some ideas for reforming fema
Jason McNamara, a former Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Chief of Staff offered some ideas for reforming FEMA, given the establishment of a council to do that very thing. I’ve blogged on the council before. I’m still waiting to hear about the composition of that body, the only thing we know is it will be chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Secretary of Defense (DOD).
The ideas below were shared on LinkedIn. They are all worthy of consideration. [I’ve added some personal italicized comments for each proposal offered] The problem I see is that the current efforts at reforming federal agencies is much more of a slash and burn effort, rather than a thoughtful process to make a department more effective and efficient. If the same approach is taken to FEMA (which has already lost hundreds of employees), then facts and efforts of the past will mean little to those who are just looking to cut costs and reduce the size of the federal government and lessen its fiscal responsibilities.
When it comes to disasters, we can expect governors of all states to “rise up” in opposition to the federal government backing away from what they have paid for in the past, be it for pre-disaster preparations or post-disaster recovery. Their federal representatives, no matter how rabid they are about cutting government, might balk when it comes to the impacts they see coming to their states—especially those red states that have experienced repeated billion-dollar disasters.
We are down to about 240 days before a final report by the commission needs to be rendered and they have yet to meet.
EMA Reform Council: Some Priorities
Director, Center for Emergency Management Operations at CNA Corporation
March 8, 2025
Based on public comments and the President’s January 24, 2025, Executive Order, the current Administration seems determined to reform – or abolish – the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Having worked in this space for over 30 years, starting as a GS-7 in July 1993 and ending my career as the agency’s Chief of Staff in June 2013, I am well aware of multiple FEMA program areas that could and should be improved. However, in the spirit of eating the elephant one bite at a time, here are three very big bites that must be addressed sooner rather than later:
Fully Implement Public Assistance Block Grants: The Public Assistance Grant Program (PA) has been the subject of repeated “re-engineering” efforts since FEMA was formed in 1979. It is far past the time to recognize that the PA implementing regulations, and their reliance on a project-by-project/wall-by-wall/screw-by-screw review and approval process is slow, ineffective, and highly susceptible to subjective eligibility interpretations across the thousands of repair and replacement projects that apply for PA assistance each year. Since the passage of the Disaster Mitigation Act in 2000, FEMA has had some authority to provide states with a block grant to implement the PA program. This authority was re-established under the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. It is time to go all-in on PA Block Grants. As opposed to working with thousands of applicants and incurring millions of dollars in administrative costs, FEMA’s new role would be to negotiate a “settlement” with the impacted state government. Appropriate uses of the block grant money would be determined by the governor and legislature of the impacted state. FEMA can provide incentives to increase the block grant if the state government agrees to implement disaster mitigation measures or enhance their building codes. What if the state government uses the money in a way that does not benefit disaster-impacted communities? That’s why we have elections. [This will give state emergency management leaders and their governors the willies trying to establish what that dollar amount should be—knowing there will be no more money coming down the line.]
Modernize FEMA IT Systems: Many of the complaints levied against FEMA for their lack of responsiveness, inefficiencies, and repeated requests for information from applicants are a direct result of severely outdated IT systems. NEMIS, the system used to process all Individual Assistance (IA) grant cases, has been in operation since 1998. Similarly, FEMA’s financial management system, IFMIS, has been in operation since 1995. Although IFMIS is being modernized at present, its updates will not be in place until at least the second quarter of FY2026. And because it is easier for FEMA to hire disaster-specific staff rather than to obtain annual modernization funds from Congress, the solution to the shortcomings of these IT systems often involves expensive, staff-heavy “work-around” processes. It is far past the time to invest in new FEMA IT systems. [It appears that every federal information technology system in existence today is “out of date” and in need of replacement.]
End the National Flood Insurance Program as We Know It: Imagine trying to obtain a bank loan for a new business venture. Your pitch is that you want to start a health insurance company where all of your policyholders have a pre-existing condition. Do you think you would get the loan? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As of February 10, 2025, the NFIP is currently $22.525 billion in debt, with no hope of ever paying that debt down, as each new, large disaster results in additional NFIP borrowing. To support this program, FEMA spends about $300-400M annually to update the nation’s flood maps (a total of $2.3B between 2014-2020), although it is widely recognized that the existing maps are based on old data and obsolete models. In 2012, Congress added provisions to the NFIP reauthorization legislation to bolster the private flood insurance market (e.g., Progressive, AON Edge). It is time for FEMA to get out of the flood insurance business. At the very least, with respect to new construction, home builders, mortgage lenders and home buyers must take responsibility for their own risk. They must identify the need for and availability of private sector flood insurance prior to building and/or financing, and the eventual purchaser must pay actuarially sound flood insurance premiums as determined by private sector providers. There is no doubt that such an approach will have an impact on new construction and economic development. However, it is the only approach that directs the cost of flood risk at the risk-takers themselves, as opposed to the U.S. taxpayer. [The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a black hole we keep shoveling money into because it allows people assume flood risks at the expense of all USA taxpayers. Cities will fight this since development and building is many times the lifeblood of their communities. Zoning reform will help, but it is retreating from risky areas is the key.]
I am not so naïve as to think that these issues will be addressed by President’s Council. More likely, the Council’s recommendations will focus on the parochial issues associated with one disaster, in one part of one state, at one point in time. History has demonstrated that FEMA “reform” is often driven by the perceptions of what went wrong in the most recent disaster (e.g., Hurricane Andrew 1992, Hurricane Katrina 2005).
This is a mistake. It is a mistake because the disasters heretofore experienced by the United States pale in comparison to the consequences of an earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone or the Cascadia Seismic zone. It is a mistake because we continue to believe that government-centric solutions to disaster response and recovery can address the needs of disaster survivors no matter the size and scope of the disaster. Imagine more than one hundred Western North Carolina Helene scenarios happening at the same time, across 5-7 states, and you will begin to understand the magnitude of the threat we face.
True FEMA reform will take time, and it will require substantial investment. It will involve significant statutory, regulatory, and fiscal changes to current programs and disaster relief processes. Most important, it can only happen through the cooperation of the federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial agencies who work tirelessly to ensure that services are provided quickly and effectively to the residents of this Nation who are experiencing the worst day of their lives.
Perhaps the President’s Council can begin this process through a comprehensive and honest assessment of what the country needs and deserves from FEMA
