This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-548 
entitled 'State Partnership Program: Improved Oversight, Guidance, and 
Training Needed for National Guard's Efforts with Foreign Partners' 
which was released on May 15, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

May 2012: 

State Partnership Program: 

Improved Oversight, Guidance, and Training Needed for National Guard's 
Efforts with Foreign Partners: 

GAO-12-548: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-548, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The National Guard’s State Partnership Program is a DOD security 
cooperation program that matches state National Guards with foreign 
countries to conduct joint activities—including visits between senior 
military leaders and knowledge sharing in areas such as disaster 
management—that further U.S. national security goals. The program has 
partnerships between 52 U.S. state and territory National Guards and 
69 countries. In fiscal year 2011, program expenditures were at least 
$13.2 million. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act directed 
GAO to study the program. GAO determined (1) the extent to which State 
Partnership Program activities are meeting program goals and 
objectives; (2) the types and frequency of activities and funding 
levels of the program; and (3) any challenges DOD faces in the program’
s implementation. GAO collected written responses to questions from 
State Partnership Program Coordinators at the state level, Bilateral 
Affairs Officers at the U.S. embassies in the partner nations, and 
officials at the combatant commands, reviewed documents, and 
interviewed DOD officials. 

What GAO Found: 

Many State Partnership Program stakeholders, including State 
Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, and 
combatant command officials, cited benefits to the program, but the 
program lacks a comprehensive oversight framework that includes clear 
program goals, objectives, and metrics to measure progress against 
those goals, which limits the Department of Defense’s (DOD) and Congress
’ ability to assess whether the program is an effective and efficient 
use of resources. The benefits described by all stakeholders focused 
on the program’s contributions to meeting their specific missions, 
such as building security relationships, providing experience to 
guardsmen, and supporting combatant commands’ missions. Goals, 
objectives, and metrics to measure progress are necessary for 
management oversight, and National Guard Bureau officials told GAO 
that they recognize the need to update the program’s goals and develop 
metrics and have initiated efforts in these areas. Officials expect 
completion of these efforts in summer 2012. Until program goals and 
metrics are implemented, DOD cannot fully assess or adequately oversee 
the program. 

State Partnership Program activity data are incomplete as well as 
inconsistent and funding data are incomplete for fiscal years 2007 
through 2011; therefore GAO cannot provide complete information on the 
types and frequency of activities or total funding amounts for those 
years. GAO found that the multiple data systems used to track program 
activities and funding are not interoperable and users apply varying 
methods and definitions to guide data inputs. The terminology used to 
identify activity types is inconsistent across the combatant commands 
and the National Guard Bureau. Further, funding data from the National 
Guard Bureau and the combatant commands were incomplete, and while the 
National Guard Bureau provided its total spending on the program since 
2007, it could not provide information on the cost of individual 
activities. Although the National Guard Bureau has initiated efforts 
to improve the accuracy of its own State Partnership Program data, 
without common agreement with the combatant commands on what types of 
data need to be tracked and how to define activities, the data cannot 
be easily reconciled across databases. 

The most prominent challenge cited by State Partnership Program 
stakeholders involved how to fund activities that include U.S. and 
foreign partner civilian participants. Activities involving civilians, 
for example, have included subject-matter expert exchanges on military 
support to civil authorities and maritime border security. Although 
DOD guidance does not prohibit civilian involvement in activities, 
many stakeholders have the impression that the U.S. military is not 
permitted to engage civilians in State Partnership Program activities 
and some states may have chosen not to conduct any events with 
civilians due to the perception that it may violate DOD guidance. DOD 
and the National Guard Bureau are working on developing additional 
guidance and training in this area. Until these efforts are completed, 
confusion may continue to exist and hinder the program’s full 
potential to fulfill National Guard and combatant command missions. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DOD complete its comprehensive oversight framework 
for the State Partnership Program, develop guidance to achieve 
reliable data on the program, and issue guidance and conduct 
additional training on the appropriate use of funding for program 
activities, including those involving civilians. DOD concurred with 
all recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-548]. For more 
information, contact John Pendleton at (202) 512-3489 or 
pendletonj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

State Partnership Program Stakeholders Cited Benefits but Program 
Oversight Is Hindered by Lack of Clear Goals, Objectives, and Progress 
Measures: 

Complete Information about Activities and Funding Is Unavailable: 

Challenges in Funding Activities and Incorporating U.S. and Foreign 
Partner Civilians Require Additional Guidance and Training: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, by Combatant Command: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Key Benefits of the State Partnership Program, as Cited by 
State Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, 
and Officials from Combatant Commands: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, by Combatant Command: 

Figure 2: Process for Establishing New Partnerships: 

Figure 3: Approximate Expenditures on State Partnership Program 
Events, Fiscal Year 2011: 

Figure 4: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, Africa Command: 

Figure 5: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, Central Command: 

Figure 6: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, European Command: 

Figure 7: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, Northern Command: 

Figure 8: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, Pacific Command: 

Figure 9: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, Southern Command: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

May 15, 2012: 

The Honorable Carl Levin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John McCain: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Adam Smith: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

The National Guard State Partnership Program--a Department of Defense 
(DOD) security cooperation program that pairs state National Guards 
with foreign countries--works to promote national objectives, 
stability, partner capacity, and better understanding and trust 
between the United States and foreign countries. The State Partnership 
Program is one of many efforts within DOD to address security 
cooperation and its overarching vision is to establish and sustain 
enduring relationships with partner countries in support of the U.S. 
national security strategy. The program began in 1993 with 13 partner 
countries, primarily from the former Soviet Union, to help improve 
relations with these countries and help reform their defense 
establishments after the end of the Cold War. Today the program has 
partnerships between 52 states and territories and 69[Footnote 1] 
foreign countries spread throughout the regions of all six geographic 
combatant commands[Footnote 2] and focuses on building the capacity of 
and relationships with partner countries' militaries through exchanges 
of military skills and experience, sharing defense knowledge, 
enhancing partnership capacity, and furthering mutual security 
cooperation. 

DOD defines State Partnership Program activities as any security 
cooperation activity supported by funds appropriated to DOD, occurring 
between a state's National Guard personnel and that state's partner 
nation, consistent with the State Partnership Program. Activities can 
vary depending on the needs of the partner nation, the capabilities of 
the state or territory National Guard, and the priorities of the 
geographic combatant commander and the U.S. ambassador of the partner 
country. Through this program, states' National Guard personnel work 
with their partner countries to conduct activities, such as knowledge 
sharing from subject matter experts, demonstrations of particular 
National Guard capabilities, and visits between senior military 
leaders, and cover topics such as disaster management, military 
education, non-commissioned officer development, and border 
operations. The National Guard Bureau provides guidance to the states 
participating in the program, but the program is primarily managed by 
a State Partnership Program Coordinator--a full-time National 
Guardsman at the state level--and a Bilateral Affairs Officer--
normally a full-time National Guardsman or other military officer 
assigned to the geographic combatant command and under the direction 
of the U.S. embassy in the partner country.[Footnote 3] State 
Partnership Program activities are planned collaboratively by the 
State Partnership Program Coordinators, the Bilateral Affairs 
Officers, the U.S. embassy country teams, and the geographic combatant 
commands. 

According to National Guard Bureau officials, in fiscal year 2008, the 
National Guard Bureau spent about $2.52 million on the program and in 
fiscal year 2011 the National Guard Bureau spent about $6.1 million. 
This money, according to National Guard Bureau officials, provides for 
the pay and allowances of guardsmen while they are conducting an 
activity with a partner country and is authorized to be used for 
military personnel only. Additional money, about $7.1 million in 
fiscal year 2011, is provided by the combatant commands from a variety 
of sources, such as Traditional Combatant Commander's Activities 
funds, Cooperative Threat Reduction Program funds, and Warsaw 
Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace funds. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 directed 
us to conduct a study of the National Guard State Partnership Program. 
[Footnote 4] To meet this mandate, we assessed (1) the extent to which 
State Partnership Program activities are meeting the goals and 
objectives of the program; (2) the types and frequency of activities 
and funding levels associated with the program; and (3) the 
challenges, if any, that DOD faces in the implementation of the 
program. 

To address these objectives, we obtained perspectives, including views 
on the benefits of the program, from the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense for Policy, Joint Staff, National Guard Bureau, and program 
stakeholders including State Partnership Program coordinating 
officials at the geographic combatant commands, State Partnership 
Program Coordinators, and Bilateral Affairs Officers. We also 
collected information on the process that DOD uses to establish 
partnerships. We requested and analyzed documentation about the goals 
and objectives of the program and any guidance that would describe how 
the program is to be implemented. To determine the extent to which 
State Partnership Program activities are meeting the goals and 
objectives of the program, we interviewed National Guard Bureau 
officials about the development of goals, objectives, and performance 
metrics for the program. We also contacted all State Partnership 
Program Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs Officers who participate in 
this program with open-ended questions by e-mail. We collected and 
analyzed responses from 50 of the 52 State Partnership Program 
Coordinators and from 23 out of 47 Bilateral Affairs Officers. 
[Footnote 5] We also collected and analyzed written responses to 
similar questions from the coordinating officials at the six U.S. 
geographic combatant commands. To determine the types and frequency of 
activities and funding levels associated with the program, we 
collected and analyzed data on State Partnership Program activities--
including types of activities, funding sources, and funding amounts--
obtained from the National Guard Bureau and the six U.S. geographic 
combatant commands from fiscal years 2007 through 2011. To assess the 
reliability of the data, we collected written information from the 
combatant commands on their databases. We also discussed the 
procedures for generating and verifying the data with knowledgeable 
combatant command and National Guard Bureau officials and, where 
possible, examined the data for anomalies. We discussed the 
limitations we identified in the data with the officials, and those 
limitations are discussed in this report. To identify challenges that 
DOD faces in implementing the program, we included relevant questions 
when we contacted all State Partnership Program Coordinators and all 
Bilateral Affairs Officers who participate in this program, and the 
six U.S. geographic combatant commands, as described above. We 
conducted this performance audit from August 2011 to May 2012 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A more 
detailed description of our scope and methodology is included in 
appendix I. 

Background: 

The State Partnership Program grew from the former Joint Contact Team 
Program, a program comprised of active component personnel that sought 
to establish professional contacts between the U.S. military and the 
militaries of newly independent nations of the former Soviet Union. 
The Joint Contact Team Program was intended to promote subordination 
to civilian leadership, respect for human rights, and a defensively 
oriented military posture. In 1993, the National Guard Bureau was 
integrated into the Joint Contact Team Program to initiate the first 
state partnerships, as it was believed that Russia would find the 
National Guard less provocative than a U.S. active duty full-time 
military presence. The program has since expanded to 63 partnerships 
covering all combatant commands, with nearly all state National Guards 
participating. Figure 1 illustrates the number of partner country 
relationships within each combatant command. 

Figure 1: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, by Combatant Command: 

[Refer to PDF for image: interactive graphic] 

Interactivity instructions: 
Roll over the combatant command name to view partnerships. See 
appendix II for the non-interactive, printer-friendly version. 

Depicted on the illustration: 
U.S. Northern Command; 
U.S. Southern Command; 
U.S. Africa Command; 
U.S. European Command; 
U.S. Central Command; 
U.S. Pacific Command. 

Source: national Guard Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Both the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report and the 2011 National 
Military Strategy of the United States of America identify security 
cooperation and building partner capacity as priorities in multiple 
regions, including the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. In addition, 
both documents emphasize the need to strengthen and expand the United 
States' network of international partnerships to enhance security, and 
the National Military Strategy instructs the combatant commands, among 
others, to partner with other agencies to pursue theater security 
cooperation. As such, the State Partnership Program acts as a force 
enabler for the combatant commands, and State Partnership Program 
activities are part of the combatant commands' theater security 
cooperation plans. State Partnership Program activities are to be 
approved by the combatant commands, as well as the U.S. ambassador in 
their respective partner nations, before they can be executed. 

Any nation requesting a state partnership sends its official request 
to its respective U.S. ambassador. Once the partnership is endorsed, 
the request is forwarded to the appropriate combatant command. If the 
combatant command finds that the partnership meets strategic 
objectives and priorities, the combatant command sends the request to 
the National Guard Bureau. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
reviews the request to determine the viability of the partnership. If 
the Chief accepts the request, he or she notifies the combatant 
command and solicits proposals from the adjutants general of the state 
Guards. State Guard proposals include a statement of intent; 
background on the state Guard and its capabilities; proposed areas of 
military engagement with the partner nation; potential benefits to 
both the state Guard and partner nation; discussion of historical, 
cultural, and academic similarities between the state and the partner 
nation; and any documentation supporting the state Guard's nomination. 
The proposals go through three levels of review within DOD, and the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau forwards a recommended nominee to 
the combatant command and the partner country's U.S. embassy for final 
approval. Figure 2 illustrates the request and approval process. 

Figure 2: Process for Establishing New Partnerships: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Requesting nation: 
Formally requests state partnership with letter to ambassador. 

U.S. embassy: 
Endorses partnership concept. 

Combatant Command: 
Confirms Guidance for Employment of the Force, functional, regional 
priorities. 

National Guard Bureau: 
Provides intragency and interagency coordination. Evaluates state 
country applications, provides partner recommendation. 

Combatant Command: 
Coordinates with U.S. embassy team.  

U.S. embassy: 
Endorses partner selection. Notifies requesting country. 

Requesting nation: 
Partnership activities begin. 

Source: GAO analysis of National Guard Bureau information. 

[End of figure] 

State Partnership Program Stakeholders Cited Benefits but Program 
Oversight Is Hindered by Lack of Clear Goals, Objectives, and Progress 
Measures: 

State Partnership Program stakeholders, including State Partnership 
Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, and combatant 
command officials, cited benefits of the program, but the program 
lacks clear goals, objectives, and performance metrics. Without a 
comprehensive oversight framework for defining and measuring progress, 
DOD cannot fully assess whether the program is an effective and 
efficient use of resources. 

Stakeholders Cited Benefits of the State Partnership Program: 

State Partnership Program Coordinators provided examples of how the 
program benefits their states and their National Guard units, 
including providing experience and training for guardsmen and 
developing relationships between the state and the partner country. 
For example, 39 of the 50 State Partnership Program Coordinators who 
responded to our questions reported that the State Partnership Program 
provides experience to participating guardsmen. In another instance, 
one State Partnership Program Coordinator reported that by 
demonstrating medical techniques to partner country participants, the 
guardsmen simultaneously gain direct experience performing those 
techniques. Three State Partnership Program Coordinators specifically 
noted that the program allows participants to deploy and complete 
realistic military training outside a warzone. In addition, 17 State 
Partnership Program Coordinators noted the value of the State 
Partnership Program in providing a mechanism for developing 
relationships between the state Guard units and the partner countries. 
Another State Partnership Program Coordinator noted that establishing 
such relationships improves long-term international security, and 
several State Partnership Program Coordinators noted that the 
relationships fostered by the program were instrumental in the partner 
countries' deployments to Afghanistan or Iraq. 

All six combatant commands and all 23 Bilateral Affairs Officers who 
responded to our questions reported that the State Partnership Program 
supports their missions and objectives, including promoting stability 
and security cooperation and assisting with building partner capacity. 
For example, one Bilateral Affairs Officer reported that a State 
Partnership Program activity on women's leadership in the military met 
the geographic combatant command's objective of building partner 
capacity, as well as U.S. country team objectives to advance human 
rights, advance public diplomacy, and strengthen regional security 
capabilities. The activity covered deployment preparations, leadership 
development, and sexual assault prevention. Three of the six combatant 
commands specifically noted that the National Guard units are uniquely 
suited to assist the combatant command in building the capacity of 
partner countries as a result of their civilian and military 
experiences. For example, in one combatant command, State Partnership 
Program activities were used to support combatant command objectives 
by providing subject matter expertise to Royal Bahamas Police Force 
Drug Enforcement Unit officers in the field of combat trauma care. 
Thirteen Bilateral Affairs Officers also cited the benefit of the 
State Partnership Program's ability to develop and maintain 
relationships between the state Guard units and the partner countries. 
For example, one Bilateral Affairs Officer stated that the 
relationship between one state Guard unit and its partner country was 
leveraged to assist the country in making progress toward the country 
team's goal of anchoring the country in European and Euro-Atlantic 
institutions. The partner country was originally reluctant to accept 
assistance with military personnel management due to cultural 
sensitivities, but based on the established relationship, the state 
Guard unit was granted full access and made suggestions that were 
implemented by the partner country. Table 1 summarizes the key 
benefits of the program as described by State Partnership Program 
Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, and officials from the 
combatant commands. 

Table 1: Key Benefits of the State Partnership Program, as Cited by 
State Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, 
and Officials from Combatant Commands: 

State Partnership Program Coordinators: 
* Provides experience and training for guardsmen; 
* Develops relationship with partner country; 
* Encourages partner countries to co-deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan; 
* Improves retention or provides other incentives for guardsmen; 
* Guardsmen benefit from partner country's experiences. 

Bilateral Affairs Officers: 
* Events are tied to combatant command or country team mission; 
* Good communication and coordination between stakeholders; 
* Provides information sharing and support to partner country; 
* Builds relationship with partner country; 
* Encourages partner nation deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. 

Officials from combatant commands: 
* Events support combatant command mission and objectives; 
* National Guard units possess unique skills that are useful for 
supporting combatant command objectives; 
* Encourages partner countries to co-deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan. 

Source: GAO analysis of responses to e-mailed questions. 

[End of table] 

In addition, European Command's combatant commander testified to 
Congress in February 2012 that the State Partnership Program develops 
important strategic relationships that benefit ongoing military 
activities.[Footnote 6] The European Command indicated in written 
responses to our questions that this program helps maintain access to 
partner countries' leadership and is vital to defense institution 
building. Similarly, the National Guard Bureau describes the State 
Partnership Program as fitting within the building partner capacity 
portfolio of DOD, and views the program as an integral component of 
DOD's global security cooperation strategy that can contribute to 
enhanced security. Further, it sees the program as integral to the 
combatant commands' theater engagement plans and the U.S. Ambassadors' 
Mission Strategic Resource Plans. Moreover, the National Guard Bureau 
told us that it found that the State Partnership Program is valuable 
to U.S. ambassadors. In October 2010, the National Guard Bureau, in 
conjunction with the Department of State, surveyed the ambassadors of 
U.S. embassies with State Partnership Program partnerships as part of 
an effort to conduct a strategic review of the program. Forty-one of 
the 62 ambassadors surveyed provided responses, and 40 of the 
respondents agreed that the State Partnership Program is a valuable 
tool in advancing their mission goals and objectives. Respondents 
noted that the activities and relationships developed by the program--
fostering activities to support joint military exercises and 
deployments, providing support for international peacekeeping 
operations, and embedding training teams--promote overall national 
security and strategic interests. Thirty-nine ambassadors agreed that 
there are mechanisms to ensure that activities are properly integrated 
with U.S. country team priorities. 

The State Partnership Program Does Not Have Agreed-Upon Goals or 
Metrics to Assess Progress: 

Despite considerable anecdotal evidence from many State Partnership 
Program stakeholders about the program's benefits, we were unable to 
comprehensively assess the State Partnership Program because the 
National Guard Bureau has not updated its program goals or objectives 
to match the program's current operations. The National Guard Bureau 
developed goals and objectives for the program in 2007, but officials 
told us that these goals and objectives need to be updated to reflect 
the program as it currently operates. The previous goals and 
supporting objectives were broadly stated and reflected the desire to 
build partner capacity, but did little to clarify the specific goals 
for the State Partnership Program. We have previously reported that 
achieving results in government requires a comprehensive oversight 
framework that includes clear goals, measurable objectives, and 
metrics for assessing progress.[Footnote 7] Officials stated that they 
recognize the need to update program goals and objectives to more 
accurately reflect the current environment and the focus on military-
to-military activities, and reported that they have initiated such 
efforts and expect the new goals and objectives to be finalized by 
July 2012. Officials also indicated that the new program goals and 
objectives will be more closely aligned with the combatant commands' 
strategic goals and objectives. 

National Guard Bureau officials also acknowledged that once they 
update program goals and objectives, they will need to develop metrics 
to measure results of the program. However, they indicated that due to 
the relationship-building nature of the program, it is difficult to 
establish appropriate metrics that capture the effects of the program. 
As we have previously reported, performance measurement is the ongoing 
monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments, focused on 
regularly collected data on the level and type of program activities, 
direct products and services delivered by the program, and the results 
of those activities.[Footnote 8] As we have previously reported, it is 
sometimes difficult to establish performance measures for outcomes 
that are not readily observable and that in those cases, more in-depth 
program evaluation may be needed in addition to performance measures. 
[Footnote 9] Program evaluations are systematic studies conducted 
periodically that examine programs in-depth and include context in 
order to examine the extent to which a program is meeting its 
objectives.[Footnote 10] The RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan nonprofit 
organization that conducts public policy research, has reported on 
performance measures that programs like the State Partnership Program, 
which engage in building partner capacity and other security 
cooperation activities, can use to demonstrate results.[Footnote 11] 
Further, other federal agencies engaged in security cooperation 
activities use program evaluations in addition to performance 
measures. For example, the United States Agency for International 
Development has implemented multiple program evaluations for its 
foreign assistance programs, and the Global Peace Operations 
Initiative within the Department of State uses program evaluations to 
gauge the effectiveness of its training programs. National Guard 
Bureau officials told us that they are working with experts from other 
organizations including RAND and the Defense Security Cooperation 
Agency and have begun to develop metrics for the program. They 
provided us with a draft document containing some key assessment 
indicators in the areas of operational and mission support, doctrine 
and training, and systemic support. Under the area of mission support, 
for example, officials stated they are planning to track how effective 
State Partnership Program activities are in meeting combatant command 
and country team priorities. Officials further stated that these 
metrics are expected to be finalized during the summer of 2012. Such 
goals and metrics would form the foundation for a comprehensive 
oversight framework and, until they are put into place, DOD cannot 
fully assess whether the program is an effective and efficient use of 
resources. 

Complete Information about Activities and Funding Is Unavailable: 

We cannot provide complete information on the types and frequency of 
State Partnership Program activities or the total funding amounts for 
these activities for fiscal years 2007 to 2011 because activity data 
are incomplete as well as inconsistent and funding data are 
incomplete. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government, program managers and decision makers should have reliable 
data to determine whether they are meeting goals and using resources 
effectively and efficiently.[Footnote 12] Without complete and 
consistent data on the State Partnership Program, we and DOD cannot 
assess the program's efficiency nor provide complete information to 
decision makers, including Congress. 

Data on State Partnership Program Activities Are Incomplete and 
Inconsistent: 

Data on State Partnership Program activities from the combatant 
commands and the National Guard Bureau are incomplete and 
inconsistent. The National Guard Bureau and the combatant commands 
maintain separate databases for tracking events. Each entity 
independently tracks its activities and funding in databases that are 
not interoperable. According to National Guard Bureau officials, DOD's 
Guidance for Employment of the Force mandates that all security 
cooperation activities be tracked, including State Partnership Program 
activities, in management information system databases. The National 
Guard Bureau uses its own system to track State Partnership Program 
events that it funds. National Guard Bureau officials indicated that 
events funded by a combatant command and the National Guard Bureau 
would be tracked in both databases.[Footnote 13] National Guard Bureau 
officials told us that as a result, data must be pulled from both the 
combatant commands' and the National Guard Bureau's data systems to 
glean the most complete information on the funding of State 
Partnership Program activities. 

We asked the combatant commands and the National Guard Bureau to 
provide us with a list of all State Partnership Program activities 
since fiscal year 2007, but the data that they provided to us were 
incomplete. Africa Command could only provide data since fiscal year 
2009, when the command became fully operational, but officials told us 
that it is possible not all State Partnership Program activities are 
included in the data it provided because there is no way to 
electronically search for State Partnership Program activities in its 
database since they are not annotated as State Partnership Program 
activities. According to an Africa Command official, the data provided 
were selected manually, and some activities may have been overlooked. 
Activity data provided to us by European Command were also incomplete 
in that the location of events was missing for 482 of 753 (64 percent) 
activities. European Command officials told us that while the database 
does not always contain information on the location of events, 
individual records, such as after-action reviews for specific events, 
would have this information. In addition, the National Guard Bureau 
data were missing for fiscal year 2009 because the data system was not 
yet operational and data were not centrally maintained. National Guard 
Bureau officials told us that data were incomplete for 2010 because it 
was the first year that the National Guard Bureau began to use this 
data system to collect State Partnership Program data and staff had to 
learn how to use the system. 

Further, we found that some activity information that should have been 
contained in both combatant command and National Guard Bureau 
databases was not. For example, Northern Command and Pacific Command 
reported that a majority of State Partnership Program activities in 
their areas of responsibility were funded by the National Guard 
Bureau. As a result, we expected that the activity data would be 
maintained in both the combatant commands' and the National Guard 
Bureau's databases. However, when we compared the data provided by the 
combatant commands, including Northern Command, to the data provided 
by the National Guard Bureau, we found that both had records of State 
Partnership Program activities that were not accounted for in the 
other's database. In addition, we compared a sample of the data 
provided to us by the combatant commanders and the National Guard 
Bureau to the activities listed in a DOD report to Congress on a 
subset of State Partnership Program activities involving civilians. 
[Footnote 14] Our analysis showed that 32 activities in the report to 
Congress were not accounted for in the data provided to us, despite 
the broader scope of our data request. The National Guard Bureau 
officials told us that their database was not used to meet the data 
request for the DOD report because they don't have data from the 
required years. Instead, individual state Guard units were asked 
through a data call from the National Guard Bureau to provide lists of 
activities. 

Through our data analysis, we also found that activities in the 
National Guard Bureau and the combatant command databases were 
inconsistently defined, which hindered our ability to report on the 
types and frequency of activities. The combatant commands and the 
National Guard Bureau reported a broad range of activities conducted 
for fiscal years 2007 through 2011, but common activities included 
knowledge sharing on an area of expertise by National Guard personnel 
with partner nation participants, demonstrations of National Guard 
capabilities, and visits between an adjutant general or other high 
ranking U.S. military official with senior leaders of the partner 
nation's armed forces. However, the terminology used to identify 
activity types varied both across the combatant commands and between 
the combatant commands and the National Guard Bureau. An August 2011 
Directive Type Memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy provides a definition for a State Partnership Program activity, 
but it does not define specific activity types.[Footnote 15] We found 
that the combatant commands use different terms to define similar 
activities. For example, one combatant command used the term 
orientation to describe the partner country observances of U.S. forces 
in action, whereas another combatant command referred to those 
activities as familiarizations. The user's manual for the National 
Guard Bureau's database contains a list of different activity types, 
but the types themselves are not consistent with the terminology used 
by the combatant commands. For example, in their respective databases, 
the National Guard Bureau used the term military-to-military for most 
of its activities that involve U.S. military activities conducted with 
host country militaries, whereas the combatant commands used terms 
like familiarization or traveling contact team, making it difficult to 
identify if the data in different databases were describing the same 
activity or two separate activities.[Footnote 16] In addition, 
although State Partnership Program activities that are funded by both 
a combatant command and the National Guard Bureau should be entered 
into each entity's database for its respective funded amount, four 
combatant commands and the National Guard Bureau reported that there 
is no standard method for all the combatant commands and the National 
Guard Bureau to ensure the separate entries can be easily compiled in 
order to see all data maintained on a particular activity, including 
the total funding amount of the activity. Because of these 
inconsistencies, we could not summarize the types or frequency of 
activities that have taken place under the State Partnership Program. 

State Partnership Program Funding Information Is Incomplete: 

The funding data for State Partnership Program activities from fiscal 
years 2007 through 2011 are incomplete, thus preventing us from 
providing complete information on the total cost of the program. As 
previously discussed, funding data on State Partnership Program 
activities are maintained in multiple databases, depending primarily 
on the funding source for the activity. We found that funding data 
from the National Guard Bureau and some of the combatant commands were 
incomplete. For example, National Guard Bureau officials told us that 
there was no standardized method for collecting and centrally managing 
its own State Partnership Program data prior to fiscal year 2009, when 
their database was first implemented. While the National Guard Bureau 
could tell us the total amount of money it spent on the program since 
2007, it could not tell us how much money the National Guard Bureau 
spent on individual activities. In addition, our analysis also 
indicated that the funding data maintained by the combatant commands 
are incomplete, as described below. 

* European Command: From fiscal years 2007 through 2011, European 
Command's funding data were missing for 415 out of 753 activities 
(about 55 percent). European Command officials told us that missing 
information could indicate that an event had not been executed, that 
the activity was funded by a source other than the combatant command, 
or that the information was not updated in the database. Officials 
stated that business processes were put into place at the end of 
fiscal year 2010 to prevent this problem from recurring and our 
analysis showed that data were improved in fiscal year 2011. 

* Africa Command: For fiscal years 2009 through 2011, Africa Command 
was missing funding data for 9 out of 70 (about 13 percent) State 
Partnership Program events. An Africa Command official explained that 
this could indicate that the event had not yet occurred or had been 
canceled, or it could indicate that the data were missing. 

* Pacific Command: Data provided by Pacific Command showed that 118 
events took place in its area of responsibility from fiscal years 2007 
through 2011, but information on the source of funding for 41 events 
(about 35 percent) was missing. According to Pacific Command 
officials, most of the State Partnership Program activities in Pacific 
Command's area of responsibility were funded by the National Guard 
Bureau rather than the command. However, for the activities that it 
did fund, it could only provide projected funding amounts and not 
expenditure data.[Footnote 17] According to a Pacific Command 
official, missing data were most likely due to personnel turnover at 
the state level. 

* Southern Command: Data provided by Southern Command were likely 
complete, but Southern Command officials stated that gathering the 
data was difficult due to the lack of interoperability of the multiple 
databases containing the data. 

* Central Command: Data provided by Central Command were also likely 
complete but officials told us that Central Command's data systems do 
not always update accurately and therefore officials manually track 
events on a spreadsheet outside of the database. Data provided to us 
were based on this spreadsheet, rather than the database. 

* Northern Command: Officials from Northern Command told us that it 
did not fund any State Partnership Program events as all events within 
Northern Command's area of responsibility were funded by the National 
Guard Bureau. 

As a result, funding data for 2007 through 2010 are unavailable due to 
the incompleteness of the data. Funding data for fiscal year 2011 are 
the most complete, but the amount presented is only an estimate, as 
some data are still missing. We found that for fiscal year 2011 the 
National Guard Bureau and the combatant commands spent at least $13.2 
million on State Partnership Program activities. Figure 3 below 
depicts available expenditure information for fiscal year 2011. 

Figure 6: Approximate Expenditures on State Partnership Program 
Events, Fiscal Year 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Total: $13.2 million: 
National Guard Bureau[A]: $6.1 million; Combat Commands: $7.1 million: 
* U.S. European Command: $4.46 million[B]; 
* U.S. Central Command: $1.35 million; 
* U.S. Southern Command: $1.06 million; 
* U.S. Africa Command: $225,000[B]. 

Source: GAO analysis of National Guard Bureau and DOD information. 

Note: Funding data presented in this figure are estimates as the data 
are not complete. 

[A] The National Guard Bureau provided total amounts expended per 
state by year, while the combatant commands provided amounts expended 
per activity. We totaled these amounts to obtain the amounts shown in 
this figure. 

[B] Data provided by Africa Command and European Command were 
incomplete. 

[End of figure] 

DOD Lacks Guidance on Current State Partnership Program Data 
Management: 

DOD is developing a single global data system, but currently there are 
no common methods for tracking data on the State Partnership Program 
or coordinated efforts to address inconsistencies. Specifically, DOD 
has recognized that multiple databases, operating independently and 
lacking interoperability, are a problem and is developing a single, 
global data system--the Global Theater Security Cooperation Management 
Information System--to replace the multiple databases now being used 
to capture theater security-type information from various programs, of 
which the State Partnership Program is one. However, the development 
of this global data system is still in its early stages and the 
department does not know when the system is expected to have full 
operational capabilities. In the absence of a common data system, we 
found that currently there is no guidance from the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy,[Footnote 18] the National Guard Bureau, or the 
combatant commands on what data need to be tracked or how the data 
should be entered to ensure it is complete and consistent across all 
the databases, and that current efforts to improve the accuracy of the 
data are not coordinated. For example, officials from the National 
Guard Bureau told us that the efforts they have initiated are specific 
to the database the National Guard Bureau uses and that they have not 
coordinated with the combatant commands to address the inconsistency 
issues that occur across databases. Moreover, there is not agreement 
among stakeholders on common terms to use in describing how to 
annotate activities in their respective databases so that they can be 
easily identified and reconciled from one database to another. Given 
the current inconsistency and incompleteness of the data, DOD cannot 
assess the program's performance and neither we nor DOD can provide 
complete and accurate information on activity types, frequency, and 
funding to decision makers. 

Challenges in Funding Activities and Incorporating U.S. and Foreign 
Partner Civilians Require Additional Guidance and Training: 

State Partnership Program stakeholders that we contacted, including 
combatant commands, State Partnership Program Coordinators, and 
Bilateral Affairs Officers, cited several types of challenges in 
funding State Partnership Program activities and in incorporating U.S. 
and foreign partner civilians into events. Specifically, stakeholders 
cited funding challenges such as concerns about funding availability 
and funding for events that included civilians. Although guidance and 
training exist on funding for the program, stakeholders expressed 
confusion in response to our questions. Until clarifying guidance and 
training are developed and provided, the National Guard Bureau and the 
combatant commanders may not be able to fully maximize the State 
Partnership Program in meeting their missions. 

Stakeholders Expressed Concerns about Funding of Activities and 
Civilian Involvement: 

When we asked stakeholders a broad, open-ended question about 
challenges facing the program, funding was a frequently cited problem. 
Four combatant commands, six Bilateral Affairs Officers, and 20 State 
Partnership Program Coordinators told us that funding was a challenge 
to the program. The combatant commands expressed concerns about the 
availability of funding for the program. For example, one combatant 
command stated that the most challenging aspect of the State 
Partnership Program is the funding of the guardsmen because they need 
to be put on special orders that are not necessary when using active 
duty personnel. Another combatant command stated that additional 
funding for the program "is critical for the continued success of the 
program" as several other countries would like to join the program, 
and two combatant commands expressed concerns that State Partnership 
Program funding would be cut in the future. Bilateral Affairs Officers 
also expressed similar challenges with funding. For example, one 
Bilateral Affairs Officer told us that obtaining pay and allowances 
for guardsmen is difficult compared to active duty forces. Further, 
three Bilateral Affairs Officers mentioned that they would like to 
have additional funding to conduct more events and one State 
Partnership Program Coordinator told us that the National Guard Bureau 
and the combatant commands do not always have the necessary funds 
available to support an event. 

State Partnership Program Coordinators also expressed concerns about 
the funding process that extended beyond funding availability. For 
example, one State Partnership Program Coordinator commented that 
because funds come from dual sources--the National Guard Bureau and 
the combatant commands--there is sometimes confusion and funding 
uncertainties as the two organizations negotiate who will pay for what 
events or portions of events. Another commented that "the myriad of 
funding authorizations and their specific peculiarities [are] a 
challenge to even the most experienced State Partnership Program 
Coordinator." Further, one State Partnership Program Coordinator told 
us that because he was not active duty, he did not have access to 
training offered by the Air Force that he felt would be beneficial to 
understanding how to better fund events. 

The most prominent challenge cited by State Partnership Program 
stakeholders involved concerns about conducting and funding activities 
that include civilian participants. In the past, the State Partnership 
Program has incorporated both U.S. and foreign partner civilians into 
a variety of activities. These included activities such as subject 
matter expert exchanges with members of the state's fire department 
and the host nation on military support to civil authorities; a 
familiarization on 911 system operations between U.S. and host country 
civilians; and a subject matter expert exchange with U.S. and foreign 
partner law enforcement officials on maritime border security issues. 
However, in response to our question about challenges facing the 
program, 31 State Partnership Program Coordinators cited difficulties 
in conducting activities with civilians. In response to our question 
about how the program should be changed, 36 State Partnership Program 
Coordinators stated that the program should be changed to better 
facilitate civilian engagements. Further, many of the State 
Partnership Program Coordinators expressed the opinion that they were 
not allowed to conduct activities with civilians at all, even though 
DOD officials told us that civilians are permitted to participate in 
activities as long as the proper funding authority is used. For 
example, one State Partnership Program Coordinator told us that his 
state's greatest challenge is the current DOD guidance which, based on 
his understanding, restricts all events to strict military-to-military 
events. Another State Partnership Program Coordinator told us that the 
state recently had to cancel planned events with its partner country's 
civilian authorities because of its interpretation of this guidance. A 
third State Partnership Program Coordinator stated that the perceived 
"requirement [to] strictly limit operations to military-to-military 
engagements limits [the] ability to support" the needs of the embassy 
and of the partner country. Another State Partnership Program 
Coordinator told us that the perceived restriction in the DOD guidance 
prevents his state's capabilities from being fully used. 

Bilateral Affairs Officers from the partner country embassies and 
combatant commands had similar perceptions about civilian 
participation in State Partnership Program activities. Out of the 23 
Bilateral Affairs Officers who provided answers to our questions, 9 
cited this area as a challenge for the program. For example, in regard 
to the challenges posed for the program, one Bilateral Affairs Officer 
told us that the inability of the National Guard Bureau to bring 
civilian subject matter experts to the partner countries diminishes 
the value of events. In addition, 14 of the 23 Bilateral Affairs 
Officers that responded to our questions expressed the opinion that 
the State Partnership Program should be changed to better facilitate 
civilian engagements. For example, one Bilateral Affairs Officer told 
us that expanding activities into other sectors, such as medical or 
law enforcement, would help to fulfill embassy and combatant command 
missions. In addition, one combatant command stated that the 
restrictions on funding civilians are a challenge facing the program. 
However, according to DOD officials, the combatant commands have 
certain funds, such as Traditional Combatant Commander's Activities 
funds, which may be available to use for funding events involving 
civilians. 

DOD Has Taken Initial Steps to Clarify Civilian Funding Concerns, but 
It Is Unclear When Formal Guidance and Training Programs Will Be in 
Place: 

DOD has issued some guidance on the State Partnership Program, 
including guidance on the use of funds for civilians, in part to 
respond to congressional direction. The National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required the Secretary of Defense to 
prescribe regulations on the use of funds appropriated to DOD to pay 
the costs incurred by the National Guard in conducting activities 
under the State Partnership Program, and also required the Secretary 
to submit annual reports to the appropriate congressional committees 
describing the civilian engagement activities conducted under the 
State Partnership Program.[Footnote 19] In response to the requirement 
to issue regulations, DOD issued its Directive Type Memorandum in 
August 2011.[Footnote 20] The Directive Type Memorandum does not 
explicitly prohibit the involvement of civilians in State Partnership 
Program activities; however, it stipulates that funds appropriated to 
DOD shall not be used to conduct activities with civilians unless 
those activities are based on legal authority that allows the use of 
such funds for those activities. National Guard Bureau officials told 
us that since the issuance of the Directive Type Memorandum, states 
have become cautious about conducting events with civilians, and many 
have chosen to not conduct any events with civilians due to a concern 
about violating DOD guidance. The Directive Type Memorandum will 
expire in August 2012 and the Under Secretary of Defense, Policy, has 
drafted an instruction that is intended to further clarify the use of 
funds appropriated to DOD, including funds for civilian participation, 
under the State Partnership Program. Officials indicate that this 
instruction is currently undergoing review within DOD and should be 
issued sometime during 2012, but could not provide us with a confirmed 
issuance date. In addition, the National Guard Bureau is working on 
guidance for implementing the State Partnership Program. According to 
National Guard Bureau officials, an instruction will establish policy, 
assign responsibilities, and provide guidance for the execution of the 
State Partnership Program. An accompanying manual will provide more 
details on how to implement the program. National Guard Bureau 
officials indicated that the instruction and the manual are expected 
to be issued sometime during 2012, but also could not provide us with 
a confirmed issuance date. 

During the course of our review, Congress enacted the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which provides authority for 
the use of up to $3 million to pay for some costs associated with 
civilian participation.[Footnote 21] However, National Guard Bureau 
officials stated that DOD has not issued guidance on the 
implementation of this provision. According to officials, due to this 
lack of guidance, funds have not been used for this purpose. The draft 
DOD instruction is still undergoing review and is intended to provide 
clarifying information on the use of funds appropriated to DOD prior 
to the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012. Therefore, it may be appropriate for the Under Secretary of 
Defense, Policy, to determine whether or not the draft instruction is 
the right mechanism for conveying additional guidance addressing 
section 1085 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, or determine alternative plans for how to address the confusion 
expressed by National Guard Bureau officials. Without additional 
guidance, however, the National Guard Bureau does not plan to use this 
authority so the concerns about how to fund civilian participation are 
likely to persist. 

Beyond the lack of guidance, the responses stakeholders provided to 
our questions revealed that there is widespread confusion about 
aspects of program implementation, including addressing funding 
concerns. We have previously reported that challenges facing such 
programs can be mitigated by improving training and that training can 
help ensure that program policies and procedures are consistently 
adhered to by program offices.[Footnote 22] Further, DOD guidance 
emphasizes the need for proper training and staffing to increase 
effectiveness in budgeting.[Footnote 23] The National Guard Bureau has 
taken steps to provide training but told us that their efforts needed 
improvement in some areas. For example, State Partnership Program 
Coordinators have the opportunity to attend the Defense Institute of 
Security Assistance Management course, which in 2012 and several years 
prior, included topics such as an introduction to security 
cooperation, understanding the State Partnership Program, emphasizing 
security cooperation administration as well as emphasizing the 
interaction and constraints of the State Partnership Program with 
other DOD security cooperation activities. Moreover, officials 
indicated that the National Guard Bureau holds annual State 
Partnership Program conferences and participates in combatant 
commands' conferences, where some training on the processes and 
authorities are presented. National Guard Bureau officials stated that 
they are planning some training for State Partnership Program 
Coordinators for the summer of 2012 and plan to include an overview of 
funding, but have not determined the specific content related to 
funding for this training event. Without further guidance and training 
in this area, the National Guard Bureau and the combatant commands may 
miss additional opportunities to use the program to fulfill their 
missions. 

Conclusions: 

In recent years, DOD has emphasized the importance of strengthening 
security cooperation with other countries as a way of promoting 
stability and partner capacity around the world, and the State 
Partnership Program is one of many efforts in this area. While many 
State Partnership Program stakeholders cited anecdotal benefits to the 
program such as training and experience for guardsmen and supporting 
combatant commanders' goals and priorities, DOD and Congress do not 
have an effective means to assess the program because fundamental 
elements such as agreed-upon goals are missing. As a result, little 
oversight of the program has been conducted in the past. Officials 
informed us that they are working on goals, objectives, and metrics 
and expect to implement them in the next few months. Such goals and 
measures are critical because they form the foundation of an oversight 
framework that would enable decision makers and stakeholders to 
objectively judge the program's effectiveness and gauge progress over 
time. However, in order to make use of metrics, DOD and the National 
Guard Bureau will need complete and consistent data from the combatant 
commands and state National Guards engaged in State Partnership 
Program activities. In the interim period until DOD fully implements 
its global data system, guidance that establishes an agreed-upon set 
of definitions and rules for inputting data, and that would apply to 
the National Guard Bureau, all combatant commands, and state National 
Guards, could provide a foundation for measuring the State Partnership 
Program's effectiveness and efficiency. Finally, some activities that 
stakeholders believe could have a broad impact--such as those 
involving civilians--are not being conducted due primarily to a lack 
of guidance and understanding on how to fund those activities. 
Ensuring that stakeholders understand how to use funding from the 
National Guard Bureau, combatant commands, and other sources to 
support the State Partnership Program would help state National Guards 
fully utilize the program. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following four 
actions: 

* To improve the management of the State Partnership Program, direct 
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, in coordination with the 
combatant commands and the embassy country teams, to complete and 
implement the program's comprehensive oversight framework by using the 
goals, objectives, and metrics currently being developed as its basis. 

* To enable oversight and improve the completeness and consistency of 
data needed to manage the State Partnership Program, direct the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy and Joint Staff, in coordination with 
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the combatant commands, and 
the embassy country teams, to develop guidance for all stakeholders 
that includes agreed-upon definitions for data fields and rules for 
maintaining data until the global data system is fully implemented. 

* To address concerns about how funds can be used to include civilians 
in State Partnership Program activities, direct the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy, to develop guidance that clarifies how to use 
funds for civilian participation in the State Partnership Program. 

* To improve program implementation, direct the Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau to develop additional training for State Partnership 
Program Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs Officers on the appropriate 
use of funds for supporting the State Partnership Program, especially 
in regard to including civilians in program events. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our 
findings and recommendations. Regarding our first recommendation to 
complete and implement the program's comprehensive oversight 
framework, DOD concurred and noted that these efforts are underway 
with target implementation for the end of fiscal year 2012. In 
response to our second recommendation to develop guidance for all 
stakeholders that includes agreed-upon definitions for data fields and 
rules for maintaining data, and our third recommendation to develop 
guidance that clarifies the use of funds for civilian participation in 
State Partnership Program activities, DOD concurred and stated that it 
is currently developing a DOD instruction that will provide additional 
guidance to stakeholders on these issues. DOD did not, however, 
indicate timelines for the issuance of this instruction. We believe 
that prompt action in this regard will help DOD achieve greater 
visibility over the State Partnership Program, and we urge DOD to 
determine a timeline for issuance. Regarding our final recommendation 
to develop additional training for State Partnership Program 
Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs Officers on the appropriate use of 
funds for supporting the State Partnership Program, especially in 
regard to including civilians in program events, DOD concurred and 
stated that the National Guard Bureau has developed some additional 
training and will use existing workshops to increase training 
opportunities. We are pleased with DOD's efforts and continue to 
believe that increased training in this area will help DOD fully 
utilize the State Partnership Program. DOD's comments are printed in 
their entirety in appendix III. 

We also provided a draft of this report to the Department of State and 
the United States Agency for International Development, but they did 
not provide any comments. 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 
committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the 
Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
Development. This report is also available at no charge on the GAO 
website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

John H. Pendleton: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To address our objectives, we collected perspectives on the program 
from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Policy; Joint Staff; 
National Guard Bureau; and program stakeholders including State 
Partnership Program coordinating officials at the geographic combatant 
commands; State Partnership Program Coordinators; and Bilateral 
Affairs Officers, including their views on the benefits of the 
program. We also collected information on the process that the 
Department of Defense (DOD) uses to establish partnerships and the 
steps taken by all U.S. program stakeholders, including State 
Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, and 
combatant commanders, to coordinate State Partnership Program 
activities and prevent duplication of effort. We also obtained and 
reviewed DOD documents, including Defense Strategic Guidance, the 
Quadrennial Defense Review, and The National Military Strategy of the 
United States of America to place the State Partnership Program within 
the broader context of DOD's strategic efforts. 

To determine the extent to which State Partnership Program activities 
are meeting the goals and objectives of the program, we gathered 
documentation; interviewed National Guard Bureau officials about the 
development of goals, objectives, and performance metrics for the 
program; and assessed their efforts based on criteria from our 
previous work. We also reviewed an improvement plan for the State 
Partnership Program provided by the National Guard Bureau and assessed 
the extent to which the plan addressed the need for goals, objectives, 
and metrics and identified timeframes for implementation. In addition, 
we obtained and reviewed DOD guidance, including the Directive Type 
Memorandum released in August 2011, to determine if goals and 
objectives for the State Partnership Program were specified in those 
documents. To identify benefits of the program, we contacted all State 
Partnership Program Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs Officers via e-
mail with a standard set of questions. In addition to program 
benefits, the questions addressed roles in implementing the State 
Partnership Program, steps to avoid duplication of program activities, 
any challenges faced when implementing the program, and any suggested 
areas for improvement. We received and analyzed responses from 50 of 
the 52 State Partnership Program Coordinators and from 23 out of 47 
Bilateral Affairs Officers.[Footnote 24] We also collected and 
analyzed written responses to similar questions from coordinating 
officials at the six U.S. geographic combatant commands. 

In conducting our content analysis, a GAO analyst independently 
reviewed each response from the State Partnership Program Coordinators 
and Bilateral Affairs Officers to identify recurring themes in the 
answers to each question. A second GAO analyst independently reviewed 
the responses from the State Partnership Program Coordinators and 
Bilateral Affairs Officers and reviewed the recurring themes 
identified by the first analyst to reach concurrence and identify any 
themes that the first analyst may have overlooked. Using the 
identified recurring themes, the analysts developed categories and 
definitions for what should and should not be included under each 
category when coding the responses. A GAO analyst then independently 
reviewed the answers to each question and placed them into one or more 
of the relevant categories. In some cases, the respondent may have 
provided information to answer the question in other areas of the 
response. When that occurred, the analyst also coded that information 
and noted that it was provided in an answer to a different question. A 
second GAO analyst independently reviewed the answers to each question 
and placed them into one or more of the relevant categories. The 
coding of both analysts was compared to identify areas of 
disagreement. For items in which there was not agreement, the two 
analysts met to discuss reasons for selecting the categories they did 
until an agreement about the category that was most appropriate was 
reached. 

To determine the completeness and consistency of activity and funding 
data for the program, we collected and analyzed data on State 
Partnership Program activities from fiscal years 2007 through 2011--
including types of activities, funding sources, and funding amounts--
obtained from the National Guard Bureau and the six U.S. geographic 
combatant commands. To assess the reliability of the data, we 
collected written information from the combatant commands to gain an 
understanding of the processes and databases used to collect and 
record data and to identify any known limitations to the data. We also 
collected written information on any data quality control procedures 
in place for data on State Partnership Program activities and reviewed 
user manuals for the various databases, where provided. We discussed 
the procedures for generating and verifying the data with 
knowledgeable combatant command and National Guard Bureau officials. 
We examined the data provided for obvious anomalies and compared the 
data to DOD's report to Congress on State Partnership Program 
activities involving civilians. We found missing information and 
inconsistencies as well as a lack of guidance on data inputs to ensure 
complete and consistent information. We discussed these limitations 
with the officials in an attempt to obtain more complete information 
and reconcile the differences. We ultimately determined that the data 
we received were not reliable for the purposes of providing complete 
information on the types and frequency of activities, the funding 
sources used, or the total cost of the activities because of our 
concerns about the completeness and consistency of the data, which we 
discuss in our report. As a result, the data we included in the report 
do not represent the complete scope of the State Partnership Program. 
The data do, however, illustrate the limitations we found. 

To identify challenges that DOD faces in implementing the program, we 
included a question on any challenges in implementing the program and 
any areas for improvement in our email to all State Partnership 
Program Coordinators and all Bilateral Affairs Officers who 
participate in this program, as described above. Our content analysis 
included categories for challenges and areas for improvement. We also 
collected and analyzed written responses to similar questions from the 
six U.S. geographic combatant commands. On the basis of the challenges 
cited by stakeholders, we also reviewed legislation and guidance on 
the State Partnership Program, including the Directive Type Memorandum 
and internal National Guard Bureau memoranda on the use of funds for 
State Partnership Program activities, to identify areas of confusion 
that might require clarification or additional training. We also 
identified criteria in our previous work for combating the challenges 
identified by State Partnership Program stakeholders. We discussed 
these areas with National Guard Bureau officials and any efforts in 
place to address the challenges. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2011 to May 2012 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End f section] 

Appendix II: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, by Combatant Command: 

Figure 4: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, Africa Command: 

[Refer to PDF for image; world map] 

U.S. Africa Command: 8 partnerships: California and Nigeria* (2006); 
New York and South Africa* (2003); 
North Carolina and Botswana* (2008); North Dakota and Ghana* (2004); 
Michigan and Liberia* (2009); 
Utah and Morocco* (2003); 
Vermont and Senegal* (2008); 
Wyoming and Tunisia* (2004). 

Source: National Guard Bureau. 

* Indicates country has a Bilateral Affairs Officer. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 5: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, Central Command: 

[Refer to PDF for image; world map] 

U.S. Central Command: 6 partnerships: Arizona and Kazakhstan (1993); 
Colorado and Jordan (2004); 
Louisiana and Uzbekistan (1996); 
Montana and Kyrgyzstan (1996); 
Virginia and Tajikistan (2003); 
Pending and Turkmenistan (1996). 

Source: National Guard Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 6: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, European Command: 

[Refer to PDF for image; world map] 

U.S. European Command: 22 partnerships: Alabama and Romania* (1993); 
California and Ukraine* (1993); 
Colorado and Slovenia* (1993); 
Georgia and Georgia* (1994); 
Illinois and Poland* (1993); 
Indiana and Slovakia* (1993); 
Iowa and Kosovo* (2011); 
Kansas and Armenia* (2002); 
Maine and Montenegro* (2006); 
Maryland and Estonia* (1993); 
Maryland and Bosnia* (2003); 
Michigan and Latvia* (1993); 
Minnesota and Croatia* (1996); 
New Jersey and Albania* (2001); 
North Carolina and Moldova* (1996); 
Ohio and Hungary* (1993); 
Ohio and Serbia* (2005); 
Oklahoma and Azerbaijan* (2002); 
Pennsylvania and Lithuania* (1993); 
Tennessee and Bulgaria* (1993); 
Texas/Nebraska and Czech Republic* (1993); Vermont and Macedonia* 
(1993). 

Source: National Guard Bureau. 

* Indicates country has a Bilateral Affairs Officer. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 7: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, Northern Command: 

[Refer to PDF for image; world map] 

U.S. Northern Command: 1 partnership: Rhode Island and Bahamas (2005). 

Source: National Guard Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 8: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, Pacific Command: 

[Refer to PDF for image; world map] 

U.S. Pacific Command: 6 partnerships: Alaska and Mongolia (2003); 
Hawaii/Guam and Philippines (2000); 
Hawaii and Indonesia (2006); 
Idaho and Cambodia (2009); 
Oregon and Bangladesh (2008); 
Washington and Thailand (2002). 

Source: National Guard Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 9: State Partnership Program Participating States and 
Countries, Southern Command: 

[Refer to PDF for image; world map] 

U.S. Southern Command: 22 partnerships: Arkansas and Guatemala (2002); 
Connecticut and Uruguay* (2000); 
Delaware and Trinidad-Tobago* (2004); District of Columbia and 
Jamaica* (1999); Florida and Venezuela (1998); 
Florida and Guyana* (2003); 
Florida/Virgin Islands with Regional Security Systems* (2006); 
Kentucky and Ecuador* (1996); 
Louisiana and Belize* (1996); 
Louisiana and Haiti* (2011); 
Massachusetts and Paraguay* (2001); 
Mississippi and Bolivia (1999); 
Missouri and Panama* (1996); 
New Hampshire and El Salvador* (2000); New Mexico and Costa Rica* 
(2006); 
Puerto Rico and Honduras* (1998); 
Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic* (2003); South Dakota and Suriname* 
(2006); 
Texas and Chile* (2008); 
West Virginia and Peru* (1996); 
Wisconsin and Nicaragua* (2003); 
Pending and Colombia (2012). 

Source: National Guard Bureau. 

* Indicates country has a Bilateral Affairs Officer. 

[End of figure] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Note: GAO received DOD's letter April 27, 2012: 

Assistant Secretary of Defense: 
Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict: 2500 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, D.C. 20301-2500: 

Mr. John H. Pendleton: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: U.S. Government 
Accountability Office: 441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Mr. Pendleton: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft 
Report, GAO-12-548, "State Partnership Program: Improved Oversight, 
Guidance, and Training Needed for the National Guard's Efforts with 
Foreign Partners," dated March 30, 2012 (GAO Code 351649). 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Michael A. Sheehan: 

[End of letter] 

GAO Draft Report Dated March 30, 2012: GA0-12-548 (GAO CODE 351649): 

"State Partnership Program: Improved Oversight, Guidance, And Training 
Needed For National Guard's Efforts With Foreign Partners" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, in coordination with 
the combatant commands and the embassy country teams, to complete and 
implement its comprehensive oversight framework by using the goals, 
objectives, and metrics currently being developed as its basis. 

DoD Response: DoD concurs. As reported in the study, the National 
Guard Bureau acknowledges the need for updated program goals and 
objectives to more accurately reflect the current operating 
environment and the need for development of metrics to measure and 
assess program progress. Both of these efforts to update the oversight 
framework are well underway and will be incorporated into updates to 
the National Guard Bureau's policy and strategy documents for the 
State Partnership Program. Distribution to the States and implementing 
instructions are targeted for the end of this fiscal year. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense, Policy, and Joint Staff, in 
coordination with Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the combatant 
commands, and the embassy country teams, to develop guidance for all 
stakeholders that includes agreed-upon definitions for data fields and 
rules for maintaining data until the global data system is fully 
implemented. 

DoD Response: DoD concurs. The Department is currently writing a 
Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) which will replace the 
current Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) 11-011, Use of Appropriated 
Funds for Conducting State Partnership Program (SPP) Activities". This 
DoDI will provide additional guidance to all stakeholders that will 
include the issues identified in this GAO report. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense, Policy, to develop guidance 
that clarifies how to use funds for civilian participation in the 
State Partnership Program. 

DoD Response: DoD concurs. The Department is currently writing a 
Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) which will replace the 
current Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) 11-011, "Use of Appropriated 
Funds for Conducting State Partnership Program (SPP) Activities". This 
DoDI will provide additional guidance to all stakeholders that will 
include the issues identified in this GAO report. 

Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to develop additional 
training for State Partnership Program Coordinators and Bilateral 
Affairs Officers on the appropriate use of funds for supporting the 
State Partnership Program, especially in regards to including 
civilians in program events. 

DoD Response: DoD concurs. The National Guard Bureau currently uses 
various forums for the training of State Partnership Program 
stakeholders to include dedicated courses at the Defense Institute of 
Security Assistance Management (DISAM), Combatant Command Regional 
Workshops, and National Guard Bureau Workshops. The National Guard 
Bureau recognizes the need for emphasis on training to ensure 
adherence to program policies and procedures. To that end, the 
National Guard Bureau has developed additional DISAM curricula 
relevant to State Partnership Program Coordinators and Bilateral 
Affairs Officers, and will use existing workshops and State 
Coordinators' monthly VTCs to increase training opportunities. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

John H. Pendleton, (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this 
report were Marie Mak, Assistant Director; Leslie Bharadwaja; Michele 
Fejfar; Kelly Liptan; Erik Wilkins-McKee; Amie Steele; and Nicole 
Willems. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] There are currently 63 active partnerships. One of those 
partnerships is between Florida and the U.S. Virgin Islands with the 
Regional Security System, a collective security agreement for seven 
island nations in the Eastern Caribbean. The seven nations that 
participate in the Regional Security System are Antigua and Barbuda, 
Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Saints Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Two countries, Colombia and 
Turkmenistan, do not currently have a state National Guard partner 
assigned. 

[2] There are six geographic combatant commands: U.S. European 
Command, U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Northern 
Command, U.S. Southern Command, and U.S. Central Command. There are 
also three functional combatant commands: U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. 
Special Operations Command, and U.S. Transportation Command. The 
functional combatant commands play no role in the State Partnership 
Program, and throughout this report we refer only to the geographic 
combatant commands. 

[3] Some countries within the U.S. Southern Command use Traditional 
Commander's Activities coordinators in this role. The combatant 
commands fund Traditional Commander's Activities coordinators, while 
the National Guard Bureau funds Bilateral Affairs Officers. For 
consistency purposes in this report, we refer to all of these 
personnel as Bilateral Affairs Officers. 

[4] Section 1234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-81 (2011), requires us to submit a report 
to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on the State 
Partnership Program that includes: (1) a summary of the sources of 
funds for the State Partnership Program over the last 5 years; (2) an 
analysis of the types and frequency of activities performed by 
participants in the State Partnership Program; (3) a description of 
the objectives of the State Partnership Program and the manner in 
which objectives under the program are established and coordinated 
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the geographic combatant 
commands, United States Country Teams, and other departments and 
agencies of the United States Government; (4) a description of the 
manner in which the Department of Defense selects and designates 
particular State and foreign country partnerships under the State 
Partnership Program; (5) a description of the manner in which the 
department measures the effectiveness of the activities under the 
State Partnership Program in meeting the objectives of the program; 
and (6) an assessment of the effectiveness of the activities under the 
State Partnership Program in meeting the objectives of the program. 

[5] There are 52 states and territories currently participating in the 
State Partnership Program. While there are 63 partnerships in the 
program, not every country has a Bilateral Affairs Officer assigned. 

[6] Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 
from U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command, 112TH Cong. 16 
(2012), statement of Admiral James G. Stavridis, United States Navy 
Commander, United States European Command before the House Armed 
Services Committee. 

[7] GAO, Preventing Sexual Harassment: DOD Needs Greater Leadership 
Commitment and an Oversight Framework, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-809] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 
2011). 

[8] GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and 
Relationships, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: May 2011). 

[9] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid 
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-38] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 
2004) and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP]. 

[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP]. 

[11] RAND, Developing an Army Strategy for Building Partner Capacity 
for Stability Operations (2010). In this report, RAND lists generic 
indicators used as a basis for measuring the effectiveness of various 
types of security cooperation programs in meeting the objective of 
establishing a safe and secure environment in the partner nation. See 
also RAND, Prototype Handbook for Monitoring and Evaluating Department 
of Defense Humanitarian Assistance Projects (2011). In this handbook, 
RAND provides guidance, analytic tools, and measures to demonstrate 
the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance projects, which also are 
intended to build upon nations' capacities; and show how those 
projects link to strategic-level goals, including those of the country 
teams and combatant commands. 

[12] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999). 

[13] The combatant commands use several types of databases to maintain 
their information. Several of the combatant commands use the Theater 
Security Cooperation Management Information System. The National Guard 
Bureau currently uses the Army Global Outlook System as its database 
for maintaining information on the State Partnership Program. 

[14] Department of Defense, State Partnership Program Fiscal Years 
2009 & 2011 (Dec. 2011). 

[15] Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Memorandum, Directive-Type 
Memorandum (DTM) 11-010, "Use of Appropriated Funds for Conducting 
State Partnership Program (SPP) Activities" (Aug. 19, 2011). According 
to the Directive Type Memorandum, a State Partnership Program activity 
is any security cooperation activity supported by funds appropriated 
to DOD, occurring between a State's National Guard personnel and the 
partner country, consistent with the State Partnership Program. 

[16] Other terms for activity types used in the National Guard 
Bureau's database include seminar/workshop, bilateral conference, 
senior official visit, and subject matter expert exchange, among 
others. The combatant commands use a variety of terms for activity 
types, including subject matter expert exchange, exchange, senior 
leadership visit, conference, and assessment. 

[17] Pacific Command provided funding for three events through the 
Asia Pacific Regional Initiative since fiscal year 2007. The Asia 
Pacific Regional Initiative is a program designed to build cooperative 
military relationships with allies in the pacific region. 

[18] According to Directive Type Memorandum 11-010, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy is the principal adviser to the 
Secretary of Defense for State Partnership Program policy and programs. 

[19] Pub. L. No 111-84, § 1210 (2009). 

[20] Under Secretary of Defense, Policy Directive Type Memorandum, 
Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 11-010, "Use of Appropriated Funds for 
Conducting State Partnership Program (SPP) Activities" (Aug. 19, 2011). 

[21] Section 1085 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-81 (2011), allows the Secretary of Defense 
to use up to $3,000,000 of the funds made available to the National 
Guard to pay for travel and per diem costs associated with the 
participation of the United States and foreign civilian and non-
defense agency personnel in conducting activities under the State 
Partnership Program of the National Guard, subject to Section 1210 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. L. 
No. 111-84 (2009), codified at 32 U.S.C. 107 note. Section 1210 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 states that 
funds shall not be available for activities conducted under the State 
Partnership Program in a foreign country unless such activities are 
jointly approved by the commander of the combatant command and the 
chief of mission concerned. 

[22] GAO, Indian Health Service: Increased Oversight Needed to Ensure 
Accuracy of Data Used for Estimating Contract Health Service Need, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-767] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 23, 2011). 

[23] Joint Publication 1-04, Legal Support to Military Operations 
(Mar. 1, 2007). 

[24] There are 53 U.S. states and territories currently participating 
in the State Partnership Program. While there are 63 partnerships in 
the program, not every country has a Bilateral Affairs Officer 
assigned. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E- 
mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube. Subscribe 
to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. Visit GAO 
on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; E-
mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-
4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.