The world faces varied security threats that affect the operations of various sectors of the economy. These threats range from terrorist attacks to cybercrimes. To curb these threats, different countries have created independent units to deal with the threats. In the United States, the department of homeland security (DHS) has the mandate to ensure that America is safe from certain threats. The department has laid down interventions to ensure the achievement of their objectives. However, these interventions when applied singularly are always ineffective. When the interventions are integrated, they assist in the achievement of goals of the department. The integration of these interventions raises challenges that must also be taken into consideration. This paper is set to analyze the challenges faced when homeland security services are integrated.
The main role of the homeland security department is to safeguard and improve the security of the United States (White, 2011). It is often involved in responding to security threat from both natural and man-made sources. Additionally, the department monitors the activities of terror groups as well as protecting Americans from cyber crimes. The federal governments always fund most of its operations. Despite the good work done by the department, there are several criticisms that have been directed to the department (Essex, 2013). One of the most common criticisms is its lack of transparency in matters of finance. Several scandals have been investigated in an attempt to unravel the rot within the department. When audits are done, the results clearly show wastages and overflows that deeply affect the operations of the department. This has led to people calling for the disbandment of the Department. Several individuals view it as a waste of public funds. For effective operations, the department needs to adopt a culture of transparency and accountability.
Apart from the accountability as well as transparency issues affecting the department, there are other challenges that the department faces when its services are integrated. When interventions are integrated, their effectiveness, as well as efficiency, improves. These can be seen when the integrated intervention meets their objectives. Integration enables certain interventions regarded as weak to drag themselves up the ladder (Essex, 2013). Integrated services can also reduce the expenditure on the individual interventions due to integrated control of finances. For any integrated departments, there are certain markers, which show that the integrated services are smoothly and seamlessly coordinated within the integrated framework. These markers include coordinated security operations, financial accountability, as well as transparency.
Integration of services also presents certain challenges to the operations of the department. When honestly evaluated, these systems provide greater risks compared to singular interventions. The large size of the integrated interventions poses great challenges to the heads of the departments (White, 2011). To contain risks in such big organizations or interventions is not an easy task. Integration may lead to the dissolution or ineffectiveness of certain interventions. Before integration, research must be done to determine interventions that can be easily integrated without affecting their operations. In some cases, one of the integrated services often ‘eats up’ the others leading to ineffectiveness as well as the subsequent death of the intervention. Therefore, it is essential to only integrate almost similar interventions.
Many critics have contended that integration of these interventions only ends in the integration of their problems. This makes other interventions to acquire problems that they did not have initially (Larivé, 2014). They believe integration breeds many combined problems that can be very difficult to solve. For instance, the financial performance of some intervention always spiral down the ladder immediately they are integrated into one system. Accountability as well as transparency also reduces when integration occurs. Due to the huge budgets and several sub-managers operating under one project, embezzlement of funds is likely to occur. It is essential to continuously audit these integrated interventions.
Instituting a risk management plan for integrated institutions is a difficult task. They need a comprehensive plan to enable then to tackle risks as they are recognized. To prepare this, departmental leaders within the integrated interventions need to start by identifying the risks within the individual departments (Larivé, 2014). Several strategies must also be in place if the risk management plan is to be feasible. Additionally, the leadership of the homeland security department needs to deal with increased workload at the initial stage. As the interventions get used to each other, the workload reduces significantly. Reduced bureaucracy within the organization should accompany a reduction in workload. This is never the case in the integration of interventions. These bureaucratic procedures affect the motivation levels of various departments that were at one point independent. Bureaucracy also affects auditing procedures leading to mismanagement of funds. This has the potential of hiding various flaws of the integrated interventions.
In summary, integration of departments is a positive idea that needs to be implemented. When security interventions are integrated, they become effective in their operations. However, the few flaws that hinder the implementation of integration need to be worked on. These flaws must be identified for correction purposes. The various challenges facing homeland security department need to be addressed for a proper functioning of the security operations. Therefore, it is essential for the various interventions under the homeland security department to be integrated.
References
Essex, J. (2013). Development, Security, and Aid: Geopolitics and Geoeconomics at the US Agency for International Development (Vol. 16). Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Larivé, M. H. (2014). Debating European Security and Defense Policy: Understanding the Complexity. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
White, J. (2011). Terrorism and homeland security. Boston: Cengage Learning.
