use the scarce national resources required to respond or deal with emergencies. The National Governor’s Association, therefore, felt that centralization would be a key process in streamlining emergency management. They aired out their concerns to the President and requested some reorganization in the sector. (FEMA, 2010)
This body of governors felt that there were more similarities than differences when it became to the master of disaster management. In other words, even though a disaster was small and isolated or large and nationwide, there were certain systems that had to be followed when managing, responding, or preventing either of them. Having an integrated emergency system went a long way in offering direction in the country hence contributing to stronger national security. The group also felt that there were large similarities between disaster response and civil defense hence the need to merge the two.
Prior to the creation of FEMA, emergency response was tackled reactively; emergency relief bodies would only step in after damage had already been done. The effect of such an approach was that victims would be substantially harmed or would lose their property. Congress often took on such an approach as well and usually, there was a set amount of money in the budget that would be dedicated towards emergency relief where a non-federal or federal agency would be granted funds once a disaster had occurred in that agency’s jurisdiction.
As it can be seen, such a program was rather disorganized and therefore contributed towards the formation of a central management body. Because of this reactionary approach, most of the federal agencies would be organized and reorganized by the government from time to time. The reasons behind these actions were largely budgetary. Most policies would be made against the backdrop of a series of economic challenges that allowed only minimal portions to go to disaster response efforts. (US government, 2010)
The question of having a centrality of command in times of crisis is often an essential aspect in the success of disaster response efforts. Given the fact that duplication of functions did occur in certain circumstances, then chances are that emergency response efforts had been dramatically slowed down. What’s more, if one authority was responsible for all efforts, then unnecessary programs, and personnel could be easily detected and eventually eliminated.
This would create a high degree of organization in emergency management and thus make it more efficient. Furthermore, it may be possible that some disasters span across more than one federal state thus implying that several jurisdictions may be affected and this could result in controversy or even chaos. A case in point was the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. This disaster occurred at a time when there was minimal coordination between government officials and San Francisco authorities, communication was poor and the government took a long time to get information. When the government decided to do something, it employed the Military and Red Cross’ efforts.
The latter institutions added to the confusion because there was no centrality of command. Through this disaster, it became clear that federal support for disasters is not adequate and that national entities have to step in to assist in the process. That was one of the key factors that the National governor’s association used to convince President Carter to create FEMA i.e. the need to have an emergency body that would provide unity of authority.
The association of national governors, therefore, wanted a single entity that would allow for early preparation and one that would eliminate single entity responses. They also felt that disaster preparedness was quite similar to civil defense and that uniting these two functions would make both of them more efficient. The Department of Defense Civil preparedness agency had been primarily responsible for the defense function but it was asserted that more had to be done to deal with such kinds of challenges. They gave their proposals to President Carter who felt that their assertions were true. In response to these recommendations, he formed the Federal Emergency management agency through the reorganization plan in 1978.
He subsequently activated FEMA through Executive order 12127. The groups that were placed under this body included the National Weather Service, The Federal Preparedness Agency, The National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, The Federal Insurance Administration, The Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, and Federal Disaster Assistance Administration. (Federation of American scientists, 2009)
The Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland security is a government body formed in 2001 following the September eleventh attacks. Its primary aim was to enforce security within the United States and in order to achieve such a mission, the government combined a series of other government bodies that all carried out security functions. These government bodies included The Environmental Measurements Lab under the science and technology division.
The FEMA, and The Strategic National Stockpile under the emergency and preparedness division and Bureau of Customs & Border Protection, Immigration And Customs Enforcement bureau, and The Transportation Security Administration are all under the border & transportation security division. It also has the secret service and Cost guard. This would ensure that the country’s vulnerability to terrorism and natural disasters would be substantially reduced. Furthermore, in the event that the attacks actually took place, then the country would be in a better position to respond to them. (DHS, 2008)
Why the DHS was formed
DHS formation is quite reminiscent of FEMA’s history. At that time, it was thought that security functions within the United States were uncoordinated and overlapping. President Bush together with the backing of Congress saw that there was a need to create a central unit that would be responsible for several security functions. Most of them operated independently and rarely consulted with one another. This implies that duplication of functions was quite common.
Furthermore, most of those bodies were quite disorganized and the lack of a central authority meant that reactions to security threats were quite haphazard. It was imperative to restructure such a crucial function in the executive branch of the United States government.
Although there was always this gap that existed in the past with regard to security, this had never quite been highlighted or considered as an emergency until the nine – eleven attacks. Americans realized that they were not amply prepared to handle emergencies of such a nature and that preparations needed to be made to protect the country in case something like that occurred in the future.
It should be noted that Defense functions were prevalent even before the year 2001. In fact, as far back as the mid twentieth century, the United States has established a civil defense needed to protect the country against potential attacks from other superpowers. This kind of approach went on for quite a number of years especially prior to the cold war. Defense was organized in a manner that would respond to attacks of a nuclear nature from the biggest US threat at that time- the Soviet Union.
The manner of dealing with such a threat was relatively easy owing to the fact that their aims could be predicted without difficulty and their intentions were quite clear. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States could not rest easy because there was a new threat that was typical to the new Century – terrorism. (National response plan, 2004)
The security environment in the United States was quite distinct from the past because unlike the Soviet which was bound by international laws and driven by common goals with the US, terrorists were not as predictable. Their missions were based upon religious or political ideology. It was therefore quite tricky to predict exactly what patterns they could pursue. Furthermore, terrorists were not afraid of putting their own lives in danger if they felt that this would advance their cause.
Also, such attacks could be carried out in any manner at their disposal i.e. they could use chemical, nuclear to biological avenues. These individuals were not bound by common international laws and the only entity they were accountable to was their cause. During the September eleventh attacks, the reality of this new security environment came to the fore and the US was caught off guard. Something had to be done and it had to be done quickly. The president opted to create an office of Homeland Security just four weeks after the attacks. He utilized an executive order to do so as this fell under number EO 13228.
Once again, one can see some similarities between the creation of FEMA under President Carter and the Department of Homeland Security under President Bush. Carter had been prompted by the series of disasters that had occurred during the nineteen seventies to create a new governing body for emergencies. Similarly, Bush was prompted by the devastation of the twin tower attacks to create a new body. In other words, it is unlikely that the DHS would have been established were it not for a large scale event that exposed the unpreparedness of the country and its security vulnerabilities.
Also, Carter used executive orders to create FEMA; Bush also followed the same path. It is likely that this method was preferred by both national leaders owing to the fact that this was a matter that involved the whole nation and the President wanted to do something about within the latter time frame. Furthermore, the method would also by pass the lengthy process at Congress and this would guarantee that the president’s choice is fulfilled in the respective arenas chosen. Although Congress approval would be required in order to make the DHS a permanent cabinet position and also in budget allocation and selection of personnel, the biggest decision had been made by Bush and his administrators.
At the time, the president enjoyed Congress’ support owing to the fact that everyone needed to see something being done about the vulnerability of the United States to attack. Therefore, the DHS was created in order to carry out three major functions which included minimizing attacks from natural disasters, minimizing vulnerability to terrorism and prevention of terrorist attacks.
It should be noted that the floating around of several other entities carrying out security related functions was making the country highly ineffective. Therefore the key role in forming the DHS was to restore order in security functions. This was the reason why certain bodies were selected under the umbrella of DHS while others were left out. For example, the CIA and FBI were not included because it was assumed that their function was quite unique in their own right. Only those agencies that were assumed to be carrying out distinct national security functions were included in this arrangement. It was therefore necessary to mobilize all the resources covered in this area in order to make homeland security a top priority. (Romney, 2005)
Another crucial issue that caused the formation of the DHS was information sharing. Prior to establishment of the latter body, a lot of information was floating around the private and public sectors. These included local government agencies, the federal government, state agencies and private sector agencies. Data analysis and data mining were extremely hard to implement in this old model.
It was therefore essential to create a body that would enable the gathering and dissemination of such information to work towards security goals. In this regard, President Bush’s administration felt it necessary to have a body that would allow for efficient data sharing systems, intelligence information systems as well as investigative systems. To this end, the DHS was to assist in the elimination of any unnecessary names or information amongst agencies dealing with national security.
Furthermore, by having a centralized information system, then errors could be easily detected and handled as per the need. Nonetheless this sort of arrangement does bring with it a wide range of challenges when it comes to privacy as confidentiality of information obtained is essential and the integrity of the information needs to be maintained by ensuring that only authorized personnel are given access to it. In these cases, provisions have been given within the legislation for creation of the DHS. (DHS, 2008)
The DHS was also formed because it was necessary to deal with all possible loopholes that could place the country in danger. Foreigners, immigrants or asylum seekers were a potential source of terror attacks and agencies tackling this group needed to work in tandem with others so as to protect the homeland. Furthermore, borders and customs areas were another potential source of vulnerability. Terrorists could utilize land, air or sea to gain access into the country and place its citizens in danger.
There was a crucial need to bring in agencies that dealt with these matters under one central authority. The transport sector was also another area that could place the country in potential danger especially in the aviation sector as international passengers who may have an agenda against the United States could get entry. This is the reason why screening at major airports needed to be made more accurate. After the September eleventh attacks, it was highlighted that certain structures were preferred over others. Consequently, there was a need to work with agencies that handled infrastructure security in both the private and public sectors. All the latter vulnerabilities were essential in indicating the need for one body that could handle all of them. (Whitehouse, 2010)
Conclusion
Domestic policies related to emergency preparedness for FEMA and terrorism preparedness for the DHS were haphazard and uncoordinated. These latter bodies were therefore created in order to centralize functions. Doing so would minimize resource wastage and would also go a long way in eliminating duplication of functions. Both presidents who created these bodies did so after facing external pressure from occurrences of the time i.e. the hurricanes of the 1970s and the twin tower attacks in 2001. Consequently, it can be said that these bodies were established so as to make the United States less vulnerable to attack and to increase the security of its citizens.
References
Romney, M. (2005). Homeland security: local, state and federal efforts. Web.
National response plan (2004). Department of Homeland security. Web.
Federation of American scientists (2009). Executive order 12127: FEMA. Web.
US government (2010). History of emergency management. Web.
FEMA (2010). History. Web.
DHS (2008). Who became part of the DHS?. Web.
Whitehouse (2010). Our government. Web.