Response PADM-03

This is only for yhtomit

Comments (add 5) The Government Accountability Office (GAO),

 

The GAO is a government organization, so it has a different point of view than other organizations may have.

Response one –PADM-03

I choose to look into Brookings from the list that was provided in this week’s forum. Each year Brookings puts out an annual report showing the work that was done, this highlights the impact on world. This lets the donors know where monies has gone and shows the commitment they have to the cause they have.

According to the site Brookings has just launched David M. Rubenstien Fellowship Program, this to help with diversity and scholarly and working with the next generation of those who are creative for the United States and around the world.

The reason why one could trust this company is it is a nonprofit. Some of the things they stand for is diversity, different perspectives, and different experience and this helps with public policy research. They are working with more than 300 scholar and research topic like foreign affairs, economic, governance, metropolitan policy and developments.

This company is governed by a board of trustees and these people come from many different backgrounds as well, this stays within their ideals of what they stand for.

This company is based out Washington, DC and the mission they want to achieve is to always conduct research that is in-depth and correct and help with solving problems that are issues for society for a local level, state, federal, and global.

These are the types of companies that need to be around to help with social issues that are at the forefront of what people are talking about on a daily basis.

This is a good company that one can trust.

Jason

Resources:

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/federal-emergency-management-agency-floods-failures-federalism

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-178

About Us

Response two PADM-03

Think tanks are utilized to assist policymakers, as well as citizens, by offering various research, analysis, and point of views about certain policy issues. Once policy makers have a better understanding about the problems at hand, they can create more well-informed solutions. Think tanks also give a large variety of opinions and ideologies about a particular subject, which could help examine an issue from multiple angles (Keavney, 2018).

The additional Think Tank I used in my analysis this week is The Heritage Foundation. Here is the link to their discussion on FEMA: 

https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/commentary/why-fema-must-be-reformed-disaster-strikes

The Heritage Foundation is a fairly conservative think tank influenced by the conservative agenda, as well as political actors in the form of conservative lawmakers, public officials, and legislatures. In fact, President Donald Trump has, and continues, to use The Heritage Foundation as a resource for his policy recommendations (The Heritage Foundation). Inserra’s (2017) recommendations for FEMA were very similar to those of Cato’s. They believe that FEMA’s excessive involvement in small-scale disasters is unnecessary and inefficient. Due to its conservative framework, I would expect to see somewhat of a bias from this think tank. Keeping that in mind, Inserra’s (2017) point of view does show a conservative bias for less government involvement. Although, in addition to his argument for less federally funded aid for disaster relief, he incorporated alternative solutions, such as distributing funding on scale of disaster severity or raising the minimum-dollar threshold for disaster declarations (Inserra, 2017).

The Cato think tank’s agenda is influenced by a libertarian point of view, and bases its work on the American Revolutionary principles of limited government involvement, individual liberty, free markets, and peace. Although Cato is a liberal think tank, they do pride themselves on delivering non-partisan research and receives a majority of their funding from individual contributors. This allows them the freedom to report on issues in a way that is as unbiased as possible (Cato Institute). However, in this week’s report, they tend to highlight the failures rather than the successes of FEMA. Edwards (2014) stated that due to the abundance of paperwork and their laborious chain of command, government funded disaster relief is a waste of tax-payer dollars. While there was some truth behind their argument, I felt that their general bias against federal government intervention certainly showed in this article. Edwards (2014) argues that the local and state government bodies should have sole responsibility over disaster relief and aid for their surrounding areas.

The U.S Government Accountability Office is also an independent and nonpartisan agency, but is one that is influenced by the political actors in Congress. Their mission is to report on issues at the request of congressional committees, and to help ensure the transparency and accountability of the federal government for the betterment of the United States citizens (U.S. Government Accountability Office). Although the U.S GAO claims to be a non-partisan agency, there is most certainly influence coming from congressional representatives. As Congress is now in the hands of the Republican party, there is a risk of bias in their reporting. In their report on the implementation of the Biggert-Waters Act, they claimed that FEMA faced many challenges including a lack of resources, legislation that was much too intricate, and financial strain. This report was much different than the previous two in that it gave insight about the obstacles that FEMA has had to overcome prior to, and after, the implementation of the act (U.S GAO). I thought that it was a fair assessment of the successes and failures of the agency, and was the most unbiased report of the three.

References

Cato Institute. (1970, January 18). Retrieved January 18, 2018, from https://www.cato.org/about

Edwards, Chris. (2014, November 18). The Federal Emergency Management Agency: Floods, Failures, and Federalism. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from 

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/federal-emergency-management-agency-floods-failures-federalism

Inserra, David. (2017). Why FEMA Must Be Reformed Before Disaster Strikes. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from 
https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/commentary/why-fema-must-be-reformed-disaster-strikes
.

Keavney, Elizabeth. (2018). PADM530 Public Policy. Lesson Three: Policy Analysis. American Public University System. January, 18, 2018.

The Heritage Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved January 18, 2018, from https://www.heritage.org/

U.S GAO. (2015, February). FLOOD INSURANCE: Status of FEMA’s Implementation of the Biggert-Waters Act, as Amended. Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Pages 1-61. Retrieved January 18, 2018.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (n.d.). Retrieved January 18, 2018, from https://www.gao.gov/

Response Three PADM-03

While reading the three differing policy analyses about FEMA this week, I noticed that I had an easier time identifying the biases and viewpoints of each think tank than I did previously when conducting my own research for policy analysis.  I often pull from multiple sources on a specific topic when doing research, but I found that reading for bias and the organization’s overall agenda specifically, led me to think about the presented facts and their context more deeply than I would otherwise.   The first report I read came from the CATO institute and was written by Chris Edwards.  The CATO institute is a libertarian branded think tank “dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues” (CATO Institute website, 2018).  Both the information volunteered by Edwards, who runs a website dedicated to reducing the size of the federal government, and the emphasis in the article itself, strongly indicate adherence to Libertarian policy and principles.  The CATO website mission statement quoted above mentions that members and researchers of CATO conduct nonpartisan research, yet the mission statement of the institute itself closely resembles the description of libertarian party policy.  

 

This perception of a libertarian agenda is supported by the FEMA critiques found in the CATO institute report, The Federal Emergency Management Agency: Floods, Failures, and Federalism.  The main FEMA critiques identified are concerns for the increasing role of the federal government in disaster intervention and an emphasis on the responsibility of state and private organizations to fund disaster relief by state.  The author cites growing federal intervention as a misuse of the Stafford Act “the federal role is still supposed to be very limited under current law. Under the 1988 Stafford Act, the federal government is supposed to get involved in disasters only if they are of “such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the state and the affected local governments” (Edwards, 2014).  Edwards also claims that government intervention in relief efforts was much more limited prior to the 1950s and that federal involvement often leads to redundancy, mismanagement of funds, disorganization and the blocking of other relief efforts from outside agencies.  The recommendations for FEMA in the report consist of the defunding of FEMA by cutting federal aid programs, allowing national flood insurance management to be privatized, and empowering states to form coordinate their own disaster relief efforts (Edwards, 2014).

 

In comparison to the CATO institute FEMA report, the policy analysis conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) focuses on the implementation of the Biggert-Waters act. GAO functions as an independent, government auditing agency who derives its duties and authority from the Budget and Accounting Act.  Information from the GAO website lists its mission statement as supporting Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people by providing Congress with timely information that is objective, fact-based, non-partisan, non-ideological, fair, and balanced (GAO Mission statement, 2018).  Both GAO and CATO use the terms non-partisan and fact-based in the descriptions of their policy analysis efforts, however the CATO report reads as having a clear agenda to reduce the size of government, starting with FEMA.  The GAO report identifies both positive and negative actions of FEMA in a far more balanced manner.  In reference to the discussion of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): “FEMA has taken some action on an affordability study that the two laws require, but data challenges have delayed progress. The study is required to analyze the impact of eliminating all discounted NFIP premiums, but FEMA cannot identify all properties that are receiving the discounts” (GAO, 2015).  The GAO report does state that FEMA is considered to be “high risk” by the agency, but it provides clear reasoning for the decision.  GAO cites the circumstances under with FEMA operates, such as ongoing financial and management challenges, the 2005 and 2012 hurricanes which required FEMA to borrow funds from the Department of the Treasury, and its ongoing debt exposure as reasons for its inability to fully implement the Biggert-Waters Act (GAO, 2015).  GAO cites realistic agency structural problems, but does not attack the fact that FEMA itself exists as the CATO report does.  GAO also distinguishes itself from CATO by providing their auditing and research methods, the CATO report reads more like an Op Ed.  The GAO recommendations made to Congress for FEMA implementation are focused on maintaining greater oversight of contractor run programs, reforming processes for determining full-risk flood insurance rates and collecting accurate property data, and completion of an affordability study, versus the CATO recommendation to defund FEMA.  

 

Looking at a third perspective, the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR), a liberal think tank, released a report in 2005 following Hurricane Katrina that critiqued federal emergency management systems and the role they played in prolonging the devastation.  Like the CATO report, CPR uses more emotionally charged language in its report.  It also appeals to more progressive values like government responsibility to citizens and emphasizing that poorer and more disenfranchised populations are often more vulnerable to natural disasters and require government assistance to recover.  CPR’s report, Unnatural Disaster, also identifies bureaucratic issues affecting FEMA.  Namely, that FEMA became incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security, resulting in a shift in priorities away from planning for natural disasters and toward counterterrorism measures (CPR, 2005).  The CPR report also decries the application of decentralization and privatization to FEMA relief planning, claiming that the responsibilities of providing food and water should fall to faith based charities.  This is a stark contrast to both other reports.  The CATO report characterizes FEMA as a wasteful and redundant program that should be defunded, the GAO evaluated FEMA as an agency taking steps in the right direction but still in need of management, fiscal, and policy reforms, and the CPR portrays FEMA as being at the mercy of the limited funding and authority.  All three perspectives differ wildly and two of the three also offer a clearly political viewpoint of government involvement and responsibilities.

 

References:

Office, U. G. (2015, February 19). Flood Insurance: Status of FEMA’s Implementation of the Biggert-Waters Act, as Amended. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-178

 

Chris Edwards. (2014, November 18). The Federal Emergency Management Agency: Floods, Failures, and Federalism. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/federal-emergency-management-agency-floods-failures-federalism

 

Center for Progressive Reform (2005, September) An Unnatural Disaster: The Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from http://www.progressivereform.org/articles/Unnatural_Disaster_512

 

About the Agency. (n.d.). Retrieved January 16, 2018, from 

https://www.fema.gov/about-agency