how both DHS and FEMA complement each other

 how both DHS and FEMA complement each other

With the continued increase in the security threats globally and more pressure been put on the United States Homeland security to provide and ensure safety for not only Americans citizens but also nations allied to the U.S, another burden is also loaming with the DHS. Divergent opinions have, over the years, aroused as to whether FEMA should split from the homeland security department. Before anyone even considers proposing FEMA to be removed from DHS, one should first understand that there are both positive and negative implications of this action. That doesn’t mean that letting federal emergency management agencies under DHS will seamlessly provide the much-needed relief that DHS expected to provide. However, understanding how the two institutions work is very critical in this discussion. Since this is likely to enumerate how both DHS and FEMA complement each other, something which is very crucial in the collaboration to avert national and domestic security threats and disasters before they occur. Equally understanding the challenges both institutions are facing accurately, will inform on the decision as to whether FEMA is better operating independently of DHS.

Introduction

Since the inception of the DHS back in 2002 by the U.S Congress, tasked DHS with coordinating and averting any threats before they happen. And for DHS to facilitate this mandate, various institutions were later instituted to act as support systems in mobilizing the needed coordination in security provision to U.S citizens and the country at large. One of these institutions was the federal emergency management agency. FEMA’s chief mission included supporting and creating the spirit of collaboration, particularly to the first-line responders in the disaster issues and citizens whose role in the fight against any form of security threat critical.

Further, the agency was to instill in every significant player in the security that the United States is embracing togetherness in building a resilient system to manage the insecurity challenge effectively. From the brief discussion above, a lens into the roles of DHS and FEMA is pertinent. And insight is essential in the next section of deciding whether DHS should advise on removing FEMA from its organizational structure. Further, it is critical to note that this move can only be determined depending on the need analysis of both DHS and FEMA and as to whether FEMA is pivotal to DHS in the fight to ensure total domestic and national security. Therefore a two-sided review on both positive and negative roles of FEMA in DHS is imperative. Either of DHS’s decision to the president and the Congress is likely to have legal implications and economic implications to both executive arms of government and DHS.

Hence, before DHS decides to advise on the future of federal emergency management agency, it should consider the following. One is how this move will affect its operations and its effectiveness in the collection, analysis, and monitoring of security data to control insecurity instances like the September 11 attack on the United States. Before its incorporation under the DHS, FEMA operated independently and tasked with disaster management and response, and this included earthquakes and also dam safety regulations. Therefore bring FEMA under the wing of DHS created so much responsibility and scope for the department of homeland security. And this sort of a merger has further made DHS pay little attention to some key areas which were previously appropriately done under FEMA. For instance, dam safety and regulations when FEMA was independent were doing an excellent job in ensuring mitigation measures against disasters like a dam collapsing were well prepared. But this change with FEMA been brought under DHS since it’s moral to perform effectively and independently felt downplayed. So having FEMA in the DHS is not improving the core mandate of the homeland security department, which includes detecting, avert and mitigate against terrorist attacks, cybercrimes and ensure the domestic and national safety of the U.S citizens. Therefore the role of FEMA under DHS seems to be thoroughly watered down, and instead of bringing federal emergency management agency hasn’t helped in making U.S overall disaster management level better but only worse. National and domestic security of U.S citizens combined with cybercrimes and terrorism is an extensive scope that adding others like natural disaster response, which FEMA initially handled under DHS only reduces the efficiency of both institutions.

Besides, due to trends in insecurity sifting to the online world and data integrity, DHS policies and structure has changed exponentially. And this change meant that more resources are necessary for curbing terrorism and cybercrimes, leaving a minimal budget for FEMA, which spreads in all states. The implication of this has been disaster response and preparedness level as far as natural disasters, and even human instigated disasters are concerned to have been left underfunded. During the radiation leak in the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, one amongst disastrous radiation leaks ever recorded, there was a next meeting by the United Nations encouraging countries to form institutions whose mandate will ensure such accidents contained. Other examples of disasters like the St. Francis dam failure, which claimed the lives of many people, indicates how vital FEMA is and how independently it should be allowed to take control of its former duties. The DHS divide attention on the issue of national security is the more reason why FEMA is better off operating as an independent organization. Also, fighting over who has more influence has reduced the efficiency of both institutions to diminish with time. Therefore, DHS should reconsider advising on moving FEMA out of its structure to improve the efficiency of both agencies.

But also it should be noted that the consideration to have FEMA out of DHS umbrella will likely result in a legal power battle. And this legal strive will be due to conflict of interest where both institutions in an event clear jurisdiction over specific responsibilities fail to outline role boundaries. Then they will continuously find themselves locking horns. Consideration of just having FEMA under DHS is also one that many have supported, arguing that due to splitting of the disasters, they could all incorporated under one umbrella agency. Although this enables easy mobilization of funding and even reduces instances of legal worse and duplication of duties, it has a big problem of generalization of disasters. Despite all threats ranging from cybercrimes, terrorism, corporate espionage, dam spillage, earthquakes, world fires, and even tsunamis put under one umbrella called a disaster, each is unique in its way. And it is this uniqueness that is offering to prove very challenging to DHS to handle. Hence, maintaining FEMA under DHS is still a viable option, but a new strategy is needed to ensure that all the examples of threats receive adequate funding and federal support.

Also, it is worth noting that disaster management is a coordinative and collaborative task that requires input from all relevant stakeholders and players. And because of this collaboration, the two institutions are better left together without removing one from the other. This point holds some truth to it since for the department of homeland security to effectively detect, analyze, and suppress any security threat to the national security from all avenues. It must get help from other agencies. And this can be much easier with FEMA under DHS since it will be able to benefit from the massive pull of resources mobilized for the DHS.

Challenges Facing FEMA

Some of the main challenges facing FEMA include problems of ensuring effective disaster preparedness and response. And this challenge has been brought by having FEMA under DHS since mobilizing an efficient and dynamic disaster response strategy, and effort isn’t easy due to coordination challenges. Further, DHS handles a wide range of security threats, and there is a likelihood of allocating more resources and mobilizing strong coordination to this directorate. And this move might hinder FEMA’s level of disaster preparedness and response efforts.

Another challenge FEMA is grappling with is the problem of reducing the impacts of natural disasters through enhancing efficiency in the mitigation measures. Over the past two decades, natural disasters have been on the rise, and the cost of managing these disasters have outdone the resources allocated to FEMA. And as this agency continues to put more elaborate measures to handle these disasters as they emerge, the cost seems to be having a toll on the institution’s financial stability. Therefore if the budget problem cited as the main challenge behind the organization’s problem of reducing impacts of natural disasters, then FEMA is likely to continue performing dismally.

Therefore the challenges facing federal emergency management agencies can be summarized as persistent problems in coming up with effective disaster preparedness measures. And these challenges have been attributed to two significant forces of struggling, and that is the budgetary allocation and power struggle between the institutions.

Strategies to reduce FEMA’s challenges

1) Creation of a disaster preparedness culture in the FEMA’s operation

For FEMA to achieve operational efficiency, the institution should create a disaster prepared culture throughout the whole country. This strategy is vital because disaster management requires detailed and a pull together strategy where all stakeholders in disaster management are actively engaged. For instance, more emergency programs should be rolled out in schools and training institutions to instill this culture in young people since their input is much needed.

2) Reduction of complexities in FEMA’s operational processes.

Streamlining FEMA’s operations is one of the critical strategies that hold a breakthrough for the agency since the current complexity in the structure of the agency has only reduced the institution’s disaster preparedness level. Further, the integration of the framework for disaster recovery plans in the institution’s structure is likely to better its operations. Lastly, reduction in complexity at FEMA will go in a long way to improve the agency’s flexibility, which is vital to managing natural disasters.

Conclusion

Therefore from the arguments presented above, DHS should go ahead and advise on making FEMA very independent and out of DHS organization structure and also put it under the federal arm of government. This move will restore FEMA’s full operational efficiency and minimize some of the current challenges the agency is facing in ensuring proper disaster preparedness level. Further, the budgeting issues pointed out periodically to be responsible for the crippling majority of the FEMA’s operations are likely to reduce. Since putting FEMA under the executive branch of the U.S will make the institution have its independent budget to sponsor its services.