Week Three– The Six Strategic Challenges Every four years, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is required by law to issue a review to the United States Congress.  This review is a self-appraisal by DHS on the progress of its efforts in addressing those issues that threaten the nation. The 2014 review is the second such appraisal presented to the Congress (the first produced in 2010).  These quadrennial assessments provide excellent insight concerning the progress this Federal entity feels has been made (or lack thereof) regarding our nation’s overall homeland security efforts. Of course, the underlying, determining factor regarding these reviews are the underlying threats and hazards that DHS believes the nation currently faces, as well as those that might present themselves in the near term.  This week, we will be looking at the six challenges that DHS believes will determine the greatest risk factors to the nation over the next few years.  Before delving into the specifics of this topic, it would be beneficial to first examine the current missions that have been established by Department of Homeland Security.  These areas of focus determine how DHS, as an agency of the federal government, views risk. As listed in this Review these five basic homeland security missions are: · The prevention of terrorism and the enhance of security · The securing and managing of the nation’s borders · The enforcement and administration of the nation’s immigration laws · Safeguarding and securing cyberspace · Strengthening national preparedness and resilience (2014, p. 6-8) As has been stressed a number of times thus far, our nation’s homeland security efforts require more than just the federal government can offer, but state and local governments have their roles, as does the private sector and the public at large.  Granted, DHS has a uniquely federal and national view.  From this position, DHS is charged with unique responsibilities, has assets available at its disposal not commonly available to other levels of government. However, DHS has the latitude to use some of these assets to assist other levels of government as well.  In addition, DHS engages in threat and hazard assessments dealing with the entirety of national interests.  While these interests bear directly upon all American communities, each locale will have its own, more narrowed view and perspective regarding those issues of immediate concern. Conversely, as would be expected (and justifiably so), they are less concerned about others.  In addition to the five missions noted earlier, the department has identified six “prevailing challenges that pose the most strategically significant risk” (DHS, 2014, p. 28).  In studying these challenges, one can easily see a direct correlation between them and these missions.  So as we contemplate these challenges in this week’s discussion and written assignments, remember to consider them from the perspective of the entire homeland security enterprise. .

1. Week Three– The Six Strategic Challenges
Every four years, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
is required by law to issue a review to the United States
Congress. This review is a self-appraisal by DHS on the
progress of its efforts in addressing those issues that threaten
the nation. The 2014 review is the second such appraisal
presented to the Congress (the first produced in 2010). These
quadrennial assessments provide excellent insight concerning
the progress this Federal entity feels has been made (or lack
thereof) regarding our nation’s overall homeland security
efforts. Of course, the underlying, determining factor regarding
these reviews are the underlying threats and hazards that DHS
believes the nation currently faces, as well as those that might
present themselves in the near term. This week, we will be
looking at the six challenges that DHS believes will determine
the greatest risk factors to the nation over the next few years.
Before delving into the specifics of this topic, it would be
beneficial to first examine the current missions that have been
established by Department of Homeland Security. These areas
of focus determine how DHS, as an agency of the federal
government, views risk. As listed in this Review these five
basic homeland security missions are:
· The prevention of terrorism and the enhance of security
· The securing and managing of the nation’s borders
· The enforcement and administration of the nation’s
immigration laws
· Safeguarding and securing cyberspace
· Strengthening national preparedness and resilience (2014, p.
6-8)
As has been stressed a number of times thus far, our nation’s
homeland security efforts require more than just the federal
government can offer, but state and local governments have
their roles, as does the private sector and the public at large.
Granted, DHS has a uniquely federal and national view. From

2. this position, DHS is charged with unique responsibilities, has
assets available at its disposal not commonly available to other
levels of government. However, DHS has the latitude to use
some of these assets to assist other levels of government as
well. In addition, DHS engages in threat and hazard
assessments dealing with the entirety of national interests.
While these interests bear directly upon all American
communities, each locale will have its own, more narrowed
view and perspective regarding those issues of immediate
concern. Conversely, as would be expected (and justifiably so),
they are less concerned about others.
In addition to the five missions noted earlier, the department
has identified six “prevailing challenges that pose the most
strategically significant risk” (DHS, 2014, p. 28). In studying
these challenges, one can easily see a direct correlation between
them and these missions. So as we contemplate these
challenges in this week’s discussion and written assignments,
remember to consider them from the perspective of the entire
homeland security enterprise. How do the risks manifest
themselves at different levels of government? How will
different levels of government prioritize them? Lastly, how will
they be perceived by the private sector, and what can the private
sector do, or is willing to do, to contribute to meeting these
daunting tasks?
The six strategic challenges as seen by the Department of
Homeland Security (2014) are
· Terrorism
· Cyber terrorism
· Nuclear terrorism
· Biological concerns
· Transnational criminal organizations
· Natural hazards
Note that terrorism, based upon its multi-faceted nature, is a
major concern for DHS and resides on this list in various forms
and applications. Yet, concerning all of these issues, it is
imperative to understand that homeland security is not about

3. ensuring absolute security against all threats. Attempting to
enact and enforce this sort of security is simply not feasible;
based upon personnel, finances, and other limited resources. In
addition, a host of other issues, such as those related to
constitutional civil liberties and privacy, have an impact upon
our nation’s ability to initiate and carry out actions that might
be needed to address these challenges as well. Instead,
homeland security is about risk management; identifying those
threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk to the nation,
vulnerability, consequences, and the identification and initiation
of those actions that seek to prevent them from occurring or
prudent measures regarding protection, mitigation, response and
recovery (DHS, 2013). Therefore, to gain a fuller understanding
of the application of these activities, it is imperative that a
closer look be taken regarding these identified challenges.
Terrorism
At the upper most level, this threat can only be addressed in an
effective manner by employing a partnership of various Federal
entities that each has their own areas of expertise and
specialized resources to bring to bear upon this primary
challenge is relates to homeland security. Whether it is DHS,
the Departments of Defense and Justice, or a myriad of others,
their unique capabilities in regards to intelligence, defense, and
a host of other areas of expertise must be utilized in a
coordinated manner. Obviously, The Federal government is in a
distinct position to prevent acts of terrorism from taking place
within the United States, where government at the state and
local levels has decreased assets and the legal tools that might
be needed to carry out such preventive measures. Yet, this in no
way decreases the tremendous impact, and level of
responsibility that these lower levels of government possess. In
fact, they are expected to implement whatever capabilities they
have to not only identify potential acts of terrorism, but to take
appropriate actions to prevent them from taking place;
implementing them in an acceptable and expected manner.
Given this difference in assets, legal tools, and responsibilities,

4. it seems logical that these various levels of government will
look at the threat of terrorism in different ways in terms of
prioritizing resources for prevention and mitigation efforts. This
difference also carries over to the private sector, as these
private corporations may participate in strategic level
intelligence gathering measures. They may take part in
partnering programs with federal agencies, such as we seen in
the airline industry. At the local level, private businesses may
be involved in formal awareness programs, such as the “If you
see something, say something” campaign, where employees can
be educated on how to identify and forward information related
to suspicious behavior. Lastly, private sector organizations can
be a tremendous aid in forwarding emergency responders and
emergency management personnel while they seek to carry out
their mitigation measures as well (DHS, 2014).
Cyber terrorism
Again, at the national level, the threat of cyber terrorism is
engaged through a partnership of a number of federal agencies;
and to some degree, private industry. The prevention of cyber
terrorism is predominantly a federal level
responsibility. Whether cyber terrorist acts are conducted by
terrorist groups or by foreign governments, the mixture of
possible actions are found within the spheres of diplomatic,
military, intelligence, or economic legal purview of the federal
government. Other types of response, such as when a cyber
terrorist act interferes with transportation, energy, or others
related our nation’s critical infrastructure are found largely
within the sphere of local government and the private sector.
Prevention in this area requires a strong and ongoing
partnership between these homeland security practitioners.
Obviously, the private sector’s interest in cyber terrorism is
significant as many attacks would be against privately owned
aspects of the nation’s infrastructure, or against a corporation
itself (DHS, 2014). To address these issues a number of
programs have been initiated such as “Stop. Think. Connect.”
This and others offer some common-sense approaches to cyber

5. security and provide various tools that can be implemented in a
variety of settings. Considerations of probability and
consequence may be couched in different terms at the local
level. Hence, a detrimental occurrence impacting a specific
segment of infrastructure can come from a number of causes, of
which cyber terrorism is just one. Yet, based upon the
interdependent and interrelated nature of these various sectors,
the impact could be felt on both a local and remote basis.
Nuclear terrorism
The effort to prevent the entry of an illegal nuclear device, or
legally prohibited components of such a device into the United
States is primarily a federal responsibility. All communities, of
course, bear responsibility for being attentive to those actions
and activities that might be deemed as suspicious. However,
such vigilance must be assertive and proactive; rather than in a
more secondary, reactive sense. From a local perspective, this
comes into play by detecting the movement and use of illegal
materials after federal efforts to prevent their entry have failed.
The occurrence of a nuclear attack would constitute such a
catastrophic event that while initial first responder action would
be local, it would quickly escalate to federal control of the
overall incident. At the local level, unless a community is
within close proximity to a nuclear power plant, nuclear
terrorism is unlikely to figure prominently in its emergency
operations or mitigation plans, but rather seen as a sub-
component of acts of terrorism in general. Of course, there are
some exceptions to this general rule. Cities with special
strategic, political, economic, or symbolic values that make
them more likely targets of terrorist attacks will assign greater
degrees of risk to the threat of nuclear terrorism. As it relates to
the private sector’s involvement in these situations, it is largely
regulated in terms of possession, manufacturing, transport, sale,
storage, etc. of related materials.
Biological concerns
Biological incidents may be naturally occurring, accidentally
caused, or inspired and carried out through acts of terrorism.

6. Prevention and containment related strategies are prominent at
the federal level, and are seen in many states as well. A
pandemic is considered to be a low level risk in most local
communities; while viewed a higher risk in larger
municipalities. Animal and plant-related diseases and their
ability to spread are increased due to both the accessibility of
crops and animals on farm lands, as well as the ever-increasing
movement of these animals and associated products on both the
domestic and international fronts. As it relates to the threat of
extremists and terrorists focusing their attention towards our
nation’s food supply and employing biological agents, this is
something that has not gone unnoticed, as it has been
recognized that there exists “great potential to cause costly
economic losses in the supply chain for implicated foodstuffs,
create public panic, and lead to a public health crisis with
considerable mortality and morbidity (DHS, 2015, p. 5). So
obviously, this overall issue represents a major concern for the
United States.
Transnational criminal organizations
Many local communities have a particular interest in these
organizations; based upon their location, demographics, history,
and other factors. However, actions related to this challenge for
most local communities will be realized via participation in
state and/or urban area fusion centers. As would be expected,
larger cities will generally have an increased interest, and may
be manifested in specialized law enforcement divisions used to
detect and combat such organizations. Some states will have
similar interests and take related actions. Unlike many of the
other strategic challenges examined so far in this lesson, this
one has more of a joint (federal, state and local) appearance to
it in terms of protection and law enforcement response (DHS,
2014).
Natural hazards
This strategic challenge certainly has a federal component to it;
which is directly proportional to the magnitude of the event. But
by in large, it is largely a local responsibility. Preparing for,

7. responding to and recovering from natural disasters is
accomplished most often at these levels through join efforts of
government, emergency responders, non-government
organizations, and ordinary citizens. As these disasters exceed
the scope and capability of local assets, requesting state and/or
federal assistance will be expected. Yet even here, the response
will generally (not always) remain locally controlled, and long
term recovery will be largely a local effort as well. For the
most part, when there is federal involvement, it is either policy,
training or financially driven, and rendered in the mitigation
and recovery phases (DHS, 2008). Federal involvement also
comes in some structurally related measures such as dams,
management of waterways, and some other critical
infrastructure related management.
Based upon what seems to be ever-increasing incidents of large-
scale natural hazards, this challenge is most definitely a
national level risk. This is due to their high probability of
impacting any region across the country, the severe
consequences of many of these events, their cumulative effects
and consequences, or a combination of all of them. Local
communities, of course, will analyze and rank risks specific to
their own unique situations. By acknowledging the local nature
of natural disasters, the federal government has purposely taken
a mentorship/guiding and support role to state and local levels
of government. It is a leadership role as well, but a significantly
one than what it takes for other strategic challenges, such as
terrorism (DHS, 2008).
The private sector’s involvement and interest in this particular
challenge is significant and almost too varied to adequately
describe ere. Since the private sector makes up much of our
local community’s employment and has a direct impact upon
overall economic viability, as well as the goods and services
that all aspects of society depend upon, much is expected from
it. At the very least, private sector organizations must develop
basic emergency planning procedures as they relate to their
employees, facilities, and operations. Yet, it is hoped that

8. robust, business continuity planning efforts are carried out to
ensure that their essential services will be maintained in the
midst of a critical incident. To that end, a number of programs
have been initiated to serve as aids for the private sector. One is
the Private Sector Preparedness Accreditation and Certification
Program (PS-PREP), a voluntary program that seeks to aid
organizations in becoming more resilient. Another is Ready
Business, which is a sub-component of DHS’s overall Ready
campaign. It should be noted however that with the exception of
certain sectors, such as the healthcare industry, there are no
laws requiring businesses to engage in such planning. When
such planning does take place, it is not regulated, though there
are some private industry standards and federal
guidelines. Therefore, it is imperative that government works
hand-in-hand with its private sector counterparts in carrying out
these planning initiatives.
In conclusion, it is worth repeating that when considering the
six strategic challenges DHS has identified, a broad-based
perspective must be taken concerning how they must be
addressed. Remember what we have learned in our previous
lessons; our national homeland security system as a whole is
based upon the whole community concept. To look at homeland
security or to look at these six challenges from only the
perspective of the federal government would hinder us from
acquiring a full understanding of the risks facing our nation.
References
Department of Homeland Security (2008). National incident
management system. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office.
Department of Homeland Security (2013). National
infrastructure protection plan (NIPP), partnering for critical
infrastructure security and resilience. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.
Department of Homeland Security (2015). Food and agriculture
sector specific plan. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office.

9. Department of Homeland Security (2014). 2014 Quadrennial
homeland security review. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office.
Discussion Question: Looking at the six strategic challenges
driving current and future risks as provided in the 2014
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, what role does the
private sector play in the determination of risks related to these
challenges at the local level? Relate at least one specific
example of how private companies have either added to, or
reduced risk in one of the six strategic challenge areas.
Instructions: Fully utilize the materials that have been provided
to you in order to support your response. Your initial post
should be at least 350 words.