Federalism in Disaster

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Thomas E. Poulin
April 19, 2020

The system of federalism in the United States is comprised of local, state, tribal, territorial and national governments. The Census of Governments reports there are over 89,000 governments in the United States, each with their own authorities, resources, and responsibilities. Sometimes these are discrete, while sometimes there is concurrent, overlapping jurisdiction. This influences our ability to prepare and respond to disaster.

Fragmented Powers

The basic disaster model in the United States, based on the Stafford Act, the National Response Framework and the National Incident Management System, states disasters are primarily local events. The state governments assist local governments when local systems are overwhelmed, when requested, if resources are available. The federal government assists state governments when state systems are overwhelmed, when requested, if resources are available. The private sector is encouraged to engage in a collaborative, coordinated fashion, but is not part of the formal structure.

In some limited situations, the President or a Governor may exercise executive authority over all, but the criteria for this are quite specific, and the use of such authority may be limited in scope, scale or time. This requires the federal or state government to assume direct control over lower level governments or private sector entities, superseding elected officials or business owners, and this would be a politically, legally, socially and economically sensitive action.

The Declaration of Independence explores the relationship of citizens to government. The Constitution explores the relationship between the governments and the states—local governments are not mentioned. Two words missing from these foundational documents are efficiency and effectiveness. This contributes to the challenges in creating a coordinated, collaborative, effective, efficient and sustainable response to disaster. Put simply, our government was not designed for service delivery.

Our system of government—more accurately governments—with a focus on separation and limitation of powers, authorities and responsibilities, hinders the ability of governments to act in a coherent, cogent manner. We need strong leadership during a disaster to bring people together in such an environment . President Theodore Roosevelt would argue this would rely less on formal authorities and more on the, “Bully pulpit,” influencing people to act together, modeling the behaviors necessary to achieve success. The goal is to create order in a chaotic, disorganized environment, but this requires leaders to be visible, credible, collaborative and clearly focused on the common good.

Plan Based Approaches

Emergency managers continually engage in planning for events, trying to predict what might happen based on previous experience, developing frameworks for minimizing problems which might occur in a disaster. In a strategic planning process, all parts of an organization coordinate their efforts in developing the plan. Without this coordinated and comprehensive approach, strategic plans often prove useless.

In a federal system of government, each government and each agency develops their own plans, often in isolation. Ideally, they align with the National Response Framework, but they often tend to be focused on their own areas of authority and responsibility. This means plans might be premised on faulty assumptions for external assistance, and plans might not be coordinated, which might be confusing in a metropolitan area; disasters do not stop at jurisdictional lines on a map.

Exacerbating the problem is that it is not uncommon for key leaders—elected and appointed—to be unfamiliar with the plans, making it difficult for them to use the “playbook” when a disaster strikes. The paradigm for public agencies is to create a plan, prepare to implement that plan, then implement that plan, refining it as needed, adjusting to circumstances, as necessary. If the plan is tossed aside carelessly or casually, it throws the response into turmoil.

Mixed Messages

In a disaster, it is important that all stakeholders—first responders, supporting agencies, decisions makers, and the public—receive a common message. While much of the literature on emergency management calls for a single public information officer as a channel for communications, research suggests the use of multiple streams for sharing information, but the information must be the same. This means public information officers, political leaders and department heads should be sharing a common message, though it might be tailored minimally to focus on their particular area of responsibility.

It is also helpful to use existing networks such as church groups, school groups and community groups, as this permits information to be distributed through trusted, existing channels. Research conducted after Hurricane Katrina suggested, in general, that the public trusts their neighbors first, then their social networks (including school and church groups), then the media, then the government, though some agencies such as the fire department were often held in higher regard than others. The take-away is we need consistent messaging.

A federal system of government creates the potential for mixed messages, often very different and sometimes conflicting, which can create chaos, as everyone is unsure of the scope and scale of the problem, what is being done, what needs to be done and what they should themselves be doing.

Conclusion

When a disaster strikes, individuals and communities want to return to normality as quickly as possible. They are seeking leadership and support in these efforts, and hope to find the means to support others. This requires a sense of community, collaboration and coordinated efforts. Public administrators must find a means to achieve this, learning to focus on governance (how we work together) instead of government (the formal structures of federalism), which might be a barrier.

---

Author: Thomas E. Poulin, PhD, MS(HRM), MS(I/O Psych.), EFO, is a member of Capella University’s public administration core faculty. Prior to this, he served in local government for more than 30 years, primarily in emergency management-related fields. He is President of the Hampton Roads Chapter of ASPA, and may be reached at [email protected]

(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...