The Value of Threat Levels (Or Lack Thereof)
Reihan Salam, over at his newish blog at National Review, has a very interesting post about his waning respect for former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, and the recent brouhaha over the terrorist alert threat levels. Buried at the end, he has this important passage on evaluating the value of the alert system, something that's been discussed obliquely in the storm that's raging over Ridge's allegations that the system was politically motivated. Reihan writes:
How does one responsibly "score" something like a "threat level"? This is fundamentally a matter of political guesswork. And it's also about something we call "CYA." Ridge seems to believe that the Bush administration wanted the threat level raise to enhance the president's re-election prospects. But after the Bin Laden tape, many people believed that the Al Qaeda threat was real and potent. While Ridge claims that there was "absolutely no support for that position within our department," other administration officials clearly disagree. Moreover, the decision-makers were presumably mindful of the consequences of not raising the threat level and then facing a major terrorist attack. This is the reason why the threat level concept has always been utter nonsense.
I think this illustrates the difficulty of measuring the efficacy of many programs: you have different views of the desirability of programs, you have evaluative bodies that have politically appointed leaders, etc. It's really difficult, outside of the Government Accountability Office to even find ratings systems that focus on programs' workability, given how difficult it is to separate workability from desirability.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
Rule One of emergency management: don't panic the civilians. The Color Code nonsense violates this.
And Gov. Ridge claimed White House political manipulation of the threat level back in 2005, when he didn’t even have a book to sell.
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/tom-ridge-on-the-bush-terrorism-alert-code/
Mike Licht Posted Monday, August 24, 2009 11:29 PMYour final statement...
EJC in ATL Posted Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:27 AM"I think this illustrates the difficulty of measuring the efficacy of many programs: you have different views of the desirability of programs, you have evaluative bodies that have politically appointed leaders, etc. It's really difficult, outside of the Government Accountability Office to even find ratings systems that focus on programs' workability, given how difficult it is to separate workability from desirability."
...would be just as applicable at the end of a blog about government run / controlled health care.
Actually Tom Ridge and his editors would do themselves a favor to delete the material on issuance of warnings prior to the 2004 election. What we do need from Tom Ridge is a highly detailed memoir of his time as Homeland Security Advisor and Secretary DHS and the choices he thinks he made and why, and the accomplishments he achieved and why, and of course the failures to achieve or efforts that failed for whatever reasons. He was one of the topdogs at a difficult time in US history and the fullest accounting possible is necessary given how much secrecy pervaded the Bush 43 adminstration as to both decisions and the policy reasons for making those decisions. I hope the book is long, dense, with lot's of footnotes.
William R. Cumming Posted Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:34 AM