But given that this type of undertaking is without precedence, it's also reasonable to note that for a huge organization -- an amalgamation of 22 agencies -- the DHS has made strides.
On the plus side, you can point to the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grants (see Breathing New Life Into EOCs) as having energized states and locals into developing collaborative emergency operations centers that will provide benefits beyond homeland security. You can cite as progress the exemption of the 1990 Cash Management Act (see Haggling Over Homeland Grants) that would allow states and locals to receive homeland funds upfront instead of being reimbursed for money spent.
Everyone has differing opinions on the matter, which most likely depend on where each person sits.
At this point, the fact that the jury is out on the DHS means it hasn't been tested.
And that's a good thing, no matter where you sit.
The creation of regional DHS centers around the country would be a big help, and is, in fact, mandated in Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8.
These and numerous more issues greeted new Director Michael Chertoff at the DHS' door when he took over after former Director Tom Ridge retired.
How Chertoff confronts these issues and others will determine homeland security policy -- whatever the outcome -- for a long time.
Sitting on current policy, experts say, would be akin to cementing the DHS as the slow-moving bureaucracy many perceive it to be today.
A strong suggestion by James Carafano, senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, and some of his colleagues is for the DHS to undertake assessments looking five years out to see where the department is and where it will be regarding budget issues, capabilities and missions -- and where the DHS should be in a decade.
It's probably a fair bet that never will everyone be satisfied with the way the DHS is run, and that opinions about its effectiveness will continue to vary depending on where you sit.
