Congress and Interagency Coordination
“For many years, we’ve heard that when it comes to interagency collaboration on national security, our system is inefficient, ineffective, and often down-right broken. This kind of disorganization is counterproductive and wasteful. But when the problem involves matters of national security, it is down-right dangerous.”
— Hon. Ike Skelton, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee [1]
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001 our federal government has been reminded that the cooperation of interagency activities is sorely lacking. The solutions to the problems surfaced on 9/11 have focused on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a Director of National Intelligence, and a Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization within the State Department. But the creation of additional entities has done little to improve interagency cooperation especially when much of the government believes that whole-of-government approach, in most cases, is the best approach.
The interagency process lacks a common perspective on the need for and nature of cooperation. Agency leaders balance a daunting set of internal demands: legislation, regulations, budgets, culture and bureaucracy. Upon entering the interagency environment these leaders face additional complications due to differing missions, goals, authorities, responsibilities, and resources. Other than the President himself, there is no effective central authority to compel efforts of the federal departments to cooperate.
Several approaches can be envisaged. Most involve the cross-posting of personnel into other departments and professional education in order to improve understanding among the various governmental players. However, while efforts to achieve a measure of greater interagency cooperation through personnel assignments and education are underway, the results fall short of the need. One of the most ambitious programs is the National Security Professional Development program, inaugurated by Executive Order 13434 of May 17, 2007 intended to “promote the education, training, and experience of current and future professionals in national security positions in executive departments and agencies.” Unfortunately, this program has suffered from lack of resources and the reluctance of departments – beset as they are by other priorities. Despite this program, there remain limited incentives for government employees to serve outside of their respective agencies where they could learn about other organizational systems and processes.
Education is also inadequate although the various schools of the military community have made serious efforts. For instance, although several military staff colleges for mid-career officers and other governmental officials address the need for interagency cooperation and whole-of-government approach to mission accomplishment, these programs are generally uneven, inconsistent and unfocused. The National Defense University has a formal interagency curriculum for national security professionals at the senior level. But many would argue this is too late in an employee’s career to be truly helpful.
At the civilian undergraduate level, most universities do not provide programs focused on interagency education and only a few graduate programs address the issue.
Finally, up until recently no organization existed specifically to promote interagency professionalization and to recognize government employees for their active engagement in interagency professional development activities. Recently the CGSC Foundation’s Arthur D. Simons Center for Interagency Coordination was created to fill this gap, but its programs are new and its resources limited.
The most obvious comprehensive approach to dealing with this perceived problem is Congressional legislation. Many in Washington recall the success of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation in successfully fostering “jointness” among the military services. While a similar objective in the wider environment of the Federal government as a whole is obviously more difficult, surely there is an important role to be played by appropriate legislation.
The most obvious comprehensive approach to dealing with this perceived problem is Congressional legislation. Many in Washington recall the success of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation in successfully fostering “jointness” among the military services. While a similar objective in the wider environment of the Federal government as a whole is obviously more difficult, surely there is an important role to be played by appropriate legislation.
Congressional initiatives lack traction,
Some legislators have taken up the interagency cooperation challenge. In September 2010, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Representative Geoff Davis (R-KY) introduced H.R.6249, legislation based on lessons learned from the Goldwater-Nichols reorganization of the Defense Department twenty-six years ago that mandated better inter-service cooperation. The intent of H.R.6249 was to institutionalize an interagency culture across the federal government. The focus of this effort was the personnel programs used to develop national security professionals. According to Representative Davis, “The greatest impediment to effective national security interagency operations is that many agencies lack personnel who have the skills and experience necessary to execute mission priorities as a multi-agency team in a crisis situation. Improving our interagency capabilities will significantly improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our government when responding to national security threats and natural disasters.” [2]
The Skelton-Davis bill sought to overhaul interagency national security coordination by creating: a new interagency governance structure to develop interagency knowledge, skills and experience among national security professionals, to create incentives for national security professionals to undertake – and their employing agencies to encourage – interagency education, training, and assignments; and, encourage a consortium of colleges and universities to develop and offer consistent and effective interagency education and training opportunities. The legislation proposed to mandate that agencies maintain staff levels to continue day-to-day functions and mission operations while the national security professionals undertake education and training. Unfortunately, H.R.6249 did not become law.
The following year, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Chairman, and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee introduced S.1268 that called for interagency education and personnel rotations “to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the Government by providing for greater interagency experience among national security and homeland security personnel through interagency rotational service by employees, and for other purposes. It also noted that a newly formed Committee on National Security Personnel, consult with relevant associations, unions and other groups… (such as the Simons Center for the Study of Interagency Cooperation of the Command and General Staff College Foundation).” [3] This bill was attached to the National Defense Authorization Act that was stripped of all amendments. It too failed to become law.
Other Initiatives
While Administration programs and congressional legislation are important to promote interagency cooperation, the underlying challenge requires action by the unofficial as well as official entities to foster professional development of those who are pursuing careers in the various agencies of the U.S. Government. One non-governmental effort is the Arthur D. Simons Center for Interagency Cooperation, a program of the CGSC Foundation, Inc. Established in 2010, The Simons Center supports interagency education and scholarship at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (USACGSC). The Simons Center promotes the study, analysis and investigation of interagency issues at the application (tactical and operational) level. In addition to its military students, the College includes mid-career interagency leaders representing various U.S. government departments and agencies. The Simons Center supports USACGSC by encouraging interagency research through a variety of journal publications, annual writing competitions and an interagency web portal with an extensive document library. These research products are contributing to an emerging body of interagency knowledge.
To date, there is no analysis of the requirements for interagency knowledge, skills, and experience among national security professionals. The Simons Center has embarked on a program to conduct a “needs assessment” focused on national security requirements. Once this assessment is complete the Center will work to obtain supporting legislation for a program of professional development for interagency leaders. In addition, the Center will develop an inventory of current interagency programs of instruction across the academic community.
Conclusion
Employees of local, state and federal governments, the military services and the law enforcement community often come together in response to a natural disaster or overseas contingency. Most have never worked together either in schools, training or in exercises. Each has his or her own jargon, policies, standards and habits some of which get in the way of efficient and effective execution. Frustration often leads to finger pointing and hard feelings. Worse yet, resources may be squandered, property may be damaged and lives may be lost. Often, departments and agencies operate like tribes each having a separate language, culture, customs and traditions.
Given that the Federal Government is both large as well as complicated, corrective action to deal with inter-department friction will need to be multi-faceted, composed of many elements at many levels. Action by the Administration, every Administration, must play a major role. Some of this will be formal, as in the creation of the Joint Interagency Coordination Groups (JIACGs) by the Department of Defense. In addition, “voluntary” action by those inside the bureaucracy as well as outsiders is vital. Even within existing rules and regulations, much can be done by those willing to do so. And this is occurring daily as officials in departments and agencies pursue the post-9/11 mantra of inter-agency cooperation. For instance, while experience is the best teacher, formal professional education is needed to ensure that relevant experience will continue, expand, and become permanent. Educating members of the various “tribes” together helps one understand the strengths and weaknesses of the disparate organizations and the realization that forming task teams is a more efficient and effective way to solve problems. Unfortunately, today most interagency education is a short course or two. A one hour class based on the classic short study, “Defense is from Mars and State is from Venus,” is a clever take on the operating styles of defense and state department employees but does not constitute in itself meaningful interagency education. One of the best programs that we have found is the Interagency Fellows Program at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College where approximately 20 mid-career Army officers serve a year in another federal agency while approximately the same number of government employees from other than the department of defense attend a 10 month graduate level course along with their counterparts at Fort Leavenworth. Still, we can and must do better.
But “voluntarism” and formal bureaucratic action can only go so far. Both personnel and financial resources remain limiting factors. Existing legislation and regulations pose obstacles to innovative management of personnel. Professional education remains restricted by both of these limitations. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a Director of National Intelligence, and a Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization within the State Department shortly after 9/11 were important innovations but to some degree they have exacerbated the “stovepipe” structure of the Federal Government.
The legislative initiatives noted above demonstrate the desire by a distinct minority in both houses of Congress to help fix the lack of interagency cooperation throughout the Government. Unfortunately, interagency issues have not yet risen to the level sufficient to gather meaningful support, but many people both in and outside of government are aware of the problem and are working to correct it. Through these efforts, we hope to eventually counter the interagency disorganization that Chairman Ike Skelton and others have noted as counterproductive and wasteful.
—
About the authors:
Robert R. Ulin is a retired Colonel who is CEO of the CGSC Foundation and founder of the Arthur D. Simons Center for Interagency Cooperation. He holds a master’s degree from the University of Kansas in history and a master’s degree from Boston University in International Relations. He is also a graduate of a national security executive management program of the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard. His last military assignment was Director of European and International Studies at the Army War College. He is currently an adjunct assistant professor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.
Edward Marks is a retired Ambassador with extensive experience in U.S. military staff operations, exercise, and education in addition to his Department of State professional experience. He was a Senior Fellow at the Institute for International Strategic Studies of the National Defense University, a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and a graduate of the National Defense College. He currently serves as the Director of the CGSC Foundation’s Arthur D. Simons Center for Interagency Cooperation, Fort Leavenworth, KS
[1] Ike Skelton, Comments to the Press, September 30, 2010, accessed at http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/HR6249/SkeltonStatement.pdf
[2] Geoff Davis, Comments to the Press, September 30, 2010, accessed at http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/HR6249/DavisStatement.pdf
[3] In the Senate of the United States—112th Congress, 1st Session, S.1268, Interagency Personnel Rotation Act of 2011.