Today is a yellow alert day at the Department of Homeland Security, meaning the threat from terrorism is elevated, or about middling – yellow is the third color on a five-color scale. The majority of federal agencies, however, are on heightened alert, as they are just about all the time, according to a new congressional study. Erring toward caution is understandable, but the perpetual heightened alert may mask communication shortcomings besides adding unnecessarily to the cost of government.

The General Accounting Office noted that Homeland Security, referred to as DHS, was evolving in its communication procedures, though it has yet to officially document its procedures for informing agencies and states when threat levels would change. Many of those surveyed seemed to respond to the three instances in which DHS raised the threat level from yellow to orange as you would expect: They either enhanced current safety precautions or implemented new ones, sometimes based on whether the threat was specific to their region. The GAO survey also found, however, that DHS should improve its means for communicating threats to the agencies and states because they “generally indicated that they did not receive specific threat information and guidance, which they believe hindered their ability to determine and implement protective measures.”

Specifically, it wants warnings to include three factors: multiple communication methods, timely notification and specific threat information and guidance on actions to take. It also wants the department to document communication protocols for sharing threat information. The department notes that it has made and continues to make improvements to its warning system, which is encouraging.

The color code was, of course, roundly derided when it was introduced as the administration’s use of heightened terrorist threats as a campaign tactic and, by itself, it isn’t much more than a terrorism stop light. It’s what comes along with it that matters, and if states are given timely information about threats in their areas they can use the warning system appropriately.

Currently, however, agencies that remain unnecessarily on heightened alert cumulatively spend millions of dollars more than necessary, though the GAO study warns that the methodology for determining those costs are too rough to draw a precise conclusion about costs. More importantly, if a state of heightened alert becomes normal, that level’s many communication demands can erode over time and may not be employed when that level is actually warranted.

It’s not surprising that an agency as new, massive and far-reaching as DHS has improvements to make, and the agency’s general concurrence with the GAO report suggests that changes are on the way. Congress should follow up in six months or so to see whether the willingness to change has translated into policy.