Component Efforts to Integrate Field Operations through Collaborative Mechanisms

In the absence of a unified field structure, DHS’s operational components  have established and utilized collaborative mechanisms, including virtual  approaches, to better integrate their field operations. Specifically, DHS  field components have employed collaborative mechanisms to coordinate  their missions and share information among multiple stakeholders in  order to increase their mission effectiveness and efficiencies. These mechanisms focus on a range of missions and are  located throughout the United States. Opportunities Exist for DHS to Enhance Its Visibility over Collaborative Field Mechanisms of Its Key Operational Components

DHS, at the departmental level, has limited awareness of the universe of  component field collaborative mechanisms and of the types and quality of  collaborative practices they employ to better coordinate and integrate  mission operations. Specifically, when we asked for a list of formalized  mechanisms that DHS headquarters considered to be successful  examples of field collaboration, this information was not readily available  at the departmental level, according to senior DHS officials. Participants Identified Practices That Enhanced or Served as Challenges to Collaboration; DHS Could Benefit from Collecting and Disseminating Promising Practices

		Participants Identified Common Practices That Enhanced Collaboration, Which DHS Could Benefit from Collecting and Disseminating on a Broader Scale

			Common Practices That Enhanced Collaboration

During the course of our review, participants from the four selected DHS  collaborative mechanism types provided information on successful  practices that enhanced their collaboration that could be useful for DHS to  collect and disseminate on a broader scale. For example, participants  from all 10 mechanisms stated that forming positive working relationships  was tied to better information sharing among them. As  noted earlier in this report, DHS does not collect this type of information at  the departmental level primarily because the mechanisms operate under  the components. However, collecting promising practices information  from the collaborative mechanisms at the departmental level and  disseminating it to components throughout DHS would inform  components about specific practices from which they could also benefit. Also, given that our fieldwork indicated similar collaboration  issues are relevant to multiple components, a more centralized DHS  clearinghouse of collaborative promising practices information could be  more easily accessed by a wide range of DHS component stakeholders  than under the current structure, where such information is now  stovepiped and may not be readily shared outside of individual  components or mechanisms. Also, there was a majority opinion among mechanism  participants we visited that rotation of key personnel and lack of  leadership buy-in hindered effective collaboration within their  mechanisms. Not only is the department  ultimately accountable for the resources that support these mechanisms,  it is also responsible for making important decisions about the overall field  structure of its components, and for moving the department closer to its  goal of greater component integration. By collecting information about the  universe of collaborative mechanisms and developing a fuller  understanding of them and the promising practices they employ, DHS  could be in a better position to utilize these practices across components  to help move the department toward its strategic goal of increased  operational integration. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure that any future efforts to analyze or implement changes to  DHS’s regional field office structure, including the establishment of  collaborative field mechanisms, are informed by current collaborative  practices, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct  the appropriate department official to take the following two actions: (1)  collect information on the existing collaborative mechanisms to have  better visibility of them, and (2) collect information on promising practices,  including such things as potential ways to address any identified  challenges or barriers to collaboration as well as any identified  performance metrics, from the collaborative mechanisms and disseminate  them to components. This report (1) assesses  the extent to which DHS has identified the collaborative field  mechanisms—that is, multiagency groups such as task forces,  committees, and teams that enhance stakeholder collaboration across the  participating agencies in order to more effectively and efficiently achieve  their mission—of its key operational components, and (2) describes  factors that participants of selected mechanisms identified that enhance  or are challenges to their collaboration, and assesses the extent to which  DHS has collected and disseminated successful collaborative practices. We also interviewed DHS officials and analyzed documentation  (i.e., components daily activity reports) obtained from responsible senior  DHS headquarters officials to identify the extent to which the department  has visibility over the collaborative field mechanisms activities—including  any plans to increase visibility over the mechanisms in the future.
Why GAO Did This Study

DHS is the third-largest department in the federal government, with an annual budget of about $60 billion, 200,000 staff, and a broad range of missions. In 2002, DHS was created from 22 legacy agencies. The geographic overlap of these agencies' legacy field office structures was extensive, underscoring the importance of collaboration among them when conducting missions that crossed across boundaries. As a follow-on to GAO's September 2012 report on DHS's efforts to integrate field operations, GAO was asked to review DHS and key operational components' use of collaborative mechanisms. This report (1) assesses DHS's visibility over collaborative field mechanisms established by component agencies, and (2) describes factors that enhance or impede collaboration within these mechanisms, and the extent to which DHS has collected and disseminated successful collaborative practices.
GAO analyzed selected mechanisms' guidance; conducted 10 mechanism site visits based on their geographic diversity, among other factors; and compared their practices with collaboration practices identified in previous GAO work. GAO also interviewed DHS and component officials.

What GAO Found

Opportunities exist for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enhance its visibility over collaborative field mechanisms (i.e., multiagency groups such as task forces, committees, and teams that enhance stakeholder collaboration to more effectively and efficiently achieve their missions) established by component agencies. DHS, at the departmental level, has limited visibility over the universe and operation of these mechanisms and does not identify information from them that could further enhance collaboration across DHS and inform future DHS decisions. In the absence of a single DHS regional/field structure, DHS components have created collaborative mechanisms to better integrate field operations by better coordinating their missions and sharing information. However, when GAO sought to identify these mechanisms, in conjunction with DHS, senior DHS officials stated that while they maintain regular visibility over component activities--which may involve these collaborative mechanisms--DHS does not collect information on the types of mechanisms and collaborative practices these mechanisms employ because the mechanisms operate under the components, and thus this information was not readily available at the departmental level. DHS officials stated that primary oversight over the mechanisms is the responsibility of the operational components or mechanism participants. However, DHS's own strategic goals emphasize the importance of cross-departmental integration and coordination to enhance DHS's mission, and DHS could benefit--on a strategic level--from greater awareness of these mechanisms and the collaborative practices they employ. DHS is ultimately accountable for the resources that support these mechanisms, and is responsible for decision making about its overall field structure and for moving the department closer to its goal of greater component unification and integration. By collecting additional information on collaborative mechanisms, DHS could achieve better visibility over the universe of existing mechanisms, and thus be better positioned to analyze or implement any future changes to DHS's regional/field structure.
Participants from each of the collaborative mechanisms GAO reviewed identified several common factors that enhanced their collaboration, which DHS could benefit from collecting and disseminating on a broader scale. For example, participants identified the value of sharing resources, information, and recognition of successful missions as examples of successful collaboration practices they employed. Officials also cited collaboration challenges, including resource constraints, rotation of key personnel, and lack of leadership commitment. As GAO's fieldwork indicated, similar collaboration issues are relevant to multiple components, thus, DHS leadership could benefit from undertaking a review of collaborative mechanisms to solicit and identify promising practices, and then sharing this information among all components. In addition, given DHS's more strategic perspective, a more centralized DHS clearinghouse of collaborative practices information could be more efficient to collect and more easily accessed by a wider range of DHS components than under the current structure, where such information may not be readily shared outside of individual components or mechanisms. Collecting and disseminating information on collaborative practices would allow DHS to inform components about promising practices and lessons learned from which they could benefit.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DHS (1) collect information on existing collaborative mechanisms for better visibility over them, and (2) collect promising practices from the mechanisms and distribute them to components. DHS concurred with the recommendations and identified planned actions to address them.