A solution for building greater security for our citizens after the tragic events of Sept. 11 has come from Washington. The largest reorganization of the federal government since 1947 - folding 22 agencies and 170,000 employees into the Department of Homeland Security - is supposed to do the trick. It is being hailed as "historic" and "a bold step forward."

Even its most fervent supporters acknowledge, however, that it will take years before the new department is forged into an effective anti-terrorist deterrent, though they assure that the war on terrorism will continue to be waged vigorously on all fronts.

Even if this vast federal shuffle works, it is a long step away from helping local communities put in place civil defense plans that would help relieve public anxiety. Americans would feel more secure if they had some idea of what to do in an emergency and knew that their local communities had the wherewithal to respond in the case of an attack.

According to the mayors who met recently, this is not the case. Rather, they are being deprived of the state and federal funding they need to plan for emergencies and to provide other basics.

The Bush administration has been applauded for bringing the fight to international terrorists. It was able to draw on widespread international shock and support in that effort in the early stages, only to have it drop off when it took a more unilateral tack and made Saddam Hussein the prime villain. The recent multilateral effort through the United Nations the United States spearheaded to disarm Iraq has set a better balance, if indeed it holds.

But these actions - some positive, some less so - have not lowered the anxiety of the American people. If anything, their fears have been exacerbated by repeated admonitions to be alert with no tangible suggestion as to what to do or where to turn for help and protection. In a real sense, Washington is missing the point because efforts are not connected to the real world at the local level.

Where are the programs to build the capacity of local police and firefighters to communicate and coordinate better?

Where are the programs for hospitals and health providers to stockpile drugs, vaccines and supplies needed in an emergency?

Why aren't there more evacuation plans?

Our decentralized federal system of government has the virtue of encouraging creative approaches in states and municipalities. If funding were made available it would stimulate an array of civil defense approaches across the country.

Conferences, workshops and town meetings could involve citizens, share and assess plans and identify the best approaches. Communities would learn from one another and citizens would have a stake in determining their destiny.

Community decision-making has been the bedrock of our nation, even since the first hearty settlers waded ashore 400 years ago. It has served us well. It would give real meaning to homeland security.

Local officials and the services under their jurisdiction remain the level of government most sensitive to community concerns. They are very visible to their constituents and are held accountable. They either respond well or they are tossed out on Election Day.

National politicians, by contrast, live and work in a rarefied atmosphere inside the beltway. In that atmosphere, the coming Department of Homeland Security may seem to be the end-all in fighting terrorism and calming public anxiety.

History will settle the first claim. But they will fail on the second if they don't give immediate support to community programs of civil defense.

Lawrence Pezzullo is a retired foreign service officer.