storage sites. Although increased partner state capacity makes an important contribution to a reduction in the WMD threat to the United States, this is more difficult to quantify than numbers of missiles or other forms of strategic offensive arms destroyed as in the traditional programs.
CTR’s prevention mission is difficult to quantify. Although a number of output measures can be counted, they are proxies for the outcome of deterring terrorists and proliferators from accessing WMD and related materials and expertise. We can measure the amount of equipment provided and the number of training events conducted or scientists engaged; however, we need better measures to show that these efforts actually result in changed practices or additional effectiveness.
As an example that makes evident the findings in the NAS report and reflects a matter DoD has recognized in connection with the CTR Program, a metric based on the number of Zonal Diagnostic Laboratories built under the BTRP may not accurately reflect the partner country’s enhanced capability for pathogen detection and reporting. Indeed, such a metric could create unintended incentives to continue building additional laboratories that do not make a positive contribution to threat reduction, when what is really needed might be additional training to make better use of the existing laboratories’ capabilities for pathogen detection. In WMD-PPP, the raw number of radars, sensors, and patrol boats provided for border security, although useful, may not be as important as the effectiveness of the information sharing among those systems, which is a function of system integration, training and effective decision making rather than of the number of systems provided.
In light of these issues, Congress has mandated the development and implementation of metrics to measure the impact and effectiveness of projects and activities of the CTR program to address threats arising from the proliferation of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons and WMD- related materials, technologies, and expertise. Additionally, Section 1304 requires submission, no later than 270 days after the enactment of the Act, of a report describing the metrics developed and implemented. This report addresses these Section 1304 requirements.
The metrics described in this report are designed to measure appropriately the impact of each CTR program area, as the CTR program is currently constituted for Fiscal Year 2010, and does not attempt to speculate on what metrics might be appropriate for future areas of programmatic or geographic expansion. Neither do the metrics attempt to determine whether the activities of the CTR program are the “right” activities. The metrics described in this report are intended to best measure the effectiveness of the CTR Program in conducting these established programs. These metrics are not intended to revise the method for establishing these objectives.
Figure 1 illustrates the organization of the Department of Defense as it relates to the CTR program. CTR executes programs as directed in program guidance from the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Treaties and Threat Reduction) (DATSD(T&TR)). This program guidance provides instruction on how to implements policy guidance issued by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD/P), which has been coordinated with all relevant agencies within the Executive Branch.