Revitalizing emergency management after Katrina: a recent survey of emergency managers urges improved response, planning, and leadership and a reinvigorated FEMA—the federal government has responded by making most of the recommended changes

Public Manager, The, Fall, 2007 by R. Steven Daniels

Effectiveness of Katrina Response

Survey respondents also evaluated the effectiveness of the government response to Hurricane Katrina. The survey asked respondents to agree or disagree on a five point scale with ten statements on four dimensions: flawed mitigation procedures and economic development decisions (four); inadequate state and local leadership and response (two); inadequate FEMA leadership and response (two); and a dimension combining respondents who believed that the response was effective with those who believed the scope of the disaster was too large for effective response (two). State and local emergency managers largely blamed poor economic development and mitigation decisions by local and state governments (68 percent) and inadequate state and local leadership and response (66 percent). Fewer respondents criticized inadequate FEMA leadership and response (33 percent) or believed that the response was effective or the disaster too large for adequate response (18 percent). The survey also allowed respondents to answer freely. The most commonly cited causes of the ineffective governmental response were inadequate response, recovery, execution, and communication (44 percent); inadequate planning, mitigation, and preparedness (42 percent); poor leadership at all levels of government (30 percent); and poor intergovernmental coordination (21 percent). Several state, local, and private emergency management professionals cited one or more of these factors in their analysis of the adequacy or inadequacy of governmental response. At least one official placed the blame directly on a failure to educate the public about the responsibilities of emergency management.

Revitalizing Federal Emergency Management

What solutions did emergency managers suggest to revitalize federal emergency management? The survey asked state and local emergency managers to agree or disagree on a five-point scale with fourteen potential changes in federal emergency management organization and policy that made up five dimensions: refocusing FEMA on comprehensive emergency management and restoring the direct link to the president (five); refocusing emergency management responsibility on state and local government (two); recognizing the limitations of government response (one); centralizing federal emergency management (four); and abolishing FEMA and separating the four emergency management functions (two).

The majority of respondents recommended refocusing FEMA on comprehensive emergency management and reestablishing the direct link to the president (87 percent) or refocusing emergency management responsibility on state and local government (59 percent). Few respondents said government could do little to manage catastrophic disasters (34 percent), the federal government should centralize emergency management (19 percent), or FEMA should be abolished and its functions separated (14 percent).

To identify specific recommendations, the survey asked respondents to place themselves in the role of FEMA director and note the key changes they would make to improve agency performance and achieve the agency's goals. At least 20 percent of respondents made six broad recommendations: