Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate: Developing Technology to Protect America
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A Report of a Panel of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION For the U. S. Congress and the U. S. Department of Homeland Security Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate: Developing Technology to Protect America 2009 National Academy of Public Administration® THE NATIONAL ACADEMY The National Academy of Public Administration is a non-prof- it, independent organization of top public management and organizational leaders who tackle the nation’s most critical and complex public management challenges. With a network of more than 650 distinguished Fellows and an experienced professional staff, the National Academy is uniquely qualified and trusted across government to provide objective advice and practical solutions based on systematic research and expert analysis. Established in 1967 and chartered by Congress in 1984, the National Academy continues to make a positive im- pact by helping federal, state and local governments respond effectively to current circumstances and changing conditions. Learn more about the National Academy and its work at www.NAPAwash.org A Report by a Panel of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION For the U.S. Congress and the Department of Homeland Security June 2009 Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate: Developing Technology to Protect America Panel Cindy L. Williams, Chair* Barry Bozeman* Louise K. Comfort* David F. Garrison* Sally T. Hillsman* Caroline Purdy * Academy Fellow Officers of the Academy J. Christopher Mihm, Chair of the Board Michael C. Rogers, Vice Chair Jennifer L. Dorn, President and Chief Executive Officer Diane M. Disney, Secretary John J. Callahan, Treasurer Project Staff Lena E. Trudeau, Vice President Rick Cinquegrana, Program Area Director Laurie Ekstrand, Project Director Ruth Ann Heck, Senior Advisor Zlatko B. Kovach, Former Senior Advisor Maria Rapuano, Senior Advisor Jonathan Tucker, Senior Research Analyst Caroline Epley, Research Associate Anna V. Tkachenko, Former Research Associate Martha S. Ditmeyer, Senior Administrative Specialist The views expressed in this report are those of the Panel. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Academy as an institution. National Academy of Public Administration 900 7th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001-3888 www.napawash.org First published June 2009 ISBN 1-57744-180-X Academy Project Number: 2129 * Academy Fellow ii FOREWORD Homeland security may well be the signature national issue for the United States during the first decade of the 21st century. The tragic events of 9/11 and the dramatic consequences of hurricane Katrina focused attention on the need to prevent harm and ensure effective responses when harm does occur. The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) of the Department of Homeland Security plays a crucial role in the effort to keep America safe by leading the development of technologies and tools that federal, state, and local first responders and others need to prevent and respond to human and natural disasters. S&T’s mandate also requires the Directorate to coordinate across the many federal agencies involved in homeland security-related research to ensure they are directing their efforts to achieve the best possible outcomes. Recognizing the significance of S&T’s mission to the safety of the nation, Congress asked the National Academy to conduct a comprehensive review of S&T’s structure, processes, and the execution of its cross-government leadership role. The independent Study Panel has recommended changes that would substantially improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of S&T. These include developing and implementing an internal S&T strategic plan and performance measures that would help maintain a focus on results. Other recommendations call for developing processes and procedures to increase transparency and communication within S&T, across government, and with the first responders. The Panel also recommends that S&T take additional steps to fulfill its leadership role and develop a homeland security-related research plan for the entire federal government. As part of this Study, the National Academy also was asked to assess whether a shift in priorities to homeland security-related research may have displaced funds for other important research areas or resulted in unnecessary duplication of effort. In seeking to answer this complex question, the Study Panel sought input from scientists and administrators in a range of federal agencies engaged in homeland security-related research, scientists from outside government, science policy experts, and members of the first responder community. We did not find evidence that increases in homeland security-related research funding have resulted in reduced funding for other important research areas or in unnecessary duplication of effort. The Academy thanks the members of the Panel for their excellent work, and to the project team for their research and other contributions. We also thank the management and staff of S&T, and the many individuals from other federal agencies and non-government experts who generously contributed their time, expertise and perspectives to this important effort. Their assistance has helped produce a report with findings and recommendations that will make a real difference in S&T’s future management of the nation’s homeland security-related research program. Jennifer L. Dorn President and Chief Executive iii The Page Left Intentionally Blank. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... ix LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................... xv CHAPTER I: STUDY MANDATE, METHODOLOGY, AND CONTENT OF THIS REPORT................................................................................................................. 1 The Mandate and Focus for the Review ................................................................................... 1 Study Methodology................................................................................................................... 2 Contents of this Report ............................................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER II: S&T EARLY HISTORY................................................................................... 5 S&T Start Up ............................................................................................................................ 5 Early Accomplishments and Criticism ..................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER III: S&T ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ................................................... 9 S&T’s Basic Structure .............................................................................................................. 9 Structural Complexity and Communications Issues............................................................... 11 Matrixed Structure Results In Many Direct Reports and Numerous Small Offices............... 12 Overlapping Responsibilities in Relation to First Responders ............................................... 14 Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 14 Recommendations................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER IV: MISSION AND STRATEGIC PLAN........................................................... 17 Mission Statement................................................................................................................... 17 Strategic Plan .......................................................................................................................... 17 Congressional Reaction to the Strategic Plan ................................................................... 18 S&T’s Strategic Plan Compared to Federal Guidelines ................................................... 18 Other R&D Agencies Have Strategic Plans That Adhere to Many Federal Guidelines... 21 Homeland Security-Related Research Strategic Plan Still Needed .................................. 21 Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 22 Recommendations................................................................................................................... 22 v CHAPTER V: TRANSITION PORTFOLIO ......................................................................... 23 Identifying and Prioritizing Customer Needs ......................................................................... 23 S&T Customers................................................................................................................. 23 Integrated Product Team Process and Structure ............................................................... 25 Findings............................................................................................................................. 30 Transition Portfolio Issues ...................................................................................................... 33 Conclusions............................................................................................................................