Prevent, Protect and Respond

The Case for The Department of Homeland Preparedness

In November 2002, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) became a stand-alone Cabinet-level department, consolidating 22 government agencies to accomplish the following core missions:

1. Prevent terrorism and enhance security

2. Secure and manage our borders

3. Enforce and administer our immigration laws

4. Safeguard and secure cyberspace

5. Ensure resilience to disasters[1]

Each of the DHS missions fits into the broader categories of prevention, protection, and response and resilience. Within these broader categories, the DHS budget is allocated as follows:

44% for prevention via policing and intelligence

46% through protection of assets and critical infrastructure

9% responding to and recovering from incidents[3]

Each of these categories has utility in safeguarding the homeland, establishing preparedness, and furthering the core missions of DHS. However, after 11 years, are the proportions of allocation the best suited to accomplishing these missions?

The risk of terrorism, while statistically a small risk, is the raison d’être for DHS. One need look no further than Boston, Fort Hood or Times Square to see that the threat is real, and worthy of prevention, protection of assets and efforts at recovery. What is not known is where terrorism will occur — the list of targets is almost limitless. The case for prevention is strong — eliminate the threat during the plotting phase is the proverbial ounce that is better than the cure. However, as the adage goes, you have to stop them all, and they only have to slip one or two through to achieve their ends.

Protection is another matter. To be sure, there is no amount of protection money can’t buy, but money isn’t limitless — and thus, not everything can be protected. Harden one target, and the clever terrorist will move to a softer one. Beef up security at airports? Hello mass transit! Why attack New York City, with its world class fire and police response capability, when an attack on Cornhusker Stadium in Lincoln, Nebraska will provide ample casualties and just as much terror?

While terrorism can strike anywhere at anytime, natural disasters (the other side of DHS) often have a historical pattern and typical geographical area associated with them, and the threat, while varying in severity, is a known quantity. The when and where is often predicable thanks to data and weather prediction. Hurricanes, wildfires, floods, tornadoes and earthquakes are not be preventable, but due to experience with them, their potential is recognized and it is understood what sorts of protection might be prudent — things like seawalls, shelters and dykes can be constructed in advance, calculated on historical data. However, storms don’t always adhere to the extrapolations of scientists.

Now let’s go back to where the money is being spent:

44% for prevention

46% for protection

9% for response and recovery

Knowing as we do that not every terrorist act (and very few disasters) can be prevented, and knowing that protection will eventually fail, it is a certainty that some terrorist act or natural disaster will strike the US — which will require response and recovery.

Trouble is, we’ve put 90% of our assets into the two items we know will eventually fail, and just 10% into the only thing that we can count on when that inevitable failure comes.

Perhaps this is because America demands perfection from the Homeland Security enterprise, or maybe that the acceptance of eventual failure is difficult to admit. We certainly do it throughout the rest of our daily lives: we know planes sometimes crash, but we don’t stop flying. We don’t place guardrails on every mile of road, knowing full well that if we did, less people would die. We have a term for this, whether we like to use it or not — acceptable losses. Maybe it’s time this concept made its way into the homeland security enterprise, and time DHS concentrates less on preventing or protecting against the inevitable and more on preparing for the inevitable.

Maybe it’s time for a Department of Homeland Preparedness.

[1] “Our Mission,” DHS.gov, http://www.dhs.gov/our-mission

[2] “US Security Spending Since 9/11,” nationalpriorities.org, http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/us-security-spending-since-911/

[3] Meuller, John and Mark.G. Stewart, Terror, Security and Money: Balancing the Risks, Benefits and Costs of homeland Security, Oxford University Press, 2011, 81rd University Press, 2011, 81omeland Security, Oxford University Press, 2011, 81