2nd Edition--DHS Risk Lexicon

DHS has now issued the 2nd edition of the Risk Lexicon. The preface to that document [posted on this blog under baseline docs] is of some interest to me.

Specifically, the Preface, in part, provides as follows:

"Clear and unambiguous communications among homeland security risk practioners, decision makers, and stakeholders is necessary to achieve integrated risk management. The DHS Risk Lexicon supports integrated risk management by defining a single language for risk management and analysis. The DHS Risk Lexicon makes available an official set of harmonized risk-related terms and definitions."

Certainly I also believe it is important that there be common understanding of terminology in risk assessment, and analysis, and implementation of decisions concerning risk.
So I thought it might be fun to see how the Risk Lexicon matches up with the organizational blocks of DHS and FEMA. I do realize this is somewhat unfair since the Lexicon is not designed to provide common terminology outside of RISK ASSESSMENT and ANALYSIS and certainly is not designed to provide organizational definition. But still it might be useful if organizations in DHS and FEMA understood what their specific missions and goals are, what legal authority has been delegated, and what they are expected to accomplish organizationally.

As this is quick and dirty analysis I list the term used in an organizational heading. Am sorry it is not alphabetized. So here goes! Let the eye of the beholder decide if these terms relate to the objective of the Lexicon as provided in the Preface to the document. And perhaps other definitional materials are available from DHS.

1. Disability;
2. Policy;
3. Program Analysis;
4. Protection;
5. Preparedness;
6. National preparedness;
7. Insurance;
8. Response;
9. Recovery;
10. Logistics;
11. Operations;
12. Immigration;
13. Customs;
14. Enforcement;
15. Border;
16. Intelligence;
17. Emergency Management;
18. Civil Rights;
19. Civil Liberties;
20. Counter Narcotics;
21. Transportation Security;
22. Credentialing;
23. Strategic;
24. Operational Process;
25. Technology;
26. Health;
27. Science;
28. Global;
29. Network;
30. Training;
31. Development;
32. Human Resources;
33. Secure;
34. International;
35. Transformation;
36. Human Capital;
37. Refugee;
38. Asylum;
40. National Security;
41. Domestic;
42. Coordination;
43. Detection;
44. Removal;
45. Student;
46. Exchange;
47. Incident;
48. Protective;
49. Research;
50. Continuity;
51. Command and Control;
52. Resources;
53. Transition;
54. Corporate Communications;
55. Test and Evaluation;
56. Business Operations;
57. Innovation;
58. Geophysical;
59. Watch and Warning;
60. Environment.

Of course while these terms may seem self evident in their meaning some mask organizational units that have almost no relationship to the words used to title that organization. What their [the words above] true relationship is to risk management and analysis is vague perhaps, nonexistent perhaps, but perhaps crucial to an organization that is charged with operations largely based on risk assessment and analysis, and that broad guage charter applies to both FEMA and DHS according to my reading of their statutory and other charter documents.

NRC [National Research Council] ON RISK ANALYSIS IN DHS

The refernced report below also posted as a baseline document is one of the most significant reports that has been issued giving a comprehensive analysis of the risk analysis process and problems in DHS. Unfortunately it concludes at one point on page 4 of the Summary Section the following:

          Natural Hazards Risk Analyses

"There is a solid foundation of data, models, and scholarship to underpin DHS’s risk analyses for natural hazards such as flooding. Although models are constantly being developed and improved, risk analysis associated with natural hazards is a mature activity—compared to risk analysis related to terrorism—in which analytical techniques are subject to adequate quality assurance and quality control, and verification and validation procedures are commonly used.

Conclusion: DHS’s risk analysis models for natural hazards are near the state of the art. These models—which are applied mostly to earthquake, flood, and hurricane hazards—are based on extensive data, have been validated empirically, and appear well suited to near-term decision
needs.

Recommendation: DHS’s current natural hazard risk analysis models, while adequate for near-term decisions, should evolve to support longer-term risk management and policy decisions. Improvements should be made to take into account the consequences of social disruption caused by natural hazards; address long-term systemic uncertainties, such as those arising from effects of climate change; incorporate diverse perceptions of risk impacts; support decision making at local and regional levels; and address the effects of cascading impacts across infrastructure sectors."

The overall conclusion of the report is that natural hazards risk analysis is ahead of terrorism risk analysis but that both could be improved. It is my belief that any close reading of the above discussion on natural hazards risk analysis shows the report to be internally in contradiction. I do know that few openly peer review natural hazards models have been adopted by DHS/FEMA and in many cases entire disciplines such as climatology, meteorology, seismology and other critical disciplines have been largely or complete ignored with DHS/FEMA. Then the recommendation to develop risk analysis of social disruption has to be the most ground breaking recommendation of the entirety of the report. Dr. Denis Milieti, PhD in his formulation of the so-called post disaster "Therapeutic Community" has spent a lifetime arguing successfully against such social disruption.  Well it will be of great interest to see how that recommendation or any of the others is received in DHS and FEMA. Good luck.
The report is linked also below.

Review of the Department of Homeland Security’s Approach to RISK ANALYSIS
160 pages
Publication Year: 2010

Risk Analysis

From time to time the Gummit issues documents of extreme importance that get lost in the cacaphony of events. Separating the wheat from the chaff is perhaps one hope of this blogger.
The NAS Disaster Roundtable has a hugely important session coming up in early June on Risk Assessment and Analysis. These are usually quite interesting sessions and a divergant group provides interesting points of view. Brief summaries of each session are also available on the NAS Disaster Rountable site.
At any rate during the later part of the Administration of George W. Bush a memo issued forth that to my knowledge still stands as mandatory guidance and has not been repealed or superseded by the Obama Administration. So I have briefly extract just the front page for this blog post but recommend all attending the forthcoming Roundtable or those involved in Risk Analysis and Risk Assessment become familiar with it. The extract follows:

September 19, 2007
M-07-24
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FROM: Susan E. Dudley
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget
Sharon L. Hays
Associate Director and Deputy Director for Science,
Office of Science and Technology Policy
SUBJECT: Updated Principles for Risk Analysis
Federal agencies take a variety of actions to improve public health, safety, and the environment. Agency activities designed to reduce risks are influenced by numerous factors, including Congressional priorities, information on the degree of risk faced by different populations, entities, or individuals, resources available, and the ease of implementing chosen priorities. Development of these actions often begins with an assessment of the risks posed under certain conditions, as well as assessments of the potential changes in risk achievable due to different policy options.
In 1995, an interagency working group, co-chaired by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), developed a set of principles to guide policymakers in assessing, managing, and communicating policies to address environmental, health, and safety risks (the 1995 Principles).1 The 1995 Principles, shared with regulatory agencies in a memorandum from Sally Katzen, then Administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), remain valid today.
This Memorandum reinforces the 1995 Principles with reference to more recent guidance from the scientific community, the Congress, and the Executive Branch. This Memorandum also benefits from feedback received on OMB’s Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin issued in 2006 (Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin).2
1 U.S. Office of Mgmt. and Budget (OMB), Memorandum for the Regulatory Working Group, Principles for Risk Analysis (1995), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/regpol/jan1995_risk_analysis_principles.pdf.
2 OMB, Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin, (2006) [hereinafter Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin], available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/proposed_risk_assessment_bulletin_010906.pdf