FEMA and the Merger with DHS: Did it Impact FEMA's Autonomy and Performance? by Michael DeLorenzo BA Colorado State University 1982 MA Ohio State University 1984 A dissertation submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Public Administration within the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago, 2013 Chicago, Illinois Defense Committee James Thompson, Chair and Advisor, Public Administration Rebecca Hendrick, Public Administration Sharon Mastracci, Public Administration Michael Siciliano, Public Administration Amy Donahue, University of Connecticut, Public Policy This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Stacey, daughters Teagan and Bridget and son Matthew, without whose undaunted love and support I would not have completed this program and dissertation. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my dissertation committee members for their continuous support and assistance: James R. Thompson Ph.D. (chair), Rebecca Hendrick, Ph.D., Sharon Mastracci, Ph.D., Amy Donahue, Ph.D., and Michael Siciliano, Ph.D. They provided me direction and guidance throughout my dissertation. I would also like to thank my co-workers and bosses, Renee Romano, Ph.D., and Michael Landek, both at UIC and UIUC, who continued to keep me focused and pushed me when I needed it the most. They provided the support that kept me going. I would also like to acknowledge those that I interviewed for this dissertation. After Hurricane Katrina, many FEMA and DHS officials were reluctant to talk about FEMA and what may have gone wrong. However, these folks made time to speak with me and impart their views and observations, which were so helpful in my research. Finally, I would like to thank my immediate family. My wife and children provided unwavering support while I was often off studying or writing hours and hours at a time. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 A. Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 B. The Current Study ............................................................................................................ 3 C. Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 4 D. Significance of the Problem ............................................................................................. 4 E. Significance of the Study ................................................................................................. 5 F. Organization of the Report............................................................................................... 7 II. Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 9 A. Overview .......................................................................................................................... 9 B. What is Authority Structure? ........................................................................................... 9 C. What is Bureaucratic Autonomy and How is it Achieved? ........................................... 19 C I. Carpenter’s (2001) Theory of Autonomy ...................................................................... 20 C II. Autonomy and Performance .......................................................................................... 27 C III. Dimensions of Autonomy .............................................................................................. 35 C IV. Reputation as an Informal Element of Autonomy ......................................................... 40 D. Reporting Relationship and Autonomy ......................................................................... 42 E. What are the Gaps in the Literature on Change in Authority Structure, Reporting Relationships and Autonomy? ....................................................................................... 44 F. Summary of the Literature ............................................................................................. 45 III. FEMA ................................................................................................................................... 49 A. Overview ........................................................................................................................ 49 B. FEMA 1979-1992 .......................................................................................................... 49 C. FEMA 1992-2001 .......................................................................................................... 58 D. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security ....................................................... 62 E. FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security........................................................ 68 F. Hurricane Katrina........................................................................................................... 71 G. Reorganization of FEMA ............................................................................................... 73 H. Performance ................................................................................................................... 78 IV. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 93 iv A. Overview ........................................................................................................................ 93 B. Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 93 C. Research Question ......................................................................................................... 95 D. Research Design............................................................................................................. 95 E. Validity .......................................................................................................................... 98 F. Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................. 100 G. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 103 V. Findings - Interviews and Archival Reports ..................................................................... 106 A. Overview ...................................................................................................................... 106 B. Formal Components of Autonomy .............................................................................. 107 1. Reporting Relationship ................................................................................................ 107 2. Agency Head Experience/Term of Office ................................................................... 112 3. Administrative Procedures ........................................................................................... 116 4. Budget Allocation ........................................................................................................ 121 5. Policy Coordination ..................................................................................................... 127 6. Professional Competency............................................................................................. 130 C. Informal Components of Autonomy ............................................................................ 135 1. Culture.......................................................................................................................... 135 2. Leadership .................................................................................................................... 141 3. Reputation .................................................................................................................... 147 4. Networks ...................................................................................................................... 151 5. Stakeholder Support ..................................................................................................... 154 D. Autonomy and Performance ........................................................................................ 155 1. Bureaucratic Decision Making – Autonomy ............................................................... 155 2. Performance ................................................................................................................. 159 E. Additional Factor Considered - Structural Placement ................................................. 163 VI. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 168 A. Overview ...................................................................................................................... 168 B. Relationship between Reporting Relationship, Autonomy and Performance ............. 168 Proposition 1: An independent reporting relationship is a necessary but not sufficient condition for autonomy .................................................................................. 174 v Proposition 2: Distinct from the other formal elements, a change in reporting relationship has derivative consequences for agency autonomy ................... 179 Proposition 3: Formal