COAC, DHS struggle to quantify benefits of cargo security programs
Measuring the hourly productivity of an assembly line or the effect of a product marketing campaign on sales is a simple exercise for business, but similarly trying to quantify the effectiveness of government security programs is not as easy as it sounds.
That’s the conclusion of a subcommittee to the industry-led Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of Customs and Border Protection (COAC) tasked by Department of Homeland Security officials with identifying a framework for systematically measuring the success and impact of DHS cargo security programs.
Importers and transportation intermediaries have been clamoring during the past year for the department to provide tangible evidence that the extra costs, delays and inconvenience of adhering to voluntary or mandatory security programs are paying off in enhanced security from a terrorist attack. Otherwise, they say, it will be hard to build further industry support for programs such as the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, which involves companies committing resources to make sure their facilities, and those of their suppliers and transport providers, are secure.
The subcommittee said it had difficulty determining metrics by which to judge the performance of DHS programs. The processes companies use to measure their operations do not translate well to the security environment, the panel determined. Illustrating the same challenge faced by government officials, the subcommittee was unable to deliver its report on the development of a rating system at the last COAC meeting in September, as originally scheduled.
“Private sector measurements could be a useful tool, but should not necessarily serve as a model,” Karen Phillips, subcommittee chairwoman and vice president of public and government affairs for Canadian National railway, told COAC Tuesday.
Defining the right measurement standards for the government was “a daunting task,” Phillips conceded.
While passing the ball back to DHS to develop performance criteria, the subcommittee cautioned DHS about equating industry compliance rates with better security.
“Metrics to assess compliance provide some assurance companies are adhering to requirements imposed by government, but do not in and of themselves measure the extent to which security has been enhanced,” Phillips said.
“You struggled with the topic in a similar way we did in terms of coming up with hard measures,” said Stewart Verdery, outgoing assistant secretary for policy and planning in the Border and Transportation Security directorate. “It’s very difficult describing analytically if security programs, which are really designed to deter, are effective. ' It’s hard to measure the deterrent effect.”
DHS officials said they are beginning to define effective types of measurement and go beyond yardsticks such as the number of containers inspected, number of C-TPAT validations conducted to check corporate security practices and compliance with advance manifest filing requirements or trade rules to develop a comprehensive report card on security programs.
“There’s a massive body of data that perhaps hasn’t been strung together yet,” said Michael Mullen, CBP’s director of trade relations, adding that available data gives CBP a good sense of how it is doing.
“We’d like to feel good too and take a look at the data when you get it strung together,” said COAC member Tim Travis, a partner in the trade law firm Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, who vigorously repeated his call for the agency to publish statistics on its security programs in order to attract further industry support for new voluntary or mandatory initiatives.
“The fact that it is daunting shouldn’t dissuade us. You must have some measurements. You need to share it in some way to keep the partnership alive, to justify the regulations. Otherwise the debate here will go to a different forum,” Travis said, raising the specter of congressional intervention and more draconian legislative measures that could slow trade.
Following up on related supply chain security work from last year, the subcommittee suggested DHS convene a meeting with COAC members to further explore what types of data elements from importers CBP can use in its targeting system to identify risky containers for examination. It also asked CBP to determine if there are other federal advisory committees, either in the Department of Transportation working on domestic intermodal safeguards or elsewhere, with which COAC can coordinate any recommendations related to the security of ports and inland transportation.
Elaine Dezenski, the deputy assistant secretary for border and transportation security policy and planning, told the group that DHS is very aware of the possibility of overlap, and would consider helping COAC join forces with other federal advisory groups, especially as it relates to contingency planning and opening up ports to commerce in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. DHS and the Coast Guard recently established a National Maritime Security Advisory Committee that many feel could overlap COAC in some areas.
Phillips said the subcommittee was considering setting up a small group to recommend ways to improve security of the in-bond system by which cargo is quickly routed to an inland destination and cleared by CBP at a later date rather than at the original port of entry. Jonathan Gold, vice president of international trade policy for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, said COAC was also considering a subcommittee to help DHS development a contingency policy for transportation and trade.
Verdery said “now is the time for COAC to engage with us” as the department looks to incorporate contingency planning in its overall national cargo security strategy.
The mechanical seal regulation that DHS has said it will promulgate this year is the byproduct of a recommendation from the maritime transportation subcommittee and COAC last September. Dezenski said the department must complete a substantial economic impact analysis of such a mandate before publishing its proposal in the Federal Register.
