The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will not
reduce the crucial role of state and local government in providing
homeland security. Local agencies are most likely to respond first
in a crisis. However, with the recent focus on federal efforts for
the new DHS, many of the needs of state and local communities have
been neglected. More can and must be done to ensure that their
homeland security needs are met. Specifically, communities need a
streamlined funding process, increased information sharing, and
improved communication with DHS in order to protect Americans from
the threat of terrorism.
Cities and counties are at the forefront
of national homeland security efforts. For example, the
approximately 17,000 state and local police departments may be the
first to identify evidence of a possible terrorist threat. State
and local health care communities will likely be the first to
recognize the symptoms of a chemical or biological attack. Local
fire, Emergency Medical Service (EMS), and police departments will
nearly always arrive first at the scene of a terrorist attack. The
September 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon demonstrated this
clearly: The local Arlington County fire department managed the
response through the early days.
Progress
Made
All the states have improved their preparedness since
then, but action plans and preparedness levels vary greatly. There
can be no cookie-cutter solution to their needs; however, as nearly
every county across America may face similar homeland security
concerns and needs, it will be important to coordinate and ensure
interoperability among the states and with the federal
government.
Many
states and cities have already undertaken bold initiatives to
improve public safety and preparedness. Governors and mayors, as
well as law enforcement officials and emergency workers, have
embarked on partnerships with the private sector and other
metro-area communities to conduct training exercises and
vulnerability assessments, and to coordinate procurement. Several
communities have created health surveillance networks to increase
communication among hospitals and emergency workers on symptoms or
indications of a chemical or biological attack. Every state has
appointed a homeland security director, and this has helped to
begin developing a much-needed chain of command and coordination
for preparedness issues. Finally, many states and communities have
modified and adjusted their alert and warning systems to
communicate more closely with the federal government's Homeland
Security Advisory System. Out-standing examples such as these can
contribute to development of a set of "best practices" that can be
adopted by other communities.
Progress
Remaining
Perhaps most notable among unmet needs is funding, as
unplanned spending for homeland security resulting from 9/11
exacerbated budget shortfalls. Many communities estimate their
budget gaps at $8 million to $12 million. The federal government
has a responsibility to assist states and cities in providing for
homeland security. They, in turn, must also make homeland security
a budget priority.
Communication between local, state, and
federal authorities, as well as the private sector, is vital. The
DHS will include an Office for State and Local Government
Coordination in the Office of the Secretary to coordinate DHS
policy related to state and local programs, assess state and local
resources, and manage communication between DHS and these agencies.
The Department's authorizing bill, however, provides no guidance on
how the Office should conduct these responsibilities. Merely
establishing an office in Washington that is required to answer
calls from state and local officials would be insufficient. To be
fully effective, the office must have a presence outside of
Washington, where it can closely interact with governors and
mayors.
To
ensure that state and local homeland security needs are met, DHS
Secretary Tom Ridge should:
- Create a
streamlined grant process for all homeland security efforts at
DHS
Homeland security grants should be tied to standards and "best
practice" models and take into account an accurate assessment of
threat, risk, and vulnerability. This would allow communities to
address their security needs based on performance standards, not
government standards. Most grant money should be given to states to
distribute among their communities, with some direct funding going
to major cities or metropolitan areas. The Office of Domestic
Preparedness is responsible for providing preparedness grants but
is poorly situated at DHS to fill this role. It must be moved out
of the Border and Transportation Security Directorate and into the
Office of State and Local Government Coordination, which will have
a firmer understanding of the states' needs.
- Increase information
sharing
Designated state and local law enforcement officials
should be cleared to receive classified intelligence information
about terrorist threats. An intelligence fusion center should be
created in the DHS to ensure timely and accurate dissemination of
information on potential terrorist activity.
- Create regional
political liaison offices
DHS will inherit a variety of field offices from many of
the 22 federal agencies it is absorbing. Their functions would be
bolstered by the appointment of a highly visible political
appointee who would represent the DHS Secretary in a given
geographic region and report to him through the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination. This person should be the primary
contact for officials in the region seeking advice or voicing
concerns. Similarly, regional liaison officers should be the
primary link for transmitting federal objectives and priorities to
states and localities.
- Establish operations
centers
from which the federal response to a local incident would be
communicated in coordinated, interagency manner by the regional
liaison officer. The regional offices should focus on managing
DHS's relationship with state and local governments and on
providing them the resources they need. They should not have
operational authority over the existing regional federal offices,
which fulfill specific federal missions and should continue to
answer to the appropriate Undersecretary.
Conclusion
Success in securing the homeland cannot be ensured by
federal agencies in Washington alone. Secretary Ridge must forge a
close partnership with state and local governments. Among his
priorities should be to improve the DHS's grant program, ensure
that local officials have access to crucial information, and
establish a regional political presence to make certain the lines
of communication are always open.
Michael Scardaville is Policy Analyst for
Homeland Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute
for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.