What strategic objectives will be formulated by the Department of Homeland

What strategic objectives will be formulated by the Department of Homeland

MODULE  8: FUTURE ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES & CHALLENGES Lesson

·

Future challenges of private sector related to homeland security efforts

Introduction

As we prepare to enter the last week of this shared study, we can reflect on what has been discussed as it relates to the private sector’s place within the homeland security enterprise. Its roles and responsibilities are numerous, just as the challenges this sector faces in carrying them out. These tasks and accompanying trials will continue to change, just as the dynamics of homeland security as a whole will evolve as well.

In this final lesson, we will look closely at these issues and pose some relevant questions as well. What will make up the next generation of threats that our country will face? What strategic goals will be formulated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to counteract them, and how will the private sector fit into these targeted objectives? Also, a focus will be placed upon our final course objective, as we evaluate the current model of shared responsibility related to government and the private sector and discuss its adequacy to address future challenges.

The Future

In the Strategic Plan that DHS has set for itself in the years 2014-2018, it has put forth the following broad mission areas:

· Preventing terrorism and enhancing security

· Securing and managing our borders

· Enforcing and administering our immigration laws

· Safeguarding and securing cyberspace

· Ensuring National preparedness and resiliency (DHS, 2014, 6).

Obviously, these ambitious undertakings are dependent upon a variety of underlying goals, objectives, and resources, and for the most part, receive widespread agreement and support within the homeland security enterprise. Yet, it must be understood that they are a product of a variety of concerning issues that have been identified in the years since 9/11, as well as those that present themselves on an ongoing basis. For instance, West (2012) stressed the importance of geo-political risks that exist around the globe and the impact they will have on the United States; those (i.e. China, Iran, Russia, etc.) that will continue to be a concern moving forward. In the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, Clapper (2013) offers a comprehensive overview of a number of threats and hazards, where terrorism and transnational organized crime are included among them. Unfortunately, organizations such as ISIS, and events that take place both globally (e.g. Paris) and domestically (e.g. San Bernardino) stress that this will continue to be an ongoing concern. Likewise, Nelson and Wise asserted that the greatest threat the Department must defend against in the coming years will come not from a physical opponent, but from cyberspace” (2013, 2). Unfortunately, it has become painfully obvious that neither the government nor the private sector is immune from cyber-attacks. In addition, cyberspace has proven to be an environment that terrorists take full advantage of to recruit, train, and carry out their attacks. There are many that would certainly agree that cybersecurity is a primary concern, including President Obama, as reflected in the issuance of the Executive Order, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity in 2013. Obviously, other sources could be referenced as to what the greatest threats our country will face moving forward, and differences would be found in their content and the manner in which they are prioritized. Yet, for purposes of our discussion, the common theme is that the private sector will continue to be involved in addressing to one degree or another. Likewise, the government/private sector relationship will continue to be a necessary component of this endeavor as well. However, is this partnership adequately prepared to meet these challenges?

Overarching Roles and Responsibilities

Department of Homeland Security

In Erwin’s article, Washington Insiders Question Federal Role in Homeland Security, the author relays how many feel that DHS was nothing more than a “quick fix” in response to public demands after the events of 9/11. Consolidating some 22 federal agencies under a single umbrella represented one of the greatest evolutions our country has experienced as it relates to security and defense-related efforts. Yet, proponents would say that a variety of benefits have been experienced due to the formulation of this Federal entity, including:

· Helping our nation manage, deal and deter countless security-related events.

· Breaking down communication barriers between federal and state agencies, thereby enhancing information sharing efforts.

· Producing numerous plans and documents (many discussed in this class) that help guide actions at all levels.

· Instituting a variety of grant funding programs that equated to the purchase of equipment, hiring of personnel, as well as many training and educational initiatives.

· Developing programs that incorporate the resources and expertise of both the public and private sectors.

Although great strides have been made, there are those who point to the erosion of one’s privacy and civil liberties, as well as heavy financial burdens that have been borne by our country due to its ineffectiveness. Add to these, certain past incidents (i.e. Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Boston Marathon bombing) have demonstrated that DHS possesses a number of operational inefficiencies. Many admit that establishing DHS was the right thing to do at a certain point in our Nation’s history, yet, now might be the time to reconsider the manner in which it is organized. Using these past events as examples, it has become painfully evident to many that its current response model is not conducive with those charged with doing the work at the state and local levels. Tom Ridge, the first Director of DHS agrees that changes are in order, though not to be seen as a total indictment of big government, as there are roles and functions that only it can fulfill. According to Ridge, “It simply is a call for the federal government to allow state and local players, as well as the private sector, to make decisions that could help improve emergency response and disaster preparedness.” He goes on to say that “We make America less resilient, less secure, if we allow Washington to remain her single point of failure” (Erwin, 2012, 2). It would appear that DHS has taken notice, as current Director Jeh Jonson has identified the enhancing of partnerships and outreach as a primary goal with his Department’s current strategic plan. Simply put, the Federal government recognizes that our Nation’s homeland security efforts can only be achieved through a collaborative effort, and it is up to DHS to nurture and maintain the relationships needed with the private sector as well as its various government counterparts, both here and abroad (DHS, 2014, 42). So how should the federal government proceed in order to allow others within the homeland security enterprise (especially the private sector) to take on a larger role? Will they accept and embrace greater levels of involvement? If so, are they sufficiently prepared to do so? These are just some of the many questions that must be addressed in a concerted manner.

Private Sector

Consider the following:

All disasters are local…

Homeland security begins with hometown security…

85% of critical infrastructure is privately owned and/or operated…

These commonly touted phrases speak to the position the private sector finds itself concerning homeland security. This sector is found in every community, in every state, all over the country. Therefore, its many organizations, businesses, and employees; both literally and figuratively, find themselves in the eye of the storm. So when the flood waters rise, a bomb is detonated, or a database is hacked, they are there to respond to and deal with the aftermath of such events. Also, in acknowledging that the private sector is made up of “for-profit” entities, they have a vested interest in their communities as well. Therefore, as we have established each and every week of this study, the private sector is and must remain a major player in this National effort moving forward.

So as we turn our eye toward the future, what do we envision for the private sector as it relates to homeland security? As we have seen throughout this study, it is obvious that the private sector can and must be intimately involved and integrated into our nation’s homeland security efforts; something that must continue and be improved upon moving forward. Such improvements are needed because there are still those who do not view the private sector as a viable partner in our nation’s homeland security efforts. Granted, this may not be the case for some larger corporations that are called upon and have proven to respond when disaster strikes (e.g. WalMart), or those that have a direct impact upon our nation’s ability to function related to its critical infrastructure (e.g. Duke Energy, Delta Airlines, etc.). Unfortunately, this is not always the case; far from it. In many areas, representatives from the private sector are simply not included in planning efforts, joint education and training sessions, or other such activities that truly produce the “unity of effort” noted by Stockton and Roberts (2008). But to truly appreciate what this type of unity represents, it must first be understood what it does, or more importantly, what it is not meant to infer. From a broad sense, there are those at the state and local levels of government who feel that officials in DHS simply assume that unity of effort means that they (states and localities) should do as they are told by federal government. Taking this a step further, there are those within the private sector who feel the same way about government in general. Yet, there is widespread agreement that effective unity of effort will only be realized when all stakeholders take part in the formulation of goals; those that they will jointly pursue and reach consensus on concerning the means to achieve them (p. 2). Time will only tell if inroads are made regarding these issues, but the private sector (and our country) is not in a position to simply wait for these efforts to be fully realized. No, this sector must recognize and embrace its own responsibilities related to our nation’s homeland security and be proactive in addressing them.

Therefore, in what ways can the private sector be utilized in a practical, hands-on manner to aid in addressing the missions established by DHS that were noted earlier? One example would be to employ an existing methodology that has proven to be instrumental in our Nation’s homeland security efforts; the intelligence cycle. Used by countless agencies across the country and around the world, it is a way to transform raw data into refined intelligence that can be used by requesting policymakers. It is comprised of five different components that include the following:

· Planning and direction: Management of the entire intelligence cycle effort, from identifying the need for information to delivering an intelligence product that meets the consumer’s needs.

· Collection: Utilizing activities such as interviews, searches, cooperative relationships, etc., the gathering of unrefined data is obtained.

· Processing and exploitation: This is where the fusion and synthesis of data obtained from a variety of sources is transformed into a usable form.

· Analysis and production: In this stage of the cycle, information is assessed regarding its reliability, legitimacy and overall significance and application to the issue(s) at hand; which results in a finished product.

· Dissemination: Here, the actual delivery is made to those consumers whose individual needs initiated the overarching requirements.

So what does this have to do with the private sector? Lee (2014) proposes that those within this sector could develop an “early-warning” capability modeled on the intelligence cycle. In essence, this would produce the capacity to consider various threats and hazards, how they could impact their organization, and what options are available to deal with them. Many of these efforts are already in place in the form of various risk management strategies. However, most are not tailored to the unique demands of homeland security. This is especially true where terrorism is involved, where the gathering and analysis of information related to groups, methods, and tactics could enable leaders within both the public and private sectors to make appropriate tactical decisions. Identifying and adequately assessing threats is but one of many efforts that the private sector must tend to in an aggressive manner. Others include formulating readiness plans, conducting and participating in joint training and exercises, as well as addressing various human factors and team dynamics within their own organizations. Leadership, communication, diversity, and even overconfidence are just a few of the issues that cannot be discounted, as they can also make a tremendous impact upon whether the private sector “rises to the occasion” regarding future challenges or not.

Voices in the Field

Conclusion

Homeland security, in one way or another, will always be in a state of transition. DHS, and this country as a whole, has experienced a number of growing pains since the events of 9/11, those that will continue to evolve. In addition, the private sector’s “job description” related to homeland security continues to be written as well. Therefore, it is advantageous to pause, reflect, and determine if changes are in order. That is our focus this week, to evaluate the current model of shared responsibility and discuss if it is sufficient to address the missions that have been set forth.

References

Clapper, J. (2013). Worldwide threat assessment of the us intelligence community. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Department of Homeland Security. (2014). Fiscal Years 2014-2018 Strategic Plan. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Erwin, S. (2012). Washington insiders question federal role in homeland security. National Defense Industrial Association, September, 2012.

Lee, E. (2014). Essential threat factors in Homeland security and private sector business. CRC Press.

McNeill, J. B. (2010). More than lip service: Why private sector engagement is essential. The Heritage Foundation.

Nelson, R. & Wise, R. (2013). Homeland security at a crossroads: Evolving DHS to meet the next generation of threats. Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Stockton, P. & Roberts, P. (2008). Steps in building unity of effort. Findings from the forum on Homeland Security after the Bush administration, Center for International Security and Cooperation. Stanford University, February 12.

West, D. (2012). A vision for homeland security in the year 2025. Governance Studies at Brookings.

Order from us and get better grades. We are the service you have been looking for.