The Need for The Department of Homeland Security

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks necessitated the establishment of a fully-fledged security system to guard against future terrorist attacks. According to Andreas (2003), the Department of Homeland Security was a remarkable achievement. Such a step had not been realized ever since America emerged from the Cold War. Terrorism became a huge concern for most Americans, especially in the 1990s. The government was forced to restructure its front line security system (internal) mechanism especially with the bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993 and a similar attack at Oklahoma (Perl, 1994). U.S protectorates all over the world were under attack. For example, terrorists’ bombed two U.S embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in the year 1998. The U.S.S Cole in Yemen suffered the same attacks. All these were as a result of the negative symptoms of globalization. Being a superpower, the United States is fast making more enemies than friends. In fact, the quick acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by groups and individuals had become a threatening issue. This department was a means of terror preparedness. This proposal discusses the problems that have existed before the formation of the DHS and after its inception.

Prior to the formation of DHS, various commissions had been set up to look into U.S national security status as well as the progression of weapons of mass destruction. According to Perl (2004), they included Rudman, Gilmore and the National Commission on Terrorism. Congressional representatives were also involved and most downplayed the idea of the U.S having the money or capability of counteracting terrorism. Well, that was back then. Countering terrorism was not the main agenda, at least before September 11, 2001. After this tragedy, priorities shifted at a remarkable speed. “On November 19, 2002, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296)” (Perl, 2004). This act paved the way for the formation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Tom Ridge. By this being a national department, it houses several agencies, people with a planned budget.

Dhs. gov (2004) highlights 22 different agencies that are integrated into the department. This has increased its effectiveness and strengthened its capacity to offer security to Americans. Some of these agencies include; U.S. Customs and Border Protection, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Transportation Security Administration, Federation Emergency Management Agency and Science & Technology Directorate.  The department employs more than 200,000 members of staff. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, the proposed budget was $36.2 billion (1/10 of the military’s budget ($380 billion)) (Perl, 2004) In FY 2012, the figure went slightly up to $46.9 billion(Department of Homeland Security Budget Request, 2013). The Department of Homeland Security Being an integral part of security and the economy at large, it should have a bigger budget more than it is now allocated.

Over the years, it has been noted that some agencies are underfunded by the U.S government thereby inhibiting major structural changes and effective planning. For instance, the National Cyber Security Division under the Science and Technology Directorate has not been able to fulfill most of its expectations. Through this division, DHS is charged with the mandate of creating Computer Emergency Readiness Team to help in combating cybersecurity threats (Breakinggov.com, 2013). However, more is required in fostering effective partnerships and strengthening the use of information by the division. In particular, DHS has not satisfied the private sector stakeholders in “Sharing cyber-based threats to critical infrastructure” (Breakinggov.com, 2013).

Science and Technology Directorate in the Fiscal Year 2012 received an allocation of $1.0 billion. This could be compared with the Coast Guard or Customs and Border Protection agencies that received $8.7 billion and $10.4 billion respectively. Of special note is that the Customs and Border Protection functions more or less the same as the Science and Technology Directorate. The only difference is that the latter uses science and technology to secure external and internal borders of the U.S while the cybersecurity division (under the Science and Technology Directorate) relates mostly to internal affairs. This proposal serves to highlight constraints caused by the inadequate funding but does not give an estimate of how much is needed to curb that particular challenge. The agency is also not able to deliver on tracking and security alert systems.

DHS had promised to establish a nuclear detecting material in vehicles and in containers at ports ever since its inception. However, this idea has remained elusive leaving the coast guards with a huge inspection task. Other scientific technologies that require defined requirements have also been delayed in deployments (Breakinggov.com, 2013). This has made its acquisition management to have few skilled personnel, and a poor financial management system. This has led to inaccessibility to reliable information that helps in adequate decision-making.

From an outside perspective, these challenges might appear nonexistent, as DHS seems extraordinary. However, in 2003, GAO designated the transformation of DHS as high risk as the department had merged 22 agencies into one whole department. Talk about complete integration.  This integration has affected almost all agencies with the Science and Technology Directorate being the worst hit. The budget allocation for the year 2011 was at a record low with the House Committee on Appropriations giving a non-substantive reason for the unwarranted reduction.

The committee issued a statement saying that the Directorate had not fully justified the billions of taxpayer dollars that it has spent on Research and Development. In this regard, the committee believed that revision of the levels would ‘encourage’ or “force the Directorate to concentrate its efforts on priority projects” (H. Rept, 2011). It is common knowledge that all inventions in the world over came after a research process. For the committee to claim that the Research and Development was not a priority back then is a show of misinformed mindsets. This hampers development that would increase confidence in the security system.

O’Toole (2012) showed that there was “tension in the balance between a federal research infrastructure and investing in Research and Development activities performed by industry or academic stakeholders.”  Moreover, the costs of infrastructure have shot up. Mostly affected are construction, operations, and maintenance sectors. The sectors named have raised a great completion to Research and Development funding as stipulated in the program. O’Toole (2012) continues to state that the “shifting of research funds to infrastructure means accepting the loss of existing, not yet matured research investments and facing significant opportunity costs. Effective innovation is the core of the U.S economy and U.S. national security. It requires investments in both facilities of Research and Development. These must be adequately funded to ensure the country gains the required capability to respond to divert threats.”

FY 2013 saw an increased appropriation of funds to the Science and Technology Directorate. This is owing to the fact that the federal government is constructing “the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) and decontamination and demolition of Plum Island Animal Disease Center” (Fas.org, 2013). However, the department should enact its own budget to ensure it does not displace resources. This would prevent an imbalance eminent from the performance of Research and Development activities for DHS components. This would interfere with other core services such as consultancy on operation concepts, development of future prospects in technology and “overseeing test and evaluation” (Shea, 2013).

Some policymakers may want the above-mentioned activities to be funded through the DHS as a whole and not through the Science and Technology Directorate directly. This interferes with any “opportunities for synergy and efficiency that may arise in providing a centralized source of expertise in research” (Shea, 2013). As required by the Homeland Security Act, the Directorate has to prioritize its issues to ensure it is funded accordingly. This is notwithstanding the fact that the Directorate has broad functions.

“These priorities and requirements are derived from an understanding of near and long term threats, national needs and operational vulnerabilities” (O’Toole, 2012). Areas for development are sought after this assessment. This will aid in developing a strategic plan. However, it is a challenge to establish a strategic plan that is in accordance with the guidance of the federal plan. The chairperson of the NAPA panel Williams (2009) stated that the 2007 strategic plan by the Directorate titled Science & Technology to make the Nation Safer did not adhere to the criteria of a strategic plan as generally applied across a federal government. 

This made NAPA reject the strategic plan citing that it did not exclusive details and reasons for its establishments. The planning process was also doubted. It is thus necessary to establish a planning advisory board that will help in outlining the Directorate’s investment options. It will give the scope and the proper areas of operation of all the divisions within the directorate. The Science and Technology Directorate may be unaware of the products available in the private sector. Shea (2013) explains that the Directorate has resulted in investing in technological foraging to keep track of the ever-expanding global community. 

This mechanism is cheap and does not require huge funding from the federal government. In essence, foraging of technology uses scientific periodicals, the internet and other sources that are able to identify already existing technologies. O’Toole (2012) challenges the Directorate to “survey this dynamic and expanding world to identify potential partners, discover technologies in late-stage development.” In this view, it is easy to adapt or adopt any new implements or ideas to foster the growth of Science and Technology. Funds should be set aside to ensure the Directorate is able to alert American citizens of natural disasters such as cyclones, floods, and volcanoes. 

In conclusion, it is best to state that inadequate funding for the Science and Technology Directorate has derailed the implementation of worthwhile startups. The Department of Homeland Security as a whole came into place at the right time though it was in response to a catastrophic event. However, there has been no major threat that has occurred against the country from terrorists after the September 11 attacks.  Moreover, lack of adequate funds has denied the Directorate, capability to combat cyber-security threats especially in regards to the private sector. Tracking devices such as nuclear detecting materials have not been placed in vehicles as well as in containers in the ports. This is discouraging as it means more work is left to the Customs and Border Protection and Coast Guard Agencies. Worse still is the fact that the budget appropriations are declining each fiscal year. FY 2011 saw a lapse of Research and Development simply because it was not thought a priority at the time-thus fewer funds were allocated. It is high time that research was merged with science. In this sense, DHS will be able to realize development and technological advancement. Cheaper ways should be advanced such as the use of social media in maintaining security details of all Americans.

References

Andreas, Peter. (2003). "Redrawing the Line: Borders and Security in the Twenty-first Century. Brown University Committee, Part 4, p. 123.

Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate. (2007) Science & Technology Strategy to Make the Nation Safer, June.

National Academy of Public Administration, Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate: Developing Technology to Protect America, 2009

O’Toole, T. (2012). Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland 

Perl, Raphael (2004)."The Department of Homeland Security: Background and Challenges", Terrorism—reducing Vulnerabilities and Improving Responses, Committee on Counterterrorism Challenges for Russia and the United States, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia Development, Security, and Cooperation Policy and Global Affairs, in cooperation with the Russian Academy of Sciences, page 176. National Academies Press Security, response to questions for the record in House Committee on Appropriations,

Shea, D.A., (2013). The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress. Web resource.Updated May 3, 2013. Accessed August 28, 2013at 1:09 am Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations

Terrorism: Reducing vulnerability and improving responses: U.S.-Russian workshop proceedings. (2004). Washington: National academy press