Homeland Security Doesn't Do Cost/Benefit Analysis; They Just Do Fear And Bluster
from the you-might-die!!!!!! dept
This should hardly come as a surprise, but a new paper that analyzes money being spent on Homeland Security finds that it's incredibly wasteful (found via Julian Sanchez). You can read the full report (pdf) by John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart, which probably confirms what most people were already thinking. Basically, Homeland Security has ratcheted up spending at a massive rate, and there's little to no effort to judge that spending against the actual risk reduction. That is, there's simply no one doing any sort of real cost-benefit analysis on this spending. The report seeks to do some of that, and what it finds isn't pretty. From the abstract (with my emphasis):The cumulative increase in expenditures on US domestic homeland security over the decade since 9/11 exceeds one trillion dollars. It is clearly time to examine these massive expenditures applying risk assessment and cost-benefit approaches that have been standard for decades. Thus far, officials do not seem to have done so and have engaged in various forms of probability neglect by focusing on worst case scenarios; adding, rather than multiplying, the probabilities; assessing relative, rather than absolute, risk; and inflating terrorist capacities and the importance of potential terrorist targets. We find that enhanced expenditures have been excessive: to be deemed cost-effective in analyses that substantially bias the consideration toward the opposite conclusion, they would have to deter, prevent, foil, or protect against 1,667 otherwise successful Times-Square type attacks per year, or more than four per day. Although there are emotional and political pressures on the terrorism issue, this does not relieve politicians and bureaucrats of the fundamental responsibility of informing the public of the limited risk that terrorism presents and of seeking to expend funds wisely. Moreover, political concerns may be over-wrought: restrained reaction has often proved to be entirely acceptable politically.Among other things, the report looks at everyone's favorite DHS boondoggle, the naked radiation scanners at the airport by the TSA. Apparently, DHS was directly told by the GAO to study the cost-benefit and it refused to do so. The same is true of other DHS expenditures:
In seeking to evaluate the effectiveness of the massive increases in homeland security expenditures since the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, the common and urgent query has been "are we safer?" This, however, is the wrong question. Of course we are "safer"--the posting of a single security guard at one building's entrance enhances safety, however microscopically. The correct question is "are the gains in security worth the funds expended?" Or as this absolutely central question was posed shortly after 9/11 by risk analyst Howard Kunreuther, "How much should we be willing to pay for a small reduction in probabilities that are already extremely low?"
Indeed, at times DHS has ignored specific calls by other government agencies to conduct risk assessments. In 2010, the Department began deploying full-body scanners at airports, a technology that will cost $1.2 billion per year. The Government Accountability Office specifically declared that conducting a cost-benefit analysis of this new technology to be “important.”12 As far as we can see, no such study was conducted. Or there was GAO’s request that DHS conduct a full cost/benefit analysis of the extremely costly process of scanning 100 percent of U.S.-bound containers. To do so would require the dedicated work of a few skilled analysts for a few months or possibly a year. Yet, DHS replied that, although it agreed that such a study would help to “frame the discussion and better inform Congress,” to actually carry it out “would place significant burdens on agency resources.”Of course, from a political perspective, this makes perfect sense. It's all game theory. You don't get praised and promoted for doing a cost-benefit analysis that saves taxpayer money from wasteful and useless projects if a terrorist attack happens. So the end result is that the incentives for everyone at DHS to just spend as much as possible in the hopes that it stops something, knowing that if anything bad happens (as it inevitably will), all of the blame will go towards anyone who said "we shouldn't do project x that would have prevented attack y."
Of course, the real problem is that this is exactly what our enemies would like. They don't care about "terror" for the sake of terror. They want the US to spend itself silly to completely bankrupt the country. And it appears to be working. That doesn't make me feel any safer at all, no matter what the cost.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: benefit, cost, fear, homeland security
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Are the gains in security worth the funds expended?
(Are the gains in LOLs worth the funds expended?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question: Are there any gains in security?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110427/01531214053/weve-trained-tsa-to-search-li quid-instead-bombs.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are the gains in security worth the funds expended?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are the gains in security worth the funds expended?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorism is an economic war
In business, if you could spend $100 to make your competitor think they need to spend $100,000, you'd do it. It's called a sustainable competitive advantage.
Terrorists don't need to get past TSA checkpoints anymore. The TSA has already spent that money. Now, they'll bomb the transit choke points. Then the DHS will spend more in securing those. And the cycle goes on until the terrorists win.
Someone in the capital might figure this out before it's too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Terrorism is an economic war
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Terrorism is an economic war
Now...they don't even need for the attacks to be successful. They don't even need for them to be REAL, as dimwit Senator Shumer showed this week. All they have to do is give a little head fake, and poof! a couple of billion dollars is gone...and another...and another.
Meanwhile, education, social services, environment,
everything that's actually critical to the national
well-being, is drained of resources.
And every grandstanding politician, every bureaucrat with a power complex, is willing to go along with it. These people are cowards, idiots and traitors. They are the terrorist's best allies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Terrorism is an economic war
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real gains
How can you put a price on that?
I imaging that their thinking goes like...
No amount of tax payer money is too large for any expansion of our power over them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real gains
"It's not their money, but it's for the tax payer's "benefit".
There are not enough facepalms for this thought process. Just remember, open your hand, look at your representative, apply force to the face area.
Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real gains
- Locate your "representative"
- Clench fist
- Take aim
- Thrust fist forward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regean
We cannot win the current arms race be cause of the asymmetrical nature of the threat/response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Our appropriations process has gone horribly awry, and I for one demand to know how it happened."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Figures...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Figures...
Only if you do it wrong.
The fact that my seatbelt protects me from being killed when I have an accident more than pays for whatever maintenance cost it may have (if it had any).
But having my private parts squeezed by strangers will do me zilch when a git with a stinger blasts my airplane from the ground. Or releases VX gas in the subway. Or takes hostages at a bank, armed to the teeth with assault rifles. Or ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Figures...
Yes, it would certainly be safer to have a cop standing and watching, but we don't. Why? because we realize that the expense of the cop doesn't justify the small increase in safety. That's why we use security cameras.
To use your argument why don't we just have a cop for every man woman and child? We'd be safer, but since a cop can't handle everything, why don't we just throw in a paramedic, a firefighter, and a search-and-rescue team.
Reductio ad absurdum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're called lightning rods, and they're a requirement in many building codes for buildings that are at risk (usually those over a certain height).
Also amazingly, they're well worth the money - a proportional response. A building with a high chance of being struck by lightning can mitigate that risk by strapping a piece of metal onto it with a wire trailing to the ground, something which isn't very expensive.
Now let's try to figure out the how expensive and likely a terrorist incident occurring that justifies the expense of DHS and the civil rights violations of having to be fondled by a stranger, irradiated by a machine, and having our children sexually molested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This makes DHS Sound better than a weekend in vegas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd be more than happy to furnish everyone in the US with one, for only 1.5 trillion, a savings of .5 trillion dollars is nothing to sneeze at.
Disclaimer: ACPD not tested against direct lightning strikes, but are guaranteed to provide more protection than having someone grab your 'junk' while you are struck by lightning, so that's something, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it were only dollars at risk ...
I'm no fan of how our Homeland Security is operating and I think the Iraq war was really about George W's vanity, but I don't thing reducing defense to a ROI equation really does justice to the issue.
Remember when we discovered that Ford executives decided to just pay for the lives lots in Pinto crashes as having a better ROI than making the changes to fix it flaws? Were you outraged or did you say, "Way to maximize shareholder value"?
So I agree that Homeland Security is screwed up. But I think DHS being so screwed up is a symptom of our government, especially the legislative branch, being screwed up. Our two-party system is screwed up. I think that anyone who gets elected must have compromised his/her values in order to get elected because the citizens can't/won't pay attention to the issues, but instead vote for the personalities.
You spoke of "our enemies", but who are our real enemies? You write all the time in this blog about how the USA is browbeating other countries to do what WE want. That's OUR government do OUR bidding, isn't it?
I seldom hear anyone ask why some many in the middle east hate us enough to die in the act of protesting what they must feel deeply are the wrongs committed against them.
If they are the enemy then wouldn't it wise to try to discover why the hate us that much? Maybe it's for frivolous reasons like jealousy of our affluence. Or may be its because we want to force our consumer society down their throats.
We've done that before. Perhaps you've read of Commander Perry using the threat of force to "negotiate" open trade with Japan. This took place between 1852 and 1854. Congress voted $20,000 to Perry for this fine work.
In 1858 western nations forced Japan to sign other treaties which that stripped it of much of it's sovereignty.
How do you think the Japanese felt about the USA then?
Well, enough of this history lesson. I'm really not qualified. I'm just saying, perhaps we should pay more attention to the root causes and less to the symptoms.
I blame myself for not doing enough. Are you doing all you can? All I'm doing is occasionally writing to my senators/representatives and putting a few comments in some blogs.
Peace,
Rob:-]
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- pogo 1953
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it were only dollars at risk ...
At the same time, every valid point needs to be brought to bear to point out the flaws in the current policy, and the economic argument is important. In the end there will be fringe elements for whom no appeal to reason will be sufficient, and that's who our government is proclaiming to protect us against. This protection is costing us vast amounts of money, without any consideration of whether the amount spent will truly save lives or prevent potential attacks. As others have mentioned, not only is this possibly wasteful, but it is also likely to be a part of the terrorist strategy.
The DHS should take a moment to run the numbers on their actions, if for nothing else than the analysis requiring genuine thought into the effectiveness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If it were only dollars at risk ...
So while it's true that "time is money", "money is power" is also true as is "follow the money" when searching for "truth".
Peace,
Rob:-]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it were only dollars at risk ...
And sorry the fault lays at the feet of those that took a religion and made it evil (Osama was one)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If it were only dollars at risk ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If it were only dollars at risk ...
We as a collective whole do not believe the ends justify the means... And we allow others to follow what ever religion they wish... your right to him thats evil... and those 2 sides cant see eye to eye...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If it were only dollars at risk ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If it were only dollars at risk ...
I'm neither Christian nor Muslim. I abhor those use violence to achieve their ends and especially those who justify it with their religion.
I was was part of the US/Viet Nam war, saw no combat but did see some deaths from it. I supported that war at the time but I know now our leaders lied to us to get us deeper into it. Now I think we were wrong to be there in that capacity. (The dominoes never fell as threatened.)
I've not well traveled but lived in the far east for a year and have spent time in Mexico, China, Korea, Australia and the Philippians. I found only friends in those places.
And I sign my name to my comments.
Peace,
Rob:-]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If it were only dollars at risk ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it were only dollars at risk ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it were only dollars at risk ...
How can they? Effectively, I believe a lot of people understand that Congress for the most part is "bought". All three branches have a part to play in collusion, and it seems that more and more, the people have less they can say with the government.
"That's OUR government do OUR bidding, isn't it?"
It's actually not. But the avenues of having our government stop these acts is quite limited. Protesting is now done online. The protests of Manning's treatment isn't given much media time because of the controversial issues at stake.
"How do you think the Japanese felt about the USA then?"
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- pogo 1953
How aptly fitting. I can only lament as we watch the trainwreck that is our government continue to hurt the US's good name in the name of immediate profit.
*shakes head sadly*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DHS and TSA have NEVER been about security.
Terror is like gas prices, there are no quick, easy fixes. But the news monster and the electorate won't stand for that, so we end up with what we've got. In the mean-time, everyone who plays in the government profiteering game has the same blank-check that the anti-communists had during the Cold War.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senator Shumer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a modest, fiscally responsible proposal for DHS
(Did I mean charge them money, or charge them with a crime?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid DHS...
Simple metal detectors work for 99.99% of all guns and about 90% of knives.
Passengers work real well at thwarting any wood be hijackers.
When was the last time there was a successful hijacking in the US? I'll give you a hint; it was almost 10 years ago.
No one, I repeat no one or even a group will ever successful hijack a plane in the US again.
The passengers will fight them and if need be, they will go down just like the plane in Pennsylvania did. The bad guys will never get control again.
So, why do we need body scanners?
The answer is we don't; we just need for the passengers and crew to outnumber and out fight any potential hijackers.
If I were on a plane and some idiot tries to hijack it or blow it up; I will do everything in my power to subdue, or kill them. And from the looks of these guys, they really don't want to get on my bad side because I will bring it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senator Schumer
He wants all names on Amtrak passenger "manifolds" checked against this "no ride" list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorists and Enemies
There are no "enemies", dudes. None at all - other than in your minds. The only thing that is over there is our government who saw brilliant business opportunity, excellent new consumer demand for new trillion dollar industry. Which they have used to the fullest - the government is now the biggest employer, and average pay+benefits is 2x the private sector. They create jobs and careers plus they give business to myriad of private firms, research grants to universities, and more. Security is what is driving this country today, like it or not. That's the reality, that's the benefit - compared to which the small fact that the pretext for all this is totally made up can be quietly ignored. Excluding of course occasional projects by the FBI when they approach yet another illiterate Arab patsy, stuff him with money and promises, and after year of hard work gather the harvest planned and implemented by their own hands.
So shut up and enjoy your careers, your government contracts, your benefits, and pray it only gets bigger so you can continue to pay off your mortgage. Because if it suddenly gets back to senses, to this cost/benefit ratio, then lots of folks will be suddenly out of jobs - until someone figures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]