Reconstructing the Homeland Security Department for the 22nd Century - Essay Example

 . Reconstructing the Department of Homeland Security for the 22nd Century Summary The successful September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes made it glaringly obvious that the nation’s homeland security strategy which was being implemented by a large number of diverse and distant government agencies that were often entangled in their own missions was somehow not working effectively. Even the Senate and the House had a very large number of diverse committees and subcommittees concerned with homeland security and terrorism issues. Under the circumstances, the most appropriate response that the President could provide was to engineer a massive reorganisation of government in order to establish a new government agency, the Department of Homeland Security, whose mission was solely to protect Americans against terrorist threats and to implement as well as develop America’s homeland security strategy. The creation of this new department meant that the difficulties associated with the coordination and dissemination of information between a very large number of agencies had been eliminated and there was a unified command that could be expected to take effective, swift and decisive action to protect Americans as well as planning ahead against the constantly evolving threats. The establishment of such a department, however, meant that a massive restructuring of government was required and it was important that the right foundations were laid out for the future. The organisational structure of the new agency, its ability to interact with other federal and state agencies, its technology deployment and even the administrative or support structures had to be carefully designed in order to have an effective agency. The Congress had allowed for the creation of the new department in stages which were marked by events and the widest possible counsel, debate followed by consensus was accepted at every stage under the supervision of a number of oversight committees. This essay takes a look at some of the issues associated with the reorganisation of an efficient as well as effective Department of Homeland Security for the next century. Introduction The President of the United States of America signed into law the Department of Homeland Security Act of 2002 in November, 2002 (“DHSA2002”), creating a new United States government department which involved the largest restructuring of government in over fifty years. Over 150,000 employees in over 25 bureaus and directorates were a part of this new agency of the government and although the final structure of the Department of Homeland Security was to remain in flux, it was expected that the new department will act to band together the functions of widely disparate government entities in order to transform homeland security and provide a higher level of security to the Americans from a number of diverse threats such as nuclear, chemical, biological, cyber, radio, computer and electronic as well as providing protection from terrorists and protecting vital national infrastructure. Homeland security referred to “deterrence, prevention, and preemption of, and defense against, aggression targeted at U.S. territory, sovereignty, population, and infrastructure as well as the management of consequences of such aggression and other domestic emergencies” (Jasak, 2002, P. 1). It was reasonable to expect that the newly established agency will experience a certain level of turbulence as it grappled with its organizational complexity, opened up the flows of intelligence and transformed the culture associated with government. There was a need for change management as the agency worked to consciously align and exploit synergistic relationships among the homeland security elements of mission, self-identity, stakeholder roles and relationships, processes, and conflict management. Lessons were to be learnt from the struggles which followed the establishment of such a large agency that had to take over the responsibilities of many other branches of the government and it was to be expected that certain organizational changes or improvements will be required to be made in order to create an efficient organization. On July 13, 2005 Secretary Michael Chertoff announced proposed restructuring measures which are expected to make the Department of Homeland Security more capable and able to manage emergencies as well as national threats (Department of Homeland Security, 2005, “Department Six Point Agenda”). It was recommended that the following measures be implemented: - A new Preparedness Directorate was recommended to be established which was to consolidate all preparedness functions across the agency. - The Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA was to become a stand alone agency which was required to report to the Secretary and was to focus on its mission of response and recovery. - The Preparedness Directorate was to take over the function of infrastructure protection. It was also to be required that the Preparedness Directorate oversee medical preparedness for biological attacks and new positions of Chief Medical Officer as well as a new position of Assistant Secretary for Cyber and Telecommunications Security was to be created. - A new Directorate of Policy which was to be led by an undersecretary was required to serve as the primary department-wide coordinator for policies, regulations and other initiatives. - A new Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental affairs was to take over certain functions from the Office of State and Local Government Coordination & Preparedness and the Office of Domestic Preparedness was to fall under the Assistant Secretary Grants and Training. It was obvious from the restructuring measures that were communicated by Secretary Chertoff, that additional measures had become necessary in order to enhance the organizational efficiency and effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security. At present, the Department of Homeland Security has an organization which includes a Secretary, a Deputy Secretary and five Under Secretaries (Department of Homeland Security, 2005, “Department of Homeland Security Organization Chart”). The Deputy Secretary working under the direction of the Secretary coordinates the activities of the Under Secretaries for Management, Science and Technology, Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, Border and Transportation Security and Emergency Preparedness and Response as well as coordinating with the Immigration and Neutralization Services. The Secretary, Department of Homeland Security coordinates the functions of the department with other Federal agencies such as the United States Coast Guard, United States Secret Service, Civil Rights and Liberties etc. The organization of a new government department which was instructed to be created as a result of the Congress approving its formation is not an easy task because there are requirements to induct employees with the right skill mix in order to accomplish the mission of the department. A large number of new employees were also required to be recruited because many older and experienced employees will be retiring in the next decade and the functions of the department which are associated with national security could not be outsourced. The organizational structure of the department has to be able to perform its mission in a cost effective manner and also to be able to adequately deal with any threats to national security of the United States of America. There are many opportunities for improving the new organization to make it effective for the 22nd century including developing an effective organizational structure, a decent human resource management system, providing adequate technology to counter threats to national security and making it possible for the department to adequately interact with other agencies of the government, both civil and military (Oracle, 2003, Pp 8 – 10) and (Bush, 2002, Pp 1 – 3). Because of some of the shortcomings of the civil service rules of service, some organizations associated with national security such as the military and the intelligence agencies including the CIA have had to device their own human resource management systems and fit these into their organizations. Some of the shortcomings of the established civil service structure have included a rigid compensation and promotion structure with a rigid definition of job functions which can result in overly bureaucratic processes (Asch, 2002, Pp 1 – 3). It is, therefore, worthwhile and instructive to take a look at the role and responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security and to consider how the organization may be reconstructed in order to efficiently perform its mission in the 22nd Century. Many opinions and research papers have been presented on the topic and a literature review of these publications is likely to yield some interesting insights into the manner in which the Department of Homeland Security can be made more effective. This is what has been considered in this essay and a discussion of some of the issues is presented in the next section. The Reconstruction of an Efficient Department of Homeland Security Organisation for the 22nd Century Although the United States Congress can choose what kind of a Department of Homeland Security it will like the nation to have, the organisation must be clearly developed in the light of the homeland security strategy which has been envisioned (Daalder, 2002, Pp i – xii). The reason for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was to provide a government structure which will protect Americans from invisible enemies which can strike with a wide variety of weapons. A coordinating structure was necessary because the responsibilities for homeland security were dispersed amongst 100 different organisations (Bush, 2002, Pp 1 – 5). While it has to be agreed that the strategic response to the nation’s security from invisible threats such as terrorism requires the creation of an organisation with sophisticated information systems so that the first response can be effective, it is also important that the roles and responsibilities of individuals in the organisation be clearly and effectively defined (Kettl, 2004, Pp 10 – 33). An organization that is more flat is more likely to be more responsive because the level of interaction between members of the hierarchy is likely to improve and if more lateral positions are created with narrower, but well defined responsibilities then it is likely that the organisational hierarchy will be better able to produce a more effective response against threats. Administrative and support matters should be separated and meet only at the agency head level so that the divisional heads can carry on with their designated functions effectively. Although the administrative function in the organisation is important, the Department of Homeland Security can only function well if it can gather process and disperse information related to invisible threats in an effective manner. There is also a requirement to effectively present a coordinated response with other agencies that is both effective and timely. The commanders who have been given functional operational command in areas should be in a position to plan and conduct operations at their discretion and to report only to the agency head and the president. The lines of command should be clear, unambiguous and preferably as short as possible so that commands can be transmitted effectively. There should be an agency wide operational doctrine and support agencies within the organization should be able to provide key logistical or other support to all operational elements within the Department of Homeland Security organization (Barnes, 2002, Pp 1). The department should also be in a position to effectively integrate its operations with state and federal operations with due regard to the constitutional federal structures as well as the civil liberties which Americans have come to enjoy. It is also necessary that any reconstruction of the department should be well thought out, without a constant fiddling with the organization so that the new agency can get on with its assigned task rather then having to go through the pains of being restructured every so often (Brinkerhoff, 2002, Pp 1). To remove additional burdens from the Under Secretaries Management, Science and Technology, Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, Border and Transportation Secretary as well as the Under Secretary Emergency Preparedness and Response of having to coordinate effectively with the general public as well as the Congress and other governmental agencies, additional positions of General Council, Secretary Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs and an Assistant Secretary Public Affairs can be added to the organizational structure with their allied staff, while removing any unnecessary staff from the operational Under Secretaries. This will not only create an organizational structure that is more flat, but will also relieve the operational departments of the Department of Homeland Security to concentrate on their core functions which are the most important in the organisation. It is these core functions which need to be performed with a high level of excellence so that the Department of Homeland Security can effectively perform its assigned mission. Those who are waging the invisible war against the United States of America are unlikely to give anything away to anyone in their war and an enormous amount of information from very many sources not only from within the United States of America, but also outside the nation has to be effectively sifted through in order to analyse the levels of threat or be prepared to respond to these threats. Inputs from many sources and agencies including the FBI, the CIA, Coast Guard, Border Security, Airports, civil sources and other installations such as those associated with nuclear, chemical and biological activities has to be assessed to determine a level of threat. Emergency response plans and preparedness for contingencies has always to be revised in the light of new information or threats. Each section of the organisation can be made more independent and focused on its assigned mission, reporting directly to the organisational head rather then responding to other intermediaries (Department of Homeland Security, 2005,”Department of Homeland Security Organisation Chart – Proposed End State”). The Department of Homeland Security organisation should have cells which are more independent and focused. Less direct control of focused teams is the answer to a flat organization. Having a distinct Undersecretary for Policy makes sense because such a distinct organisational identity can continuously sift through the national and international situational indicators as well as the evolving nature of threats to develop a cohesive government response for such threats which can be communicated to all government departments. The technology which can be provided to the Department of Homeland Security or which can be developed to counter the changing nature of threats will have a significant contribution to make in the effective implementation of the homeland security strategy. As has been previously mentioned, information technology and computers are very significant for the effective communication and analysis of information. However, it is not just computers that can assist with the task of homeland security. Effective radio messaging technologies, technologies for border protection, technologies for dealing with biological, chemical or nuclear contamination and technology for the surveillance of a diverse, widely dispersed national infrastructure etc all need to be carefully selected and developed in order to bring America to a higher level of preparedness to counter the threats to its security (Bodenheimer, 2003, Pp 1). In an emergency situation when there has been a terrorist strike, communications can be of vital importance for the workers who are either on rescue missions or are trying to neutralize the insurgents. In such situations, it is highly likely that the existing channels of communications will have collapsed and emergency workers will have to switch to emergency channels which can consist of Personal Communication Systems or PCS radio and satellite links amongst other possibilities (Kapsales, 2004, Pp 1). The strategic mission of the Department of Homeland Security is not to develop new technologies. However, the evolving nature of threats and a need to respond to these threats better will mean that there has to be an appraisal of the situation for the industry and the scientific community at large which can assist in providing technology solutions for these threats. The Undersecretary for Science and Technology attached to the Department of Homeland Security is likely to act as a liaison for the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department which can assist in the development of suitable technology response as the need arises and as part of a strategic plan. American industry has accumulated substantial experience in developing high technology products through in-house research and development programs, but has until recently been reluctant to release products related to homeland security for the fear of a scarcity of available liability insurance and potentially devastating jury verdicts should the technology fail. The passage of the “Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002” or the SAFETY Act promises to inject a greater spirit of entrepreneurship and risk taking in technology associated with homeland security (Howe, 2004, Pp 1). The Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security can also liaise with suitably experienced technology contractors with a potential for developing technology for homeland security, keeping in house research to an analysis of the requirements and hence the staff levels as well as organisational hierarchies to the lowest levels. Ever since November 25, 2002 when President George W. Bush signed the Homeland Security Act into law as PL 107 – 296, the reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security has followed through a series of events related to the transfer of organisational controls of some of the existing federal agencies or portions of these agencies along with a gradual process of evolution and transformation (Relyea, 2005, Pp CRS 16 – CRS 30). Some of the existing entities that were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security included Federal Protective Service, United States Secret Service, National Bio-Weapons Defence Analysis Centre and Transportation Security Administration amongst the many others which are too numerous to mention (Relyea, 2005, Pp CRS 19). On September 30, 2003 the transfer of all personnel, assets and liabilities to the new organisation were completed under Section 1516 of the Act. Prior to this event, senior officers of the new department had assumed their duties and had started submitting reports to the Congress. On February 1, 2005 homeland security funding analysis required for the President’s budget submission to the Congress became effective, pursuant to Section 889 of the Act. From May 1, 2005 there was a requirement for the submission of a Future Years Homeland Security Program, meaning that Congress will be in a position to judge and decide on what improvements can be made to the Department of Homeland Security. It is expected that on March 28, 2006 the Comptroller General of the United States will report to the House Committees on the special streamlined acquisition authority which may also be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security until September 30, 2007. Hence, it appears the final special acquisitions for the newly formed agency will have been completed sometime in 2006 – 2007 and by November, 2007 a personnel management system for the Department of Homeland Security will have finally evolved. After January 28, 2008 the department will be in a position to carry out a pilot project under Section 831 of the Act (Relyea, 2005, Pp CRS 19). It is expected that by the year 2009, the Department of Homeland Security will have finally taken on a more permanent form with a full capacity for undertaking its mission. Prior to the coming into force of the Homeland Security Act PL 107 – 296 of 2002, there were at least 11 committees on the Senate and 14 committees in the House as well as very many subcommittees which dealt with matters related to anti - terrorism programmes of the United States government. It was, therefore, difficult to develop a cohesive strategy and reporting was complex, making the task of legislation and oversight difficult. The legislative proposal to establish the Department of Homeland Security had to be referred to twelve standing committees which had jurisdiction over the legislation. With the coming into force of the Department of Homeland Security Act, the House decided to establish a single Select Committee on Homeland Security for the duration of the 108th Congress. The establishment of a single Select Committee made the task of dealing with the homeland security and anti terrorism issues far simpler and more efficient for the legislature. This Select Committee is to oversee on a continuing basis the laws, programs and United States government efforts against terrorism and for the protection of the homeland. Other House standing committees were also involved in the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and the House Committee on Appropriations established a Subcommittee on Homeland Security, which was followed by the establishment of a similar Subcommittee in the United States Senate. The shape, form and function of the Department of Homeland Security will be greatly influenced by these committees, subcommittees, the senior administrators of the Department as well as by the President. With the passage of time after the coming into force of the Department of Homeland Security Act, the emphasis on oversight shifted from the start up of the department, to its organisation, administration, programs, areas of operation as well as appropriations and intergovernmental relations. The work of organising the congressional oversight panels has to be performed carefully because having a very large number of oversight panels can mean that a lot of time is wasted by the senior administrators of the Department of Homeland Security in testifying before these panels and keeping them generally informed. However, it may have been felt that at the early stages of the establishment of the new Department of Homeland Security, a wider counsel and a greater then the usual number of opinions may have been required in order to generate a wiser consensus (Relyea, 2005, Pp CRS 30). One of the last major events in the reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security is the establishment of a personnel management system which is considered to be appropriate for the new agency. It is the desire of all those with a vested interest in the department to see that the such a system is responsive to the mission of the new agency, credible and fair as well as being a modern system that is capable of responding to threats (Federal Register, 2004, Pp 8032). After a process of research and outreach activities, meetings with employees, unions and focus groups as well as management consultation, it is expected that a new system will be finally approved prior to the event deadline required in 2007. It is expected that there will be a requirement for extensive rehiring to replace those who will have retired and because the personnel who will initially be a part of the Department of Homeland Security will be drawn from a large number of organizations which have been merged into the new agency, there are likely to be problems associated with harmonising pay systems and diverse organizational cultures into the new system or organizational culture. It is expected that the hiring of the new employees will take place in a competitive environment for those who are hiring because the United States population is aging (Asch, 2002, Pp 8). It has been argued that a good personnel system will make an extensive use of flexibility related personnel management policies, with the removal of barriers to their use such as overly cumbersome administrative procedures and adequate funding for their implementation. Problems associated with excessive or insufficient oversight, hiring inadequacies or management and employee incentives will not be initially addressed, but will be a part of a process of continuous improvement in the system (Asch, 2002, Pp 9). It is obvious that the formation and the reconstruction of such a large agency which is charged with effectively implementing the United States homeland security strategy into the next century and beyond requires an enormous amount of coordinated effort in many areas. However, the ability to harness technology for information gathering, analysis and responding to threats as well as the ability to rapidly disseminate information across a wide spectrum of government agencies is very likely to be the key for success. Conclusion The formation of a new Department of Homeland Security which is capable of producing an effective and coordinated effort to cater for the homeland security concerns of the nation became glaringly obvious after the successful September 11 terrorist strikes against America. Although a lot of effort is required on a broad front to transform the new agency into a highly effective organisation, its establishment does make sense because the Department of Homeland Security has the ability to effectively coordinate diverse functions and efficiently share information, cutting through layers of managerial hierarchies. The efforts of the administration to establish the new department has been characterised by very diverse consultation, debate and the formation of a consensus for the best possible solutions. With such an effort being expanded, it can only be expected that the Department of Homeland Security will emerge as an organisation which is very capable of effectively performing its mission in the next century. References / Bibliography 1. Aguirre, Benigno E. (2004). Homeland Security Warnings: Lessons Learned and Unlearned. University of Delaware. Retrieved: September 6, 2005. From: http://www.udel.edu/DRC/Preliminary_Papers/PP334-Homeland%20Security.pdf 2. American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS. (2002). Proposed Department of Homeland Security Would Include NIE, DOE and USDA R & D Programs. AAAS. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/dhs0621.pdf 3. Asche, Beth J. (2002). Ensuring Successful Personnel Management in the Department of Homeland Security. RAND. Retrieved: September 6, 2005. From: http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP235/IP235.pdf 4. Barnes, Joseph R. (June, 2002). Reorganizing for Homeland Security: Lessons From Fifty Years of Organizing and Reorganizing the Department of Defense. Journal of Homeland Security. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/commentary/barnes26june2002.html 5. Bodenheimer, David Z. (August, 2003). Technology for Border Protection: Homeland Security Funding and Priorities. Journal of Homeland Security. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/bodenheimer.html 6. Brinkerhoff, John R. (July, 2002). Reorganizing is Not the Solution for Homeland Security. Journal of Homeland Security. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/brinkerhoffreorg.html 7. Bush, George W. (2002). The Department of Homeland Security. Office of the President of the United States of America. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/book.pdf 8. Daalder, Ivo H et al. (2002). Assessing the Department of Homeland Security. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/fp/projects/homeland/assessdhs.pdf 9. Department of Homeland Security. (2002). Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/reorganization_plan.pdf 10. Department of Homeland Security. (2005). Department of Homeland Security Organization Chart. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/DHS_Org_Chart_2005.pdf 11. Department of Homeland Security. (2005). Department of Homeland Security Organization Chart – Proposed End State. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/DHSOrgCharts0705.pdf 12. Department of Homeland Security. (2005). Department Six – Point Agenda. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=10&content=4604 13. Federal Register. (2004). Department of Homeland Security Office of Personnel Management. Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules. Retrieved: September 6, 2005. From: http://www.nbpc.net/dhsrules/dhsregsofficial.pdf 14. Grover Starling. (2002). Managing the Public Sector, 6th. Ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers. 15. Howe, Wendy. (May, 2004). Getting Anti-Terrorism Technologies Out for Homeland Use—That’s Why It’s Called the SAFETY Act. Journal of Homeland Security. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/howe.html 16. Howe, Wendy. (May, 2004). Getting Anti-Terrorism Technologies Out for Homeland Use—That’s Why It’s Called the SAFETY Act. Journal of Homeland Security. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/displaySciTech.asp?article=113 17. Jasak, Stephan et al. (August, 2002). Envisioning a Truly Transformational Homeland Security Strategy. Journal of Homeland Security. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/irish_class_project.html 18. Kapsales, Peter. (March, 2004). Wireless Messaging for Homeland Security: Using Narrowband PCS for Improved Communication During Emergencies. Journal of Homeland Security. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/displayArticle.asp?article=110 19. Kettl, Donald F. (2004). The Department of Homeland Security’s First Year: A Report Card. The Century Foundation. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.tcf.org/Publications/HomelandSecurity/overview.pdf 20. National Emergency Management Association, NEMA. (2005). Chertoff Proposes Significant DHS Restructuring. NEMA. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.nemaweb.org/?1398 21. Oracle Corporation. (2003). Transforming Government: An E-Business Perspective. Oracle Corporation. Retrieved: September 6, 2005. From: http://www.oracle.com/industries/government/Gov_Overview_Brochure.pdf 22. Relyea, Harold C. (2005). Homeland Security: Department Organization and Management – Implementation Phase. Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31751.pdf 23. Riley, Benjamin. (September, 2003). Information Sharing in Homeland Security and Homeland Defense: How the Department of Defense Is Helping. Journal of Homeland Security. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/displayArticle.asp?article=97 24. Shaheen, Mark and Richard Gordon. (2005). Homeland Security’s Second Stage Review: Key Implications for the Private Sector. Civitas Group LLC. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.civitasgroup.com/reports/20050722.pdf 25. Stana, Richard M. (2005). Department of Homeland Security: Addressing Management Challenges that Face Immigration Enforcement Agencies. United States Government Accountability Office. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05664t.pdf 26. The Evergreen State College. (2005). Executive Branch Homeland Security, Department of. The Evergreen State College. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.evergreen.edu/library/govdocs/executive/homelandsecurity.html 27. The United States House of Representatives. (2005). FY 2006 budget amendments for the Department of Homeland Security. The United States House of Representatives. Retrieved: September 7, 2005. From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/amendment_7_22_05.pdf Read More