Due to the ever-increasing security threats that countries face, governments have been forced to establish agencies that are specialized in dealing with certain kinds of threats. The idea is to promote national security to create assurance for safety among the public. In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been operational for about 16 years since its inception in 2002. The DHS is an integration of 22 different federal departments which work together to promote America’s national security. Integration was focused on ensuring that there was a strengthened and unified approach towards the wide range of threats that America faces. While the reasons for the establishment of the DHS are noble, questions arise as pertains to its impact on Americans. Regarding external affairs, there is a need to explore public confidence in how the DHS handles matters entailing business operations and coordination of operations.
Creation of the DHS
One major event which prompted the formal creation of the DHS as a stand-alone institution was the September 11, 2001 attack. After the event, Tom Ridge, the then governor for Pennsylvania, was appointed as the Director of the Office of Homeland Security (Creation of the Department of Homeland Security, 2015). His officer was tasked with overseeing and coordinating a comprehensive national strategy to protect Americans from terrorism as well as respond to any future attacks. Congress passed the Homeland Security Act in November 2002 thereby creating the DHS as a Cabinet-level department. The primary task was to promote coordination and unification of homeland security efforts across the country (Creation of the Department of Homeland Security, 2015). In support, Charters (2007) explained that after the 9/11 attacks, there was a heightened obsession with homeland security. The privatization of war and terrorism through such terror groups such as Al Qaeda meant that a revolution was underway and unless America responded, the country would suffer even more attacks. Thus, the fear and increased intensity to strengthen its borders, in land, air, and sea, pushed for the formation of the DHS. This demonstrates the rationale to include 22 different federal departments.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The DHS has various divisions two of which are under the external affairs category. These are Office of Coordination and Business Operations. The mission of the former division is to provide operations coordination, promote sharing of information, awareness of situations, alongside other functions. The aim is to, for instance, provide timely, accurate and coordinated information in the event of significant and upcoming operations, outreach on potential threats and assessment of intelligence (Office of Operations Coordination, 2018). On the other hand, the Business Operations division deals with administration and workforce management. This particular division is under the United States Coast Guard, which is part of the DHS. It operates under the Shore Infrastructure Logistics Center which focuses, in part, on repair and modification of coast guard equipment and other facilities. The main goal is to enhance execution of Coast Guard missions and operations (Shore Infrastructure Logistics Center, n.d.).
Public Perception of the DHS
Sutherland (2014) explained that the chief role of the DHS is to wage war on terror to protect the country from any external attacks. The implication is that for a country like America, the government must deal with a number of security challenges. For instance, there is a need to screen passengers that that use air travel before boarding airplanes, securing cockpit doors, as well as stationing air marshals on selected flights. Post 9/11, there has been increased pressure for America’s joint security approach to make accurate determinations “… about whether those who seek to visit [the] country have a history of criminal or terrorist involvement and assuring that those who apply for student visas are in fact carrying out their stated academic pursuits” (Sutherland, 2014, p. 289). An understanding of the critical role that the DHS plays demonstrates the likelihood for some security measures to undermine civil liberties for Americans. Sutherland (2014) acknowledge that one of the major challenges that the war on terror brings is not only securing the nation, but also preserving the way of life for Americans.
Robinson, Liu, Stoutenborough and Vedlitz (2012) stated that popular trust is a fundamental element when it comes to the effectiveness of government agencies. In public administration, questions pertaining to government approval are common and have a huge impact when it comes to the quality of services delivered. The DHS has been under review various times. In assessing the perception of the public towards the DHS, Robinson, Liu, Stoutenborough and Vedlitz (2012) considered various hypotheses. The findings demonstrated that there trust in DHS was high among conservatives. Furthermore, the authors also noted that increased attention on security among respondents affected their trust in the DHS. Robinson, Liu, Stoutenborough and Vedlitz (2012) reported that “Reported attention to homeland security is a strong predictor of competence assessments, where increased attention significantly increases expected assessment levels” (p. 722). In the context of the two divisions in question, one would expect that the public’s focus on the DHS’ efficiency determines their trust in the agency. The findings that Robinson, Liu, Stoutenborough and Vedlitz (2012) got implied that one ought to consider how the public’s behavior in terms of the degree to which they are concentrated on terrorism affects how they perceive the DHS based on efficiency.
Adams (2017) explained that the DHS has not been effective in protecting the First Americans who comprise of Native Americans among other indigenous groups. Those who criticize the DHS argue that there is a huge potential for illegal border crossings onto lands where there is limited tribal law enforcement. The argument is that tribes that do not have resources to safeguard international borders are at risk of being invaded and could provide passage for terrorists focused on attacking America (Adams, 2017). An interesting point that Adams (2017) raised was that there was a need for the American government to balance its efficiency through the DHS while also ensuring tribal sovereignty. Indian tribes, who are part of the group making up the first Americans, are considered as domestic dependent states. Therefore, an understanding of how the DHS promotes or rather enables tribal communities to combat terrorism is fundamental towards evaluating whether the public trust in its efficiency or not. Assertively, an emergent theme is that the DHS might be biased in terms of choosing what areas or locations to allocate resources and infrastructure to combat terror threats. There is likely to be a challenge in coordinating operations in the event that there is a security threat on tribal lands, which are part of the larger American society.
The Pew Research Center has been at the forefront conducting surveys to determine what the public think or feel about the DHS. Drake (2013) cited that 66% of Americans felt that the department was effective in is role to safeguard the country. However, it is important to note that the opinion regarding trust in the DHS is divided. Drake (2013) explained that “ The favorable opinion of the agency created after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks extends across partisan lines, although Republicans are about 14 percentage points less enthusiastic about it than Democrats. About six-in-ten (62%) of Republicans, 76% of Democrats and 60% of independents see the department favorably” (para. 3). The statistics demonstrates that there is a divisive approach towards the perceived effectiveness of the DHS. As noted earlier, Robinson, Liu, Stoutenborough and Vedlitz (2012) stated that conservatives have a higher level of trust in the DHS. The implication is that partisan lines play a major role in determining whether a particular group trusts in the work of the DHS or not. In support of the foresaid point, one can notice that Republicans, compared to Democrats, were about 14% less enthusiastic about the efficiency of the DHS in conducting its operations. Drake (2013) stated that in 2010, the DHS was less favorable as only 43% felt that it was doing its job. 53% of the respondents felt that the agency was either fair or poor in its approach to combat terrorism. Yet another important finding was that 60% of Americans felt that the DHS made the country safer while 49% felt that more could be done. However, 46% stated that there was not much the government could to prevent attacks such as that which occurred during the Boston marathon (Drake, 2013).
Figure 1 : Public perception of the DHS
From the figure above, it is clear that the perception of the public in the DHS is divided. There is no consistency in terms of the level of trust placed in the organization’s efforts to combat terrorism. Data given demands attention on various factors which influence public perception of the DHS such as partisanship, the nature and course of attack, among others.
Based on gathered data, it becomes clear that Americans choose certain angles through which they can assess the efficiency of the DHS. For instance, one could expect that those who were directly affected by the 9/11 attacks have a particular focus on terrorism and are likely to be one of the major critics of the DHS. In such a case, there is a high likelihood of such a group of individuals overlooking any positive efforts directed towards combating terrorism and instead focusing on the agency’s flaws. The DHS is made up of 22 federal agencies which means that challenges are inevitable and, in some cases, they mightier undermine its ability to remain effective. Sidel and Levy (2004) explained that the dynamic nature of cases that the DHS deals with exposes it to various risks, one of them being erosion of trust among the public. The authors explained the relationship between the DHS and public health departments to combat bioterrorism. The perceived risks of bioterrorism have led to weakening of the public’s trust in the DHS especially in communities where there are undocumented immigrants who fear detection and deportation (Sidel & Levey, 2004). The authors demonstrate the complicated nature of the task of combating terrorism which demands addressing all and any areas that might be manipulated by terrorists. While some undocumented immigrants might have no ill intentions towards America, such kind of thinking would be taken as being naïve on the part of the DHS. Thus, there is a demand to remain objective even if it is at the cost of erosion of trust among the public.
Conclusion
There are numerous factors to consider when assessing the level of trust the public has on the Department of Homeland Security. Information gathered demonstrates how partisanship and conservatism influence the public’s trust in the agency’s work. There is a need for a more objective and comprehensive approach towards evaluating how effective the DHS is in its job. The limited research on the topic in question also undermined an extensive and comprehensive coverage of the issue.
References
Adams, H. K. (2017). Sovereignty, safety, and security: Tribal governments under the Stafford and Homeland Security Acts. American Indian Law Journal, 1 (1), 128-146. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1142&context=ailj
Charters, D. A. (2007). 9/11: Seven years into history. Journal of Conflict Studies , 27 (2). Retrieved from https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/JCS/article/view/10539/11137
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security. (2015, September 24). Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/creation-department-homeland-security
Drake, B. (2013, February 07). Homeland Security is viewed favorably by Americans ahead of Jeh Johnsons hearing. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/13/senate-committee-considers-new-leader-for-the-favorably-viewed-homeland-security-department/
Office of Operations Coordination. (2018, October 01). Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/office-operations-coordination
Robinson, S. E., Liu, X., Stoutenborough, J. W., & Vedlitz, A. (2012). Explaining Popular Trust in the Department of Homeland Security. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,23 (3), 713-733. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus025
Shore Infrastructure Logistics Center. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Engineering-Logistics-CG-4-/Logistic-Centers/Shore-Infrastructure-Logistics-Center/
Sidel, V. & Levy, B. (2004). Terrorism “preparedness”: Diversion of resources and erosion of trust. Virtual Mentor, 6 (5):242-244. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2004.6.5.oped1-0405.
Sutherland, D. (2014). Homeland security and civil liberties: Preserving America’s way of life. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 19 (1), 290-308.
