Given that we’ve seen spikes in terrorist attacks at times of political transition, such as the terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005, the presidential transition carries with it an added challenge for DHS. It must manage the institutional flux that occurs with any change in the presidency while also maintaining, if not bolstering, the ability to defeat, deter, defend against, or respond to a terrorist attack seeking to exploit such a symbolic window of time.

The policy community has embarked on a number of ongoing transition studies that aim to inform the next team’s policy slate as it takes over DHS. I participate in two of them, and there are at least two others I’m aware of. For the most part, these efforts do not address the management challenge of keeping DHS running during this key timeframe. This is where the NAPA study comes in.

The report suggests that, while the ratio of political appointees to career leaders is typical at DHS given the rest of the Executive branch, DHS should shift more executives to field operations and convert deputy slots to career positions. This process is well underway, but we are seeing cases where political appointees are getting the deputy jobs as career positions.

In all, NAPA offers a transition plan in 22 steps. Among them are the following:

June through the Democratic and Republican conventions:
• Appoint a full-time transition director.
• Develop a comprehensive transition plan.
• Enhance current transition initiatives and a transition training plan.
• Fill vacant senior executive service positions quickly.

Between the conventions and the election, DHS should:
• Ask the presidential candidates to name a potential Homeland Security transition team.
• Expedite security clearances for all transition team officials.

Between election day and inauguration the president-elect should designate, and Congress should vet, a new DHS secretary to be sworn in on Inauguration Day

After the election:
• Other key political appointees should be approved no later than December.
• DHS should offer training for likely presidential appointees.
• DHS should continue joint training exercises with career and non-career executives.

As with nearly all such reports, the NAPA panel calls for Congress to consolidate its oversight of DHS. However, the focus it gives to the less exciting, but equally vital, management imperatives makes this study unique. I have no doubt the current DHS leadership is committed to carrying out the NAPA report’s recommendations. But let’s hope that all the concern over security vulnerabilities during the transition proves to be unnecessary.

Haave served as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Counterintelligence and Security and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Security and Information Operations. In those positions, she led the development of the Iraq National ID Card program. Additionally, she led a cross-DOD team to develop policies, process, and procedures for sharing counterterrorism information with coalition partners.

Prior to joining DOD in 2001, Haave spent more than 15 years as a consultant to Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. There she focused on transitioning technology into the military and commercial markets, and was a team leader for the House Appropriations Committee Surveys and Investigations Staff.

She received a direct commission as a military police officer in the Army and was one of the first female Army officers to attend airborne school.

Two recent publications entered into the record by Chairwoman Jackson-Lee were “Challenges of Applying Risk Management to Terrorism Security Policy,” and the April 2008 report by GAO, entitled “Highlights of a Forum: Strengthening the Use of Risk Management Principles in Homeland Security.”

Robert Jamison, DHS Undersecretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate, which oversees the Department’s Office of Risk Management and Analysis (RMA), described the vision thing as follows:

Establish and institutionalize an integrated risk management framework. This framework will consist of the doctrine, principles, processes, guidance, and information flows that will enable risk-informed and cost-effective decision making within components and at the DHS headquarters level. A properly executed risk management framework effectively serves as a force multiplier, as it enables better alignment of security priorities and resources to needs.

Conduct strategic, integrated risk analysis. We must be informed, at the strategic level, by an integrated departmental risk assessment. The integrated risk assessment should leverage the various risk analyses being conducted within and outside the Department.

The RMA, which was established under Section 872 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, manages the Risk Steering Committee that U/S Jamison chairs and that is the principle vehicle for knitting together the component agencies’ efforts to define, manage, and reduce risk in their respective domains.

The RMA also is charged with developing a standard risk lexicon, which I presume has to do with unifying the cacophony of terms used to describe the vagaries of risk across the Department. No easy task. As part of this effort to rationalize the risk paradigm that DHS runs, RMA is developing the Risk Assessment Process for Informed Decision-Making, or “RAPID.” (Hey, they got SAFETY Act and PATRIOT Act to serve as acronyms.) Furthermore, RMA is in the process of developing a strategic regional risk assessment process/tool and a risk communications strategy. Perhaps the latter will evolve the color-coded medium currently in use.

UPDATE: Thanks to reader RK for his email correcting this post. It had previously cited the creation of RMA under a section of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, but implied that RMA was formed around the time of the Act. Rather, the Secretary used a section of the Act to create the Office of Risk Management and Analysis in 2007.

The Secretary of Homeland Security tasked the Homeland Security Advisory Council with establishing an Essential Technologies Task Force (ETTF) to address the following questions:

• What are the legal, financial and operational issues that must be understood to assess whether and to what extent DHS should acquire various types of technology on a service or lease basis, rather than as a purchase/capital investment?

• What types of technology might be considered as candidates for different approaches?

• What types of financial arrangements would the private sector likely be prepared to accept, and how should DHS assess the pros and cons of each?

IBM’s Scott Gould and I were among those invited to testify before the Task Force. On the two occasions that I presented to them, my testimony focused on key attributes of successful technology acquisition from other parts of the USG, as well as opportunities for DHS to collaborate with international partners for joint technology development, the models for which reside at the EU, NATO, and elsewhere.

Both Scott and I made the point that without an overarching framework to guide a Department-wide acquisition strategy, little progress is likely. Scott actually recommended using the Global Movement Management framework as a model, which the Task Force chose to include as a specific example in their final report. That report described in detail the following seven top-level recommendations:

1. Build a high performance acquisitions and program management function implemented by capable staff.

2. Adopt a rigorous Department-wide requirements management process.

3. Develop a Department-wide acquisition strategy with a clear implementation plan.

4. Improve engagement with the private sector.

5. Manage innovation though a variety of approaches.

6. Use the regulatory and standards setting role of DHS to generate economies of scale across stakeholder domains.

7. Continue to advocate for the reduction of homeland security Congressional committees.

The Secretary stayed only to delivery praise to the Task Force and swear in three new members to the HSAC. He left before ETTF chairman George Vradenburg delivered his presentation on the Task Force’s findings. This is unfortunate. The ETTF is another example of how the HSAC is becoming a more focused and more useful advisory entity to the DHS leadership. Kudos to Chuck Adams and Amanda Rittenhouse for their tireless efforts over the last several months in leading the Task Force’s staff team.

Before he left, Chertoff charged the HSAC membership with one more task: “What are the ten tasks for the next Administration to take up and accomplish over its first year or two?”

It seemed odd to charge this group with something so trite. However, he explained, rightly, that it is important that efforts be made to preserve the institutional knowledge of the Department into and through its first ever Presidential transition.

I’d like to know what you think should make the top ten list. Comment below.

It is a critical Department function that may someday serve as vital a role as its counterpart at the Defense Department. Like DoD, DHS now creates a strategic assessment of its policies, plans, priorities, and goals for a four-year window. The Pentagon calls it the Quadrennial Defense Review, and DHS is now at work on its first ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. The QDR is an influential document that benefits from senior leadership buy-in, Congressional support, and sweat from across the Defense community. The QHSR is off to a rough start.

The FY08 appropriations act funded the QHSR with only $1,500,000. (An additional $150,000 was assigned to the CFO’s office to support the QHSR.) Nearly all of that funding is being spent on contractor support to help the Office of Policy write the QHSR. The current Senate FY09 bill takes DHS to task for this:

The [Senate] Committee [on Appropriations] is concerned that almost the entire request of $1,500,000 for the QHSR is for contractor support even though many of the functions intended for contractors are inherently governmental. Contracting out the job of long-term planning and goal setting undermines the mission and purpose of this Department. Requiring agencies to work together to develop long-term goals was one of the intended benefits of the creation of the Department. Therefore, funds for contractor support shall only be used for administrative and clerical tasks in support of the QHSR.

The Committee is right to be concerned about outsourcing such a critical initiative as the first QHSR. However, blame can be shared. The Defense Department QDR is funded at nearly 10x the amount given to DHS, and the Pentagon leadership is heavily invested in supporting the QDR drafting process with staff from across the services and the civilian leadership. The DHS Policy Office is being given a pittance to perform this QHSR the right way, but the Policy Office is also not supported by the DHS leadership sufficiently to gain the DHS-wide support necessary to staff it up.

In my meetings with Chertoff this year I’ve asked about the QHSR nearly every time. His response indicates a downplayed priority. It could be because the QHSR will benefit the next Administration more than the current one, but the process needs to be institutionalized and supported for the long-term success of the Department. Let’s hope that over the course of the appropriations negotiations we see an elevated profile – as well as higher funding – for the QHSR initiative.

Immigration: The next administration must make criminal illegal immigrants ICE’s top priority. The draft 2009 appropriations bill supports this, and would provide resources for a current ICE plan to identify such illegal immigrants in federal, state and local prisons and deport them after they have served their sentences. The legislation also devotes attention to the northern border, which Price called “more significant as a potential entry point for terrorists than the southern border.”

Price also calls for comprehensive immigration reform, saying the current administration seemed to be on that track, but “now seems to have turned 180 degrees toward an enforcement-only approach.” Rob Margetta at CQ Homeland Security also notes that it was Congress that failed to pass the reform bill.

Price recommended that if the next Administration makes immigration reform a higher priority and pursues it more effectively, such reform will “strengthen our economy, reaffirm the rule of law, and enhance homeland security, allowing DHS to focus more effectively on that small percentage of illegal immigrants that has the capacity and the intent to commit crimes and do us harm.”

Disaster and Emergency Response: FEMA’s capability to deal with large-scale natural disasters suffered when it was absorbed into DHS, and its relationships with state and local responders were better before Sept. 11, 2001, Price said. Price implied that the agency should be elevated to cabinet status or broken out of DHS in the next administration.

Price also asserted that FEMA shouldn’t be in the business of providing emergency housing in the Gulf Coast, but that the Department of Housing and Urban Development should be. Although the process has been occurring, it has been slow and lacking in direction, he said.

Management: DHS leadership needs to strike a better balance between providing overall policy guidance and leaving departmental components free to do the fine tuning, between nurturing the new homeland security missions of component agencies and maintaining their historic mission capabilities.

Price specifically called out the need to improve the Department’s financial system management, procurement management, and oversight. Price also noted the difficulty in staffing up faced by new agencies at DHS, as well as the heavy dependence on contractors for critical management functions. Price stated that 72 percent of the career executives at DHS left the Department between 2003 and 2007, compared to an average of 46 percent among all other Federal Departments.

72%? Seems hard to believe, but it may be the case given the morale challenges there. This is the management train wreck that could hobble any good idea in the Department.

Technology and Privacy: Price said DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate has made progress in aligning its work better with the needs of component agencies, but added that the department must be cautious of rushing into technology investments without considering privacy implications or real-world effectiveness.

He cited Secure Flight, which was delayed for years, as well as CBP’s SBINet as examples of programs where attention to privacy protections and technology viability was insufficient at the outset.

“New technologies are not something we should naively bank on,” Price said. “Too often they just don’t work as advertised, as we have seen at our southern border, or they may be premature or have costs that exceed their benefits.”

Grants and Risk Analysis: Price noted that most of the Department’s grants are allocated using risk formulas, but that DHS “has struggled both to develop credible formulas with measurable components and to apply the formulas objectively and consistently.” This has prevented Congress from measuring how or whether grant investments are reducing risk.

This leads to a dual challenge, Price explained: spending is high for daunting threats deemed so perilous that we cannot afford not to spend more money; while at other times, funding is inadequately low because it is difficult to know that the funding is having the desired affect.

Price believes that first responder grants fall into the second category, but that robust investments must continue in first responder equipment and training, port security upgrades, and transit security precautions. However, Price is not satisfied that these grants are being made wisely. The fiscal 2008 appropriations bill commissioned the National Academies of Science with assessing DHS’s risk assessment system, and the next secretary should use that data to guide investments, he said. Both the House and the Senate bills for FY09 DHS spending double the president’s request for first responder grants.

The Senate bill also allocates $318.5 million for cyber security, which represents $108 million more than fiscal 2008 and about $25 million more than White House requested.

The Coast Guard would receive $9.2 billion, $145 million more than the president’s request.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would receive $7.4 billion under the Senate Appropriations proposal, about $2.1 billion more than Bush requested.

In addition to increasing funds for first responders, the bill appropriates $11.2 billion, about $381 million more than in fiscal 2008 and $254 million more than the president’s budget request, to Customs and Border Protection. Specific line items include:
• $442.4 million to hire an additional 2,200 Border Patrol agents, bringing the total to 20,019 by the end of fiscal 2009.
• $775 million for border fencing, infrastructure and related technology.
• $403.2 million for construction of Border Patrol facilities and repairs to land border ports of entry.
• $528 million for aerial and marine operations and procurement.

CQ Homeland Security notes that Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she would probably introduce an amendment to the bill requiring DHS verify both the arrival and departure of foreign visitors under the Visa Waiver Program.

The Task Force is led by The Stimson Center’s Libby Turpen, with clear involvement of Ellen Laipson, who was vice-chair at the National Intelligence Council the first time I met her. She was appointed president and CEO at Stimson in 2002. Libby used to be on the Hill before she joined Stimson in 2001 to establish the Security for a New Century congressional study group.

I have the privilege of serving on this taskforce over the next several months. While the proceedings of this Task Force will be private until reporting out to sponsors at DOE and the Lounsbery Foundation, I’ll do my best to keep readers informed of the work. After our first meeting is on the 27th, we’ll be heading out to Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Livermore, California, to visit with the people at Los Alamos National Lab, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia.

The Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) ongoing transformation from a Cold War complex to a modern national security enterprise is faced with the distinct challenge of repurposing to some extent the overall mission and focus of the nuclear labs, namely Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore.

The Task Force’s key objective is to develop a strategy to ensure retention of nuclear weapons related core competencies at the national labs while better leveraging their scientific and technological capabilities to serve a broader set of 21st-century national and homeland security needs. This initiative should create a comprehensive R&D strategy to serve this objective. One can anticipate a likely slate of issues to include cybersecurity, climate change modeling, and possibly energy security issues.

DHS has requested nearly $300 million for its role in the Cyber Security Initiative. Price has said that his panel’s legislation is on pace to be the first spending bill to move through the House. He believes most spending bills will make it through the House before the August recess but then face “formidable” obstacles in the Senate and with the White House. More likely than not, he said, Congress will have to pass an omnibus appropriations bill before a new administration comes into office.

By last Wednesday, Price’s Committee had concluded its mark-up of the DHS appropriations bill. As chairman, Price described the thrust behind his Committee’s treatment of the President’s budget request as corrective.

“The first objective guiding the allocation of funding in the bill was to correct known funding deficiencies and shortfalls, which were substantial,” according to his statement

The Subcommittee mark reverses the President’s proposal to cut funding for first responder and port grant programs by $2 billion, or 49 percent. The mark also plusses up funding for border agents, explosive detection, and the following changes:

• $950 million for State Homeland Security grants, the same as last year, and $750 million above the President’s proposed funding level

• $850 million for Urban Area Security Initiative grants, $30 million above last year and $25 million more than the President requested

• $400 million for Transit Security Grants, the same as last year, and $225 million more than the President’s budget request

• $800 million for Fire Grants, $50 million more than last year, and $500 million more than what the President proposed

• $315 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants, $15 million more than last year, and a $115 million increase above the President’s budget

• $400 million for port security grants, the same as last year, and $190 million above the President’s budget

The President proposed no dedicated funding for other programs of interest to the Committee, which restored funding for the following

• $50 million for the Metropolitan Medical Response System

• $50 million for REAL ID grants

• $50 million for Interoperable Communications Grants

• $35 million for Emergency Operations Centers

• $60 million for Operation Stonegarden

The Subcommittee mark also reduces or funding in some areas. For example, funding for an air exit component of US-VISIT will wait until completion of at least two pilot tests, one involving the Department’s current proposal, which would rely on the airlines to collect biometric data at check-in counters, and a second pilot in which DHS would be responsible for capturing exit biometrics at departure gates.

The bill also withholds $1.4 billion for the Secure Border Initiative, the Deepwater program and the Cyber Security initiative until further planning for these programs is in place.

UPDATE:
Rep. David Price (D - NC), Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, will speak on June 23 at the Center for American Progress about the DHS appropriations bill. At the event, Price is also expected to comment on steps the next administration “should take to restructure and reform” DHS, according to the invitation. Please see details below about the event on the 23rd.

Chairman Price will be introduced by Scott Lilly, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

When: Monday, June 23, 2008, 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM

Cost: Admission is free.

Where: Center for American Progress Action Fund
1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

Map & Directions
Nearest Metro: Blue/Orange Line to McPherson Square or Red Line to Metro Center

RSVP for this Event here.

Brad Buswell, Deputy Under Secretary for S&T at DHS kicked it off with a presentation on how his directorate views the technology landscape, with a focus on not falling victim to the “failure of imagination” the 9/11 Commission blamed as one of the reasons the 9/1 attacks were not disrupted. This notion caused a number of us to ask about the practical limits on such an approach to technology. Specifically, how to insure against spending money on an “anything’s possible” mentality that invests in countermeasures against any threat imaginable? Buswell explained that White House guidance, Department level plans, and input from the customer community (the component agencies at DHS) helps bound the imagination.

Jan Lane stepped in for Frank Cilluffo to moderate Busewell’s presentation and Q&A and I joined the panel as moderator and occasional referee. Frank was able to join toward the latter half and weigh in on the issues.

Our panelists provided a diverse treatment of this challenging topic. Parney Albright, former DHS Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, and now Managing Director & Vice Chairman at Civitas, weighed in on the challenges confronting the innovators on the business side of the equation who seek to take pre-prototype solutions to market and how that shapes the spectrum of technology solutions deployed at the state level.

Christian Beckner, Professional Staff Member on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, explained some of the rough patches still preventing a more accelerated trend in technology as a homeland security advantage, as well as indications of areas of interest from an oversight perspective. (Note that Christian spoke not on behalf of the Committee.)

Greg Nojeim, Director of the Project on Freedom, Security, and Technology at the Center for Democracy and Technology offered insightful warnings about the unintended consequences of technology when it is not developed or deployed with privacy protections at the initial stages. He cited such things as the PATRIOT Act and government wire-tapping outside of FISA.

Langdon Greenhalgh, CEO of Global Emergency Group, provided the needed perspective of the international emergency response community, which depends to an ever increasing degree on technology as an enabler.

I’m working with Jan and Frank to generate an after action report that condenses the highlights of the discussion. Look for it to be available here and possibly on the HSPI website.

Over 70 participants attended representing the following, among other, organizations:

• DHS, NPPD, IP, HITRAC
• DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council
• Homeland Security Institute (DHS S&T)
• DHS S&T
• U.S. Secret Service
• Department of State
• Department of Energy
• The White House
• Immigration and Customs Enforcement
• Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
• Government Accountability Office
• European Union
• IBM
• Bingham Consulting Group
• Northrop Grumman Corporation
• Lockheed Martin
• Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC)
• Trade Security Institute
• Dutko Worldwide
• The Washington Times
• USA Today
• Swedish Institute of International Affairs
• Embassy of El Salvador
• Embassy of Switzerland
• International Association of Fire Chiefs
• Embassy of Australia
• International Development Bank
• Latin America Working Group
• Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS)
• Partnership for Public Service
• Center for Democracy and Technology
• MSCL, LLC International Maritime Consultancy
• Oxford Analytica, Inc.
• American Red Cross
• Institute for Regulatory Science