[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WHY CAN'T DHS BETTER COMMUNICATE WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 14, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-22
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-687 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice Brian Higgins, New York
Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Ron Barber, Arizona
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Dondald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Jason Chaffetz, Utah Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
Chris Stewart, Utah Steven A. Horsford, Nevada
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Eric Swalwell, California
Steve Daines, Montana
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Greg Hill, Chief of Staff
Michael Geffroy, Deputy Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina, Chairman
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Ron Barber, Arizona
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steve Daines, Montana Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (Ex (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Ryan Consaul, Staff Director
Deborah Jordan, Subcommittee Clerk
Tamla Scott, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress From the
State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Management Efficiency:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 4
The Honorable Ron Barber, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Management Efficiency:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
WITNESSES
Panel I
Mr. Robert Jensen, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office
of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Ms. Tamara Kessler, Acting Officer for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 16
Prepared Statement............................................. 18
Panel II
Mr. William Braniff, Executive Director, National Consortium for
the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism:
Oral Statement................................................. 35
Prepared Statement............................................. 37
Mr. Douglas G. Pinkham, President, Public Affairs Council:
Oral Statement................................................. 45
Prepared Statement............................................. 47
WHY CAN'T DHS BETTER COMMUNICATE WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
----------
Friday, June 14, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Management
Efficiency,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Duncan
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Duncan, Hudson, Barber, Payne, and
O'Rourke.
Mr. Duncan. The Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee
on Oversight and Management Efficiency will come to order.
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the Department of
Homeland Security's ability to effectively communicate with the
American people. I appreciate our panelists' being here today.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Whether it is with Members of Congress, the press, or
directly to the American people, 10 years after its
establishment the Department of Homeland Security seems to have
developed serious challenges communicating its goals,
priorities, tactics, and missions. This administration
specifically has an increasing sense of a bunker mentality in
responding to the public, engaging with stakeholders, and
collaborating with industry and advocacy groups.
Perhaps more disturbing is the Department's lackadaisical
approach to addressing legitimate questions and concerns raised
by the American people on a host of issues, from TSA's
screening policies to DHS ammunition purchases to the impact
that the sequester would have on the Department and on its
components. When DHS officials or their colleagues at the
components do respond to legitimate questions concerning
Departmental policies or actions, responses are often defensive
and condescending.
I found this out first-hand when I raised serious visa
security issues with Secretary Napolitano in April, only to be
told that my question was not worthy of an answer because, and
I quote: ``It is so full of misstatements and misapprehensions
that it is just not worthy of an answer.'' You know, that is a
heck of a way to speak to a Member of Congress who represents
almost 700,000 American taxpayers who help foot the bill for
the Department's $60 billion budget.
DHA's inability to connect with the American people has
been a running theme through the first four Oversight
Subcommittee hearings we have held so far this Congress. The
former Governor of Virginia and chairman of the Gilmore
Commission, Jim Gilmore, raised concerns with DHS's ability to
share information at our February subcommittee hearing. He said
that one of the primary goals of the Department should be to
have an actual discussion with the American people.
The inability of DHS to sufficiently address concerns
raised by the general public or even to engage in a discussion
erodes trust in the Department, and that is my concern. An
uncommunicative Department of Homeland Security that is seen as
consistently stonewalling increases people's skepticism of DHS,
it strains the institution's credibility, and it makes people
question the motivations of the Department's leadership. How
does this serve DHS's critical mission to defend the homeland?
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 calls on the
Secretary of the Department to ensure that information related
to domestic incidents is gathered and shared with the public,
the private sector, and with State and local authorities. To
this end, FEMA uses a variety of tools to communicate with the
public on disaster response and emergency preparedness.
But it is disappointing to me that a country that leads the
world in effective advertising and marketing cannot be as
effective in communicating with its own citizenry on even the
most basic policies related to homeland security. For example,
DHS ignored questions regarding the Department's ammunition
purchases for weeks, if not months. The Secretary acknowledged
in the committee's April hearing on DHS's budget that the
Department could have gotten ahead of the ball on this issue.
However, the prolonged silence led many in the public to come
up with their own conclusions and scoff at the official DHS
explanation.
In February 2013, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE,
released 2,000 illegal aliens into communities across Texas and
the United States without rhyme or reason, only to subsequently
blame the effects of the sequestration despite the fact that it
had yet to go into effect.
DHS aggressively and proudly promotes its ``See Something,
Say Something'' campaign, including at events all over the
country attended by Secretary Napolitano. Yet a DHS-sponsored
report released only hours before the Boston Marathon bombings
found that almost 60 percent of Americans said they have never
heard anything about the program.
DHS's Blue Campaign, which seeks to promote public
awareness of human trafficking within the United States, could
also be a game-changer if DHS did a better job communicating
its message and working with key stakeholders.
Undoubtedly, social media has changed the game for the
Federal Government in the terms of the number of outlets and
issues it has to be aware of and responsive to. However, the
Federal agencies now have unprecedented opportunities to
interact with the very people they serve on a daily basis,
which is critical when it concerns matters of health, safety,
and emergency response. I often use social media to communicate
with my constituents, and I know that DHS has an array of
social media.
My question is: How does DHS or its components decide which
issues are worthy of a response or exactly what information is
important enough to push to the general public via this media?
What exactly is the Department's strategy in communicating its
missions and policies?
For instance, TSA's Twitter account could be a boon for the
agency by pushing out real-time information to travelers or in
clearly communicating travel tips to expedite air travel
screening. Instead, you find tweets about travel tips for
campers and fishers and TSA's ``weirdest finds.''
As Douglas Pinkham, one of our witnesses here today,
explained in his prepared testimony, ``Social media programs
could be launched because they represent the highest strategic
use of corporate resources, not because everyone else seemed to
have a social media program.''
Look, Americans don't want to distrust their Government.
Americans don't want to believe that Big Brother is listening
to their phone calls or reading their private correspondence.
Americans don't want to believe that the Government is buying
up ammo so that it won't be available to them when they go to
their sporting goods store. Americans don't want to believe
that their Government is buying mine-resistant armored
personnel carriers, or MRAPs, for use by law enforcement in
huge quantities. But they do distrust Government when there is
a failure to communicate. Americans still believe in the
concept of innocent until proven guilty, but, you know, they
don't feel that way when they go through a TSA screening. In
light of the recent IRS targeting and NSA snooping and the AP-
Fox News-Justice Department issue, Americans are beginning to
distrust their Government more and more.
So we can do better. You can do better, we can do better in
communicating with the American people and trusting them with
the truth, trusting them with the facts, not by waiting over 3
months to respond to questions about procurement contracts, as
an example, or failing to respond to a Member of Congress when
he asks a legitimate question, but by trusting the American
people with the facts and the truth.
It seems to me that, more than a decade after the September
11 attacks and especially in light of April's Boston Marathon
bombings, that the American people are resilient and receptive
and are more than willing to do their part in securing the
homeland. It is my hope that the Department will try to
capitalize on this through enhancing its responsiveness and
communication with the public and their stakeholders. Doing so
would enhance DHS's credibility, it would help build trust, and
it would strengthen the relationship between the Department and
the American people.
The Chair will now recognize the Ranking Minority Member of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Barber, for
any statement he may have.
[The statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]
Statement of Chairman Jeff Duncan
June 14, 2013
Whether it is with Members of Congress, the press, or directly to
the American people, 10 years after its establishment, the Department
of Homeland Security seems to have developed serious challenges
communicating its goals, priorities, tactics, and missions.
This administration specifically has an increasing sense of a
bunker mentality in responding to the public, engaging with
stakeholders, and collaborating with industry and advocacy groups.
Perhaps more disturbing is the Department's lackadaisical approach
addressing legitimate questions and concerns raised by the American
people on a host of issues from TSA's screening policies to DHS
ammunition purchases, to the impact the sequester would have on the
Department and its components.
When DHS officials or their colleagues at the components do respond
to legitimate questions concerning Departmental policy or actions,
responses are often defensive and condescending. I found this out
first-hand when I raised serious visa security issues with Secretary
Napolitano in April only to be told that my question was not worthy of
an answer because--and I quote: ``It is so full with misstatements and
misapprehensions that it's just not worthy of an answer.'' That is a
heck of a way to speak to a Member of Congress who represents almost
700,000 American taxpayers who help foot the Department's $60 billion
budget.
DHS's inability to connect with the American people has been a
running theme through the first four Oversight Subcommittee hearings we
have held so far this Congress. Former Governor of Virginia and
Chairman of the Gilmore Commission, Jim Gilmore, raised concerns with
DHS's ability to share information at our February subcommittee
hearing. He said that one of the primary goals of the Department should
be to have an actual discussion with the American people.
The inability of DHS to sufficiently address concerns raised by the
general public--or even to engage in a discussion--erodes trust in the
Department, and that is my concern. An uncommunicative Department of
Homeland Security that is seen as consistently stonewalling increases
people's skepticism of DHS, strains the institution's credibility, and
makes people question the motivations of the Department's leadership.
How does this serve DHS's critical mission to defend the homeland?
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 calls on the Secretary
of the Department to ensure that information related to domestic
incidents is gathered and shared with the public, the private sector,
and with State and local authorities. To this end, FEMA uses a variety
of tools to communicate with the public on disaster response and
emergency preparedness.
But it is disappointing to me that a country that leads the world
in effective advertising and marketing cannot be as effective in
communicating with its own citizenry on even the most basic of policies
related to homeland security. For example:
DHS ignored questions regarding the Department's ammunition
purchases for weeks, if not months. The Secretary acknowledged
in the committee's April hearing on DHS's budget that the
Department could have gotten ahead of the ball on this issue.
However, the prolonged silence led many in the public to come
up their own conclusions and scoff at the official DHS
explanation.
In February 2013, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) released about 2,000 illegal aliens into communities
across Texas and the United States without rhyme or reason,
only to subsequently blame the effects of sequestration,
despite the fact that it had yet to go into effect.
DHS aggressively and proudly promotes its ``See Something
Say Something'' campaign, including at events all over the
country attended by Secretary Napolitano. Yet a DHS-sponsored
report released only hours before the Boston Marathon bombings
found that almost 60 percent of Americans said they'd never
heard anything about the program.
DHS's Blue Campaign which seeks to promote public awareness
of human trafficking within the United States could also be a
game changer if DHS did a better job communicating its message
and working with key stakeholders.
Undoubtedly, social media has changed the game for the Federal
Government in terms of the number of outlets and issues it has to be
aware of and responsive to. However, Federal agencies now have
unprecedented opportunities to interact with the very people they serve
on a daily basis, which is critical when it concerns matters of health,
safety, and emergency response.
I often use social media to communicate with my constituents and
know that DHS also has an array of social media. My question is: How
does DHS or the components decide which issues are worthy of a response
or exactly what information is important enough to push to the general
public? What exactly is the Department's strategy in communicating its
missions and policies?
For instance, TSA's Twitter account could be a boon for the agency
in pushing out real-time information to travelers, or in clearly
communicating travel tips to expedite air travel screening. Instead,
you find Tweets about ``Travel Tips for Campers and Fishers'' and
``TSA's Weirdest Finds.'' As Douglas Pinkham, one of our witnesses here
today, explained in his prepared testimony: ``Social media programs
should be launched because they represent the highest strategic use of
corporate resources, not because everyone else seems to have a social
media program.''
It seems to me that more than a decade after the September 11
attacks, and especially in light of April's Boston Marathon bombings,
that the American people are resilient and receptive and more than
willing to do their part in securing the homeland. It is my hope that
the Department will try to work to capitalize on this through enhancing
its responsiveness and communication with the public and their
stakeholders. Doing so would enhance DHS's credibility, build trust,
and strengthen the relationship between the Department and the American
people.
Mr. Barber. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
convening this hearing.
Thanks to the witnesses for being with us this morning.
Every day, approximately 280,000 employees in the
Department of Homeland Security work diligently to carry out
the mission and functions of the Department, and they very
often do this job without thanks and public acknowledgment of
their efforts to keep our country safe from harm.
Just on a personal level, I can tell you, when I go through
checkpoints--and we have a couple in my district, interior
checkpoints--I always make a point, after I have been cleared,
of saying to the agents, ``Thank you for your service.'' They
look at me like, ``Who are you? What is going on?'' I never
identify myself as a Member, but I just want to thank them. The
look on their face tells me that very few people ever do that.
We need to do better. These men and women are putting their
lives on the line every single day for our country.
But I believe it is also the role of the Department's
Office of Public Affairs to communicate effectively with the
public the programs and policies of the Department and to
provide the public with necessary homeland security information
in a timely and open manner.
It has been, at times, disappointing to see that the
dissemination of this information to the public has not always
been handled in an effective manner. The Department has
struggled sometimes to communicate to the public, not only when
things have gone wrong, but also when things have gone right.
Just recently, for example, the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection seized nearly $1 million in methamphetamine and
heroine when a Mexican man and a Tucson woman were arrested as
they attempted to smuggle those drugs into the country. Just
this past week in southern Arizona, CBP officers arrested two
people as they attempted to smuggle more than $1.67 million in
currency going south into Mexico.
Now, these are examples, actually, of successes. I am
pleased to say that both of them were covered locally and the
credit was given where credit was due. We need more of this
kind of public information, and we need more of these success
stories being told, because there are a lot of them.
But the Department also needs to be transparent with the
public they serve, and that means communicating effectively at
all times. Unfortunately, the Department has struggled to
address its shortfalls in this area.
For example, conflicting information about the impact of
sequestration and the handling, as the Chairman pointed out, of
the release of detainees are two examples of the Department's
failing to get ahead of the story in an effort to avoid public
fallout.
In the case of the released detainees, it is particularly
troublesome. ICE first reported that only a few hundred
detainees had been released. ICE later admitted that more than
2,000 detainees were released but did not provide details about
their release. In fact, Members of Congress did not find out
until it was in the newspapers that these detainees had been
released. Then DHS waited months before actually disclosing
that 622 detainees had criminal records and 32 of those had
multiple felony convictions.
Not only does ICE's action and the lack of transparency
create confusion among the public, but it also puts citizens at
risk. I might add, the sheriff in the adjoining county to my
district, where many of these detainees were released, did not
know that they had been released until he, too, read it in the
newspaper.
Unfortunately, there are times when the Department seems to
put image before information flow. According to an article
published earlier this year in the Arizona Daily Star, the main
paper in Tucson, Arizona, CBP public affairs officers in
southern Arizona and along the Southwest Border were told to
deny requests for information, ride-alongs, and visits to the
border.
CBP officials were told by their branch chief that if
anyone on the local, regional, National, or international level
made such a request, they must inform the reporter that ``you
will see what you can do and get back to them and then send it
to me.'' When the same reporter asked CBP for their use-of-
force policy, he was flat-out denied the ability to obtain a
copy.
This caused, I think, great harm to the image of the
Department, even as it was trying, I suppose, to protect it.
Subsequently, when this newspaper article was published, the
information officer reversed the policy and said that they
would be able to able to accommodate local media requests. This
kind of confusing back-and-forth, I think, does not help DHS in
its mission.
This type of information management is problematic,
especially considering DHS may have more daily contact with the
American public than any other agency. Approximately 50,000
transportation security officers, TSA officers, screen 1.8
million passengers every day at more than 450 airports across
the country. On a typical day, over 960,000 passengers and
pedestrians interact with Customs and Border Patrol personnel
by air, land, and sea. Furthermore, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, or FEMA, assists thousands of individuals
affected by natural disasters and other hazardous situations.
Let me just comment here that, when FEMA goes to work, I
believe it manages public information very well. It seems to me
that whatever is going on in FEMA makes sense. What is going
on, perhaps, in CBP does not. We need to make sure that we
replicate the approach that FEMA takes with the CBP officers
and agents on the ground.
Given the broad scope of the Department's interaction with
the public, it is imperative that it communicates effectively
with the American public not only about what the Department has
done but what it plans to do. One way the Department could
improve its public image or interactions is, where applicable,
hold open meetings with the public about new policies and
programs before they are implemented--before they are
implemented.
I believe input directly from constituents and communities
affected by policy is critical. That is why I introduced an
amendment to H.R. 1417, the Border Security Results Act of
2013, which was passed ultimately unanimously by the full
committee, which directs the CBP to conduct public meetings
with border community members to get their input into how we
can best secure our borders. The people who live on the border
or near the border or work on the border or near the border
have eyes and ears unlike anyone else. They could be very
helpful; we need to include them in any kind of policy
development going forward.
Having such meetings have proved to be very beneficial in
my district. Through such meetings, the Department personnel
speak directly and hear directly from individuals who live and
work along the border. This dialogue not only aids in informing
policy, it also improves the Department's communication with
the public.
My predecessor, Congresswoman Giffords, urged the Border
Patrol, when she was in office, to establish stakeholder
meetings in our district. We now have five functioning
stakeholder groups. They meet every month. Interactions between
them, the citizens, and the Border Patrol is constant, and it
has definitely improved communications in my district. I urge
other sectors in the Border Patrol to do the same.
Last, I would like to address an issue that I have
addressed here before, and that is the unfortunate low morale
in the Department. Low morale affects every aspect of an
organization, and DHS consistently, unfortunately, ranks at the
bottom when it comes to employee morale. In a 2012 study, DHS
was ranked 19th out of 19 large agencies in the Federal
Government when it came to employee satisfaction.
Low morale causes a number of problems, including a high
rate of turnover, which leads to complications in both internal
and public communications. I urge the Secretary and the
Department to take a very close look at the causes of low
morale and high turnover in the agency and to institute the
appropriate reforms in leadership development to stem this
tide.
I look forward to hearing specific steps the Department
will take to improve the way it communicates information and
policies to the general public.
I thank the witnesses for their participation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Mr. Barber follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Ron Barber
June 14, 2013
Every day approximately 280,000 employees at the Department of
Homeland Security work diligently to carry out the mission and
functions of the Department.
Very often they do this job without thanks and public
acknowledgement of their efforts to keep our country safe from harm.
It is the role of the Department's Office of Public Affairs, to
communicate to the public the programs and policies of the Department
and to provide the public with necessary homeland security information.
It has been at times disappointing to see that the dissemination of
this information to the public has not always been handled in an
effective manner.
The Department has struggled to communicate to the public, not only
when things have gone wrong, but also when things have gone right.
Just recently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized nearly $1
million in methamphetamine and heroin when a Mexican man and Tucson
woman were arrested as they attempted to smuggle these drugs into the
country.
And just this week, in southern Arizona, CBP officers arrested two
people when they attempted to smuggle more than $1.67 million in
currency into Mexico.
The Department needs to be transparent with the public they serve,
and that means communicating effectively at all times.
Unfortunately, the Department has struggled to address its
shortfalls in this area.
Conflicting information about the impact of sequestration and the
handling of the release of detainees are but two examples of the
Department failing to ``get ahead of the story'' in an effort to avoid
public fallout.
The case of the released detainees is particularly troublesome. ICE
first reported that only a few hundred detainees had been released. ICE
later admitted that more than 2,000 detainees were released, but did
not provide details about the released detainees. DHS waited months
before disclosing that 622 detainees had criminal records, and 32 of
those had multiple felony convictions. Not only does ICE's action and
lack of transparency create confusion among the public, but also puts
citizens at risk.
Unfortunately, there are times when the Department seems to put
image control before information flow.
According to an article published earlier this year in the Arizona
Daily Star, CBP public affairs officers in southern Arizona and along
the Southwest Border were told to deny requests for information, ride-
alongs, and visits to the border.
CBP officials were told by their Branch Chief that if anyone--on
the local, regional, National, or international level--made such a
request, that they must ``inform the reporter that you will see what
you can do and get back to them. Then send it to me.''
When the same reporter asked CBP for their use-of-force policy, he
was flat-out denied the ability to obtain a copy.
This type of information management is problematic, especially
considering DHS may have more daily contact with the American public
than any other agency.
Approximately 50,000 Transportation Security Officers screen 1.8
million passengers everyday at more than 450 airports across the
country.
And on a typical day, over 960,000 passengers and pedestrians
interact with Customs and Border personnel, by air, land, and sea.
Furthermore, the Federal Emergency Management Agency assists
thousands of individuals affected by natural disasters and other
hazardous situations.
Given the broad scope of the Department's interaction with the
public, it is imperative that it communicates effectively with the
American public; not only about what the Department has done, but also
about what it plans to do.
One way the Department should improve its public interactions is,
when applicable, hold open meetings with the public about new policies
and programs before they are implemented.
I believe input directly from constituents and communities affected
by policy is critical, that's why I introduced an amendment to H.R.
1417, the Border Security Results Act of 2013, directing CBP to conduct
public meetings with border community members to get their input into
how we can best secure our borders.
This amendment passed out of the committee and I am hopeful that it
will ultimately become law.
Having such meetings have proved to be very beneficial in my
district.
Through these meetings Department personnel speak with and hear
from individuals who live and work on the border.
This dialogue not only aids in informing policy it also improves
the Department's communication with the public.
Last, I would like to address an issue I have addressed here
before. Low morale affects every aspect of an organization and DHS
consistently ranks at the bottom when it comes to employee morale. In a
2012 study DHS was ranked 19th of 19 large agencies in the Federal
Government when it came to employee satisfaction. Low morale causes a
number of problems, including a high rate of turnover which leads to
complications in both internal and public communications.
I urge the Secretary and the Department to take a close look at the
cause of low morale and high turnover in the agency and to institute
appropriate reforms and leadership development to stem this tide.
I look forward to hearing specific steps the Department will take
to improve the way it communicates information and policy to the
general public, and I thank the witnesses for their participation.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Barber.
Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
June 14, 2013
When the Department of Homeland Security was established, it was
clear that this newly-created agency would interface with the American
people and serve as a source of public information.
In fact, included in the original documentation that laid the
framework for the Department was the statement that DHS would serve as
``One department to coordinate communications with State and local
governments, private industry, and the American people about threats
and preparedness.''
To that end, how the Department communicates with the public and
whether the American people are fully-informed is important.
The purpose of the Office of Public Affairs is to coordinate the
public affairs activities of all of the Department's components and
offices, and serve as the Federal Government's lead public information
office during a National emergency or disaster.
Unfortunately, much like other areas throughout the Department,
there is a lack of cohesion between the Department's headquarters-based
Public Affairs personnel and public affairs personnel operating in the
components.
Each Department component has its own Office of Public Affairs that
handles component-level communication strategies and press releases.
This structure runs afoul of the ``One DHS'' concept.
Too often, this has resulted in component-level Public Affairs
offices and the headquarters Office of Public Affairs disseminating
different messages.
To make matters worse, the high turnover in leadership at the
Office of Public Affairs has resulted in a further divide.
Since January 2003, there have been ten Assistant Secretaries of
Public Affairs, serving in either an Acting or Permanent role.
This turnover has left the office in a constant state of influx and
has affected its ability to effectively carry out its mission.
Public Affairs is also responsible for communicating many of the
Department's public campaigns.
One such campaign is ``If You See Something, Say Something,'' which
was the brainchild of the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority
(MTA).
The Department receives some funds to carry out this campaign;
however, the campaign and slogan is owned by MTA.
I am interested in determining how funding for the campaign is
shared and whether taxpayer dollars from the Department's scarce budget
are paid to New York for the use of a slogan that, according to
testimony that we will soon hear, is not widely-recognized.
Finally, I am also interested in hearing testimony from the Office
of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties on how they address the public's
civil rights and civil liberties concerns, as they relate to the
Department's programs and policies.
Mr. Duncan. We are pleased to have today two very
distinguished panels of witnesses on this important topic.
The first panel, I will introduce both of you, and then I
will recognize you.
Mr. Robert Jensen is currently the principal deputy
assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of
Homeland Security, coordinating public affairs activities of
all the Department's components and offices, and serves as the
Federal Government's lead public information officer during a
National emergency or disaster.
I understand you just got back in the country. Well,
welcome home, sir.
In 29 years of civil service, Mr. Jensen has served in
numerous positions in civilian and military capacities, most
recently as the acting director of external affairs for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. In addition to serving 2
years in Iraq, he has been deployed to support the
communications efforts during Deepwater Horizon, the massive
earthquake in Haiti, Hurricane Ike in 2008, and Hurricane Sandy
in 2012.
Ms. Tamara Kessler is the acting officer for civil rights
and civil liberties at the Department of Homeland Security.
Prior to this position, Ms. Kessler served as deputy officer.
As acting officer, Ms. Kessler is responsible for integrating
civil rights and liberties into all of the Department
activities through promoting respect for civil rights and
liberties in policy creation, investigating and resolving
complaints, and leading the Department's equal employment
opportunity programs.
Before joining CRCL, Ms. Kessler spent 20 years as an
attorney for the Department of Justice Inspector General and
associate counsel at the Office of Professional Responsibility.
I thank you both for being here today.
The Chairman will now recognize Mr. Jensen to testify.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT JENSEN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Jensen. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Duncan,
Ranking Member Barber, and Members of the committee.
I am Bob Jensen, as was just introduced, and I serve as the
principal deputy assistant secretary for public affairs for the
Department of Homeland Security. I am the senior career civil
servant in the Office of Public Affairs. You also mentioned
that I was detailed back to FEMA last year to serve on the
ground as the lead for communications efforts in New York for
the month after Sandy hit.
I am here today to talk to you about the role of DHS Office
of Public Affairs. We are responsible for the oversight and
management of all external and internal communications for the
Department, including during major incidents that range from
terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and mass casualties
shootings to other threats impacting the United States.
We provide timely, accurate information to a wide range of
stakeholders, and this includes the American public, the media,
Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial government
officials, the private sector, and the Department's more than
240,000 employees. We also provide strategic guidance and
support to more than a dozen DHS component public affairs
offices to ensure consistent, coordinated messages, procedures,
and outreach.
We take these responsibilities very seriously. Our outreach
helps keep the public informed about our efforts to combat
terrorism and violent extremism. It supports effective disaster
preparedness and response activities. It helps to promote
transparency in how we are using taxpayer resources in the
Department.
The Office of Public Affairs use a variety of ways to
communicate about the Department's programs, policies, and
procedures. For example, we provide information directly to the
public through our Department and component websites as well as
through our blogs and social media accounts and Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube.
The Office of Public Affairs also manages or provides
oversight and inputs several of the Department's public
outreach programs. These include the ``If You See Something,
Say Something'' public awareness campaign, which encourages the
public to contact local law enforcement if they see suspicious
behavior or activity; the Ready campaign, which is designed to
educate and empower the public to prepare for and respond to
emergencies, including natural and man-made disasters; National
Preparedness Month, held each September to encourage Americans
to take simple steps to prepare for emergencies in their homes,
businesses, and schools; and, also, the Stop.Think.Connect
campaign, designed to increase public understanding of cyber
threats and how individual citizens can develop safer cyber
habits that will protect themselves on-line.
We have significant responsibilities in the event of a
major domestic incident or crisis. Building our lessons learned
from 9/11 and subsequent major National incidents, the Federal
Government and DHS developed instant communication procedures
to coordinate through the interagency and communicate with the
American public. These include prearranged communication
protocols as well as three communication networks that include
approximately 1,300 key communicators across the Nation. These
are from Federal, State, and local agencies and even the
private sector. These networks can be activated within minutes
and are used to develop and distribute public information and
coordinate and deconflict information and activities.
Since 2003, for example, we have activated our National
Incident Communications Conference Line, which brings together
all the Federal communicators, nearly 450 times. In addition,
we have developed resources for use during major threats,
including the National Joint Information Center, which is
located in our headquarters building, and the Domestic
Communications Strategy, which provides senior Federal
communicators with options for use during a domestic attack,
serious threat, or other incident.
DHS is fully committed to communicating information to our
many partners in a way that is timely, accurate, transparent,
and helps maintain confidence in the Department's work.
Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Barber, and Members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss DHS
communications, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jensen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Jensen
June 14, 2013
introduction
Good morning, Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Barber, and Members
of the subcommittee: My name is Robert Jensen and I am the principal
deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Public Affairs. In this role I
support the Department's efforts to communicate our policies and
programs to the American people and our many partners across the public
and private sectors, and I support senior leadership communication
across DHS.
Prior to this position, I served as acting director of external
affairs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and also as
its deputy director. I have held a variety of public affairs-related
positions throughout my 29 years of Federal service, including director
for public affairs and communications at the National Security Council;
director for communications operations for Iraq and Afghanistan and
director of the Iraq communications desk at the Department of Defense;
director of National media outreach and senior communications advisor
for the multi-national force--Iraq; and acting spokesman for the U.S.
Embassy in Baghdad.
In addition to serving 2 years in Iraq, I also deployed to set-up
and support U.S. Government communications during the Deepwater Horizon
Oil Spill, the Joint Information Center after the earthquake in Haiti
in January 2010, and I served as external affairs operations director
for more than 30 major disasters, including Hurricane Ike in 2009 and
Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
dhs office of public affairs
The DHS Office of Public Affairs is responsible for the oversight
and management of all external and internal communications for the
Department, including communications during major incidents that range
from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, mass casualty shootings, and
other threats or hazards impacting the United States.
The Office of Public Affairs provides timely, accurate information
to a wide range of stakeholders, including the American public, media,
Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial Government partners, the
private sector, and the Department's more than 240,000 employees. We
work directly with offices across the Department to coordinate public
affairs outreach and messaging, including the Office of the Secretary,
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of Legislative Affairs, and
the Private Sector Office.
In addition, the Office of Public Affairs provides strategic
guidance and support to more than a dozen DHS component public affairs
offices, including the Transportation Security Administration, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Coast
Guard, the U.S. Secret Service, and FEMA, among others. Through regular
interaction with these offices, we ensure consistent, coordinated
communications procedures and outreach.
We take our communications responsibilities very seriously.
Communicating timely, accurate information to the public supports
cooperation with security measures and keeps our constituencies
informed of changes or requirements with Departmental programs and
policies. An engaged and vigilant public also remains critical to our
efforts to combat terrorism and violent extremism. The public is often
the first to recognize an emerging threat in communities and notify the
appropriate authorities.
Timely, accurate communications outreach also directly supports
effective disaster preparedness and response activities. By providing
information to the public on appropriate steps to take before, during,
and after disasters, we can often lessen their impact, build more ready
and resilient communities, and save lives. Effective communications
also help maintain public confidence in the Department's activities and
promote transparency in how taxpayer resources are being put to use.
dhs communications tools
The Office of Public Affairs uses a variety of means to communicate
the Department's programs, policies, and procedures to the American
people and our partners.
The DHS Press Office is the primary point of contact for news media
seeking information about DHS. The function of the office is proactive
in pushing out stories and policies about DHS, and reactive in
responding to media inquiries pertaining to activities of the
Department. The Press Office coordinates media relations and serves as
the spokespersons for the Secretary, senior leadership, and the
Department. In addition, the office is responsible for identifying and
executing strategic, proactive media opportunities. Press Office staff
also coordinate TV, radio, print, and new media (blogs, podcasts)
opportunities for DHS principals and provide general communications
counsel and support to the Secretary, deputy secretary, assistant
secretary for public affairs, and other DHS leadership.
The DHS Office of Strategic Communications provides overall
management for implementation of communications plans related to DHS
programs and policies, rules and regulations--including branding
initiatives--and complex domestic and international issues requiring
outreach and public education. The Office of Strategic Communications
also coordinates and supports public appearances by DHS officials,
including the Secretary, deputy secretary, and other senior leadership.
Through the DHS Speaker's bureau, we ensure Departmental
representatives with the appropriate level of subject matter expertise
appear on the Department's behalf at public events, conferences, and
stakeholder engagement.
The DHS Office of Multimedia serves as the Department's official
point of contact for entertainment-oriented motion picture, television,
advertising, video, and multimedia productions or enterprises. The
multimedia office ensures that DHS speaks with one voice in working
with the industry and provides formal support to multimedia production
sources to ensure that DHS missions, personnel, and services are
truthfully and accurately represented.
DHS Web Communications streamlines access to DHS services on-line
and executes a cohesive strategy for web-content management and web-
hosting services for all DHS public-facing websites. The Department
maintains a very active on-line presence, leveraging a variety of
digital tools to reach our audiences. This includes the DHS website
(www.dhs.gov) and extensive use of social media, such as Facebook and
Twitter.
In April 2013, the DHS website had more than 1.28 million visits
and more than 1 million unique visitors. We currently have
approximately 211,000 Twitter followers and more than 72,000 Facebook
fans. We regularly leverage these outlets to promote DHS initiatives
and programs, provide information regarding our mission and the
missions of DHS components, and to communicate directly to the public
during incidents. Information provided through DHS social media
channels is often shared broadly by Federal, State, and local
government and law enforcement agencies, as well as ordinary citizens,
further amplifying DHS outreach efforts.
The Office of Public Affairs also plays an active role in
communicating with the Department's employees. Our Internal
Communications team coordinates, integrates, and synchronizes employee
communications efforts, ensuring key policy, procedural, and
operational information from DHS headquarters is disseminated to all
240,000 of the Department's employees.
The Office of Public Affairs works closely with DHS component
agencies and program offices to organize in-person or video
teleconference employee town hall meetings, facilitates employee
engagement with DHS leadership, and leads the Department-wide Internal
Communications Committee to promote a shared internal communication
vision and develop products that can serve as tools for all internal
communicators. The Office of Public Affairs also actively supports and
updates the DHS intranet--DHS Connect--an internal web-based portal
that provides a range of information and resources to DHS employees and
enables them to access their respective component intranets.
key outreach programs
``If You See Something, Say SomethingTM'' Campaign
Homeland security begins with hometown security. An informed, alert
public is vital to our efforts to protect our communities, and DHS has
continued our Nation-wide expansion of the ``If You See Something, Say
SomethingTM'' public awareness campaign, which encourages
the American public to contact local law enforcement if they see
something that is a potentially suspicious behavior or activity, such
as an unattended backpack. The campaign was originally used by New
York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which licensed the use of
the slogan to DHS for terrorism and terrorism-related crime awareness
efforts. ``If You See Something, Say SomethingTM'' is a
Department-wide initiative that is managed by the Office of Public
Affairs.
To date, DHS has expanded the campaign to States, cities, 9,000
Federal buildings across the United States, transportation systems,
universities and institutes of higher education, professional and
amateur sports leagues and teams, entertainment venues, some of the
Nation's largest retailers, as well as local law enforcement. Most
recently, DHS has partnered with sports leagues such as the National
Football League, Major League Soccer, Major League Baseball, the
National Basketball Association, National Collegiate Athletic
Association, National Hockey League, NASCAR, U.S. Golf, and the U.S.
Tennis Association, to promote public awareness of potential indicators
of terrorism and terrorism-related crime at sporting events. To this
end, the ``If You See Something, Say SomethingTM'' campaign
is now a regular fixture at the Super Bowl, NBA All-Star game, and
other major sporting events.
Public Service Announcements (PSAs), including a Spanish language
version, also have been distributed to television and radio stations
across the country to promote the campaign's messages. We will continue
to expand the campaign in the coming months and years to additional
partners.
Ready.Gov and National Preparedness Month
Launched in February 2003, Ready is a National public service
advertising campaign designed to educate and empower Americans to
prepare for and respond to emergencies including natural and man-made
disasters. The goal of the campaign is to get the public involved and
ultimately to increase the level of basic preparedness across our
Nation.
Ready and its Spanish language version, Listo, ask individuals,
businesses, families, and children to do three key things: (1) Build an
emergency supply kit, (2) make a family emergency plan, and (3) be
informed about the different types of emergencies that could occur and
their appropriate responses.
The campaign's messages have been distributed through television,
radio, print, outdoor, and web (PSAs) developed and produced by The
Advertising Council; brochures; the www.Ready.gov and www.Listo.gov
websites; toll-free phone lines 1-800-BE-Ready and 1-888-SE-Listo; and
partnerships with a wide variety of public and private-sector
organizations.
In addition to the Ready campaign, DHS also highlights emergency
preparedness through National Preparedness Month (NPM), held each
September to encourage Americans to take simple steps to prepare for
emergencies in their homes, businesses, and schools. In 2011, FEMA had
a record number of nearly 9,000 NPM coalition members. By hosting
events, promoting volunteer programs, and sharing emergency
preparedness information, coalition members help ensure that their
communities are prepared for emergencies.
Stop.Think.Connect
The ``Stop.Think.Connect.TM'' campaign is a National
public awareness initiative designed to increase public understanding
of cyber threats and how individual citizens can develop safer cyber
habits that will protect themselves on-line and thus help make networks
more secure. The campaign fulfills a key element of President Obama's
2009 Cyberspace Policy Review, which tasked DHS with developing a
public awareness campaign to inform Americans about ways to use
technology safely.
``Stop.Think.Connect.TM'' includes cyber forums hosted
in collaboration with the National Centers of Academic Excellence to
bring together diverse groups of community, private, and Government
participants for dialogues on cybersecurity issues; opportunities for
members of the public to get involved by leading or hosting campaign
activities; and a coalition for public and private-sector
organizations. As part of the campaign, DHS launched and maintains a
``Stop.Think.Connect.TM'' website that provides a variety of
free, downloadable resources and materials to help the public increase
their safety and security on-line.
Each October, DHS also actively supports National Cybersecurity
Awareness Month, a coordinated effort between the Department, the
Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center, and the National
Cyber Security Alliance to raise awareness about the importance of
cybersecurity and help Americans establish smart cyber habits that will
lead to increased protection on-line.
dhs incident communications
The Office of Public Affairs has significant responsibilities in
the event of a major domestic incident or crisis. The Secretary of
Homeland Security is responsible for keeping the public informed during
incidents requiring a coordinated Federal response. DHS coordinates
Federal incident communications efforts, as stipulated in HSPD 5, with
the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and
other interagency partners, and supports the directly affected
State(s), depending on the type of incident.
The DHS strategy synchronizes processes and information between a
wide range of entities in order to inform the public and provide
updates on the situation or on-going threats, and, when applicable,
response and recovery activities. In response to a terrorist threat or
incident, DHS also coordinates public messaging with the Department of
Justice, FBI, and other departments and agencies to ensure the accuracy
of information and that the messaging appropriately safeguards on-going
law enforcement activity.
Building on lessons learned from the 9/11 attacks and subsequent
major National incidents, the Federal Government and DHS developed
incident communications procedures within the National Response Plan
(NRP) and its successor, the National Response Framework (NRF), to
coordinate jointly and communicate with the American public.
This interagency communications effort involves synchronization of
two key elements: Process and information coordination.
During an incident requiring a coordinated Federal response, our
communications priorities are:
Lifesaving and life-sustaining communications, in
coordination with the State and local authorities;
Timely and frequent information updates and public
recommendations from the Secretary, Cabinet members, and
security officials;
Employment of risk communications and transparency to gain
and maintain public confidence and trust; and
Where necessary or appropriate, engagement and integration
of non-Governmental organizations, faith-based communities,
private-sector, media, other communications platforms to
support public communications and allay concerns or potential
bias against ethnic minorities in the United States.
federal incident communications processes and messaging
Pre-arranged interagency processes, pre-scripted messaging, and
Federal standard operating procedures help support public
communications response effort.
In 2008, DHS developed the first Domestic Communications Strategy,
or DCS, to provide senior Federal communicators with public
communications options for use during a domestic attack, serious
threat, or other major incident. DHS also created Emergency Support
Function 15 (ESF-15) for coordination of Federal external affairs
within the overall NRF. ESF-15 brings unity of effort for Federal
communicators during an incident requiring a coordinated Federal
response. Once activated, ESF-15 provides the oversight and
coordination for all Federal external affairs activities supporting an
incident response in the field.
As part of this effort, DHS has developed pre-arranged
communications protocols for information sharing and coordination with
our key communications stakeholders and counterparts. These protocols
are networks that form the backbone of our coordination efforts, and
have been instrumental in achieving unity of effort during major
domestic incidents and events. They provide the simplified means to
coordinate with the right communicators at the right time.
We have three primary counterpart networks that include
approximately 1,300 key communicators across the Nation. The networks
are:
The National Incident Communications Conference Line, or
NICCL, which is used to coordinate communications with, the
Federal Executive Branch interagency, the Capitol Police and
Supreme Court, and directly affected State and local
communicators;
The State Incident Communications Conference Line, or SICCL,
which is used to share information with State and local
communications counterparts; and
The Private Sector Communications Conference Line, or PICCL,
which is used to share information with communicators for
critical infrastructure or key resources.
These networks can be activated within minutes, subject to
notification about an incident and determining there is a need for a
call. They are also used to develop and distribute updated public
information during an incident. The calls also help to coordinate or
de-conflict activities by determining the following:
Basic information on the incident and situation;
Lead communications roles and authority, e.g., Federal or
State and local;
Communications plans and coordination actions in the hours
and days following the incident; and
Communications and public information activities.
Since 2003, DHS has conducted nearly 450 NICCL calls with our
Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial partners to coordinate
communications outreach in response to National incidents or events.
The first use of the NICCL occurred in February 2003--1 month before
DHS became fully operational--in response to the Space Shuttle Columbia
disaster. This marked the first use of an incident communications
conference line strategy by the Department. Since that time, the NICCL
has been activated for a range of incidents, including the 2006
aviation security threat involving liquid explosives, the 2009 H1N1 flu
pandemic, the ``miracle on the Hudson'' aviation water landing, the
Christmas day bomb plot on Northwest Flight No. 253, the BP Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill, the 2010 Times Square plot, other security
incidents, and a host of floods, tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes, and
other natural disasters.
In addition to these communications networks, DHS has developed
supporting capabilities and planning resources for use during major
incidents. For example, in major incidents or when required by the
volume of communications, DHS can activate the National Joint
Information Center or NJIC, a capability located within DHS
headquarters that includes participants physically present as well as
those connected through virtual means, such as conference lines. The
NJIC is a flexible resource that can incorporate any communicator to
support an incident, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Through experience, we also know that communications activities in
the first hours and follow-on phases of an attack or incident cannot be
focused solely on the affected locations or attack sites. In security
incidents or threats, we often say that ``every incident can affect
every State.'' Therefore, authorities in other States and cities may
need to take precautionary measures in another location. In such cases,
the SICCL network and its ability to convey updates has proven
extremely useful to our communications counterparts.
In addition, we fully recognize the significant effects of social
media during a major incident. Twitter and other social media have the
ability to widely communicate eyewitness accounts, accurate
information, and rumors or misleading data. This will continue to
present challenges and opportunities for communicators at all levels of
government.
the boston marathon attack
The attack in Boston on April 15, 2013 fully engaged the
communications processes and capabilities DHS has put in place over the
past 10 years. Within minutes of notification of the attack, the Office
of Public Affairs began mobilizing its resources and our Federal
incident communications processes.
DHS activated the NJIC within minutes, convened a NICCL call
shortly after 3 p.m., and employed the DCS as our resource guide for
communications options, including the sharing of key public information
and updates.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston, FBI Boston Field Office,
Massachusetts State Police, Boston Police Department, and the Suffolk
County Sheriff's Office served as the lead on-scene communicators and
participated in NICCL calls. These calls, which included the Federal
interagency, provided participants with a coordinated communications
path in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
From April 15 to 19, the Office of Public Affairs:
Conducted 3 NICCL calls with key Federal, State, and local
communicators;
Distributed 19 communications and coordination advisories or
updates to NICCL, SICCL, and PICCL counterparts; and
Conducted or supported approximately 80 percent of the
options suggested in the Domestic Communications Strategy that
applied to this particular situation.
conclusion
Chairman Duncan and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the Department's public affairs activities. The
DHS Office of Public Affairs is fully committed to communicating
information to our many partners in a way that is timely, accurate,
transparent, and helps maintain confidence in the Department's work. I
would be happy to answer your questions.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Jensen.
The Chairman will now recognize Ms. Kessler.
Am I pronouncing that right? ``Kessler''?
Ms. Kessler. Absolutely. ``Kessler.''
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF TAMARA KESSLER, ACTING OFFICER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
AND CIVIL LIBERTIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Kessler. Thank you.
Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Barber, and distinguished
Members of the panel, I wanted to thank you for the opportunity
to appear today as the acting officer for civil rights and
civil liberties, which we call CRCL, within the Department of
Homeland Security. At your request, my testimony will be about
DHS's engagement with diverse ethnic and religious communities.
Congress established the Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties to assist the Secretary and the Department in
periodically reviewing and developing policies and procedures
to ensure the protection of civil rights and civil liberties
and to make sure that they are appropriately incorporated into
Department activities and programs. We also review and assess
information concerning the abuses of civil rights, civil
liberties, and profiling on the basis of race, ethnicity, or
religion by employees and officials of the Department.
Both of these functions are improved by, and even depend
on, our communication and engagement with diverse communities.
Engaging communities, soliciting their views, explaining our
policies, and seeking to address any complaints or grievances
they may have is a basic part of good and responsible
Government and is vital to the Department's mission.
Our community engagement efforts build crucial channels of
communication, educating us about the concerns of communities
affected by DHS activities and giving those communities
reliable information about policies and procedures. The
Department builds trust by facilitating resolution of
legitimate grievances, while reinforcing a sense of shared
American identity and community and demonstrating collective
ownership of the homeland security project.
I thank you for the opportunity to share our work in this
area.
CRCL devotes substantial effort to engage with diverse
ethnic and religious communities, including American Arab,
Muslim, Sikh, Southeast Asian, Latino, Jewish, and South Asian
and many other interfaith communities, to help ensure that all
these communities are active participants in the homeland
security effort. We do so through community leader roundtables,
youth roundtables, specific subject community town halls, and a
rapid response communication network.
Over the past 8 years, CRCL has established regular
community engagement roundtable meetings for community and
Government leaders in 13 metropolitan cities: Houston; Chicago;
Boston; Los Angeles; Minneapolis; Columbus, Ohio; Seattle;
Atlanta; Tampa; Denver; New York; and Washington, DC. In
addition, CRCL has developed relationships with Somali-American
leaders in San Diego and Lewiston, Maine, and includes them in
the regular roundtables where possible and in bimonthly
community conference calls.
In addition to DHS components, Government participation
also includes the U.S. Attorneys offices, the FBI, State and
local law enforcement, and other Federal and local officials.
Government contact with diverse community leaders in the
hours and days after a terrorist incident can be
extraordinarily helpful because community leaders can calm
tensions, share information with their communities, and perhaps
assist law enforcement. Accordingly, my office has established
the Incident Community Coordination Team, or ICCT. This
conference-call mechanism connects Federal officials with key
leaders in the event of a situation in which that contact would
be productive.
During the most recent ICCT calls for the Boston bombings,
approximately 180 community stakeholders representing various
organizations, faith-based groups, and community affinities,
participated. Most community participants were from the Boston
area, but many joined the call from elsewhere in the country to
hear timely information from the U.S. Government and to provide
information back from their communities.
In addition, CRCL conducts training for law enforcement
personnel on cultural competency relating to diverse
ethnicities, cultures, and religious practices. This kind of
training is a precondition for honest communication and trust
between officers and the communities they serve and protect.
Topics usually include misconceptions and stereotypes of
Arab and Muslim cultures, diversity within Arab and Muslim
communities, effective policing without using ethnic or racial
profiling, and best-practices approach to community outreach
and intervention. Much of this training is provided live,
usually on site, to Federal, State, and local law enforcement
officials around the country.
In conclusion, frequent, responsive, and thoughtful
engagement with the first communities is imperative to
effective Government. Such engagement gathers and shares
information, builds trust, informs policy, and enables prompt
response to legitimate grievances and needs.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kessler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tamara Kessler
June 14, 2013
introduction
Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Barber, and distinguished Members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today as the acting officer for civil rights and civil liberties (CRCL)
for the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). At your
request, my testimony will be about DHS's engagement with diverse
ethnic and religious communities.
Congress established the Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties, to, among other things, ``assist the Secretary,
directorates, and offices of the Department to develop, implement, and
periodically review Department policies and procedures to ensure that
the protection of civil rights and civil liberties is appropriately
incorporated into Department programs and activities,'' and to ``review
and assess information concerning abuses of civil rights, civil
liberties, and profiling on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion,
by employees and officials of the Department.'' 6 U.S.C. 345(a). Both
of these functions are improved by--even depend upon--our engagement
with diverse communities.
Engaging communities--soliciting their views, explaining our
policies, and seeking to address any complaints or grievances they may
have--is a basic part of good and responsible Government and is vital
to the Department's mission.
Our community engagement efforts build crucial channels of
communication, educating us about the concerns of communities affected
by DHS activities and giving those communities reliable information
about policies and procedures. The Department builds trust by
facilitating resolution of legitimate grievances, while reinforcing a
sense of shared American identity and community, and demonstrating the
collective ownership of the homeland security project. I thank you for
the opportunity to share with you our work in this area.
the dhs office for civil rights and civil liberties
The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) carries
out four key functions to integrate civil rights and civil liberties
into Department activities:
Advising Department leadership, personnel, and partners
about civil rights and civil liberties issues, ensuring respect
for civil rights and civil liberties in policy decisions and
implementation of those decisions.
Communicating with individuals and communities whose civil
rights and civil liberties may be affected by Department
activities, informing them about policies and avenues of
redress, and promoting appropriate attention within the
Department to their experiences and concerns.
Investigating and resolving civil rights and civil liberties
complaints filed by the public.
Leading the Department's equal employment opportunity
programs and promoting personnel diversity and merit system
principles.
community engagement
CRCL devotes substantial effort to engage with diverse ethnic and
religious communities including American Arab, Muslim, Sikh, Southeast
Asian, Latino, Jewish, South Asian, and other including interfaith
communities helping to ensure that all communities in this country are
active participants in the homeland security effort. Many other DHS
offices also conduct outreach to these communities. For example, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has held Naturalization
Information Sessions in these communities, and has published its guide
``Welcome to the United States'' in 14 languages, officials from the
Office of Policy and the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs have met
repeatedly with members of these communities as well. However, CRCL is
the Office within DHS that conducts the most extensive regular
community engagement effort involving the many diverse communities
across the Nation through several types of regular events or programs:
Community leader roundtables; youth roundtables; subject-specific
community town halls; and a rapid response communication network. CRCL
has developed sophisticated mechanisms for engagement including many
best practices to ensure productive communication and dialogue both
with the community and within the Federal Government.
Roundtables.--Over the past 8 years, CRCL has established or
managed regular community engagement roundtable meetings for community
and Government leaders in 13 metropolitan areas across the country:
Houston, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Columbus (Ohio),
Seattle, Atlanta, Central Florida (Tampa), Denver, New York City, and
Washington, DC. In addition, CRCL has developed relationships with
Somali American leaders in San Diego, and Lewiston (Maine), and
includes them in the regular roundtables where possible and in bi-
monthly community conference calls.
These roundtable events include DHS components relevant to the
issues placed on the agenda by our community partners, most often U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Government
participation also includes U.S. Attorneys' Offices, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI), State and local law enforcement, and other
Federal and local officials.
The roundtables cover a range of homeland security, civil rights,
and other areas including rules governing remittances to foreign
relatives; immigration and naturalization policies; access to
information about basic Government services in different languages;
roles and responsibilities of law enforcement; detention of National
security suspects; how Government can work with communities to promote
civic engagement; services for newly-arrived refugees; crime
prevention; how communities can work with Government to counter violent
extremism; protection of civil rights in employment, voting, housing,
and other areas; prosecution of hate crimes; and border searches among
others.
The meetings provide opportunities for community leaders to set the
agenda, learn about significant Government policies, as well as to
raise specific issues of concern in a format that emphasizes
accountability for answers--the Government participants will be back
again the following quarter or communicate in the interim. For our
engagement efforts to be sustainable, it is important that the
grievances of these communities be heard by policy decision makers, so
we collect inquiries and issues from the communities and encourage
participation of senior Department leadership, and CRCL keeps them
apprised of the impact of DHS policy and operations.
An example is our engagement efforts related to DHS immigration and
border security policies. We hold quarterly meetings with a broad-based
non-governmental organization (NGO) coalition of National civil rights
and immigrant-rights organizations; have established an inter-agency
Immigrant Worker Roundtable to bring together DHS components, other
Federal agencies, and NGOs; and facilitate an immigration Incident
Coordination Call, which provides immigrant community leaders with
vital information about CBP and ICE enforcement posture during
emergencies. In the past it has been used only to prevent loss of life
by encouraging immigrant communities to evacuate dangerous areas during
hurricanes by alleviating undue fear of enforcement.
We also participate in engagement activities of other DHS
components; over the past several months, for example, my staff served
as the designated facilitators for subject-specific stakeholder
meetings about CBP's Language Assistance Policies with local law
enforcement agencies in the Pacific Northwest and spearheaded Limited
English Proficiency (LEP) and Community Engagement training for local
law enforcement and diverse communities.
Youth roundtables.--CRCL has hosted four ``Roundtables on Security
and Liberty'' in Washington, DC; Houston; and Los Angeles to connect
with 150 young leaders ages 18-25 from American Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and
South Asian communities. These events offer opportunities for youth to
share their thoughts with senior DHS leadership and for Government
officials to learn from a population whose perspectives are invaluable
to homeland security efforts. Additionally, CRCL has hosted three
similar youth town halls with Somali youth groups in Minneapolis and
Columbus; events attended by the U.S. Attorneys and coordinated with
other Federal, State, and local law enforcement and other officials.
Incident Community Coordination Team.--Government contact with
diverse community leaders in the hours and days after an incident can
be extraordinarily helpful, because community leaders can calm
tensions, share information with their communities, and perhaps assist
law enforcement. Accordingly, my office has established the Incident
Community Coordination Team (ICCT). This conference call mechanism
connects Federal officials with key leaders in the event of a situation
in which contact would be productive. DHS participant components and
offices include TSA, ICE, CBP, USCIS, the Office of Public Affairs, and
the Office of Intelligence & Analysis. We are also joined when relevant
by the White House Office of Public Engagement, the DOJ Civil Rights
Division, the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and the
Department of State, among others. Community participants include
representatives of National organizations, community leaders from key
cities, and religious and cultural scholars.
Our ICCT has been used 11 times since we established it in 2006,
and has been an effective device in several ways:
It allows participating agencies to get community leaders
the information they need in the aftermath of an incident. The
information shared--which is not classified or restricted--is
valuable because of its reliability and timeliness.
It gives community leaders a channel to speak to Federal
officials in a timely and effective way. They can share
reactions to Governmental policies or enforcement actions, and
provide information about hate crimes that should be
investigated, about the mood of communities in the aftermath of
a homeland security incident and, possibly, about how the
Government might improve its effectiveness in investigating the
incident.
It facilitates development of a common understanding about
the messages that Government and community leaders will send to
these communities, the country, and the world.
The ICCT has convened following: The London arrests in August 2006,
the Ft. Dix and JFK arrests in June 2007, the London and Glasgow terror
attacks in late June 2007, the release of the National Intelligence
Estimate in July 2007, the Fort Hood shootings in November 2009, and
the December 25, 2009 Northwest Airlines bombing attempt. In 2011, the
ICCT was activated to address the death of Osama bin Laden and the
tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. In 2012, it was
activated in the aftermath of the attack on the Sikh Gurdwara (Temple)
in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. In 2013, it was activated twice in 1 week
following the Boston Marathon terrorist attacks.
During the most recent ICCT calls for the Boston bombings,
approximately 180 community stakeholders representing various
organizations, faith-based groups and community affinities
participated. Most community participants were from the Boston area,
but many joined the call from elsewhere in the country to hear timely
information from the U.S. Government and to provide information back
from their communities.
The U.S. Attorney from Boston, Carmen Ortiz, and officials from
DHS, including from CBP, TSA, ICE HSI, ICE ERO, joined the call. Other
officials from the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center, and
elsewhere in the administration also joined the call.
All Government partners updated community participants on the
nature of the on-going investigation and also provided resources such
as community hotline information and points of contact in case
community members wished to report instances of retaliation or backlash
violence in the wake of the Boston attack.
Community stakeholders engaged in a robust Q&A session asking
questions about DHS' various alert mechanisms and offered feedback on
how Government and law enforcement agencies could better manage public
messaging as events continue to unfold. Terminology and messaging was
also a focus of the discussion.
CRCL has since received specific follow-ups on this issue from
community stakeholders in a number of cities Nation-wide and will have
this topic on the agenda at all upcoming community engagement
roundtables and other follow-up meetings.
facilitating local engagement
There are millions of American Arab, Muslim, Sikh, Southeast Asian,
Latino, Jewish, South Asian, and other including interfaith
communities, living in thousands of towns and cities across the Nation.
By necessity, Governmental engagement with these and other diverse
communities has to be local.
CRCL conducts training for law enforcement personnel on cultural
competency relating to diverse ethnicities, cultures, and religious
practices. This kind of training is a precondition for honest
communication and trust between officers and the communities they serve
and protect. Topics include: Misconceptions and stereotypes of Arab and
Muslim cultures; diversity within Arab and Muslim communities;
effective policing without the use of ethnic or racial profiling; and a
best-practices approach to community interaction and outreach. Much of
this training is provided live, usually on-site, to Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officials around the country.
It is worth noting, in addition, that it is our community
partners--reliably informed by engagement activities about Government
policy and practices, and consistently empowered by those same
engagement activities to highlight for policymakers their experiences,
concerns, and grievances and to obtain reasonable responses--who bear
the responsibility to counter violent extremist ideologies that subvert
their values and may pave a path for young people towards violence.
Extremist beliefs, after all, are protected by the Constitution. Our
proper sphere of concern and intervention is violence, not extremism.
civil liberties engagement
As particular topics warrant civil liberties considerations, CRCL
reaches out to obtain the views of leading civil liberties advocates.
In particular, when a new DHS program, activity, or policy change leads
to concerns from the public on civil liberties, CRCL makes an effort to
engage with its civil liberties partners for feedback. For example,
CRCL has discussed its training for fusion center personnel and its
recently-published civil liberties impact assessment on the DHS support
to fusion centers with civil liberties organizations. We participated
in a forum on fusion centers hosted by the Constitution Project and
invited the ACLU and the Constitution Project to address all fusion
center privacy officers at a DHS-led conference. CRCL and the DHS
Privacy Office have recently begun bi-weekly Cybersecurity Engagement
Meetings to discuss the new Cybersecurity Executive Order. On other
topics, ranging from Unmanned Aerial Systems to border searches of
electronic devices, CRCL has maintained an open-door policy for
discussing the concerns of civil liberties specialists.
conclusion
DHS envisions a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient
against terrorism and other hazards, and where American interests,
aspirations, and way of life can thrive. The American way of life
prominently includes our cherished civil rights and civil liberties.
Even so, our Department--and the Federal Government as a whole--cannot
possibly do all that needs to be done in this area of endeavor. States
and local governments are beginning to become active in this area, and
some are doing terrific work. We must promote more local efforts, by
modeling constructive engagement; providing in-person and scalable
training and training materials; coordinating community-oriented
activities; and promulgating community engagement best practices. We
need to ensure that our State, local, and Tribal partners have the
knowledge, methods, skills, and resources to productively engage their
communities.
Frequent, responsive, and thoughtful engagement with diverse
communities is an imperative of effective Government. Such engagement
gathers and shares information, builds trust, informs policy, and
enables prompt response to legitimate grievances and needs.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify today. I welcome
your questions.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
The Chairman will now recognize himself for 5 minutes for
questioning.
The delay to get the truth out really feeds the fire of
distrust, so I am going to focus on that for just a minute.
DHS's ammunition and MRAP purchases and incidents of TSA's
security officers at screening checkpoints--it seems the
Department would simply not answer questions from certain
groups of people. So how does DHS decide which issues to engage
in? Why can't the DHS be more proactive in responding to
questions from the public?
Mr. Jensen. Thank you for that question, Chairman Duncan.
I think you are absolutely right, in the sense that there
is the requirement to respond to important issues. Specifically
on the ammo issue, we could have done a better job.
That said, when asked about responding, we make it a
point--and with that ammo issue, we responded to every single
media and blog inquiry that came to us. I know that they took a
little bit of time to get the accurate information, to make
sure what we put out was factually correct, but we did respond
to every media inquiry.
I also understand that my colleagues in Legislative Affairs
provided every Congressional office that asked them for
information on it with that information. I noticed that on
Senator Coburn's website that he actually posted the response
on there, which I think is a very good thing for us and also
very helpful to all of you, because you need to show your
constituency what the information is from DHS.
Can we do better? Yes. We are always looking at ways to
improve our processes. We want to take things that I call
``lessons identified'' and make them lessons learned. That is
something that, for example, I was brought into the Department
to try and do, to put a little bit of infrastructure into how
we do things and to do a better job of making our processes and
procedures across the Department more consistent.
Mr. Duncan. Just going back to the ammo thing for just a
second, when the story first broke that there was this huge
procurement contract, there was at least a 3-month delay, from
my recollection and doing a little research, on that.
So when we went out to FLETC recently, we had this
conversation with DHS officials about this ammo purchase. I
asked at that time about the contract, and I was told it was a
70-million-round contract over a 5-year period of time. But in
my questioning of that, I also found out that, well, FLETC
isn't the only procurement agency, that ICE actually has a
procurement contract as well.
So I requested at that time for a copy of the request for
proposal to the ammo companies to provide the ammo and a copy
of the 5-year contract from every procurement agency or sub-
agency that has the ability to procure ammo. I also wanted to
see the last 5-year contract so I could compare and see if it
is out of whack from what we had done in the past. Because I
think the American people need to know the facts and they can
deal with the facts. Let's just be honest with them. I think we
have a responsibility there.
That was on May 23. Are the copiers broken at DHS? Because
we haven't received that yet. That is almost a month, coming
up. So I throw that out there.
Then I want to just shift gears, because earlier this year
the media reported about an aggressive TSA pat-down of a young
child who was wheelchair-bound and heading to Disney World with
her family. Now, this video incident was heartbreaking. It
quickly went viral across the internet. TSA later apologized
but blamed ineffective guidance for the incident.
What would DHS do differently if this was to occur again
in, specifically, communicating with the American people? Why
does it seem so difficult for the Department to relate to the
traveling public's frustration and concerns on a human level?
I go back to my opening statement. We still prescribe to
the innocent-until-proven-guilty concept, but Americans don't
feel that way. When they go through TSA, they feel like they
are guilty of something, they feel like they are being accused
of something when they have to go through an invasive TSA
screening.
So when we see instances like this child being, you know,
aggressively patted down, and all she wanted to do was go to
Disney World, it is heart-wrenching, but we can relate to that
because we may have seen that personally or we may have gone
through something like that.
So I go back to the question: What would you do differently
if this were to occur again? How can you relate differently to
the American people about TSA screening?
Mr. Jensen. Well, sir, I think that we want to make sure
that folks know that TSA's No. 1 concern is safety of the
traveling public and that our security procedures are
constantly evolving as our adversaries are trying to get around
the security, you know, systems that we have in place.
One of the things I know that they are trying to do is they
are trying to evolve that security system so they have a
balance between the security--we have a multilayered security
system--and making the experience better for the traveling
public. We totally understand that it is not always a nice
experience.
If that happened again, obviously we need to ask more than
just what we are going to say about it. What was the cause for
our TSA officers not to have the correct training? That is not
necessarily a public affairs issue; it is a training issue. But
it definitely was the right thing to do to apologize publicly.
I think we would always make sure that we let the public know
when we are not doing something right, because there is no
reason to try and make an excuse for something that is
inexcusable.
I do want to say again that, overall, TSA has millions of
travelers every day going through without incident, and there
will be, unfortunately, incidents at times, which doesn't
excuse it, but we need to make sure we are clear with the
public on what we are doing and why we are doing it.
I think something that usually comes up is: What can I or
can I not, you know, bring onto a plane? That is another issue
that comes up. I think we have done a pretty good job of having
an app, a TSA app, that I think has gotten pretty good reviews
that tells people what they can and can't bring. It is also on
our website, as well.
So, again, we are just trying to look at moving away from a
one-size-fits-all approach, which is what we started off with,
and we are trying to evolve it to where we balance out the
risks and focus more on those families we know less about.
Those that we do, we need to, for example, change the rules in
making sure little kids don't have to take off shoes. Just, how
do we evolve that so it is a better experience for the public.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I appreciate that. Being proactive in a
communication realm is much better than being reactive. I want
to encourage you to do that.
I go back to the social media aspect. It is a great way to
communicate proactively. In a time of emergency, it is a
different ball game. I understand you are tweeting now and are
putting out things to allow folks to understand where to go,
how to react, where they can get help. But on an on-going
basis.
Ms. Kessler, going back to the TSA screening, because of
the civil liberties issue there, how would you respond to that
incident of the wheelchair-bound child heading to Disney World
and her civil liberties and what DHS or TSA did?
Ms. Kessler. Well, we get complaints like that frequently,
and the normal response is to check whether the policy needs to
be redone and the SOP needs to be redone in terms of how
procedures are put in place for searching of people in
wheelchairs. I, myself, have a daughter in a wheelchair, and I
travel frequently and try and educate the TSA agents as I go
through, and generally have a very good experience.
We have put a number of things in place, including there is
a TSA Cares line, where people with disabilities or any kind of
special vulnerabilities that will affect their travel can call
in advance and talk through what will happen and how it will
work and, if they have any special needs, how they would
arrange them with the airlines.
But we do see quite a few of these cases, all different
kinds of allegations from people with disabilities. Most of
them result in more training and a review of the policy to make
sure that it is really going to be helpful for whatever kind of
person comes through when you are dealing with the general
public.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Well, thank you for that.
I could ask questions about Chewbacca, the Wookiee, and his
cane and the lightsaber and all that other stuff, but I am
going to reserve that. I won't go there.
My time is up, so I will yield to Mr. Barber for
questioning.
Mr. Barber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
those questions. I am intrigued.
Mr. Jensen, let me just make a comment and then ask you
some questions.
As I said in my opening statements, I strongly believe the
Federal Government has a major responsibility to effectively
communicate and be transparent with the public. I understand
that within the Department of Homeland Security there are some
issues that have to be kept closer to the chest, in terms of,
you know, protecting our ability to secure the Nation and the
safety of its citizens.
But, having said that, I want to ask you a little bit about
how it is that the Department's headquarters coordinates at
component-level offices. Because I think this is where I see
the breakdown occurring. For example, the ICE detainee
released. For CBP, for example, I thought the misplaced email,
which was given to the reporter by someone in the Department
who obviously didn't like the tone that it was establishing.
So how does the Department headquarters coordinate with
component-level offices to ensure continuity of messaging? Who
has the final say in the components or headquarters on what
will be disseminated to the public? How does the flow of
communication work within the Department?
Mr. Jensen. Thank you for that question, Ranking Member
Barber.
There are multiple ways that we coordinate. On a daily
tactical level, we have calls with all the component media
offices, in which we are sharing what is going to go out that
day, what events are happening, and what are the expected press
releases. On a longer-range basis, we look in terms of
strategic communications, strategic planning, and we try and
look out, you know, weeks, months in advance to see what is
coming up. Many times, we do know what is coming up, because we
are the ones who are pushing the new policies and, you know,
are working on the messaging for that.
In terms of how the components work, okay, most of the
subject-matter experts in the programs that are being
operational are at the component level. So they are putting
together the first talking points, public affairs guidance in
the plans that are going to go out, and then that floats up to
the headquarters, where we review it. What we are trying to
review for is making sure that it is consistent with what our
headquarters policy is, because the policy is for the entire
Department, and making sure that the messaging is consistent.
The final say does come from the headquarters, in terms of
the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, which doesn't mean
that that is the end. I mean, if there is a disagreement, I
guarantee you that the administrators of the different
components will speak up and raise the issue, and there has
been discussions about how we do things.
One of the things that I think is important to note is
that--and I think you kind of bring it up in terms of policies
and procedures and standard operating procedures, that--again,
that is one of the reasons I was brought into FEMA, when I
first came to FEMA, was to put those SOPs in place. I am trying
to do the same thing at the headquarters, in terms of our
training of all of our component public affairs offices.
There does not exist now a DHS-wide training strategy. I am
putting that together, along with a DHS public affairs
workforce development plan so that we actually know how many
public affairs officers we have, what skill levels, you know,
what do they need to be able to do.
That training strategy, along with the recruiting,
retention, and leadership development plan, are going to be
part of that. Again, that doesn't exist now. We are working on
that. I have a group that includes senior representatives from
all the components to come together and have a say and have
input.
Another way that we are trying to do things is that--many
of our issues go across the Department. So, for example,
cybersecurity, every component has a little piece of that. So,
many times, a component might be focused on one program, and we
need to make sure that whatever they are saying fits what the
entire Department is doing.
So, to do that, we created a cross-Department steering
committee that has representatives, both policy and subject-
matter experts as well as communicators, to create a ``One
DHS'' communication strategy for cybersecurity. That way, all
of the components have that. They have a starting point, which
doesn't mean that that is the only thing people can say, but it
is a starting point, and it is a common messaging across the
Department.
We probably need to do a lot more of that. That is one of
the things that we are seeing as we mature the agency.
Mr. Barber. I appreciate that. It sounds like very
important and hopefully successful steps are being taken.
From what I have seen--and I think most of us would agree
with this--what was done in FEMA was really an exceptional
piece of work. Progress was made there, in terms of
communicating effectively at a time when people really need it
more than just about other time. So I wish you success with
bringing the same kind of coordinated and rapid communication
and messaging to the public.
Let me--you know, FEMA is a great example of how it works.
You said, I think, your Department is responsible for the
protocols agency-wide now?
Mr. Jensen. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Barber. Okay.
Let me turn to Ms. Kessler.
First of all, I want to commend you and your office for
what it is trying to do and what it is doing, actually, to
engage with minority groups that otherwise might be treated
poorly, I think, at the local level or sometimes at a National
level. We don't need to demonize people because of the actions
of extremists that might be part of that general community, and
I appreciate what you are doing.
TSA has a program where 2,800 staff are involved, I
believe, in airport scanning/screening of people. They kind of
float around, I am told. They are essentially, it seems to me,
profiling--I don't know if there is a better word to describe
it--to pick out people who might be suspicious.
How does the work of your office intersect or interact or
coordinate with that? Isn't it somewhat at cross-purposes?
Ms. Kessler. Well, the program is actually the behavioral
detection officers, and it is called the SPOT program. My
office has been very involved in ensuring that the way that the
officers are trained is appropriate, that the factors--they
have sort of a point system--that the factors that trigger
suspicion are appropriate, that they are not based on race or
ethnicity, that they are based on behaviors, suspicious
behaviors, and not who you are but how you are acting.
So we have had quite a bit of oversight on that program,
including revamping their policies, helping TSA to revamp their
policies and currently helping them to revamp the training.
There was an incident in Boston, as you know, that was
reported in The New York Times about some of the actual
officers up there complaining. That is under investigation by
the Inspector General, currently under investigation still.
But we have been working in the mean time, at the
Secretary's request, to ensure that the program is very
carefully structured with a lot of oversight.
Mr. Barber. Well, I didn't appreciate it until you said it,
that your office is helping to train those officers. I think
that is well-taken.
I just want to say in closing--and we will hopefully have
second round for the other questions--that I really commend the
Department for how it has handled communication with the
public. In natural disaster Sandy, it worked very well; Boston
bombing, very well. I just want to make sure that we apply
those approaches and those techniques and that coordination to
the day-to-day communication with the public.
We should never have found out about the detainee release
from the newspapers. We should never have found out, as Members
of Congress, about the proposed knife policy on airlines from
the media. I mean, these things have to be improved.
Personally, I want to see the Department succeed. I very
much believe in its mission, particularly the Border Security
and Customs piece of it. Just, you need to work more closely
with us to make sure that we are armed with the information we
need to be proactive and effective in supporting the men and
women who do this difficult job.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Barber.
The Chairman will now recognize the Chairman of the
Transportation Security Subcommittee, the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Hudson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses for being here today.
I think it has been said, the essence of America's
greatness is our goodness. I certainly share the Ranking
Member's concerns and I think what makes us a great country is
that we respect the rights and dignity and freedom of all
people. But the concern I hear when I go home a lot is: Are we
going too far? Are we allowing political correctness to get in
the way of our ability to keep ourselves safe?
One example I would cite, just to sort of ask, I guess, Ms.
Kessler or either one who would like to respond, your take on
this, but I saw in media reports a 2011 countering violent
extremist training video that, Ms. Kessler, your office I
believe put out, that suggested do's and don'ts when organizing
CVE, cultural awareness for counterterrorism training.
One of the suggested don'ts was, ``Don't use training that
equates radical thought, religious expression, freedom to
protest, or other Constitutionally-protected activity,
including disliking the U.S. Government, with being violent.''
That was a quote.
Yet media reports have indicated that Tamerlan Tsarnaev,
one of the suspects in the Boston bombing, made extremist
outbursts at his mosque that upset the folks there enough that
they said something about it. But, on the other hand, DHS
pleads with the public, you know, ``If You See Something, Say
Something.''
So I wonder if, you know, on the one hand folks are being
told, ignore this kind of language, and then on the other hand
we are telling the public, if you hear this type of thing, let
us know. You know, are we sending mixed messages? Are we erring
too far in one direction or the other? I would love to hear
your thoughts on that.
Ms. Kessler. I think that is a great question.
I think the ``See Something, Say Something'' campaign is
really focused on behaviors as opposed to speech and as opposed
to appearances. So we have worked hard to make sure that it
really is aimed at not profiling people and not putting people
into categories based on who they are.
It is true that I think it is very important in the context
of countering violent extremism that there is a differentiation
between speech and activities. We talk all the time about
radicalization to violence, rather than just radicalization.
Because it is part of the American tradition that people are
allowed to express their thoughts and feelings even if we don't
agree with them.
So part of this is not to control thought and it is not to
tamp down the ability to express that thought, but to watch for
when it crosses the line, when behavior starts to indicate that
there might be a bigger problem than just the philosophical
opinion of that person.
Mr. Hudson. So in the example I was asking about
specifically, where you have someone in a mosque whose radical
speech alarms those in the mosque, who are of the same culture,
of the same religious background, how do you weigh that sort of
information?
Ms. Kessler. For most of our work, we really focus on
empowering the community to be able to take care of that
internally so that they recognize the signs and that they know
that they can come to Government. So, building that community
of trust by holding our roundtables and doing very targeted
engagement and very intense engagement with groups in the
cities that we have chosen.
We feel that we are giving them a feeling of being
integrated into the community rather than ostracized, and that
that feeling of integration, the feeling that they have someone
to go to and to talk with about these issues, is a really good
thing, in the sense of them being able to take their own
internal steps to prevent these kinds of problems.
Mr. Hudson. All right.
Well, I have a little over a minute left. I guess I will
direct a question to Mr. Jensen.
As was alluded to, you know, we have just gone through this
process of removing items from the prohibited items list. I
think we can all agree the process was broken. There are good
folks on both sides of the issue of whether those items should
have been removed from the list, whether that was a good move
for risk-based security. I happen to think there is a way to do
that safely and it was a smart move.
But, as my colleague said, I learned about it in the media.
If we had had--and, obviously, I have talked to the
administrator about this--and, you know, given us a little more
time in advance to process these decisions, give feedback, it
puts us in a position to defend things we agree with much
better. But I think, also, that part of the larger point is the
stakeholders not being included in the front end on this
decision.
You know, I hope that from your point of view and the
Department's point of view, that was a mistake that we can
learn from. I would love to hear from you, Mr. Jensen, sort of
what lessons were learned from that, the ``knife flip-flop,''
it is being called.
Mr. Jensen. Thank you, sir.
Yeah, we definitely could have done that a little bit
better, and I think that has been acknowledged. My
understanding is that stakeholders were engaged before the
announcement of the proposal to change the policy. Again, it
was just looking for a way to evolve the policy, to move away
from this one-size-fits-all.
But at the point that this came out, before it was enacted,
TSA decided to have a pause, and then they re-engaged their
stakeholders, including the Aviation Security Advisory
Committee, law enforcement officials, passenger advocates, et
cetera, and, based on their feedback and concerns, made the
decision not to change the policy.
So, again, the point here is that----
Mr. Hudson. Well, if I could interrupt you, I am way out of
time--Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leeway--but I think that
the statement that stakeholders were involved in the front end
is not factual. I know you have a different role, and maybe----
Mr. Jensen. Sure.
Mr. Hudson [continuing]. This is something you may want to
look at a little closer, but the stakeholders were not included
in the front end. Again, I am someone who supported the policy.
I think it was a smart move from a risk-based standpoint. But
to say stakeholders were engaged in the front end is just
simply not true.
I think, if you will take a look at that, there are some
lessons that need to be learned. Because, from my point of
view, we need to move towards more risk-based. I think the
administrator and the Secretary are exactly right. I want to
support that. But if we are going to ever be about to remove
anything from that prohibited items list, we need to do a
better job on the front end of involving stakeholders and doing
it the right way so that people understand why we are doing
what we do.
So I would just, since I am completely out of time, would
just ask you to please take that into consideration going
forward.
Mr. Jensen. Absolutely. I think you are exactly right, sir.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leeway.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from south Texas,
Mr. O'Rourke, for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess my question is for Ms. Kessler.
How do we communicate with people who are crossing into the
United States? The instance that I am most interested in,
across our Southern Border from Mexico. In El Paso alone, we
have 6 million crossings a year. The majority of those crossers
are primarily speaking Spanish; in many cases, they only speak
Spanish.
What are we doing to effectively communicate with this
population, who are customers of our bridges, who are in many
ways keeping our economy alive in El Paso and throughout the
State of Texas and this country?
Ms. Kessler. Well, a good example of this recently has been
with the unaccompanied alien children. We have been creating
videos to be played in Central America, where most of them are
coming from now. It is much slower on Mexicans and much higher
on Central Americans. We have the ``dangers of the crossing''
video, which has, I think, been effective in people
understanding how dangerous this can be. For the children,
doing a real outreach project on them understanding what could
happen to them on the journey and the fact that they may end up
in HHS custody if they cross.
We have also been doing a lot of different videos for the
children after they are in custody. A lot of them actually come
across the border and turn themselves in because of the stress
of the journey. Those kind of videos help them to know what
will happen to them after they come into custody.
So I think there is more and more outreach to discuss both
the dangers of coming and the process once you are in it.
Mr. O'Rourke. We have heard in previous hearings that, you
know, somewhere close to 99 percent of those who are crossing
our ports of entry into the United States are crossing for
legitimate purposes, have the appropriate documentation, and,
again, are huge net contributors to our economy and to our
communities.
How are we communicating with that population?
Ms. Kessler. I think the Secretary has been very strong on
the efficiencies at the border and trying to make sure that
people really understand that the border is open for business.
There has been quite a bit of outreach--I think Mr. Jensen can
speak to you better than I can--on the fact that we want to
smooth people's transition and that the economy is the border
is very valuable.
Mr. O'Rourke. But before Mr. Jensen takes that question, I
want to follow up on something that the Chairman said, you
know, that many at airports going through the TSA process feel
like there is a presumption that they are guilty until proven
innocent. I will tell you that the people who are using our
ports of entry coming into our community, the community I
represent in El Paso, Texas, feel that same way.
In many cases, they have been waiting--it was 106 degrees
in El Paso yesterday--they have been waiting hours in the heat,
on foot, on these bridges to cross in. Many times, when they
get to the front of that line, they feel as though they are
harassed and don't often feel like they can pursue that
harassment or that mistreatment because they have already been
waiting for hours, they want to get into the community and do
their business, go to school, you know, reach their
destination.
How are we communicating with that population about the
recourse that they have if they feel like they have been
treated unfairly, they have had their civil liberties violated?
What is the plan there?
Ms. Kessler. Well, currently, we are working on a--I think
it will end up to be a brochure and possibly a poster that
would be in the ports of entry called ``Know Your Rights and
Responsibilities,'' which would really lay out what happens in
the process, what is appropriate, what is inappropriate, and
where you can file a complaint.
Mr. O'Rourke. Then for Mr. Jensen, related to that, the CBP
officers, the Border Patrol agents have among the toughest jobs
in public service and some of the most dangerous jobs in public
service. So I understand how difficult that is, to strike that
balance between security and mobility and ensuring that we are
respecting people's Constitutional rights and their civil
liberties.
But what are we doing internally to communicate the fact
that 99-percent-plus of these travelers are traveling for
legitimate purposes, have legitimate documentation, and that,
while we should ensure that we are securing the border, that we
have more of a welcoming posture? These are customers; these
are, in many cases, U.S. citizens returning back into the
country.
What is the internal communication strategy to make sure
that we do a better job going forward?
Mr. Jensen. Well, I know that, you know, for any
organization, the internal workforce is one of our main areas
that we need to have a better communication effort on. You are
exactly right, in the sense that they need to understand what
our posture is and the fact that, you know, our job is to be
welcoming.
I know that we are doing a lot right now--in fact, this
afternoon I am going to be working with our colleagues in
Canada. I am part of a ``Beyond the Border'' announcement that
is coming out. We are looking at ways to streamline the trusted
traveler program.
I think it really comes down to better training, which is
not necessarily a public affairs viewpoint; that is a training
viewpoint. But we certainly, in public affairs, in our internal
communications, whether it is on our intranet, which is called
Connect, whether it is through employee messaging, whether it
is through other means, that we can help support that training
and help support that mindset among our workforce.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman.
The Chairman will now recognize Mr. Payne from New Jersey
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say that I know, with our busy schedules here
in the halls of Congress, I was a little concerned about the
absence of Members on the other side. I was hoping it wasn't
because of the baseball game last night and the 22-nothing
score.
Mr. Duncan. Congratulations on that. I hope it wasn't
either, but thank you.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
I want to first say thank you to the Department of Homeland
Security, in particular FEMA, for its incredible response to
Hurricane Sandy. By and large, I am very pleased with the
response in New Jersey during that terrible disaster.
Nevertheless, you know, I continue to keep my eye on the
response efforts. There are still really too many families that
are homeless in New Jersey, along with small businesses that
have not yet received the help they need to get running again.
But I do want to recognize DHS for its response efforts.
They seem to get better and better with each unfortunate event.
This continued improvement tells me that the Department is
doing a good job learning from each disaster. So I want to
thank you, your Department, for the good work.
Having said that, Mr. Jensen, I would ask that you please
describe in depth the DHS's communications response and
strategy during Hurricane Sandy, including traditional
communication, social media and efforts alike. Also, could you
please educate me and the subcommittee on what strategies and
outreach efforts worked and what didn't work?
Mr. Jensen. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. I
appreciate the kudos to FEMA.
I absolutely believe that FEMA has done a really good job
and has learned a lot of lessons after Katrina, not least of
which surrounded communication. One of the biggest things that
we learned out of Katrina is that we needed to combine all of
the external communication efforts into one. They created the
external affairs office, of which I was acting director before
I moved up to headquarters at DHS.
What this does is this makes sure that, when we are
communicating with Congress, intergovernmental, with the States
and local, with the private sector, which we hadn't done very
well before Katrina, and our communities, interfaith, faith-
based organizations, et cetera, that it was all in one
organization so there was coordinated, integrated, and
synchronized messaging and that it was all consistent. That was
one of the biggest lessons learned out of that.
I think that was part of why there was success there in New
York and New Jersey and all throughout the areas impacted by
Sandy. Because the biggest thing that we found out is that any
communication plan that is media-centric is not going to work,
because the media, traditional media, has lost audience. With
the explosion of social media, of course, video-on-demand, on-
line streaming, everyone has a greater choice, and the sources
of information that people have is bigger today than it ever
has been.
I mean, for example, if you look at the combined audience
for the three nightly news for ABC, NBC, and CBS, it is only
about 22 million, average, right? Which means that the other
300 million people in America aren't watching it or they are
watching something else or they are not watching anything at
all, right? So that is just a small example of the challenges
that we face in, not only Government, but I think the corporate
world, the business world, is facing that same exact challenge.
That is what we learned, that we had to not be media-
centric. We needed to look at all channels of communication,
and we needed to be consistent.
So, in New York, I think what happened, we used the Whole
Community approach. I give a great deal of credit to Craig
Fugate, Administrator Fugate, and the folks at FEMA for
changing their culture and really embracing this Whole
Community approach, in which we are providing information to
community leaders, faith-based, the private sector, as well as
media and using social media itself. So we have to look at the
entire spectrum of media channels, of the way people get
information.
Oh, by the way, using those local leaders who are trusted
leaders. Sometimes groups might not trust us, but they will
trust their local leaders. That is a really important thing
that we have learned that we are doing.
We also needed to plan up-front to work much harder to
reach what I call the traditionally underserved populations--
the multilingual, the multicultural, the disability community,
the disadvantaged. We knew going in there that we had to do a
better job. So, for example, I led in New York. I had 143
languages I had to deal with. I had a great deal of diversity
across the city there in New York. Then we merged what we were
doing with New Jersey, because the media markets were the same.
So we had to use a wide range of channels to reach all those
populations.
I did not have the ability to translate everything into 143
languages, which did not mean I didn't have the responsibility.
I had the absolute responsibility for reaching out. So we did.
We used every means we could, whether it was--we did reach out
to multilingual media. We translated things into 20 languages.
I created a second toll-free number because of feedback from
the multilingual community that they weren't able to get
through on the main number or they didn't understand.
Of course, we used the private sector, including minority
groups like the Chinese American Business Association, to reach
out in every way we could to reach all those people.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
I know my time is up. I did have a question for Ms.
Kessler, if----
Mr. Duncan. Go ahead.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because Mr. Jensen
answered my first and second question, so--thank you.
Ms. Kessler, due to either the actual or perceived fears,
many racial and ethnic minority communities are reluctant to
communicate with the Department of Homeland Security officials
due to their fears that range from anything from deportation to
unwanted Government attention or concerns about becoming
victims of unlawful surveillance.
How does your office combat these fears? Even more
importantly, how does your office take steps to ensure that
unlawful surveillance or intrusions do not result from
communicating with the Department?
Ms. Kessler. That is a great question.
I think part of our effort is through our roundtables and
educating people that they can come and that--building a trust
relationship with our office and having people--that if they
have concerns about specific things that the Department does,
have people from the Department come and, in this community-
type setting, really talk through what their concerns are and
get the real information from the Department. That is
incredibly helpful.
A great example of that was with the AIT machines. When
they first went into use, there was a lot of concern by
religious communities about modesty for women. So we arranged a
chance for them to come to the airport, look at the AIT
machine, really understand how it worked. Then that problem
just sort of went away. We didn't hear any more concerns about
it. So we were able to really work through that.
In terms of where there are bad actors in the world, we
take complaints, we investigate those complaints. My office's
role is mainly to do policy recommendations and try to change
policy where that is the problem. If it is misconduct, that is
more handled by the Inspector General.
But we have started to work very collaboratively in the
past year, so that where the Inspector General is looking at
misconduct and whether the complaint of profiling or a civil
liberties complaint has a foundation, we are at the same time
working on policy, how to prevent, training, new procedures, so
that we have more oversight in the first place.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. I want to thank Mr. Jensen and Ms. Kessler for
being here today. I want to echo the words of the Ranking
Member earlier. Thank you for your service to our Nation and
within the Department that is charged with a tremendous
mission: To keep our Nation safe. We understand that. But I
think the hearing has shown that communications, proactive
communications, work better than reactive, and that is really
the gist of it.
So, before I dismiss the panel, I would just suggest that
you guys hang around for the next panel. You might be able to
pick up some tips from the private sector.
But thank you for your service, thank you for your
testimony. We look forward to working with you.
We will dismiss the panel and get started with the second.
Members are advised that votes will be about 11:15, so we
have about an hour for the second panel.
So we will dismiss the panel. Thank you.
All right. The Chairman will now recognize the second
panel. We are pleased to have additional witnesses before us
today on this important topic.
Let me remind the witnesses that their entire written
statement will appear in the record. I will introduce each of
you individually, and then we will recognize you for your
opening statement.
The first witness is Mr. Bill Braniff, the executive
director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism
and Responses to Terrorism, or START. Previously, Mr. Braniff
served as the director of practitioner education and instructor
at West Point's Combating Terrorism Center, where he led the
practitioner education program, the Nation's largest provider
of counterterrorism education to the Federal, State, and local
governments.
Mr. Braniff frequently lectures for counterterrorism
audiences. In addition, he has consulted with the Department of
Justice, the FBI, and the National security staff, playing a
key role in the interagency working group.
Mr. Doug Pinkham is the president of Public Affairs
Council, a leading international association for public affairs
professionals. Mr. Pinkham was elected to head the Council in
1997. Before joining the Council, Mr. Pinkham was vice
president of communications for the American Gas Association.
Mr. Pinkham is an accredited member of the Public Relations
Society of America, serves on the board of the Institute for
Public Relations, and previously served on the International
Advisory Board of the Boston College Center for Corporate
Citizenship. He is a member of the Arthur W. Page Society, an
association of senior-level corporate communications
executives.
The Chairman will now recognize Mr. Braniff for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BRANIFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CONSORTIUM FOR THE STUDY OF TERRORISM AND RESPONSES TO
TERRORISM
Mr. Braniff. Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Barber, and
esteemed Members of the committee, I would like to thank you on
behalf the START center for inviting us to speak with you
today.
I have been scheduled to discuss our research findings on
U.S. attitudes towards terrorism and counterterrorism and to
provide recommendations on steps DHS can take to better engage
with the American people. This testimony is based primarily on
a National panel survey of 1,567 adults issued in the fall of
2012 and the resulting analytical report authored by START
researchers and sponsored by the Resilient Systems Division of
the DHS Science and Technology Directorate.
In the final section of the survey, we asked about two
specific programs focused on increasing communication between
members of the public and the Government on topics related to
terrorism, one of which was the ``If You See Something, Say
Something'' campaign, which I will just refer to as ``the
campaign''; the other of which reflects Governmental community
outreach strategies to counter violent extremism.
While my written testimony goes into greater detail on the
findings regarding the earlier sections of the survey, I will
limit this testimony to discussion of the Department's
engagement with the public, but with the caveat that this
project was not designed to provide extensive analysis on that
more focused topic, although future research certainly could do
that.
Results of the most relevant questions from the survey are
as follows: More than 56 percent of respondents said they had
not heard anything about the campaign. Just over 20 percent
were not sure whether they had heard anything about it.
However, of the 24 percent of respondents who had heard of the
campaign, 85 percent thought it would be very or somewhat
effective.
The respondents least familiar with the campaign included
the 18- to 29-year-old demographic, those from the Midwest, and
those from nonmetropolitan statistical areas. Those most
familiar with the campaign include respondents from the
Northeast, respondents over 60 years of age, and those from
metropolitan statistical areas, as well as those who made over
$75,000 per year.
When asked, clear majorities of respondents said that they
would be willing to meet with people from DHS, 57 percent, and
with local police, 58 percent, to talk about terrorism. People
who saw the Government as very effective, 33 percent, or
somewhat effective, 54 percent, in preventing terrorism were
more likely to say that they were willing to meet with
authorities than those who saw the Government as ineffective.
Taking the survey as a whole, I arrive at eight conclusions
and recommendations.
No. 1, the survey found that Americans think about the
prospect of terrorism more frequently than they think about
hospitalization or being the victims of violent crime,
suggesting that Americans are not complacent regarding the
threat of terrorism. These results suggest that Americans will
perceive awareness campaigns and town hall meetings as
relevant, a finding reinforced by these survey results.
No. 2, fewer respondents indicated that they would be very
likely to call the police if they saw or heard about a person
joining a terrorist group than if they saw or heard about a
person planning to break into a house. Therefore, a public
education campaign focusing on the criminality of behaviors
such as joining a terrorist group may help highlight the
significance of those activities and result in higher reporting
levels in the future.
No. 3, approximately 24 percent of respondents from the
National sample indicated that they had heard of the campaign,
a program created in 2002 by the Metropolitan Transit Authority
in New York and adopted for roll-out across the Nation by DHS
only in 2012. Awareness of the campaign in the Northeast, where
a version of the program has been implemented for over a
decade, was significantly greater than the National average, at
nearly 43 percent. This suggests merely that continued
implementation of the program over time may increase the
public's awareness of it in other regions of the country.
No. 4, it is not clear what a realistic expectation for
awareness of the program should be, however. According to the
most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau's
American Community Survey, only 4.99 percent of commuters use
mass transportation as their primary means of commuting to
work. Reaching significantly higher percentages of atomized
Americans outside of the mass transit infrastructure,
therefore, may be costly or unrealistic. However, this research
effort does not speak to that question.
No. 5, trying to increase awareness of the program is,
however, a cost-effective--in a cost-effective manner is, of
course, a worthwhile goal. To address the communities least
familiar with the campaign, DHS can consider focusing on
population centers in the West, Midwest, and South, focusing on
Americans making less than $75,000 per year, and increasing its
use of social media and its presence on college campuses to
reach younger citizens.
No. 6, given their willingness to do so, DHS and its
Federal, State, local, and Tribal partners should take
advantage of the opportunity to meet with Americans to raise
awareness of the campaign and to educate Americans about
criminal behaviors related to terrorism.
No. 7, when a majority of respondents opined that terrorist
groups will eventually succeed in carrying out an attack
despite Government efforts, the respondents did not see this as
a failure of the Government. This is a powerful indicator of
societal resilience as well as evidence that Americans do not
expect the Government to interdict every plot on their own,
suggesting that there is a role for citizens in saying
something.
Further, Government authorities and DHS across the spectrum
should be cautious of adopting zero-tolerance rhetoric with
respect to counterterrorism lapses, as eroding the public's
trust in the Government or intimating that the Government
should be able to thwart every attack on its own may actually
decrease the public's willingness to engage with Government
through community outreach and awareness programs.
No. 8, finally, the willingness of DHS to fund an
independent research project that gives voice to the opinions
of the American citizen, which this survey did, and serves as
an objective assessment tool to help Federal, State, local, and
Tribal leaders allocate finite resources more effectively, as
this project has done, is one final example of what DHS should
continue to do. Not doing so or encouraging them not to do so
would have a chilling effect on the self-appraisal and research
and development processes which are so important for a
professional organization trying to improve.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Braniff follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Braniff
21 May 2013
Chairman McCaul, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member
Barber, and esteemed Members of the committee, I would like to thank
you on behalf of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and
Responses to Terrorism, known as START,\1\ for inviting us to speak
with you today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ START is supported in part by the Science and Technology
Directorate Office of University Programs of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security through a Center of Excellence program based at the
University of Maryland. START uses state-of-the-art theories, methods,
and data from the social and behavioral sciences to improve
understanding of the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological
impacts of terrorism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been asked to discuss the START Consortium's findings on U.S.
attitudes toward terrorism and counterterrorism and to provide
recommendations on steps the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can
take to better engage with the American people.
This testimony is based primarily on a National panel survey and
the resulting analytical report \2\ authored by investigators from
START and the Joint Program on Survey Methodology (JPSM),\3\ and
sponsored by the Resilient Systems Division of the DHS Science and
Technology Directorate.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ LaFree, Gary, and Stanley Presser, Roger Tourangeau, Amy
Adamczyk, ``U.S. Attitudes toward Terrorism and Counterterrorism,''
Report to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and
Technology Directorate's Resilient Systems Division. College Park, MD:
START, 2013. www.start.umd.edu/start/publications/
START_USAttitudesTowardTerrorismand= Counterterrorism_March2013.pdf. I
am especially grateful for the generous support of Dr. Amy Adamczyk in
running additional analyses on survey results specific to the ``If You
See Something, Say Something'' campaign (see Table 3). However, any
errors or omissions within this testimony are mine alone.
\3\ The Joint Program in Survey Methodology (JPSM) is the Nation's
oldest and largest program offering graduate training in the principles
and practices of survey research. It is sponsored by the Federal
Interagency Consortium on Statistical Policy. Its faculty is drawn from
the University of Maryland, the University of Michigan, Westat, and
other organizations.
\4\ Award Number 2010ST108LR0004. This testimony reflects the
opinions of the author and not necessarily those of the START
Consortium or the Department of Homeland Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The survey was developed by two leading survey methodologists
following a thorough review of past surveys on attitudes toward
terrorism and counterterrorism, consultations with a research team of
experts who study the dynamics of terrorism and counterterrorism, as
well as consultations with officials from the homeland security
community.
The questions were administered to members of a national panel by
the on-line survey firm Knowledge Networks, and a second wave of the
survey has been deployed 6 months after the first wave to allow for
analysis of attitudes over time. The first wave of the questionnaire,
which included approximately 60 items, was completed from September 28,
2012 to October 12, 2012 by 1,576 individuals 18 years of age and
older.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The first wave of the study involved providing self-
administered questionnaires to a random sample of computer users from
the National panel created by Knowledge Networks (KN). The KN National
panel consists of a probability sample of non-institutionalized adults
residing in the United States. (Members of the sample who did not own a
computer were given one when they joined the panel.) Of the panel
members invited to participate in our survey, 62 percent completed it.
To account for nonresponse and noncoverage, the estimates presented in
this report were weighted to 2012 totals from the Census Bureau's
Current Population Survey (CPS) for seven variables: Age, sex, region,
race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, and income. This standard survey
procedure ensures that the distributions of these background variables
for the 1,576 cases match those in the CPS and is likely to improve the
survey estimates to the extent the survey variables are related to the
background variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide preliminary information about the results of the survey,
we have divided the responses into three broad sections. In the first
section respondents were asked whether they had thought about
terrorism, how much it worried them and how likely they thought it was
to occur in the future. The second section of the questionnaire posed
questions about how likely respondents would be to call the police in
response to various actions potentially related to terrorism. It then
assessed respondents' awareness, and evaluation, of Government efforts
related to terrorism in the United States. In a final section, we asked
about two specific programs focused on increasing communication between
Members of the public and the Government on topics related to
terrorism.
thinking about terrorism
About 15 percent of the sample said they had thought about the
prospect of terrorism in the preceding week, more than the fraction who
said they had thought about hospitalization (10 percent) and violent
crime victimization (10 percent), but about the same fraction as those
who said they had thought about job loss (16 percent). Just over 20
percent of those who had thought about terrorism in the preceding week
said they had done something differently in the past year due to the
possibility of an attack compared to 4 percent of those who had not
thought about it. Among all respondents, about 5 percent said a
terrorist attack was extremely or very likely to happen in the United
States in the next year.\6\ Slightly fewer respondents said it was
extremely or very likely that they would experience hospitalization (3
percent), violent criminal victimization (2 percent) or a job loss (3
percent). Even fewer respondents assigned these chances to a terrorist
attack in their own community (1.5 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ [Sic.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toward the end of the questionnaire we measured whether respondents
had direct experience with the more personal negative events. Fourteen
percent of those who had not been victims of violent crime had thought
about terrorism in the last week, whereas 31 percent of the violent
crime victims had thought about terrorism. The very small number of
people who reported such victimization (4 percent) means that it cannot
explain most of the variation in whether people said they thought about
terrorism. Thus, we next considered whether where respondents lived was
related to reporting such thoughts.
Surprisingly, we found no evidence that living in a metropolitan
area increased the odds of having thought about terrorism. And although
metropolitan area residents were 3 percentage points more likely to say
a terrorist attack was extremely or very likely in the next year, they
were also 6 percentage points more likely to say it was extremely or
very unlikely to occur. Likewise, although we have too few cases in the
metro Washington, DC or New York areas to make inferences about their
residents, there was little sign that respondents in the States of New
York, New Jersey, or Connecticut differed from respondents living in
other States in thinking about terrorism or in judging its likelihood.
Table 1 shows the relationship of thinking about terrorism and
respondents' gender, age, education, and race/ethnicity. Men and women
answered the question in a similar fashion. Likewise, education was
largely unrelated to reports of having thought about terrorism. Blacks,
Hispanics, and Asians were all significantly less likely to have said
they thought about terrorism. Finally, older respondents were more
likely to say they thought about terrorism.
TABLE 1.--PERCENT HAVING THOUGHT ABOUT TERRORISM BY GENDER, AGE,
EDUCATION, AND RACE/ETHNICITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men............................................ 13.6% (745)
Women.......................................... 15.8% (810)
18-29.......................................... 7.4% (324)
30-44.......................................... 13.2% (403)
45-59.......................................... 15.7% (426)
60+............................................ 21.3% (402)
Less than HS................................... 11.1% (186)
High School.................................... 15.8% (474)
Some College................................... 14.1% (444)
BA or More..................................... 15.7% (451)
White.......................................... 17.2% (1049)
Black.......................................... 11.9% (176)
Hispanic....................................... 8.8% (223)
Other.......................................... 5.7% (88)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
respondents' views of terrorism and government responses to terrorism
In a second section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked
how likely they would be to call the police in response to various
actions potentially related to terrorism (see Table 2) and how
concerned they felt the Government should be about these actions. In
general, responses to these two items were strongly correlated.
Respondents indicated they would be more likely to call the police or
think that the Government should be very concerned about someone
``talking about planting explosives in a public place'' than any other
activity.
As a benchmark for these items, we asked respondents how likely
they would be to call the police if they overheard people talking about
breaking into a house in their neighborhood. About 70 percent of the
respondents said they would be very likely to call the police in this
situation; a somewhat higher percentage said they would be very likely
to call the police if they heard someone talking about planting
explosives in a public place (76 percent). At the other end of the
spectrum, about 21 percent of the respondents said they would be very
likely to call the police if they heard about someone reading material
from a terrorist group. Respondents who said they had thought about a
terrorist attack in the last week were more likely than other
respondents to say they were likely to call the police in response to
the various situations described to them.
TABLE 2.--LIKELIHOOD OF CALLING POLICE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not at
Very Somewhat Not Too All Total
Likely Likely Likely Likely
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Person:
. . . talking about breaking into a house...... 69.6% 18.9% 5.3% 6.2% 100% (1542)
. . . talking about joining a terrorist group.. 41.4% 28.7% 20.8% 9.1% 100% (1545)
. . . talking about planting explosives........ 76.1% 13.1% 4.6% 6.1% 100% (1543)
. . . reading material from terrorist group.... 20.6% 28.5% 35.4% 15.5% 100% (1544)
. . . stockpiling guns......................... 38.7% 24.9% 23.4% 13.0% 100% (1542)
. . . traveling overseas to join terrorist 52.0% 23.4% 14.7% 9.9% 100% (1547)
group..........................................
. . . distributing handouts in support of 46.2% 28.4% 17.4% 7.9% 100% (1540)
terrorism......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The questionnaire also included three items asking respondents
about their overall views about the threat of terror, the effectiveness
of the Government counterterrorism efforts, and their confidence in the
people running the Executive branch of the Federal Government.
A large majority of the respondents said that the U.S. Government
has been very effective (33 percent) or somewhat effective (54 percent)
at preventing terrorism; less than 13 percent characterized the
Government as not too effective or not effective at all. Despite this
positive view of the Government's efforts to prevent terrorism, a large
majority (69 percent) endorsed the view that ``terrorists will always
find a way to carry out major attacks no matter what the U.S.
Government does.''
``if you see something, say something'' and willingness to meet with
authorities
The survey also asked respondents about two specific programs
focused on increasing communication between members of the public and
the Government on topics related to terrorism.
The first was the ``If You See Something, Say Something''
campaign.\7\ Most respondents (more than 56 percent) said they had not
heard anything about this campaign, and a substantial number (more than
20 percent) were not sure whether they had heard anything about it. Of
those who had heard something about the campaign, most thought it would
be very (18 percent) or somewhat (67 percent) effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In July 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), at
Secretary Janet Napolitano's direction, launched a National ``If You
See Something, Say Something'' campaign--a program to raise public
awareness of indicators of terrorism and terrorism-related crime, and
to emphasize the importance of reporting suspicious activity to the
proper State and local law enforcement authorities.
TABLE 3.--PERCENT HAVING HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THE ``SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING'' CAMPAIGN BY GENDER, AGE,
INCOME, REGION AND METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes No Not Sure Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men............................................................ 26.6% 55.1% 18.4% 100% (817)
Women.......................................................... 21.9% 56.9% 21.2% 100% (735)
18-29.......................................................... 18.9% 58.0% 23.1% 100% (243)
30-44.......................................................... 24.4% 56.4% 19.3% 100% (353)
45-59.......................................................... 23.4% 57.8% 18.8% 100% (479)
60+............................................................ 28.1% 52.6% 19.3% 100% (477)
Less than $40k................................................. 21.6% 56.3% 22.2% 100% (487)
Between $40k-$75k.............................................. 19.2% 60.4% 20.4% 100% (427)
Over $75k...................................................... 29.9% 52.7% 17.4% 100% (638)
Midwest........................................................ 16.1% 67.5% 16.4% 100% (360)
Northeast...................................................... 42.6% 37.9% 19.5% 100% (298)
South.......................................................... 20.9% 58.3% 20.9% 100% (542)
West........................................................... 22.7% 55.7% 21.6% 100% (352)
Metropolitan Statistical Area.................................. 26.5% 53.4% 20.1% 100% (1303)
Non-Metropolitan Stat. Area.................................... 13.3% 69.1% 17.7% 100% (249)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The respondents least familiar with the campaign include the 18-29
year old demographic, those from the Midwest, and those from non-
Metropolitan Statistical Areas.\8\ Those most familiar with the
campaign include respondents from the Northeast, respondents over 60
years of age, those from Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and those who
made over $75,000 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``A geographic entity, defined by the Federal OMB for use by
Federal statistical agencies, based on the concept of a core area with
a large population nucleus, plus adjacent communities having a high
degree of economic and social integration with that core. Qualification
of an MSA requires the presence of a city with 50,000 or more
inhabitants, or the presence of an Urbanized Area and a total
population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England). The county or
counties containing the largest city and surrounding densely settled
territory are central counties of the MSA. Additional outlying counties
qualify to be included in the MSA by meeting certain other criteria of
metropolitan character, such as a specified minimum population density
or percentage of the population that is urban. MSAs in New England are
defined in terms of cities and towns, following rules concerning
commuting and population density. MSAs were first defined and effective
June 30, 1983.'' http://www.census.gov/geo/lv4help/cengeoglos.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The survey also asked respondents whether they would be willing to
attend a meeting with local police or with people from the Department
of Homeland Security to talk about terrorism. Clear majorities of
respondents said they would be willing to meet with people from DHS (57
percent) and with local police (58 percent) to talk about terrorism.
Most people (88 percent) gave the same answer to the two questions;
that is, the same people who were willing to attend a meeting with
people from DHS were also willing to attend a meeting with local police
to talk about terrorism. People who saw the Government as very or
somewhat effective in preventing terrorism were more likely to say they
were willing to attend such meetings than those who saw the Government
at not too or not at all effective at preventing terrorism (see Table
4).
TABLE 4.--WILLINGNESS TO ATTEND A MEETING WITH LOCAL POLICE OR DHS, BY PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT IN PREVENTING TERRORISM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willing To Attend Meeting With Local Willing To Attend Meeting With
Police People From DHS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes No Total Yes No Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effectiveness of Government at preventing terrorism:
Very effective.......................................................... 63.0% 37.0% 100% (510) 62.7% 37.30% 100% (515)
Somewhat effective...................................................... 61.0% 39.0 100% (827) 58.6% 31.4% 100% (829)
Not too or not at all effective......................................... 36.8% 63.2 100% (191) 39.3% 60.7% 100% (194)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................................. 58.5% 41.5% 100% (1537) 57.4% 42.6% 100% (1548)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusions and recommendations
This survey found that Americans think about the prospect of
terrorism more frequently than they think about hospitalization or
being the victims of violent crime, suggesting that Americans are not
complacent regarding the threat of terrorism. These results suggest
that Americans will perceive awareness campaigns like ``If You See
Something, Say Something'' as relevant, a finding reinforced by the
fact that 85 percent of respondents who had heard of the campaign
indicated they thought it would be very or somewhat effective.
The survey results also revealed that respondents who said that
they had thought about a terrorist attack in the last week were more
likely than other respondents to say they were likely to call the
police in response to various scenarios described to them, and were
also more likely to indicate that they had altered their behavior over
the previous year because of the possibility of an attack. These
findings do not demonstrate causality, that priming people to think
about terrorism results in a change in behavior, but do suggest that
heightened awareness and security-conscious behavior of the citizenry
may be correlated. Fewer respondents indicated that they would be
``very likely'' to call the police if they saw or heard about a person
joining a terrorist group than if they saw or heard about a person
planning to break into a house. Public education on the criminality of
behaviors such as joining a terrorist group, which would constitute
material support for a designated terrorist organization, may help
highlight the significance of those activities and result in higher
reporting levels in the future.
Interestingly, there was no evidence that living in a metropolitan
area increased the odds of having thought about terrorism in the
previous week, despite the fact that 10 cities account for 40.6 percent
of all U.S. attacks from 1970-2011.\9\ Given the greater frequency of
terrorist incidents within cities, and the greater number of citizens
available to engage with efficiently, DHS should continue to focus on
metropolitan areas even though respondents were significantly more
likely to have heard of ``If You See Something, Say Something '' in
those areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ LaFree, Gary, and Laura Dugan, Erin Miller, ``Integrated United
States Security Database (IUSSD): Terrorism Data on the United States
Homeland, 1970 to 2011,'' Final Report to the Resilient Systems
Division, DHS Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security. College Park, MD: START, 2012. The 10 cities
include: New York City, NY; San Juan, PR; Los Angeles, CA; San
Francisco, CA; Miami, FL; Washington, DC; Chicago, IL; Seattle, WA;
Berkeley, CA; and Denver, CO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 24 percent of respondents from the National sample
indicated that they had heard of the ``If You See Something, Say
Something'' campaign, a program created in 2002 by the Metropolitan
Transit Authority in New York and adopted for roll-out across the
Nation by the Department of Homeland Security in 2010. Awareness of
this campaign in the Northeast, where a version of the program has been
implemented on various forms of mass transit for over a decade, was
significantly greater at nearly 43 percent. This suggests that
continued implementation of the program over time may increase the
public's awareness of it in other regions of the country.
It is not clear what a realistic expectation for awareness of the
program should be, however. According to the most recent data available
from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, only 4.99
percent of commuters in 2009 used mass transportation as their primary
means of commuting to work.\10\ This suggests that while mass
transportation infrastructure provides an efficient marketing platform
to capture a percentage of Americans, increasing awareness of ``If You
See Something, Say Something'' is not simply a matter of more marketing
on buses and subways. It is likely that this commuter population is
already highly represented in the current awareness figures given the
centrality of mass transit to the campaign, and reaching significantly
higher percentages of atomized Americans outside of aggregators like
mass transit infrastructure may be costly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Transit Commuting Reported in the American Community
Survey,'' American Public Transit Association summary document.
December 22, 2010. http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/
2009_ACS_Transit_Commuter_Data.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trying to increase awareness of the program in a cost-effective
manner is a worthwhile goal, however. To address the communities least
familiar with the ``If You See Something, Say Something'' campaign, DHS
can consider focusing on population centers in the West, Midwest, and
South, focusing on marketing material that will reach those Americans
making less than $75,000 per year, and increasing its use of social
media \11\ and its presence on college campuses to reach younger
citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For a discussion of the efficacy of social media with respect
to a different Government awareness effort, see the forthcoming START
case study: Fraustino, Julia Daisy, and Liang Ma. ``If You're Ready for
a Zombie Apocalypse, then You're Ready for Any Emergency: The CDC's use
of Social Media and Humor in a Disaster Preparedness Campaign,''
College Park, MD: START, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A large majority of the respondents said that the United States
Government has been very effective (34 percent) or somewhat effective
(53 percent) at preventing terrorism, and a majority indicated a
willingness to meet with Federal and local authorities to discuss
terrorism. Respondents were more likely to indicate the willingness to
meet when they also indicated a higher opinion of the Government's
effectiveness at preventing terrorism. While a majority of respondents
opined that terrorist groups will eventually succeed in carrying out an
attack despite Government efforts, the respondents did not see this as
a failure of the Government. These are powerful indicators of societal
resilience, as well as evidence that Americans do not expect the
Government to interdict every plot on its own.
DHS and its Federal, State, local, and Tribal-level partners should
take advantage of the opportunity to meet with Americans to raise
awareness of ``If You See Something, Say Something,'' to educate
Americans about criminal behaviors related to terrorism, and to engage
in a dialogue on how the Government can improve upon the already-high
levels of trust with respect to counterterrorism. Governmental
authorities across the spectrum should be cautious of adopting ``zero
tolerance rhetoric'' with respect to counterterrorism lapses, as
eroding the public's trust in the Government or intimating that the
Government should be able to thwart every terrorist plot alone may
decrease the public's willingness to engage with Government through
community outreach and awareness programs.
The willingness of DHS to fund an independent research project that
gives voice to the opinions of American citizens and serves as an
objective assessment tool to help Federal, State, local, and Tribal
leaders allocate finite resources more effectively is one final example
of what DHS should continue to do.\12\ Not giving the Department credit
for the level of introspection evidenced through this research project
may have a chilling effect on the self-appraisal and research and
development efforts that are so essential for professional
organizations seeking to improve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For example, after publishing the results of this survey,
START received a phone call from a State homeland security advisor from
the Midwest who informed us of his plans to work with local media to
raise awareness of the campaign based on these research findings.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Braniff.
The Chairman will now recognize Mr. Pinkham for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS G. PINKHAM, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
COUNCIL
Mr. Pinkham. Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Barber, and
Members of the subcommittee, my name is Doug Pinkham. I am
president of the Public Affairs Council here in Washington. I
am pleased and honored to have the opportunity to participate
in this hearing to discuss best practices in communications and
public affairs and what DHS can learn from the private sector.
The Public Affairs Council is an international organization
for public affairs professionals. We work to advance the field
of public affairs and to provide our members with expertise
that they need to succeed, while maintaining the highest
ethical standards. We have roughly 650 member organizations
around the world and about 7,000 people active in our programs.
While this is unusual in Washington, we are actually both
nonpolitical and nonpartisan.
For large companies and large institutions of all types,
the last 20 years have brought a world of opportunities and
threats. Brands are more powerful than ever, but they are also
more fragile than ever. As technology has enabled collection
and dissemination of useful data, the burden has shifted onto
large institutions to defend why information they have
shouldn't be shared. In a democracy, this can be a positive
development, but it does present both resource and management
issues.
Seismic changes in the media landscape have created major
communications challenges for every organization. Finally, high
levels of public distrust also hamper the abilities of both
companies and Government to operate effectively.
Faced with this environment, communications and public
affairs professionals have had to adopt new ways to disseminate
information, earn the trust of the public, and manage their
overall reputations.
Based on our expertise, we have found that companies with
successful communications and public affairs functions
demonstrate certain common characteristics. The following is a
quick list of 10 such characteristics.
No. 1, senior management support and involvement. It is
absolutely essential that senior management personnel are
engaged in all major aspects of communications and public
affairs.
No. 2, a well-developed issues-management process. Smart
companies have internal systems for identifying communications
and public affairs issues, setting priorities, carrying out
plans, and then, importantly, measuring results.
No. 3, strong collaboration between all external teams. It
can be inefficient and even dangerous to build silos that
separate people and programs with similar goals.
No. 4, integrated crisis communications planning.
Similarly, when a leading company faces a crisis, it
communicates to all major stakeholders, including Members of
Congress, in ways that resonate with those groups.
No. 5, understanding of risk communication. Companies that
understand the psychology of risk perception are often better
able to connect with stakeholders and respond to community
concerns.
No. 6, strategic use of communications technologies. Most
major corporations use social media and related technologies to
dialogue with customers, give a voice to brand champions,
promote products, and counter negative publicity, among other
applications.
No. 7, innovative approaches to media relations.
Communications executives are increasingly bypassing
traditional media by distributing useful and credible
information through a variety of channels both on-line and off-
line.
Transparent and on-going communications is No. 8. The
challenge is committing to transparency that is sustainable and
desirable for the enterprise. Firms that promise to be open and
then change their minds are actually worse off than those who
never claimed to be transparent in the first place.
No. 9, a focus on employee communications, often an area
that doesn't get looked at nearly enough. Leading companies
have come to realize that their own employees are often their
most important audience.
No. 10, robust performance measurement systems. Measurement
systems that focus on counting the number of media articles
published, speeches given, website hits received, or tweets
made measure activity rather than impact. The most effective
evaluation programs define clear communications goals and then
measure progress toward those goals.
Finally, I just have a few general observations that can be
considered along with these best practices, and I hope they can
be of value to DHS and your oversight of DHS.
First, because consumer-facing components of the agency
will naturally draw attention from the public and the news
media, the mix of communication strategies used at DHS would
and should vary substantially among its different branches.
Second, DHS leadership should continue to collaborate with
academics, nonprofits, the private sector, and others to ensure
that a wide variety of voices are being heard when trying to
communicate key messages to the public.
Third, because DHS deals with major National security and
civil liberty issues, it has to be diligent about setting the
record straight when the public is misinformed. Yet, at the
same time, it must do so with compelling stories that are then
supported by the facts.
Fourth, when evaluating DHS's performance, it is important
for everyone that expectations are set at achievable levels and
that the proper metrics are being used.
So thank you once again for this opportunity to appear
before this committee to address best practices in both
communications and public affairs. I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pinkham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas G. Pinkham
May 21, 2013
Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Barber, and Members of the
subcommittee, my name is Doug Pinkham and I am president of the Public
Affairs Council in Washington, DC. I am pleased and honored to have the
opportunity to participate in this hearing to discuss ``best
practices'' in communications and public affairs at leading companies
and what DHS can learn from the private sector.
The Public Affairs Council is an international organization for
corporate and association public affairs professionals. Launched in
1954, the Council works to advance the field of public affairs and to
provide members with the executive education and expertise they need to
succeed while maintaining the highest ethical standards. The
organization has more than 640 member companies and associations,
representing 7,000 people working in the public affairs field. The
Council is both non-partisan and non-political.
``Public affairs'' is a term that means different things to
different people. In the Federal Government, it refers to the function
that manages communication with the news media and other important
stakeholders. In many large corporations, it means the function that is
responsible for Government relations. The Council embraces a broader
definition. We believe that public affairs represents an organization's
efforts to monitor and manage its business environment. It combines
communications, Government relations, issues management, and corporate
citizenship strategies to improve public policy, build a strong
reputation, and find common ground with stakeholders.
managing in a difficult environment
For large companies--and large institutions of all types--the last
20 years have brought a world of opportunities and threats. On the one
hand, information technology and globalization have given firms
unprecedented access to new markets, new customers, and new ideas that
enable them to grow larger and more profitable. Certain popular
``brands'' now have greater value than most companies. According to
Forbes magazine, Apple's brand is now worth $87.1 billion, which is
more than 50 percent higher than its level 2 years ago.
On the other hand, brands are also more fragile than they've ever
been before. Rightly or wrongly, groups and individuals with a
complaint or a political cause have the tools to attack corporate
brands directly, by leveraging the influence of major customers, by
launching shareholder campaigns, or by ``hijacking'' a brand to promote
an issue.
A second challenge facing large institutions is the heightened
expectation for transparency. As recently as the 1990s, well before
social media and Big Data, the public didn't demand as much openness
from corporations or Government. As technology enabled the collection
and dissemination of useful data, the burden shifted onto large
institutions to defend why information shouldn't be shared. In a
democracy, this is a positive development. But it does present both
resource and management issues for organizations trying to determine
whether information is non-proprietary, unclassified, accurate,
accessible, and distributable.
Seismic changes in the media landscape have created major
communications challenges for every organization. These challenges
include:
Decline of many mainstream media companies, which often had
the most knowledgeable and experienced journalists;
The creation of thousands of new, internet-based media
outlets, with various levels of accuracy and accountability;
The end of the news cycle, which used to give communications
professionals time to respond more thoughtfully to negative or
controversial news;
The dawn of the age of ``truthiness,'' when unchecked
information sounds like it might be true and is spread
throughout the world before large institutions have the
opportunity correct the record.
High levels of public distrust also hamper the ability of both
companies and Government to operate effectively. Each year the Council
publishes the Public Affairs Pulse survey, a major poll that measures
public attitudes toward business and Government. In the 2012 survey,
two-thirds of Americans (67%) said they have a favorable view of major
companies, while only 4 in 10 Americans (41%) said they have a
favorable view of the Federal Government.
Yet, while overall attitudes toward business have become more
positive in recent years, many Americans don't have much trust and
confidence in major companies to ``do the right thing.'' For example,
the survey found 55 percent of Americans have a lot of trust or some
trust in corporations, while 44 percent do not trust major companies.
There are substantial variations in trust by industry sector.
Meanwhile, the public has doubts about whether the Federal
Government can effectively handle the challenges that face the Nation.
Only 41 percent said they have ``some'' or ``a lot'' of trust and
confidence that the Government can solve the Nation's most important
problems. A majority (58%) said they have ``not too much'' or no trust
at all that the Government can solve these problems.
redefining the communications and public affairs functions
Faced with this environment, communications and public affairs
professionals have had to adopt new ways to disseminate information,
build rapport with stakeholders, earn the trust of the public and
manage their overall reputations. They have had to learn to be more
open, engaged, collaborative, and pro-active.
The Arthur W. Page Society, a professional association for senior
public relations and corporate communications executives, has developed
a new model that explains how a company should define and protect its
corporate character, and inspire groups and individuals to become
champions.
According to the Page Society, a chief communications officer (CCO)
must be:
An integrator.--Working across the C-suite to make the
company ``think like'' and ``perform like'' its corporate
character.
A systems designer.--Not only systems of marketing and
communications, but of how these relate to the company's
operations and management systems.
A master of data analytics.--To understand customers,
employees, investors, citizens, and other stakeholders as
individuals rather than publics, audiences, and segments of
populations.
A publisher and developer.--The same tools of information
production that are in the hands of the masses are also
available to the CCO, who can directly inform, empower, and
equip targeted individuals.
A student of behavioral science.--To inform the shaping of
belief, action, behavior, and advocacy.
A curator of corporate character.--To ensure that the
company's communications and its people remain true to their
core identity.
Needless to say, this model is a far cry from the role of the
communications executive of 30 years ago, when many large companies
focused their efforts on protecting their image and garnering favorable
publicity. These days, firms put at least as much effort into ``being
good'' as they do into ``looking good.''
``best practices'' of leading companies
Based on the Public Affairs Council's research, benchmarking, and
executive education experience, we have found that companies with
successful communications and public affairs functions demonstrate
certain common characteristics. The following is a list of 10 such
characteristics, along with a discussion of why each one is important.
This list can be adapted for use in evaluating communications and
public affairs operations in Government agencies.
1. Senior Management Support and Involvement.--In a Wall Street
Journal article, penned less than a year before he died in
2005, management guru Peter Drucker argued that the CEO's first
task is to define the outside world. Included in this category
are society, the economy, technology, markets, customers, the
media, and public opinion. The CEO's second task is to figure
out what information from the outside is meaningful and how to
process it effectively. Based on his or her best judgments, the
CEO decides business priorities and how to focus resources.
In the 8 years since Drucker wrote that article, business has
experienced a blending of the inside and the outside. What goes
on within a company increasingly affects outcomes, and costs
associated with a firm's external environment are getting
harder to manage.
That's why it is essential that senior management personnel are
engaged in all major aspects of communications and public
affairs.
2. Well-Developed Issues Management Process.--Smart companies have
internal systems for identifying communications and public
affairs issues, setting priorities, carrying out plans and
measuring results. These systems tend to have an open
architecture that encourages input, ownership and evaluation by
others in the enterprise.
While many models are used, one model we particularly like has the
following eight steps:
Interview senior management to determine the reputation
and public policy threats/opportunities the company faces;
Survey key employees, customers, suppliers, community
leaders, and other stakeholders to produce a list of
current and emerging issues;
Analyze the issues to determine what is currently known
about their current and future impact on the organization
(impact can take the form of direct or indirect costs);
Score issues for importance (based on impact) and
affectability (based on one's ability to affect the
outcome);
Sort out high and low scores and decide where to focus
resources--issues with high scores for both importance and
affectability should be at the top of one's priority list;
Narrow the list down to major priorities (with capacity
reserved to handle crises);
Define objectives, create strategies, and develop cross-
functional tactics;
Set up a measurement and reporting system.
This type of issues plan offers numerous benefits: It keeps staff
focused on issues that really matter, eliminates redundant
activities, makes it easier to identify common goals, and
engages top executives in the prioritization process. Some
companies have formal issues management systems, while others
have informal processes for setting priorities and coordinating
activities. What's important is that management makes it clear
that the company owns the issues and that everyone involved is
responsible for supporting key business objectives.
3. Strong Collaboration Between All External Teams.--Many large
organizations, in both the private and public sectors, don't do
a good job of integrating the roles and responsibilities of
personnel involved in communications and public affairs. In
fact, a 2011 study by the Foundation for Public Affairs showed
that only 41 percent of 115 surveyed companies had a management
structure with fully integrated communications and public
affairs functions.
Natural synergies exist among those who manage relationships with
Government, the media, local communities, employees, and other
stakeholders. It can be inefficient--and even dangerous--to
build ``silos'' that separate people and programs with similar
goals.
In recent years, the arguments for joining forces--or at least
coordinating forces--have become stronger than ever. First and
foremost, public perception and public policy are closely
related. News travels fast, and bad news travels faster.
Companies that take an unpopular stand on an issue may find
themselves subject to protests and boycotts. Firms that are
frequently criticized in the media have a difficult time
advocating a legislative agenda. If the smallest business unit
in a large multinational makes an unethical business decision,
the entire enterprise suffers.
Leading companies, nonprofits, and Government agencies understand
the synergies that can be gained by collaborating across
divisions and lines of business.
4. Integrated Crisis Communication Planning.--Similarly, when a
leading company faces a crisis, it puts in motion a plan to
communicate to all major stakeholders in ways that resonate
with those groups. Years ago, crisis plans focused primarily on
the news media. Now many firms use a wide variety of tools
(print, broadcast, social media) to communicate with a wide
variety of stakeholders (employees, news media, customers,
suppliers, investors, policy-makers, local communities,
unions). As smart phones and social media become ubiquitous,
this communication is increasingly two-way.
Global corporations are also considering new approaches to crisis
communication in light of the fact that different types of
spokespeople have different levels of credibility. The 2013
Edelman Trust Barometer, a comprehensive survey of global
trust, ranks the credibility of spokespeople in this way:
Academic or expert--69%
Technical expert in the company--67%
A person like yourself--61%
Financial or industry analyst--51%
NGO representative--51%
Regular employee--50%
CEO--43%
Government official or regulator--36%.
When a crisis is at the acute stage, the public expects the CEO to
play a prominent role. In fact, in the 2012 Public Affairs
Pulse survey, 59 percent of respondents said that making top
executives available to answer questions about what happened
would do ``a lot'' to make them feel the company is doing the
right thing. However, in day-to-day communication or in
outreach to local communities, rank-and-file employees,
technical experts, or community leaders are often more
effective.
5. Understanding of Risk Communication.--``Any given risk has a set
of identifiable characteristics that help predict what
emotional responses that risk will trigger,'' wrote David
Ropeik and George Gray of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
in their 2002 book, Risk. Communications professionals working
for chemical and nuclear energy companies, along with public
health officials, have developed a sophisticated knowledge of
these patterns. That's because they have to deal with questions
of risk and safety on a daily basis.
But, increasingly, companies working in a wide array of industries
are applying risk communication principles to their public
outreach efforts. While an outraged community or group of upset
customers may not be facing an actual crisis, they experience
many of the same emotions of people in a crisis situation.
According to Ropeik and Gray, major risk perception factors
include: Man-made risk versus natural risk; imposed risk versus
chosen risk; no-benefit risk versus risk with trade-offs;
gruesome risk versus regular risk; distrustful risk versus
trustworthy risk; risk with uncertainty versus risk with
certainty; and risks to children versus risks to adults.
Companies that understand the psychology of risk perception are
often better able to connect with stakeholders, respond to
community concerns, and have credibility when they are facing a
crisis.
6. Strategic Use of Communications Technologies.--Most major
corporations have integrated social media, video, and other
technologies into their communications operations. They use
them to dialogue with customers, give a voice to brand
champions, involve employees in outreach, promote products,
create communities of interest, counter negative publicity, and
advocate for public policy, among other applications.
Smart companies have a clear understanding of the benefits and
limitations of these technologies. While social media can be an
effective tool for building rapport with stakeholders, a
company can't embark on a social media strategy with the idea
that it will control the conversation. As with all forms of
communication, social media programs should be launched because
they represent the highest strategic use of corporate
resources, not because everyone else seems to have a social
media program.
7. Innovative Approaches to Media Relations.--Corporate
communications involves creating a dialogue about a company's
business, the principles behind its brand and what benefits it
offers to customers and society. Yet, because of all the
changes taking place in the news media, it has become
increasingly difficult for companies to tell their story in
ways that will reach significant numbers of people. As noted in
the summary of the Arthur W. Page Society's new model,
communications executives are increasingly becoming publishers
on behalf of their firms. They are bypassing traditional media
by distributing useful and credible information through a
variety of channels, both on-line and offline.
8. Transparent and On-going Communications.--In the June 2009
edition of Harvard Business Review, James O'Toole and Warren
Bennis wrote that American business needed ``a culture of
candor.'' ``Because no organization can be honest with the
public if it's not honest with itself,'' they said, ``We define
transparency broadly, as the degree to which information flows
freely within an organization, among managers and employees,
and outward to stakeholders.''
Being transparent about all aspects of company operations is easier
said than done, however. Some information is proprietary or
confidential for competitive reasons; other information can't
be released for legal reasons. Yet many successful companies
have learned to stretch themselves so that they can be more
responsive to public demands for openness. While business-to-
business firms may not see as much immediate benefit to this
approach, consumer-based companies are increasingly
incorporating transparency practices into their communications.
The challenge is committing to a level of transparency that is
sustainable and desirable for the enterprise. Firms that
promise to be open and then change their minds are worse off
than those that never claim to be transparent in the first
place.
9. Focus on Employee Communications.--In a transparent world,
leading companies have come to realize that their own employees
are often their most important audience. Much of this is due to
the rising influence of word-of-mouth communication. If
employees are making authentic, positive statements on-line
about where they work, their messages will likely resonate with
friends and colleagues. On the other hand, if employees are
making negative comments, their messages could have an
extremely damaging impact.
Several major studies have been conducted on best practices in
employee communication. In a comprehensive study conducted in
2005 by Gay, Mahoney and Graves, four key drivers accounted for
72 percent of variance in aligning employees with business
strategy: (1) Employee understanding of how they can help
achieve company goals, (2) employee commitment to business
strategy, (3) the use of technologies to enhance understanding
of strategy, and (4) building trust between leaders/managers
and employees.
10. Robust Performance Measurement System.--Communications and
public affairs success can be measured in many ways, but some
methods are more reliable than others. Systems that focus on
counting--the number of media articles published, speeches
given, website hits received, or tweets made--measure activity
rather than impact. The most effective evaluation programs
define clear communications goals and then measure progress
toward those goals.
For companies associated with major brands, surveys and focus
groups may be helpful in determining how a company is regarded by
important stakeholders--especially in relation to competitors. Some
firms analyze customer-generated and other data to determine whether
communications activities have had a direct impact on sales,
recruitment/retention, the tone of media coverage, or overall
reputation.
insights and observations
While I am not an expert on the Department of Homeland Security's
communications policies and practices, I do have some general insights
and observations that can be considered along with the above best
practices:
In developing communications strategies in both the private
and public sectors, there's a natural tension between promoting
the identity and services of the parent organization and those
of each individual subsidiary. There's also a tension
associated with promoting one ``brand'' over another. In
tackling the challenge of communicating its mission, DHS takes
a hybrid approach, which seems appropriate. Consumer-facing
components such as TSA and FEMA, for instance, will naturally
draw attention from the public and the news media.
Consequently, the mix of communications strategies used--and
the resources required to fund those strategies--will vary
substantially among the different branches of the agency.
High levels of public distrust make the job of Government
communications especially difficult. As noted earlier,
Government officials or regulators don't score well as
spokespeople compared to technical experts, NGO
representatives, business leaders, or even average citizens.
DHS leadership should continue to collaborate with academics,
non-profit organizations, the private sector, and others to
ensure that a wide variety of ``voices'' are being heard when
communicating key messages.
Having the facts on one's side isn't enough. In both the
private and public sectors, leaders often try to persuade
skeptics by offering quantifiable proof of the correctness of
their policies and the quality of their performance. This
approach underestimates the power and influence of
misinformation campaigns and urban legends. Because DHS deals
with major National security and civil liberty issues, it has
to be diligent about setting the record straight when the
public is misinformed. Yet it must do so with compelling
stories to supplement its facts.
Measuring communications performance has become especially
difficult because the world has become so noisy. Even major
corporate brands feel fortunate when a modest percentage of the
public is aware of a new product's features. For Government
agencies facing tight budgets, it is especially hard to build
widespread awareness of programs, services, or other essential
information. Therefore, it's important that expectations be set
at levels that are achievable and that the proper metrics are
being utilized.
Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you today to
address best practices in communications and public affairs, and what
DHS can learn from the private sector. I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you so much.
I thank the panelists.
Is anyone left here with DHS's Public Affairs Office in the
audience?
You are? Okay. Thank you. Take note of what Mr. Pinkham
said, his bullet points. We will try to get you a copy of that,
as well. I thought that was very good.
Mr. Braniff, you mentioned and I read in your testimony
about the use of the mass transit systems up in the Northeast
to communicate the ``See Something, Say Something'' marketing
campaign.
So do you think it is more effective in the Northeast to
communicate because of the mass transit? Do you think more
people are focused in on the threats than possibly in the South
or the Midwest, where we don't have the mass transit systems
like they do? Could you elaborate on that a little bit?
Mr. Braniff. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
question.
Interestingly, the survey results indicated that
individuals living in urban centers were actually not any more
likely to have thought about terrorism in the week leading up
to the survey than those not living in urban centers.
So there does not seem to be a heightened level of
consciousness reported in this survey by those living in
cities. So that doesn't explain the greater awareness of ``See
Something, Say Something,'' just the concern about, general
concern about terrorism.
Mr. Duncan. What are some of the techniques they could use
to raise awareness in the South or the Midwest? You know, is it
TV spots, is it commercials, is it what?
Mr. Braniff. I certainly don't have data to support any of
these opinions. I would suggest that it does make sense to
continue to focus on urban centers in the South, Midwest, and
West. Forty percent of the terrorism incidents in the United
States from 1970 through 2011 occurred in 10 U.S. cities. So
while terrorism happens in every State in the Union, it does
tend to happen more frequently in urban centers.
So targeting those populations, whether through any of the
media you suggested, I would certainly consider a good idea. I
wouldn't give up on areas outside of urban centers; that is not
what I am suggesting. But for bang for the buck, you will get
more targeting those populations.
Mr. Duncan. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 happened in the
urban areas; Boston Marathon, an urban area. But I would argue
that the Southern Border, being a porous Southern Border--we
saw the Iran operatives trying to come across our border to
assassinate the Saudi Ambassador back in the fall of 2011. We
hear of different nationalities being apprehended in Texas and
other places that are other than Mexicans, other than
Hispanics.
So I think the ``See Something, Say Something'' program
should be, personally, should be applied to the Southwest, and
especially in the border counties. So how would you see an
effective method of that?
Mr. Braniff. Again, sir, thank you for that question.
I actually agree entirely. Terrorism is not just about the
terrorism incident, it is not just about where the bomb goes
off. Terrorist campaigns are conducted through logistics,
travel, procurement. We have a lot of research that looks into
where terrorist organizations or individuals have lived, where
they have procured, where they have planned, as well as where
they have targeted.
So what I would suggest is looking at research that looks
into specific incidents historically and then tailoring a ``See
Something, Say Something'' campaign that targets the behaviors
in play in geographic regions. So if procurement is happening
in more rural settings to purchase ammonia or fertilizer for
large explosives, the campaign should be targeted to the actual
criminal behaviors conducted in those geographic areas.
Whereas, in the urban center's mass transit, you are talking
about people leaving a backpack unattended on a platform.
So I think you can tailor the content to the threat in the
different geographic regions, and would agree entirely with
your assessment.
Mr. Duncan. We just saw yesterday, I think, the report came
out that one of the NFL stadiums is not going to allow purses
and backpacks and coolers and that sort of thing. So there are
some challenges.
Mr. Pinkham, over the years, chief executive officers have
become increasingly communicators-in-chief. Think about Bill
Gates and Steve Jobs, how effective communication transformed
the way Microsoft and Apple did business.
But what key communication strategies and techniques should
Secretary Napolitano or future Secretaries of DHS employ to
improve communication with the public? What other qualities do
private-sector CEOs possess that the Secretary should try to
emulate?
Mr. Pinkham. Well, I mean, certainly, when you are in a
very senior leadership position like that, especially heading a
Government agency, just as you would as a CEO, there is a huge
symbolic leadership responsibility which can't be taken
lightly. It is, you know, the fact that you are the Secretary,
that you are engaged, that you know every aspect of all of your
operations and your communications strategies.
So a lot of the, I would imagine, the on-going activities
of the Secretary now and what it should be is about bringing
people together, making sure relations are strong with all
important stakeholders, that the important audiences are aware
of programs and priorities. That is an awful lot of what CEOs
do on that level of their job responsibilities, is making sure
that those, you know, good relationships are built and
maintained.
But it is interesting, because Government officials and
CEOs also face a common challenge, in that the public doesn't
particularly trust them. We do an annual survey on public
attitudes toward business and Government, and this is not great
news for corporate America, but over 90 percent of the public
does not believe that CEOs have inherently good ethics. That is
a real problem, because we all know good CEOs and CEOs maybe
that aren't so good. The same challenge faces Government.
So one of the most, I think, important strategies is to
think about where the Secretary's use is most important, like
at a crisis and building those high-level relationships, and
where, you know, that relationship should be delegated to
someone else who might actually be more trusted in the
community. Especially when you are talking to a community that
doesn't inherently trust, you know, ``I am from Washington, and
I am here to help you,'' it can be important to get people from
the community who can represent the same interests you are
trying to communicate.
Mr. Duncan. All right.
You mentioned in your written testimony, and I think you
did verbally as well, that high levels of public distrust also
hamper the ability of both companies and Government to operate
effectively.
I mentioned in my statement earlier that proactive
communication is much better than reactive communication, but
sometimes they do have to react. When the internet rumors came
out about the ammo purchases, the MRAP purchases, and the
numbers were just way out of whack from what reality is and my
current belief, and we saw this delay or a failure to
communicate from the Department, that builds distrust, wouldn't
you agree?
Mr. Pinkham. Oh, absolutely. I mean, and this is a problem
the private sector faces, too, you know, where a company--some
rumor is spread on the internet or a disgruntled employee puts
out misinformation or accurate information that is an issue but
not a huge issue, and there are times when companies are
dismissive because they think that, well, they just don't have
their facts right, you know, if they knew better, they would
understand our point of view. Or they state the point of view
one time and expect that everyone is listening. That doesn't
happen either.
So you can't assume that just because you are right, you
are going to win the day. I mean, that is kind of how we all
have to think these days. It certainly happens in politics. You
have to have a compelling story and a narrative that might be,
hopefully, more compelling than what the other side is saying
in their various conspiracy theories.
But you have to be diligent and get out there the first
day. You have to do scenario planning when you are doing
something like a major ammo purchase and think, what might go
wrong? How might certain groups take this the wrong way? How
can we get everyone in the loop to say, if this thing goes
south, here is the right message, let's all hang together?
When you see that work well in the public or private
sector, it really does work well. But, again, you can't assume,
just because you are right and they are wrong, that people will
listen to you.
Mr. Duncan. Right.
And show of history. As I said on the ammo purchases, they
could have rolled out what the last 5-year contract looked like
and how an increase in agents may have justified an increase in
the need for ammo, but we didn't see any of that. In fact, we
saw a failure to communicate for a long period of time.
You mentioned that social media to proactively communicate
with customers and counter negative publicity is a great media.
I agree. We have all sorts of mechanisms at our disposal now,
with Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, all kinds of things
that are out there that can reach, you know, millions of people
instantaneously. So I appreciate your bringing that up.
My time has expired, and the Chairman will recognize Mr.
Barber for questioning.
Mr. Barber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to both of the witnesses for being here. I
thought your testimony was very, very helpful. I believe many
of the recommendations that you have made here this morning
could certainly help the Department improve communications.
I want to talk, first of all, and talk to you, Mr. Braniff,
about the ``If You See Something, Say Something'' campaign. The
Chairman alluded to this. Coming from the Southwest as I do, I
have to tell you, I was involved with being the liaison with
the CBP for all of my time working for Congresswoman Giffords
and since then as a Member, and it wasn't until I got here that
I actually understood that that program was happening. I mean,
maybe it is a function of how you communicate it. I saw it on
the Metro, of course, and then in hearings I have heard about
it.
But we do have an issue, as the Chairman pointed out, in
the Southwest. We have a border that is porous, in my district
very porous, one of the most porous areas of the entire Mexico-
United States border.
I would like to ask you for specific recommendations, Mr.
Braniff, on how this campaign can be made more effective in
those communities. We talked a little bit about it, but could
get into more specifics?
I mean, I serve both a rural and an urban district. Tucson
is the main urban, and then I have a vast array of small
communities in a county called Cochise County.
So could you speak to the rural dissemination of
information and how we might be more effective?
Mr. Braniff. Ranking Member Barber, thank you for that
question. This is not my field per se, but I will offer a few
opinions, for what they are worth.
The survey suggests that 57 percent of those polled were
willing to meet with DHS representatives, 58 percent willing to
meet with local law enforcement. In a smaller rural community,
I would empower local law enforcement to have community
meetings where they talk about these issues and educate the
public.
I think a public that is educated feels empowered. They
understand that this isn't a Big Brother campaign; instead, it
is a campaign that recognizes the value of the American citizen
and their ability to help defend the country that they live in.
So I would probably do a lot more community outreach work
with this campaign in mind, among other campaigns. I wouldn't
hold a town hall meeting and talk exclusively about terrorism.
I would talk about all hazards, terrorism among them, just
based on the likelihood of a natural event. I mean, this is not
something that happens on a daily basis.
So I would take an all-hazards approach, a community-
outreach approach in rural areas.
In urban areas, I would continue to focus on aggregators,
things that bring people together, just for the most bang for
the buck. That can be the media, that can be subway platforms,
as I eluded to earlier.
One thing that Mr. Pinkham suggested is, you know, the need
for a compelling narrative. This is something that I would
tread on very cautiously. It is an idea I will put on the
table. I don't know that it is a good one upon, you know, more
sober evaluation.
But the idea that terrorism has occurred in every State in
the United States since 1970, it is a fact, means you could
tell a story about a local incident in every State of the
Union. You know, terrorism affects us, too, in Nebraska, in New
Mexico, and tell the story of that incident.
I say that cautiously because you don't want to fear-monger
and you don't want to celebrate former acts of terrorism in the
continental United States. So you have to thread the needle
between advertising on behalf of a terrorist organization but
also highlighting to the citizenry that these events, in fact,
do happen and they do happen in our backyard, albeit
infrequently.
Mr. Barber. I would absolutely agree that telling stories
that resonate with people, farming communities, ranching
communities in the district that I represent, for example,
could really help people understand the method or the ways in
which we might be affected both by terrorism or terrorists and
by the drug cartels, which are the major issue that we face in
the Southwest.
As I have said before, my district, unfortunately, is the
most porous in the country. Fifty percent, 47 percent of the
drugs seized in this country by pound are seized right in my
district, with 13 percent of the border. The ranchers who live
on the border are perhaps the most aware of anything, and yet I
am still concerned about how they are engaged by the Department
in this effort to detect this kind of invasion.
I want to turn now, if I could, Mr. Pinkham, to ask you
about a question that I raised with the first panel, but we
unfortunately didn't get a chance to talk about it a lot. You
may have some suggestions.
The Department of Homeland Security, unfortunately, in a
recent survey that was conducted of 19 Federal agencies, is at
the bottom of the list when it comes to employee morale.
I believe, having worked in a large bureaucracy, having run
a State agency with thousands of employees and thousands of
customers, that, obviously, information is power, and the more
you have it, the more timely you have it, the more you trust
the organization you work for and the better you can serve the
community and internally feel that you are included.
It is a real problem with DHS. Do you have specific
suggestions or recommendations that DHS should pay attention to
when it is trying to deal with this very serious problem?
DHS, 22 agencies with their own history and legacy, hard to
pull together, I get that. But we have to do better on the
employee morale, which I think is connected to information flow
and communication.
Mr. Pinkham. Certainly, I would have to look more
specifically at, you know, the survey results and to find out
exactly where the issues of employee dissatisfaction were to
get a general sense of strategy. But I was shocked by that
number, as well, when I heard it, sitting back here, because it
is so important.
You know, people are increasingly relying on word-of-mouth
communication, not from the traditional media, and they believe
what their friends and colleagues say. So if you are a DHS
employee and you are saying good things about the agency, and I
enjoy working there, it is satisfying, I am helping my Nation,
that is going to resonate, not just with their family, but
their neighbors and their friends. They say, well, Doug works
at DHS, he loves working there, they are doing great work.
But if that same person is always complaining about their
job and that they are not taken seriously and they are not
treated well and they are dissatisfied, it has a
disproportionate impact, because people say, well, I wonder
about what they are doing, and I know a guy who works there,
and he doesn't even like working there. So it magnifies.
So that is why employee communications has become such a
huge priority for big companies and why, for an agency like
DHS, in many ways, it is perhaps one of the most important
audiences they face. Because you can't communicate credibly to
the public if your own employees are, you know, not happy with
what they are doing or they feel that they are getting mixed
messages or that they are always being criticized for their
best efforts.
But I think it sounds like it really ought to become a big
priority, you know, from a communications standpoint, not just
an employee relations standpoint.
Mr. Barber. Well, let me just close with this request, if I
could, to your point, Mr. Pinkham, that perhaps if we can get
you a copy of that study and how it was conducted and what it
said, you could, if you are willing, take some time to look at
it and give us some recommendations that we could share with
the Department. Certainly, I believe my colleagues on this
committee would be interested in having your ideas about how we
could improve employee morale and communication.
Mr. Pinkham. I would be certainly happy to help.
Mr. Barber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Payne is recognized.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Braniff, just a quick question. What do you recommend
as the most important step that the Department should take as a
result of the START survey?
Mr. Braniff. Sir, as a native of New Jersey, thank you for
your service, thank you for the question.
I would, again, I think, go back to the community outreach
at the local level. I think that is where homeland security
happens, I think that is where trust is built, and I think it
has demonstrated its value in other realms. Other sorts of
community-oriented policing programs have yielded success at a
local level because they can be tailored to the local level.
So I think that I would take very positive--I would take
the survey results very positively, with respect to over 50
percent of the population would be willing to meet with local
authorities and Federal authorities to talk about terrorism,
and I would run with that.
Mr. Payne. Okay.
Mr. Pinkham, you know, the Department's leadership has
taken steps to create ``One DHS.'' I think that is very
important, you know, that it operates in a unified fashion,
which is really the challenge.
How important is Department-wide unification and the
elimination of the legacy of silos and stovepipes in terms of
public messaging?
Mr. Pinkham. It is extremely important in terms of getting
everyone on the same page and making sure that you are not
operating in silos. Because, again, big companies face the same
challenge. You know, you have a huge, multinational company,
and business units may not talk to each other and may not
coordinate. That is very dangerous these days, for all kinds of
reasons. So it is symbolically and organizationally important
from an employee relations standpoint, you know, one general
message.
Where you have to sort of think about it, because there are
nuances here in that there are branches within DHS that are
very public-facing, like FEMA and TSA, and they are going to
need special attention and a special role in terms of how they
communicate, how much they communicate. Their job is to really
build rapport with the public, it is not just one-way, because
of the level of trust that is needed for their jobs day-to-day.
There are other branches that aren't as public-facing. While
they all have to have the same messaging, their actual
strategies and tactics and budgets and priorities may be a
little to the side and handled differently.
But the core principles need to be unified. Hopefully, the
core pride in working for the overall enterprise and agency
needs to be consistent. You hope people are being cross-trained
so that, if necessary, they can switch seats and, you know,
support the agency in general.
Mr. Payne. Okay. Thank you.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that is our challenge, to continue
to get everyone on the same page and understand that bringing
those 22 entities together and moving forward is the ultimate
goal. So thank you.
Mr. Duncan. I want to thank the gentleman.
I think the most interesting statistic or fact that I heard
today was in Mr. Pinkham's testimony, written testimony.
You said only 4 in 10 Americans, or 41 percent, said they
have a favorable view of the Federal Government. A majority, 58
percent, said they had not too much or no trust at all that the
Government can solve problems.
I think if you broke that down to this agency, DHS as a
whole, and drilled down into certain specific subagencies like
TSA, I believe those numbers may be a lot more alarming.
So, we can do better. I think the agency and Government as
a whole can do better just by simply communicating better. It
is not that difficult to do if you follow some of the best
practices that the private sector has talked about today.
So, in conclusion, I will ask that DHS will take these
words to heart, will apply some of these techniques. I think
you see the concerns on both sides of the aisle with regards to
where we are at with communicating with the American people
about the issues that are of the day.
So I want to thank the witnesses for your valuable
testimony on both panels.
I want to thank the Members for their participation and
their questions today.
The Members of the committee may have some additional
questions for both panels, and we would ask you just to respond
to those in writing.
We will make sure that the agency gets a copy of those
answers, as well.
So, without objection, the subcommittee will adjourn. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]