Department of Homeland Security: Start-Up Challenges and Integration
This paper analyzes the formative challenges confronting the newly established Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the months following its activation in January 2003. It examines practical start-up difficulties such as establishing a headquarters, integrating 22 disparate federal agencies, and filling senior leadership vacancies. The paper also explores the department's intelligence role in relation to the newly created Terrorist Threat Integration Center, its science and technology mandate, the complexities of congressional oversight across dozens of committees, and the unresolved role of the Department of Defense in homeland security missions. The paper concludes by assessing the added value DHS was expected to provide and the civil liberties concerns accompanying the centralization of government power.
- Launch and Start-Up Obstacles: Physical, communications, and staffing challenges at launch
- Integrating Agencies and Defining Functions: Merging 22 agencies with competing roles and autonomy
- Intelligence Sharing and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center: Creation of TTIC and its intelligence coordination role
- Science, Technology, and Research Priorities: R&D funding and the Science and Technology Directorate
- Congressional Oversight and Committee Structure: Congressional committee reorganization and jurisdictional complexity
- The Role of the Department of Defense: DOD's ambiguous homeland security support mission
- Added Value and Civil Liberties Concerns: DHS expected benefits versus centralization risks
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper organizes a wide range of institutional challenges into clearly distinct thematic sections, allowing readers to follow multiple simultaneous policy debates without losing track of the central argument.
- Concrete details — such as the statistic that only 3 of 23 top managers had been Senate-confirmed by March 2003 — ground abstract organizational concerns in verifiable facts, lending credibility to the analysis.
- The paper consistently pairs a problem statement with a specific illustrative example (e.g., EPIC as a counterpart model for the proposed terrorist database), which makes abstract policy proposals tangible.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates systematic issue framing: each section poses an explicit policy question and then unpacks the competing pressures, gaps, and uncertainties surrounding it. This question-driven structure is effective for analytical policy writing because it signals to the reader exactly what is at stake before the evidence is introduced, rather than burying the central concern inside descriptive paragraphs.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with immediate operational difficulties (location, communications, staffing), then moves outward to larger structural questions about agency integration and function, intelligence architecture, science and technology policy, and legislative oversight. It then addresses the military's ambiguous role before closing with a normative assessment of DHS's expected value and the risks of centralization. This funnel-out structure — from urgent practical to broad strategic — is well suited to policy analysis papers at the undergraduate level.
Launch and Start-Up Obstacles
The Department of Homeland Security is clearly a start-up organization. The department formally began operating on January 24, 2003, and by March 1 had absorbed representatives from most of its component parts. The formal process of transferring agencies was expected to be completed by September 30, 2003, but analysts suggested that full integration would take at least several years.
As a practical matter, the new department was preoccupied with day-to-day start-up issues: finding a physical location, improving communications capabilities, and managing personnel. Finding a location for the agency was paramount. DHS headquarters was at a temporary location, with the majority of additional personnel scattered elsewhere. Practical staff questions about new office locations and supervisory assignments remained largely unanswered.
Questions also abounded about how the new organizational components would communicate with each other. Linking phone systems and databases — most of the 22 agencies had their own internal computer systems, communications infrastructure, and email platforms — remained a pressing challenge of the first magnitude.
Human resources issues were equally acute, including hiring, firing, retirement processing, payroll, and assignment to new tasks. Enormous pressure existed to fill positions. Yet as of early March 2003, most of the senior and critical jobs in DHS were still vacant. Only 3 of the department's top 23 managers had been confirmed by the Senate, and nominees for most of those positions had not yet been decided.
References
Gaines, L. K. (2012). Homeland Security (12th ed.). Pearson Education.
Williams, M. C. (2005). No Greater Threat: After September 11th and the Rise of the National Security State.
Homeland Security. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm
Atoro. (2009). The Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative. Retrieved from
Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2009). Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) Role in Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Cybersecurity: Control System Control Program. Retrieved from
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.