The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a federal agency established by President Bush in 2002 following the passing of the Homeland Security Act by Congress. DHS was primarily established to protect the US against external threats in response to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre. The agency was tasked to prevent terrorism, manage and secure borders, secure cyberspace, and enforce immigration policies among other crucial security elements. To achieve its goals, DHS was designed with a unique structure that combines 22 different federal agencies for effective delivery of services. The DHS structure focuses on the specialization of work, achievement of a universal chain of command, and centralization of activities to effectively protect the country from external threats. The DHS organizational structure is critically designed to coordinate processes and have detailed responsibilities for each department and agency to achieve a common goal. The paper analyzes the structure of the US Department of Homeland Security.
Formalization of the DHS
DHS has a unique organizational structure created to achieve both vertical and horizontal integration of various management functions. The department utilizes the Integrated Strategy that creates a topmost position of Secretary for Management who is responsible for coordinating the entire management system. Using a matrix management approach, DHS is organized to include several directorates that report to the executive body occupied by the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Chief of Staff, Executive Secretariat, and Military Advisor. Wise (2002) argued that the formation minimizes duplication of roles and ensures specialization of work. Among the key departments include immigration, border protection, health, and inspection general who are under management, science and technology, and national protection among other directorates. The formalization is significant in the achievement of a smooth chain of command within the organization (Wise, 2002).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Carafano & Heyman (2004), the combination of departments and agencies under DHS has been instrumental in strengthening security in the United States. Under the current structure, the departments under directors and administrators work in hand with various agencies based on the Homeland Security Advisory System (Carafano & Heyman, 2004). The coordination is aimed at achieving effectiveness in the dissemination of information to both State and Federal governments. Additionally, DHS incorporates advisory groups such as the National Infrastructure Advisory Council and Task Force on New Americans among other groups. The addition of other organizations aims at enhancing disaster preparedness and response especially to terrorist attacks that demand inter-agency coordination (Caruson & MacManus, 2007). Notably, the formalization of DHS has greatly helped in the rationalization of the decision-making process regarding both internal and external security issues in the United States.
Centralization of the DHS
DHS was specifically established to centralize national security in the United States. According to Brattberg, (2012), DHS is highly centralized and run by top-down directives to achieve a wide range of homeland security roles. The department utilizes a unique approach that ensures centralized decision making is achieved between its several departments and agencies. The department brought together 22 federal agencies which are tasked with diverse roles and responsibilities managing external threats (the United States. Office of Homeland Security, 2002). The highly centralized hierarchy has been key in facilitating a smooth decision-making process and sharing of both internal and external information. DHS uses combined departmentalization by combining different bases of departmentalization. Combined departmentalization helps in optimizing personnel and resources within various departments and agencies in DHS (Carafano & Heyman, 2004). As such, the agency will efficiently achieve its goals with proper consultation and advice.
Similarly, DHS utilizes mechanistic organizational structure due to the nature of their activities. National security functions require a more formal structure characterized by more centralized decision making and supervision. Additionally, the mechanistic structure helps DHS develop more standardized rules and regulation to manage internal and external security threats within the United States (Carafano & Heyman, 2004). For instance, the department has tight control over security procedures and processes including confidential national security files within the country. This is coupled with a high reliance on formal communication across various departments and agencies to achieve common goals. The DHS Secretary of Management utilizes mechanistic structure to delegate powers and responsibilities to different directors under diverse directorates within the agency (the United States. Office of Homeland Security, 2002). Consequently, the agency will be able to push down decision making to lower level departments within the agency.
The Complexity of the DHS
The departments and agencies forming DHS have always been experiencing complex bureaucratic processes in their efforts of working together for national security. Integration of various security systems and policies within the inter-agency has been the most significant challenge. Since its establishment in 2002, DHS has been spending a substantive amount of money in integrating disparate acquisition of different systems and processes from parent agencies and departments that formed DHS (Wise, 2002). Despite demonstrating strong leadership qualities, DHS has however failed to integrate management functions due to the complex nature of its structure. Transformation of the 22 agencies into a single entity resulted into increase in costs, schedule delays, and performance challenges that adversely impacted national security. According to Carafano & Heyman (2004), the bureaucratic process is the leading cause of the complex nature of DHS functions in the United States (Carafano & Heyman, 2004).
Furthermore, DHS has been experiencing huge setbacks in integrating several systems within the agency. Carafano & Heyman (2004) found that the agency has failed to integrate financial management system to enhance budgetary allocation across several departments and agencies. Likewise, the DHS structure made it complex in the deployment of certain technologies and acquisition management of sophisticated systems such as nuclear materials detectors. As such, the agency has been lacking access to reliable information on national security which ultimately results in untimely and uninformed decision making (the United States. Office of Homeland Security, 2002). The complex structure of DHS, however, has little effects on its overall management due to recent efficiencies in managing homeland security in the United States.
Internal and External Aspects of DHS
Department of Homeland Security is one of the biggest and non-monitored police department in the United States. According to experts, DHS has twice the number of forces NYPD has and approximately half of its internal affairs investigators. This is attributed to its huge size made of a wide range of public and private agencies. In their analysis, Caruson & MacManus (2007) claimed that DHS can be roughly compared to interior ministries in many US states (Caruson & MacManus, 2007). This is due to significant personnel and massive missions across states and borders. With employees of approximately 229,000 and a budget of about $40 billion per year, DHS is considered the biggest law enforcement agency in the country. Their size of the budget is equivalent to the combined budget of all federal law enforcement agencies in the United States (Brattberg, 2012). Also, the department has over 55,000 law enforcement officers responsible for carrying out duties without oversight (Brattberg, 2012).
Furthermore, with the current rapidly changing technologies globally, DHS has been at the forefront in implementing and usage of the world’s scientific and sophisticated technologies in combating crime. Based on its massive size, the agency requires technology routines to keep up with changing weapon technology and advancement in international terrorism. Over the past decade, DHS has been receiving proposals for implementation of advanced first responder technologies, unmanned aerial systems, and other communication technologies (Brattberg, 2012)). The measure aims at minimizing communication breakdown within the complex agencies and dynamic environment that DHS operates in. In 2002, the US government formed a committee aimed at integrating science and technology into the core activities of the agency. In their report, the committee recommended the establishment of a technology framework in key DHS departments to strengthen the fight against terrorism (Carafano & Heyman, 2004). The success of the framework led to frequent improvement and technology routines within the agency to keep up with modern technologies.
Notwithstanding, DHS has been operating in a more uncertain environment in the recent past. With a wide and diverse organizational structure, the agency has been operating in a risk-averse environment in integrating all agencies and departments into a single entity. More importantly, the agency has been facing a wide range of internal and external risks that hinder the decision-making process. In one hand, DHS has been experiencing internal risks such as systems unreliability, lack of financial stewardship, and personnel unreliability. On the other hand, several external factors such as natural disasters, political and social trends, terrorism, and pandemics have been making their environment more uncertain (Caruson & MacManus, 2007). However, the use of mechanistic organizational structure has been of great significance in the achievement of excellent decision making in combating internal and external risks. Correspondingly, the unity of command headed by the Secretary of Management has momentously helped in managing the entire DHS structure (Wise, 2002).
Conclusively, the Department of Homeland Security portrays a functional top-down organizational structure. This is due to its well-designed structure that entails the formation of hierarchical management from senior management to junior departments and groups. The C-suite structure has been critical in achieving mutual and effective coordination among several agencies and departments that form DHS. Similarly, the size, formality, and complexity of national security functions made the agency use of the mechanistic organizational structure. This is coupled with combined departmentalization which is crucial in the decision making process and centralization of security processes. The DHS structure has been instrumental in the success of the agency in the United States.
References
Brattberg, E. (2012). Coordinating for contingencies: Taking stock of post ‐ 9/11 homeland security reforms. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management , 20 (2), 77-89.
Carafano, J. J., & Heyman, D. (2004). DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of Homeland Security . Heritage Foundation.
Caruson, K., & MacManus, S. A. (2007). Designing homeland security policy within a regional structure: A needs assessment of local security concerns. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management , 4 (2).
Jenkins, W. O. (2006). Collaboration over adaptation: The case for interoperable communications in homeland security. Public Administration Review , 66 (3), 319-321.
The United States. Office of Homeland Security. (2002). National strategy for homeland security . DIANE Publishing.
Wise, C. R. (2002). Organizing for homeland security. Public Administration Review , 62 (2), 131-144.
