Federal/State/Local Collaboration Networks in Disasters

Disasters and Intergovernmental Relations: Part III Fiscal Relationships – Federal, State, and Local Governments

PADM 804 – IGR AND IGM

Dr. Harry McGinnis

Disasters and Intergovernmental Relations:

Part I

Roles of the Major Intergovernmental Actors

PADM 804 – IGR AND IGM Dr. Harry McGinnis

• The U.S. national emergency management system involves local, state, and federal government agencies and an array of special districts, public and quasi-public authorities, and public-private organizations.

• Special districts or “special purpose” governments, such as school districts and water districts, generally have their own taxing and policymaking authority and may have their own emergency plans and procedures for dealing with hazardous materials and other hazards.

• Public authorities, such as baseball stadium and basketball arena authorities, may also have their own revenue-raising authority and staff and resources to respond to emergencies.

• Public-private organizations are typically set up to fund community activities through a combination of public and private sources and often have their own public safety offices and emergency procedures or contract for such services from public or private agencies.

• Public colleges and universities, public hospitals and mental health facilities, and other “independent” government agencies often have their own police forces, first aid facilities, emergency plans and procedures, and even emergency operations centers to handle disasters.

• If a hazard or disaster extends beyond the U.S. border, the emergency management system might also involve local, regional, or central government agencies in Canada, Mexico, and/or other neighboring nations.

• The U.S. national emergency management system also involves nongovernmental organizations, including nonprofit and for- profit organizations that may participate at the national, state, or local levels.

• Private individuals may also become involved in the national emergency management system as disaster volunteers, contributors of financial and other resources, and supporters of policies and programs that help manage environmental risks, facilitate disaster operations, or support relief and recovery efforts.

• Local governments are generally the “first responders” to natural and technological disasters and, for minor disasters, may be wholly responsible for protecting lives and property.

• The current political climate does not encourage an expansion of federal responsibility for emergency management or other policy problems, although there has been a long history of federal assistance to state and local governments and a general expansion of federal responsibility for environmental and other programs.

• The intergovernmental system has undergone radical change since the founding of the nation. At some points, the federal government has had little or no responsibility for reducing natural and technological hazards and at others it has been very active in addressing hazards.

• A brief overview of intergovernmental relations illustrates the expansion and contraction of federal responsibilities (Wright, 1983, Chapter 3):

• Initially, the federal system was viewed as a “layer cake” with federal and state responsibilities relatively clearly defined (essentially with the federal government having only those powers and responsibilities specifically mentioned in the Constitution and all other powers reserved to the states). This is generally referred to as “dual federalism” and was characteristic of the conflict phase of federalism, and it has not been the dominant view of the federal system since the early 1800s.

• From the mid-1800s onward, the federal role expanded in a variety of policy areas, including transportation (principally road building) and education (including the Morrill Land Grant Act that provided federal support to state land-grant universities), to aid state and local governments.

• By the 1930s, with President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, the relationship between federal and state officials became much more cooperative and the sharing of responsibilities more closely resembled a “marble cake.” The period between 1930 and 1950 became known as the period of “cooperative federalism.”

• During the period of “cooperative federalism,” the federal government developed hundreds of programs to address the problems of the Great Depression and World War II. The federal government provided grants-in-aid to help state governments, and later local governments, finance specific projects.

• By World War II, the federal-state relationship became much more interrelated, and mechanisms for coordinating efforts, such as the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, were instituted.

• Because federal policies were implemented by federal, state, and local officials within interconnected bureaucracies, a pattern of “picket fence federalism” developed. Federal grants were given directly to state and local agencies or were sent to governor’s or mayor’s offices as “pass throughs,” without being subject to review or reallocation.

• Elected state and local officials often resented their lack of control over the spending of moneys transferred from federal agencies to state agencies. Program priorities were set in Washington, rather than in state capitals and city halls.

• Federal, state, and local bureaucracies in policy areas like transportation developed strong administrative and political connections. Personnel often moved from one level to another within the “fence pickets” using their professional connections.

• State and local agencies increasingly were structured like their federal counterparts, officials tended to be given the same job titles, and administrators developed similar value systems, including orientations toward particular policies. • Transportation departments at all levels tended to be oriented toward road

building, rather than rail or air transportation; and • environmental protection agencies tended to focus on standard-setting as a

means of regulating public and private actions, rather than focusing on negotiated pollution reduction programs (although that is changing now).

• As the federal government assumed more responsibility for programs to address urban problems, poverty, civil rights, and other issues under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society initiative, the relationships among federal, state, and local officials became even more complex.

• The expansion of federal programs was a response to the failure or inability of state and local governments to address the social and economic problems of cities, a reflection of the greater resources available to federal officials, and a result of strong political pressure put on Congress and the president to act.

• Civil rights groups, social activists, environmentalists, and others found the members of Congress and officials in the executive branch more supportive of their concerns than members of state legislatures and other state and local officials.

• This period of “creative federalism” was characterized by the setting of national goals by the federal government and the use of federal categorical grants to encourage state and local governments, as well as the private and nonprofit sectors, to implement the federal goals.

• During the 1970s, state and local officials complained that the federal government’s use of categorical grants had “blackmailed” them into pursuing federal goals at the expense of their constituents’ needs. State and local officials sought greater flexibility to target funds where they felt the most need.

• President Richard Nixon initiated his “new federalism” policies as a reaction against the use of categorical grants, strict federal control over goal setting, the lack of flexibility in spending federal funds, and the emphasis on urban problems of the Great Society programs.

• The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 created “general revenue sharing” that provided federal funding to state and local governments with few restrictions on how the money should be spent.

• General revenue sharing became an immensely popular program because it expanded the fiscal resources available to state and local governments and reduced the need for state and local officials to seek tax increases.

• President Nixon also consolidated categorical grant programs into a few “block grants” that provided funding in specified policy areas with more flexibility for state and local targeting of spending.

• During the 1980s, President Reagan initiated a second “new federalism” and recommended that the responsibilities of the federal and state governments be sorted out through a “swap” of programs and the elimination of many categorical grant programs.

• The Reagan “new federalism” initiative was met with opposition from state governors concerned with the high cost of Medicaid and other programs for which their governments were expected to take responsibility, big city mayors concerned about the proposed elimination of programs to address inner city poverty and other social problems, and a major recession that reduced tax revenues at all levels.

Despite the unsuccessful proposal to “swap” programs, the Reagan Administration cut funding and eliminated many of

the programs designed to address urban poverty, removed the mechanisms for regional coordination of planning, and

generally reduced the federal role in social, economic, and environmental policymaking.

The evolution of the intergovernmental system has fundamentally been based on differing views on:

Supporters of each intergovernmental

arrangement hoping that their preferred system will best protect

and advance their own interests.

Narrow Social Or Economic Interests

The federal government should be very active in

addressing social and economic problems

State and local governments should have primary

responsibility for addressing such problems.

The Roles Of The Federal And State Governments

Supporters of a broader federal role are more

confident that their policy preferences will fare better at

that level

Supporters of a leading role for state governments are more confident that their

policy preferences will fare better among state officials

and legislators.

Public Policy Choices

The least government possible to ensure low taxes and little interference with their own

social and economic pursuits

Others preferring an active or “positive” role for

government in addressing society’s problems (i.e., the

“positive state”).

The Role Of Government In General

• Differing views on the federal system of government and intergovernmental relations result in differing perceptions of the proper roles of agencies like FEMA in managing hazards and disasters. • For example, some Americans prefer a very active network of federal,

state, and local emergency management agencies engaged in reducing risk and protecting life and property;

• Very little government, even when there are natural and technological risks, and more self-reliance – essentially an orientation toward local self-reliance with little outside help;

• Particular policy options, like voluntary rather than government- mandated measures to reduce the risk of flood damage or government-backed all-hazards insurance to help individuals following a disaster; and/or

• More reliance on community-based programs, with less federal and state oversight (to mention but a few of the political perspectives present in the U.S.).

• The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, on October 17, 1986, required (in Title III) governors to establish state emergency response commissions, create local emergency planning districts, and appoint local emergency planning committees (LEPCs).

• The LEPCs were charged with developing appropriate emergency response plans, including identification of facilities and transportation routes for extremely hazardous materials, on- and off-site response procedures, emergency notification procedures, methods for determining the occurrence of a release and the affected area, evacuation routes, training programs, etc.

Federal law also creates intergovernmental mandates, requiring action at the federal, state, and local levels.

• Under the “Community Right-to-Know” provisions, facilities are required to notify the LEPC, the state emergency response commission, and the local fire department if seriously hazardous materials are being used, stored, or transported and to specify what kind of chemicals or materials are involved (by chemical and common names), amounts (ranges), locations, manner of storage, etc.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitors the inventories of chemicals, the reporting process, and any toxic chemical releases (EPA, n.d.).

• The provisions of SARA Title III ensure that federal, state, and local officials are aware of the presence of significant amounts of hazardous materials, can monitor threats to public health and safety, and have appropriate response plans. The information is also available to the public so that the hazards can be understood.

• When FEMA was created in 1979, the objective was to coordinate federal disaster programs by facilitating executive control. The agency was comprised of a collection of dissimilar programs ranging from the National Flood Insurance Program to the National Fire Academy and including civil preparedness programs drawn from the Department of Defense (see Session No. 2).

• FEMA, like other agencies for which the president appoints senior administrators, has reflected the interests and values of the president in office; hence the emphasis on defense and earthquakes during the Reagan-Bush Administrations and the broader natural disaster emphasis during the Clinton Administration.

The focus on national goals or “results” under the Governmental Performance and Results Act of

1993 has encouraged the development of “partnerships” with state and local governments, as well as with private and nonprofit organizations,

to reduce hazards, expand local capabilities, and achieve the national goals to reduce suffering and

economic losses and to improve program performance.