Often the best course is to fi x problems without setting up new structures. As an Australian review argues, “to create new organizations or merge existing ones . . . raises several risks” (Smith 2008): It could disrupt unduly the successful and effective work of the agencies concerned and create significant new costs. Large organizations tend to be inward looking, siloed and slow to adapt, and thus ill suited to the dynamic security environment. For a number of the agencies concerned national security considerations are embedded with a broad range of other service delivery, policy, program and regulatory functions which could be jeopardized by restructuring them around their security roles.
The management implications of border agency organization
The organization of border agencies is dictated by government priorities. No model is equally appropriate for every situation; all have advantages and disadvantages. Existing arrangements vary widely. Some governments have one border agency with separate policy and operational arms (the United States). Others maintain several ministries with policy functions, plus a single operational agency within one of those ministries (Canada, the United Kingdom). Still others have the traditional arrangement: several agencies, each including both policy and operational functions. On the one hand, a single border agency can cut costs through the sharing of corporate services (training, human resources, information technology, finance and administration). It also may reduce the cost of coordination. And it can improve risk identification and client segmentation. On the other hand, interagency cooperation can be secured in less disruptive ways than through creating a single border agency—an underlying principle of collaborative border management (chapter 2). And yet reformers who favor collaboration over integration must weigh the benefits of coordination against its costs: for example, that of maintaining separate systems and that of stretched communication lines. Furthermore, change across multiple organizations requires long lead times, affecting how functions develop. In the end the choice of a given structure for border management will depend on a country’s circumstances, on its history of public administration, and on the likelihood of securing political will for the effort. Often the choice is also directed by international factors—and complicated by the move toward B O R D E R M A N A G E M E N T M O D E R N I Z AT I O N
12 Managing organizational change in border management reform
An alternative course, the review continues, is “to recognize and build on the strengths of existing institutions but to identify weaknesses and address them” (Smith 2008). Even having a cogent strategy for the new agency does not guarantee success. For example, the United States has concentrated on physical security at the border. Under a community protection principle, the government has created a homeland security agency that incorporates any and all activities possibly related to border control. The agency’s size makes management complex, and this in turn makes it more difficult to achieve underlying objectives, such as coordinating efforts across border functions. Thus the Department of Homeland Security contains: • A customs and border protection agency. • An immigration and customs enforcement body. • A transportation security administration. • A directorate of citizenship and immigration services. And that is not all—the department includes other organizational units with overlapping mandates. In the United Kingdom the government has set up a border agency incorporating certain functions of the previous Border and Immigration Agency, the United Kingdom Visas Agency, and customs border control (including verification of goods). Policy for these activities remains scattered among the Home Office, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Foreign Office.
Canada has formed a border services agency that combines the operational functions of customs, quarantine, and immigration, while leaving policy to the relevant ministries and agencies (for example, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency). The new agency looks much like a traditional customs agency—it has all the responsibilities that customs would have, plus immigration and quarantine checking at the border.
203