Building a bigger bureaucracy: what the Department of Homeland Security won't do

Public Manager, The, Spring, 2003 by Elishia L. Krauss

Since the announcement that a massive Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be created by combining 22 agencies and 179,000 employees, one has to be dismayed by the lack of conversation on the most basic question, "Why do we feel that we need to create an enormous bureaucracy to meet our homeland security needs?" Is this reorganization, actually a huge merger, supposed to make the federal government more responsive, more effective, and more efficient? If this is the reason, then why are we creating more challenges rather than eliminating them?

These challenges should not be underestimated. Rosabeth Moss Kanter of the Harvard Business School commented last year in the New York Times, "This is an enormous challenge. It may be bigger than anything seen in the corporate world. It's going to take longer, cost more, and succeed only to the extent that we don't have any more unexpected threats during the inevitable upheaval."

Is not the intent of the reorganization to make America a safer place to live? However, evidence to date suggests there has been much more talk (and increasing budgets) than effective action. It seems the federal government has been spending more energy trying to make Americans feel safe by building up a bureaucratic organization for the future, rather than actually making America a safer place to live now. This means transforming what we already have into efficient, effective organizations, not creating another traditional federal bureaucracy.

Making the management case against this type of reorganization means adding up the additional obstacles that will now be confronted. They include:

* Mission Complexity. The DHS already has been tasked to protect the nation's borders by monitoring nearly 5.7 million cargo containers and 600 million passengers on American aircraft every year, as well as patrolling 95,000 miles of coastline and 430 major airports. In addition, it is responsible for preparing for and preventing terrorist attacks, coordinating first responders at state and local levels for emergencies, and monitoring intelligence to protect against threats to the homeland. The federal government is only adding unnecessary complexities to these responsibilities through the creation of DHS.

* Cultural Incompatibility. Mission complexities lead to major problems trying to combine cultures (integrating a common culture which will work toward a common a mission) and technology (integrating different infrastructure platforms, software applications for e-mail, databases, networking, and security protocols), while maintaining good communication (internally, between federal agencies, and among first responders) and employee relations. By adding complexities and creating another bureaucracy the organization becomes bogged down with red tape and waste. This notion only contradicts or opposes a more responsive, effective, and efficient agency.

* Task Obfuscation. Making America a safer place to live by reducing the threat of terrorist attacks is no easy task. However, the challenges of the merger only make an already difficult task even harder to tackle. Unfortunately, it appears that the federal government is making Americans feel safe, a much easier task than really improving the quality of internal security. This feeling of security is accomplished usual budgetary strategy of increasing funding for security (which was included in the budgets for 2003 and 2004). It is important to note that, contrary to popular belief, more funding does not necessarily mean more resources, or even more money being spent in the field. Some agencies (including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Coast Guard, and the Secret Service) will simply add more responsibilities with little or no money. Furthermore, the mere creation of a larger bureaucracy almost certainly guarantees greater levels of overhead and administrative costs

* Symbolic versus Real Performance Results. Establishing the agency itself creates a false sense of safety. There is a perception that something is being done and that America is more secure. The federal government also has done a wonderful job making people feel safe with the physical presence of providing security through such things as increased airport security equipment, new airline regulations, and sending troops abroad. However, are these initiatives really making America safer? It is not clear whether the federal government is focused more on creating a bureaucracy instead of making decisions to actually secure America. It appears that this may be the case, although the only way to gauge this is to gauge the performance of agencies to ensure they are making America a safer place to live. However, comparable performance data will not be available for years to come.

The threat to our homeland is altogether new. Therefore, it requires new approaches or a new way of thinking to deal with these complex problems, not using old ways to deal with the issues. By creating a traditional bureaucracy through a massive reorganization, we are proposing an old solution to a new problem. Unfortunately, with bureaucracy we only create more layers of inefficiency and bureaucratic red tape, instead of streamlining the processes and focusing resources directly on the mission. Specifically, homeland security requires an organization that is collaborative, quick acting, and efficient. These are not qualities inherent in federal bureaucracies. Does a current federal bureaucracy exist with these three qualities? Therefore, it is important that, to use a cliche, we think outside the box to address the challenges that confront us. We should be at least having the conversation about the question at hand by asking first, what are our homeland security needs? And only then, what kind of organizatio n(s) do we need to have in place, rather than rushing to create an enormous bureaucracy to discover for us what our homeland security response should be?