The Department of Homeland Security: Many Changes and Achievements - Essay Sample

Introduction

Many changes and achievements are attributable to the department of homeland security (DHS): It represents the federal executive department mandated with the task of maintaining public security within the country (Gambler, 1). Notably, the DHS mission is linked to its responsibilities that involve; cybersecurity, disaster management and prevention, border security, and anti-terrorism. The Homeland Security Act pushed for the formation of DHS, which later became the U.S.’s third-largest department after the Veterans Affairs and Defense Department. The DHS creation has triggered significant federal agencies and government reorganization placing distinct departments under Central Intelligence, Defense Secretary, and the National Security Council. Additionally, DHS is a diverse entity that has merged government agencies and the federal into a single organization with similar responsibilities and functionality (Gambler, 1). The Americans’ perception and definition of a threat have been expanded by the DHS to include natural disasters and emergencies and diffused crime.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In addition to the administration efforts, DHS has been influential in soliciting public inputs ensuring necessary changes, modifications, expansion, and streamlining of the existing regulations is made per the emerging needs (Lawson, 2). The agency has been transforming and working together with other agencies for a robust security plan; this can be confirmed from its 2001 initial transformation that positively impacted both federal and state security. The DHS process is a fundamental approach that describes the DHS relationship with other law enforcement and intelligence organizations; this explains its diversity and functionality. The commentary describes three main characteristics of the agency and what America ought to do in the immediate future. Succeeding are prevailing roadblocks barring DHS from resolving the main problems (Lawson, 2). Comprehensive knowledge of DHS will be drawn from the review of DHS changes, relationship with law enforcement, suggested changes, future characteristics, existing barriers, and the role of cyber terrorism.

Changes of DHS from 2001 to now

The department of homeland security was formed to prevent the United States of America from terrorist attacks, reduce the federal nation's exposure to terrorism, help the country recover from terror attack, and reduce the damage (Lawson, 2). Since its inception, the agency is a crucial intelligence figure in the security scope. The DHS is a crucial associate in the American intelligence community (I.C.). The second stage review (2SR) of 2005 reorganized, the DHS's former secretary created the DHS.an intelligence and analysis office. The move was geared towards ensuring the agency had a collective operational goal (Lawson, 2). The rearrangement meant that both the I.C. and the DHS worked as a single entity. Federal, state, local, and private organizations would draw information from the DHS.

The homeland security act of 2002 played a vital role in changes evidenced in the department of homeland security (Lawson, 2). The act outlined the primary functions of the agency and its role in intelligence reforms and sharing information. The terrorism preventions act of 2004 complemented the primary functions of the DHS highlighted in the homeland security act of 2002; after the 2SR reorganization, the American congress amplified the DHS's functions. These functions consisted of cross-department intelligence integration and information sharing (Lawson, 2). Hence, the 9/11 commission of 2007 would be implemented to intensify sustenance for private sector state, local, tribal organizations.

After the 11th September 2001 terrorist attacks, the then Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge was nominated to take the office of the director of the homeland security (Lawson, 2). The national mandate dispensed at his office was to protect America from terrorism and respond to imminent attacks. Congress thought that the homeland security act was the sole pillar addressing security concerns. A cabinet-level office was formed in March 2003 to support the existing structures made to address security concerns. In 2006 the senate enacted the security accountability for every port act to reinforce the DNS (Lawson, 2). Subsequently, the domestic nuclear detection office was approved, and the federal emergency management agency restructured to work closely with DHS.

The 11th commission report imposed security redesigning, calling for transforming the Federal Air Marshal Service to comprehensive aviation security services (Lawson, 2). FAMS was placed under the transportation security administration from immigration and customs enforcement. On 7th August 2007, sanctions in the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 took effect). Fema regulated the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 to overhaul how the DHS was operating. An assistant secretary for intelligence office affirmed by the senate was created (Lawson, 2). Subsequently, the DHS has to align with the suggestions poised in the 9/11 commission report.

Secretary Janet Napolitano toned the purpose of the first-ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (Lawson, 2). She made it possible for the DHS to become robust and ensure that America achieved its security goals. The DHS assimilated the Bottom-Up Review to transform its authoritative structure to increase its score and boost efficiency. Today, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review is used as an appraisal tool to examine America's security (Lawson, 2). The agency liaised with the oval house, federal divisions, and congress, and state, local, county, and tribal organizations to plan how to form a security strategy fancied by the department.

Relationship between DHS and Law Enforcement

Departmental/organization ties between the DHS and other law enforcement agencies were illustrated in the second stage review (2SR) (Gambler, 1). The DHS has transformed and integrated other agencies to better intelligence efforts. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) was created by congress to streamline information sharing, improve the workings of the DHS and the other law enforcement organizations (DHS, 3). According to Gambler (1), the DHS intelligence enterprise works hand in hand with U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), ) U.S. Secret Service (USSS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

DHS current structure Source: DHS (3)

The chart above shows the present structure of the department of homeland security (DHS, 3). The configuration is customized to allow the sharing of information across all divisions and the law enforcement agencies involved. Each department is designed to promptly respond to internal and external threats (Gambler, 1). Cross-departmental procedures involve sending, receiving, appraising, and evaluating information from the stakeholders involved. The information is integrated and distributed to other players in the American intelligence community; they include private, state, local, and tribal agencies. At the core are seven annexes of the DHS which serve the interests of Americans. American citizens, the government, state agencies, and other agencies are protected from terror attacks, either internal or external. Also, the realignment wished-for in the department of homeland security is made to improve capacity, address crises, and respond to terror attacks/assaults (Gambler, 1). Coordination in the department and defined jurisdiction is made possible through; commanding efficiency in operations, strengthening intelligence functions, enhancing the development policies, and timely deployment of emergency assets/materials.

Suggested Changes to Current Structure

DHS's current structure needs three significant changes. Firstly, coordination should be improved further and centralize the development of policies. When the management is synchronized, and a centralized structure is implemented, there will be better regulation and well thought out policies that will be developed (Bowman, 4). Secondly, the DHS needs structural adjustments. There is a need to have increased vigilance and timely deployment of assets (Bowman, 4). Therefore, a chief medical officer is needed to handle matters related to biological weapons or attacks (Ali, 5). Lastly, the DHS scope should be extended further. The United States is vulnerable to external attacks because of the globalization .despite America making allies around the globe; there are many foes, especially Arab countries who would like to attack America. For this reason, the structure should involve a chief international intelligence officer.

Characteristics that Need to be Addressed in the Future

There is a need to bridge the gap between the national, state, and local agencies: The latter lag behind when it comes to security matters (Lambert, 6). Both state and local agencies need empowering to improve approaches made to counter-terror attacks. Their weak institutions spur fragility to security threats. These are the unanticipated consequences of the DHS, which ought to be addressed. They need facilitation to be better prepared for crises and prevent terror. Loopholes related to border security should be sealed (Lambert, 6). Besides border documentation, immigration laws should be implemented so that DHS and its allies can concentrate on security problems posed by Mexican criminals at the borders. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) needs reforms to command more security in the aviation scope and airport security.

Existing Roadblocks

Multiple pieces of research allege that the department of homeland security is moving in the right direction (Lambert, 6). However, desirable changes needed in the department are held back by the structure and designated workings of the DHS. The organization structure is over-centralized instead of centralizing the relay of information. Political influence/interests, bureaucracy, and a sense of complacency stand as roadblocks to a functional agency. DHS creates a false sense of security, guaranteeing Americans total protection against threats. The narrative is flawed because the security expert has pointed out that the agency cannot protect the United States of America alone. Its failures are attributable to insufficient funding. The distribution of funding towards the security department is questionable (Lambert, 6). American expects DHS to be amongst first responders during crises, yet the funding is inadequate. The DHS breaches the privacy of Americans. Citizens cry foul of the interpretation of the privacy act because it is against their wishes.

It is worth noting that DHS, like in other government agencies, is full of bureaucracy. Placing numerous agencies and divisions under the system has created other problems (Lambert, 6). The Decision-making process takes longer than expected. Even with lean financing, the agency is poorly prepared when attacks occur. Instead of coordinating with other agencies such as the federal bureau of investigation, CIA, and the DEA, the DHS competes with them, thus compromising its functions. The DHS has failed to solve inter and intra agency conflicts caused by the competition for superiority. The battles have heightened cybersecurity concerns (Lambert, 6). Weak inter-agency coordination lingers hence affecting disaster preparedness. Poor coordination attests to the saying that "all calamities are local."