Marc Pearl is president and CEO of the Homeland Security & Defense Business Council.
With the Department of Homeland Security's funding expiring at midnight on February 27th, the House and Senate continue to assess different legislative strategies for moving forward. Some of the possibilities include a shutdown, a "clean" funding bill, a continuing resolution that provides temporary funding, or funding tied to the outcome of judicial action over the legality of Obama's immigration actions.
While some of these options are clearly more damaging than others, no option provides a fix to the cumulative harm that DHS has suffered as a result of years of an unstable budget environment. When politicians and experts debate the potential consequences of a shutdown or temporary funding lapse, they are missing the big picture. The impact goes much deeper than simply furloughs and whether "essential" employees and contractors are expected to show up for work without pay. It is the continuing cycle of funding uncertainty (in terms of not knowing when funding will be approved, how much funding will be received, or for how long the funding will last) that is incredibly detrimental to DHS and our country.
A stable, predictable budget environment is critical to DHS' ability to achieve its mission, particularly because it is such a large and complex agency, with vast responsibilities that include counter-terrorism, maritime security, border security, aviation and transportation security, cybersecurity, physical security for the President, disaster response, and numerous other operations. Each of these mission areas requires long term planning, as well as substantial and timely investments in specialized technologies, products, and services.
The execution of DHS operations results from a continuous cycle of planning, programming, and budgeting activities. When you do not know your budget, you cannot plan for the future, start new programs, or hire and train staff. Budget uncertainties make strategic planning, long term investment planning, and acquisition planning extremely difficult. Industry relies on these activities to determine how to invest its resources and R&D dollars so that it can develop the specialized capabilities that DHS needs. Delays in the acquisition process create inefficient business practices, waste taxpayer money, and prevent DHS from effectively procuring and delivering critical supplies and services to employees in the field.
Funding gaps and uncertainties also have a detrimental impact on the day-to-day management of DHS and the ability of the agency to meet programming and planning deadlines, all of which increases the amount of time and resources spent on bureaucratic haggling and paperwork. When an agency is forced to use its limited resources to react to the crisis of the day, it cannot proactively plan for the crisis that may be around the corner. For an agency like DHS, which must constantly adapt to new threats and risks, this is unacceptable.
Perhaps one of the biggest and least discussed consequences of the budget dysfunction is the high level of employee dissatisfaction, and the turnover that comes at the senior level from the bureaucratic frustrations and the feeling that they cannot effectuate meaningful change. The resulting lack of leadership results in agency instability and lack of direction for programs and lower level employees, which ultimately leads to low morale, problems which have long plagued the department.
Significant change at the agency is not going to occur overnight. It will take a few cycles of predictable and timely funding to start the process for change. But at the very least, it is time for Congress to end the continuous cycle of budget instability and start providing DHS with the basic tools necessary for mission success.
