The United States faces a constantly evolving threat from terrorist organizations and individuals who wish to do harm to do harm to its assets and citizens. In 2004, as a response to the 9/11 attacks, the structural organization of the agencies that comprise the U.S. Intelligence Community was changed under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. The goal of the transformation was to enhance the ability and effectiveness of those that are supposed to maintain national security. Coordination and information sharing between the agencies in the IC is essential to ensure that the relevant actors have the knowledge and authority necessary to give warning, take action, and adequately inform policy makers. Many of the agencies in the Intelligence Community share overlapping responsibilities, yet also have their own unique and specific purposes. They fall under several different cabinet level departments, and must accommodate widely varied leadership structures and policy guidelines. However, in accordance with the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act the Intelligence Community has been directed to operate under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. Based on the community's current organizational structure derived from the IRTPA, this paper evaluates if and how the Director of National Intelligence and the Intelligence Community will be successful in enhancing cohesion. The findings illustrate that, because of the structure and the authority granted to the Director, adequate coordination among agencies is unlikely. Furthermore, this paper shows that designing a policy that focuses on and empowers middle managers will provide the ideal solution. A solution in which a synthesis of top-down and bottom-up approaches to policy implementation is the most practical model.

This study investigates the current bureaucratic struggles that exist within the U.S. intelligence community as a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004. The first part of this research examines the history of intelligence reform in the United States beginning with the National Security Act of 1947. The second part provides an in-depth discussion of the 2004 legislation as well as an examination of the main bureaucratic conflicts that have arisen between the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community. This study used the bureaucratic politics model to explain the development of the current disagreements, the reasons behind the DNI's struggle for power, and the intelligence community's inability to adapt to the reform. This research determined that the current conflicts have occurred as a result of the unclear authorities issued to the DNI by IRTPA and have been further exacerbated by interest-driven intelligence agencies and a well-developed culture that has proven difficult to abandon. This research also provides insight into several alternative approaches that can be used to explain the current U.S. intelligence reform process. Additionally, recommendations were made for reducing the bureaucratic friction that currently exists within the intelligence community and to strengthen the overall authority of the Director of National Intelligence.

"Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004" by Congress of the United States. Published by Good Press. Good Press publishes a wide range of titles that encompasses every genre. From well-known classics & literary fiction and non-fiction to forgotten−or yet undiscovered gems−of world literature, we issue the books that need to be read. Each Good Press edition has been meticulously edited and formatted to boost readability for all e-readers and devices. Our goal is to produce eBooks that are user-friendly and accessible to everyone in a high-quality digital format.

This report explores the various issues currently facing Congress in regards to intelligence and counterterrorism activities, including the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458), signed in December 2004; the position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI), which that act created; the importance of collaborative efforts between various intelligence agencies to successfully carry out counterterrorism measures; and other pieces of legislation relevant to such matters.