Organizing for Homeland Security

Abstract

events of September 11 have prompted vastly heightened scrutiny of many aspects of government functioning, as major wars and national cataclysms have done in past. Few aspects, perhaps, have received more attention than question of whether government in general, and federal government in particular, has right organizational structure to meet requirements for homeland security. An initial determination was made by president that sufficient organization was woefully lacking, and he established Office of Homeland Security by executive order on October 8, 2001, less than one month after terrorist attacks. establishment of office--headed by new Assistant to President for Homeland Security and involving new Homeland Security Council--has not ended scrutiny and debate over appropriate organizational system needed by federal government to meet impending terrorist threats. In fact, debate over appropriate organizational structure to combat terrorism preceded events of September 11, with various proposals emanating from commissions and committees studying problem. Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (the Gilmore Commission), established by Public Law 105-261, reported in its second annual report on December 15, 2000: Over past five years, there have been a half-dozen Congressional attempts to reorganize Executive Branch's efforts to combat terrorism, all of which failed (vii). It found, The organization of Federal government's programs for combating terrorism is fragmented, uncoordinated, and politically unaccountable (v). panel opined, The lack of a national strategy is inextricably linked to fact that no entity has authority to direct all of entities that may be engaged (v). panel recommended that president establish a national office for combating terrorism in Executive Office of President and that he seek a basis for office. In analysis that follows, this will be referred to as statutory coordinator organizational option. U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (the Hart-Rudman Commission), chartered by Secretary of Defense in 1998, found that the assets and organizations that now exist for homeland security are scattered across more than two dozen departments and agencies, and all fifty states (2001, 10). It recommended a statutorily created national homeland security agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security. It would incorporate Federal Emergency Management Agency, along with Customs Service, Coast Guard, and Border Patrol, while preserving them as distinct entities (15). In analysis that follows, this will be referred to as departmental option. Although there has been much focus on requisite powers of president's Homeland Security Assistant and hearings have been held on options for structuring a central homeland security headquarters agency, Congress appears content for now to see how office created by executive order will work before undertaking legislative action. This wait-and-see posture undoubtedly will come to an end, and Congress will once again take up issue in a more concerted fashion. Even though issue of organization for homeland security involves question of organization of a headquarters under president, it extends considerably beyond that. In fact, organizational issue of homeland security implicates organizations of various venues, including organization of individual federal departments and agencies, state and local governmental organizations, and private-sector organizations, as well as their relationships with each other. issues involved in appropriate organizational structure for presidential headquarters organization are embedded in organizational issues that pervade all of these organizations. …