Homeland Security Watch

Comment by William R. Cumming

July 2, 2009 @ 2:52 am

Read this post with great interest! First what happens if someone decides to rename “Homeland Security” into say (1) Non-military Defense of the United States; (2) Civil Security; (3) Civil Defense;
(4) Passive Defense; (5) military operations other than war; or some new combination? Is Homeland Security going to adopt the protocols of Law Enforcement and its culture? Right now over 70,000 FTE in DHS are badged and gunned. Another 45,000 are uniformed in Coast Guard. And Border Partrol (20,000) also uniformed. Oh that’s right both Uniformed and Non Uniformed Secret Service. On and On!
What have we really learned from the last decade and one-half from the cultures that fed into Homeland Security and their approaches to training and education? Well we learned that former military were welcomed into Homeland Security as second careers. Why they are young enough, strong enough, and smart enough to still contribute to the security of the country. Whether the VETS who have been through 1/2 dozen tours in AF-PAK and Iraq will be in shape to continue to serve remains to be seen. Some well be. Some from the EM field or Public Safety that graduated into Homeland Security had very different traditions and training and education. And by the way there is a big difference between training and education. Why not just an intake of 17-18 year olds to a new Homeland Security Academy? You get the point.
Higher education is completely in flux right now. We have gravitated from 7500 non-profit colleges and universities in 1960 and fewer than 1500 profit making ones to less than 3500 non-profits now and almost 10,000 profit making institutions.
My theme would be muli-disciplinary personnel bringing a wide range of backgrounds to Homeland Security for at least another decade then we shall see. Why do people end up in a certain discipline or career? Choice or chance or combination thereof? So far I would argue that the HOMELAND SECURITY paradigm has failed more than succeeded but time will tell.

Comment by Quin

July 2, 2009 @ 6:19 am

There is one problem with all of this. Until Congress and the Executive Branch can settle on the missons, responsibilities and strategic policies of Homeland Security, including those for not only terror and homeland defense, but natural disasters; decide the correct balance between prevention, preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery, and finally create the necessary statutes, regulations and doctrine to employ these decisions, its a shot in the dark. What these schools should be teaching should be lifted directly from the doctrine and national strategy for homeland security, without these in place, any accreditation plan and attempt to create a standard curriculum is imperfect at best and at worst creating and reinforcing the wrong skills and habits.

Comment by William R. Cumming

July 2, 2009 @ 7:15 am

Agree with Quin’s comments. What has been of great interest to me over time is how the existence of a FEMA or DHS has caused other organizations and even individuals to beg off responsibility for their roles or resiliency. The last really tough review of the Executive Branch and its preparedness capability across its breadth and width was done by an exhaustive survey document sent out by the Joint Committee on Defense Production (I know odd Congressional committee to be doing it) and reviewing and publishing the entirety of the Executive Branch responses. What many still don’t understand is that critical technical response roles are played by NRC, DOE, EPA and other organizations for both regulated and non-regulated entities and many of these organizations have had their real capability wither since 9/11. I am beginning to think that a Joint Committee on Homeland Security would be a good idea and instead of pretending that all housed within DHS is Homeland Security some of those missions should be spun off to more appropriate homes. One in particular is the National Flood Insurance Program (42 USC 4001 and following) and their are others. If mitigation and flood plain management are housed in DHS and FEMA as step children for another decade the current financial bailout will look like peanuts when the “Big One” occurs. By the way the Japanese spent $250 billion in US dollars restoring their largest port KOBE after the earthquake in 1995, exactly one year after the Northridge Earthquake in CA. That is the largest expenditure by any country for a single city’s reconstruction. And by the way Critical Infrastructure of governemnt offices, schools, polic, fire, and medical should have been shown on flood maps long ago.

Comment by William R. Cumming

July 2, 2009 @ 7:16 am

The survey I mentioned above was conducted in 1976-1977!

Comment by Philip J. Palin

July 2, 2009 @ 8:04 am

Quin very reasonably writes, and Bill Cumming concurs, that “Until Congress and the Executive Branch can settle on the missons, responsibilities and strategic policies of Homeland Security… its a shot in the dark.”

I disagree and would argue that waiting for Congress and the Executive regarding these matters is akin to waiting for Godot.

Especially as we approach the anniversary of our independence, I am very much of the opinion that if Homeland Security has value as a field-of-endeavor, this value will be best demonstrated by a self-organizing of the disciplines and communities to demonstrate vision, mission, purpose and more.

Our political institutions will follow in the wake of citizen leadership — if meaningfully offered — and will define and refine what is demonstrated. Political institutions can — and have — nurtured independent creativity. But political institutions are especially ill-suited to create ex nihilo.

Comment by Claire B. Rubin

July 2, 2009 @ 8:39 am

What has happened to HSDECA? After much fanfare months ago, the website still does not exist.

Comment by pat longstaff

July 2, 2009 @ 9:52 am

Accreditation is usually a tool for students and employers to assure that they are getting something like The Right Stuff. Since there is no consensus on what that Stuff is, perhaps the accreditation process is premature. Academic procedures and theories have a tendency to harden into granite so you don’t want to go there too soon. I agree with Philip (again!) that a lot of the doctrine needs to emerge from the people who have to live with these risks. Maybe the job of the academic world is to pay close attention to that emergence and teach the people who come to them for degrees how to do the same.

Comment by William R. Cumming

July 2, 2009 @ 4:44 pm

Pat’s comment seems almost too basic to be so very very important. The question I have is who are the people that have to live close to the risks? It seems to me that the real problem is that the Department of Justice has such a lock at the federal level on LAW ENFORCEMENT doctrine and that wonderful seal of approval even if often meaningless of attendance and graduation of STATE and LOCALs from the FBI ACADEMY. Just as we have learned that financial regulation may well be beyond the ken of the Lawyer types at the SEC perhaps the LAW ENFORCEMENT world needs some different paradigm than that solely of the prosecutorial criminal lawyer types. CIVIL law enforcement is also a technicality. The lawyers have been granted a niche and the criminal justice system is one of the great engines of societal controls yet “reforms” like the “Sentencing Guidelines” are opposed by most judges, defense lawyers, and prosecutors. Okay what am I saying. With the addition of over 100 terrorism crimes in the last two decades to the US Criminal Code (Title 18 primarily) perhaps that system is too reactive for full protection of our society. So why does DHS model itself on that system when it is supposed to be more proactive? And do all the organizations within DHS really fit an anti-terrorism and/or counterterrorism model or construct? Not to my way of thinking. DHS has failed to either focus on CIP (critical infrastructure protection including cyber) and domestic intelligence gathering, collection and dessimation even while protecting the legitimate privacy and civil liberties of US citizens and residents. And this dynamic is now to be made an academic construct when most of the leading thinking in Homeland Security is primarily grey literature or funded by the Department of Defense, not independent academia. You know my theme. Does it really make sense for natural disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery to have to be forced into an all hazards mode meaning dealing with the consequences of terrorism. FEMA’s strength are handing money to other federal orgs through mission assignments or funding the STATE and LOCALs through grants. Technical response is NOT a FEMA function. Much less dealing with crime scenes, perps, or ensuring that DOD does not deploy for other than humanitarian purposes thereby complying withtthe posse commitatus prohibition. Hey its great to be on the ground flood of a new academic discipline, exciting novel and breaking new ground is always fun. But has any of this really occurred since 9/11? Tell me what and explain to me how that has occurred and the consequences of that development so I can understand better. Hey in certain situations give me the highly trained bench chemist or micro-biologist rather than what DHS is likely to offer as a PhD in Homeland Security. It may happen but too early for my way of thinking. Does not mean that the building blocks don’t have to start somewhere and maybe that is what has happened. Again just identify for me some of the building blocks? And since a huge PUBLIC HEALTH stove pipe has been built since the anthrax attacks seperate and apart from DHS and Homeland Security tell me whether that is part of the curriculum of Homeland Security?

Comment by William R. Cumming

July 2, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

I should probably have mentioned that I was an early and often enabling agent for the writing and publication of the law text “National Security Law” editors et al Dycus and Raven-Hansen now in its fourth or fifth edition. My interest can be simple in that the rise of the so-called National Security State since WWII seems to present many fundamental challenges to our democracy (republic). At the time National Security as of the mid-80′s was more of an Internation Law subset than anything with treatises rather than texts largely the theme. My encouragement was based on the fact of boredom. Boredom? Yes many small town, middle size town, big town, big city lawyers after 20-25 years of practice are bored to death. So they decide to enter politics. Not all are elected prosecutors which tends to be an up from the ranks sort of calling. Some become Chairmen of Board of Supervisors, or Mayors or whatever. I believed it was necessary that some might having had some knowledge of the National Security STATE while in Law School have understood some of its principles. The first of course is that the Constitution cannot be waived by anyone not even the President. Some will be elected to the Congress–House or Senate! Some might even become federal cabinet secretaries or the President, or Judges. My understanding from my friend Peter Raven-Hansen is that National Security Law 9not necessarily his text since competing versions are out there) is the most popular elective course in the majority of law schools. WOW! Think of that the Law Schools focusing to some minor degree on the National Security STATE. Remember it is not a Major or Minor nor a recognized speciality by the ABA such as Elder Law, Securities Law, Tax Law, Domestic Relations, but who knows. But this is just one building block. Perhaps the Law Schools should let all those in Public Adminsitration, Governent, and History audit that course for free. Maybe even other majors also. Or even everyone since the National Security State impacts US all. The Homeland Security STATE–maybe 100 years down the road it will be the set of which National Security and the Law of War is the subset or vice versa or in some combination or permutation. Again my point is let’s not freeze the curricula yet.

Comment by Philip J. Palin

July 3, 2009 @ 5:30 am

Is homeland security anything more than an arbitrary and superficial repackaging of previously existing agencies? What is “The Right Stuff” of which Pat writes? Bill asks if DHS or homeland security has really broken any new ground since 9/11? Does HS generate any real value? Or is it, instead, a bureaucratic and conceptual distraction that complicates and dilutes the generation of real value?

In my judgment the intellectual foundations for homeland security are exceedingly weak. In terms of theory, research, and practice, the sources of discipline observable today are anemic. DHS and the broader field are not yet more than the sum of its parts.

But… this is always the situation at any beginning.

Almost three years ago I was asked to convene a group of practitioners to talk through the challenges and future of HS. These were sheriffs, deputy chiefs of police, prosecutors, State and big county Emergency Management directors, State and big county public health directors, big city deputy fire chiefs, a few private sector CIP owners. And more. It was a reasonably inclusive list of senior operators.

At the end of two, two-day sessions the group was surprised — and I was too — to reach remarkable consensus that the most important difference between pre-9/11 and post-9/11 was a recognized need to work together across disciplines to prevent and mitigate catastrophic outcomes. The group also noted that post-Katrina had extended this recognized need for collaborative and anticipatory work to threats beyond terrorism.

Out of these discussions, I have come to view homeland security (something considerably beyond DHS) as an emerging field which is:

1. Rooted in, dependent upon, and adds-value to existing professional disciplines.

2. Adds-value through thoughtful and strategic organizing, equipping, training, educating, and exercising for inter-disciplinary collaboration.

3. Is especially concerned with collaboration that advances proactive prevention and mitigation resulting in social, physical, economic, and constitutional resilience.

4. Gives sustained and strategic attention to the identification and engagement of catastrophic risks.

I do not pretend that these four elements are exhaustive. And clearly even these four are not common to how most people immediately conceive of homeland security. But I see in these four elements the potential for value that is worth ongoing investment. Among other more substantial investments, this potential is probably the only reason I have undertaken this blog.

Comment by pat longstaff

July 3, 2009 @ 10:13 am

It’s fascinating that the thread that runs though Phil’s four elements is collaboration. There may be no field of endeavor that requires more understanding of so many, often competing, interests and fields of knowledge than HS. At the moment, a practitioner of HS could come from many disciplines including law, chemistry, and engineering. But a very successful practitioner has at least one thing that many of their peers do not: a deep understanding of collaboration/interdisciplinary work. It is not surprising that Phil’s group understood this. And it would also not be surprising if they admitted that they did not know how to do it.

Having organized several multidisciplinary attempts to tackle the concept of resilience, I can tell you this is the hardest work you will ever do. We are simply not trained to work with people who look at problems through different lenses, be that law enforcement, military, or public health. We simply assume that everyone is born knowing how. And yet, anyone who is tempted to suggest that a point of view from outside their own stovepipe might be interesting is NOT rewarded for that suggestion. They are often seen as dangerous because they are not predictable. And if you are in the business of looking for dangerous people this perception will not be good for your career.

So, training people in some sort of HS doctrine might build yet another lens through which people see the risks and rewards of security policies. If that is to be avoided (and it must be) the cornerstone of a HS professional’s training must be collaboration with and respect for everyone who comes to the table. This means that there are few concrete answers in books and new answers can emerge when people with many lenses work together on a specific problem.

And, Bill, the people who ultimately will be the basis of an emergence of a consensus on HS are not experts in security, or law, or chemistry. They are busy raising their families, growing corn, building things, and keeping the lights on. They know a lot about security and resilience and without them any HS doctrine is not worth the hard-drive space it takes up. Engaging them (not educating them) may be the most important skill of HS professionals. None of our neighbors individually (and none of us) knows all the answers. But it was their collective strength and their collective wisdom that inspired us to give up the security afforded by the then-mightiest army in the world on that 4th of July so many years ago.

Happy Holiday, everyone.

Comment by William R. Cumming

July 3, 2009 @ 11:19 am

Phil and Pat are right on about collaboration and cooperation being key. Can these be taught? Can respect for the knowledge base of other professionals and the commonsense of the common man/woman be brought fully into play in HS? I think so and hope so. That is why I state definitively that this is a major test if not the principal test for our democracy (republic) this century. After all US is the oldest and richest democracy. If we cannot get it right with the assets available who can? It is interesting that the different systems and cultures are being forced in some way to cooperate and collaborate. In this case the non-state actor seems to have with the aid of modern technology penetrated deeper into the interstitial weaknesses of the modern world than any nation with 100 infantry and mechanized divisions. Perhaps the non-state actors real threat is more existential than I realized in the opening rounds of WTC 93, Murrah Bldg-1995, Embassy bombings 98, and WTC 2001.
The Cole I leave out because small bands of determined individuals have often surmounted through surprise larger military formations. Anyhow, a happy and safe fourth to all and hoping that all survive to the fifth for more blogging.

Comment by Christopher Bellavita

July 3, 2009 @ 12:37 pm

There are several scholars in homeland security working on the concept of “collaborative capacity.” The idea — as captured succinctly by Pat — is based on the notion that “We are simply not trained to work with people who look at problems through different lenses, be that law enforcement, military, or public health.” Collaborative capacity refers to the ability to overcome the different lenses problem. A paper that summarizes their research and outlines what can be done to identify and build capacity in homeland security networks can be found at http://www.acquisitionresearch.org/_files/FY2006/NPS-PM-06-026.pdf. (The meat of the argument can be found immediately after page x of the Introduction.)

Pingback by Homeland security this week | Homeland Security Watch

July 6, 2009 @ 5:47 am

[...] if you took an early holiday please take some time to read the post and comments generated last Thursday, July 2 on a possible role for accreditation in homeland security [...]

Comment by Quin

July 6, 2009 @ 8:51 am

After a Red White and Blue weekend fully worthy of Stephen Colbert of fireworks, PBR and the trinity of Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket and Team America :-), maybe the answer lies in separating, for the moment, Preparedness/Prevention/Mitigation, Response and Recovery when it comes to accreditation.

Response may be the most ripe for a serious accreditation process given several factors: First, there is a national consensus on the role of the Federal government to assist supplement the State and Local response, with the caveat that in truly catastrophic event, such as a WMD attack, the Federal government would assume a primary role immediately. Second, response is much more quantifiable than the others. Evacuation is as much logistics (beans, bullets, band aids or planes/trains/automobiles, port-a-johns, cots and MRE’s) and planning, two areas that have extensive carry over from the military and private sectors. Third, the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP’s to borrow the USMC term) of the those executing and planning for the response are fairly mature. The work of EMT’s, police, firefighters, search and rescue crews, emergency managers (as a function of response), and others are already captured and could be consolidated around proven TTP’s and experts.

Prevention/Mitigation/Preparedness, including various grant processes and programs, are not quite as mature, and more likely to fluctuate with policy and other changes. Given that there has yet to be a definitive debate amongst the three as to how they are best carried out, and how to prioritize among them (or if that is even necessary) there is some risk that without maintaining the proper vigilance, courses may become quickly out of date or follow incorrect or superseded material or policies.

Recovery, by far, is the trickiest and most difficult, in my opinion to tackle. First of all, there is no national disaster strategy. In the Post-Katrina Reform Act, Congress placed that responsibility upon FEMA. However, it is my personal opinion that no FEMA organized (please note I chose the word organized not led) national strategy can adequately be prepared without definitive action from DHS and the Whitehouse on what its plans are for the Federal government in organizing recovery efforts (or if they plan on leading recovery). In fact this very idea of leading versus organizing, even if it is implicit, must be doctrinally acknowledged. As part of this process, the many well documented “seams” in the Stafford Act, notably its ability to acknowledge truly catastrophic events among others, would again come to the fore. In addition, the nation needs to address how it will distribute the cost of recovery, but also the other elements of Prevention/Preparedness/Mitigation and Response. Whether this incorporates some sort of national disaster insurance, or further limits (or enforces limits) on development and construction at the state and local level, it needs to be addressed.

Recovery, assuming the role of the Federal government remains to organize and assist (which it should be noted is not necessarily the role it ended up with after Hurricane Katrina whether by necessity or by state and local governments abdicating their responsibilities) lies upon the foundation of literally thousands of state and local codes, regulations, ordinances, statutes, policies and constitutions. If States and local governments truly want to assume the lead role of recovery, they need to be necessarily prepared to do so. This means have the legal authorities, all the items I just mentioned, in place to provide immediate, concise, but fair representation of all their local shareholders, in creating an expeditious and effective recovery. It is not the architects, engineers, construction workers, bankers, private investors or urban planners that stunt our recovery from disasters, it’s our failure to have the proper authorities to create the necessary pathways to recovery after a disaster. With this currently so lacking on a national scale, and with no firm guidance for it to proceed, that is why I personally think creating hard and fast educational tomes is counterproductive until the strategy and doctrine is established in this area. Until then, it should help form that strategy and policy, but it should wade mindfully and carefully into reflecting what its current state is considering how quickly it could change, and how it may not be effective as is.

Comment by pat longstaff

July 6, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

Christopher, Thank you so much for the paper on collaboration. It’s just what I’ve been looking for. Take a look, everybody.

Comment by John Bennett

July 6, 2009 @ 6:14 pm

As to the argument that accreditation for programs in “Homeland Security” will benefit employers, who is looking to hire Bachelors (would it be of Art or of Science?)or Masters of Homeland Security and what would they expect such persons to do? Outside of Academia (including the Think Tanks) I suspect there are few employers looking specifically for,and few jobs specifically for, “Homeland Security” generalists.
If you’re looking to hire a “Facility Security Officer’ (as defined in the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) implementing regulations) you want someone who has experience in the maritime industry and who has had a training course that’s approximately equivalent in hours to one academic course. Such a course will provide the knowledge necessary to keep the employer’s security program running effectively and keep the employer out of trouble with the Coast Guard. A voluntary program exists to get such training courses vetted on behalf of the Maritime Administration, which then “accredits” them. To serve as a Vessel Security Officer under the MTSA regs, you’ll need a certain amount of sea time (from the employer’s perspective), and if your vessel ventures out onto the ocean very far, the Coast Guard, backed by an international convention, will require you to have an equivalent training course, which must have been accredited by the Coast Guard.
Outside my field, organizations engaged in attempting to counter bio-terrorism probably want biologists and other scientists; law enforcement agencies seeking to bulk up their CT capabilities would look for weapons experts and intelligence analysts. Within DHS, most jobs, other than upper level management, call for some sort of specialization, which isn’t “Homeland Security.”
Beyond that, I agree with previous comments that we don’t know how to define it, which argues against standardizing a curriculum for it. We do know that it includes, but is not limited to, working against terrorism. But we haven’t even agreed on what that is–the US Government uses at least three definitions of terrorism that I know of.

Pingback by Homeland security vision, mission, purpose, and accreditation | Homeland Security Watch

July 7, 2009 @ 5:25 am

[...] Last Thursday here at HLSwatch Dr. Matthew J. Blackwood argued, “A standard curriculum and accreditation process for under-graduate and graduate programs focusing on homeland security will assure quality control.” Read his blogpost and related comments here. [...]

Comment by Philip J. Palin

July 7, 2009 @ 8:40 am

Just above the pingback, John Bennett makes a argument regarding the greater demand for specialists instead of generalists. I agree that a homeland security program is most likely to be either an undergraduate generalist degree or a graduate-level professional supplement. I also agree that specialists are more in demand than generalists especially at entry and middle levels. What Mr. Bennett describes is our reality.

But I would hasten to add that demand for a certain kind of generalist is reasonably robust. Creative types with a strong work ethic are recruited by start-ups where too much specialization can be stifling. The most senior leaders in most organizations are those who, one way or another, have escaped the limitations of whatever specialization may have defined their early career.

At the graduate level a homeland security degree — appropriately designed — could be an important transition experience for the specialist who is seeking to advance beyond the boundaries of his or her more narrow competencies.

I have some experience working with military officers who are making the shift from colonel (or a Navy captain) to their first star. It is a tough shift, often from the highest levels of specialization to strategic thinking and institutional leadership. Many of those most successful in making the transition have often participated in graduate programs that have nothing to do with their long-time specializations.

Comment by Ron Melvin

July 8, 2009 @ 7:58 am

I am one of those people who saw the handwriting on the hand and “jumped” on the bandwagon to get a Masters of Arts degree in Homeland Security. Like many others from my generation, we saw the advent of the computer as the wave of the future; that Homeland Security is the new frontier.

Do I feel that getting a specialized degree in this field was the right choice? The jury is still out on that question. Do I feel that my college education has prepared me to enter the field and that my degree plan was adequately designed? Again, the jury is still out.

I have learned several basic things from my formal education in Homeland Security that are still not being addressed. Our security or intelligence failed to protect us from the terrorist attack of 9/11. It wasn’t that we probably didn’t know about it; the information was there, just never shared. Our government operates on a budget; in other words, money.

It takes money to fund training for employees, equipment, and instructors. Lots of money was made available right after 9/11 and it was misspent. It was misspent by people who had no real clue what Homeland Security really entails. There was, at still isn’t, a clear definition of Homeland Security. Everyone interprets the concept differently, usually slanting the concept towards their view to garner a bigger share of the “pot.”

America has always been define as the “Great Melting Pot of the World,” a concept I learned as a child of the 60′s. Homeland Security has become the “Great Melting Pot” of new fund able assets as organizations try to garner the market through an “all-hazards” approach. There are numerous organizations that have certification programs in Homeland Security. The first one that comes to mind is the American Board for Certification in Homeland Security (ABCHS). This program offers a series of tests, for a fee, to give a designation as “CHS” on five different levels. Each level shows competencies, based on a test, in a different area of Homeland Security. Several other certifications are available for a fee. The Certified Disaster Preparedness Specialist (CDP-1) provides a textbook to study for a very comprehensive exam on how to prepare, on several levels, for mitigating and recovering from a disaster. Two outstanding cds filled with resources are also provided.

Another organization is the Anti-Terrorism Accreditation Board (ATAB) that evaluates your documented work history, for a fee, and provides a designation as Certified Anti-Terrorism Specialist (CAS) or Certified Master Anti-Terrorism Specialist (CMAS). Upon completion of one of the two certifications, the student receives a cd filled with numerous resources to use. The goal of this program is that one maintains their certification by providing documented training to others on a yearly basis.

Several other organizations also provide some type of certification in one field or the other of Homeland Security related topics. Organizations such as the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS)provide several avenues for certification. Each of these organizations provide accredited certification in different fields of Homeland Security. So another question is being raised.

Is the reason for designing an accreditation program in academics institutions another way of garnering a fair share of the money? I remembering working for an institution of higher learning where the department head basically told me my purpose as an instructor was to fill seats, providing revenue for the institution to maintain my job. This discussion came after I counseled a law enforcement student and recommend he change his field of study after being arrested for drunk driving and possession of a marijuana cigarette. His dreams of becoming a police officer were probably not going to happen. He left the school and became a lawyer, while I lost my job for truthfully counseling someone on a career path.

So I go back to my original premise. Is the reason we want accreditation for this process driven by desire to get more money? Several organizations have already started on that path. Maybe we should figure out how to fine tune those processes and educate people. Homeland Security is a vast field that has no real definition yet. I agree with education and the need for continuing that education. I’m not ready for the academic community to take control of that process to the point where it takes money, something lacking in this economic environment, to reach that level, especially if someone wants to work in that field.

Comment by Philip J. Palin

July 9, 2009 @ 6:34 am

Ron Melvin has brought our discussion of accreditation to an important coda.

Accreditation serves many purposes. One of its most important purposes is to provide consumers of learning some assurance of minimum quality. In practice “minimum quality” generally means broad acceptance of academic value. In other words, because the program or institution is accredited other programs and schools recognize it as a sort of peer.

Above Mr. Melvin identifies several existing and so-called accrediting bodies. As far as I can determine, none of those identified is recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (http://www.chea.org/default.asp).

Unless the body claiming to be an accreditor is recognized by CHEA, I would approach claims of value with skepticism. CHEA lists recognized accreditors in a pdf document available at: http://www.chea.org/pdf/2009_2010_Directory_of_CHEA_Recognized_Organizations.pdf

The range of recognized accrediting organizations is quite extensive, from the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, mentioned in the original post,to the American Culinary Federation Foundation Inc. (ACFF) Accrediting Commission, the National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA/COA) Council on Accreditation, and many others.

I am not aware of any recognized accreditor that provides a direct consumer service for a fee.

What Mr. Melvin’s experience suggests is the value of “real” accreditation and the public benefit obligation the putative founders of this field have to separate the wheat (no matter how varied) from the chaff.

Comment by Susie Wickman

July 14, 2009 @ 12:11 pm

When you talk about accrediting a homeland security curriculum, I see the emergency management curriculum as well, as they have so much in common. These are both emerging fields. I have no problem with curriculum changing as the field defines itself. AMU has rewritten the curriculum in many classes since I’ve graduated.

Is the creation and accreditation of these programs only a way to expand the competencies of someone already in the field, as a specialist, as one suggested? Let me get on my bandwagon. If the point is to ‘establish a curriculum which offers standard skills for homeland security professionals,’ you have to assume that people will be entering this field from the ground level-no experience, and then expecting this education to get them a job. It’s all very well to have a discussion where a university program should have an accredited Homeland Security/Emergency Management program or whether a person should be a Certified Disaster Preparedness Specialist or whatever. The bottom line is what companies or the government will hire. At this point, in emergency management, and probably in homeland security, they hire experience. Until that gap is bridged, the fields of Homeland Security and Emergency Management will only be homes for the recently retired military, those who have been on active duty, and maybe those who have come in through police and fire. While I’m sure that’s all well and good, it has the result of keeping everyone on the same page, thinking the same way. These are emerging fields. We have new disasters/terrorism issues that need to be addressed. We need new voices, new thoughts, and a variety of thoughts working together. Hiring the same old way keeps us ‘in the box’. Until hiring authorities recognize education, it’s a moot point.