Update on Coast Guard Mission Hearing

As I mentioned yesterday the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will be holding a hearing on “How is the Coast Guard Meeting Its Mission Goals?” The Subcommittee web site has some additional information available, including a witness list and a staff background memo.

The current witness list shows just one person; Vice Admiral John P. Currier, Vice Commandant, United States Coast Guard. I’m more than a little surprised that there is not a representative from the DHS OIG’s office since their report on the Coast Guard’s FY 2012 Mission Performance forms a major part of the background memo for this hearing.

I had mentioned in my earlier post that I didn’t expect that the maritime security mission of the Coast Guard would form a major portion of the hearing investigation. Looking at the Staff Memo and the OIG’s report, I am not so sure. The Memo notes that the CG had not met 12 of its 23 mission objectives for FY 2012 (up from 9 unmet objectives in FY 2011). Five of those failed objectives came from the Ports, Waterways and Coastal Security Mission of the CG. The table below shows the six mission objectives covered in that Security Mission.

Measure	FY 12 Met	FY 12 Not Met	FY 11 Met	FY 11 Not Met
Percent Reduction of All Maritime Security Risk Subject to USCG Influence		X	X
Percent Reduction of Maritime Security Risk Resulting from USCG Consequence Management		X	X
Percent Reduction of Maritime Security Risk Resulting From USCG Efforts To Prevent a Terrorist From Entering the United States		X		X
Percent Reduction of Maritime Security Risk Resulting From USCG Efforts to Prevent a Weapon of Mass Destruction From Entering the United States Via Maritime Means		X		X
Annual MTSA Facility Compliance Rate With Transportation Worker Identification Credential Regulations	X		X
Security Compliance Rate for High Risk Maritime Facilities		X		X

The ‘Met’ vs ‘Not Met’ metric is frequently misleading as it tends to gloss over the details. For instance, the OIG report notes that the goal for the first measure was a 44% reduction in risk and the Coast Guard ‘only’ achieved a 36% reduction. The OIG’s report noted (pg 25) that: “The deviation from the target was slight and did not affect overall program performance.”

The question for this hearing will be whether or not the congresscritters look at the simple metrics or the details. Without an OIG representative available to explain the details it is likely that Admiral Currier will get castigated more than he will be allowed to explain what the numbers actually mean.