Interagency Networks - Essay Example

Interagency Networks Introduction Policy formulation is always the first step towards solving any problem that is established on the agenda. It is the process of creating policy options as required for solution of the problem. This stage cannot be reached automatically after a problem is recognized as part of the agenda. Simply comprehending a problem cannot be transformed into action level, as decision making level is the stage when several options can be considered before taking any kind of action. Policy formulators need to recognize, modify and formalize policy options so that decisions can be made in relation to the problem (UNEP, 2009, p.29). It is not viable for any single government entity to make any independent decisions, therefore there is the need for coordination between agencies to “synchronize instruments of national power” (O’Neil, 2006, p.3) to arrive at a common set of policy options towards resolving national or international level problems. A study of the existing interagency coordination can bring forward the positive and negative points, so that proper steps can be taken to develop greater interagency efficiency. Through improvement in education and training, and utilizing the experience and skills of stakeholders it is possible to enhance coordination between different agencies and departments during planning and formulation of policy options (O’Neil, 2006, p.5). Interagency process The principle challenge that lies in any country is creating coordination and integration between the numerous national instruments through the interagency process. This is a major challenge faced even by the United States, a country whose power has global influence unmatched by any other country. The problem can become greater in the current century as strategy makers both of civilian and military stature struggle with geopolitical issues that will be needing fluency in fitting together all the elements and levers of power. Today, the U.S. has embassies, consulates and memberships in most international organizations. It has a singular military command system that has reach in every part of the world and even the outer space. It initiates and makes agreements that endorse peace, human rights, democracy and protection of the environment. All the instruments of American power are implemented to create a global impact. In spite of all these, there remains “the challenge of strategic integration, of bringing the instruments into calculated effectiveness” (Marcella, 2008, p.3). The political leaders and the national security staff continuously attempt to achieve consistency with limited success through the interagency process. For any kind of policy formulation and implementation, the participants are governments or their agencies which mean governments function through the cooperation of subordinate agencies (Biggs & Helms, 2007, p.517). The roles of governments for solving national and international problems are always under scanner. However, it is also needed that any structure that is created as advisory body of the government and to make strategic decisions for policy implementation should also be scrutinized. Governments function through institutions, hence officials of each institution should be categorized into coherent groups to assist the government. The challenge here is to organize the officials in an efficient manner, and to ensure positive outcomes of organizational decisions. The solution lies in performing functions in a better process, better organizations and more coherent allocation of government’s instruments. However, there is no common perspective on what is the best approach towards organizing a government’s myriad functions. Also, there is no concrete proof how well modifications in the working process of the government have worked. The demand to bring changes is “as often based on statements of belief or intent as on clearly defined calculations of institutional cause and effect” (O’Faircheallaigh et al., 1999, p.72). An organization is formed because of the pervasive belief that it takes all decisions regarding formulation and implementation of policies. For management of a public sector, it is necessary to understand the reason behind creation of agencies and that their functions are helpful in implementation of programs. In most cases, these agencies are thought to be simple institutions whose roles are to ensure implementation of those policies that have their results assured. In reality, these agencies are far more complicated. Each agency is formed by humans who have individual competencies and interests, and their efficiencies cannot be utilized by the formal authorities. Only by effective interagency coordination the skills of people from each agency can be effectively utilized (O’Faircheallaigh et al., 1999, pp.72-73). Agency power During the late 1960s, a major concern was on environmental crisis. Many factors like off-shore spills, extreme smog and sweltering summers became important issues for policy makers. In the decade from 1965 to 1975, many laws were passed to clean up lakes and rivers, reduce air pollution and monitor disposal of wastes. The most important legislation was NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) of 1969. The principal objective of NEPA was to ensure better conservation processes, but it also strived to bring changes in the functioning of other agencies like the Army Corp of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service etc. Making policies through legal process or executive command does not mean any kind of accomplishment. It is how the goal of the policy is implemented during making of the policy is equally important as deciding the goal. The study of NEPA has demonstrated how lack of coordination between agencies can impact policy making and policy implementation. The first thing observed was the lack of measurement to decide the extent of modifications within an organization. Secondly, not all agencies responded in equal degrees to the new goals set by NEPA. While some agencies responded quickly and efficiently, others delayed or never did. Thirdly, it was learned that agencies respond if their own missions are consistent with the principle objectives of the Act. For instance, since NEPA concentrated on environmental preservation therefore it carried an anti development element. For this reason, agencies like U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cooperated with NEPA more quickly than agencies supporting public development like Corps of Engineers and U.S. Forest Service (Clarke & MacCool, 1985, pp.1-4). In UK there has been incongruity between party politics since 2007 which did not make any major impact on intergovernmental relations and the important processes of interaction within the government. To estimate the changes in intergovernmental functioning, meetings were held on more frequent basis and there were more formal interactions. However, there is still existence of informal bilateral exchange. Any modifications that occur in intergovernmental relations involve differences and contradictions, but co-operation continues to exist (McEwen et al., 2012, p.323). Drug enforcement The OCDETF (Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces) is a drug enforcement strategy program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The objective of this program is to reduce the entry of drugs within the borders of U.S. by disrupting the major drug trafficking organizations. The success of the Department depends on the partnership between various agencies, and the program’s focus on “coordinated, multi-jurisdictional investigations against entire drug networks” (U.S. Deptt. Of Justice, 2013, p.26). The district and regional OCDETF agencies function in coordination to conduct investigations that are consistent with the standards set for OCDETF cases, and ensure such investigations remain within the framework established by the program to track down drug trafficking and money laundering organizations. The program was particularly set up in order to disorganize the functions of drug trafficking at every level. For this purpose the program concentrates on merging the resources and knowledge of its member agencies. For efficient implementation of drug laws, it is necessary that each agency put forward their best investigative facilities and expert authorities. Since drug organizations are extremely complicated, so to ensnare them it is required that all OCDETF member agencies work in coordination and actively participate. The agencies also need to reach a common strategy to attack the weak areas of the drug organizations (U.S. Deptt. Of Justice, 2013, p.31). Anti terrorism The CTITF (Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force) was established in the year 2005 to “ensure overall coordination and coherence in the counter-terrorism efforts of the United Nations system” (CTITF, 2011, p.3). According to CTITF working group report, interagency coordination is absolutely necessary to fight against terrorist attacks. The functions and responsibilities of the different CTITF agencies need to be properly comprehended for the purpose of effective and timely support to any state that has been under terrorist attack. Organizations need to work in coordination to avoid repetition of strategies and to enforce support to the needy states. No individual body can work alone to fight terrorism, and therefore it is extremely important that the functioning abilities of each agency is properly understood. Only through effective interagency coordination can nuclear, chemical and biological emergencies be addressed (CTITF, 2011, p.5). Effective operations by CTITF will be possible only through sharing of information between agencies. Conclusion Interagency functioning means when several agencies work in coordination for formulation and implementation of policies in an organized and planner manner, rather than in an informal and random manner. There is no definite formula for successful integration of interagency skills, and also it cannot be ensured that any modification or improvement will promise positive results. In Britain, the government has emphasized on joined-up working. It means problems that are interrelated need “interrelated assessment, planning and practice to achieve effective solutions” (Lloyd et al., 2001, p.1). On moral grounds it can be said that for the welfare of the society, interagency coordination must be an integral part of any kind of policies. References 1. Biggs, S. & L.B. Helms, 2007. The Practice of American Public Policymaking. N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe 2. Clarke, J.N. & D. MacCool, 1985. Staking Out the Terrain: Power Differentials Among National Resource Management Agencies. Albany: SUNY Press 3. CTITF, 2011. Interagency Coordination in the Event of a Terrorist Attack Using Chemical or Biological Weapons or Materials. [pdf] available at: < http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/ctitf_wmd_working_group_report_interagency_2011.pdf> [accessed June 3, 2013] 4. Lloyd, G., Stead, J. & A. Kendrick, 2001. Hanging on in There: A Study of Inter-agency Work to Prevent School Exclusion in Three Local Authorities. London: National Children’s Bureau 5. Marcella, G., 2008. Affairs of the State: The Interagency and National Security. Strategic Studies Institute 6. McEwen, N., Swenden, W. & N. Bolleyer, 2012. Intergovernmental Relations in the UK: Continuity in a Time of Change? British Journal of Politics & International Relations, [online] 14(2) 323-343 7. O’Faircheallaigh, C., Wanna, J. & P.M. Weller, 1999. Public Sector Management in Australia: New Challenges, New Directions. South Yarra: Macmillan Education 8. O’Neil, J.E., 2006. The Interagency Process – Analysis and Reform Recommendations. [pdf] available at: [accessed June 3, 2013] 9. UNEP, 2009. Integrated Policymaking for Sustainable Development. UNEP 10. U.S. Deptt. Of Justice, 2013. FY 2014 Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement Congressional Budget Submission. [pdf] available at: < http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2014justification/pdf/ocdetf-justification.pdf> [accessed June 3, 2013] Read More