[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
ENSURING STRONG FEMA REGIONAL OFFICES:
AN EXAMINATION OF RESOURCES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS,
PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 16, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-302 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Peter T. King, New York
Jane Harman, California Lamar Smith, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Daniel E. Lungren, California
Columbia Mike Rogers, Alabama
Zoe Lofgren, California Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Henry Cuellar, Texas Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Laura Richardson, California Pete Olson, Texas
Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico Steve Austria, Ohio
William L. Owens, New York
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
Al Green, Texas
James A. Himes, Connecticut
Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio
Dina Titus, Nevada
Vacancy
I. Lanier Avant, Staff Director
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
Laura Richardson, California, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia Pete Olson, Texas
Henry Cuellar, Texas Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
William L. Owens, New York Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey Peter T. King, New York (ex
Emmanuel Cleaver, Missouri officio)
Dina Titus, Nevada
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex
officio)
Stephen Vina, Staff Director
Ryan Caldwell, Clerk
Amanda Halpern, Minority Subcommittee Lead
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response........... 1
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response..................... 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 3
Witnesses
Mr. David Garratt, Associate Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 7
Mr. Tony Russell, Regional Administrator, FEMA Region 6,
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 7
Ms. Christine Gibbs Springer, National Academy of Public
Administration:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Mr. Brock Long, Director, Alabama Emergency Management Agency:
Oral Statement................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Appendix
Questions From Chairwoman Laura Richardson for David Garratt and
Tony Russell................................................... 35
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for David Garratt and Tony
Russell........................................................ 38
Question From Honorable Dina Titus for Christine Gibbs Springer.. 39
ENSURING STRONG FEMA REGIONAL
OFFICES: AN EXAMINATION OF RESOURCES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
----------
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness,
and Response,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Laura Richardson
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Richardson, Thompson, Cuellar,
Cleaver, Titus, Pascrell, Norton, Rogers, Olson, and Cao.
Also present: Representative Jackson Lee.
Ms. Richardson [presiding]. Well, good morning. Welcome to
the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and
Response. This committee will come to order.
The subcommittee's meeting today to receive testimony on
ensuring strong FEMA regional offices, an examination of
resources and responsibilities.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Let me, first of all, say to the witnesses who are here, I
promise to be gentle. That is a joke. This is my maiden voyage
and, actually, this will be one that I will remember for a long
time.
So we are very glad to have you here today, and I look
forward to your participation.
When I think about the panel's testimony and we talk about
FEMA's regional offices, there really is nothing more important
in my mind because you are the direct contact that people will
rely upon in times of disaster. This hearing marks the first of
the subcommittee that I have been able to chair since assuming
these duties, and I am particularly pleased to sit here beside
our Ranking Member, Mr. Rogers, who I am looking forward to us
doing good work on this committee as we move forward.
I would like to acknowledge Mr. Cuellar who is here. He was
the former Chair. He has moved on to being the Chair of
Borders. However, he is still very committed to this issue,
remains committed to it. We will rely upon a lot of the work
that he has already done thus far.
Further, I want to acknowledge our Chairman, Chairman
Thompson, for his leadership. He actually entrusted me with the
opportunity to do this job, and I am committed to not only
fulfilling the committee's objectives that we have laid out but
also to be mindful of the goals that he has in mind and to be a
good partner and to make sure that we achieve them.
I also look forward to, with this panel, with FEMA, to look
at the post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006.
When you look at the many reforms that were intended by FEMA,
the tools that are necessary to really support our citizens in
time of disaster, having our first responders available and
prepared to do the work is critical for all of us.
Few reforms are more important than the ones designed to
reinvigorate FEMA's ten regional offices. For FEMA to truly be
effective, it must develop strong relationships with its State,
local, and Tribal partners. For me, having come from local
government, that is a particular focus that I think we need to
kind in mind.
These relationships are best built and nurtured at the
regional level. Headquarters should largely develop the
agency's policies, and the regions should lead the
implementation of those same policies. Of course, that is
easier said than done. I am very encouraged though, however,
that Administrator Fugate has taken some of the necessary key
first steps to empower the regions to do that very task.
Shortly after being confirmed, Mr. Fugate delegated ten
authorities at the regional offices. We want to use today's
hearing to get an understanding from FEMA directly on how these
regions have implemented those ten authorities and, more
broadly, FEMA's future plans for further enhancing the region's
participation.
The subcommittee wants to ensure that, as more
responsibilities are delegated down, the regions have the
staffing, the expertise, and the tools necessary to fulfill its
duties. This, in particular, is true for the homeland security
grant and preparedness programs. It is unclear to this
committee at this point whether the regions currently have the
capacity to manage the homeland security grant program.
For example, this fall, FEMA announced that the majority of
homeland security grant projects would have to undergo an
environmental review process. Putting aside the administrative
burden that this requirement places on the grantees, our
understanding is that there will be just one person in each
region who will be responsible for reviewing hundreds of
environmental reviews.
This, clearly, is a bottleneck that is waiting to happen.
It is also unclear to this committee how the regions'
preparedness and grant officers work together to ensure that
the Federal resources are building State and local preparedness
capabilities. FEMA's leadership recognizes that the grants and
preparedness efforts were largely siloed at the headquarters
and the announced reorganization in December was intended to
better integrate these efforts. We need to make sure, though,
that the regions don't make those same mistakes.
The National Academy of Public Administration, NAPA,
explored FEMA's headquarters region's complexity in its report,
``FEMA's integration of preparedness and development of robust
regional offices.'' NAPA concluded that FEMA is making progress
but, despite the progress, there were several recommendations
that we will talk about today.
I look forward to all of your testimonies. With that, I
would like to recognize our Ranking Member, the gentleman from
Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for his opening statement.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to
working with you in your new capacity as Chair of this
committee and wish our colleague, Mr. Cuellar, well in his new
endeavor.
Now, I would like to start by thanking our witnesses for
taking the time to be here. I know this is not convenient, but
it is very helpful to us to be able to draw on your knowledge
and experience to better shape policies. So thank you for
taking the time and trouble to be here.
I would like to especially thank Brock Long from Alabama,
our director of EMA. He does a great job for our State and glad
to know there is somebody on the panel that talks like me.
We have got a Member over here--even though she is from Las
Vegas, she talks like me, too. You will find out in a few
minutes when she introduces one of our guests.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. I like it.
This hearing is being held to examine whether current
resources and staffing within FEMA's ten regional offices is
sufficient to support the administrator's vision as well as the
post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act mandate to
strengthen and enhance FEMA's regions.
The continued strengthening of FEMA's regional offices is
essential to measuring the effectiveness of the agency
partnerships with State and local emergency managers and, in
turn, our Nation's level of preparedness. I look forward to
discussing Administrator Fugate's recent memo delegating
authorities to the regional administrators, including an update
on the progress of the regions making--that the regions are
making in implementing these new authorities as well as a
discussion on the possibility of additional changes and reviews
in the future.
This hearing also provides an opportunity to discuss FEMA's
2011 budget proposal for the regions and the specific ways in
which the regions can build on their critical partnerships with
the States.
Finally, I would like to hear from the National Academy of
Public Administration as to--as well as our State emergency
management director on how FEMA can streamline and improve its
regional operations to create a more efficient and effective
organization.
To that end, one of the issues I hope to discuss is the
disaster declaration process, how we can help make this process
more transparent and timely as it moves from region to
headquarters and up to the President's determination.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here.
With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of our committee of
the whole homeland security, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Thompson, for an opening statement.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairwoman Richardson, for
convening such an important hearing this morning.
I have no doubt that you will continue the great work of
Chairman Cuellar in your new capacity as Chair of this
subcommittee, and I look forward to working with you.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to
discuss FEMA's efforts to strengthen its regional offices. Any
local emergency manager will tell you that the regional offices
are FEMA's front line for facilitating emergency management
programs. That is why the committee made sure language was
included in the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act--PKEMRA--to
bolster the role of the regional offices.
Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that we needed better
coordination between headquarters and the regions, stronger
regional preparedness, and more autonomy for the regional
administrators to make timely decisions.
I was very encouraged to see Administrator Fugate tackle
these mandates by delegating many new authorities to the
regional offices. Now, regional administrators will be
empowered to hire senior-level staff, provide stronger
oversight, and further expedite disaster assistance to State
and local governments. This is an important step but much more
work needs to be done.
According to a recent report from the National Academy for
Public Administration, the regions may not have the capacity to
handle all of their new responsibilities. When the regions were
asked by NAPA what does being a robust regional office mean,
the No. 1 response from all those surveyed was more personnel.
Unfortunately, NAPA also found that FEMA has a weak 5-year
strategic human capital plan that does not meet PKEMRA
mandates. Since becoming Chairman, I have consistently called
on FEMA to build a larger, more qualified, and diverse work
force. Completing a comprehensive 5-year human capital plan,
and properly staffing the regional offices must be a priority
for FEMA.
NAPA also highlighted the need for better communication
between FEMA headquarters and the regions as well as a possible
transfer of additional authority to the regions. I strongly
urge FEMA to further analyze NAPA's recommendation and make any
needed adjustments to its new regional office strategy.
We must ensure that we are not setting up the regional
offices for failure. They must have the staffing authority,
funding, and expertise to carry out all of their missions.
Again, I commend Administrator Fugate for taking bold steps to
empower the regions, but many questions still remain, including
how the new reorganization at FEMA headquarters will impact the
regions.
I thank all the witnesses for joining us today. I look
forward to hearing their testimony. Since the Ranking Member
talked about accent, I hope you now know there are three of us
who sound alike.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Thompson. I yield back.
Ms. Richardson. Other Members of the subcommittee are
reminded that, under the committee rules, opening statements
may be submitted for the record.
I welcome the panel of witnesses. Our first witness is Mr.
David Garratt, associate administrator for mission support at
FEMA. In this capacity, Mr. Garratt is responsible for finance,
human capital, acquisitions, security, information technology,
facilities, and support services at FEMA.
Mr. Garratt has served in a number of leadership roles at
FEMA including acting deputy administrator.
Our second witness, Mr. Tony Russell, was appointed as the
regional administrator for Region 6 in December 2009. In this
role, he is responsible for all FEMA operational decisions and
policy implementation within the States of Texas, Oklahoma, New
Mexico, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
Prior to this appointment, Mr. Russell served as acting
director of the Louisiana Transitional Recovery Office.
Our third witness, Dr. Christine Springer, is a national
academy fellow and will be introduced by Ms. Titus of Nevada.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman for a brief
introduction.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I look
forward to serving on this committee with you.
To the Ranking Member, I appreciate that statement because
my mother thinks I am losing my accent.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Titus. So I am really delighted to introduce my friend
and colleague, Dr. Christine Springer. Dr. Springer is the
director of the executive master's degree program in emergency
and crisis management at the University of Nevada and Las
Vegas.
I am proud to have a colleague from UNLV testify before
this committee, and I am pleased that she is able to join us
today. She comes on behalf of the National Academy of Public
Administration where she participated in writing the previously
mentioned and oft-cited NAPA report, ``FEMA's integration of
preparedness and development of robust regional offices. An
independent assessment.''
I look forward to hearing her perspective on this important
subject. I am sure that her presentation will be most
informative. I base this assumption not only on her impressive
resume and extensive experience but on my first-hand
opportunities to have had her as a guest lecturer in some my
classes at UNLV.
So thank you, and welcome to you, Dr. Springer, and the
other witnesses.
Ms. Richardson. I thank the gentlewoman. Certainly, you
have not lost your accent.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Richardson. Our fourth witness, Mr. Brock Long, was
appointed director of the Alabama Emergency Management Agency
in January 2008. He serves as the Governor's cabinet-level
State coordinating officer for all declared disaster events in
Alabama.
We are pleased to have all of you present and greatly
appreciate your testimonies today.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted into the record, and I now ask each witness to
summarize his or her statement for 5 minutes beginning with Mr.
Garratt.
I should tell you that our former Chair used to run these
meetings so well that, if you weren't here at first half an
hour with Mr. Cuellar, the meeting would be done. So I have got
tough shoes to fill but, Mr. Garratt, we look forward to your
summarized testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID GARRATT, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Garratt. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and
Ranking Member Rogers and other Members of the subcommittee.
I am David Garratt. I am the associate administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Joining me is my
colleague, Tony Russell. He is a regional administrator from
FEMA Region 6 that encompasses the States of Texas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.
On behalf of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security,
we appreciate the opportunity to testify today about our
regional offices, their resources, and their responsibilities.
As you know, FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and
first responders to ensure that, as a Nation, we work together
to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for,
protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all
hazards.
This is not a mission for the faint of heart or for the
fluid of commitment. It requires great personal and
professional dedication, constant engagement with our partners
at every level of government and across the private sector and
the authority, ability, and resolve to act quickly and
decisively to respond to the events developed on the ground.
FEMA's administrator, Mr. Craig Fugate, strongly believes
that emergency management organizations are most responsive and
effective when the unambiguous authority to make necessary
operational decisions is delegated to the lowest command levels
possible. Administrator Fugate's vision, shared without
reservation by members of his senior staff and senior
department leadership, is that headquarters is responsible for
the rules and tools, and the regions in the field are the
implementers.
In other words, the role of headquarters is to prescribe
policy and develop systems to support National policy, but
personnel in the regions and fields are responsible for
actually implementing the policy and preparing for, responding
to, and recovering from and mitigating all hazards.
Soon after he was sworn in, Administrator Fugate made it a
priority to ensure that FEMA's regional and field organizations
were appropriately equipped and fully empowered to exercise
those operational responsibilities. Accordingly, in July of
last year, not long after taking office, Administrator Fugate
issued a memorandum which began what is an on-going process of
realigning key operational responsibilities and authorities to
and, in some cases back to, our region offices.
This on-going regional delegation and empowerment effort
reflects a fundamental institution shift toward a more
decentralized approach to disaster management and recognizes
three important principles. First, that our regional
colleagues, as a result of their regular and routine inactions
with their principle customers, had developed relationships and
are far more likely to have an acute understanding of the
unique capabilities of the State, local, and Tribal governments
in their respective geographic areas of responsibility.
Clearly, they are in the best position to effectively
communicate with local stakeholders and work proactively to
address regional issues both day-to-day and during emergency
operations.
Second, empowering the regions will help reduce unnecessary
bureaucracy. Overly complex decision-making chains inevitably
contribute to costly delays in providing needed support and may
episodically result in operational paralysis.
Micromanagement and mismanagement go hand in hand and are
fatal to timely and effective emergency management. We simply
cannot allow a micro-managerial reliance on overly centralized
decision-making to undermine our responsiveness and hinder our
ability to react swiftly and successfully to the needs of our
partners and customers.
When, under emergency conditions, the top priority is to
save lives and assist disaster survivors, regions must be
empowered to take necessary action.
Finally, delegating responsibility to our regional offices
will reinforce their authority and operational relevance as
well as fortify them with a greater sense of direct ownership
in FEMA's multi-faceted mission. This shift is a strong signal
of National confidence to our regional staff as well as to the
jurisdictions with which they regularly interact and support.
By strengthening our regions, FEMA effectively strengthens
its relationships with and responsiveness to our State, local,
and Tribal customers.
Administrator Fugate and Secretary Napolitano recognize
that strong regions require strong leaders, and both are
committed to pursuing, selecting, and assigning regional
administrators to have a demonstrated ability in and knowledge
of emergency management and homeland security. The gentleman
sitting immediately to my left is a perfect example of this.
We firmly and fundamentally agree that these key leadership
positions are no place for emergency management novices and
will continue to ensure that only experienced and qualified
emergency managers fill these critical positions.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that this regional
empowerment initiative represents not a devolution of
responsibility and authority from headquarters to our regions
but the evolutionary recognition that our regions must grow
into stronger and more capable extensions of our National
emergency management capability.
We look forward to working with the subcommittee and all of
our stakeholders to continue these efforts to bolster our
regional efficacy and meet FEMA's mission.
Thank you.
[The joint statement of Mr. Garratt and Mr. Russell
follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of David Garratt and Tony Russell
March 16, 2010
Good morning Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Rogers, and Members
of the subcommittee. I am David Garratt, Associate Administrator at the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Joining me is my colleague
Tony Russell, Regional Administrator of FEMA Region 6, which
encompasses the States of Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Arkansas. On behalf of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, we
appreciate the opportunity to testify today about our regional offices,
their resources, and their responsibilities.
As you know, FEMA's mission is to ``support our citizens and first
responders to ensure that as a Nation we work together to build,
sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against,
respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.'' This is not a
mission for the faint of heart. It requires great personal and
professional dedication, constant engagement with our partners at every
level of government and across the private sector; and the authority,
ability, and resolve to act quickly and decisively respond as events
develop on the ground.
FEMA's Administrator, Mr. Craig Fugate, strongly believes that
emergency management organizations are most responsive and effective
when the unambiguous authority to make necessary operational decisions
is delegated to the lowest command levels possible. Administrator
Fugate's vision, shared without reservation by members of his senior
staff and senior Department leadership, is that headquarters is
responsible for the ``rules and tools'' and the regions in the field
are the implementers. In other words, the role of headquarters is to
prescribe policy and develop systems to support National policy, but
personnel in the regions and the field are responsible for actually
implementing policy and preparing for, responding to, recovering from,
and mitigating all hazards.
Soon after he was sworn in, Administrator Fugate made it a priority
to ensure that FEMA's regional and field organizations were
appropriately equipped and fully empowered to exercise those
operational responsibilities. Accordingly, in July of last year, not
long after taking office, Administrator Fugate issued a memorandum
which began what is an on-going process of realigning key operational
responsibilities and authorities to--and in some cases back to--our
regional offices. Among the delegated authorities are:
The authority to issue mission assignments in excess of $10
million. Previously, regions could only approve up to $10
million without headquarters approval in the Enterprise
Coordination and Approval Process (ECAP) systems.
The authority to contract for aircraft to support
requirements organic to that specific region. Previously,
regions were required to rely on headquarters to find a
contractor to fit the regional requirement. This was time-
consuming and inefficient.
The restoration of regional authority to approve
requisitions for non-disaster goods and services, thereby
reducing previous delays incurred when the regions were
required to seek headquarters approval.
The authority to select and hire staff in senior regional
positions. Previously, such hires had to be approved by FEMA
headquarters.
This on-going regional delegation and empowerment effort reflects a
fundamental institutional shift toward a more decentralized approach to
disaster management, and serves to develop more robust regional
offices. Regardless of the impetus, the re-empowerment of regional and
field offices recognizes three important principles.
First, our regional colleagues, as a result of their regular and
routine interactions with their principal customers, have developed
relationships and are far more likely to have an acute understanding of
the unique capabilities and needs of the State, local, and Tribal
governments in their respective geographic areas of responsibility.
Clearly, they are in the best position to effectively communicate with
local stakeholders and work proactively to address regional issues,
both day-to-day and during emergency operations.
Second, empowering the regions will help reduce unnecessary
bureaucracy. Overly complex decision-making chains inevitably
contribute to costly delays in providing needed support, and may
episodically result in operational paralysis. Micromanagement and
mismanagement go hand in hand, and are fatal to timely and effective
emergency management. We simply cannot allow a micro-managerial
reliance on overly centralized decision-making to undermine our
responsiveness and hinder our ability to react swiftly and successfully
to the needs of our partners and customers. When, under emergency
conditions, the top priority is to save lives and assist disaster
survivors, regions must be empowered to take necessary action.
Finally, delegating more responsibility to our regional offices
will reinforce their authority and operational relevance, as well as
fortify them with a greater sense of direct ownership in FEMA's
multifaceted mission. The shift sends a strong signal of National
confidence to our regional staff, as well as to the jurisdictions with
which they regularly interact and support. By strengthening our
regions, FEMA effectively strengthens its relationships with and
responsiveness to our State, local, and Tribal customers.
In October 2009, the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA) concluded a study of FEMA requested by Congress and released its
report, ``FEMA's Integration of Preparedness and Development of Robust
Regional Offices: An Independent Assessment.'' This report revealed
that FEMA has made significant progress in better integrating
preparedness across our functional fabric, as well as in creating more
robust regional offices. Specifically, the report found that FEMA has
taken significant steps to create more robust regional offices,
including developing and promulgating guidance to identify the
respective preparedness responsibilities of headquarters and regional
offices, and creating a regional advisory council in each region to
represent stakeholders. The report cited clear efforts to improve the
on-going working relationship between headquarters and the regions, and
identified measures to review the success of evolving regional office
authorities. Significantly, the National Academy of Public
Administration's report stated that among these significant steps, FEMA
``[d]elegated ten additional authorities to regional administrators,
pursuant to a July 2009 memorandum from the Administrator''. FEMA is
pleased that the National Academy of Public Administration has
recognized the agency's efforts to create more robust regions and
highlighted the importance of the administrator's July 2009 memorandum
to that objective; we also agree with the report's assessment that
there is more work to be done and that additional opportunities for
improvement and empowerment remain. We are committed to address these
and other concerns raised in the report, while continuing to build on
our recognized successes.
Strengthening our regions will ultimately involve more than just
delegating responsibility and authority; it will also require
optimizing manpower. Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator is
personally leading a high-priority, senior-level initiative to examine
how our positions are organized between headquarters and the regions,
and reviewing how best to reposition resources to the regions to
complement and to fully support the implementation of the programs in
the regions. This effort may well drive additional functional
management changes as we continue to decentralize for success.
Administrator Fugate and Secretary Napolitano both recognize that
strong regions require strong leaders, and both are committed to
seeking and selecting regional administrators who are both qualified
and prepared to handle these additional responsibilities. The
administration is actively pursuing, selecting, and assigning regional
administrators who have ``a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of
emergency management and homeland security.'' We firmly and
fundamentally agree that these key leadership positions are no place
for emergency management novices, and will continue to ensure that only
experienced and qualified emergency managers fill these critical
positions.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that this regional empowerment
initiative represents not a devolution of responsibility and authority
from headquarters to our regions, but the evolutionary recognition that
our regions must grow into stronger and more capable extensions of our
National emergency management capability. We look forward to working
with this subcommittee and all of our stakeholders to continue these
efforts to bolster our regional efficacy and meet FEMA's mission. Thank
you.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Russell to summarize his statement for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TONY RUSSELL, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, FEMA REGION
6, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Russell. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Rogers, and Members of the subcommittee.
I am Tony Russell, the regional administrator of FEMA
Region 6. As Mr. Garratt mentioned, FEMA Region 6 includes the
States of Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.
I welcome the opportunity to testify before you today,
particularly from my perspective as a regional administrator
about FEMA's initiative to evolve authorities to the regions.
Simply put, Administrator Fugate believes that headquarters
is responsible for the rules and the tools, and the regions in
the field are the implementers. Headquarters will prescribe
policy, and the regions will implement that policy.
In July 2009, Administrator Fugate issued a memorandum
which began what is an on-going process of realigning key
operational responsibilities and authorities to and, in some
cases, back to our regional offices. This process addresses a
key goal of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act,
or PKEMRA, which called FEMA to develop more robust regional
offices.
In October 2009, the National Academy of Public
Administration, NAPA concluded a Congressionally-requested
study of FEMA and released its report, ``FEMA's integration of
preparedness in development of robust regional offices. An
independent assessment.''
This report revealed that FEMA has made significant
progress in better integrating preparedness across our
functional fabric as well as in creating more robust regional
offices, but that specific goals and outcomes to expand are
these efforts were still needed.
The report found that FEMA has taken significant steps to
create more robust regional offices, including developing and
promulgating guidance to identify the respective preparedness
responsibility of headquarters and regional offices and
creating a regional advisory committee in each region to
represent stakeholders.
FEMA is pleased that the NAPA has recognized the agency's
efforts, but FEMA is also aware that additional opportunities
for improvement and empowerment remain to which we are
committed.
Additionally, Deputy Administrator Serino is personally
leading a high-priority senior-level initiative to examine how
our positions and organization between headquarters and the
regions and reviewing how best to align resources to the
regions to complement and support the region's new
responsibilities.
This effort may well drive additional functional management
changes as we continue to decentralize in ways that will
continue to improve the agency's performance. In support of
this effort and consistent with PKEMRA, the administration is
actively pursuing and selecting regional administrators who
have a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emerging
management and homeland security.
Administrator Fugate and Secretary Napolitano firmly and
fundamentally agree that these key leadership positions are no
place for an emergency management novice and will continue to
ensure that only experience and qualified emergency managers
fill these critical positions.
In conclusion, as a regional administrator, it is my view
that this process of evolving authorities to the regions will
be of great benefit in helping FEMA to achieve its mission to
support our citizens and first responders to ensure that, as a
Nation, we work together to build, sustain, and improve our
capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover
from, and mitigate all hazards.
I look forward to responding to your questions. Thank you
very much.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Dr. Springer to summarize her statement in
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE GIBBS SPRINGER, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Springer. Thank you for inviting us. I was one of seven
panel members that served at the National Academy and produced
the independent assessment report last October. As part of our
inquiry, academy staff conducted over 70 interviews with FEMA
officials at headquarters and regions. We conducted site visits
at FEMA's ten regional offices, 1, 3, and 6.
We surveyed senior management at the region offices,
facilitated a focus group, and also hosted an on-line State-
level dialogue--dialogue of State-level stakeholders.
Our inquiry was based on, as you have noted, the post-
Katrina legislation that prompted FEMA to emergency
preparedness and a more resilient Nation. We were impressed in
our inquiry by the commitment and dedication of FEMA officials,
but we also learned of frustration when headquarters does not
provide regional offices with genuine opportunities for input
into critical management and policy decisions. That, we
believe, progress has been made on, but more progress is
needed.
We identified key challenges that still really exist even
though progress has been made. Preparedness is not fully
integrated across FEMA. Regional offices do not yet have the
full capacity to ensure that the Nation is fully prepared.
Stakeholders are not fully engaged, and FEMA has less than
fully effective internal business practices, particularly, with
regard, as has been noted, human capital planning and
management.
We made seven recommendations, and these recommendations
included that FEMA work more closely with internal and external
stakeholders to develop a shared understanding of preparedness
integration, establish better and much-needed outcome metrics
and standards, monitor progress on an on-going transparent
basis.
FEMA itself has acknowledged that progress in these areas
needs to be made, and the regional offices have been empowered
to develop capacity.
When we talked to survey respondents at the regional senior
FEMA regional level, three-quarters of them reported increased
relationships with States but fewer reported increased
interaction with other stakeholders. That continues to be
something that we need to work on.
As I close, let me turn my comments specifically to
stakeholders. While many regional offices reported that some
stakeholder relationships are improving, there is much more
that needs to be done. A robust regional office, we believe as
a panel, should be fully robust by having sufficient capacity
to support efforts of stakeholders at every level and optimally
and well-skilled work force to implement policies, a strong
working relationship with headquarter components, and strong,
effective working relationships with stakeholders.
FEMA has made significant progress in the post-Katrina era,
but more progress is on the way. We look forward to it. Again,
thank you for inviting the National Academy of Public
Administration to testify on this important issue, and we stand
ready to answer any additional questions and to work with you
in the future.
[The statement of Ms. Springer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christine Gibbs Springer
March 16, 2010
Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony today before this Subcommittee on Emergency Communications,
Preparedness, and Response of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
My name is Christine Gibbs Springer. I am the Director of the Executive
Masters Degree Program in Crisis and Emergency Management at the
University of Nevada--Las Vegas's Department of Public Administration,
as well as a Fellow at National Academy of Public Administration (the
National Academy). As a National Academy Fellow, I was one of seven
members of an Academy Panel that released a report in October 2009,
FEMA's Integration of Preparedness and Development of Robust Regional
Offices: An Independent Assessment. The focus of today's hearing,
``Ensuring Strong FEMA Regional Offices: An Examination of Resources
and Responsibilities,'' goes to the heart of the Panel's study.
As background, the National Academy was asked by Congress to
conduct an independent assessment of FEMA's implementation of two key
mandates within PKEMRA [Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of
2006]: Preparedness integration and the development of robust regional
offices. At its most fundamental level, the goal of PKEMRA is to build
a more resilient Nation by improving America's preparedness. In order
to play its leadership role within the Nation's preparedness system,
FEMA must not only integrate preparedness across all of its component
programs, but also establish an effective division of responsibilities
between headquarters and the regional offices to reach all stakeholders
to ensure we are a Nation prepared.
Over the course of our assessment, Academy staff conducted over 70
interviews with FEMA officials at headquarters and the regions, as well
as with other interested parties. We conducted site visits to three of
FEMA's ten regional offices [I, III, VI] and surveyed senior management
in the regional offices. In addition, we facilitated a focus group
session with FEMA's Regional Administrators and hosted an online
dialogue with State-level stakeholders. As a member of the Academy's
Study Panel, I am here today to share with you the highlights of what
we found and the challenges we believe FEMA still faces.
During the past decade, our Nation has faced significant natural
and man-made disasters. After the devastation of Hurricane Katrina,
PKEMRA mandated significant changes within FEMA to improve our National
preparedness and with it our National response capability. The recent
catastrophic seismic events in Haiti, Chile, Taiwan, and Turkey should
remind us both that preparedness is critically important and that every
disaster is experienced locally. While most daily emergency management
situations are managed by local actors, FEMA plays a critical role in
assisting stakeholders at all levels through training and education,
exercises, and capacity-building grants. FEMA's regional offices are
responsible for nurturing and maintaining the critical relationships
with stakeholders upon which preparedness is based. PKEMRA directed
FEMA to develop ``robust regional offices'' to carry out this critical
role.
Before discussing our findings, I would like to note that Panel
members and staff were consistently impressed by the commitment and
dedication of FEMA officials and staff, as well as their strong desire
to make FEMA the premier National emergency management agency. During
our interviews with headquarter and regional officials and in our
survey of regional offices, we frequently encountered a candor and a
willingness to identify problems and barriers to success while also
offering concrete suggestions and ideas to address challenges and
resolve issues. We also learned of frustrations when headquarters does
not provide the regional offices with a genuine opportunity for input
into critical management and policy decisions.
Based on a review of FEMA's actions to implement PKEMRA, the Panel
concluded that FEMA has taken significant steps to integrate
preparedness and develop more robust regional offices. We believe that
these efforts--undertaken by both the previous and the current
administrations--should be recognized and applauded. Despite this
progress, we identified several key challenges at the time of our
review:
Preparedness is not yet fully integrated across FEMA;
Regional offices do not yet have the capacity required to
ensure the Nation is fully prepared;
Stakeholders are not yet full partners with FEMA in National
preparedness;
FEMA has ineffective internal business practices,
particularly with regard to human capital planning and
management.
To address these concerns, the Panel issued a total of seven
recommendations. Among other things, the Panel recommended that FEMA
work with internal and external stakeholders to develop a shared
understanding of preparedness integration, establish needed outcome
metrics and standards, and monitor progress on an on-going and
transparent basis. From an organizational standpoint, FEMA needs to
eliminate silos and other impediments to the full integration of
preparedness.
As FEMA itself has acknowledged, regional offices are the agency's
front line in supporting stakeholders throughout the country.
Recognizing the critical importance of the regional offices, the Panel
recommended that FEMA continue building their capacity consistent with
Administrator Fugate's summer 2009 policy memorandum delegating
additional responsibilities to the regions. Equally important, FEMA
should develop a framework to evaluate how successful it is in building
robust regional offices, while continuing to assess whether additional
authorities should be delegated to the field. Based on effective
practices elsewhere in the Federal Government, the Panel provided FEMA
with key principles to use in strengthening the headquarters-regional
office relationship.
FEMA can make most, if not all, of these needed changes. Our study
found that senior FEMA regional officials recognize the urgent need to
integrate preparedness, rebuild their capacity, improve their
headquarters relationship, and more actively engaging stakeholders at
all levels. In our April 2009 survey of senior FEMA regional managers,
three-quarters reported that their region had made at least some
progress in preparedness integration--yet almost 85 percent felt it
would take at least 1 more year to achieve. Three-quarters of the
survey respondents reported increased relationships with States, but
fewer reported increased interaction with such stakeholders as private
industry and Tribes. Most strikingly, over 90 percent of the
respondents reported that considerable or moderate changes would be
required for their regional office to become fully robust.
Clearly, much remains to be done. FEMA regional managers identified
actions to improve FEMA's efforts in National preparedness. These
included:
Establish a vision for preparedness integration and increase
commitment to their goal;
Make programmatic and administrative changes to FEMA's grant
programs including reducing the administrative burdens placed
upon grantees (such as multiple reporting requirements, and
grant applications);
Engage and better serve the needs of stakeholders;
Coordinate common goals within all FEMA divisions or
Directorates to reduce HQ program stove-piping;
Continue to empower the regions through increased staffing
and authorities, as appropriate;
Continuously improve the relationship between the regions
and headquarters by recognizing and utilizing the knowledge and
experience that exists within the regions; and
Continue to expand available funding and consider potential
structural changes within the regions to more effectively meet
regional needs.
Many have asked: ``What is a robust regional office?'' Although
PKEMRA did not define this term, the Panel believes that fully robust
regional offices must have sufficient capacity to support efforts of
stakeholders at the State, local, and Tribal levels; an optimally sized
workforce with the requisite skills to implement headquarters policies
and guidance; a strong working relationship with headquarters
components and a commitment to emergency management goals; and strong,
effective working relationships with stakeholders at all levels.
As I close, let me turn my comments specifically to stakeholders.
While many regional officials reported that some stakeholder
relationships are improving, we also noted that much remained to be
done to actively engage stakeholders at all levels. As mentioned above,
FEMA's regional offices are the critical point of interface with the
non-Federal stakeholders who have primary responsibility for emergency
management including preparedness. FEMA must continue to build and
expand these relationships, empowering the regions to actively engage
stakeholders and holding these offices accountable for doing so.
FEMA has made significant progress in achieving PKEMRA's mandate
for preparedness integration and robust regional offices, but it faces
continuing challenges in certain areas. It must build upon progress to
date to fully integrate preparedness, to strengthen the capacity of the
regional offices, establish working partnerships with stakeholders, and
improve internal business practices that support mission-related
programs. FEMA has the opportunity to develop a shared vision for
National preparedness that actively engages and empowers partners,
stakeholders, and citizens.
Again, thank you for inviting the National Academy of Public
Administration to testify on this important issue. We stand ready to
answer any additional questions you may have.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
Without objection, the gentlewoman from the State of Texas
is authorized to sit for the purpose of questioning witnesses
during the hearing today.
I now recognize Mr. Long to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF BROCK LONG, DIRECTOR, ALABAMA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY
Mr. Long. Thank you, Chairwoman Richardson. Congratulations
on your recently being named Chair.
Ranking Member Rogers, Members of the committee, thank you
for allowing me to appear before you today.
As the director of the Alabama Emergency Management Agency,
my agency works tirelessly with Federal, State, and local
officials to ensure that Alabama remains as self-sufficient as
possible in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from
all disasters.
Despite our best efforts, history continues to show us that
disasters and events will occur that exceed the capability of
local and State government. In these incidents, strong and
effective relationships with our FEMA regional partners and
FEMA National headquarters are vital to successful response and
recovery efforts.
In Alabama, we enjoy a solid working relationship with our
FEMA regional office in Atlanta, however, to improve on our
collective emergency management capability, I recommend we
either revisit or modify the following areas that I will
summarize.
First, we need to promote a better understanding of State-
specific priorities because, often, National initiatives do not
necessarily reflect what is important to each State. For
example, in Alabama, right now, what we are trying to
accomplish is making sure that there is a local full-time
emergency manager in all 67 counties. We do not have that at
the local level right now. That is one of the most important
levels, if not the most important level, in emergency
management.
We are also trying to build vendor-managed life safety,
life-sustaining commodity concepts where we can be self-
sufficient for the first 72 hours in getting water, ice, and
MREs out to those who have been impacted by disaster.
We are also trying to build our shelter capability during
evacuations. If we can provide our citizens with more options
and safe shelters closer to the coast when we evacuate for
hurricanes, imagine the life safety opportunity that we have
and the cost reduction we will see in just evacuations alone.
Second, we need to develop plans and policies and
regulations that complement State and local initiatives to
build capability and community resiliency. I applaud FEMA's
recent efforts to improve authority; however, there are some
policies that may stand in the way of our State's priorities.
An example of this, in my opinion, is the hazard mitigation
assistance safe room policy. While I am trying to build shelter
capability, this policy is very restrictive and makes it very
difficult for us to accomplish this using hazard-grant
mitigation performance funds as a result of a disaster.
No. 3, further empower FEMA regional offices with the
authority to make critical response and recovery decisions
during Presidentially-declared events. Here again, I applaud
Administrator Fugate's efforts to extend the authorities down.
One area that I think we need to also consider is to make sure
that the regional offices have full authority to mobilize and
execute commodity contracts and logistics, making sure that
there are not--there are minimal layers in getting water, ice,
and MREs down to the States and, ultimately, to the incident
level.
No. 4, staff regional offices to levels consistent with the
programs and responsibilities they are charged with managing as
a result of PKEMRA. It is my understanding that there are 32
additional responsibilities and requirements placed upon
regional offices, and I think we have to ask the question: Are
the regional offices staffed properly to handle and execute
those?
Finally, provide States a great ability to build an engaged
and prepared citizenry through tailored public awareness
campaigns. Each one of our States is unique and different, and
as a result, our risk and vulnerabilities are different. I
would like to see a greater opportunity for us in receiving
assistance through grants to help us tailor-make each one of
our public awareness campaigns, because I often question if we
are truly building a culture of preparedness within our
citizenry.
We have to look at our citizens as the most important
resource and, also, the most important resource in the
partnership between State, Federal Government, and local
government.
I have expanded on each one of these points in my written
testimony. In closing, I want to reiterate we are making great
strides towards refining emergency management processes through
relationship-building across all levels of government and the
private sector.
It is in the spirit of improvement and cooperation that I
am honored to appear before you today. Thank you again for
inviting me to be here. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have at the appropriate time.
[The statement of Mr. Long follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brock Long
March 16, 2010
introduction
Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking Member Rogers, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. As Director of the Alabama Emergency Management Agency, I
appreciate the opportunity to address how the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Regional offices work with our State.
One of our goals at the Alabama Emergency Management Agency is to
build a prepared citizenry, coordinate all available resources down to
the incident level during disasters, and be as self-sufficient and
timely as possible. To meet this goal, an effective partnership between
FEMA, the State, local jurisdictions, and our citizens is imperative.
Despite our best efforts as a State to remain self-sufficient, the
possibility of a disaster overwhelming our capabilities and requiring
assistance from our Federal partners at FEMA is ever-present. Our
preparedness, response, and recovery efforts depend upon solid
relationships with FEMA, and we appreciate the assistance and guidance
that we receive from FEMA Region IV.
During Presidential disaster declarations, States need assurances
the FEMA regional offices and FEMA Headquarters fully understand the
strategic priorities and capability shortfalls of the State. In the
past 18 months, Alabama has experienced seven Presidential disaster
declarations. While our relationship with FEMA Region IV is healthy and
productive, these disasters indicate room for improvement. The
strategic priorities of the States remain the foundation for improving
the emergency management community's levels of preparedness and
capability to respond and recover.
Each State has unique needs due to their geographic location,
budgets, and staffing; however we all face the common challenge of
meeting the specific needs of our citizens utilizing DHS and FEMA
assistance, which is often guided by ridged policy and subjective
regulation interpretation. By gaining an understanding of State
priorities, FEMA could better construct a bottom-up approach to
developing policies, regulations, and grant guidance. Also, FEMA
regional offices should be given more autonomy and staff to manage
Federal grants and programs in a manner specifically supporting State
priorities.
regional responsibilities & authorities
Many of the Federal programs initiated remain National in scope and
fail to translate effectively or efficiently at the State level.
Alabama's challenges are much different than other large and small
States as classified by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act
(Stafford Act). Unfortunately, disasters will never recognize National
priorities, so flexibility must stand as the starting point of any
National policy or regulation. By providing FEMA regional offices
discretion to aid States in building local capabilities, the ultimate
goals of self-sufficiency, saving lives, reducing the overall cost of
disasters, and improving collective response and recovery times are
closer to reality.
While FEMA regional offices remain responsible for added program
requirements as a result of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act (PKEMRA) and FEMA National initiatives, it remains
imperative the level of authority provided to FEMA Region offices
parallel these added responsibilities. Regions must also be staffed at
proper levels to effectively administer grants, disaster assistance,
and program requirements.
All disasters begin and end locally. When decision-making authority
is delegated closest to the incident, collective disaster response and
recovery will be more efficient and timely. The emergency management
community applauds Administrator Fugate's recent decision to provide
FEMA Regional Administrators with new decision-making authorities. The
realignment of authority providing Regional Administrators the ability
to approve State Management Administrative Cost for Public Assistance
and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program should also be commended.
Despite these improvements there remain areas where additional
authority should be provided to FEMA regional offices. For example, by
giving FEMA regional offices the authority to order life-sustaining
commodities such as, water, ice, and meals-ready-to-eat during a
disaster response, logistical coordination is closer to the incident.
This authority should be provided because FEMA regional offices have
greater visibility of the incident's magnitude and severity.
Additionally, they are better-positioned to activate and execute
National-level commodity contracts.
In recent years Alabama supported FEMA's Gap Analysis Survey, but
corresponding assessment programs must be modified accordingly. Without
modification, there remains no mechanism to help jurisdictions mitigate
identified gaps. These gap analyses facilitate good communication;
however, there is rarely a commitment to assist the States in
overcoming the identified shortfalls. PKEMRA and other National
initiatives place an overwhelming number of requirements and
responsibilities upon the FEMA Regions for administering programs,
grants, and assessments. Unfortunately, these efforts fail to empower
the FEMA Regions to execute these programs in a way that builds
capability from the State and local level.
The leadership within FEMA Region IV continues to improve on its
relationship and customer service to Alabama. For example, they
recently designated a Logistical Chief and Operations Section Chief to
work directly with Alabama. In previous years, Alabama would interact
with these critical positions only during limited operational
activations. Now, we are able to plan and exercise more frequently, and
customer service is more consistent. Also, the FEMA Region IV
directorate staffs are easily accessible and travel to our State
Emergency Operations Center to explain new programs, requirements, and
to mitigate outstanding issues.
public assistance & the appeals process
One area of concern that has a negative impact upon the State's
relationship with FEMA is the lack of regional support staff within the
Recovery Directorate. Often the State is left waiting for crucial
appeal and eligibility determinations by the Region for Public
Assistance projects after a disaster. For example, the City of Orange
Beach incurred extensive damages to its coastline from Hurricanes
Gustav (1789-DRAL) and Ike (1797-DR-AL). The declarations for these
hurricanes came in October 2008; however, a final determination about
the eligibility of the engineered beach was not determined until
February 18, 2010. This delay exposed the city's infrastructure to
additional tropical threats without its most cost-effective and
valuable protective resource in place.
FEMA Regions and Headquarters also regularly exceed the prescribed
appeals response time frames in 44 Code of Federal Regulations 206.206.
According to these regulations, the FEMA Regional Administrator or
Assistant Administrator for the Disaster Assistance Directorate will
notify the grantee in writing of appeal decision or need for additional
information within 90 days of receiving the appeal. For example:
The Baldwin County appeal of an Office of Inspector General
(OIG) Audit DA-09-03 was submitted to FEMA Region IV on
November 16, 2009. To date, there remains no determination
regarding this appeal.
The City of Gulf Shores second appeal of 1605-DR-AL PW 792
was submitted to FEMA Headquarters on July 7, 2008 while the
final determination regarding this appeal was received more
than a year after submitted.
Many of these delays appear to be the result of staffing shortfalls
in the FEMA Regional Recovery and Mitigation Directorates. FEMA
National Headquarters should revise and enhance staffing levels within
the FEMA Regional offices to directly support States, or grant further
decision-making authority to the Federal Coordinating Officer at the
Joint Field Office. It should be noted that the recent reorganization
at FEMA Headquarters has not yet had an impact upon the States;
however, we continue to support any reorganization of FEMA promoting
additional customer service and timely decisions in support of all
aspects of emergency management.
fema policy
While FEMA leadership has recently taken needed strides to address
previous policies and regulation interpretations, Alabama occasionally
sees policies developed and implemented that were not coordinated
across the different directorates within the agency or the States. As a
result, these policies contradict State priorities. An example of this
is FEMA's ``Hazard Mitigation Assistance for Safe Rooms'' policy. To
maximize life safety shelter capability and improve evacuations,
Alabama is working collectively with local governments to reduce the
evacuation distance citizens travel to seek safe refuge by building a
robust shelter strategy and capability. Shelters are in great demand as
AEMA has received in excess of $70 million dollars in Letters of Intent
(LOI) for safe rooms and shelters as a result of Hurricanes Ivan,
Katrina, Gustav, and Ike. Despite this need, the current safe room
policy is overly restrictive, making it difficult for the State and
locals to utilize Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds for the
construction of general hurricane evacuation shelters.
NEMA released a position paper in the fall of 2009 expressing
concern over this policy and requesting Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) funds be eligible for safe rooms. While FEMA's response pointed
to legislative obstacles, a review of Section 404 of the Stafford Act
clearly outlines reducing hardship, loss, or suffering as eligible
expenditures. Such interpretations stand as a perfect example of overly
restrictive applications of the law inhibiting State's abilities to
protect life and property.
recommendations
A recent survey completed by the National Academy of Public
Administration's (NAPA) highlights two recurring themes:
1. FEMA Headquarters must ensure better internal directorate
integration and communication.
2. FEMA must build robust regional offices with increased
authority, autonomy, and staff support.
Improving upon these areas will significantly improve FEMA's
relationship with a vast array of stakeholders.
Finally, the most effective means to prevent disasters from
evolving into catastrophic events is to first create a culture of
preparedness within our citizenry. While National-level preparedness
efforts and outreach campaigns are positive in theory, many of these
efforts do not effectively reach citizens. National public awareness
campaign strategies can be more effectively managed by giving States
appropriate discretion and funding. Many programs mandated by PKEMRA
and other National-level initiatives address how emergency management
should prepare and build capability to respond; however, a
disproportionately small amount of emphasis and funding is invested to
educate citizens about their specific hazard vulnerability. Finally,
our preparedness planning stops short by not effectively incorporating
citizens as resources into our plans and initiatives.
The State of Alabama appreciates the good work FEMA and our Federal
partners do for our citizens prior to and following a disaster. With
minimal modifications, FEMA can certainly improve its working
relationship with States.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I stand ready to
answer any questions you may have.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Long, for your testimony.
I thank all the witnesses for the testimony and will remind
each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes to question the
panel.
I now recognize myself for questions.
Mr. Russell, can you please describe the staffing levels
that your region has to manage the homeland security grant
programs? Will you receive additional grants specialists under
the fiscal year 2011 budget request?
Mr. Russell. Yes, Madam Chairwoman. I think that, at the
moment, you know, I have been in the job now for about 2\1/2\
months. At the moment, we have what we need to be able to
effectively do our programs.
I say that only because it is done in a partnership between
the region and between headquarters, also. If there is a point
that we get to as this process evolves that I decide that I
cannot perform my mission, at that time, before I get to that
point, what I do is I go and I say I need more resources.
From that, I am assured that those resources will become
available. So as I went through and I did an assessment of my
capabilities, I felt, at this point, I have no shortfalls in my
ability to perform my mission.
Ms. Richardson. What do you have?
Mr. Russell. I have----
Ms. Richardson. How many people do you have?
Mr. Russell. I have in my mission--I don't know precisely
the exact number that I have in that one division, but I know
that when I have talked to my division director, he is
satisfied with what he has now in the context of what we are
doing now.
We know that this is an evolving process, and I know that,
as this process does evolve, if I do need to acquire more
assets, then I will be the first in line to put my hand up to
be able to get those.
Ms. Richardson. How involved were you in the budget itself?
Were you allowed to--were you just given a set budget and
everyone was given the same thing? Or were you allowed to say I
need a little more X in this particular category or more in
every way?
Mr. Russell. Ma'am, you know, as I am told--because I was
not there yet when this all transpired--but as I did my review,
I was told it was a give-and-take; meaning that we had input
into the process, and then we were able to talk about what
would be requirement in the field and, from there, be able to
build the budget.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Garratt, to your knowledge, how
involved are the regional coordinators in the budget? Where
they given an opportunity to make changes? Or was it the same
for every region?
Mr. Garratt. Regions are engaged in the budget at different
points in the budget process. For example, there are a number
of headquarters organizations and functions--response and
recovery, mitigation--that control lines of funding. Those
organizations work directly with the regions to identify what
their requirements are for those functional lines of funding
and provide funding to the regions in support of their
requirements.
So in that respect, regional staff work directly with their
counterparts at headquarters to identify what the requirements
are and then work to negotiate funding to support those
requirements. In addition to that, regions receive a general
budget to support their 1100 account, which is for travel--
things of that nature.
So they are involved in the budgeting process from the very
beginning, but the level and the tenor of their engagement is
going to depend on the type of line of funding for which they
are requesting support.
Ms. Richardson. Are you aware of any regions that submitted
additional requests for changes that were not met?
Mr. Garratt. I would suspect, Madam Chairwoman, that there
are probably requests every year within various functional
areas that are adjudicated, and some are met and some are not
met. I am not aware that there have been any critical
requirements that any regions have identified that have not
been met.
Ms. Richardson. Are you aware of any that had to do with
staffing requests?
Mr. Garratt. Regarding?
Ms. Richardson. In the regions, did any of them submit, in
addition to their budget, a further request of staffing that
has not been met?
Mr. Garratt. I am certain that, in the past, Madam
Chairwoman, that the regions have requested additional staffing
requirements and that we have not been able to satisfy all of
those requirements at that time. However, I would like to
piggyback on that and say that, as my colleague, Mr. Russell
indicated, our deputy administrator, Mr. Serino, recently had
an all-hands. At that all-hands, he announced that he is
committed to making 25 percent of FEMA headquarters existing
vacancies reallocating those to the regions.
We have a team in process right now identifying how those--
the needs and requirements for those--at the regional level for
those vacancies.
So the agency is very committed to additionally fortifying
and bolstering the number of staff at the regions.
Ms. Richardson. I am going to pause for that moment because
I am Chairwoman and my time has expired, and I want to set a
good example.
So I will now recognize the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Rogers, from Alabama.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Garratt, I understand that FEMA is conducting a
comprehensive policy review. Is this still going on? Who is
leading the effort? What is the status of it?
My understanding is that this has been on-going for quite
some time.
Mr. Garratt. Mr. Rogers, I think I am going to need a bit
more detail. When you say a comprehensive policy review, is
that a particular policy or just in general?
Mr. Rogers. No. With regard to the region's offices and
whether they have sufficient personnel.
Mr. Garratt. Correct, sir. This is really kind of a multi-
faceted process. As we indicated, some months ago, the
administrator queries of regions and asked them what additional
authorities they needed. They provided that information, and
then additional authorities were redelegated to those.
Since then, we have--the administrator at the NEMA
conference last week met again with the regional administrators
and said, okay, thanks. Appreciated that. Let us do this again.
He is, once again, charged the regions to identify
additional types of authorities that they believe that they
need to be more effective and to let us know what those
authorities are. Regions will get together. They will identify
what those are. Those will come up.
In terms of policies supporting the regions, those are an
outgrowth of the additional authorities that we provide to the
regions. So as we identify authorities that we are going to
pushing back down to the regions, we will amend and revise the
policies to support that.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. So we are still on-going.
I would also like to ask you to clarify how FEMA's grant
programs will operate between FEMA headquarters and the
regions. Will they be affected differently?
Mr. Garratt. That is an evolving process, Mr. Rogers. In
fact, we do exact that to work differently. We do expect,
again, as part of this process, to begin pushing various grant
responsibilities that are currently managed at the headquarters
level down to the regions.
But I can't tell you what the final form of that is going
to be at this point. We anticipate that we are going to get
additional grants personnel. But in terms of exactly what those
responsibilities are going to be, don't have a fix on that yet,
sir.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Thanks.
Mr. Russell, I want to stay on this same topic with you.
What type of oversight or support does the regional office
provide with respect to State and local grants now?
Mr. Russell. Sir, now, we provide--we are the ones that
actually manage those grants now. So we work with the States
and with the local partners to make sure that the grants are,
in fact, being processed way that they should at the moment.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. When you heard Mr. Garratt talk about
trying to shift more of that responsibility to the regional
offices, is that something you support and think would be
better for the distribution of those grants?
Mr. Russell. Yes, sir, Mr. Rogers. You know, my philosophy
is that things are best done at the point of impact. So I think
that the more ability that we have in the regions to monitor,
to push our grants forward, I think that would be better and
more efficient.
Mr. Rogers. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Long, how long does it take the disaster declaration
process generally to take once you have submitted a request to
FEMA for a declaration? Is there a typical time line?
Mr. Long. Ranking Member Rogers, honestly, the declaration
process has become somewhat frustrating, in my opinion. The
last two disaster declarations that we went through--Tropical
Storm Ida, it took 32 days. The most recent denial that we had
for extreme cold weather also took 32 days.
To me, that is an excessive time frame, however, there is
very little transparency in that process as well.
Once our request--the Governor's request goes to the FEMA
region, it is not clear as to what the next steps are and where
our request is actually in process.
Mr. Rogers. Specifically, how would you like to see it
improved that would help you do your job better?
Mr. Long. Well, if we have definitely--if there is life
safety issues involved where individual assistance is needed
and FEMA is rolling resources, I don't see why a declaration
could not take place within 24, 48 hours.
You know, quite honestly, if public assistance--if it is
just a public assistance where infrastructure is damaged but
there are no life safety and we meet our numeric indicators
that FEMA provides, I am not sure why it would take a month. It
should also be a matter of maybe 2, 3, 4 days.
Mr. Rogers. Tell me more about the transparency concerns.
Mr. Long. Quite honestly, when you call--when we make phone
calls to the region or to headquarters, a lot of times, the
answer we get is that the declaration request is in process and
that is it.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Richardson. The Chairwoman will now recognize the
others for questions they may have to ask the witnesses. In
accordance with our committee rules and practice, I will
recognize Members who were present at the start of the hearing
based on seniority of the subcommittee alternating between the
Majority and Minority.
Those Members coming in later will be recognized in the
order of their arrival. But with that, what supersedes all of
that is recognizing the Chair of our committee, which is
Chairman Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I
might add that, for your maiden voyage as Chairwoman, you have
done an excellent job. I compliment you on it.
Mr. Garratt, at what point will we have this 5-year
capital--human capital plan for FEMA so we can look at it?
Mr. Garratt. Good question, Chairman Thompson.
I can't tell you at this point--give you a date when you
are going to have that. What I can tell you is why I can't tell
you that at this point and what we are doing that is leading to
that particular effort.
Since Mr. Fugate came on, he recently identified three key
initiatives for this--for fiscal year 2010. One of those key
initiatives is the work force enhancement initiative. As part
of that, he essentially wants us to relook at how we hire. He
wants to increase diversity. He wants to increase the interning
programs. He wants to increase and improve how we manage our
work force. He wants to have rotations, et cetera, et cetera. A
lot of improvements that he envisions for this coming year.
Our work groups that we have stood up are currently shaping
and fashioning what are going to be the initiatives to support
that work force enhancement initiative. What comes out of those
work groups will, in fact, inform what will be that 5-year
human capital strategy. We are looking at potentially some
fairly large changes in how we do business from a human capital
perspective within the agency. We want to wait for that work
force enhancement initiative to conclude and understand how we
are going to move forward before we complete a human capital
plan.
Mr. Thompson. Six months? Nine months? So, I mean, you tell
me what it accomplishes, but if you don't operate on a time
table, we could be here 4 years or into another administration
and we don't have it.
Will you get for the committee Mr. Fugate's expected time
table for the implementation of this human capital plan?
Mr. Garratt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Dr. Springer, we are glad to have you. I
always enjoy opportunities to go to your part of the country.
Can you, from a professional standpoint, tell me how
difficult it would be to implement any reorganization without a
human capital plan to go with or a staffing component?
Ms. Springer. Well, from my experience, the human capital
plan is pivotal to the reorganization and restructuring. Our
panel determined that, frankly, one part of this restructuring
that was necessary was to develop metrics that would allow
regional office performance to be measured and to hold them
accountable. FEMA concurred.
Performance standards particularly directed at outcome
measure should be developed for regional offices. Metrics and
standards, we found, was very important.
I would also like to mention it is not just what we found
was--it is not just more staff. We found that skill sets needed
to be different and enhanced. That is----
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Garratt, are you aware of the fact that the reputation
of FEMA is that they tend to look for retired civil servants,
other people to employ rather than just people from the
ordinary work force?
Mr. Garratt. I am familiar with that, Chairman Thompson.
The administrator is extremely familiar with that as well which
is why he is committed to turning that perception around.
Mr. Thompson. All right. Is it perception or is it reality?
Mr. Garratt. It is certainly perception. The reality is
that we do have a lot of former military, former retirees who
are part of our permanent work force as well as make up a
substantial number of our reserve work force. Very true.
Mr. Thompson. Well, will you provide us the information
statistically as to what that component is?
Mr. Garratt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Russell, who is your disability
coordinator for your region?
Mr. Russell. My disability coordinator, Chairman Thompson,
I have a person who handles all my equal rights and all of my
other things to deal with personnel, but I don't have anyone
who is particularly the disability coordinator at the time.
Mr. Thompson. Last question.
Mr. Garratt, can you tell me why we don't have listed in
our budget for this year for FEMA staffing for disability
coordinators in the region?
Mr. Garratt. Chairman Thompson, I fully expect that, as
part of this on-going process, working with the regions that is
being led by Deputy Administrator Serino, that disability
coordinators will be among those key positions that we will be
providing positions for as part of the reallocation of
positions to the region.
So I think the expectation is here that we will be
reallocating headquarters positions to the regions, and one of
them will be for the purposes of disability coordinators in
each region.
Mr. Thompson. So if we had an emergency in Alabama today,
who would have that responsibility in the region in Atlanta?
Mr. Garratt. It would be shared between the headquarters
disability coordinator and personnel, probably, performing an
additional duty at the regional office.
Mr. Thompson. I would assume, Mr. Long, that is part of
some of your concerns that you shared in your testimony about
having specific priorities and things at the regional office so
you will know who the contact person is to get specific
information rather than being bounced around?
Mr. Long. I would agree. Yes, sir. You know, FEMA has made
some good strides, though. We have actually seen a logistics
coordinator that has been assigned directly to the State,
whether it is a disability coordinator or whether it is a
logistics or operation chief that assigned directly to Alabama
that services us, it is always a best practice because it gives
us somebody that we can test, train, exercise with, and we
don't just see them in the heat of battle when we have been
impacted by a disaster.
Mr. Thompson. But you understand that planning and training
is far better than in the heat of battle?
Mr. Long. Yes, sir. Most definitely.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Richardson. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Olson for 5
minutes.
Mr. Olson. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Congratulations to my colleague from California on her
appointment as the Chairwoman.
Thanks to the witnesses for coming today. I greatly
appreciate your time, your expertise, and your willingness to
sit down and educate us and make sure that we make better
decisions for the people in our districts and for the people of
America.
My first question is for Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell, a
constant concern I hear from Galveston County is that the local
FEMA team set up to assist in the Hurricane Ike recovery will
soon be leaving and heading back to the Denton office 300 miles
away, perhaps, as soon as April.
The job is not done on the ground, and we need that team to
stay there. I understand that you have been meeting with local
officials, State officials, stakeholders in the Galveston area,
and these meetings have been going well. I am getting very
positive feedback.
Can you give us an update on where things stand?
Mr. Russell. Yes, sir. Congressman Olson, I am committed,
first of all, to ensuring that the staff there will not leave
until the job is done. What that means to me is that, until I
get concurrence from the State that, in partnership, that we
are at a position where that staff could leave and return back
to their region for the actual close-out, then that staff is
going to remain in place.
To me, that is a very important point that there is going
to be a conjunction with our State partners before my folks
leave.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much for that answer. I mean,
again, they are very concerned that they will be pulling out a
little early. I appreciate your commitment to keeping them
there until the locals say we are good to go.
Question again for--another for you, Mr. Russell, and for
Mr. Garratt.
Back to Galveston and Ike, I am sure you are familiar with
the University of Texas medical branch there at Galveston, one
of the best hospitals and medical schools in our Nation. They
are located in Galveston, as you all know, and they sustained
great damage during Hurricane Ike. A constant concern I hear
from them is the length of time it takes FEMA to complete a
project worksheet, up to 60 days in some cases.
Are there steps FEMA can take to reduce that amount of
time? I would like you to specifically address the method used
to estimate the cost of repair and mitigation as a means of
achieving that goal of a quicker turnaround.
Mr. Russell. Yes, sir. In fact, I am going down there next
week to do a walk-through. I, too, share the thought that my
goal is to always have the process as streamlined as possible.
If we can work together as a team, and that means with the
applicant, with the State, with the locals, with FEMA, and be
able to come to conclusions faster; that is what I prescribe,
too.
So I am going to do a walk-through. I am going to talk to
the officials down there to see where we are at and what we can
do to move forward as a team.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Garratt.
Mr. Garratt. I have nothing to add.
Mr. Olson. I greatly appreciate that. I mean, it is
incredibly important to that community. They had two hospitals
down there--the Shriners Burn Hospital and UTMB--that were both
significantly damaged. A lot of the health care moved off the
island, and they are in the process of getting that back up and
running.
I greatly appreciate your willingness to go down there and
talk to them because it is a regional asset. I mean, they were
one of the only Level 1 trauma centers, one of the three in our
region, handling a lot of the work offshore on the drilling
rigs and, also, the Texas--some of the refineries there on the
Gulf southern part of the Houston ship channel.
When they went down, it put a tremendous strain on the
trauma care throughout the region. So thank you very much for
being willing to go down there.
Finally, one last question for you, Mr. Russell, and that
is just because you are my Region 6 administrator.
But you know the devastation that was caused by Ike. The
Texas coast suffers from storm-related disasters on a regular
basis. Each disaster results in hundreds of millions of
dollars, if not billions, in economic damages. I am aware of
FEMA's efforts to buy and restrict building lots where there
have been damaged structures.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the buying and
retiring of building rights on undeveloped land where there is
the possibility of future development in areas that are
disaster-prone.
Mr. Russell. Well, sir, you know, I think that, with me, I
always like to look at what is the flexibilities of FEMA's
programs now; work with our State partners to figure out what
is the best course of action for them. So at this juncture, I
am not familiar in detail with that particular item that you
are talking about, but I can say this: I can say, whenever an
issue is brought to me from my State partners, we sit down, we
address it, and find a way to attack it to get it achieved.
Mr. Olson. Well, thanks for your answer. Make sure you get
the information to that. I appreciate the witnesses' time and
yield back.
Ms. Richardson. The Chairwoman recognizes Mr. Pascrell from
New Jersey, who has had his own challenges this week with some
of the floodwaters, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam
Chairwoman, I just return this morning from my district which
is centered in the Passaic River Basin. As a result of the
storm, this weekend, we are seeing some of the worst flooding
in the area I have seen in 25, 30, 40 years.
The river--the Passaic River will crest at some point later
today. The river already has risen to record heights and
continues to threaten the surrounding populace. My question is
going to be to Mr. Garratt.
Flooding continues to cause severe property damage. Several
thousand residents have already been forced to evacuate. The
rising waters, combined with downed trees, power lines, have
led to the closing of many roads and bridges, not only
throughout my area, but throughout the entire State of New
Jersey.
Thousands and thousands are still without power. I surveyed
the damage myself with the sheriff's department and with the
State police and other rescue workers. They have been doing an
unbelievable job since early Saturday morning in responding and
getting local residents out of harm's way--over a thousand have
been evacuated. Thousands have been evacuated.
I want to express, Mr. Garratt, my appreciation to the FEMA
office here in the District of Columbia that has been working
in coordination with my office. I am confident in the work that
FEMA Region 2 will undertake to conduct a preliminary damage
assessment with the State of New Jersey. We have lost lives.
This is serious business. I don't have to tell you. We already
have a declared state of emergency in the State.
Regarding the subject of this hearing, I want to go on the
order and saying that I support additional authorities being
delegated to FEMA's regional offices if they receive the
resources necessary to handle these greater responsibilities.
One cannot exist without the other.
In fact, I hope that FEMA National would give the regional
office greater authority on other matters like choosing local
contractors for projects within the region. Clearly, each
region has different challenges, and the local people on the
ground better understand what is needed than decision-makers
here in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Garratt, can you comment on this issue of giving
regional offices greater control over choosing local
contractors for regional projects?
Mr. Garratt. I think it is a great idea, Mr. Pascrell. As a
matter of fact, our chief procurement officer, Mr. Jake Hansen,
recently briefed our administrator on his plan to put an
individual in each region who would be part of a--essentially--
collective team but located in each region which would be local
business engagement personnel for the right purpose of reaching
out to and engaging local contractors in a way that we haven't
necessarily done before.
So they would, on a day-to-day basis, operate within the
regions doing exactly what you suggest. But in a major disaster
situation, they could be assembled in a disaster area to do
that in a more robust and a more focused and targeted way
within the disaster area.
So, yes, we think that is a terrific idea.
Mr. Pascrell. Let me ask this question. Let us assume that
these new authorities we are talking about today are already
implemented and a disaster was seen in many parts of the
Northeast. How would FEMA's response be different? Would the
regional offices have the resources in place today to
effectively mitigate the damages these heavy floods and winds
have caused? What is your opinion?
Mr. Garratt. Tough question to answer because it really
depends on the situation. We have, for example, some very large
contracts that we can call on. Our individual assistance,
technical assistance contracts, or public assistance, technical
assistance contracts.
Those contracts enable us to essentially roll contractors
out on a moment's notice to respond to disasters. We don't need
to go out and compete those requirements to get somebody to
perform that service. They are available now to do that. That
is the value of having them on standby is that we have that
capability ready to go.
What we are interested in doing is being able to migrate as
quickly as we can away from that and then bring on local
contractors once we get the situations stabilized. What we
don't want to do is sacrifice our ability to move quickly for
the sake of simply bringing on local contractors. What we want
to do is find a balance that enables us to respond quickly with
a standby contractor and then bring on locals now.
To the extent that regions can mimic what we do with these
large contractors at a regional level, I think that is fine.
That is one of the things that we are going to be working with
regions on as time goes on is to see if we can essentially
break--come up with smaller regional versions of these large
contracts that we have.
Mr. Pascrell. Madam Chairwoman, we are not just talking
about contractors. We are talking about authorities. You know,
FEMA deals with a lot of entities and agencies. A critical
issue.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Pascrell, your time has expired.
However, you are dealing with a real emergency as we speak.
If there is no objection, I would like to extend one more
moment, and then we will have a second round of questions.
But with respect to you and your constituents, if there is
no objections. Okay.
Go ahead, Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you. I just want to conclude by this. I
am satisfied with what has happened between Saturday and this
morning in terms of FEMA. I have been critical in certain
areas, but let us say it the way it is.
So I wanted you to take that back, and we have got serious,
serious problems here.
It looks look we are heading towards a 100-year record
flood. That is where we are heading by 6 to 9 o'clock tonight.
There is--you know, people have been evacuated.
Of course, these things happen--5 years, 10 years, 20
years. Nature has its way of dealing--we have our way of
dealing. Lives have been lost, and we certainly want to do
everything we can to help the State agencies, local agencies to
do what they have to do.
I must say that this preparation was much better than the
last time we had this in 1987. So thank you.
Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell. Of course, we wish
all of your constituents well.
Mr. Cao from Louisiana, you are acknowledged for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cao. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
First of all, I just wanted to say hello to Mr. Russell and
Mr. Garratt. Mr. Russell and I have been working closely
together in the past year to make sure that New Orleans
recovery is on pace. I must say that has been progressing
extremely well.
One of my biggest concerns, obviously, was last year with
respect to the province at the local FEMA offices and with you
coming down to address the issue. Changes were made and,
therefore, the office became much more efficient and much more
friendly.
My question--my first question to you here is: Are the
steps that you have taken to improve the efficiency as well as
the working environment at the local office--how can you ensure
that these policies and procedures will remain in place to
allow the FEMA officers a productive work environment as well
as a friendly working environment?
Mr. Russell. Well, yes, sir. Congressman Cao, I have a
meeting with my folks in Louisiana one per week. I have an
interim director, Mr. Mark Landry, down there now. He and I
talk consistently to ensure that everything that we put in
place continues to move forward.
We also are in close communication with the State, also,
with members of the city to make sure that we continue to have
the progress down there streamlined and make sure that we come
to conclusions and get these projects done.
Mr. Cao. One of the issues that I had with FEMA and
probably still have with FEMA is the competency in evaluating
FEMA projects, especially, for example, on the issue of Charity
Hospital. I know that FEMA refused to pay the State the
replacement value of Charity Hospital.
It went through several years of back-and-forth and then,
subsequently, it was put to an arbitration panel to decide. The
arbitration panel issued a judgment within a week and a half
saying that FEMA owes the State the replacement money for
Charity.
It, to me, seems almost a slap in the face to FEMA who have
consistently held that FEMA does not owe the State that amount.
What changes have you initiated to ensure that these
problems in the future can be avoided where FEMA is not
obstructing recovery but working in conjunction with State and
municipalities and ensure that recovery is expedient as well as
sufficient?
Mr. Russell. Sir, I think that one of the things that you
have probably seen is that we have people now working together.
Instead of us doing our part of the PW process in one room and
have the applicant in a different room, what you see now in
Louisiana is folks coming together in the same room talking
together trying to find solutions together. That was done
with--that was done with University of New Orleans.
So I think you have seen some of the progress that we have
made. What happened in Charity happened a while back, and it
took time to get to where we are at now. But I think that you
have seen the benefits of us coming together as a team and
trying to solve it together.
Mr. Cao. The budget for FEMA for 2011 includes a cut in
funding for emergency food and shelter. For example, post-
Katrina food was shipped in trucks from areas as far away as
Florida. Much of it was prepackaged and obtained at a cost
significantly higher than food obtained elsewhere in the State
and in neighboring States.
So I just want to, again, reemphasize a statement by
Congressman Pascrell. Explain to me how regional offices can
ensure that this type of waste doesn't occur during and after a
disaster.
Mr. Russell. Sir, what happens at the regional office is
that we work with our State coordinators to make sure that we
have the resources there when they are required to be there.
So my goal on the ground is to make sure that, when any of
my five States may request food or water, ice or whatever the
case may be, that we have it on time and on target for the
survivors. So that is what I am going to be doing.
Mr. Cao. On the issue of--also, how can you be more
efficient? How can you get your locals involved to provide a
more cost-effective means of providing these basic needs for
the people rather than trying to shift--for example, I was
hearing that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich was charged to
the Government at an amount of $8.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Cao, your time has expired.
So, Mr. Russell, if you could summarize briefly.
Mr. Russell. Okay. In quick summary, I just want to say to
our goal is to make sure that once the stores and once the
businesses are operational, then we are not there anymore, and
the folks can then go to the stores and purchase things there.
Mr. Cao. Thank you very much.
Ms. Richardson. The Chairwoman acknowledges Ms. Norton,
from the District, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for this
hearing.
Thank all of you for your important service in this area of
American life.
For Mr. Garratt, as you are aware, the National Capitol
Region has recently had a, perhaps, as far as I know, its first
Presidential disaster declaration. We have had various kinds of
FEMA help for the December snowstorm. I believe the February
snowstorm which the region--its various jurisdictions has
requested, is still pending.
Where are you on fund allocation for the December
snowstorm?
Mr. Garratt. Funding for disasters depends on--or the flow
of funding depends on the specific functional area. If we are
talking about public assistance, the net funding is received as
project worksheets are submitted and then obligated to
headquarters.
Once they are obligated, the funding goes to the district,
and then the district then provides that on the applicant.
Ms. Richardson. What about funding for the snow--this is--
we are in the middle of a great recession, and all of the
region was bled dry by having to clear the snow. What about
that funding, sir?
Mr. Garratt. Again, if they have a declaration, as soon as
they make the request----
Ms. Norton. You are able to give me in March any date with
respect to funding for the first declaration in December?
Mr. Garratt. Funding is available for----
Ms. Norton. For the District? For--Heights County? For
Montgomery County? For the States and the District of Columbia
for the December snowstorm, have you any target date for when
funding will be available to jurisdictions?
Mr. Garratt. Ms. Norton, funding was available the day that
those disasters were declared.
Ms. Norton. So the jurisdictions have received funding?
Mr. Russell. No, ma'am. Not necessarily. Funding is
available----
Ms. Norton. Mr. Garratt, I wish you wouldn't play word
games with me. I want to know when these various jurisdictions
will receive funding for the snow they picked up with money
they do not have.
Mr. Garratt. They will review funding whenever they submit
a project worksheet requesting that funding----
Ms. Norton. For the jurisdictions, if they have not done
so--they have not done so--would you----
Madam Chairwoman, could I ask that Mr. Garratt submit to
the Chairwoman the status of the jurisdictions as to what they
have not yet done and what FEMA is to do rather than to go
around in circles any further on this question?
Ms. Richardson. Without objection.
Ms. Norton. I would like that submitted within 2 weeks.
I would like to know the role of the region when it comes
to your so-called reserve or temporary workers. Is it true that
these workers do not have any health care?
Mr. Garratt. It is true that disaster assistance employees,
which is one former reservist, does not have health care. A
cadre of on-call reserve employees or core employees do have
access to health care.
Ms. Norton. Do you believe those workers would be covered
by the present health care bill that is going through the
Congress? Do you believe there should be any group of workers
who do work for the Federal Government who should not have
access to health care?
Mr. Garratt. I personally believe that, whenever an
individual is under Federal employ, that they should have
access to health care during that period of employment.
Ms. Norton. So these--where do these temporary workers come
from?
Mr. Garratt. They could be retired school teachers. They
could be retired military----
Ms. Norton. Are you aware of whether, perhaps, they are
receiving health care from some other source?
Mr. Garratt. Some of them are.
Ms. Norton. Don't you think it is the obligation of the
agency to know that they are receiving health care from some
other source or whether they are simply without any health
care?
Mr. Garratt. Well, given the fact that we cannot provide
disaster assistance employees health care right now, knowing
whether they have access to health care or not is relatively--
--
Ms. Norton. Beside the point.
Mr. Garratt, health care is this President's signature
issue. I wish you would go back to Administrator Fugate and
indicate that, in light of his own President's priority on
health care, the agency needs to do one of two things; either
make certain that these employees have health care from some
other source, or devise a way to make sure the Federal
Government does not have, in its employ, people who don't have
health care while it is preaching to the rest of the country
that everybody ought to have health care.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Richardson. The gentlelady's time is expired.
The Chairwoman recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Madam Chairwoman, let me--Chairwoman, let
me thank you, first of all, for your courtesies of extending
the opportunity to participate in this hearing as I am not a
Member of this subcommittee but a Member of the full committee.
Also, let me congratulate you on your leadership of this
committee and the courtesies of the Ranking Member as well.
Coming from the Gulf region, I have lived with FEMA as
third cousins, if you will. We have gone through, in recent
years, Storm Allison. Some of you may remember that if you are
seasoned FEMA-ites. That was one of the costliest climate or
weather conditions. It was not a hurricane. Then, of course,
Hurricane Katrina, Rita, and Hurricane Ike that has hit our
community.
Just several points that I would like to make and then have
a comment on it. I would like to join my colleague, Congressman
Olson, to insist and hope that FEMA will remain in the
Galveston region. Before the Congressman was elected, we worked
collectively together on these issues, and I continue to look
forward to working with him.
Mr. Russell, I would commend to you and your staff to reach
out to North Galveston. I am familiar with them because they
are working with churches in my Congressional district. I would
ask you specifically to contact a Reverend Berkeley on the
conditions in North Galveston. This has been brought to my
attention by churches in my Congressional district.
One of the concerns I have is this whole question of the
relationship--and it is a statutory relationship--between the
State and the Federal Government once an emergency declaration
is declared.
Mr. Garratt, I would like your commentary. The point that
is of concern is I, too, respect the State Government and local
governments, but there is much confusion when there is an
emergency declaration because, whenever you have to talk to
FEMA, they always have to say they have to talk to people who
are in the emergency.
My question to you is: What review is FEMA looking at to
make sure that it is much more effective in an emergency
situation than this back-and-forth calling? If you are FEMA and
FEMA says it has to call local. Local is under siege.
I think Hurricane Katrina was an example. The State of
Louisiana was under siege. The city was under siege. You
couldn't get FEMA to act because they were talking to local
officials.
Is there any review on how FEMA behaves during an
emergency? Was kind of take-charge posture that you are in?
Mr. Garratt. Fundamentally, FEMA's responsibility under the
Stafford Act is, once the Governor requests an emergency or
disaster and the President makes such a declaration, we are in
a support role. We are supporting the State and supporting the
locals in responding to that disaster. We use the incident-
command system as the unified model that we all operate under
to provide that support.
So generally, we are operating hand-in-hand. So typically,
we are providing support through the State to the locals.
However, under PKEMRA, we were given the authority in those
unique situations where we had to act unilaterally to do so.
So the Federal Government, as a result of Hurricane
Katrina----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Under what?
Mr. Garratt [continuing]. Now has that authority.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Under what did you say?
Mr. Garratt. We have the authority to provide assistance
directly to locals even those such assistance has not been
requested by the State.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. You said under something. I didn't--
--
Mr. Garratt. Under the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Let me just quickly say that I am
officially asking for there to be a review even beyond that as
the relationship with the Stafford Act. I believe I have asked
this over and over again, and I just believe that that is
antiquated.
Let me just quickly go to the question of hires and would
emphasize that, in this time, I believe it is important to hire
diversity out of the community, people who are in need and to
expand the concept and to focus on local contractors.
Let me quickly go to Mr. Russell. Let me thank you for
coming down with Administrator Fugate. I think it was a
constructive meeting.
Would you please answer the question and concern I had
about deferred maintenance where a lot of the properties in
Houston were not being taken care of because the excuse was
there was an issue of deferred maintenance that I guess these
were already homes that had trouble and you are leaving a lot
of seniors in the gap? Are you reviewing and can you review
with me numbers of these properties that have not been fixed
and denied because of the utilization of deferred maintenance?
Mr. Russell. Yes, ma'am. You know, when we were down there,
one of the things that I set out to do was to make sure we give
everything a fresh look; to look at things again to make sure
that we did not overlook anything. I think that is being done
even as we speak now.
The Stafford Act allows people to be on the road to
recovery. I think that, as we are doing in Houston area, we are
trying to use as much latitude and flexibility as possible to
make sure that we have the right outcome.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Russell, would you then provide to
this committee a status report so that I could get a copy?
Would you be in touch with my office so that I can get an
update as to what reassessment you are making? What areas and
what places can look to, possibly resources that they did not
have before, because we are still living in very poor
conditions. If you travel, as you know, you will see a lot of
blue roofs for Hurricane Ike because people have not been able
to improve their conditions.
Mr. Russell. Yes, ma'am. I will do that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairwoman, and I yield back.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
The Chairwoman has one question, and then we will kind of
wrap up for the day.
Mr. Garratt, as you may know, my district is home to a very
large Samoan population. I actually have a very diverse
district; largest amount of Cambodians outside of Cambodia;
largest amount of Samoans outside of Samoa. In particular, I
have an interest in our support to American Samoa and the
Pacific Islands.
Particularly, after the earthquake and the tsunami, I
personally traveled to American Samoa. When asked by NAPA what
are the biggest challenges affecting the least prepared State
in your region, a respondent, in reference to a territory, said
``distance, time, funding, trained personnel, and visibility.''
What steps are you taking to ensure that the Pacific
Islands are receiving the training, funding, and attention that
they need to properly prepare for and respond to a disaster?
Mr. Garratt. I can assure you that our Region 9
administrator, Ms. Nancy Ward, who is one of our premier
regional administrators--she was, in fact, the acting FEMA
administrator during the interval between the old and the new
administrations--is extremely familiar with American Samoa and
the challenges that face getting assistance to them as well as
what they need to improve their posture.
She is using the response to the recent events in American
Samoa as an opportunity to reach out to and, in fact, conduct
the sorts of training and engagements that we believe, as an
agency and as the Samoans believe, will help improve their
posture and their preparedness for future disasters.
So I think if you talk with the leadership in American
Samoa, what you will see is that there is and has been
increased engagement there to address and identify weaknesses
or shortfalls in capability, and we are working with them to
address those.
Ms. Richardson. Well, with all due respect, Mr. Garratt, it
was well publicized on one of the channels that, for example,
this--our Government, we had invested money, for example, for a
warning system that had never been deployed.
I can tell you that I did go there and I did talk to
people. There were no sirens. There were no warnings. When the
disaster occurred and the tsunami subsequently approached, I
believe probably about 10 to 15 minutes, there were no police
on the street to provide direction. There were not first
responders out there to help people, seniors and children, who
were the greatest amount of people who died in that incident
because those systems were not in place.
So I do hope that we will learn from it, but I wouldn't go
so far as to say that things are necessarily working well.
Finally, I would like to build upon Ms. Jackson Lee's
comments that I think we really do need to reevaluate the
policy under the Stafford Act of who FEMA takes direction from
if, in the event a disaster occurs. When I went to American
Samoa and had an opportunity to participate in some of the FEMA
meetings, it is quite clear that it is the Governor's
discretion to determine what happens next.
My only question to you would be: What happens if the
Governor does not make the right decision? The Governor may be
in power, but he or she does not necessarily make the right
decisions. If they don't, what do you do then?
Do we just let the boat sink because that person has the
authority? Or do we have a Plan B in place to make another
decision?
Specifically, I would say that American Samoa owes this
Government money for previous incidents and so, therefore, the
Governor didn't rely upon some help that should have been
provided because he was afraid of adding to the additional
bill. We should never put residents and people at the whim of
those kinds of decisions.
So just giving you forewarning, that is an area I am going
to be working at, and I think we do really need to seriously
evaluate, if an emergency happens, what happens if you don't
necessarily agree with that Governor's decision, what do we do
in that case?
Do you agree?
Mr. Garratt. I agree that it is an issue that is worthy of
continued discussion, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony
and the Members for their questions. The Members of the
subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses,
and we ask that you respond, preferably, within 2 weeks in
writing to those questions.
I would just like to summarize that Mr. Rogers mentioned a
concern of transparency and also turnaround time in terms of
declarations.
Mr. Thompson talked about the staffing for disability
coordinators, implementing the 5-year human capital strategy
which, Mr. Garratt, you promised to get us a timeline and
actually get it done.
Also, the status of FEMA employees, those that are retired,
former civilians and so on. Mr. Olson talked about Galveston,
Texas, regarding the work force staying there.
Mr. Russell, you made a commitment to that. He also
mentioned the building rights for disaster-prone areas.
Mr. Pascrell talked about choosing local contractors in
regards to some of this regional work that is being done. Mr.
Cao talked about workers having a positive work environment in
Louisiana and the ability to complete their projects.
He mentioned evaluation of FEMA's response to some of the
claims and whether they are being done fairly and efficiently.
Finally, he mentioned that the regional offices--what decisions
that they would be able to make in regards to food, for
example, that the cost would be reasonable and would not be
wasteful.
Ms. Norton talked about the current emergency that--here in
the district--we experienced the first Presidential, she
believes, declaration made and asked for a recap in terms of
the current worksheets that have been submitted, have not been
submitted, and where you are in the response, Mr. Garratt.
She also talked about the temporary disaster workers, what
is the process in place if they qualify for benefits and if
that is something that can be changed.
Finally, Ms. Jackson Lee talked about--she built upon Mr.
Olson's comments of continuing support with Hurricane Ike for
you, Mr. Russell.
Review of FEMA's take-charge policy which what I was just
talking to you, Mr. Garratt, about, the considering of local
hires and contractors and keeping diversity in mind. Finally,
what reassessment we would make.
I think that summarizes it all. We look forward for future
hearings. Thank you very much for all of your participation.
Hearing no further business, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairwoman Laura Richardson for David Garratt and Tony
Russell
Question 1. In response to questioning, you indicated that
Administrator Fugate has asked the Regional Administrators to identify
additional authorities that would make the Regions more effective. What
is the FEMA Headquarters' timetable for receiving, reviewing, and
acting upon the suggestions of additional authorities provided by the
Regional Administrators?
Answer. On July 21, 2009, Administrator Fugate issued a memorandum
acting on the recommendations of the Regional Administrators to
delegate several new authorities to the Regions. FEMA acted proactively
and quickly to delegate the authorities to be executed in the Regions.
Ten authorities have been delegated to date with several executed
immediately upon the issuance of the memorandum. Others are under
review. Subsequently, Administrator Fugate empowered the Regional
Administrators at a recent joint meeting to continuously identify
additional authorities that they believe will help them more
effectively implement their mission. Since this is an open-ended
invitation, there is no specific ``time table.'' FEMA's Office of
Regional Operations will, as a matter of routine, solicit and convey
such new authority requests directly to the administrator as they are
received.
Question 2. In response to questioning, you stated that the Deputy
Administrator has committed to reallocating to the Regions 25 percent
of existing FEMA headquarters vacancies. How many Headquarters
vacancies does FEMA currently have, and what will be the process and
timeline for making 25 percent of those positions available to the
Regions?
Answer. FEMA's vacancies change on a near daily basis, as employees
separate, retire, or on-board. We will commence reallocating vacancies
to the Regions once a senior-level workgroup has completed its review
and recommendation, which they intend to complete within 60 days. While
the initial identification of these positions will be concluded prior
to hurricane season, recruitment and hiring will take longer, and
depend on various geographic factors.
Question 3. Please provide the current number of filled and vacant
permanent full-time positions named below per FEMA Region. For each
position, please describe their role and responsibilities in managing
and implementing FEMA's preparedness and grants programs.
Federal Preparedness Coordinator
Deputy Federal Preparedness Coordinator
Preparedness Analysis & Planning Officer
Grant Management Specialists
Training and Exercise Specialists
Continuity Programs Manager
Community Preparedness Officer
Answer. Please see the accompanying attachment for the total number
of filled and vacant permanent full-time positions for the job titles
named above, by FEMA Region.
Below are the role and responsibilities by job title named above
for the preparedness and grants programs:
federal preparedness coordinator fpc's
The Regional-National Preparedness Concept of Operations (2008),
outlines the Federal Preparedness Coordinator (FPC) responsibilities
for implementing the National Preparedness System, including three
primary roles:
Meeting regional and National needs, including providing
support for all-hazards preparedness (e.g., strategy
development, hazard identification and risk assessment, and
planning) at the State and local level, in accordance with the
National Preparedness Guidelines. FPCs also assist in exercise
coordination and review (i.e., planning, design, execution, and
evaluation) and facilitate the spectrum of homeland security-
related information sharing among regional stakeholders (e.g.,
Fusion Centers, Joint-Terrorism Task Forces, Emergency
Operation Centers). They also support efforts to assess
regional risk and level of preparedness in coordination with
the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) and regional
stakeholders (e.g., monitoring NIMS compliance and
implementation of National preparedness initiatives);
Managing the preparedness program and building capabilities,
including the provision of plans, guidance, and courses of
action based on risk and capability assessments to all levels
of government, non-governmental organizations, the private
sector, and citizen partners across all DHS mission areas. This
also includes coordinating the regional implementation of all
FEMA grant and technical assistance, training, exercises,
planning, and community preparedness programs. FPCs must be
aware of available resources and capabilities, current
operations, possible threats and vulnerabilities, and
facilitating and/or coordinating training opportunities for
internal and external regional stakeholders.
Building a regional network, including strengthening
partnerships vertically within FEMA and DHS and horizontally
across all Federal, State, and local jurisdictions, as well as
with non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and
citizen partners. FPCs provide liaison and coordination efforts
within the regional preparedness community (e.g., DHS field
elements, State, local, and Tribal governments, NGOs, community
groups), serving as the principal advisor to regional
stakeholders on National preparedness initiatives and programs
and supporting Federal interagency prevention and protection
initiatives through preparedness programs under his authority
(e.g., Protective Security Advisors, law enforcement,
intelligence community).
The FPCs report to the Regional Administrator, but receive their
primary mission direction from NPD, the Grant Programs Directorate
(GPD), and National Continuity Programs (NCP). As FEMA continues to
devolve authority to its regions, the FPCs will continue to work with
the Regional Administrators and will continue to focus on building
relationships and providing support to its partners on protection and
National preparedness.
deputy federal preparedness coordinator
The Deputy Federal Preparedness Coordinator directly supports the
FPC to achieve the many objectives FEMA National Preparedness is
responsible for, as well as, managing the implementation of the
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant, Community Preparedness, and
Continuity of Operations Programs.
preparedness analysis & planning officer papo/pa's
Regional Office preparedness personnel include Preparedness
Analysis and Planning Officers (one per region), or Preparedness
Analysts for short, at the GS-13/14 grade level to support the FPC
fulfill its broad National preparedness responsibilities. They serve as
the critical link between the operational planning and administrative
activities at the Regional Office with the preparedness initiatives at
the National Preparedness Directorate through performance of the
following:
Collecting and analyzing operational and preparedness
capabilities, as well as risk factors specific to the Region;
Monitoring and evaluating regional capabilities and progress
of work in relationship to regional and National preparedness
policies and goals;
Identifying requirements and performing preparedness program
management or maintaining awareness alongside other Region,
Agency, and Department components, State, local, and Tribal
governments, public safety agencies, critical infrastructure
and key resource sectors, and citizen partners across the
region to meet such requirements; and
Developing annual and multi-year regional preparedness
strategies and influencing the application of grant and
technical assistance, training, exercises, operational
planning, and assessment activities to achieve such strategies.
grant management specialists--gms's
The regions also perform grants management activities, which are
supported by Grants Management Specialists (GMSs), who perform the
basic management functions for all FEMA grants administered in the
regions. To support these functions, the GMSs develop, deliver, and
maintain a variety of support activities related to the business
administration of grants and cooperative agreements, in accordance with
policies set forth by GPD. They are responsible for four key management
functions:
Financial monitoring (on-site and desk review) for all grant
programs, including legacy FEMA and preparedness grants;
Audit resolution activities for all grant programs,
including legacy FEMA and preparedness grants;
Cash-on-hand analyses for legacy preparedness grant
programs; and
Close-out activities for legacy preparedness grant programs.
As FEMA continues to build its grant management capabilities in the
regions, the GMSs will work even more closely with the National
Preparedness Division, chiefly the FPC, to ensure that the financial
and programmatic aspects of grants management are more closely
integrated and to provide more comprehensive technical assistance to
deliver analysis and guidance that focuses on both preparedness
policies and financial compliance.
training and exercise specialists
The Training and Exercise Specialists are responsible for
administration, outreach, coordination, and operating efficiency of
training and exercise program initiatives. This position is responsible
for determining needs, performing gap analysis, marketing available
curriculum with State, local, and Tribal partners, coordinating
training between and among venues within the Region, assisting in
student and instructor recruitment, and providing technical assistance
regarding training and exercises. Monitors State, local, and Tribal
policies, coordinates training and exercises, and assists with risk
analysis, development, and management and other local activities that
need to be coordinated with the Federal sector.
continuity program manager
The National Continuity Programs (NCP) Directorate Regional
National Continuity Program Manager solely manages the NCP
Directorate's continuity programs at the Regional level. This includes
providing continuity policy and program guidance to all Federal, State,
territorial, Tribal, and local government jurisdictions in the region,
and includes guidance and outreach coordination responsibilities to all
Federal, State, territorial, Tribal, and local government elected
officials and senior managers in the region. Primary responsibilities
include developing the Region's Strategic Continuity 5-Year Plan and
Program, developing and fielding, for all supported Government offices,
continuity tests, training, exercises, and assessments, and all other
related programmatic support to ensure the governments of the regional
can continue their mission-essential functions and primary mission-
essential functions, under all conductions.
community preparedness officer
Initiates and develops support strategies to build effective
State and local Citizen Corps Councils and Programs throughout
the Region.
Interfaces with other FEMA offices, including Grants Program
Directorate, and other Federal agencies to integrate Federal
resources at the State, Tribal, local level through Citizen
Corps Councils.
Supports partnerships with a broad range of Government,
private sector, non-profit, and community-based groups and
promote multi-sector participation in planning, preparedness,
prevention, mitigation, response, and recovery through Citizen
Corps Councils and Programs.
Analyzes regional activities and provides support to
National policy development, implementation, and reporting on
community preparedness.
Question 4. In December, Administrator Fugate announced that FEMA
headquarters was reorganizing itself to group together similar programs
based on the nature of their mission.
Mr. Garratt and Mr. Russell, to what extent did FEMA HQ consult the
Regions when it was formulating the new organizational structure?
Mr. Garratt and Mr. Russell, are the Regions planning to reorganize
themselves to realign with the new structure at headquarters? If so,
when will that reorganization take effect?
Mr. Russell, what has been the impact, if any, of the headquarters
reorganization on Region VI?
Answer. The Regions were integrally involved in the FEMA Senior
Leadership Team discussions and decisions leading to the FEMA HQ
reorganization.
On February 19, 2010, the Administrator issued a memorandum that
outlines the new FEMA organizational structure, and which specifically
gave Regional Administrators the authority to implement their own
reorganizations. Each Region is currently in the process of formalizing
their individual organizational structure within a collectively
negotiated uniform division structure that will apply across the 10
Regions. In several cases, a few changes to branch structure and
personnel are to be implemented and the new organizational alignment
will take effect immediately.
To date, there are few significant impacts on the Regions as a
result of the headquarters reorganization. Changes include adjustments
to the Regional Office Division titles and the co-location of logistics
operations within the Response Division. Each Regional Administrator
has flexibility to alter their branch structure depending on
operational requirements. As a result, some regions have elected to
adjust the location of personnel responsible for managing the financial
and/or programmatic aspects of grants within either a new Grants
Management Division, within the Mission Support Division, or within the
National Preparedness Division. This is an on-going process, and as
Regions continue to assess their capabilities, FEMA HQ will work with
them to ensure they are able to fully achieve FEMA's mission.
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for David Garratt and Tony Russell
Question 1. As you know, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act required that FEMA develop robust regional offices. I have
written both Administrator Fugate and Region Nine Director Armes to
voice my concerns regarding the size of Region Nine and significant
differences in needs of the States and territories. Has your office
considered creating more regions or changing the alignment?
Answer. At this time, there appears to be no need to alter the
geographically organized infrastructure that comprises the ten FEMA
Regions and supporting Area Offices. The ten-Region structure was
originally based upon Office of Management and Budget Circular A-105
``Standard Federal Regions,'' and FEMA has since relied upon this
consistent framework to coordinate with other Federal departments and
agencies to support the States, Tribes, and territories to successfully
manage requests, coordinate resources, and maintain information sharing
during disasters. If adjustments in support are needed to meet the
requirements of the States, Tribes, and territories, FEMA prefers to
strengthen the capabilities of the existing Regions--such as through
the recent enhancement of Area Offices in Alaska, the Pacific, and the
Caribbean.
FEMA Region IX, headquartered in Oakland, California, serves more
than 400,000 square miles that include the States of Nevada, Arizona,
California, and Hawaii, the territories of American Samoa and Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the independent nations
of the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall
Islands. Over the past 2 decades, FEMA Region IX has responded to more
than 280 U.S. Presidentially-declared disasters that generated nearly
$12.5 billion in Federal assistance. To serve this large area, FEMA
Region IX is augmented by separate offices, which have been established
in key locations within the Region's area of responsibility. This
ensures that every State and territory receives a constant and
comprehensive level of support. For example, the Pacific Area Office,
located in Honolulu, Hawaii, was created in 1992 to support disaster
response and recovery in the Pacific area, and provides FEMA a forward-
area presence in the Pacific.
FEMA will continue to monitor and assess the efficacy of the
current ten-region structure. However, it has proven to be a successful
organizational construct for many years.
Question 2. Following Hurricane Katrina it was painfully obvious
that our Nation's emergency response capabilities were severely lacking
and unable to provide necessary recovery services. I am supportive of
the idea of regional offices, but I want to ensure that these field
offices are ready and able to respond to emergencies. What metrics does
your office use to evaluate the readiness of field offices?
Answer. Each Regional Office is charged with implementing FEMA's
mission pursuant to the ``Rules and Tools'' outlined by headquarters.
As such, the measures and metrics that apply to the Regions are derived
from the specific mission and programmatic requirements that are
developed by the individual FEMA directorates and offices. For example,
the field operational guides, manuals, and doctrine that exist or are
under development by the Response and Recovery Directorate outline the
expectations of the Regions to implement response and recovery
operations. Likewise, the National Continuity Programs, National
Preparedness, Grant Programs, and Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Directorates also provide programmatic and strategic direction to the
Regions for managing National programs. The Office of Policy and
Program Analysis also oversees the development of performance measures
in order to implement the Secretary and Administrator's strategic
priorities, such as those outlined in the Quadrennial Homeland Security
Review (QHSR) and the annual Administrator's Intent. Regional Office
measures and metrics are reflected within each Regional Administrator's
performance plan that is evaluated and updated each year to assess
their implementation of FEMA programs. Finally, additional metrics are
established by regulation--notably 44 CFR--which outlines requirements
for responsiveness across multiple disaster-related program areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPC DFPC PAPO GMS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FILLED VACANT FILLED VACANT FILLED VACANT FILLED VACANT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1................................ 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 0
Region 2................................ 1 0 1 0 1 0 5 0
Region 3................................ 1 0 1 0 1 0 6 1
Region 4................................ 1 0 1 0 1 0 6 0
Region 5................................ 1 0 1 0 1 0 6 0
Region 6................................ 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 2
Region 7................................ 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 0
Region 8................................ 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 0
Region 9................................ 1 0 0 1 1 0 5 0
Region 10............................... 1 0 1 0 1 0 5 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 10 0 9 1 10 0 45 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TES CPM CPO
-----------------------------------------------------------
FILLED VACANT FILLED VACANT FILLED VACANT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1............................................ 1 0 1 0 1 0
Region 2............................................ 2 0 1 0 2 0
Region 3............................................ 2 0 0 0 1 0
Region 4............................................ 6 1 1 0 1 0
Region 5............................................ 3 0 0 1 0 1
Region 6............................................ 4 0 1 0 1 0
Region 7............................................ 1 0 0 0 1 0
Region 8............................................ 2 0 1 0 1 0
Region 9............................................ 2 0 1 0 1 0
Region 10........................................... 2 0 0 0 1 0
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 25 1 6 1 10 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question From Honorable Dina Titus for Christine Gibbs Springer
Question. As you know well, Las Vegas is unique city. I would argue
that private sector integration and preparedness is more important in
Las Vegas that almost any other city in the United States. While
working on NAPA's report, what did you find regarding the integration
between the regional office and the private sector?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
