DHS to New York, DC: You Lose
“After vowing to steer a greater share of antiterrorism money to the highest-risk communities, Department of Homeland Security officials on Wednesday announced 2006 grants that slashed money for New York and Washington 40 percent, while other cities including Omaha and Louisville, Ky., got a surge of new dollars.”
That lede from today’s New York Times sums up the situation that has homeland security observers scratching their heads this morning. To be fair, DHS seems to have made a good-faith effort to better distribute funds. But its approach is wrong.
We should be careful not to instinctively assume that funding should be heavily concentrated in the top terrorist targets. The 9/11 terrorists spent very little time in New York or Washington as they prepared their attacks – had law enforcement funding been steered to those cities, it would have raised, not lowered, the terrorists’ chances of success. Spreading out funding to some degree helps eliminate safe havens for terrorist planning and preparation, and thus makes sense.
But that doesn’t mean that the DHS approach is sensible. For starters, money isn’t just being spread evenly – it’s being directed preferentially to states like Wyoming ($14.83 per person per year) over New York ($2.78).
And the DHS method of rectifying that problem is ill thought out. According to the Times article, “Homeland security officials said the grants were a result of a more sophisticated evaluation process”, in which “teams of law enforcement officials from around the nation evaluated the effectiveness of the spending proposals submitted by the 46 eligible urban areas, cutting grants for cities that had shoddy or poorly articulated plans.”
This sort of approach makes sense for scientific grants – whichever institute has the best research plan gets the money, and everyone benefits. It may even make sense for education (it’s the essence of No Child Left Behind) – weak schools get funding cut, stronger schools get a boost – but only because parents can move their kids to the better schools. It makes no sense for homeland security, unless we’re expecting New Yorkers to move to Omaha and Louisville, which apparently submitted better plans. A better alternative? DHS should work with cities to help them improve their grant proposals. If the Department has to withhold funds from defense of the nation’s capital because Tony Williams can’t write a good grant proposal, someone ought to conclude that the system is broken.
I appreciate your raising the issue. Don't feel you need to bend over backwards as much to make the plan sound plausible or the fault of the cities making their proposals. The Bushies always dole out money to their target audience, not based on reality. Besides, money to local law enforcement wouldn't really be the issue in detecting, say, the behavior leading up to 9/11. It was more a matter of (a) the FBI ignoring internal reports; (2) the Bushies ignoring reports because of its thinking in terms of nation states; and (3) to be honest a novel threat hard for anyone.
Also, the Times article neglected to note that the DHS report actually gave NYC a score of 0 monuments or similar public targets. I wish they'd done so.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 1, 2006 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
A real election year choice for IL-6: Upgrading communications technologies for first responders, or autographed flags for firehouses.
June 1, 2006 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, the Times article neglected to note that the DHS report actually gave NYC a score of 0 monuments or similar public targets. I wish they'd done so.
I heard about the "0" NYC target assessment too. They gotta be kidding, right? Zero targets in NYC? I mean the Statue of Liberty, The Empire State Building, The UN Building...ok so maybe many conservatives wouldn't mind seeing the UN Building get hit but it isn't a target? But overall I think it is good to spread resources around when it is done intelligently...
And the Times didn't include the DHS's assessment "NYC has 0 targets" in their story?
June 1, 2006 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
DHS should work with cities to help them improve their grant proposals.
As a fundraiser who does a lot of grants work, I wonder a bit how likely it is that DHS working with applicants to improve their plans is really feasible. Given the urgent need for funding that the local agencies will feel, there will be a significant pressure to read the tea leaves with DHS and come up with plans that they will find acceptable. In the abstract, this might produce good results: there is nothing wrong with having a coordinated series of plans across the nation, and this would let DHS exert pressure so that all the local plans add up to a good national one. But this is assuming that the 'help' coming out of DHS is competent - if what really happens is that the agency officials bring rigid preconceived ideas and various biases to their meetings with local planners, the result will be pressure to sacrifice good planning for telling the funders what they want to hear.
June 3, 2006 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Icons, No Monuments Worth Protecting?
yeah, right...
Did You Know,
The small park in front of New York City Hall is ONE OF THE MOST SACRED SITES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION !!
It was once called "the commons" of New York. Historians call it the gathering place of patriots and the cradle of Liberty.
_The First Blood of the American Revolution was spilled in a dispute over the Liberty Pole the Sons of Liberty erected in what's now City Hall Park.
_When Gen. George Washington received word the Declaration of Independence had been signed. He gathered his men in the area that is now City Hall Park and had the Declaration read to them. Ya'see... the Declaration was signed in Philadelphia. . . but the soldiers who were going to back up that bold statement were in New York City.
_A statue honoring Nathan Hale is in City Hall Park. He's the guy who said, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country".
June 16, 2006 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The decision to cut New York City's anti-terror funding is fundamentally flawed and stupid.
-DHS deciding New York City has no national monuments and landmarks.
-The decision to cut the funds was determined by a secretive and mysterious peer review panel, organized by an outside civilian contractor.
(Booz Allen Hamilton Inc)
This past Monday, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly gave 17 reasons why New York City's funding should not be cut.
Commissioner Kelly gave the New York City Council a list of 17 terror attacks, terror plots foiled and terrorists nabbed in New York since 1990.
Commissioner Kelly also offered a somber warning if New York City's funding is cut. . . it will hurt lower Manhattan, the financial district and the site of the deadliest terror attack in our Nation.
June 16, 2006 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink