Implementation Stage: Integration of Government Agencies (Creation of the Department of Homenad Security)

(US Customs and Border Protection, from Wikimedia Commons)

            After President Bush had signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the H.R. 5005 became Public Law no. 107-296. After the policy formulation has transpired, the policy implementation came next. Peters said, “ Once a piece of legislation or a regulation has been accepted as a legitimate public law, in some ways the easiest portion of the policymaking process has already transpired, for government must then put the legislation into effect.” The effect of the legislation established the DHS, which created the newest and second largest executive department second to the size of Department of Defense. The policy of the government on anti-terrorism has now been implemented through the DHS.

            The DHS is consists of four line directorates, which are the Border and Transportation Security (BTS), Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR), Science and Technology (ST), and the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP). The US Secret Service and the US Coast Guard remained intact and report directly to the DHS while the INS Adjudications and Benefits Program reports directly to the Deputy Secretary.

            The BTS is composed of the US Customs Service (Treasury), The Immigration and Naturalization Service (part) (Justice), The Federal Protective Service, Transportation Security Administration (Transportation), Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (Treasury), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (part)Agriculture), and the Office for Domestic Preparedness (Justice).

            The EPR is comprised of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Strategic National Stockpile and the National Disaster Medical System (HHS), Nuclear Incident Response Team (Energy), Domestic Emergency Support Teams (Justice) and the National Domestic Preparedness Office (FBI).

            The ST directorate includes the CBRN Countermeasures Programs (Energy), Environmental Measurements Laboratory (Energy), National BW Defense Analysis Center (Defense), and the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (Agriculture).

            Lastly, the IAIP was formed from Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (Commerce), Federal Computer Incident Response Center (GSA), National Communications System (Defense), National Infrastructure Protection Center (FBI) and the Energy Security and Assurance Program (Energy).

Evaluation Process: Performance Measures and Goals (Creation of the Department of Homeland Security)

(FDNY Firefighter on Ground Zero. Photo by Preston Keres, USN. Wikimedia Commons.)

            Peters said, “The first step in evaluation is to identify the goals of the program, but even this seemingly simple task may be difficult, if not impossible.”

            The DHS has set of strategic goals that are defined by the words: Awareness, Prevention, Protection, Response, Recovery, Service, and Organizational Excellence. The goals are clearly stated publicly and the next step was laying out performance measure to evaluate the goals. Federal agencies are mandated by law under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) to set goals, measure performance, and report their accomplishments.

            On a report to President Bush and the Congress, the Gilmore Commission said, “the United States needs an improved homeland security strategy to strengthen security communities facing the greatest risk, improve the use of intelligence, increase the role of the state and local officials, and sharpen disaster response capabilities.”

            The Clinton and Bush Administrations had enacted 87 percent of the recommendations of the Gilmore Commission on security related matters. The Gilmore Commission was headed by former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III.

            The important recommendations of the Commission are as follows, “Combine all departmental grant making programs into a single entity in DHS; establish an interagency mechanism for homeland security grants, revise the homeland advisory system to include a regional alert system, training to emergency responders about preventive actions, and specific guidance to potentially affected regions; establish sustained funding to enhance EMS response capacity for acts of terrorism; and establish comprehensive procedures for sharing information with relevant state and local officials”

Conclusion: The Policy Choice, Output, and Effect (Creation of the Department of Homeland Security)

(DHS Coat of Arms, from Wikimedia Commons)

            The creation of DHS was an avowed public-policy statement of the federal government in protecting and securing the homeland. It was the pro-active approach of the Bush Administration on its domestic policy on terrorism. DHS carries all of the government’s anti-terrorism activities and programs.

            DHS was a product of the policy choice of the elected officials, and their policy output had resulted into the creation of the Department. On the other hand, the policy impact was the effect of both the policy choice and policy output, which is to protect and secure the homeland from another terrorist attacks. The process of establishing the DHS went through five stages and these are the: agenda setting, policy formulation, decision-making, implementation stage, and evaluation phase.

            To legitimize the policy choice of the Bush Administration, the legislative proposal H.R. 5005 was submitted to the Congress for enactment into law. The choice to confront the terrorists through a new government agency was not a result of an outburst of emotion over the tragic incidents of 9/11, rather, the choice to establish the DHS was the outcome of careful studies and recommendations made by congressional leaders, commissions, political think-tanks and by the Bush Administration. There were also insights and suggestions from the civil libertarians, union organizations and even from officials of the affected government offices. All were taken and reviewed for considerations during the public hearing.

            The policy output was the result of the policy choice made by the federal government. Quoting Peters again, he said, “Policy outputs are policy choices being put into action.” The choice to confront head-on the threats from homegrown and transnational terrorist groups had resulted in the formulation of counter-terrorism programs that will prepare, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks. This policy output had resulted in the consolidation of 180,000 federal employees from around 50 agencies who are involved in homeland-security efforts.

            Policy output also means policy action of the government on anti-terrorism, such as the development and training of the DHS personnel on techniques in covert operations, improvement of the technological equipment in the field to monitor the activities of target personalities, and to maintain active coordination with the IC members.

            The policy effects--intended results of policy choice and policy output--have been the protection of the people from terrorist attacks and the apprehension of the terrorists operating inside the United States. Moreover, according to Peters, “the policy effects may be influenced by the success and failures of the policy choice and policy output.”

             DHS cannot win the fight on terrorism alone. The support and guidance of the originators of the policy (i.e., Bush Administration and the US Congress), were important ingredients in the success of its anti-terrorism programs. The homeland-security managers are given the important tasks of running the second biggest department in the federal government and the expectation for them to lead the agency in combating the terrorists has never been so great.

REFERENCES

CDI Terrorism Project, Chronology of Major Terrorist Attacks Against U.S. Targets, Retrieved 10 May 2004

Intelligence Reforms 1900s, CIA Specific Reforms Proposal.

How Will the Post Cold-War Era End? Background Observations for Session on "Defense Against External Enemies" Visions of Governance for the Twenty-First Century, by Bretton Woods and Ashton B. Carter, July 20-23, 1997

Executive Order 12333 – United States Intelligence Activities, Federal Register,

Carl Limbacher, Hillary Demands “Immediate” answers on Bush 9-11 Heads-Up, Newsmax Retrieved May 16, 2002

St. Petersburg Times On-Line, “Goss: FBI Not Capable of Preventing Terrorism,” St. Petersburg Times, Retrieved May 27, 2002

CDI Terrorism Project, Chronology of Major Terrorist Attacks Against U.S. Targets,

Phil Brennan, “We could have prevented 9-11, Congressional Intelligence Chairman Says.”

Don Van Natta Jr., and David Johnston, “Anti-U.S. Views at Pilot Training School Prompted Agent’s Alert”, The New York Times, May 22, 2002

Ibid.

Pearce, Jean. The ACLU’s War on Homeland Security, FrontPageMagazine.Com, 11 June 2003, Retrieved 11 May 24

US Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File, Executive Summary of US Commission on National Security Report, 31 January 2001, Retrieved 11 May 2004

Executive Summary of US Commission on National Security Report, US Department of State

New Bill Aims to Create Homeland Defense Agency, National Guards Association of United States, Retrieved April 2001

Executive Order Establishing Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council, Retrieved 08 October 2001

Daalder, Ivo H, and Destler I.M., Organizing for Homeland Security, Statement Before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Retrieved 12 October 2001

S. 1449, Bill Summary & Status for the 107th Congress, Retrieved 13 May 2004

Scardaville, Michael, Principles of Creating an Effective U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The Heritage Foundation, 12 June 2002, Retrieved 18 May 2004

S.1534 (To Establish the Department of National Homeland Security) 107th Congress, 1st Session, October 11, 2001, Retrieved 12 May 2004

King, John, Wallace, Kelly, and Meserve, Jeanne, Bush Wants broad ‘Homeland Security’ overhaul, CCN.com, 7 June 2002, Retrieved 18 May 2004

Mescolotto, Andrew N., SEA States Opposition to Nelson, Breaux, Chafee Amendment, Retrieved 26 May 2004

ACLU Says Homeland Security Department Long on Secrecy, Short on Needed Accountability, ACLU Press Release, June 25, 2002, Retrieved 13 May 2004

Congressman Ron Paul, 13 November 2002, U.S. House of Representatives, Retrieved 19 May 2002

Loughlin, Sean, Democrats question items in Homeland bill, CNN Website, 18 November 2002, Retrieved 14 may 2004

Bill Summary & Status for the 107th Congress

King, John, Wallace, Kelly, and Meserve, Jeanne, Bush Wants broad ‘Homeland Security’ overhaul, CCN.com, 7 June 2002, Retrieved 18 May 2004

Peters, Guy, B., American Public Policy (Promise and Performance), CQ Press: Washington DC, 2004

DHS Organization, Who Will be Part of the New Department?, Department Of Homeland Security, Retrieved 18 May 2004

Peters, p.168

The DHS Strategic Plan – Securing our Homeland.

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

Bennet, Jeremy, 18 Dec 2003, Gilmore Commission Releases Final Report on Homeland Security, Government Technology, Retrieved 12 May 2004

Peters, p4.

Peters, p.5