As indicated in The Drug Enforcement Administration 2016 Performance Budget Congressional Submission, the DEA supports The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) number one goal to “prevent terrorism and promote the nation’s security consistent with the rule of law.”[1] In reality, the organization focuses its efforts on the 2014 National Drug Control Strategy. In an attempt to measure the success of their efforts and determine if their strategy is working, the DEA employs a number of measurements to track projected and actual performance, including:
· The number of disrupted and dismantled drug organizations
· Monetary value of currency, property, and drugs seized (drug trafficker revenue denied)
· Number of international students trained
Data from 2014 will be the focus of the analysis, but I evaluate data from 2010-2013 in order to grasp an understanding of the occurring trends.
With finite resources, the DEA has to carefully allocate resources for pursuing its mission of disrupting and dismantling the world’s “Most Wanted” drug traffickers. Are the indicators that the DEA employs to measure its performance appropriate? Do these indicators suggest that they are reaching their targets and equally as important, do their targets correctly correlate with their objectives? The results of the assessment have national security implications because if the indicators are flawed, how can the DEA know if the policy is working?
The DEA
An organization’s mission incorporates its interests as well as its objective.[2] The mission provides focus and captures the essence (how the organization ideally sees its self) of the organization. Simply put, the essence of the DEA is seizing drugs and shutting down drug cartels. The DEA focuses on both enforcing regulations domestically and assisting foreign counterparts to reduce the availability of illicit drugs on the international market. The mission of the DEA states that they aim to “enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States and bring offenders before the criminal and civil justice system of the United States.” [3]
Their strategy to accomplish such lofty goals are outlined in the 2014 National Drug Control Strategy, including: disrupting domestic drug trafficking and production, strengthening international partnerships, improving information systems for analysis, assessment, and local management.[4] The DEA focuses its disrupting and dismantling efforts on identified Priority Target Organizations (PTO), interdiction of contraband, and training international counterparts. The DEA lacks authority to investigate unilaterally overseas, so it depends on host nation law enforcement cooperation.
The Role of Indicators
Indicators are not the same thing as quantitative goals[5] and should not be seen as a benchmark. Similar to quantitative goals, indicators are quantitative and measurable, but also have a directional component, which ideally captures performance as the indicator increases or decreases. Additionally, indicators are time-based. This allows decision maker not only to identify trends, but also see the rate of change of an indicators.[6] Indicators, in theory, are used to see if the strategy is accomplishing the mission.
Analysis of Indicators used by The DEA
In 2014, the DEA disrupted 211 and dismantled 96 Priority Target Organizations (PTOs), confiscated $3.9 billion worth of drug revenue and trained 3,937 international students. These figures represent the dominant indicators for the DEA. However, these numbers on their own do little to inform decision makers if their strategies are working and if the strategy employed is accomplishing the mission. First, we must get a better understanding of performance by seeing if these indicators increased or decreased from the previous year and at what rate of change. Secondly, we must analysis if the indicators selected are able to appropriately assess the DEA strategy.
We see the upward trend of the DEA’s indicators from 2010 to 2015. The amount of organizations disrupted and dismantled in 2010 is an outlier in that it is unusually large. Also, the value of the revenue that was denied is unavailable for 2010. Using OxMetrics, I scaled the graph to the indicators' means and ranges. From 2011 to 2012 all of the indicators increased. More interestingly, from 2012 to 2013 the indicators continued to increase, but did so at faster rate.
I find that the DEA is using the most appropriate indicators for their overall mission and in their dominant indicator set they capture two of the three components of their strategy. The first two measurements, the number of disrupted and dismantled organizations and drug revenue denied, are in sync with the strategy to “disrupt domestic drug trafficking and production.” The measurement of international students trained captures the DEA effectiveness of their 2014 National Drug Control Strategy to “strengthen international partnerships.”[7] However, the third component of the 2014 Drug Control Strategy, to “improve information systems for analysis, assessment, and local management” was completely omitted in the set of dominant indicators.
Despite this omission, the organization employed the best indicators available. I reason that they are in fact utilizing the best indicators because, in an environment where so much is happening, they are able to capture some portion of what is actually going on. The supply of drugs is influenced by a wide array of noise, but the DEA's indicators are able, in part, to distinguish a significant amount of signal, which is the impact and effectiveness of the chosen strategy.[8] Ultimately, the indicators are useful because as they vary, the chosen strategy can be assessed. From the indicators, the figures suggest that the strategy of the DEA is working and they are on track to accomplish their mission.
Conclusion
Besides concentrating on the 2014 National Drug Control Strategy, in an attempt to stay relevant, the DEA nested its strategy with that of their parent organization, The Department of Justice, in hopes of procuring part of the counterterrorism funding. The DOJ’s strategic objective 1.1 is to “prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur by integrating intelligence and law enforcement efforts to achieve a coordinated response to terrorist threats.”[9] While the DEA is part of the US Intelligence Community and is a law enforcement agency, the emphasis on preventing terrorists attacks is absent from the DEA's mission, strategy, and indicators.
The indicators used to judge if the strategy is working are significantly influenced by the essence and desired prestige of the organization, but this serves the organization by drawing them back to their mission. The chosen indicators, as a vehicle to judge the progression of the strategy, are adequate and insightful. The national security implications of this essay suggest that the three performance indicators focus the mission of the DEA and make the US safer through choking the supply of drugs that make it into the US. However, I question the DEA’s ability to monitor the progress of the chosen strategy effectiveness in preventing terrorism.
[1] U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration (2016). Performance Budget Congressional Submission. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
[2] Gartner, Scott Sigmund. Strategic Assessment in War. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997. 45.
[3] "Mission Statement." DEA.gov. Accessed April 7, 2015. http://www.dea.gov/about/mission.shtml.
[4] DEA, FY 2016 Performance Budget Congressional Submission, 4.
[5] Gartner, 44.
[6] Gartner, 52.
[7] United States. Office of National Drug Control Policy. National Drug Control Strategy. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2014. Print.
[8] Gartner, 47.
[9] DEA, FY 2016 Performance Budget Congressional Submission, 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment