Description
political science/ public policy discussion board
Unformatted Attachment Preview
1
PUBLIC POLICY WK3 DISCUSSION INTERACTION
Week 3: Policy Analysis
Topic:
Think tanks analyze policies. Remember, that while most claim to be nonpartisan, this only
means that they are not directly related to a party, not that they do not have bias.
This week, we will examine FEMA from the point of view of two different think tanks and the
Government Accounting Office (GAO).
Here’s some background information on FEMA.
Now take a look at two reports on FEMA. One is from the Cato Institute (FEMA: Floods,
Failures and Federalism) and the other is from the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
(Status of FEMA’s Implement of the Biggert-Waters Act amendments – be sure to look at the full
report rather than just the synopsis on the opening page).
GAO is NOT a think tank. It is a government organization.
I want you to review each of these and then locate a report/post from another think tank/research
group (preferably a liberal think tank for balance).
Here’s a list of the policy think tanks in the US.
Now, critically analyze the information shared from the think tanks.
What specific roles do these think tanks have, which policy actors seem to be driving this
specific tank, what were the differences and similarities in the recommendations made for
FEMA, could you distinguish any bias and what was it, and did you see any problems with the
rationale or reasoning utilized?
2
Be sure to provide the name of the think tank you reviewed and a link to their discussion on
FEMA.
In your responses, stay on the topic of the discussion. This week, that is analysis of FEMA by
think tanks and GAO.
Please, interact with the following student’s posts. Do not forget to ask them a question.
Also, remember, the idea was to compare and contrast two think tanks that are not
government (as stated by the professor in his reply to my post).
Total 6 discussion board.
3
PART I
Student #1 (RF) Post
Hey,
Think Tank A’s Perspective on FEMA:
According to Think Tank A, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) plays a crucial
role in disaster response and recovery. They believe that FEMA’s mission to provide assistance
to individuals, communities, and businesses during disasters is vital for ensuring the resilience of
the nation. Think Tank A commends FEMA for its efforts in coordinating federal resources and
supporting state and local governments in times of crisis. They argue that FEMA’s disaster
response capabilities and expertise have improved over the years, resulting in more effective and
efficient assistance to affected areas. However, Think Tank A also asserts that FEMA should
focus on enhancing its preparedness efforts and strengthening coordination with other federal
agencies to address emerging threats and challenges.
Think Tank B’s Perspective on FEMA:
In contrast, Think Tank B holds a more critical view of FEMA. They argue that FEMA’s
response to major disasters has been inadequate and inefficient. Think Tank B believes that
FEMA’s bureaucratic structure and complex procedures often hinder its ability to provide timely
and effective assistance to those in need. They highlight instances where FEMA’s response was
delayed or mismanaged, leading to increased suffering and loss for affected communities. Think
Tank B suggests that FEMA should undergo significant reforms to improve its coordination with
state and local agencies, streamline its operations, and prioritize the needs of disaster-stricken
areas. They also emphasize the importance of ensuring transparency and accountability in
FEMA’s decision-making processes.
4
Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) Perspective on FEMA:
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) provides an independent oversight of FEMA’s
activities. GAO acknowledges the challenges faced by FEMA in responding to disasters, but also
identifies areas for improvement. They have often highlighted issues related to FEMA’s financial
management, procurement practices, and information sharing. GAO calls for increased
transparency and accountability in FEMA’s operations, emphasizing the need for the agency to
address any identified weaknesses promptly. They also stress the importance of regular
evaluations and assessments to ensure that FEMA’s programs and initiatives are effective and
aligned with the evolving needs of disaster management.
Resources
brookings.edu. (2024). Think Tanks and Governance in the United States. The Fifth Estate:
Think Tanks, Public Policy, and Governance (brookings.edu)
gao.gov. (2022). FEMA: Opportunities to Help Address Mission and Management
Challenges. FEMA: Opportunities to Help Address Mission and Management Challenges | U.S.
GAO
5
Student #2 (NM) Post:
It was very interesting to read a clearly delineated political perspective on opposing sides of an
issue which included a relatively neutral report on the problems with the issue. After reading
these three articles/reports, all parties involved in the discussion agree that FEMA has significant
problems. However, the split in logic and argument between the two think tanks seems to revolve
largely around the efficacy of federal involvement in disasters. The below paragraphs analyze
and compare the three reports.
GAO:
The GAO report is simply an analysis of the current problems that FEMA is facing, and a
summary of changes put in place that attempt to fix the problem. Among a wide range of
financial and management issues includes the larger problems of bureaucracy and actual
implementation of the suggested changes (Cackley). The article maintains a neutral tone
throughout. Because it does not argue for anything, there are no logical fallacies within this
article and this role of this organization clearly stays within its bounds in purely analyzing what
problems are occurring with FEMA.
CATO Institute:
The CATO institute takes a clearly libertarian and anti-federal perspective on FEMA. The
article begins by summarizing numerous examples of disaster instances in the United States and
how those were solved by the private sector. The article transitions to specifically scrutinize
problems with FEMA following the response to hurricane Katrina and problems with the
National Flood Insurance Program (Edwards, 2014). Most of the arguments in the report are
based on economic utility, claiming that FEMA encourages poor financial decision making and
6
useless federal spending. Overall, the analysis has little logical fallacy, uses a variety of realworld examples, and remains a sound argument. The biggest weak point is that the article fails to
address many preemptive counterarguments. One of these counterarguments is the role that
FEMA plays in uniting smaller actors and giving them a voice for national attention for private
orgs to aid when they might not have otherwise received it. Another important counterargument
the article fails to address is how much more efficient disaster response could be with an efficient
federal organization than based on private orgs alone. As an op ed from Brookings Institute
points out, federal organizations can be highly effective if organized in the correct way. The
piece gives the example of the United States special forces failure in Desert One and the
restructuring through the Goldwater Nichols bill into the Special Operations Command, one of
the most effective special forces in the world today (Ridel and Feltman, 2016). Despite not
addressing these counterarguments, the baseline intention of the CATO article is to argue for a
solution to the problems FEMA is facing. By arguing that it is ineffective to solve the problems
and more effective to eliminate the organization, the argument premise claimed is sufficient.
Brookings:
Link: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/federal-disaster-management-is-a-confusingpatchwork-reforming-fema-and-improving-interagency-coordination-can-fix-it/
The Brookings article takes on a relatively neutral tone in pointing on the problems with
FEMA with a moderate liberal (increased government involvement) bias in solution presentation.
The article begins in a similar manner by pointing out the long history of complication with
FEMA and illustrations of how complex the process is. It then transitions into pointing out the
problems of bureaucracy and lack of centralization within FEMA and proposes a six-prong
7
solution. This solution includes giving FEMA cabinet level status, consolidating programs, and
overall greater federal power for the agency. (Jenny and Carlos, 2023). This article does a great
job of providing analysis in terms of what problems FEMA is facing and why in utilizing visual
demonstrations and integration of historical evidence in commentary. However, the article fails
to provide justification for the solution in the suggested changes. For example, the authors
suggest that FEMA must expand its first responder mission but provides no reasoning
whatsoever as to why this would be beneficial beyond claiming that new organization requires
more than what FEMA currently does. Overall, while the solutions may work, they are not
justified enough within the argument to be sufficient.
Conclusion:
As a whole, think tanks seem to have a role in analyzing current policies and proposing solutions
or alternative courses of action. While think tanks are not supposed to be partisan, the two
articles from the think tanks in this discussion post show pretty clear bias, likely driven from the
type of people who decide to work at each think tank. Both the articles were not highly data
driven in their solutions, but more philosophically oriented.
References:
Cackley, A. P., Flood Insurance, Status of FEMA’s Bigger-Waters Act, as Amended 1–62.
Goverment Accountability Office.
Edwards, C. (2014, November 18). The Federal Emergency Management Agency: Floods,
Failures, and Federalism. Cato.org. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/federal-emergencymanagement-agency-floods-failures-federalism
Jenny Schuetz, A. T., & Carlos Martín, C. K. (2023, September 19). Federal disaster
management is a confusing patchwork. Reforming FEMA and Improving Interagency
8
Coordination Can Fix It. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/federal-disastermanagement-is-a-confusing-patchwork-reforming-fema-and-improving-interagencycoordination-can-fix-it/
Riedel, B., Rabinovich, I., & Jeffrey Feltman, S. G. (2016, July 28). Keep FEMA where it is.
Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/keep-fema-where-it-is/
9
Student # 3 (PM) Post:
Good afternoon class,
Cato Institute
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for disaster
preparedness, response, and recovery at a federal degree. Edwards (2014) notes that the FEMA
budget changes yearly, but the spending has increased the last few decades. FEMA is intended to
be a last resort for disaster assistance at the local, state, and private sector level. However, FEMA
continues to fund grants, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and disaster relief aid.
The Cato Institute think tank defines FEMA as an agency that transfers disaster funds as needed
versus a disaster response agency. FEMA is known for its failed response to Hurricane Katrina.
The FEMA NFIP limits development in flood-prone locations, which increases flood damages to
other developed areas. In addition, the NFIP encourages federal regulatory control over local
land, which limits the free market. Edwards (2014) focuses on the failed disaster response
efforts, poor decision-making, and wasteful spending (p.2). The think tank proposes limiting
FEMA’s role in disaster response by elimination disaster aid and moving flood insurance to the
private sector. In addition, preparing for radiological and technical hazards, flood mapping, and
planning for continuity of government should be moved to different federal agencies (p. 4). The
think tank proposes shutting FEMA down permanently with the intent to limit wasteful spending,
improve disaster response for the local and state level, and diminish the government bureaucracy
with NFIP (Edwards, 2014).
Government Accountability Office
10
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2015) highlights FEMA’s BiggertWaters Act of 2012 (BW-12), which is intended to improve the financial future of NFIP. BW-12
addresses concerns with insurance, mapping, and flood mitigation under FEMA. FEMA
recognized that those with NFIP did not have enough to cover the damages and required grants,
which increases the cost of spending on the individual, increases FEMA’s spending, and
contributed to longer recovery times from a disaster. The act tasks FEMA with analyzing the true
flood damage costs in its NFIP premium structure and revising the NFIP costs within 5 years.
Those with subsidized premiums will see an average 20-25% annual increase until they reach
full-risk premiums (p. 27). GAO (2015) notes that FEMA is developing methods to improve
flood mapping by providing property-level data to policyholders, which aids in flood mitigation.
BW-12 requires FEMA to evaluate and update current Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), but a
specific time frame was not discussed. FEMA developed teams to oversee the progress of
revising flood insurance rates, and the Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) to improve
flood mapping (p. 38). Lastly, FEMA developed the interim Office of the Flood Insurance
Advocate to improve communication between public-private partnerships. GAO (2015) notes
that FEMA changed or grandfathered in policies depending on the person, location, and type of
coverage, but suggests these changes will take several years to see a difference in NFIP. The
agency states that FEMA successfully implemented various changes to improve financial
stability of NFIP and aid in flood mitigation through enhance insurance but lacks data to prove
BW-12’s benefits (GAO, 2015).
R Street Institute
Climate change and sea-level rise has urged communities to consider relocating away
from coastal areas. Lehmann (2020) notes that despite FEMA’s efforts to advise of flood prone
11
areas, construction still happens in high flood-prone regions. The NFIP facilitates building in
high flood risk areas to increase flood insurance costs, with the hopes of becoming fiscally
stable. However, Lehmann (2020) states that the NFIP has had to borrow $40 billion from the
U.S. Treasury to compensate for severe damages from Hurricane Sandy, Ike, Harvey, Irma, etc.
It’s understood that the NFIP repaying that debit is nearly impossible, and the debt rate is
projected to increase due to increased building in flood-prone regions. R Street think tank
proposes that the NFIP ceases writing future insurance plans for new construction and stops
grandfathering in past premiums that do not reflect the flood risk cost. These actions can limit
construction in flood prone areas, make flood insurance equal or fair for the people, and mitigate
climate change (Lehmann, 2020).
Conclusion
Cato Institute promotes libertarian ideas of free market and free trade, with the desire to
limit federal intervention, encourage individual liberty, and support peace. Eliminating FEMA as
a whole agency aligns with their views, but recommending another federal agency to assume
some of the duties of FEMA does not support free market or individual liberty. In addition,
transferring NFIP to a private sector does not promote free market, promise future development,
or decreased bureaucracy (Edwards, 2014). R Street focuses on conservative ideas, with
promoting social justice in public policy. Cato and R Street promote eliminating NFIP from
FEMA’s control, but R Steet recommends ceasing new policies (Lehmann, 2020). GAO suggests
that FEMA revises policies to compensate for the actual flood risk, with the intent to stabilize the
financial future of NFIP. In addition, FEMA must provide excessive data to prove the benefits of
BW-12 to congress. GAO does not think FEMA has enough data to be successful in providing
affordable NFIP in the future, which R Street confirmed with failed financial response to past
12
hurricanes (GAO, 2015; Lahmann, 2020). Cato Institute is a biased think tank based on
libertarian views, which is seen through the idea of shutting down a government agency versus
improving the agency. R Street is a biased think tank as well, as they focus on improving climate
change through limiting federal influence of construction in flood-prone areas. The two groups
promote their think tanks to match the political views they support. R Street and Cato Institute
recommendations for FEMA are rational as they recognize the fiscal instability of NFIP, which
FEMA is attempting to correct.
References
Edwards, C. (2014). The Federal Emergency Management Agency: Flood, Failures, and
Federalism. CATO Institute. 674, 1-32. pa764_1.pdf (menlosecurity.com)
Lehmann, R. J. (2020). Do No Harm: Managing Retreat by Ending New Subsidies. R Street
Institute. 1-10. 195.pdf (menlosecurity.com)
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2015). Flood Insurance: Status of FEMA’s
Implementation of the Biggert-Waters Act, as Amended. GAO. GAO-15-178. GAO-15-178,
FLOOD INSURANCE: Status of FEMA’s Implementation of the Biggert-Waters Act, as
Amended
13
Student #4 (KL) Post:
Hello everyone,
The role of Chris Edwards, or more generally the CATO Institute, applies pressures upon the
actors of state administrators that are supposed to represent and be reliant upon the system as a
whole operation and the current state of affairs, both good and bad (2014, p. 1-3). I would argue
that the majority elite, which includes the minority of the whole, but as with any group, the
subgroup is not always favored but, at the same time, is key to the whole’s success as the
subgroup can represent what’s outside or inside of the circles understanding. Those individuals,
whether majority or not, want higher positions of power as well as within their inner circles.
Within the elite, focus on pluralism and proportionally leave along the side of them the
participatory side of democracy to a certain degree until their centralization and displacement of
indirection come into play to challenge if others can hold their own, i.e., leave in the dark. Based
on the policy guidelines, particular paths are carved out for their actors while leveraging the
opposing party’s generals vs. particulars.
When reviewing the custom of either anti-federalism &/or a projection of stated preference
rhetoric, Edwards speaks toward the direction of the ideal that states just that, how states would
be better off and could collectivize without the need for more federal oversight. This is a
standard yet ironic objection by the right party since, up to and after signing the U.S.
Constitution, the government could not individually collectivize without centralizing becoming
too corrupt or top-heavy, and the war would follow suit. An example could be the history of
today’s United Kingdom, in which the war-stricken battles of states such as England, Scotland,
Wales, Ireland &/or North Ireland were constantly off and on again as their already established
norms versus adapting to one another as a whole fail short at the time, and arguably to a certain
14
degree today. Nothing stops the states from nationalizing and gaining power from limiting
federal oversight, except how the government is run. As an economist, Edwards appears to be
weary of federal oversight and political corruption at the federal level.
To his point, greed, ego, and a corrupt pursuit of governing/government for such status could and
most likely will lead to a bad government, but instead to have a prolonged build without adapting
to current and opposing General Good views of The People’s government. This is precisely what
the federal government does to lure and centralize/displace states into grants and leave them
indebted and reliant on. Nevertheless, the Executive Branch may object to this to a certain extent.
Being reliant on the federal government nearly ensures the group &/or administration has the
majority or remaining power that is not elsewhere. If they are not indebted to the feds, who else
but entities, such as companies, elites, pluralism, community, etc., to harness their adaptability
&/or exploitation? Reading Edwards’s work attempts to appeal to the middle perspective. It is a
good defense strategy without revealing his personal bias, let alone that he is an economist, so
there is an analytical with a personal/professional grasp but a distant synthetic point of reference.
One key point he keeps circling is that federalism shall be limited to the states and that states
shall lead while federalism lags (or that’s my Lead-Lag view). He focuses on questioning the
overreach on a topic like natural disasters and describing ways in which there is too much control
of the state and its process to adapt by itself. Feds need to give their state’s administration more
responsibility to react/respond and understand why they failed or what they need. Planning for
common/non-extreme natural disasters involves accountability and responsibility. Before the
Feds step in, reaching out more to insurance companies and similar entities to combat natural
disasters. (Edwards, 2014, p. 21-23).
15
States showcasing a “failure” in self-governance and autonomy with the “assistance” of the Feds
may only highlight that within common natural disasters, their options may suffice in breaking
even or having a net negative balance because of the price tag or the options available still will
not stop withstand or keep up with the natural disasters. Just because a simple one-directional
linear cause and effect may lead to the question of the state based on its location, a systematic
problem may be deeply rooted, and one-to-one comparisons do not equate to a sufficient
response. If states should not depend on the Feds but on insurance companies and others to
finance and maintain such, is there enough to do both?
From the perspective of an economist, I can see how, numbers-wise, this is not a sustainable
game plan. Edwards makes an interesting point, but I would favor a utility of these ideas on a
state-by-state basis and not so much a monolith or generalization, such as struggling with
individual vices with the group or, more commonly, the student to the professor; both require
engagement to a certain extent to be developed to the point that comparability can be established
and in time to allow then self-governance and autonomy to kick-in and flourish on its own. The
issue/problem is weaponizing the comparability linear-first gameplan, such as states struggling,
so they resort to oversight or alternative options before collectivizing they isolate.
Allowing development with the Federal government until they prove or showcase independence
within the whole will then grant Edwards a point on the Feds, at least realizing and comparing
when it’s going too far, seeking to eliminate FEMA and the Feds to distribute the funds or
administration to the Coast Guard, Active-Duty Military, and various other agencies that deal
with severe threats to national and global security. I can’t entirely agree in some aspects, as
eliminating FEMA would have a significant gap in baton passing with respect to time and the
process to kick in and onto the state & companies (2014, p. 23). Raising a point on the return on
16
investment upon a state to the federal government, but more importantly, the local taxpayer
(Policy Report, 2011). This brings up participatory acceptability in the administration position in
highlighting government contracts and who they are majority &/or minority distributed towards,
i.e. who is left out?
A dilemma may occur in the process of The Republic issue in such a way that if these General
Good Republics are self-reliant and participatory in politics, they shall be respected in their own
unique state ways of policy, act, and activity. These areas, if not a General Good, are instead
disrupted by perhaps their side, and this is an invitation of intermediacies like the Feds to be
involved with understanding the opposing sides to meet and someone like the Democrats to
attempt to leverage. Regardless, the majority of the time, I would say Republicans may appease
them in ideology but still keep their conception of the whole.
From Edwards, the perception is from a Virginian, based on the FEMA website, is one of the
majority very-low to relatively low ratings out of all fifty states and areas like Norfolk, Virginia
Beach, Chesapeake, and others in that area along with northern Virginia are areas of relativelymoderate rating, their only real risk areas or at least majority of their minority county areas they
are in high military &/or government areas and hint this is a massive benefit with only a glimmer
of perception to say the rest of the U.S. shall abide by such a bias that has drastic consequences.
Yet a granted projection of such would favor his origin and proximities of fellow states. Let
alone the apparent point of the West Coast, Washington, Oregon, and California are Democrat
majority states, would be a massive swing in politics and economics that would lead to a shift of
instability of massive proportions and hugely benefit Virginia to not only be a state of economic
power but military, government, and contracting locations to propel themselves ahead in
dominance (FEMA).
17
Counter to Edward’s point, I chose Climate Central, a Princeton, New Jersey, think tank that has
been speaking on power outages across the U.S. since 2020. An aging electrical grid will only
further expand with climate change and significant power outages in two-thirds of the states, i.e.,
66% of which is 34 states and the District of Columbia. Most recently, Texas and, per maps on
Climate Central Michigan, are the two states that have had the most power outages in America
since 2000. Only further expanding the idea of putting the responsibility on other agencies too
quickly is a bad idea. The think tank does an excellent job of being general and pointing out an
issue/problem, except they are very particular on pushing upgrades or familiar left rhetoric of
driving away from too many comparisons but still leaving out how much it’s going to cost
mainly to drive a motivational human behavior focus and act upon social, cognitive, &/or
economic framework, that overall influences public policy. (Gopalan & Pirog, 2017, p. S83).
The article says that it costs tens of billions of dollars yearly at the beginning (Power OFF,
2020). This perfectly sums up Edwards’s point of just giving the blank check or receipt to the
Feds and FEMA and walking away while forgetting to mention the points of the areas of density
they are so apprehensive about and not the less dense areas. Reminding that the political actors
of companies such as insurance, elites, and pluralism full circles, if they can find a backdoor into
the system &/or way into the heart of the Feds and later in contracts. Density to less dense has a
point, yet too often left saying there is not enough to make a move, while the reverse does not
have that privilege or excuse to use as an inconvenience. Just the same, both are attempting to
build with unstable odds of succeeding.
References
18
Edwards, C. (2014). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Federal Emergency Management Agency
Floods, Failures, and Federalism (p.
764). https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa764_1.pdf
FEMA. (n.d.). Map | National Risk Index. Hazards.fema.gov. https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map
Gopalan, M., & Pirog, M. A. (2017). Applying Behavioral Insights in Policy Analysis: Recent
Trends in the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 45(S1), S82–
S114. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12202
Policy Report (2011, October). Cato.org. https://www.cato.org/policy-report/september/october2011/scholar-profile-chris-edwards
Power OFF: Extreme Weather and Power Outages | Climate Central. (2020, September
30). www.climatecentral.org. https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/power-outages
19
PART II
MY POST:
Week 3: Policy Analysis
Think tanks have increased across most Western democracies, the USA included.
Although their contribution to public policies remains essentially contested, they have played a
critical role in improving the functionalities of government institutions like the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Such think tanks include the Cato Institute and the
Congressional Research Service. Government institutions such as the Government
Accountability Office also provide a non-partisan analysis of policies pursued by agencies like
FEMA.
In analyzing the role played by FEMA in improving the country’s preparedness and
response to disasters, the Cato Institute analyzed the challenges in the agency’s actions, leading
to the inability to control the country’s most harrowing crises effectively. The think tank explains
that FEMA’s responses to major disasters have been disorganized, slow, and wasteful. They
provided an example of Hurricane Katrina, in which the dismal response by FEMA revealed its
inability to contain significant crises. The think tank also links FEMA’s bureaucratic dysfunction
to its failure to fulfill its functions. The analysis aligns with that provided by GAO, which found
that FEMA faces several challenges, including resource constraints, balancing affordability goals
and financial solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program, and complex legislative
requirements (GAO, 2015). On their part, the Congressional Research Service (congress.gov)
analyzed the gaps in FEMA’s approach to the equity question. According to CRS (2022),
FEMA’s federal disaster assistance approach does not adequately address access and outcomes
considerations.
20
These think tanks have an essential role in evaluating the efficacy of public policies
pursued by government agencies in addressing emerging issues like disasters. The Congressional
Research Service (CRS) analysis is driven by experts and researchers from underserved
communities who have witnessed the unaddressed gaps in FEMA’s disaster management
approaches (CRS, 2022). The policy actors behind the Cato Institute’s analysis are individuals,
charitable groups, and businesses dissatisfied with FEMA’s dominant role in disaster response.
The recommendations made to FEMA by the think tanks have several differences and
similarities. Both CRS and Cato Institute support the need for collaboration with other disaster
response agencies, increase in budgetary allocation, and implementation of equity in disaster
response. However, unlike CRS, which focuses on realizing equity in FEMA’s operations, the
Cato Institute addresses broader concerns, including recognizing charitable organizations,
companies, and individuals in disaster management (Cato Institute, 2014). CRS’s analysis has
some elements of bias owing to the significant emphasis given to FEMA’s failures, with minimal
attention given to its successes.
References
Cato Institute. (2014). The Federal Emergency Management Agency: Floods, Failures, and
Federalism. Cato.org. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/federal-emergency-managementagency-floods-failures-federalism
CRS. (2022). (rep.). Defining FEMA’s Approach to Equity and Emergency Management:
Policy Considerations. Retrieved January 6, 2024,
from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47280/1.
21
Government Accountability Office. (2015). Flood Insurance: Status of FEMA’s implementation
of the Biggert-Waters Act, as amended. Flood Insurance: Status of FEMA’s Implementation of
the Biggert-Waters Act, as Amended | U.S. GAO. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-178
Please, answer the following replies:
The Professor replies to my post:
Did you see any political leanings with CATO? Much like the GAO, the CRS is a government
agencies (along with the Congressional Budget Office). The idea was to compare and contrast
two think tanks that are not government.
Student # 5 (RF) follow-up my post:
Hey,
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a non-partisan research organization that provides
comprehensive and objective analysis to members of Congress. The CRS produces reports,
memoranda, and briefings on various legislative issues, including policy options, legal analysis,
and historical context. Their research is highly respected and serves as a valuable resource for
lawmakers in the decision-making process. The contributions of both the Cato Institute and the
Congressional Research Service to public discourse are invaluable. They generate research and
analysis based on solid evidence, which not only shapes policy discussions but also provides
invaluable insights into a diverse range of societal and economic issues.
22
FEMA, as a part of the Department of Homeland Security, has the crucial role of coordinating
and responding
