Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Committee on Improving Metrics for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. HDRTA1-10-C00058 between the National Academy of Sciences and Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 13: 978-0-309-22255-6 International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-22255-9 Limited copies of this report are available from the Committee on International Security and Arms Control, 500 5th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 334-2811, email@example.com. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org .
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE ON IMPROVING METRICS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM Jay C. Davis, Chair, Hertz Foundation, Livermore, California George W. Anderson, Jr., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California Steven J. Gitomer, National Science Foundation, Santa Fe, New Mexico Mary Alice Hayward, Areva, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland Mark F. Mullen, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico Gregory S. Parnell, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York Kim K. Savit, SAIC, McLean, Virginia; University of Denver, Colorado Nicolas Van de Walle, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York National Research Council Staff Micah D. Lowenthal, Study Director (November 2010 to completion) Anne M. Harrington, Study Director (through October 2010) Glenn Schweitzer, Director, Program on Central Europe and Eurasia Rita S. Guenther, Program Officer La’Faye Lewis-Oliver, Administrative Coordinator v
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program was created in 1991 as a set of support activities assisting the Former Soviet Union states in securing and eliminating strategic nuclear weapons and the materials used to create them. The Program evolved as needs and opportunities changed: Efforts to address biological and chemical threats were added, as was a program aimed at preventing cross-border smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. (More detail can be found in the Background section of Chapter 1.) CTR has traveled through uncharted territory since its inception, and both the United States and its partners have taken bold steps resulting in progress unimagined in initial years. In a few cases, the program made bold missteps and became mired in projects that foundered in mistrust, misaligned objectives, and political knots. Over the years, much of the debate about CTR on Capitol Hill has concerned the effective use of funds, when the partners would take full responsibility for the efforts, and how progress, impact, and effectiveness should be measured. CTR is now 20 years old and many of the same questions remain. Increasingly, there is a push for metrics to ensure proper guidance and execution of the Program. Congress directed the Department of Defense (DoD) to request this review of DoD’s CTR metrics development. The National Research Council appointed an ad hoc committee to conduct the study. The committee held several public information-gathering meetings, which included presentations by representatives of DoD CTR. We would like to thank the management and staff of the DoD CTR Program; Luke Kluchko and Shawn Anderson of the Defense Threat Reduction Office in Kyiv, Ukraine; Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins; Assistant Secretary of Defense Andrew Weber; Andrew Hood of the Science and Technology Council of Ukraine; Dan Rosenbaum and Ben Klay of the Office of Management and Budget; Joseph Christoff at the Government Accountability Office; Tom Karako of the House Armed Services Committee staff; Julie Unmacht, formerly on the House Armed Services Committee staff; and Assistant Secretary of Defense Madelyn Creedon, then of the Senate Armed Services Committee staff. The DoD CTR Metrics Report was issued in late 2010 and the first implementation of new metrics was done in early 2011. Only preliminary results were available during the information- gathering stage of the study. Observations from DoD’s presentations on implementation of the metrics were incorporated into the evaluation in this report. In addition, the committee reviewed existing literature on and experiences with the development of metrics in complex, difficult to measure contexts. Finally, to obtain an understanding of the realistic opportunities and challenges associated with DoD CTR programs as they are currently implemented, a small group of committee members traveled to Ukraine to conduct site visits and meet with Ukrainian officials who implement projects (land and maritime border security, human and animal health) under the CTR Program. This on-the-ground view provided useful insights as the committee finalized its findings and recommendations. This information-gathering trip was not, however, a review of the CTR Program in Ukraine, nor was Ukraine considered by the committee to be representative of other countries. So while some examples in the report are drawn from that trip, the committee has not provided a full trip report, although an itinerary is included in Appendix D. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and vii
OCR for page R8
responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Jayson Ahern, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Dave Franz, Midwest Research Institute; Gerald Epstein, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Sally Katzen, Podesta Group; L. Robin Keller, University of California at Irvine; Susan Koch, U. S. Department of State (Retired); Devra Moehler, University of Pennsylvania; Mary Beth Nikitin, Congressional Research Service; Thomas Pickering, Hills and Company; and Jeffery Richardson, Center for International Security and Cooperation. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Chris Whipple of Environ Corporation and Mona Dreicer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Appointed by the National Academies, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. As the DoD CTR Program enters its third decade and seeks to address new security and threat reduction challenges in a variety of countries and contexts, it is particularly appropriate for DoD, together with its partners, to update its approach to assessing programmatic impact and effectiveness for program management as well as for overall strategic planning. These metrics must be linked to concisely-stated threat reduction objectives, be jointly developed with partner countries, be prioritized, leverage the experience and insights of other agencies, and reflect change over time, including explicitly-defined sustainability metrics. Such metrics will provide a more informed basis upon which to make critical decisions for DoD CTR programs into the future. While the metrics task is challenging, the committee believes that the recommendations outlined here provide a solid and useful approach for all those who must meet the on-going need for effective and efficient metrics at all levels of the DoD CTR Program. Jay Davis Chair viii
OCR for page R9
CONTENTS Synopsis 1 Summary 3 Chapter 1: Introduction 11 Chapter 2: Committee Assessment of the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Metrics Report 17 Chapter 3: Improvements to CTR Metrics 29 References 55 Glossary and List of Acronyms 59 Appendices A Congressional Mandate 63 B Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Metrics Report 65 C National Research Council Reports Directly Relevant to Cooperative Threat Reduction 93 D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 101 E List of Information-Gathering Sessions 105 ix
OCR for page R10