The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for
Congress
Dana A. Shea
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
September 17, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43064
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Summary
Policymakers generally believe that science and technology can and will play significant roles in
improving homeland security. When Congress established the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), through the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), it included the Directorate of
Science and Technology (S&T) to ensure that the new department had access to science and
technology advice and capabilities for research and development (R&D).
The S&T Directorate is the primary organization for R&D in DHS. It conducts R&D in several
DHS laboratories and funds R&D conducted by other government agencies, the Department of
Energy national laboratories, academia, and the private sector. Additionally, the directorate
supports the development of operational requirements and oversees the operational testing and
evaluation of homeland security systems for DHS. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 provided
direction and broadly defined functions for the Under Secretary for Science and Technology and
the S&T Directorate. Within this broad statutory framework, Administration and congressional
policymakers face many challenges, including balancing funding for R&D activities, which may
not result in a deployable product for many years, with other near-term homeland security needs.
Despite several restructurings and close congressional oversight, the S&T Directorate continues
to face difficulties in meeting congressional expectations. The 113th Congress may consider
several policy issues related to the performance of the S&T Directorate. These include
• priority-setting mechanisms for the directorate’s R&D programs, such as
strategic planning and targeting high-priority investments;
• the scope of the directorate’s R&D activities, such as balancing incremental
efforts with efforts that offer high risk, but high reward;
• efforts to consolidate or disperse R&D activity in or away from the S&T
Directorate; and
• the directorate’s role in the DHS acquisition process, both in identifying
operational requirements and assessing operational effectiveness.
Congressional Research Service
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of the S&T Directorate .................................................................................................... 1
Mission ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Organization .............................................................................................................................. 3
Budget Structure ........................................................................................................................ 3
Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Selected Issues ................................................................................................................................. 7
Priority Setting........................................................................................................................... 7
Strategic Planning ............................................................................................................... 8
Portfolio-Based Review .................................................................................................... 11
High-Priority Investment ................................................................................................... 12
Policy Options ................................................................................................................... 14
Scope of S&T Directorate R&D .............................................................................................. 17
Role of the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency .............................. 17
Technology Foraging ......................................................................................................... 18
Fielding of Results ............................................................................................................ 19
Impacts of Uncertain Funding ........................................................................................... 20
Policy Options ................................................................................................................... 20
Consolidate or Disperse R&D Activities ................................................................................. 22
Proposed DNDO R&D Transfer to the S&T Directorate .................................................. 23
Coordination of R&D Activities in Other DHS Components ........................................... 24
Policy Options ................................................................................................................... 25
Acquisition Roles .................................................................................................................... 27
Operational Component Technology Acquisition ............................................................. 27
Acquisition Support........................................................................................................... 28
Testing and Evaluation Role.............................................................................................. 30
Policy Options ................................................................................................................... 31
Legislation in the 113th Congress ................................................................................................... 33
Appropriation Legislation ....................................................................................................... 33
P.L. 113-6 .......................................................................................................................... 33
H.R. 2217 .......................................................................................................................... 33
Authorization Legislation ........................................................................................................ 33
H.R. 2952 .......................................................................................................................... 33
H.R. 2872 .......................................................................................................................... 34
H.R. 2719 .......................................................................................................................... 34
H.R. 2691/S. 1303 ............................................................................................................. 34
S. 744 ................................................................................................................................. 34
Figures
Figure 1. Appropriated Funding for the DHS S&T Directorate....................................................... 5
Congressional Research Service
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Tables
Table A-1. Appropriations for the DHS S&T Directorate by Fiscal Year ...................................... 35
Appendixes
Appendix. Appropriations for the S&T Directorate....................................................................... 35
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 35
Congressional Research Service
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Introduction
Both congressional and executive branch policymakers assert that science and technology play
significant roles in improving homeland security. Congress established the Directorate of Science
and Technology (S&T) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure that DHS
has access to science and technology advice and capabilities for research and development
(R&D). The DHS supports both short- and long-term R&D activities. However, successful R&D
activities may not result in a deployable product for many years. The S&T Directorate and other
DHS offices have not developed technological advances at the rate some Members of Congress
expected. Since the establishment of DHS, the appropriations committees have often expressed
displeasure at the rate of technology transfer, the direction of R&D efforts, and the ability of the
S&T Directorate to align its resources and mission. In a time of increasing fiscal constraint, some
Members have questioned whether S&T Directorate R&D activities should receive priority over
other non-R&D activities.
This report provides a brief overview of the S&T Directorate’s mission, organization, and
budgetary structure; a discussion of selected critiques of the S&T Directorate; and an analysis of
selected issues facing congressional policymakers.
Overview of the S&T Directorate
The S&T Directorate is the primary organization for R&D in DHS. Congress also authorizes and
appropriates funding for R&D in the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and the U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG). With a total budget of $838 million for FY2013, the S&T Directorate
conducts R&D in several laboratories of its own, and funds R&D conducted by other government
agencies, the Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories, industry, and universities.1
Additionally, the directorate supports the development of operational requirements and oversees
the operational testing and evaluation of homeland security systems throughout the department.
Mission
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), which established DHS, created a
Directorate of Science and Technology headed by an Under Secretary for Science and
Technology. The Senate confirmed the current Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Tara
O’Toole, in November 2009. Under Secretary O’Toole is the third Senate-confirmed Under
Secretary for Science and Technology.2 Reportedly, Under Secretary O’Toole will step down from
this position on September 23, 2013, and be replaced on an interim basis by Deputy Under
Secretary for Science and Technology Dan Gerstein.3
1 Funding for FY2013 is pre-sequestration. According to DHS, FY2013 funding post-sequestration is $804 million
(Richard N. Williams, Director, Finance and Budget Division, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of
Homeland Security, Science and Technology FY2013 Budget, undated).
2 The previous two were Charles McQueary and Jay Cohen. There have also been several Acting Under Secretaries.
3 Jason Miller, “DHS S&T Director O'Toole Leaving,” Federal News Radio, September 11, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
1
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
The Homeland Security Act gave the Under Secretary a wide-ranging list of responsibilities and
authorities. Some of the Under Secretary’s responsibilities and authorities specify functions of the
S&T Directorate itself. These include:
• establishing and administering the primary R&D activities of the department;
• conducting basic and applied research, development, demonstration, testing, and
evaluation;
• establishing a system for transferring technologies to federal, state, and local
governments and the private sector; and
• generally supporting U.S. leadership in science and technology.
Another group of responsibilities and authorities support other DHS components. These include:
• advising the Secretary on R&D efforts and priorities;
• supporting the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs (formerly
the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection) by
assessing and testing vulnerabilities and threats; and
• overseeing department-wide guidelines for merit review of R&D.
Finally, some of the Under Secretary’s responsibilities and authorities are primarily coordinative.
These include:
• planning and coordinating the federal civilian effort to develop countermeasures
against terrorist threats;
• collaborating with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Attorney General, and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services in designating and regulating biological
select agents;4
• coordinating with other appropriate executive agencies to reduce R&D
duplication and identify unmet needs; and
• coordinating and integrating the department’s activities in R&D, demonstration,
testing, and evaluation.
These coordinative roles involve stakeholders who do not report to the Under Secretary, so the
Under Secretary’s ability to perform these duties relies on the cooperation of other agencies.
Under Secretary O’Toole identifies the S&T Directorate’s contributions to DHS and broader
homeland security enterprise as falling into four categories:
• new capabilities and knowledge products;
• process enhancements and efficiencies;
• acquisition support; and
• understanding of homeland security risks and opportunities.
4 Select agents are pathogens and toxins that the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of
Agriculture have identified as posing a severe threat to public, animal, or plant health.
Congressional Research Service
2
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
In addition, the S&T Directorate’s current approach emphasizes R&D deliverables with high
impact, the ability to rapidly transition products to use in the field, and a high return on
investment.5
Organization
The statutory language creating DHS did not define the structure of the S&T Directorate; the
Under Secretary has discretion to reorganize its structure. Each Under Secretary has had a
different vision for the organization and activities of the S&T Directorate and has organized or
reorganized the S&T Directorate accordingly. Under Secretary O’Toole reorganized the S&T
Directorate in August 2010. The current structure organizes the S&T Directorate into four groups,
each headed by a Director.6 The groups are:
• Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), which
contains six technical divisions that manage R&D in different topical areas and
the Special Projects Office that oversees the directorate’s classified R&D;
• Support to the Homeland Security Enterprise and First Responders Group,
which is responsible for technology interoperability and compatibility, transfers
technologies to first responders, and oversees the National Urban Security
Technology Laboratory (formerly the Environmental Measurements Laboratory);
• Acquisition Support and Operational Analysis Division, which oversees the
requirements generation process, interfaces with some DHS federally funded
research and development centers, and provides test and evaluation policy
oversight, including management of the test and evaluation activities of the
Transportation Security Laboratory; and
• Research and Development Partnerships Division, which serves as the
primary external interface for the S&T Directorate, coordinates work with the
DHS University Centers of Excellence, oversees several DHS laboratories, and
manages the relationship between the S&T Directorate and the Department of
Energy national laboratories.
In addition to these groups, the 2010 reorganization created a Chief Scientist position reporting to
the Under Secretary.
Budget Structure
In FY2012, the S&T Directorate realigned its budget structure to place most of its research and
development activities into one Program, Project, and Activity (PPA) titled Research,
Development, and Innovation (RD&I). The directorate aligned its other, supporting activities into
three additional PPAs: Acquisition and Operations Support, Laboratory Support, and University
5 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
6 These entities are variously referred to as groups, divisions, or offices. Their heads are sometimes referred to as
“Group Leads.” See, for example, Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Science and
Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the House Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, March 15, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
3
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Programs.7 This budget structure differs substantially from the previous structure, in place since
FY2007, which was aligned with R&D topic areas.8
The S&T Directorate provided several reasons for the realigned budgetary structure.
We believe the proposed Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) budget categories are
better aligned with DHS Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) priorities and
with the actual work of S&T than are previous budget categories. The RD&I account
provides better transparency of what the S&T is doing than did the previous structure by
grouping projects’ technical activity areas. The purpose of an individual project will now be
apparent by where it is in the budget. It also makes the budget organizationally neutral. The
old budget structure was tied to a particular organizational structure. The new structure is
tied to enduring S&T research areas that allow the organization to evolve without affecting
the budget. Further, the old structure tied to individual S&T Divisions had a tendency to lead
to stove-piped projects rather than seeking multidisciplinary solutions that generally address
the root cause of a problem rather than a symptom of a problem.9
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations objected to this new budget structure. The
House committee report accompanying the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74) described the Research, Development, and Innovation budget category as
“all-encompassing ... too large and vague.”10 The Senate committee report stated that the new
structure “reduces transparency and accountability.”11 Despite these objections, the conference
committee supported the S&T Directorate’s new budget structure:
The new PPA for RDI will enable S&T to more quickly shift resources, if necessary,
between research activities without formal reprogramming or transfer actions. In some
instances, research activity may straddle several different missions and thrust areas. S&T and
the Department must prioritize this consolidated research budget, which is substantially
reduced from recent fiscal years, to focus on areas with the greatest promise for delivering
material improvements or tangible contributions to homeland security missions in the near
term. This flexibility in funding should facilitate that effort and partially offset the impact of
an overall funding reduction.12
In the FY2013 and FY2014 budget requests, the S&T Directorate provided a more detailed
description of its planned activities within the RD&I PPA than it had for FY2012. It identified
spending by R&D topic, which provided greater insight into the relative funding between these
subjects.
7 These four PPAs make up the directorate’s Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations appropriations
account. The S&T Directorate also receives funding under a separate Management and Administration account.
8 The 11 previous PPAs were Chemical and Biological; Explosives; Infrastructure and Geophysical; Command,
Control, and Interoperability; Borders and Maritime; Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences; Laboratory Facilities;
University Programs; Innovation; Transition; and Test and Evaluation and Standards. In some years, partial funding for
the Homeland Security Institute was also a PPA. See, for example, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of
Homeland Security, FY2011 Congressional Budget Justification.
9 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, response to questions
for the record in House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations for 2012, Committee Print, Part 4, p. 109.
10 H.Rept. 112-91, pp. 126-127.
11 S.Rept. 112-74, p. 148.
12 H.Rept. 112-331, p. 998.
Congressional Research Service
4
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
For FY2014, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations again object to the
consolidated RD&I PPA structure. Both committees would direct the S&T Directorate to divide
the RD&I PPA into six PPAs: Apex, Border Security, Chem/Bio/Radiological/Nuclear/Explosives
Defense, Cybersecurity, and Disaster Resilience.13 Neither chamber has yet voted on FY2014
appropriations legislation for DHS.
Funding
Funding for the S&T Directorate (net of rescissions) fell in FY2012 to its lowest appropriated
level since Congress began appropriating funding for DHS.14 See Figure 1 and Table A-1 in the
Appendix. Funding in FY2013 rebounded to a level comparable with FY2011. For additional
information on DHS R&D funding in FY2013, see CRS Report R42410, Federal Research and
Development Funding: FY2013, coordinated by John F. Sargent Jr., and CRS Report R42644,
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations, coordinated by William L. Painter.
The S&T Directorate requested $1,397 million for FY2014. For additional information on DHS
R&D funding in FY2014, see CRS Report R43086, Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2014 , coordinated by John F. Sargent Jr. and CRS Report R43147, Department of Homeland
Security: FY2014 Appropriations, coordinated by William L. Painter.
Figure 1. Appropriated Funding for the DHS S&T Directorate
(Budget authority)
Source: CRS analysis of DHS appropriations, FY2003-FY2014.
Notes: RDA&O= Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations account; M&A= Management and
Administration account. The decline in funding from FY2006 to FY2008 results from the creation of DNDO and
OHA, the subsequent transfer of funds from the S&T Directorate to these new entities, and rescission of prior-
year unobligated balances. FY2014 amount is the Administration request, not congressional y appropriated
13 H.Rept. 113-91, p. 109; and S.Rept. 113-77, p. 133.
14 The $553.5 million in FY2003 funding transferred to the S&T Directorate from other agencies upon the creation of
DHS was less than the FY2012 appropriated level.
Congressional Research Service
5
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
funding. The steep increase from FY2013 to FY2014 includes $714 million requested for construction of the
National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility.
The reductions in appropriated funding in FY2011 and FY2012 emphasized for policymakers
several competing priorities within the S&T Directorate. One is establishing the appropriate
balance between long-term R&D investments and near-term operational needs. As described in
2011 by the House Committee on Appropriations,
The Committee believes that S&T must more clearly demonstrate significant contributions to
the homeland security mission and should prioritize the development of near-term,
operational projects that promise substantive gains to our Nation’s security ... The
Committee believes that S&T has a meaningful role to play within DHS and affirms that this
reduction will change the nature and scope of S&T’s research ... S&T has not fully justified
the billions of taxpayer dollars that it has spent on R&D, and the Committee believes these
revised funding levels will force the Directorate to concentrate its efforts on its highest
priority projects.15
Another is balancing maintenance of federal research infrastructure and investment in R&D
activities performed by industry or academic stakeholders. While the construction and
development of DHS infrastructure provides a location and organization to homeland security
R&D activities, costs associated with construction, operations, and maintenance of such
infrastructure have increased. In a declining S&T Directorate budget, these infrastructure costs
competed with programmatic R&D funding. As described in 2012 by Under Secretary O’Toole,
Today, when new facilities or major infrastructure repairs are required, agency leaders and
Congress often face the choice of having to use research budgets to fund infrastructure costs
or pursuing promising research while delaying needed repairs and construction. Shifting
research funds to infrastructure often means accepting the loss of existing, not-yet-matured
research investments and facing significant opportunity costs.... Effective innovation is the
core of the U.S. economy and U.S. national security; it requires investment in both facilities
and research and development (R&D). The U.S. must robustly fund both of these activities
in order to maintain the capability needed to respond to the diverse threats.16
The FY2013 increase in S&T Directorate funding may alleviate some tension in meeting these
priorities, as the fraction of the RDA&O account dedicated to R&D activities returns to a level
similar to prior years. Planned infrastructure costs associated with the construction of the National
Bio and Agro-defense Facility (NBAF) and decontamination and demolition of Plum Island
Animal Disease Center, however, may increase this tension in the future. The conference report
accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6)
addressed this concern: “If additional funds are to be considered for NBAF in fiscal year 2014, or
any fiscal year thereafter, such funds must be in addition to the Department’s enacted budget,
thereby not displacing resources for Departmental programs.”
The FY2014 DHS budget request would increase funding for the S&T Directorate and several
other DHS programs and components. The budget includes proposals for additional revenues that
would offset the costs of some of these increases, but it could be argued that cuts elsewhere in the
DHS budget result from the “displacement” of resources by the request for $714 million for
15 H.Rept. 112-91, p. 126.
16 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, March 21, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
6
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
NBAF. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations would both provide $440 million
for NBAF, rather than the requested amount.17
A third priority is balancing performing R&D activities and providing other types of S&T
assistance to other DHS components, such as consulting on concepts of operation, developing
future technology concepts, and overseeing test and evaluation. Some policymakers may believe
that the these latter activities are more appropriately funded through the client components rather
than the S&T Directorate, while others may see opportunities for synergy and efficiency in
providing a centralized source of S&T expertise.
Selected Issues
The Homeland Security Act provided direction and broadly defined functions for the S&T
Directorate. However, how the Under Secretary for Science and Technology was to apply these
functions and with what relative priority was left open for subsequent interpretation by the
Administration and Congress. This section highlights a selection of issues: priority-setting
mechanisms for the directorate’s R&D programs; the scope of the directorate’s R&D activities;
efforts to consolidate R&D activity within the S&T Directorate; and the directorate’s role in the
DHS acquisition process. This list of issues is not comprehensive, but it illustrates some of the
major challenges facing the S&T Directorate.
Priority Setting
In contrast to other R&D organizations in DHS, the S&T Directorate has a broad scope. For
example, whereas the DNDO R&D program focuses on radiological and nuclear detection, the
S&T Directorate must address all potential homeland security threats. Similarly, whereas the U.S.
Coast Guard R&D program focuses on a single customer, the S&T Directorate serves a diverse
customer base that includes both federal clients and nonfederal clients, such as first responders.
Consequently, the S&T Directorate must prioritize and balance its R&D activities and
expenditures across all potential threats and among a diverse customer base.
The S&T Directorate has identified the basis for its priority-setting:
The Science and Technology Directorate’s (S&T) priorities for areas of research,
development and analysis are based on DHS mission areas as articulated in the Quadrennial
Homeland Security Report (QHSR), the Administration’s National Security Strategy and
first responder requirements. These priorities and requirements are derived from an
understanding of near- and long-term threats, national needs, and operational vulnerabilities.
S&T also assesses technical opportunity areas that are particularly suitable for
development.18
Identifying specific priorities, based on these general principles, and then planning and executing
integrated R&D activities to accomplish those priorities remain formidable tasks. Among the
17 H.Rept. 113-91 and S.Rept. 113-77.
18 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, response to
questions for the record in House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations for 2012, Committee Print, Part 4, p. 123.
Congressional Research Service
7
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
approaches the S&T Directorate has taken toward meeting this challenge are strategic planning, a
portfolio review process, and partnerships with DHS operational components to identify high-
priority activities.
Strategic Planning
The Homeland Security Act authorized the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to
coordinate DHS R&D and federal homeland security R&D activities. The S&T Directorate has
engaged in formal strategic planning activities with varying degrees of success. This section
discusses the S&T Directorate’s strategic plan for itself, efforts to create joint strategic plans with
other DHS entities, efforts to engage in strategic planning with other federal agencies, and efforts
to develop a federal strategic plan for homeland security R&D.
Planning for the S&T Directorate
The S&T Directorate has engaged in directorate-level strategic planning since at least 2007, when
it released its first strategic plan.19 The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
critiqued the S&T Directorate in 2009, and recommended that the S&T Directorate develop a
strategic plan in accordance with federal planning guidance.20 According to testimony by the
chair of the NAPA panel,
In June 2007, the directorate published an internal Strategic Plan, Science & Technology
Strategy to Make the Nation Safer. The plan describes the structure of the organization and
the roles of the [Integrated Product Teams], its mechanisms for reaching out to other
organizations and players, and its plans for workforce development. It does not adhere to the
criteria of a strategic plan as generally applied across the federal government. Simply put, the
plan can be said to detail the “what” of S&T, but it lacks the focus on the “why” that is the
hallmark of successful strategic planning. The NAPA panel also found weaknesses in the
process through which the plan was developed.21
The NAPA recommended that the S&T Directorate develop an internal strategic plan and stated
that this plan should articulate “mission, goals, and strategies to provide additional focus to its
work. S&T should consider broadening its mission statement to reflect its mandate more
completely.” The NAPA also recommended that the S&T Directorate
follow federal guidance related to the process for developing a strategic plan and its contents.
Stakeholder input is particularly important because of the significant linkages of S&T’s work
with other research and development entities across the federal government and the critical
roles its customers fill in the homeland security arena.22
19 Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Science & Technology Strategy to Make the
Nation Safer ... , June 2007.
20 National Academy of Public Administration, Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology
Directorate: Developing Technology to Protect America, 2009.
21 Cindy Williams, Chair, Panel on Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, National
Academy of Public Administration, testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee
on Technology and Innovation, on October 27, 2009.
22 National Academy of Public Administration, Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology
Directorate: Developing Technology to Protect America, p. 22.
Congressional Research Service
8
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
To meet these recommendations, the S&T Directorate embarked on a new strategic planning
process. In 2011, the S&T Directorate publicly released a new strategic plan to align with its new
organizational structure.23 The 2011 strategic plan states the directorate’s mission and outlines
five goals, each with multiple objectives. The goals are:
• Rapidly develop and deliver knowledge, analyses, and innovative solutions that
advance the mission of the Department;
• Leverage technical expertise to assist DHS components’ efforts to establish
operational requirements, and select and acquire needed technologies;
• Strengthen the Homeland Security Enterprise and First Responders’ capabilities
to protect the homeland and respond to disasters;
• Conduct, catalyze, and survey scientific discoveries and inventions relevant to
existing and emerging homeland security challenges; and
• Foster a culture of innovation and learning, in S&T and across DHS, that
addresses challenges with scientific, analytic, and technical rigor.24
The 2011 strategic plan addresses some of NAPA’s criticism of its previous plan. However, it
does not fully comport with best practices for agency strategic plans as identified by the
Government Accountability Office.25 It provides high-level direction regarding directorate
priorities, including an increased emphasis on DHS component acquisition practices, but it does
not identify required funding, provide metrics for monitoring progress towards meeting
objectives, or identify key external challenges toward meeting the strategic goals.
Planning with Other DHS Components
The S&T Directorate has not developed a DHS-wide R&D plan. It has, however, engaged in
strategic planning with willing DHS operational components. This approach has led to the
development of some discrete strategic plans with individual components. The S&T Directorate
intends these R&D strategies to align its future investments to DHS component priorities.
According to Under Secretary O’Toole, all HSARPA R&D projects are grounded in R&D
strategies developed in partnership with the users.26
The S&T Directorate uses a S&T Resource Allocation Strategy (STRAS) approach to guide its
engagement with partner organizations. According to the S&T Directorate, the STRAS approach
consists of a systems analysis that explicitly maps how the operational process functions and
highlights potential capability gaps. Based on the analysis and an understanding of ongoing
R&D efforts, a strategic plan will be jointly developed and agreed-to by the component and
S&T. A formal, written agreement will codify the joint effort. Periodic updates will ensure
23 Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, DHS Science and Technology Directorate
Strategic Plan 2011, 2011.
24 Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, DHS Science and Technology Directorate
Strategic Plan 2011, 2011.
25 For a discussion of key questions for policymakers regarding agency strategic plans, see General Accounting Office,
Agencies’ Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate Congressional Review, May 1997.
26 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
9
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
that projects are progressing and will ultimately lead to fielding an operational capability,
including, if appropriate, the transition of research products and prototype technologies into
field pilots and acquisition plans.27
In addition to its efforts with the DHS operational components, the S&T Directorate uses a
modified version of the STRAS process to identify efforts it will undertake for the first responder
community.28
The S&T Directorate has developed strategic plans with only some DHS components and often
focused on specific topics. For example, the S&T Directorate and the Transportation Security
Administration issued a joint R&D strategy for aviation security.29 The S&T Directorate has also
signed strategic plans with the U.S. Secret Service and the Federal Protective Service.30 Draft
strategic plans exist for S&T Directorate engagement with the Office of Health Affairs, TSA (for
intermodal activities), and Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Border Patrol.31 In addition,
GAO reports the S&T Directorate plans to develop R&D strategies with other components, such
as U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and FEMA.32
The S&T Directorate intends to use these strategic plans to engage DHS components in planning
the transition of R&D outputs. Component and S&T Directorate officials sign each strategic plan,
and each plan links its focus areas with specific transition pathways for R&D outputs. In addition,
HSARPA uses the strategic plans to map its efforts to the priorities and focus areas in the plans.
This process clarifies how existing efforts align strategically and where new efforts or capabilities
would meet identified strategic priorities. The S&T Directorate has also engaged in outreach
activities, such as webinars and industry days, to improve information sharing with R&D
performers and other stakeholders regarding R&D needs as identified through the joint S&T
Directorate/operational component process.
Planning with Other Federal Agencies
The S&T Directorate is also engaging with other federal agencies in order to assess strategic
partnerships that might align S&T Directorate capabilities with other agency needs and activities.
In some cases, such strategic planning may serve to align activities across the R&D portfolio,
such as in the joint R&D plan between the S&T Directorate and the General Services
Administration.33 In other cases, the S&T Directorate has engaged in strategic planning in
response to specific threats, such as on chemical and biological threats with the USDA Animal
27 Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, DHS Science and Technology Directorate
Strategic Plan 2011, 2011, p. 6.
28 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, testimony
before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and
Security Technologies, November 16, 2011.
29 Department of Homeland Security, Aviation Security Technology Research and Development Strategy, March 2011.
30 The latter is a joint strategic plan with the General Services Administration (Department of Homeland Security,
Science and Technology Directorate and Federal Protective Service, and General Services Administration, Research
and Development Strategic Plan, May 31, 2013).
31 Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Homeland Security Advanced Research
Projects Agency (HSARPA), R&D Strategies, June 10, 2013.
32 Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination of Research and
Development Should Be Strengthened, GAO-12-837, September 2012. p. 20.
33 This is a joint strategic plan with the Federal Protective Service.
Congressional Research Service
10
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Environmental Protection Administration.34
Such multiagency strategic plans may help DHS to obtain situational awareness of other
agencies’ activities. In addition, they may serve as the interim steps toward the development of a
broader, integrated federal homeland security R&D strategy.
Planning for Federal Homeland Security R&D
The Homeland Security Act requires the S&T Directorate to interact with a variety of other
executive branch agencies as well as requiring coordination with other DHS components. The
Under Secretary is required by Sec. 302 of the Homeland Security Act to develop, in consultation
with other agencies, a national policy and strategic plan for federal civilian efforts to identify and
develop countermeasures against terrorism; to coordinate those efforts; and to identify priorities,
goals, objectives, and policies for them. The Under Secretary has specific responsibility to
collaborate with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Health
and Human Services in the designation and regulation of biological select agents.
No Under Secretary has released such a national policy and strategic plan. Topical federal R&D
strategies for homeland security activities instead seem mostly to issue from the National Science
and Technology Council (NSTC), a White House entity that coordinates federal R&D activities.35
One of the NSTC’s five standing committees is the Committee on Homeland and National
Security, which is co-chaired by the DHS Under Secretary for Science and Technology.36 Some
policymakers may view issuance of topical federal R&D strategies from this committee as
meeting the mandate of the Homeland Security Act. Others may expect the Under Secretary to
issue a free standing document under her own authority.
Portfolio-Based Review
The S&T Directorate has adopted a portfolio review process to characterize the effectiveness of
its R&D investments. This process includes written submissions on each project, an oral
presentation by each project manager, and analysis of the project’s likely impact and feasibility as
judged against specific metrics determined by the directorate. A review panel of S&T officials,
34 Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Homeland Security Advanced Research
Projects Agency (HSARPA), Chemical and Biological Defense Research and Development Strategic Plan: Annex
Supporting United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services,
June 5, 2013; Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Homeland Security Advanced
Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), Chemical and Biological Defense Research and Development Strategic Plan:
Annex Supporting Federal Bureau of Investigation, May 22, 2013; Department of Homeland Security, Science and
Technology Directorate, Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), Chemical and
Biological Defense Research and Development Strategic Plan: Annex Supporting Environmental Protection Agency,
April 9, 2013
35 For example, the NSTC has released several federal homeland security strategies or roadmaps. See Executive Office
of the President, National Science and Technology Council, National Biosurveillance Science and Technology
Roadmap, June 2013; Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, Trustworthy
Cyberspace: Strategic Plan for the Federal Cybersecurity Research and Development Program, December 2011; and
Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, A National Strategy for CBRNE
Standards, May 2011.
36 http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/nstc/committees/chns.
Congressional Research Service
11
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
representatives of other DHS components, and technical experts evaluates and rates each project
at least annually. The S&T Directorate reports that this portfolio review has identified places in
the portfolio where program managers could combine activities to create synergies and cost
savings, reprioritize funding, and speed projects to completion.37
In 2011, the S&T Directorate predicted that this portfolio review process would:
provide a transparent and “shareable” view of all R&D within S&T; enable more strategic,
longer-term budget decisions; ensure efficient delivery to the component or end user; and
nurture effective communication throughout the process.38
Although the S&T Directorate believes that the portfolio review improves strategic long-term
planning, it could also have adverse effects. Annual portfolio reviews could result in an emphasis
on short-term results that may be at odds with the long-term results emphasized in the multi-year
timeline of overall strategic planning activities. The S&T Directorate may be able to reduce this
risk by closely overseeing the metrics used and the direction given to experts participating in the
portfolio review.
Congressional policymakers have generally supported the portfolio review process. The Senate
report accompanying FY2013 appropriations described the process as “effective” and stated
“This type of review would be of great value to coordinate research and development work and
related efforts across the Department.”39 The FY2013 explanatory statement directed DHS to
adopt and expand the S&T Directorate’s portfolio review process across DHS. Some DHS
components have subsequently implemented a portfolio review process. For example, the U.S.
Coast Guard has reviewed its R&D portfolio and provided lessons learned back to the S&T
Directorate. In addition, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is considering employing a
similar portfolio review process.40
High-Priority Investment
A significant change in the S&T Directorate’s R&D strategy was the creation in 2011 of what
DHS calls Apex projects. Apex projects aim to solve urgent problems identified by the head of a
DHS operational component. As a consequence, the S&T Directorate designates Apex projects as
high-priority investments. The Under Secretary for Science and Technology and the head of the
operational component sign the Apex charter, which delineates roles, responsibilities, and
expectations. A commitment by senior component leadership is a key factor in the S&T
Directorate agreeing to engage in a particular Apex project.
The S&T Directorate employs a non-traditional R&D approach to providing solutions to these
problems. Rather than developing a technological solution and transferring it to the operational
37 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony in House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations for 2012, Committee Print, Part 4, p. 11.
38 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony in House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations for 2012, Committee Print, Part 4, pp. 15-16.
39 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 15.
40 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
12
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
component to implement, the S&T Directorate itself integrates the results of Apex projects into
the operations of DHS components. Each Apex project has a multidisciplinary team from the
S&T Directorate that partners with a similar team from the operational component.41 In order to
do this, the S&T Directorate becomes more closely involved than usual in developing detailed
concepts of operation and overcoming operational challenges associated with the technology’s
implementation.42 In other words, the S&T Directorate aims to provide a complete solution to the
problem, rather than simply a piece of technology.
Congressional policymakers have generally supported the directorate’s establishment of the Apex
project. They cite its focus on expediting technological solutions and its collaborative nature as
positive developments.43
Because the Apex approach extends the S&T Directorate engagement up to and possibly through
the process of procurement, these projects may have a more integrated planning process,
including ongoing engagement between S&T Directorate and operational component
representatives. S&T Directorate participants may find that the Apex project’s higher degree of
integration with DHS operational components makes it easier to adapt technology development to
emerging operational needs. Similarly, Apex project planning activities may be more holistic,
with operational considerations built into project planning at an earlier stage relative to non-Apex
projects.
The Apex project approach may prove advantageous when compared with traditional R&D
investment because of the involvement of senior operational component officials in setting
priorities. In the past, the S&T Directorate has experienced significant challenges in successfully
transitioning R&D results into operational environments. Reasons underlying these challenges
include a failure of R&D projects to reflect leadership priorities, lack of further investment,
ambiguous operational requirements, insufficient user demand, failure to devise an appropriate
and timely commercialization strategy or acquisition process, and lack of integration into
concepts of operation. The structure of Apex projects may ameliorate some of these challenges
through increased commitment by senior DHS policymakers and explicit integration of the
technology solution into the operational environment.
On the other hand, uncertainties attending the budgets and schedules for Apex projects may
increase their risk of failure or underperformance. The S&T Directorate expects funding for an
Apex project to be larger than it has typically invested in previous individual projects since Apex
project investments extend through deployment. Such increased investment may lead to a
correspondingly higher success rate, or it may make each failure more costly. The need to support
multiple simultaneous Apex projects may strain S&T Directorate funding unless Congress
provides additional funds expressly for these projects. If Congress instead supports Apex projects
but does not provide additional funding for them, the S&T Directorate may be required to shift
funding away from other priorities to meet the Apex project’s need. Since the Apex projects are a
new effort, the S&T Directorate additionally has little data to estimate their future rate of
successes or required durations. Thus, it is unclear how quickly Apex projects will address high-
41 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
42 Personal communication between S&T Directorate staff and CRS, January 10, 2011.
43 S.Rept. 113-77, p. 133.
Congressional Research Service
13
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
priority, near-term problems and whether the use of Apex projects to solve urgent short-timeframe
problems will come at the expense of solutions to long-term, fundamental problems.
The S&T Directorate had two Apex projects in FY2013, has capacity for a total of three or four
simultaneous Apex projects, and anticipates starting new Apex projects with additional DHS
components.44 One Apex project with the U.S. Secret Service was successfully completed. The
other Apex-like project with Customs and Border Protection was terminated by mutual
agreement.45 Based on its experiences with the early Apex projects, the S&T Directorate has
identified several lessons learned for application to future projects. These include
• acquiring commitment from the highest levels of leadership in both the S&T
Directorate and the DHS component;
• managing a flexible project team so that scope and product expectations are
maintained;
• developing and documenting agreement about project goals, objectives, design
and scope;
• establishing project operating procedures that encourage participation and build
mutual trust;
• creating cross-organizational, multi-disciplinary teams;
• identifying core problems underlying more complicated issues; and
• leveraging all available resources to ensure that technology is quickly developed,
piloted, and deployed.46
For FY2014, the S&T Directorate requested funds for two new Apex projects, one with
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and one with CBP.47 The effectiveness of the approach
may become easier to assess if additional Apex projects are implemented.
Policy Options
If congressional policymakers are unsatisfied with the S&T Directorate’s planning processes, they
have many options to address perceived challenges. They might support ongoing efforts within
the S&T Directorate by providing additional authorities to the Under Secretary regarding Apex
projects or similar integrated R&D/procurement efforts. They might require increased rigor in
strategic planning or establish an independent oversight and direction function for DHS R&D.
They might give the Under Secretary greater discretion to redirect funding from underperforming
projects to other priorities.
44 Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination of Research and
Development Should Be Strengthened, GAO-12-837, September 2012. p. 19.
45 Personal communication between S&T Directorate staff and CRS, June 13, 2013.
46 Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Apex STORE Project Summary, December
31, 2012.
47 Department of Homeland Security, FY2014 Congressional Justification-Science and Technology Research,
Development, Acquisitions, and Operations, pp. 15-16.
Congressional Research Service
14
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Support Integrated Projects
Congressional policymakers might choose to place greater support behind integrated projects,
such as the Apex projects or other projects that integrate S&T Directorate activities with the
operational components. The participation of an operational component in the R&D process may
increase the likelihood that research results will successfully transition into the field. Similarly, a
close partnership between the operational component and the S&T Directorate may increase the
likelihood that S&T Directorate work addresses the high-priority needs of the component. To
date, the S&T Directorate has partnered on an opportunistic basis, identifying willing operational
components through personal relationships. Policymakers may wish to evaluate whether Apex
project investment leads to successful outcomes from both the S&T Directorate and operational
component perspectives. To the extent that the S&T Directorate completes these integrated
projects successfully, both current and future partners may increase their demand for joint or
integrated R&D activities. Policymakers may wish to monitor the extent to which such integrated
projects become limited to specific operational components due to resource constraints or other
challenges. Similarly, policymakers may wish to weigh the balance between S&T investments for
partnering components and support for other homeland security clients, such as first responders.
Because successful partnerships may increase interest in future projects, operational components
that have an early positive experience could become the primary consumers of these more
intensive R&D projects. This might result in an uneven distribution of R&D support for DHS
operational components.
Increase Rigor of Strategic Planning
Congressional policymakers have historically valued strategic planning for homeland security
R&D and might require a more rigorous strategic planning process for R&D in the S&T
Directorate or DHS-wide. The S&T Directorate participates in multiple planning activities and
reviews through DHS-wide activities, such as the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, the
development of departmental strategic plans, and the generation of future year homeland security
programs (FYHSP). That said, the S&T Directorate has not publically released a detailed
multiyear R&D plan. Some experts may question whether the S&T Directorate’s current strategic
planning process provides stakeholders with sufficient clarity about the directorate’s long-term
plans. Congress might mandate an ongoing, formalized planning process over a specific time
period, such as five or ten years, to allow interested Members of Congress increased oversight of
these investments. Such a formal process might increase agency predictability, potentially
allowing the private sector greater access to and notice of S&T Directorate funding opportunities.
It might also increase transparency with respect to the S&T Directorate’s priorities and its
progress toward meeting them. However, such a mandate might also have drawbacks. Rigid long-
term planning might limit flexibility and responsiveness within the S&T Directorate’s activities
due to adherence to the long-term plan and its interdependencies. For example, the S&T
Directorate might less readily react to the results of its portfolio review process or shift funds
between projects if it had already developed a formal multiyear plan for those projects. A process
for amending the strategic plan based on portfolio review findings or other similar analysis might
ameliorate the tension between predictability and rigidity. The act of planning might itself provide
insights to the holistic needs and capabilities of the agency and its partners, a benefit beyond
producing the plan itself.
Congressional Research Service
15
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Establish a Planning Advisory Board
Congress might establish an advisory board to assist the Under Secretary in identifying research
priorities, developing strategic directions, and making R&D investments. One possibility might
be for the S&T Directorate to use the Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory
Committee (HSSTAC) for this purpose by implementing a formal HSSTAC review process of
strategic priorities and direction. This might require a fundamental revision of how the S&T
Directorate currently interacts with the HSSTAC, which has met sporadically.48 Alternatively, the
S&T Directorate could rely on an external advisory panel for such guidance, such as the National
Academies, as some other agencies do in some fields of science, such as astronomy and
astrophysics.49 Such an advisory board would allow the Under Secretary to receive wide-ranging
input into the prioritization process. Other federal agencies have relied on internal or external
advisory boards to provide strategic planning for specific or general areas of agency interest. For
example, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science has established advisory boards for
each of its major programs areas, and several of these boards have provided strategic plans for the
DOE Office of Science.50 A more directive approach might follow that of the National Science
Board, which jointly with the National Science Foundation Director pursues the goals and
functions of the National Science Foundation. The Under Secretary might find such input
cumbersome to incorporate into S&T Directorate planning process and challenging when trying
to meet the specific technology needs of other DHS components, as well as mandates or direction
from the DHS Secretary.
Support Greater Flexibility
The above alternatives might tend to reduce the discretion of the Under Secretary. Congressional
policymakers might choose instead to increase that discretion by providing the S&T Directorate
with the ability to transfer funding more easily between programs, either through explicit transfer
authority or by providing S&T Directorate programmatic funding within a single PPA. As noted
above, the S&T Directorate has moved towards establishing its R&D funding as a single PPA in
order to achieve more flexibility in allocating funding to research programs, but Congress has not
generally supported this move. Funding transfers might result from regular portfolio reviews,
S&T Directorate leadership decisions, or other changes in priorities. Congress might link
increased flexibility to increased accountability for research success. One potential side effect of
increased flexibility may be a shift towards short-term investments, as they may be more likely to
meet demonstrable milestones and yield deployable results. Such a shift might adversely affect
long-term needs.
48 For more information on the HSSTAC, see http://www.dhs.gov/st-hsstac.
49 The National Research Council of the National Academies releases a survey of astronomy and astrophysics outlining
priorities for the coming decade in order to inform National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) strategic
planning. For one example of how this information is used in NASA planning, see Astrophysics Division, Science
Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Astrophysics Implementation Plan, December
2012.
50 For example, see Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, U.S. Particle
Physics: Scientific Opportunities A Strategic Plan for the Next Ten Years, May 29, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
16
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Scope of S&T Directorate R&D
Other organizations besides the S&T Directorate also conduct R&D with homeland security
applications. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), at
least eight other agencies invest in homeland security R&D.51 Of those agencies, DHS’s
investment is the third largest, following the Department of Defense and the Department of
Health and Human Services’ National Institute of Health. Moreover, as described by Under
Secretary O’Toole, the S&T Directorate “has responsibilities in some areas—notably biosecurity
and civilian cybersecurity—which, to meet critical overarching national needs, extend beyond
certain requirements of its DHS component customers or the first responder community.”52
Policymakers may therefore question what principles determine the scope and type of R&D the
S&T Directorate should do, how the S&T Directorate should coordinate its scope of effort with
other federal agencies, and when another organization inside DHS or elsewhere should be
responsible for a particular R&D topic.
Role of the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency
When Congress established DHS, it created within the S&T Directorate the Homeland Security
Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), which was to administer a newly established
Acceleration Fund for Research and Development of Homeland Security Technologies.53 The
scope of HSARPA has evolved since Congress created it. Initially, it was unclear how the S&T
Directorate would implement HSARPA. Given the similarity of its name to the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), some policymakers and experts in the scientific
community believed that, like DARPA, it would fund high-risk, high-reward R&D. Instead, the
S&T Directorate initially used HSARPA to conduct essentially all of its extramural activities,
most of which were conventional R&D with only moderate risk.
The second confirmed Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Jay Cohen, restructured
HSARPA, removing its conventional R&D funding and responsibilities and establishing it as a
small, high-risk, high-reward program. Through its Homeland Innovative Prototypical Solutions
(HIPS) and High Impact Technology Solutions (HITS) programs, HSARPA performed some
research activities in the DARPA model. Because of its size, however, this version of HSARPA
could not take on projects of the scope and significance addressed by DARPA.54
Under Secretary O’Toole reorganized HSARPA, and it now again encompasses the vast majority
of the R&D activities in the S&T Directorate. The HSARPA performs mostly conventional R&D
with only moderate risk. The directorate’s portfolio review process may further reduce the
incidence of high-risk, high-reward activities, as the program’s likelihood of success is a
discriminating factor in the review process.
The HSARPA has become more focused on transitioning technology to the field. One
consequence of the combination of this focus, a tightened budgetary environment, and the use of
51 Intersociety Working Group, American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS Report XXXVI: Research
and Development FY 2013, Table I-6, p. 52.
52 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
53 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), Section 307.
54 In FY2007, HSARPA received $38 million; DARPA received $3.115 billion.
Congressional Research Service
17
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
the portfolio review process is a consolidation and reduction in the number of projects and
programs. The S&T Directorate has terminated underperforming projects and combined projects
with similar aims in order to maximize the likelihood of successful technology development.
Such consolidation might increase funding devoted to a particular problem over a critical
threshold, leading to the discovery of a technological solutions. Alternatively, it might overly
focus HSARPA activities on a limited range of threats. A challenge for the S&T Directorate is
maintaining a number of programs and projects sufficient to cover the range of homeland security
threats while also providing each program and project with sufficient resources to achieve
meaningful progress or success.
Technology Foraging
The S&T Directorate may not always know of technologies or products available in the private
sector that could meet DHS’s general needs or specific requirements. Under Secretary O’Toole
identified this challenge in testimony:
It is really difficult to know who is doing what in the R&D community. This is a global
community. It is churning out new products all the time, and it is difficult to keep up with.
What we want to do is become best in class at surveying this dynamic and expanding world,
identifying potential partners, discovering technologies in late-stage development which we
might adopt or adapt for new purposes, new environmental conditions, or new scales.55
To identify technologies developed in the private sector, the S&T Directorate is investing in
“technology foraging.” This effort uses scientific periodicals, the internet, and other sources to
seek out technologies already in existence that may be readily adaptable to meet homeland
security needs. The S&T Directorate completed a Technology Foraging Pilot at the end of April
2012 with the goal to increase technology foraging efforts and obtain additional insights into
improving the process.56 Based on the results of this pilot, the S&T Directorate established a
Technology Foraging Office managed by the Research and Development Partnerships Office.
According to Under Secretary O’Toole, technology foraging has “already had a large impact on
[the S&T Directorate’s] ability to deliver a high return on investment.”57
The S&T Directorate plans to institutionalize technology foraging best practices to ensure low-
cost and timely identification of technologies.58 The S&T Directorate requires program managers
to include technology foraging activities in their plans to develop new technologies. According to
the S&T Directorate, program managers can request technology foraging activities to support
mission needs, and this technology foraging activity can be conducted at three different levels of
depth and duration. The S&T Directorate has completed at least twenty-eight formal projects,
55 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony in House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations for 2012, Committee Print, Part 4, p. 13.
56 Personal communication between S&T Directorate staff and CRS, June 8, 2012.
57 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
58 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony in House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations for 2012, Committee Print, Part 4, p. 16.
Congressional Research Service
18
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
including those done during the pilot.59 Several prototypes have been developed building on
technologies and research identified through the technology foraging process.60
Fielding of Results
A further challenge facing the S&T Directorate is the extent to which it should assume a
responsibility for aiding in the fielding of equipment and developing concepts of operations
(CONOPS) for operational components. Historically, the S&T Directorate brought R&D
activities to a specific level of development, often that of a working prototype, but it would then
transition this technology to an operational end-user for final development and adaptation to field
environments.61
The challenge of fielding R&D results may be particularly notable when the end-user is not a
DHS component but instead the private sector. As noted by Under Secretary O’Toole, the S&T
Directorate
has also found it difficult to “transition” successful R&D results to use by private sector
entities, such as those responsible for the bulk of the nation’s critical infrastructure sectors.
In the current economic environment, the private sector’s embrace of added security or
resiliency is dependent upon approval by corporate boards focused on thin profit margins.62
The S&T Directorate has broadened its approaches to encouraging technology transfer to the
field. Through its strategic planning process, it attempts to identify areas where the DHS
component plans to invest its own future resources. By linking S&T Directorate R&D programs
to these priorities, it expects that component will be more likely to adopt successful R&D outputs
as part of their planned future investments. In certain circumstances, a DHS component may
jointly fund R&D activities with the S&T Directorate, which may also increase the odds for
adoption of the R&D output.
Apex projects, which extend the role of the S&T Directorate through fielding and development of
CONOPS, further alter the previous approach to transitioning technology. Under the Apex project
model, the S&T Directorate has additional responsibilities and bears additional costs, but it may
also be more technically capable than the operational component in adapting the R&D output to
succeed in the field.
The S&T Directorate may find it challenging to broadly employ the technology transition and
Apex models simultaneously as they likely require program managers with different skills.
Additionally, it is not apparent what the balance of work is between developing the technology to
the prototype stage and bringing the prototype into the field. It may be that the resources of the
S&T Directorate will be further strained if it takes on the responsibility for fielding the
technology in conjunction with the operational component. Previous R&D expenditures by the
59 Personal communication between S&T Directorate staff and CRS, June 12, 2013.
60 Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, “Smart Scavenging—Technology Foraging
at DHS,” S&T Snapshots, July 19, 2013, https://www.dhs.gov/st-snapshot-tech-foraging.
61 During the tenure of Under Secretary Cohen, operational components and the S&T Directorate would enter into non-
binding technology transfer agreements (TTAs) that described the technology requirements to be met prior to transfer
from the S&T Directorate to the operational component.
62 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
19
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
S&T Directorate stopped at the prototype stage. Extending development through deployment may
increase the cost of individual R&D programs.
Impacts of Uncertain Funding
The S&T Directorate has received uncertain funding for several years due to a combination of
fiscal constraint and funding through continuing resolution. Such funding uncertainty has several
impacts on an R&D entity. These impacts include loss of productivity due to termination or
suspension of ongoing R&D and loss of R&D tempo due to delays in starting new projects.
The S&T Directorate experienced funding reductions in FY2011 and FY2012 that placed
additional constraints on R&D activities. The S&T Directorate used the previously discussed
portfolio review process to prioritize funding toward programs deemed with highest impact,
reducing the number of R&D projects. In addition, the S&T Directorate prioritized its R&D
investments at that time to four priority areas: biological defense, unclassified cyber security,
explosives detection in the aviation environment, and first responder technologies.63
In addition to constricting the type of R&D program funded, the uncertain funding environment
led the S&T Directorate to cancel multiyear programs before the end of the project timeline.64
Such termination interrupts the flow of R&D, and R&D programs are terminated before their
outcomes occur. Therefore programs that might have yielded a positive result following several
additional years of investment were likely terminated or paused. With the increased FY2013
funding, the S&T Directorate expanded its research investment beyond these priority areas. The
S&T Directorate restarted some research programs paused in prior fiscal years.
During the periods when Congress funded the S&T Directorate through continuing resolutions,
the S&T Directorate was not able to start new programs. While further appropriations for the
S&T Directorate then allowed new program starts, these new programs would begin later in the
fiscal year than previously planned. Such delays likely lead to agency challenges in meeting
previously established R&D milestones and goals. Also, due to the comparatively long time
frame involved in soliciting R&D proposals, rating them, and issuing final contracts, delaying the
start of new programs may contribute to increases in agency unobligated balances.65
Policy Options
Congressional policymakers may opt to provide direction regarding the approaches and types of
R&D in which the S&T Directorate engages. Interested congressional policymakers might direct
the S&T Directorate to place a particular focus on how it engages the R&D community. For
example, they might direct it to focus on high-risk, high-reward efforts; direct it to narrow the
focus of its efforts to specific topics; provide it with the funding necessary to engage in activities
63 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony in House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations for 2013, Committee Print, Part 4, p. 303.
64 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
65 Since FY2010, Congress has appropriated funding with a three-year expiration for the S&T Directorate’s R&D
activities, not including laboratory facility operation and construction.
Congressional Research Service
20
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
across the homeland security R&D spectrum; or direct it to invest in specific stages of the R&D
enterprise, such as technology development rather than basic research.
Focus on High-Risk, High-Reward Approach
How the S&T Directorate implements HSARPA may continue to be a topic of congressional
interest. Policy makers might direct the S&T Directorate to adopt a higher proportion of DARPA-
like R&D. Advocates of the DARPA model point out that while its risks are high, and only a
small fraction of funded programs achieve their goals, the benefits from successes can be
substantial. On the other hand, because most programs do not achieve their goals, many funded
programs will fail to produce the desired results. The high-risk, high-reward approach therefore
likely requires a sustained and increased financial commitment if it is to produce a significant
number of successful results. In the current fiscal environment, congressional policymakers may
find it difficult to provide such a sustained and increased financial commitment.
Focus on Fewer Threats
Historically, the S&T Directorate has spread its resources over a large number of projects to
address the panoply of homeland security threats. The S&T Directorate appears to have
reconsidered this approach, first with the development of Apex projects and second with its
prioritization of particular research areas during its time of fiscal constraint. Additionally, the use
of the portfolio review process has reduced the number of projects. These changes appear to be
intended to focus resources on fewer projects that address identified and designated urgent needs.
The tradeoff is that a more focused program may not be able to address all threats simultaneously
or equally.
Congress may choose to consider the breadth of S&T Directorate R&D activities. Congressional
policymakers have historically identified specific areas of R&D interest for the S&T Directorate,
but they have also tended to support R&D activities across the threat spectrum. Congress could
provide more explicit direction to the S&T Directorate regarding which threats should have
primary focus. Alternatively, Congress could direct the S&T Directorate to adopt an approach that
encompasses efforts against as many threats as possible.
Increase Funding to Match Scope
The S&T Directorate has generally attempted to fund R&D against many potential threats. In
FY2013, when the directorate budget increased, it did not, for example, retain a smaller portfolio
of targeted threats. Congressional policymakers might choose to increase the funding of the S&T
Directorate in order to allow it to invest in more R&D programs and align its portfolio to its R&D
scope. Such an approach might allow the S&T Directorate to invest in both high-risk, high-
reward R&D and incremental R&D against all homeland security threats. Also, increasing S&T
Directorate funding might allow the S&T Directorate to support more, larger individual efforts,
like Apex projects, while simultaneously supporting smaller projects as well. Such an increase
may be untenable in the current fiscal climate, may not be supported generally in Congress due to
concerns about past S&T Directorate performance, or may be seen as less important than other
congressional priorities. For example, an increase in S&T Directorate funding might be seen as
reducing the resources available to other homeland security priorities with their own resource
needs and supporters.
Congressional Research Service
21
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Limit R&D Type
Alternatively, congressional policymakers might choose to direct the S&T Directorate to focus on
specific types of R&D, for example, mandating that it focus on a specific portion of the R&D
continuum. To some extent the S&T Directorate has adopted such an approach with its focus on
near-term development in contrast to basic research. Not all federal entities maintain a balanced
portfolio across the R&D enterprise. For example, the National Science Foundation and the
National Institutes of Health focus more on basic research than on developmental activities.
Conversely, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency performed no basic research in its early years.
Congress has generally supported a greater focus by the S&T Directorate on short-term
development and transitioning technologies to DHS operational components and first responders.
It might choose to make such support more explicit.
Alternatively, Congress could direct the S&T Directorate to become more research-oriented by
requiring it to focus more on long-term basic research. Such a long-term focus might enable the
S&T Directorate to develop fundamental knowledge across a wide range of relevant disciplines
by sustaining or developing communities of scientists and technologists interested in researching
homeland security issues.66 Over-emphasis on either short- or long-term results may have
important tradeoffs. Some experts have cautioned the S&T Directorate against under-investment
in basic research.67 Excessive focus on short-term projects may lead to a dearth of research results
to build upon in future years. Excessive focus on long-term results may result in failures to supply
technological solutions that meet the needs of operational components. While leveraging the
complementary capabilities of other agencies, such as the Department of Defense, may mitigate
such tradeoffs, it may also incur costs. Solutions developed by other agencies may not align with
DHS needs. The S&T Directorate may need to adapt the other agency’s efforts to the homeland
security mission space.
Consolidate or Disperse R&D Activities
When DHS was created, Congress transferred several components with R&D activities into the
new department in their entirety. Congress did not merge all R&D activities into the S&T
Directorate; some components retained their R&D activities. The largest of these were the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Customs Service, and the Coast Guard.
Although the Homeland Security Act charges the Under Secretary with establishing and
administering the primary research and development activities of the Department, it also states
that
nothing in this title shall be construed to preclude any Under Secretary of the Department
from carrying out research, development, demonstration, or deployment activities, as long as
such activities are coordinated through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology.68
The conference report (H.Rept. 108-280) accompanying the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-90) stated Congress’s general preference for DHS to
66 James Jay Carafano, and Richard Weitz, “Rethinking Research, Development, and Acquisition for Homeland
Security,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2000, January 22, 2007.
67 Jessica Zuckerman, “The 2013 Homeland Security Budget: Misplaced Priorities,” Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder 2664, March 23, 2012.
68 6 U.S.C. 186.
Congressional Research Service
22
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
consolidate its R&D into the S&T Directorate. The R&D activities of the former Customs Service
were transferred to the S&T Directorate in FY2005. The R&D activities of TSA, including its
Transportation Security Laboratory, followed in FY2006. In both years, however, Congress
disapproved the department’s proposals to transfer the Coast Guard’s R&D program. The Coast
Guard program continues to operate an independent program of R&D, testing, and evaluation.
The establishment of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) in 2005 was the first
dispersal of R&D activities away from the S&T Directorate. Created by presidential directive and
subsequently given statutory authority by Title V of the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347), DNDO
took over the S&T Directorate’s radiological and nuclear countermeasures portfolio. Although it
became a separate organization under the direct authority of the Secretary in FY2006, DNDO
received its funding through the S&T Directorate until FY2007.
Proposed DNDO R&D Transfer to the S&T Directorate
In both the FY2011 and FY2012 budgets, the Obama Administration proposed transferring the
DNDO Transformational R&D program from DNDO to the S&T Directorate. The FY2011
congressional budget justification for the S&T Directorate’s proposed new Radiological and
Nuclear Division provided the following explanation:
Bringing all of the fundamental research in DHS together in one component allows for
economies of scale that range from the administrative to the scientific research aspects of the
program. The benefits of collaborative research across the S&T Directorate are immediately
apparent when considering the basic physics behind rad/nuc detection. There are many
similarities in the technologies used to identify chemical, explosive, and rad/nuc threat
materials among other commonalities. Bringing these research programs together creates a
more cross-disciplinary environment for the basic research and transition components of all
the programs. It also creates a synergy between all sensor-developing activities, which
eventually will all need to operate in the same environment if not the same device.
Under Secretary O’Toole also described the consolidation efforts in terms of centralizing research
expertise:
The proposal to move the Transformational and Applied Research (TAR) program back
under the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) reduces duplicative efforts in program
management and support. The move also consolidates Chemical, Biological, and
Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE) research under S&T, which serves as the
research and development (R&D) expertise for homeland security. Unifying CBRNE
research within S&T will create a better environment for R&D coordination in support of the
DHS mission.69
These themes of synergy, efficiency, and fostering a multidisciplinary approach echo previous
consolidation proposals for DHS R&D.
Congress rejected the proposed consolidation of DNDO Transformational R&D in both FY2011
and FY2012. The Senate generally supported such transfer of R&D responsibilities, while the
House did not. For example, in FY2012, the House Appropriations Committee stated:
69 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, response to
questions for the record in House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations for 2012, Committee Print, Part 4, p. 111.
Congressional Research Service
23
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
While the Committee recognizes that S&T is the lead agency for homeland security research,
and that it has established a network of diverse research communities, it is not yet clear that
the transformational and basic research related to nuclear detection is better removed from
the agency with primary responsibility for nuclear detection policies and investments. In fact,
the Committee is concerned that DNDO may find significantly reduced support for its
research mission, given the shift in S&T to quicker payoff investments. Therefore, the
Committee is not persuaded that the proposed realignment is optimal and finds the
Department’s justification for the shift to have been insufficient. At the same time, the
Department expects S&T to work closely with DNDO and bring to bear its unique research
and development expertise and resources on the specific challenges of radiation and nuclear
detection.70
For FY2013, Congress directed DHS to consider potential consolidation and reorganization of
DNDO’s activities, including its R&D activities. The conference report accompanying the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) directed DHS to
undertake an in-depth review of its organization, operations, and communications in carrying
out its WMD programs, to include an evaluation of potential improvements in performance
and possible savings in costs that might be gained by consolidation of current organizations
and missions, including the option of merging functions of the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO) and the Office of Health Affairs (OHA).
Such an analysis might again recommend transferring DNDO Transformational R&D activities
back to the S&T Directorate. For FY2014, both the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations would direct the S&T Directorate to establish a chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, and explosives defense PPA, but both committees would also continue to fund
radiological and nuclear R&D predominantly through DNDO.71
Coordination of R&D Activities in Other DHS Components
As mentioned above, although the S&T Directorate is the primary R&D entity within DHS, the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 allows other DHS components to perform R&D activities so long
as they are coordinated through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology. The extent of
these activities has historically been unclear, partly due to differences in the reporting of R&D
activities between budget documents, National Science Foundation surveys, and other sources.72
In 2012 a Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of R&D in DHS identified R&D and
R&D-related activities occurring in 12 other DHS components, only two of which, DNDO and
the U.S. Coast Guard, receive explicit appropriations for R&D from Congress or report R&D
activities to the Office of Management of Budget.73 For FY2011, GAO concluded that the S&T
70 H.Rept. 112-91, p. 129.
71 H.Rept. 113-91, and S.Rept. 113-77.
72 For a historical discussion of such conflicting information, see CRS Report RL34356, The DHS Directorate of
Science and Technology: Key Issues for Congress, by Dana A. Shea and Daniel Morgan.
73 Many different definitions of research and development exist. This report considers all activities funded through the
DHS S&T Directorate’s Research, Development, Acquisitions, and Operations appropriations account as research and
development. This definition aligns with that used by the Office of Management and Budget and the President’s
budget.
Congressional Research Service
24
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Directorate was the entity obligating the largest amount of R&D and R&D-related funding, but
that this funding was only 31% of total DHS R&D and R&D-related obligations.74
The GAO also detailed weaknesses in the coordination and oversight of DHS R&D activities.
While identifying some existing coordinating mechanisms, the GAO found them lacking:
S&T has taken some steps to coordinate R&D efforts across DHS, but the department’s
R&D efforts are fragmented and overlapping, which increases the risk of unnecessary
duplication. R&D at DHS is inherently fragmented because S&T, the Coast Guard, and
DNDO were each given R&D responsibilities in law, and other DHS components may
pursue and conduct their own R&D efforts as long as those activities are coordinated through
S&T. S&T uses various mechanisms to coordinate its R&D efforts including component
liaisons, component R&D agreements, joint R&D strategies, and integrated R&D product
teams composed of S&T and component officials. ... DHS has not developed a policy
defining who is responsible for coordinating R&D and what processes should be used to
coordinate it, and does not have mechanisms to track all R&D activities at DHS that could
help prevent overlap, fragmentation, or unnecessary duplication.75
The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security develop and implement policies
and guidance for defining and overseeing R&D at the department. The S&T Directorate has
researched potential department-wide definitions and suggested one to DHS leadership.76 The
DHS is currently drafting policies to define R&D activities on a DHS-wide basis.
Congressional policymakers are addressing this issue in the 113th Congress in the appropriations
process. The House FY2014 DHS appropriations bill would direct DHS to submit a report on
reforms to its R&D programs, including a formal process for setting R&D priorities, a formal
process for DHS-wide involvement in R&D decision-making and review, metrics for R&D
program status and return on investment, and the implementation of GAO’s recommendations.
The Senate FY2014 DHS appropriations bill includes no provision on this topic, but report
language directs DHS to implement policies and guidance for defining and overseeing R&D, in
accordance with the GAO recommendations.
Policy Options
Congressional policymakers have many options regarding the structure of the department’s
research and development activities. Congress could opt to allow departmental officials, within
ongoing congressional oversight, to make their own determinations about consolidation or
dispersal of R&D activities. Congress could mandate or support consolidation of R&D into the
S&T Directorate. Alternatively, Congress might disperse the R&D capabilities centered in the
S&T Directorate back to operational components.
74 Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination of Research and
Development Should Be Strengthened, GAO-12-837, September 2012. p. 37.
75 Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination of Research and
Development Should Be Strengthened, GAO-12-837, September 2012.
76 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
25
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Consolidate R&D
Congressional policymakers might choose to strengthen the role of the S&T Directorate by
limiting or removing the ability of other DHS components to perform independent R&D
activities. One approach might be to strengthen the coordinating role of the S&T Directorate. This
might slow the conduct of R&D activities due to the need to involve the S&T Directorate.
Additionally, absent a clear definition of R&D activities, what programs to consolidate would be
discretionary; for example, certain technology acquisition programs might be interpreted as
subject to such coordination while others were not. An alternative approach might be to prohibit
other components from performing R&D activities. Following such a prohibition, R&D
requirements might all flow directly through the S&T Directorate, potentially providing the S&T
Directorate with more insight regarding component needs. Such a prohibition might adversely
affect operational performance improvements of existing technologies, however, unless a clear
delineation was established between R&D activities and technology acquisition.
Advocates see consolidation as having the potential to foster collaboration, increase synergy
between programs, reduce duplication, streamline processes and procedures, and improve
budgeting and oversight. Critics, however, express doubt about the S&T Directorate’s ability to
balance R&D priorities across a growing spectrum of responsibilities. Other concerns include
whether the directorate would effectively support the department’s non-homeland security
missions and whether the directorate’s heavy emphasis on countering weapons of mass
destruction would result in the neglect of other, smaller programs.
Disperse R&D
A competing approach would be to transfer some or all R&D responsibilities to operational
components. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard retains its R&D activities while also engaging
with the S&T Directorate. Component needs might be more easily identified and met with the
R&D responsibilities within the operational component. With such an approach, the S&T
Directorate might become responsible for R&D activities supporting only those components
unable to meet their own R&D needs or for R&D activities affecting multiple components.
If the operational component retained its R&D capabilities, it might be more easily able to target
R&D efforts against its own high priorities. On the other hand, such dispersion might bear
significant organizational costs, as duplicative organizational structures would be required for
each R&D capability in each operational component, and it might impede identification of
synergies between the various operational components. With the S&T Directorate providing the
majority of DHS R&D activities, the directorate may be able to identify R&D results that are
applicable to the needs of multiple operational components.
An additional drawback to the further dispersal of R&D responsibilities is that the S&T
Directorate might be less able to coordinate DHS-wide R&D activities. Its smaller R&D
investment might make it less the center of DHS R&D activities and potentially reduce its status.
Similarly, if the S&T Directorate lacked insight into the component’s R&D needs, the S&T
Directorate might be less able to serve in an advisory role to other components or provide
meaningful assistance in technology acquisitions.
Congressional Research Service
26
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Formalize Relationships
A third option might be for policymakers to support greater, formal interactions between
operational component and S&T Directorate leadership. Current coordination and establishment
of joint projects relies upon personal relationships rather than formal oversight. The success of
such partnerships will likely depend on additional factors, such as effective coordination between
components, agreement on goals and requirements, and sufficient resources to meet expectations.
Congressional policymakers might support establishment of an R&D oversight council within
DHS, or some other DHS-wide entity that would provide a vehicle for a leadership focus on R&D
within DHS. Some policymakers might view the S&T Directorate portfolio review process,
where representatives of multiple DHS components review S&T Directorate R&D investments,
as a model for such a DHS-wide entity.
Acquisition Roles
As noted above, the Under Secretary for Science and Technology has statutory responsibilities
beyond the oversight of homeland security R&D. Notably, the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology has a statutory responsibility to oversee departmental operational test and evaluation
activities. In addition to this responsibility, the S&T Directorate has begun to increase its presence
in the early stages of acquisition within DHS operational components. This increased presence in
the acquisition process raises policy questions regarding the optimal balance between engaging in
acquisition support and managing R&D for DHS customers.
Operational Component Technology Acquisition
DHS has encountered several challenges in developing, procuring, and deploying homeland
security technologies in the field. For example, Congress has identified the deployment of
explosives trace-detection portal machines by TSA; the deployment of the technological portion
of the Secure Border Initiative by U.S. Customs and Border Protection; the development of next
generation BioWatch detectors (Gen-3) for the Office of Health Affairs (OHA); and the research,
development, and procurement of the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) and the Cargo
Advanced Automated Radiography System (CAARS) by DNDO as technology investments that
have not yielded the expected returns. Such failures have raised questions about the coordination
of R&D activities with technology procurement activities and whether DHS technical expertise is
sufficiently informing DHS procurement decisions.
In general, separating technology development from product development and acquisition is a
best practice that can help reduce costs and deliver a product on time.77 In a separated approach,
the acquiring component generates operational requirements and the R&D component attempts to
develop technologies that will meet them. For example, OHA determines its requirements and
communicates them to the S&T Directorate through written requirements documents and other
less formal processes. This approach may reduce the possible competition between funding
acquisition and operation of current products and development of next-generation products.
However, in this approach, the development of next-generation biological detectors competes for
77 United States Government Accountability Office, Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Inadequate Communication and
Oversight Hampered DHS Efforts to Develop an Advanced Radiography System to Detect Nuclear Materials, GAO-10-
1041T, September 15, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
27
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
priority and resources against all the other products under development by the S&T Directorate.
Additionally, enforcing a strict division between developers and acquirers of technology may lead
to lost opportunities for synergy through joint funding of R&D activities.
Other operational components appear to be performing activities that some may identify as
development activities arguably better suited for the S&T Directorate. These agencies generally
consider these efforts to be acquisitions rather than R&D.78 Under Secretary O’Toole has
identified the early inclusion of S&T Directorate views in operational component technology
acquisitions as key to future acquisition success.
Acquisition Support
The GAO has found that cost-benefit and alternatives analyses help reduce the risk of cost
overruns, missed deadlines, and performance shortfalls. It has also found that DHS has not
consistently included these analyses in its acquisition decision making. According to GAO, DHS
is attempting to improve its mechanisms in this area:
DHS reported that it plans to establish a new model for managing department-wide
investments across their life cycles. Under this plan, S&T would be involved in each phase
of the investment life cycle and participate in new councils and boards DHS is planning to
create to help ensure that test and evaluation methods are appropriately considered as part of
DHS’s overall research and development investment strategies. S&T will help ensure that
new technologies are properly scoped, developed, and tested before being implemented.79
As part of the reorganization launched by Under Secretary O’Toole in 2010, the S&T Directorate
established an Acquisition Support and Operations Analysis (ASOA) Division. This group aims
to provide a full range of coordinated operations analysis, systems engineering, test and
evaluation, and standards development support to the DHS operational components:
S&T’s Acquisition Support and Operational Analysis Division helps DHS Components
analyze and translate mission needs into testable requirements so that DHS procures
technologies that work as expected and are delivered on time and on budget. Through its
systems analysis and standards development capabilities, S&T enriches the DHS investment
lifecycle with process improvement for customized analysis for trade-off decisions,
operational requirements development, alternatives assessment, and portfolio analysis.
Through its analytic efforts, S&T is providing a more holistic approach to the Department’s
needs, the requirements for meeting them, and understanding the impact various alternative
solutions may have. Operational analytics also enable S&T to establish trust and build
credibility with partners by facilitating collaboration and communication across the
Homeland Security Enterprise. S&T’s input facilitates decision making that ensures future
technology investments will effectively integrate and transition into Component operations.80
78 For an overview of DHS spending on R&D activities outside of the S&T Directorate, see Government
Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination of Research and Development
Should Be Strengthened, GAO-12-837, September 2012.
79 Government Accountability Office, DHS Could Strengthen Acquisitions and Development of New Technologies,
GAO-11-829T, July 15, 2011.
80 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, response to
questions for the record in House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations for 2013, Committee Print, Part 4, p. 320.
Congressional Research Service
28
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
According to Under Secretary O’Toole, the S&T Directorate expects such engagement will lead
to improvements in the ability of the S&T Directorate to identify and develop products for the
operational components:
We are working with the DHS Under Secretary of Management and the components to
leverage S&T’s technical skills—again, we are the core group of science and engineering
expertise in DHS—to improve the front end of the acquisition process by helping the
components to formulate clear requirements stemming from their mission needs. This will
enable us to much more readily develop technologies that will serve their actual needs.81
Some portion of the S&T Directorate’s participation in the acquisition process arises from
existing contacts between component and S&T Directorate staff, such as those engendered by
Apex projects. In addition, the integrated investment life cycle management (IILCM) process
under development by the Under Secretary for Management may formalize an increased role for
the S&T Directorate earlier in the acquisition process.82
The increased participation of the S&T Directorate in the activities of the operational component
raises questions about the directorate’s role and scope. Historically, the S&T Directorate has acted
separately from the operational components, attempting to garner requirements from them and
develop technologies to meet those requirements. This approach sometimes created challenges in
transferring technologies from the final development stage in the S&T Directorate to an
acquisition program in the operational component; a lack of clarity regarding the relative
importance of competing operational component priorities; and a failure of technology
acquisitions in specific operational environments. According to Under Secretary O’Toole,
we think we can leverage S&T’s technical expertise much more effectively if we worked as
advisors on the front end when the components are deciding how to translate their mission
needs into requirements for new technology and save DHS a lot of money, a lot of grief, and
be very successful in getting the components what they need, whoever develops the
technology, whether it is S&T or the commercial sector or whomever. So this is not an
expensive proposition, because we are basically acting as coaches in the acquisition office.83
The closer integration of S&T Directorate expertise into acquisition activities may improve
acquisition quality and provide a resource for operational components. The perception of
operational components may play a key role. Some operational component officials have
expressed support for early stage activities by the S&T Directorate and the closer coordination of
S&T Directorate R&D with component acquisition activities.84 In general though, GAO has
81 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony in House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations for 2012, Committee Print, Part 4, p. 12.
82 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
83 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony in House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations for 2012, Committee Print, Part 4, p. 31.
84 For example, see comments by John Sanders, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Security Capabilities and
Chief Technology Officer, Transportation Security Administration, in Homeland Security Research Project Agency
(HSARPA), Science and Technology Directorate, and Office of Security Capabilities (OSC), Transportation Security
Administration, Department of Homeland Security, “Industry Webcast for Aviation Security,” Webinar, June 26, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
29
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
found mixed opinions among DHS operational component staff regarding S&T Directorate
coordination.85
According to DHS, the S&T Directorate has limited capabilities and staffing in this area and must
be selective regarding the extent of acquisition support it can provide.86 Under Secretary O’Toole
testified that she expects the S&T Directorate’s activities in this area to increase and that the S&T
Directorate has requested additional funding for these activities in FY2014.87 If the S&T
Directorate increases its role in acquisition support, but maintains a constant workforce size, this
acquisition support may compete with R&D program oversight and development responsibilities.
On the other hand, if the S&T Directorate integrates its program managers more closely into the
activities of the DHS operational components, the R&D it does manage may become more
successful at meeting those components’ needs.
Testing and Evaluation Role
The S&T Directorate oversees operational testing and evaluation of major acquisition programs:
S&T’s Test & Evaluation and Standards Division (TSD) develops and implements robust
Department-wide T&E policies and procedures. As the designated independent oversight
authority for operational testing within DHS, TSD approves Test and Evaluation Master
Plans, which describe the necessary tasks that must be conducted in order to determine
system technical performance and operational effectiveness. This critical role ensures that
technologies acquired by DHS actually do the job they are intended to do. S&T TSD
provides ongoing support for approximately 84 DHS major acquisition programs and
projects, ensuring each program complies with DHS Test and Evaluation Policy.88
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that the S&T Directorate has met some
but not all of its T&E oversight responsibilities.89 The GAO found that additional steps were
needed to ensure that all requirements were met and identified specific challenges the S&T
Directorate experienced.
[S&T] and DHS component officials stated that they face challenges in overseeing T&E
across DHS components which fell into 4 categories: (1) ensuring that a program’s
operational requirements—the key performance requirements that must be met for a program
to achieve its intended goals—can be effectively tested; (2) working with DHS component
program staff who have limited T&E expertise and experience; (3) using existing T&E
directives and guidance to oversee complex information technology acquisitions; and (4)
85 David C. Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, Government Accountability Office, testimony
before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
86 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
87 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 17, 2013.
88 Tara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, testimony in House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations for 2012, Committee Print, Part 4, p. 16.
89 U.S. Government Accountability Office, DHS Science and Technology: Additional Steps Needed to Ensure Test and
Evaluation Requirements Are Met, GAO-11-596, June 15, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
30
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
ensuring that components allow sufficient time for T&E while remaining within program
cost and schedule estimates.90
The GAO recommended that the S&T Directorate more robustly document its approvals of
operational test agents, reviews of component acquisition documents, and the extent to which
acquisition documents meet the requirements of departmental test and evaluation directives. In
response to the GAO recommendations, the S&T Directorate issued additional policies detailing
test and evaluation oversight procedures with discrete criteria to track operational test agents and
acquisition documents.
Policy Options
Congressional policymakers might refine the S&T Directorate’s role in acquisition by codifying
existing activities or expanding the S&T Directorate’s role in supporting acquisition by other
DHS components
Codify Test and Evaluation Responsibilities
Congressional policymakers might codify the operational test and evaluation oversight activities
developed by DHS and the S&T Directorate. The DHS has established management directives to
guide agency components engaged in acquisition-related activities. One such directive requires
the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to establish T&E policies and processes through
the Director, Test and Evaluation Standards Division (TSD), and the Director, Operational Test
and Evaluation (OT&E). Providing statutory authority for these roles might help to maintain the
independence of testing and evaluation, but it also might inhibit DHS’s ability to restructure or
reform T&E oversight.
Congress could expand the test and evaluation funding or staff within the S&T Directorate in
order to strengthen S&T Directorate oversight of test and evaluation. Such additional funding or
staff might enable the S&T Directorate to oversee more acquisition activities, reduce time
pressure, and increase effectiveness. In the current fiscal environment, however, additional
resources may need to be taken from some other priority; policymakers may have to weigh the
relative value of shifting such funding.
Congress might expand the role of the S&T Directorate in testing and evaluation oversight. Such
an expanded role might be informal or formal in nature. For example, Congress might require the
S&T Directorate to provide operational components with the ability to consult with test and
evaluation experts in the S&T Directorate, but not require the operational components to rely on
such consultation. In contrast, Congress might formalize the current or an expanded role for the
S&T Directorate in the DHS acquisition and test and evaluation process. This formalized role
might slow technology acquisition due to the need to involve the S&T Directorate in more
component activities, since not all components use the acquisition support services of the S&T
Directorate. Additionally, such a codification of agency process might reduce the ability of DHS
to alter its own processes in order to quickly or flexibly address an emerging challenge. However,
90 U.S. Government Accountability Office, DHS Science and Technology: Additional Steps Needed to Ensure Test and
Evaluation Requirements Are Met, GAO-11-596, June 15, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
31
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
it also might increase the quality of technology acquisitions, reducing the potential for purchasing
suboptimal technologies.
Alternatively, congressional policymakers might reduce the responsibilities of the S&T
Directorate with respect to test and evaluation. Within DHS, the Under Secretary for Management
generally oversees major acquisition. Oversight of operational test and evaluation activities might
be transferred to the Under Secretary for Management. Conversely, the component acquiring the
technology is responsible for testing and evaluating the technology. They currently contract for
operational test and evaluation, and oversight of these activities and their results might be
combined with more general program management.
Expand Integration of R&D and Acquisition
One way to strengthen the relationship between R&D and procurement might be greater
integration through operational components co-funding S&T Directorate activities, so that the
entity that performs R&D also procures its results. In theory, this approach could allow for a
seamless flow of information between those setting the requirements and those developing the
technologies. This integration might allow requirements to be more easily amended to take into
account new information discovered during the development process. Some policymakers may
view the increased role of the S&T Directorate in providing acquisition support and operational
analysis as a first step in developing a more integrated R&D and acquisition process.
However, according to GAO, a managerial best practice involves separating acquisition and R&D
responsibilities in order to reduce the possibility that prior involvement in the R&D process might
influence procurement decisions. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office testified in the
context of DNDO’s CAARS program that
separating technology development from product development and acquisition is a best
practice that can help reduce costs and deliver a product on time and within budget because
separation of the technology development phase from production in particular helps to
ensure that (1) a sound business case is made for the product, (2) product design is stable,
and (3) production processes are mature and the design is reliable.91
An integrated R&D and acquisition process may lead agencies to continue unsuccessful
procurement efforts longer than is cost effective due to a history of investment in the underlying
R&D and an institutional attachment to the success of that investment. Similarly, having
procurement, R&D, and possibly operations within the same component might create budgetary
competition between these functions. For example, officials might reduce funding for the
development of next-generation detectors in order to acquire additional current-generation
detectors or to operate or support detectors already deployed. Such budgetary tradeoffs might
occur via a higher decision-making authority or be viewed differently if different parts of DHS
performed next-generation R&D, acquired current technology, or operated and supported fielded
equipment.
91 Government Accountability Office, Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Inadequate Communication and Oversight
Hampered DHS Efforts to Develop an Advanced Radiography System to Detect Nuclear Materials, GAO-10-1041T, p.
10. See also Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs,
GAO-07-406SP, March 30, 2007; and General Accounting Office, Best Practices: Better Management of Technology
Development Can Improve Weapon System Outcomes, GAO/NSIAD-99-162, July 30, 1999.
Congressional Research Service
32
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Legislation in the 113th Congress
In the past, Congress has generally addressed these and other issues primarily through
appropriations bills and reports, oversight hearings, and authorization of particular programs
within the S&T Directorate. In prior Congresses, Members have introduced comprehensive
authorization legislation for DHS as well as specifically for the S&T Directorate, but none of
these bills were enacted. In the 113th Congress, Members may introduce additional legislation to
further refine oversight of the S&T Directorate.
Appropriation Legislation
P.L. 113-6
The 113th Congress enacted P.L. 113-6, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2013, which provided FY2013 funding for DHS and other agencies. For more information
about FY2013 S&T Directorate funding, see CRS Report R42644, Department of Homeland
Security: FY2013 Appropriations, coordinated by William L. Painter.
H.R. 2217
H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014, would provide
FY2014 funding for DHS. H.R. 2217 has passed the House and has been reported by the
Committee on Appropriations in the Senate. For more information about FY2014 S&T
Directorate funding, see CRS Report R43147, Department of Homeland Security: FY2014
Appropriations, coordinated by William L. Painter.
Authorization Legislation
H.R. 2952
H.R. 2952, the Critical Infrastructure Research and Development Advancement Act of 2013,
would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, to submit to Congress a strategic plan for federal physical security and cybersecurity
technology research and development efforts for protecting critical infrastructure. The DHS
would submit updates every two years. The Under Secretary for Science and Technology would
coordinate with the Under Secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate and
consult with other stakeholders when developing this strategy. The act would also require the
Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, to
submit to Congress a study on DHS use of public-private R&D consortiums for accelerating
technology development for critical infrastructure protection. The DHS would submit updates
every two years. In addition, the act would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology, to establish a technology clearinghouse for rapidly
sharing proven technology solutions for protecting critical infrastructure. The GAO would be
directed to evaluate the effectiveness of this clearinghouse within two years of its establishment.
Congressional Research Service
33
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
H.R. 2872
H.R. 2872, the Border Enforcement, Security, and Technology Act of 2013, would, among other
provisions, direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive plan for the
technology for the security of the U.S. international borders. As part of this plan, the Secretary
would be required to describe how the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner and
the Commandant U.S. Coast Guard Commandant are working, or are expected to work, with the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology to identify and test new technology.
H.R. 2719
H.R. 2719, the Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act, would, among other provisions,
direct the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to develop a
strategic multiyear technology acquisition plan in consultation with the Under Secretary for
Management, the Chief Information Officer, and the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology. In addition, the act would require TSA to establish and document a set of formal
baseline requirements prior to implementing a security-related technology acquisition. The act
would direct these baseline requirements to include the estimated costs (including lifecycle costs),
schedule, and performance milestones for the planned duration of the acquisition; and identify the
acquisition risks and a plan for mitigating these risks. The act would direct the TSA Administrator
to consult with the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to ensure that achieving these
performance milestones is technologically feasible and to develop a plan for testing and
evaluating the acquired technologies against the performance requirements.
H.R. 2691/S. 1303
H.R. 2691/S. 1303 would repeal existing provisions in P.L. 110-329, Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, and P.L. 112-74, Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2012, that require the Administrator of the General Services Administration
to sell through public sale all property and assets supporting the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center following a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security to locate the National
Bio- and Agro-defense Facility at a site other than Plum Island, New York.
S. 744
S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, as
passed by the Senate, would, among other provisions, require the Department of Defense’s
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to collaborate with the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology to identify equipment and technology used by the
Department of Defense that could be used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to improve the
security of the southern border by detecting border tunnels; detecting the use of ultralight aircraft;
enhancing wide aerial surveillance; and otherwise improving the enforcement of such border.
Congressional Research Service
34
The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress
Appendix. Appropriations for the S&T Directorate
Table A-1. Appropriations for the DHS S&T Directorate by Fiscal Year
(budget authority in $ millions)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
RDA&O 553.5
868.3 1,046.9
1,386.8 718.1 691.7 800.5 856.3 626.1 533.0
677.3
1,397.5
M&A
0.0
44.4
68.6
80.3 133.8 138.4 132.1 143.2 140.5 135.0
126.5
129.6
Total
553.5
912.8 1,115.5
1,467.1 851.9 830.1 932.6 999.5 766.6 668.0
803.9
1,527.1
Source: CRS analysis of DHS appropriations, FY2003-FY2014.
Notes: RDA&O = Research, development, acquisition and operations; M&A = Management and administration.
Appropriations reduced by rescissions and sequestration in certain fiscal years. FY2014 amount is the
Administration request. Totals may differ from the sum of their components due to rounding.
Table A-1 shows budget authority for the S&T Directorate, reduced by applicable rescissions and
sequestration. It does not reflect transfers of appropriated funds not included in appropriations
reports or funds appropriated to other DHS components subsequently that were provided to the
S&T Directorate to support component research needs. Note also that the S&T Directorate may
not have obligated the entire amounts in the year of their appropriation. As a result, data on
obligations or outlays would differ from the amounts in the table.
Author Contact Information
Dana A. Shea
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
dshea@crs.loc.gov, 7-6844
Congressional Research Service
35