Local Homeland Security Agencies

The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2003 by consolidating agencies as diverse as the U.S. Secret Service to the U.S. Coast Guard, all said 22 federal agencies employing 220,000 people formed the new agency. The first real test of the Department of Homeland Security came just two years later when Hurricane Katrina stuck land. The lead agency for the disaster was the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which, by many accounts, arrived too late with too little. Over two years later and still the citizens of New Orleans are still trying to recover from the disaster. The response efforts to Hurricane Katrina brought to the forefront shortcomings such as lack of emergency communications, poor computer integration (system interoperability) and information sharing. These were all problems experienced during the Hurricane Katrina response but a recent New York Times article points out that these problems continue to permeate not just FEMA by the whole of the Department of Homeland Security.


The DHS disputes these charges and points out the insurmountable challenges of merging so many divergent agencies with dissimilar missions to meet the challenges of protecting the homeland. The realization of the complexities of these tasks is reflected in how the DHS is modifying recommendations in the 9/11 Commission Report. For example, the DHS recently changed its goal from inspecting 100 percent of all shipping containers arriving at U.S. ports to more random screening based on new technology to identify suspicious containers. The original goal had proved unachievable due to cost and time. Shipping containers illustrate one of the tendencies of homeland security to invest in emerging technology whenever faced with an insurmountable challenge. Another example is the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) adding more and more technology to passenger screening yet only recently has additional screening or airport employees and aircrew been brought up. The Airline Pilot’s Association is against additional screening of pilot’s and aircrew flying as passengers citing the extensive background checks that airline aircrews already undergo. The association feels additional screening will add more delays with little increase in overall security. While the pilot’s association is concerned about their members, the issue brings up an important point. Technology being employed by TSA, regardless of the sophistication, is still only at the screening area. Terrorists, in theory, are still able to arrive at the airport BEFORE any technology can be used to detect their presence or the presence of any weapons. Security is already at a disadvantage if a terrorist, or anyone determined to commit violence, arrives at the airport without any prior warning. TSA should not be put into the position of being the first line of defense; they should be part of a continuum of security that begins with law enforcement and the local community. Reliance on high-tech solutions does not always add that human element needed to get advance warning of hostile intent by a formerly unknown operative.

Technology can be effectively used to overcome shortfalls such as insufficient manpower or time, however the reliance on technology has become the default setting for implementing homeland security especially at the local level. DHS grants last year totaled $1.7 billion to local homeland security programs in 2007. However, the majority of these grants are for purchases of technology and not for the more enduring programs such as training.

DHS grants are broken into five programs to be used in a regional approach to strengthening homeland security. Grant funding priorities include reducing risks of improvised explosive devices and radiological, chemical and biological weapons. They emphasize interoperable communications, information sharing and citizen preparedness. HSGP fiscal year 2007 funding totals were:

State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)- $509.3 million

Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP)- $363.8 million

Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)- $746.9 million

Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS)- $32.0 million

Citizen Corps Program (CCP)- $14.6 million

With the exception of the last category, DHS grants are applied to big-ticket items (such as new decontamination equipment, emergency medical response units, or equipment for detecting weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The problem with these grants is that assumes another attack along the lines of 9/11 by an outside organization such as Al Qaida. The technology purchased by these grants is of little use to a small community that may never face an Al Qaida planned attack but could very easily face a disaster created by a disgruntled employee at the local chemical manufacturing plant or food processing plant. The motivations may differ but the results are the same. Local homeland security agencies, along with their communities, need to have the ability to train and improve their interoperability. While technology does offer some opportunities for improvement in this area, it still comes down to people developing and maintaining the networks formed best by training and working together. The DHS grants force communities to create scenarios requiring high-end technology to justify the amount of the grant. In reality, the local homeland security agency would be better served by focusing on the Universal Task List (UTL), which has more irrelevance to many communities rather that trying to prevent the next attack from Al Qaida. This does not mean smaller communities may not be faced with discovering an active terrorist cell in their community, only that there are far more likely situations facing communities that aren’t related to terrorism but would require some of the same skill sets.

Technology, regardless of how advanced, has a limited life cycle, which may be shortened by the arrival of newer technology or by tactics that render the technology obsolete. Smaller communities may have state-of-the-art equipment today but find themselves unable to maintain it over the course of years. The other problem with technology is the need to continually train on the technology. Depending on the technology and its applicability to normal requirements, the equipment may get relegated to being used once a year or less. Immediately following the events of 9/11, Air National Guard bases received high-tech equipment for passive detection of threats to the base. The equipment was procured under emergency funding and sent out to the bases. Much of the technology sat dormant however since there was no funding available to set the equipment up. Similar gaps may occur in local communities that purchase high-tech items only to find out the cost of setting it up or maintaining is goes beyond the scope of the DHS grant.

Training tends to get short-changed in most grants due to the perception of training as a “soft skill”. Unlike equipment or personnel, training is harder to measure and account for in audits. It is difficult to establish a measure of effectiveness for training conducted through a grant. There is no empirical way to know for certain whether or not the training actually occurred or whether the students actually learned anything. Unfortunately, training personnel has a more enduring impact than technology and properly trained personnel build their own strategies flexible enough to deal with ever-changing threats facing the local community. Going into the seventh year since the attack on 9/11 the homeland may have more equipment to detect potential terrorists but it does not appear that local homeland security agencies are anymore capable when it comes to interoperability. Those enamored of technology will point out the numerous software applications out there to help improve interoperability and the latest routers to handling data from multiple agencies. What are missing in all of this are still the basics. The people of these agencies have to feel comfortable with one another and develop the necessary networks THEN the appropriate technology can be applied to streamline the flow of information. Even in the 21st Century, it still starts with a handshake and business card.

Who you gonna call?

Invoking the theme song from “Ghostbusters” seems appropriate this time of year. It wasn’t however nostalgia that cause be to think about this line, it was an op-ed piece written by David Brooks appearing in today’s Enquirer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/opinion/26brooks.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/David%20Brooks&oref=slogin

The ‘out-sourced’ brain covers Mr. Brooks sudden realization that his life is pretty much dictated by the information received through various electronic devices. From his GPS equipped car to his Blackberry, he feels as though he is inextricably linked to some external mind.

We’ve all seen people milling around downtown or in airports, head bent down squinting at their hand-held device feverishly typing away on a keyboard too small for a Hobbit. Who uses a map anymore when with a few key strokes on your laptop or handheld device you can Google your destination and get maps and directions?

I am no stranger to technology myself and in my previous line of work, my Blackberry was seemingly fused to my hands. As soon as someone sent a message, I was able to instantly read it and post a reply.

The ability to immediately access a wide variety of information creates expectancy, some may even say dependence, on it always being available whenever we want it. In the event of a disaster, digital information may not be available and a prudent safety or security professional needs to plan accordingly.

In responding to Katrina, military personnel and first responders quickly discovered cellular service was unavailable. A combination of power outages and damaged cellular towers prevented service from being available. Cellular devices were rendered useless and reliance on other means of retrieving and sending information had to be used.

Almost all communications now relies on digital technology and fiber optics. The broad band capability provided by this technology provides incredible speed for transmitting vast amounts of information. Despite its great capacity and speed, digital technology can only operate so long as power and the infrastructure are available. Technology works only if the necessary power and infrastructure are available. Granted not all services will necessarily be compromised (such as GPS), however imagine the increased workload for the remaining backbones as more and more users switch over to available networks for their information requirements.

The assumption is GPS will always available however depending on the nature of the disaster, for example something that generates an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP), the GPS satellites may be inoperable. Or your GPS device may get damaged during evacuation. You still have to be able to navigate regardless of your circumstances.

Hard copy maps should be a part of your emergency kit. Use the maps to plan out evacuation routes in advance for leaving the area (as they did in California or as some may have to do in Atlanta). Keeping hard copies maps though means keeping them up to date. Having a map or chart that is out of date is as bad as not having one at all. Different emergencies may dictate different evacuation points. Consider if you are evacuating towards an unaffected area or merely one that hasn’t been affected yet. Identify supplies you are going to need during your trip as well as those you will need once you get there. You may not be in a situation to evacuate under most circumstances due to medical issues with yourself or family members. However, things such as damaging storms, fire, or pandemic illness may not leave you with much choice.

A communication plan needs to be in place for your family and loved ones that assumes cellular service won’t be available. You need to know who is okay and who may be hurt or missing. Identify a pre-determined assembly point where everyone gathers in the event of an emergency. Each family member should understand the conditions that would cause you to assemble (loss of cellular phone service due to an emergency or impending storm for example), what they need to bring (if at work or school, they may not have time to gather emergency supplies). Agree on a no later time to have everyone gathered at this point (take into consideration factors such as gridlock, quarantines, accidents, damaged roads, etc). This is not you final evacuation destination, merely a point that everyone knows to go to when circumstances dictate. You will also need to come up with a secondary location in the event the first is unavailable. The point is to be able to communicate with family members despite the lack of cellular phones and other digital technology.

Make sure a family member or close friend outside of your home knows you plan in the event of an emergency. Establish a way of contacting this person once you arrive safely at your evacuation point.

Consider carefully the circumstances that may require you to evacuate from your home. Don’t try to take everything in your house. Focus on food, water, supplies, medical supplies, and emergency equipment that you will need during your trip and once you get to your final destination. You may have to travel for much longer and under more arduous conditions than when going on your vacation. You may have to evacuate by foot, especially if the disaster damages roads or destroys bridges. Don’t rely on emergency workers being there to get you out, during a major crisis they may be stretched to thin to get to you. Plan on the very least to get to a point where they can safely evacuate you.