This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-534 entitled 'Foreign Police Assistance: Defined Roles and Improved Information Sharing Could Enhance Interagency Collaboration' which was released on May 17, 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 the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives: May 2012: Foreign Police Assistance: Defined Roles and Improved Information Sharing Could Enhance Interagency Collaboration: GAO-12-534: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-12-534, a report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives Why GAO Did This Study: In April 2011, we reported that the United States provided an estimated $3.5 billion for foreign police assistance to 107 countries during fiscal year 2009. We agreed to follow up that report with a review of the extent to which U.S. agencies evaluated and coordinated their foreign police assistance activities. As such, this report (1) updates our analysis of the funding U.S. agencies provided for foreign police assistance during fiscal years 2009 through 2011, (2) examines the extent to which DOD and State/INL assess or evaluate their activities for countries with the largest programs, and (3) examines the mechanisms U.S. agencies use to coordinate foreign police assistance activities. GAO focused on DOD and State because they have the largest foreign police assistance programs. GAO analyzed program and budget documents and interviewed officials from DOD, State, Energy, the U.S. Agency for International Development, Justice, the Treasury, and Homeland Security. What GAO Found: The United States provided an estimated $13.9 billion for foreign police assistance during fiscal years 2009 through 2011. Funds provided by U.S. agencies rose and then fell between fiscal years 2009 and 2011. During fiscal years 2009 through 2011, the United States provided the greatest amount of its foreign police assistance to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the Palestinian Territories. Department of Defense (DOD) and State (State) funds constituted about 97 percent of U.S. funds for police assistance in fiscal year 2009 and 98 percent in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Figure: Estimated U.S. Funding for Foreign Police Assistance by Country, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Afghanistan: 60% ($8.329 billion); Iraq: 11% ($1.577 billion); Pakistan: 4% ($627 million); Colombia:4% ($572 million); Mexico: 4% ($522 million); Palestinian Territories: 3% ($367 million); Other countries: 9% ($1.214 billion); Regional or multicountry funds: 5% ($658 million); Total: $13.9 billion. Source: GAO analysis of data from DOD, State, and other agencies. Amounts have been rounded. [End of figure] DOD and State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (State/INL) have acknowledged limitations in their procedures to assess and evaluate their foreign police assistance activities and are taking steps to address them. DOD assesses the performance of the police forces it trains and equips in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. However, the assessment process for Afghanistan does not provide data on civil policing effectiveness. DOD plans to expand its assessments to obtain data to assess the ability of these forces to conduct civil policing operations. In addition, recognizing that it had conducted only one evaluation of its foreign police assistance activities because it lacked guidelines, State/INL is developing an evaluation plan that is consistent with State’s February 2012 Evaluation Policy. This evaluation plan includes conducting evaluations for its largest programs in Iraq and Mexico. U.S. agencies have implemented various mechanisms to coordinate their foreign police assistance activities as part of wider foreign assistance activities, such as the National Security Council’s (NSC)- led interagency policy committees that coordinate policies at a high level and various working groups at the overseas posts. However, GAO noted some areas for improvement. Specifically, NSC has not defined agencies’ roles and responsibilities for assisting foreign police. Further, DOD and State do not consistently share and document information. For example, DOD did not provide copies of its capability assessments of the Iraqi police to State, which is now responsible for police development in Iraq, because it destroyed the database containing the assessments at the end of its mission to train the police. Further, some U.S. embassies, including the one in Bogotá, Colombia, do not publish agendas or minutes of their proceedings. What GAO Recommends: GAO recommends that (1) NSC complete its efforts to define agency roles and responsibilities, and (2) the Secretaries of Defense and State establish mechanisms to better share and document information among various U.S. agencies. NSC provided technical comments, but did not comment on our recommendation. DOD concurred and State partially concurred, noting the importance of interagency collaboration. View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-534]. For more information, contact Charles Michael Johnson Jr., at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contents: Letter: Background: The United States Made Available an Estimated $13.9 Billion for Foreign Police Assistance during Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: DOD and State Are Taking Steps to Address Limitations in Their Procedures for Assessing and Evaluating Foreign Police Assistance Activities: U.S. Agencies Coordinate Foreign Police Assistance Activities, but Some Areas for Improvement Exist: Conclusions: Recommendations for Executive Action: Agency Comments and our Evaluation: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance, by Region and Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: Appendix III: DOD and State Amounts Made Available for Police Assistance, by Account, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: Appendix IV: Profiles of Selected Countries Receiving Foreign Police Assistance, Fiscal Year 2010 and Fiscal Year 2011: Appendix V: Supplemental Information on DOD Assessment Process for the Iraqi and Afghan National Police Forces: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of State: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: Tables: Table 1: Other Agency Funding Made Available for Police Assistance, Fiscal Year 2011: Table 2: Examples of Proposed DOD Reporting Questions and Metrics for ANP Units: Table 3: Examples of Coordination Mechanisms for Activities That Include U.S. Foreign Police Assistance: Table 4: Descriptions of Select U.S. Accounts Used to Fund Foreign Police Assistance: Table 5: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Foreign Police Assistance Activities, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: Table 6: DOD Capability Milestone Rating Definitions for the Afghan Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior: Figures: Figure 1: Estimated U.S. Funding for Foreign Police Assistance, by Region, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: Figure 2: Estimated U.S. Funding for Foreign Police Assistance, by Country, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: Figure 3: Estimated Funds Made Available for Foreign Police, by Agency, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: Figure 4: Estimated DOD and State Amounts Made Available for the Six Largest Recipients of U.S. Foreign Police Assistance, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: Figure 5: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in South and Central Asia, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: Figure 6: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in the Near East, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: Figure 7: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in the Western Hemisphere, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: Figure 8: Estimated DOD and State Funding for Police Assistance in Europe and Eurasia, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: Figure 9: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in Africa, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: Figure 10: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in East Asia and the Pacific, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: Abbreviations: ANA: Afghan National Army: ANP: Afghan National Police: DASD-CN>: Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats: DEA: Drug Enforcement Administration: DHS: Department of Homeland Security: DOD: Department of Defense: DOE: Department of Energy: DOJ: Department of Justice: FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: INCLE: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement: INL: Bureau of Narcotics and International Law Enforcement Affairs: IPCB: International Police Coordination Board: NSC: National Security Council: USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: [End of section] United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548: May 9, 2012: The Honorable John F. Tierney: Ranking Member: Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: House of Representatives: Dear Mr. Tierney: It is important to U.S. national security objectives that the United States effectively work with the security forces of other countries. The United States has devoted significant resources to training and equipping foreign police units in some of the most unstable countries in the world to build their counterinsurgency, counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and anticrime capabilities. As such, assessments or evaluations of U.S. efforts to train foreign police forces are critical to the ability of agencies to make informed decisions about future programming. The first phase of our work in response to your request focused on funding and agencies providing foreign police assistance in fiscal year 2009. In April 2011, we reported that the United States provided an estimated $3.5 billion for foreign police assistance to 107 countries during fiscal year 2009.[Footnote 1] We agreed to follow up that report with a review of the extent to which U.S agencies evaluated and coordinated their foreign police assistance activities. This report (1) provides an updated analysis of the amount and type of assistance U.S. agencies provided for foreign police assistance worldwide during fiscal years 2009 through 2011, (2) examines the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of State’s (State) Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (State/INL) assess or evaluate their foreign police assistance activities for countries with their largest programs, and (3) examines the mechanisms U.S. agencies use to coordinate their foreign police assistance activities. For objective 2, we focused on DOD and State/INL because they have the largest programs that provide assistance to foreign police forces. To address our objectives, we analyzed agency program documents and past GAO reports, relevant legislation, and agency and congressional budget documents. We also interviewed officials from DOD, State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); the Departments of the Treasury (Treasury), Justice (DOJ), Energy (DOE), and Homeland Security (DHS); and the U.S. embassies in Colombia and Peru, two countries with large foreign police assistance programs. We focused on Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the Palestinian Territories because they had the largest programs between fiscal years 2009 and 2011. To obtain total U.S. government funding, we analyzed estimated funding data provided by DOD, State, DOE, USAID, Treasury, and DOJ. According to agency officials, these amounts are estimates because activities to train and equip police are not generally categories the agencies use to track funding. Appendix I provides a detailed discussion of our scope and methodology. We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 through 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 work objectives. Background: Although numerous U.S. agencies are engaged in U.S. efforts to provide assistance to foreign police forces, DOD and State are the major providers--providing police training around the world through a variety of authorities. DOD trains and equips foreign police forces to support its counterinsurgency operations. It also provides support for the counterdrug activities of foreign law enforcement agencies for purposes including counterdrug training of foreign law enforcement personnel. DOD provides such assistance around the world through a variety of authorities. For example, section 1004 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 1991, as amended, authorizes DOD to provide support for the counterdrug activities of foreign law-enforcement agencies for purposes including counterdrug training of foreign law-enforcement personnel, if requested by an appropriate official of a federal agency with counterdrug responsibilities.[Footnote 2] State trains and equips foreign police to support a variety of U.S. foreign policy objectives, including suppressing international narcotics trafficking, combating terrorism, and developing and implementing U.S. policies to curb the proliferation of all types of weapons of mass destruction. Different State bureaus carry out police assistance under different authorities. For example, according to State/INL officials, State/INL carries out its mission under authorities in Chapter 8 of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, [Footnote 3] which among other things, authorizes the provision of law- enforcement training. DOE provides training and equipment to overseas law enforcement, both at national borders and to police and security forces, as part of the mission of its National Nuclear Security Administration's Second Line of Defense program to strengthen the capability of foreign governments to deter, detect and interdict illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials across international borders, through the global maritime shipping system, and by equipping teams to be deployed throughout their countries. USAID provides community-based police assistance as part of its role in promoting the rule of law through assistance to the justice sector. Treasury provides training as part of its mission to support the development of strong financial sectors and sound financial management overseas. DOJ and DHS implement foreign police assistance activities primarily funded by State. Treasury also receives some funds from State. The U.S. agencies use a variety of mechanisms to implement their foreign assistance activities. State and DOD may work through contractors to provide the assistance. For example, State managed a contract funded by DOD to provide training to Afghan security forces, including police. State contracted for training and aviation support in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Colombia, the Palestinian Territories, Haiti, and Peru. DOD and State may also enter into agreements with U.S. agencies to provide foreign police assistance. For example, State has interagency agreements with DOJ and DHS. Training is provided at a variety of locations in the United States, such as the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Academy in Virginia, and at various DOD training facilities. Trainers provided by various U.S. agencies also travel overseas to provide instruction. Foreign law enforcement personnel are also trained at State-funded international law enforcement academies located in El Salvador, Thailand, Hungary, Botswana, and Peru. The training covers a variety of subject matter, including crime scene investigation, postblast investigations, forensics, and behavioral analysis. The United States Made Available an Estimated $13.9 Billion for Foreign Police Assistance during Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: We estimate the U.S. government made available $13.9 billion for foreign police assistance during fiscal years 2009 through 2011. [Footnote 4] Most U.S. funding made available for foreign police assistance during fiscal years 2009 through 2011 provided training and equipment to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the Palestinian Territories. DOD and State funds constituted about 97 percent of the U.S. funds for police assistance in fiscal year 2009 and 98 percent of U.S. funds for police assistance in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Four other agencies provided the remaining amount. Funds Made Available for U.S. Foreign Police Assistance Rose and Then Fell during Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: On the basis of data provided by DOD, State, DOE, USAID, Treasury, and DOJ, we estimate that the U.S. government made available $3.5 billion in foreign police assistance in fiscal year 2009, $5.7 billion in fiscal year 2010, and $4.7 billion in fiscal year 2011 (see figure 1). [Footnote 5] The funds made available focused on sustaining the counternarcotics, counterterrorism, anticrime, and other civilian policing efforts of police forces around the world. Figure 1: Estimated U.S. Funding for Foreign Police Assistance, by Region, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: [Refer to PDF for image] [End of figure] Note: (1) "Unspecified" funding for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 included funding that supported multiple countries and regions. (2) N/A = not applicable. (3) Numbers may not sum because of rounding. (4) This figure includes countries receiving police training and equipment from DOD, State, DOE, USAID, Treasury, and DOJ. Appendix II provides information on DOD and State funds, by country. As figure 1 shows, nearly $3.7 billion, or 78 percent, of the estimated foreign police assistance funds that the United States made available in fiscal year 2011 supported activities in 12 South and Central Asian countries. Agencies reported making assistance available to at least 107 countries in fiscal year 2009, 127 countries in fiscal year 2010, and 125 countries in fiscal year 2011. Of the estimated $13.9 billion in foreign police assistance funds that the United States made available during fiscal years 2009 through 2011, an estimated $12.0 billion, or 86 percent of the total, went to the 5 largest recipient countries and the Palestinian Territories (see figure 2). As shown in figure 2, $8.3 billion of these funds went to Afghanistan (about 60 percent of the total), followed by Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the Palestinian Territories. Figure 2: Estimated U.S. Funding for Foreign Police Assistance, by Country, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: illustrated world map and associated data] Fiscal year 2009: South and Central Asia: Number of countries: 11; Estimated funding: $1.855 billion; Near East: Number of countries: 12; Estimated funding: $563 million; Western Hemisphere: Number of countries: 30; Estimated funding: $679 million; Europe and Eurasia: Number of countries: 17; Estimated funding: $85 million; Africa: Number of countries: 28; Estimated funding: $30 million; East Asia and the Pacific: Number of countries: 9; Estimated funding: $29 million; Unspecified: Number of countries: N/A; Estimated funding: $218 million; Total: Number of countries: 107; Estimated funding: $3.460 billion. Fiscal year 2010: South and Central Asia: Number of countries: 12; Estimated funding: $3.597 billion; Near East: Number of countries: 14; Estimated funding: $1.139 billion; Western Hemisphere: Number of countries: 21; Estimated funding: $626 million; Europe and Eurasia: Number of countries: 34; Estimated funding: $64 million; Africa: Number of countries: 30; Estimated funding: $68 million; East Asia and the Pacific: Number of countries: 16; Estimated funding: $45 million; Unspecified: Number of countries: N/A; Estimated funding: $145 million; Total: Number of countries: 127; Estimated funding: $5.684 billion. Fiscal year 2011: South and Central Asia: Number of countries: 12; Estimated funding: $3.690 billion; Near East: Number of countries: 15; Estimated funding: $409 million; Western Hemisphere: Number of countries: 21; Estimated funding: $353 million; Europe and Eurasia: Number of countries: 27; Estimated funding: $48 million; Africa: Number of countries: 36; Estimated funding: $63 million; East Asia and the Pacific: Number of countries: 14; Estimated funding: $45 million; Unspecified: Number of countries: N/A; Estimated funding: $114 million; Total: Number of countries: 125; Estimated funding: $4.721 billion. Source: GAO analysis of DOD, State, DOE, USAID, Treasury, and DOJ data. Note: Unspecified funding for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 included funding that supported multiple countries and regions, funding made available by DOJ not separated by country, and funding made available by DOE not separated by country for fiscal year 2009. [End of figure] As figure 1 shows, nearly $3.7 billion, or 78 percent, of the estimated foreign police assistance funds that the United States made available in fiscal year 2011 supported activities in 12 South and Central Asian countries. Agencies reported making assistance available to at least 107 countries in fiscal year 2009, 127 countries in fiscal year 2010, and 125 countries in fiscal year 2011. Of the estimated $13.9 billion in foreign police assistance funds that the United States made available during fiscal years 2009 through 2011, an estimated $12.0 billion, or 86 percent of the total, went to the 5 largest recipient countries and the Palestinian Territories (see figure 2). As shown in figure 2, $8.3 billion of these funds went to Afghanistan (about 60 percent of the total), followed by Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the Palestinian Territories. Figure 2: Estimated U.S. Funding for Foreign Police Assistance, by Country, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Afghanistan: 60% ($8.329 billion); Iraq: 11% ($1.577 billion); Pakistan: 4% ($627 million); Colombia:4% ($572 million); Mexico: 4% ($522 million); Palestinian Territories: 3% ($367 million); Other countries: 9% ($1.214 billion); Unspecified: 5% ($658 million); Total: $13.9 billion. Source: GAO analysis of data from DOD, State, and other agencies. Amounts have been rounded. [End of figure] The remaining $1.9 billion, or about 14 percent, of the estimated total U.S. assistance to foreign police supported more than 100 other countries during fiscal years 2009 through 2011. Appendix II lists all countries that received U.S. foreign police assistance from DOD and State during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. DOD and State Funds Constituted Nearly All of the Funds for U.S. Police Assistance in Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: DOD and State funds constituted an estimated 97 percent of total funding in fiscal year 2009 and 98 percent of total funding in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (see figure 3). DOD funded its foreign police assistance through a variety of appropriations--including the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, the Iraq Security Forces Fund, the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund--as well as the Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities Defense Fund, and its operations and maintenance funds. State funded its foreign police assistance through the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account (INCLE); the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund; the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs account; the Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia account; and the Section 1207 program.[Footnote 6] See appendix III for additional information on DOD and State funds by account for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Figure 3: Estimated Funds Made Available for Foreign Police, by Agency, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: 3 pie-charts] Fiscal year 2009: 97% made available by DOD and State: DOD: 55%; $1.914 billion; State: 42%; $1.450 billion; Other: 3%; $95 million. Fiscal year 2010: 98% made available by DOD and State: DOD: 61%; $3.516 billion; State: 37%; $2.080 billion; Other: 2%; $89 million. Fiscal year 2011: 98% made available by DOD and State: DOD: 73%; $3.455 billion; State: 25%; $1.184 billion; Other: 2%; $83 million. Source: GAO analysis of data from DOD, State, and other agencies. Amounts have been rounded. Note: (1) Numbers may not sum because of rounding. (2) "Other" includes funds made available by DOE, USAID, Treasury, and DOJ. (3) DOD based its funding estimates on appropriations, allotments, and obligations. (4) State based its funding estimates on appropriations, allocations, allotments, and obligations. [End of figure] As shown in figure 3, DOD's funding made available for foreign police assistance increased from an estimated $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2009 to an estimated $3.5 billion in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, primarily because of increased funding for the Afghan National Police (ANP). Over that same period, State's funding made available for foreign police assistance increased from an estimated $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2009 to an estimated $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2010 before decreasing to an estimated $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2011. As noted earlier, DOD and State made available the majority of U.S. foreign police assistance to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the Palestinian Territories. From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, DOD provided the majority of U.S. foreign police assistance to Afghanistan. DOD's funding for foreign police assistance to Afghanistan more than doubled, from $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2009 to over $3 billion in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. This increase supported U.S. efforts to accelerate the development of the ANP. In addition, State provided assistance to the 6 largest recipients of U.S. foreign police assistance, and made between $169 million and $260 million available during fiscal years 2009 through 2011 to Afghanistan for aviation support, police mentors, and antiterrorism assistance, among other activities (see figure 4). Figure 4: Estimated DOD and State Amounts Made Available for the Six Largest Recipients of U.S. Foreign Police Assistance, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] Country: Afghanistan: Fiscal year: 2009; State: $259 million; DOD: $1.4 billion. Fiscal year: 2010; State: $229.7 million; DOD: $3.0 billion. Fiscal year: 2011; State: $167.0 million; DOD: $3.3 million. Country: Iraq: Fiscal year: 2009; State: $13.5 million; DOD: $376.6 million. Fiscal year: 2010; State: $663.2 million; DOD: $309.3 million. Fiscal year: 2011; State: $167.0 million; DOD: $113.7 million. Country: Pakistan: Fiscal year: 2009; State: $81.5 million; DOD: $80.1 million. Fiscal year: 2010; State: $176.9 million; DOD: $112.9 million. Fiscal year: 2011; State: $172.0 million; DOD: $3.5 million. Country: Colombia: Fiscal year: 2009; State: $189.0 million; DOD: $16.0 million. Fiscal year: 2010; State: $177.5 million; DOD: $7 million. Fiscal year: 2011; State: $149.5 million; DOD: $0.8 million. Country: Mexico: Fiscal year: 2009; State: $327 million; DOD: $0. Fiscal year: 2010; State: $152.9 million; DOD: $13.8 million. Fiscal year: 2011; State: $20.7 million; DOD: $0.2 million. Country: Palestinian Territories: Fiscal year: 2009; State: $127.6 million; DOD: $0. Fiscal year: 2010; State: $97 million; DOD: $0. Fiscal year: 2011; State: $141.5 million; DOD: $0. Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data. [End of figure] For Iraq, DOD transitioned its police assistance program to State during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. DOD funds made available decreased from $309 million in fiscal year 2010 to $114 million in fiscal year 2011. State assumed responsibility for a new police development program for the Iraqi police in October 2011. State allocated $650 million from the fiscal year 2010 INCLE supplemental funding[Footnote 7] and about $95 million of the fiscal year 2011 INCLE appropriation to train and equip the Iraqi police forces and to support the transition from DOD and establish the new police development program. For fiscal year 2012, State requested $887 million for its Iraqi Police Development Program. As of February 2012, State estimated it would devote a smaller amount in fiscal year 2012 funding, $418 million, to this program, which would make it State's largest foreign police assistance program in the world. However, as of April 2012, State revised its proposed fiscal year 2012 allocation of funds for State/INL's criminal justice programs in Iraq, including the Police Development Program, to $250 million. For Pakistan, DOD and State made funds available to support Pakistan's Frontier Corps and other law enforcement activities during fiscal years 2009 through 2011. DOD funds made available decreased from an estimated $113 million in fiscal year 2010 to $3 million in fiscal year 2011. In addition to providing counterinsurgency and counternarcotics training, DOD provided equipment, including trucks, troop carriers, and ambulances, as well as protective equipment such as Kevlar helmets, uniforms, and night vision devices to the Frontier Corps.[Footnote 8] State funds made available decreased from an estimated $177 million in fiscal year 2010 to $172 million in fiscal year 2011. State launched a program in 2009 to provide training, equipment, and other support to police to increase their professionalism, mobility, and communication capacity in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a major city in Pakistan. Foreign police assistance activities in Colombia, Mexico, and the Palestinian Territories cover a variety of issues. For example, U.S. foreign police activities in Colombia supported the government of Colombia's efforts to combat the drug trade. DOD and State's funds made available decreased from an estimated $185 million in fiscal year 2010 to $150 million in fiscal year 2011. State's activities included support to the Colombian National Police's aviation program and training on weapons and other equipment to rural police units. DOD support included training for a special unit of the Colombian National Police. In Mexico, DOD and State funds made available decreased from an estimated $167 million in fiscal year 2010 to $21 million in fiscal year 2011. Activities in Mexico included State's Mérida Initiative, which provided training and equipment including aircraft and boats, inspection equipment, and canine units. DOD support to Mexico included training on aviation, communications equipment, maintenance, and information sharing. For the Palestinian Territories, State's funds made available increased from an estimated $97 million in fiscal year 2010 to $142 million in fiscal year 2011. State provided battalion- level basic law enforcement and security training conducted at the Jordanian International Police Training Center located outside Amman, Jordan. Appendix IV contains additional information on activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the Palestinian Territories. Other U.S. Agencies Also Made Available Assistance to Foreign Police: Four other agencies--DOE, USAID, Treasury, and DOJ--also made available about $83 million, or 2 percent of the estimated funds, for foreign police assistance in fiscal year 2011 (see table 1).[Footnote 9] DOE made available the majority of the funds ($52 million) for its nuclear security programs; USAID, Treasury, and DOJ made available the remaining amounts. Table 1: Other Agency Funding Made Available for Police Assistance, Fiscal Year 2011: Agency: DOE; Funding made available: $52.1 million; Activities: The Second Line of Defense Program provided nuclear detection devices and trained foreign border security and other law enforcement officials how to use the equipment. The International Nonproliferation Export Control Program trained customs inspectors and other law enforcement officials to recognize strategic commodities that could be used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction in order to prevent illicit smuggling. Agency: USAID; Funding made available: $20.5 million; Activities: USAID provided training to solidify a culture of respect for human rights within police forces and strengthen police abilities to provide services to citizens. Agency: Treasury; Funding made available: $6.4 million; Activities: Office of Technical Assistance advisers worked directly with foreign law enforcement, ministries of finance, central banks, tax departments, and public sector financial institutions on issues related to economic crimes, such as money laundering and terrorist financing. Agency: DOJ; Funding made available: $3.9 million; Activities: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) provided seminars on investigative and management techniques focusing on drug trafficking as well as training to sensitive investigative units.; FBI provided training globally on cyber crime and counterterrorism, among other areas. Agency: Total; Funding made available: $82.9 million. Source: GAO analysis of DOE, USAID Treasury, and DOJ data. Note: (1) Numbers may not sum because of rounding. (2) DOJ amounts are obligations that were disbursed. [End of table] DOD and State Are Taking Steps to Address Limitations in Their Procedures for Assessing and Evaluating Foreign Police Assistance Activities: DOD and State/INL have acknowledged limitations in their procedures to assess and evaluate their foreign police assistance activities and are taking steps to address them. DOD assesses the performance of the national police forces it has trained and equipped for counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan-- countries that were the three largest recipients of DOD's foreign police assistance funds during fiscal years 2009 through 2011. However, according to an October 2011 DOD report to Congress, the assessment process for Afghanistan does not provide data on civil policing operations such as referring cases to the justice system, a fact that hampers the department's ability to fully assess the effectiveness of the training it provides to the ANP. DOD plans to begin collecting these data to assess civil policing effectiveness. As of April 2012, State/INL had conducted only one evaluation of a program that includes foreign police assistance activities. Recognizing the need to conduct such evaluations, State/INL is developing an evaluation plan that is consistent with State's February 2012 Evaluation Policy and implementing its June 2010 guidelines that recommended including evaluation as a part of its budget and planning documents for programs in Iraq and Mexico. Other priority programs for evaluation include ones for Afghanistan, Colombia, the Palestinian Territories, and Pakistan. DOD Assesses the Performance of Police Forces It Trained and Equipped in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan: DOD assesses the performance of the national police forces it has trained and equipped for counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan--countries that were the three largest recipients of DOD's foreign police assistance funds during fiscal years 2009 through 2011. For Afghanistan, DOD has assessed the Afghan National Security Forces, which consists of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and ANP, using its Commander's Unit Assessment Tool.[Footnote 10] The assessment tool provides quantitative data for security force units, including personnel, equipment, and training, and qualitative assessments for functions such as training and education. In addition, the assessment tool reports on the operational performance of the ANA and ANP units using rating definition levels. Rating definition levels include (1) independent, (2) effective with advisers, (3) effective with assistance, (4) developing, (5) established, and (6) not assessed. As of August 2011, DOD reported 26 ANP units were rated as independent. We previously reported on U.S. efforts to train and equip the ANP in 2009 and more recently in 2012.[Footnote 11] For Iraq, DOD used a readiness assessment system to determine when units of the Iraqi security forces, including the Iraqi national police, could assume the lead for conducting security operations. [Footnote 12] This system's classified assessments were prepared monthly by the unit's coalition commander and Iraqi commander. According to multinational force guidance, the purpose of the assessment system was to provide commanders with a method to consistently evaluate units. It also helped to identify factors hindering unit progress, determine resource shortfalls, and make resource allocations. Units were evaluated in the areas of personnel, command and control, equipment, sustainment/logistics, training, leadership, operational effectiveness, and reliability, including how militia and sectarian influences affected the loyalty and reliability of Iraqi police and military forces. Further information on the results of these assessments is classified. For Pakistan, DOD reported that, since March 2009, the Strategic Implementation Plan has been the principal mechanism for monitoring and assessing the administration's progress in attaining the core Pakistan-related objectives of the President's Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, which include developing the counterinsurgency capabilities of Pakistan's Frontier Corps and army.[Footnote 13] Although details of these and supporting assessments are classified, DOD reported that a series of events beginning in late 2010 heightened bilateral tension between the United States and Pakistan. Pakistan's military subsequently requested significant reductions in U.S. military personnel in Pakistan. According to the report, the reduced number of U.S. military personnel and trainers, along with continued delays in obtaining visas, hindered the United States' provision of security- related assistance to Pakistan. As a result, the progress achieved since 2010 in training, advising, and equipping Pakistan security forces has eroded, particularly in the area of counterinsurgency effectiveness for tactical-and operational-level combat forces. DOD Reported It Lacks Data on Civil Policing Effectiveness for Afghanistan, but Plans to Expand Its Assessment Process to Include Such Data: Although DOD is assessing ANP's operational performance, the department recently reported it lacked data to assess civil policing effectiveness. According to a DOD October 2011 report, DOD uses the same report template to assess ANA's and ANP's ability to meet their counterinsurgency mission, but it does not address civil policing and the other roles and responsibilities of ANP.[Footnote 14] In 2008, we reported that the deterioration of Afghanistan's security situation since 2005 had led to increased ANP involvement in counterinsurgency operations, resulting in additional training in weapons and survival skills and counterinsurgency tactics.[Footnote 15] We also reported that ANP's role is to enforce the rule of law, protect the rights of citizens, maintain civil order and public safety, control national borders, and reduce the level of domestic and international organized crime, among other activities. In its report, DOD acknowledged that transitioning ANP's role from performing counterinsurgency operations to a community police force that interacts with the population will be challenging, especially in contested areas. DOD reported that it plans to create a separate ANP report template that will include data on law enforcement operations in 2012. According to the DOD report, the ANP report template will provide data on community policing and law enforcement operations (see table 2). For example, DOD plans to include questions in the ANP report template that will assess the extent to which ANP units are recording complaints from the public. Table 2: Examples of Proposed DOD Reporting Questions and Metrics for ANP Units: Reporting questions: Is there a system in place for the unit to record complaints from members of the public? Metrics: Number of complaints recorded during the reporting period. Reporting questions: Is the unit taking people into custody? Metrics: Presence of system to record arrests, number of arrests recorded during the reporting period. Reporting questions: Is the unit referring cases to the justice system? Metrics: Number of cases referred to the formal justice system, number of cases referred to the informal justice system[A]. Reporting questions: Has the unit seized property during the reporting period? Metrics: Number of incidents related to narcotics seizures; number of incidents related to weapons seizures; number of incidents related to other property seizures including money, valuables, and vehicles. Reporting questions: Does the unit have a secure facility to store seized property? Metrics: Recording of seized property. Reporting questions: Does the unit have contact with the local population aside from incident response or checkpoint control? Metrics: Frequency of interactions with the local population[B]. Source: GAO analysis of International Police Coordination Board data. [A] The formal justice system is administered by the government of Afghanistan and includes the (1) Central Provincial Primary Court, (2) Juveniles Court, (3) Commercial Primary Court, (4) District Primary Court, and (5) Family Issues Primary Court. The informal justice system includes judgments by tribal and religious leaders. [B] ANP units' interactions reported through the ANP report template will include community patrolling, community outreach programs, and school visits. [End of table] In developing the new template, DOD is working with the International Police Coordination Board (IPCB), according to the department's report. First established in the Afghanistan Compact at the London Conference in 2006, IPCB serves as the main coordination board for police reform in Afghanistan. Upon its establishment, IPCB had 13 member nations, including the United States. To increase DOD's ability to assess civil policing effectiveness, IPCB has established a partnership with the International Security Assistance Force-Joint Command.[Footnote 16] According to the DOD report, IPCB is assisting DOD by having law enforcement professionals report data in its report template, and DOD is assisting IPCB by sharing current and historical ANP data. IPCB has also assisted DOD with drafting targeted questions that will be used within the ANP report template to provide data on the ANP units' ability to conduct law enforcement operations, which we defined earlier. State/INL Has Conducted Limited Evaluation of Its Foreign Police Assistance Activities: State/INL issued guidelines in June 2010 that recommended conducting evaluations. These guidelines were developed in response to the Secretary of State's June 2009 directive for systematic evaluation and to promote a culture change among program offices that included support for conducting evaluations, according to State/INL officials. The bureau's guidelines recommend that State/INL programs have: * a defined strategy and written performance management plan that identifies performance measures, including indicators and targets, and establishes an approach for evaluation; * program implementation documents such as letters of agreement, interagency agreements, and contracts that specify State/INL, host country, and implementing partner responsibilities for conducting evaluations; and: * budget proposals for programs that identify funding for evaluations as a separate item.[Footnote 17] State/INL guidelines for monitoring and evaluation also identify the types of evaluations that should be performed and the timing for them based on project length and budget. For example: * Projects shorter than 2 years may focus on output metrics such as the number of trained and equipped law enforcement personnel. * Projects longer than 2 years or greater than $25 million must evaluate outcomes and impacts.[Footnote 18] * Programs that have a life cycle longer than 5 years or exceed $5 million should conduct one or more midterm evaluations, as well as a final evaluation. Programs that exceed $25 million must conduct periodic midterm evaluations and a final evaluation. To leverage external expertise for programs exceeding $25 million, State/INL has recommended final evaluations be conducted by an independent party. As a key component of effective program management, evaluation assesses how well a program is working and helps managers make informed decisions about current and future programming.[Footnote 19] Evaluation provides an overall assessment of whether a program works and identifies adjustments that may improve its results. Types of evaluation include process (or implementation), outcome, impact, and cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses.[Footnote 20] First, process (or implementation) evaluation assesses the extent to which a program is operating as it was intended. Second, outcome evaluation assesses the extent to which program goals or targets are met. Third, impact evaluation is a form of outcome evaluation that assesses the net effect of a program by comparing program outcomes with an estimate of what would have happened in the absence of the program. Finally, cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses compare a program's outputs or outcomes with the costs to produce them. The bureau has conducted only one evaluation of a program that includes foreign police assistance activities because it lacked guidelines and a culture among program offices that supported evaluation, according to State/INL officials. For State/INL's one outcome evaluation, State/INL reported that the U.S. Embassy, Beirut, hired a contractor to evaluate its training program for the Lebanese Internal Security Forces between November 2010 and May 2011.[Footnote 21] The purpose of the evaluation was to assess if the training had been successful, as well as to provide recommendations for its improvement. The final report was submitted to State/INL in June 2011. It identified what elements of the program worked and why the training failed to achieve its higher-order objectives. For example, the evaluators noted that the police training program had trained over 5,000 Lebanese Internal Security Forces personnel and that the training had been largely effective. However, the report concluded that the design of the training was not informed by a systematic assessment of training needs and engagement from the Lebanese Internal Security Forces during the planning process. State/INL Is Developing an Evaluation Plan That Is Consistent with State's Evaluation Policy: In response to State's February 2012 Evaluation Policy, State/INL is developing its annual evaluation plan, according to State/INL officials. The new policy requires that (1) all large programs, projects, and activities be evaluated at least once in their lifetime or every 5 years, whichever is less; (2) bureaus determine which programs, projects, or activities to evaluate; (3) bureaus evaluate two to four projects, programs, or activities over the 24-month period beginning with fiscal year 2012; and (4) program managers identify up to 3 to 5 percent of their resources for evaluation activities. State/ INL officials said the bureau will assess its guidelines to ensure they are consistent with State's policy and incorporate them into its annual evaluation plan. State/INL officials said that the bureau is implementing its monitoring and evaluation guidelines in phases beginning with its largest programs in Iraq and Mexico.[Footnote 22] Other priority programs for independent external evaluations include Afghanistan, Colombia, the Palestinian Territories, and Pakistan. For Iraq, State/INL officials said they have established a three-person monitoring and evaluation unit for the bureau's Police Development Program. The unit recently used its civilian police advisers to conduct a baseline assessment of Iraqi law enforcement capabilities and is relying on advice from State/INL's Office of Resource Management. For example, the office is assisting the unit with developing program objectives and performance measures to ensure they are specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely. State/INL officials identified numerous goals, functions, objectives, tasks, and indicators for the bureau's Police Development Program in Iraq. For example: * Goal: Iraq's Police Training Systems provide basic and advanced instruction to impart the skills required while promoting community policing, gender, and human rights. * Function: Community Policing/Community Relations--Police specifically trained in establishing and maintaining positive relationships between the law enforcement agency and the public for the purpose of identifying and solving crimes, enhancing public service, and building community trust in the police. * Objective: Ministry of Interior establishes Community Policing Training: - Task 1: Review existing curriculum for community policing training. - Task 2: Assist General Directorate for Training Qualification as requested to ensure community policing curriculum adopts and integrates international human rights standards in terms of police service delivery. State/INL's program office for Mexico has dedicated $3 million in fiscal year 2011 funds to conduct evaluations of its programs and is in the process of identifying contracting mechanisms to complete them, including institutions of higher education in Mexico. U.S. Agencies Coordinate Foreign Police Assistance Activities, but Some Areas for Improvement Exist: U.S. agencies have implemented various mechanisms to coordinate their foreign police assistance activities as part of wider foreign assistance activities. Such mechanisms include (1) interagency policy committees chaired by the National Security Council (NSC) that coordinate policies at a high level; (2) headquarters working groups established to coordinate specific issues, such as antiterrorism and nonproliferation; (3) various working groups at the overseas posts; and (4) special positions to coordinate foreign police assistance activities. However, we noted some areas for improvement, including lack of defined agency roles and responsibilities and inconsistent information sharing. The United States Has Implemented Mechanisms at Headquarters and Overseas Posts to Coordinate Foreign Police Assistance Policy, Guidance, and Activities: Interagency groups at various levels coordinate policy, guidance, and activities related to assistance to foreign police. NSC coordinates policies at the highest level of government through interagency policy committees. For example, an NSC-led interagency policy committee on security sector assistance, which includes assistance to foreign police, is conducting a policy review of the security sector. This committee does not conduct coordination or oversight of the actual provision of assistance. One of the goals of the committee is to define the roles and missions of U.S. agencies providing such assistance. The committee is also attempting to establish interagency goals and guidelines to better shape, integrate, prioritize, and evaluate U.S. government efforts in this sector. The review of security sector assistance was proposed for a variety of reasons related to a desire to improve the integration, effectiveness, and responsiveness of security sector assistance, including a proposal by Secretary of Defense Gates, according to a U.S. Institute for Peace report.[Footnote 23] In addition, according to a State official, the committee was established as a result of NSC concerns about DOD's increasing role in providing foreign assistance. According to officials of agencies participating in the committee, membership includes NSC, Office of Management and Budget, DOD, State, USAID, Treasury, DOJ, and DHS. The attendees are usually assistant secretaries or deputy assistant secretaries. Working-level officials participate in subgroups such as those on roles and responsibilities. The table below provides examples of various coordination mechanisms. Table 3: Examples of Coordination Mechanisms for Activities That Include U.S. Foreign Police Assistance: Lead organization: National Security Council; Coordination mechanism: Interagency policy committees serve as the primary day-to-day forums for interagency coordination of national security policy; Examples: Interagency policy committee on security sector assistance, which coordinates security sector assistance policy and guidance. There have also been committees on countries of high U.S. national interest, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Mexico. Lead organization: Department of State; Coordination mechanism: Bureaus and offices coordinate specific activities; Examples: State's Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation coordinates the activities of U.S. government departments and agencies carrying out programs for achieving nonproliferation and threat reduction, such as providing detection training and equipment to overseas law enforcement agencies. State's Office of the Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan chairs Washington-based interagency working groups on counternarcotics and counter-improvised explosive devices for Pakistan. Lead organization: U.S. embassies; Coordination mechanism: Country team led by the ambassador or the deputy chief of mission and various formal and informal interagency working groups coordinates the activities of U.S. agencies overseas; Examples: Bogotá, Colombia: Homeland Security Group coordinates foreign police assistance activities. Participants include Narcotics Affairs Section; the Regional Security Office; DEA; FBI; and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá, Colombia; Mexico City, Mexico: Law Enforcement Committee coordinates the activities of all U.S. agencies and organizations involved in counternarcotics and law enforcement activities in Mexico. Participants include the Narcotics Affairs Section, USAID; DEA; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; FBI, and the United States Marshals Service; DOJ; Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement; Customs and Border Protection; and DOD; Palestinian Territories: Rule-of-law working group holds regular meetings that include relevant agencies in Jerusalem and representatives from Embassy Tel Aviv. Lead organization: U.S. embassies; Coordination mechanism: Special positions established at posts coordinate activities that include foreign police assistance; Examples: Kabul, Afghanistan: Coordinating Director for Rule of Law and Law Enforcement reports to the Ambassador and is the lead U.S. representative for policy; Baghdad, Iraq: Assistant Chief of Mission for Law Enforcement Affairs coordinates all foreign police training activities through the embassy's law enforcement working group, which meets weekly. This position was created in July 2011; Islamabad, Pakistan: Foreign Assistance Coordinator under the direct supervision of the Ambassador and the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan coordinates the efforts of all agencies and offices providing civilian assistance. Source: GAO analysis of State information. [End of table] In addition, for Iraq, from 2009 through the end of 2011, the key mechanism for managing the transfer of responsibilities from DOD to State was the Iraq Enduring Presence Working Group composed of individuals from offices in Baghdad and Washington, D.C. In addition to this working group, the embassy's management section operated an interagency structure composed of 13 sub-working groups that covered all major areas of the transition--provincial affairs, police training, security, and administrative and support initiatives. NSC-Led Interagency Policy Committee Has Not Defined Roles and Responsibilities: According to State, DOD, DOJ, and DHS officials, the interagency policy committee on security sector assistance has met sporadically since its inception, which has contributed to delays in issuing a final report and associated recommendations that would address the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies and provide overall U.S. government policy guidance on security sector assistance. Agreeing on roles and responsibilities is a key practice that can enhance interagency collaboration.[Footnote 24] According to State, DOD, USAID, and DOJ officials, the committee began meeting sometime in 2009 but stopped in December 2010. A State/INL official said the committee reconvened in June 2011 and met or provided documents for review weekly through September. The committee met for a final session to review conclusions and policy recommendations in April 2012. State and DOD officials stated that they reviewed and commented on a draft policy directive on roles and responsibilities that was issued in 2011 and one that was issued in early 2012. Agencies reviewed proposed draft policy on roles and missions in April 2012 for final review. State officials attributed the lack of regular meetings to National Security Staff turnover and workload issues. Several issues related to roles and responsibilities under discussion among the agencies have also contributed to the delayed completion of a final report and recommendations, according to State, DOD, DOJ, and DHS officials. One such issue is the role of DOJ and DHS in implementing security sector assistance. According to the DOJ officials, DOJ should have a greater role in this process. Such a role is consistent with the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, [Footnote 25] which directs State to look first to DOJ, DHS, and DOD to implement State programs involving counterterrorism capacity building, foreign law enforcement, or strengthening justice and interior ministries, according to the DOJ officials. However, the DOJ officials said the issue was not resolved and committee discussions primarily concerned the responsibilities and authorities of State and DOD. According to a DHS official, DHS also asserts that State should consider DHS when allocating security sector assistance funding rather than relying on contractors to provide that assistance. According to a State official, State is reluctant to expand the authorities of other agencies to administer security sector assistance activities. The second issue concerns the roles and responsibilities of State when DOD provides security assistance, according to State, DOD, and DOJ officials. Specifically, according to a State official, State generally seeks to preserve its legislated role as the lead agency providing foreign assistance. Additionally, according to the official, State generally seeks the ability to concur on the provision of assistance by DOD to ensure assistance activities are consistent with broader foreign policy goals: Overseas Posts Do Not Always Document Information Sharing: While State and DOD had mechanisms to manage the transition from DOD to a State-led police development program in Iraq, they did not consistently share information. Establishing collaborative mechanisms to share information with partners is also a key practice for enhancing and sustaining interagency collaboration.[Footnote 26] Moreover, timely dissemination of information is critical for maintaining national security. The key mechanism for managing the transition was the Iraq Enduring Presence Working Group, composed of individuals from offices in Baghdad and Washington, D.C. In addition, the 2010 Joint Campaign Plan for Iraq--a strategic document composed and approved by top State and DOD officials in Iraq--included tasks State would need to consider as part of the transition. Despite these mechanisms, there was inconsistent and incomplete sharing of operational readiness assessments of the Iraqi police by DOD. Though State requested official copies of these assessments, DOD did not provide them. According to a former DOD civilian police adviser, DOD destroyed the database that contained the assessments of the Iraqi police forces during the transition, because it had completed its mission to train the Iraqi police. As a result, State developed a baseline assessment of Iraqi law enforcement capabilities without the benefit of DOD's assessments. Moreover, overseas posts do not consistently document or share the results of their coordination efforts. In 2009, we reported that information is a crucial tool in national security and its timely dissemination is critical for maintaining national security.[Footnote 27] However, State/INL officials stated that overseas posts do not provide documentation of the results of their coordination efforts. In addition, several State Inspector General reports have discussed the need for agendas and minutes for interagency groups, including in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Mexico. For example, the Inspector General reported that although the working group at the U.S. embassy in Colombia concisely addressed law enforcement issues during these meetings, there was no published agenda or minutes of these proceedings.[Footnote 28] In another case, while the law enforcement working group at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad issues minutes to the embassy executive office, it does not necessarily share them with headquarters.[Footnote 29] The Deputy Chief of Mission for the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá, Colombia, acknowledged that the Homeland Security Group did not record the results of its coordination but stated that it will begin to issue an agenda and minutes for the meetings. The failure of overseas posts to document and disseminate their coordination efforts may hamper the agencies' ability to have all the information they need to analyze the results of their foreign police assistance activities. Conclusions: Foreign partners' counterinsurgency, counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and anticrime capabilities are critical to U.S. national security objectives. As such, interagency collaboration is essential to ensuring that U.S. agencies effectively and efficiently manage the resources they contribute to training and equipping foreign police forces. However, U.S. government agencies lack clearly defined roles and responsibilities for providing security sector assistance, including assistance to foreign police forces. While NSC has been tasked with leading efforts to define agencies' roles and responsibilities, progress to date has stalled. U.S. agencies providing foreign police assistance need to define and agree on their roles and responsibilities to ensure that they make the most rational decisions about U.S. efforts to enhance foreign police forces' capability. In addition, the lack of information sharing and documentation among agencies at some overseas posts providing foreign police assistance can inhibit the effectiveness of future U.S. assistance efforts. Recommendations for Executive Action: To better prioritize, evaluate, and avoid duplication of U.S. efforts to provide foreign police assistance, we recommend that NSC complete its efforts to define agency roles and responsibilities. To ensure that information is available for future U.S. foreign police assistance efforts, we recommend that the Secretaries of Defense and State establish mechanisms to better share and document information among various U.S. agencies. Agency Comments and our Evaluation: We provided a draft of this report to DOD, State, DOE, USAID, Treasury, DOJ, DHS, and NSC. State and DHS provided written comments which are reproduced in appendices VI and VII. DOD provided comments by e-mail. In addition, State, DOD, DOE, Treasury, DOJ, and NSC provided technical comments that were incorporated as appropriate. USAID noted that it had no comments. NSC did not comment on the report's recommendations. DOD concurred with the report's recommendation to establish mechanisms to better share and document information among various U.S. agencies. State partially concurred and described actions it was continuing to take to collaborate with other federal agencies. State noted that it will work with its interagency partners to identify ways to improve the sharing of best practices and lessons learned concerning U.S. foreign police assistance efforts. DHS noted that it remains committed to continuing its work with interagency partners such as the U.S. Department of Justice and other relevant agencies. This includes work to better define agency roles and responsibilities, as appropriate. As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of Defense, State, Energy, Homeland Security; and the Treasury; the Attorney General; the Administrator of USAID; the Executive Secretary of the National Security Council; and interested congressional committees. The report will also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Public Affairs and Congressional Relations may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX. Signed by: Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. Director International Affairs and Trade: [End of section] Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: To identify U.S. agencies that trained and equipped foreign police forces during fiscal years 2009 through 2011, we reviewed past GAO reports, relevant legislation, and agency websites. To identify the amount of U.S. government funding made available for foreign police training and equipment activities, we examined past GAO reports; congressional budget submissions, including the Department of State's (State) Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs' (State/INL) program and budget guides for fiscal year 2011; the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund fiscal year 2012 congressional budget justification; and the Department of Defense (DOD) fiscal year 2012 congressional budget justification and other budget documents. To identify countries and police assistance activities, we reviewed funding amounts reported to GAO by agencies, the fiscal year 2012 budget appendix, congressional budget submissions, agency annual reports, interagency agreements, and other program documents. We also interviewed officials from the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy (DOE); the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID; and the Departments of the Treasury, Justice (DOJ), and Homeland Security (DHS). We collected data for fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 to update foreign police assistance funding information provided in our prior report.[Footnote 30] We used the same definition of police assistance that we used in the previous report. We defined police training and equipment activities (which we referred to as "police assistance") as all training-- regardless of its content--and equipment provided to law enforcement units or personnel with arrest, investigative, or interdiction authority. Officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats (DASD-CN>) updated information on DOD police assistance from fiscal year 2009 for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 using the definition we developed with State. DASD-CN> has oversight of program funding through a web-based database. However, specific funds for police assistance are managed at the combatant command level. The data DASD-CN> compiled included allotments for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 that were provided by combatant commands for training and equipping activities. Using our definition, DOD's Defense Threat Reduction Agency provided funding data based on allotments from DOD's defensewide operations and maintenance account. We also obtained total amounts made available after reprogramming for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan from the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, Iraq Security Forces Fund, and Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund from the Comptroller's Office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We reviewed these figures along with congressional budget justifications and DOD's fourth quarter, fiscal year 2011 report to Congress on the Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistan Security Forces, as required by Section 9009 of DOD's Appropriation Act for fiscal year 2011. We combined data from all funding sources to derive the DOD total. We included funding for equipment and transportation, training, and sustainment. We excluded any infrastructure costs because such costs are not typical of most police assistance activities. We compared the DOD data for reasonableness of the reported information and questioned DOD officials about their methodology and the reliability of the data. Some of the data may have included both military and civilian police personnel, which might result in overestimating DOD funding. However, for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the majority of DOD funds (over 90 percent) were provided through the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, Iraq Security Forces Fund, and Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, which separate funds provided to military and civilian personnel. To identify any discrepancies in the funding data, we compared the data from fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 with that provided for fiscal year 2009. We reconciled discrepancies with the agencies and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. State/INL analyzed data reported in its annual program and budget guides to provide allocations for police-assistance activities that fit our definition. The funding data covered all country programs funded through the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account directed to law enforcement, stabilization operations, counternarcotics, border control, and transnational crime. State also used the definition to identify police assistance funded through other foreign assistance accounts. State analyzed appropriations and obligations funding data from the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System database, which tracks data on U.S. foreign assistance programs. Allotments or allocations were provided for the Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia account and the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs account. State also provided obligations for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, which received funds transferred from DOD's Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, and allotments from funding transferred from DOD to State under Section 1207 authority of the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act.[Footnote 31] We compared State's data for fiscal year 2009 with data for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for reasonableness. We also questioned State officials about their methodology, reviewed the program and budget guides, reviewed other GAO reports that used the same data sources, and discussed data reliability with agency officials. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We combined the data from the various funding accounts to derive the State total. The State data included funding provided to Treasury, DOJ, and DHS. It excluded funding provided to State from other agencies, with the exception of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund and 1207 funds transferred from DOD. We excluded any infrastructure costs because such costs are not typical of most police assistance activities. DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration provided allotments and obligations funding data for police assistance for fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 in response to our request for funding data based on our definition. DOE's funds were made available from its Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account. USAID reviewed the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System database by program element to identify programs that might have a civilian policing component. USAID then consulted with its geographic bureaus and its overseas missions to obtain detailed data not available at headquarters. USAID provided us with funding data based on allotments for activities that included civilian police training. We reviewed the data for reasonableness and discussed their reliability with agency officials. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We excluded programs that did not meet our definition, such as judicial exchanges. Treasury provided appropriations funding for police assistance from its Economic Crimes division for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 in response to our request for funding data based on our definition. Funds were made available from the Treasury International Affairs Technical Assistance account and included supplemental funding provided during fiscal year 2010. For DOJ, we used funding data provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The FBI explained that the primary purpose of its foreign police training is not to provide 'foreign assistance. Rather, the primary purpose of such training is to further the FBI's statutorily authorized mission to detect, investigate, and prosecute crimes against the United States, which include federal crimes of terrorism and other crimes that the FBI is authorized to investigate extraterritorially. FBI provided funding data using its definition of police assistance: any activity, including the provision of equipment in association therewith, that is intended to develop or enhance foreign law enforcement capabilities to prevent, deter, detect, investigate, or respond to criminal or terrorist acts or support public safety and security. Such training occurs both in the United States and abroad. FBI officials explained that our definition would exclude some types of law enforcement personnel, such as crime lab technicians, who do not have arrest authority, and that they could not isolate such individuals from their submission. FBI provided data on obligations that were also disbursed based on its definition. This definition did not materially affect the total amount of U.S. funding. We reviewed the data for reasonableness and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. DEA provided data on obligations that were also disbursed in response to our request for data based on our definition. DEA provided funding data by country for Afghanistan, Colombia, and Mexico, but neither DEA nor FBI provided total funding data by country. We combined the funding data provided by DOD, State, DOE, USAID, Treasury, and DOJ to obtain total U.S. government funds made available. The amounts are estimates because, according to agency officials, agencies do not generally track funding by a category specifically for activities to train and equip foreign police. In addition, to estimate funding for all elements of police training, the agencies relied on project code reports, manual estimates, and data calls to overseas posts. On the basis of our review of the data and discussions with agency officials, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for a broad estimate of U.S. government funding. To assess the extent to which DOD and State/INL report on the results of their police assistance activities for countries with their largest programs, we reviewed GAO reports, including those that examined the capabilities of the Iraqi Security Forces and Afghan National Security Forces, including the Iraqi national police and Afghan National Police (ANP). We also reviewed DOD's October 2011 Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan. Within DOD, we spoke with officials from U.S. Central Command and the Afghan National Security Forces Desk. Within State, we spoke with officials from relevant components about State/INL's monitoring and evaluation guidelines, including the Office of Resource Management, Office of Program Assistance and Evaluation, Office of Iraq Programs, and the Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan. To identify reporting requirements, we reviewed letters of agreement and interagency agreements provided by State/INL. Further, we reviewed relevant documents including State/INL guidelines for program monitoring and evaluation and one evaluation completed by State/INL for its police assistance activities. To examine the mechanisms U.S. agencies use to coordinate their police assistance activities, we reviewed GAO reports, including those describing practices for enhanced interagency collaboration;[Footnote 32] State Office of Inspector General reports; and other reports, legislation, and documents describing NSC's interagency policy committees. We also interviewed State, DOD, DOJ, DHS, Treasury, and USAID officials, including officials who participated on the NSC Security Sector Assistance Interagency Policy Committee. We also interviewed State and U.S. law enforcement officials at the U.S. embassies in Bogotá, Colombia, and Lima, Peru. On the basis of the document review and the testimonial evidence, we identified mechanisms for coordinating foreign police assistance and areas for improvement. We did not assess the overall effectiveness of the coordinating mechanisms. We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 through 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 work objectives. [End of section] Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance, by Region and Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: This appendix provides information on DOD and State funds made available for police assistance activities during fiscal years 2010 and 2011, by region and country. DOD and State funds constituted about 98 percent of U.S. funds for these purposes.[Footnote 33] We did not include funds made available from other agencies because they provided only 2 percent of U.S. funds and not all agencies provided information by individual countries. These graphs also do not include regional funds, which totaled $182 million for DOD and State in fiscal year 2010 and $186 million for DOD and State in fiscal year 2011. Our analysis of DOD and State data shows that both DOD and State made available funds for police assistance activities in 8 of 12 recipient countries in the South and Central Asia region for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (see figure 5). For Afghanistan, agencies made available more than $3 billion each year, and for Pakistan, agencies made available between $176 million and $299 million each year. Agencies made available less than $10 million per country each year for 8 of the remaining 10 countries. Figure 5: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in South and Central Asia, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: 2 horizontal bar graphs] South and Central Asia, Fiscal Year 2010: Afghanistan: DOD: $3.023 billion; State: $229.677 million; Total: $3.253 billion. Pakistan: DOD: $112.9 million; State: $176.925 million; Total: $289.815 million. Kyrgyzstan: DOD: $13.5 million; State: $8.024 million; Total: $21.524 million. Tajikistan: DOD: $8.538 million; State: $3.473 million; Total: $12.011 million. Nepal: DOD: $0; State: $3.3 million; Total: $3.3 million. Bangladesh: DOD: $0.506 million; State: $2.775 million; Total: $3.281 million. Kazakhstan: DOD: $0.331 million; State: $2.508 million; Total: $2.829 million. India: DOD: $0; State: $2.6 million; Total: $2.6 million. Turkmenistan: DOD: $0; State: $1.625 million; Total: $1.625 million. Uzbekistan: DOD: $0.06 million; State: $0.75 million; Total: $0.81 million. Maldives: DOD: $0.571 million; State: $0.5 million; Total: $0.621 million. Sri Lanka: DOD: $0; State: $0.45 million; Total: $0.45 million. DOD and State total: $3.592 billion. South and Central Asia, Fiscal Year 2011: Afghanistan: DOD: $3.297 billion; State: $169.95 million; Total: $3.467 billion. Pakistan: DOD: $3.487 million; State: $172.027 million; Total: $175.514 million. Kyrgyzstan: DOD: $8.556 million; State: $2.25 million; Total: $10.806 million. Tajikistan: DOD: $1.95 million; State: $5.025 million; Total: $6.975 million. India: DOD: $0.075 million; State: $5.2 million; Total: $5.275 million. Kazakhstan: DOD: $1.741 million; State: $2.57 million; Total: $4.311 million. Turkmenistan: DOD: $2.0 million; State: $1.575 million; Total: $3.575 million. Nepal: DOD: $0; State: $3.295 million; Total: $3.295 million. Bangladesh: DOD: $0; State: $2.575 million; Total: $2.575 million. Uzbekistan: DOD: $0.037 million; State: $0.675 million; Total: $0.712 million. Maldives: DOD: $0.62 million; State: $0; Total: $0.62 million. Sri Lanka: DOD: $0; State: $0.45 million; Total: $0.45 million. DOD and State total: $3.681 billion. Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data. Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. [End of figure] As shown in figure 6, both DOD and State made funds available for police assistance activities in 3 of the 13 recipients in the Near East for fiscal year 2010 and 4 of the 13 recipients in the Near East for fiscal year 2011. State alone made assistance available for 10 recipients in fiscal year 2010 and 9 recipients in fiscal year 2011. State and DOD made available more than $972 million for Iraq in fiscal year 2010 to train and equip the Iraqi security forces, including the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, and renovation. State alone made available $97 million and $142 million to the Palestinian Territories in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, respectively. Agencies made available less than $10 million per country in each fiscal year for 9 of the remaining 11 countries. Figure 6: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in the Near East, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: 2 horizontal bar graphs] Near East, Fiscal Year 2010: Iraq: DOD: $309.327 million; State: $663.2 million; Total: $972.47 million. Palestinian Territories: DOD: $0; State: $97 million; Total: $97 million. Jordan: DOD: $0; State: $24.523 million; Total: $24.523 million. Lebanon: DOD: $0; State: $21.8 million; Total: $21.8 million. Yeman: DOD: $0; State: $3.745 million; Total: $3.745 million. Egypt: DOD: $0; State: $3.535 million; Total: $3.535 million. Oman: DOD: $0; State: $1.655 million; Total: $1.655 million. Morocco: DOD: $0.028 million; State: $1.55 million; Total: $1.578 million. Bahrain: DOD: $0; State: $0.8 million; Total: $0.8 million. Algeria: DOD: $0.055 million; State: $0.055 million; Total: $0.605 million. United Arab Emirates: DOD: $0; State: $0.51 million; Total: $0.51 million. Tunisia: DOD: $0; State: $0.2 million; Total: $0.2 million. Saudi Arabia: DOD: $0; State: $0.2 million; Total: $0.2 million. DOD and State total: $1.129 billion. Near East, Fiscal Year 2011: Iraq: DOD: $113.666 million; State: $100.36 million; Total: $214.026 billion. Palestinian Territories: DOD: $0; State: $141.5 million; Total: $141.5 million. Lebanon: DOD: $0; State: $19.3 million; Total: $19.3 million. Jordan: DOD: $0; State: $12.275 million; Total: $12.275 million. Egypt: DOD: $0.008 million; State: $5.535 million; Total: $5.543 million. Yeman: DOD: $0; State: $4.125 million; Total: $4.125 million. Morocco: DOD: $0.172 million; State: $1.4 million; Total: $1.572 million. Oman: DOD: $0; State: $1.5 million; Total: $1.5 million. Bahrain: DOD: $0; State: $1.5 million; Total: $1.5 million. Tunisia: DOD: $0; State: $1.025 million; Total: $1.025 million. Algeria: DOD: $0.037 million; State: $0.65 million; Total: $0.687 million. Saudi Arabia: DOD: $0; State: $0.36 million; Total: $0.36 million. United Arab Emirates: DOD: $0; State: $0.23 million; Total: $0.23 million. DOD and State total: $404.093 million. Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data. Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. [End of figure] Figure 7 shows that both DOD and State made funds available for police assistance activities in 7 of 20 countries in fiscal year 2010 and in 6 of 18 countries in fiscal year 2011 in the Western Hemisphere. DOD alone made funds available for assistance in 7 countries each fiscal year, while State alone made funds available in 6 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 5 countries in fiscal year 2011. In fiscal year 2010, Colombia, Mexico, and Haiti each had more than $100 million made available for police assistance activities, while in fiscal year 2011, only Colombia had more than $100 million made available. In fiscal year 2010, agencies made less than $10 million available in police assistance for 14 countries, and in fiscal year 2011, agencies made less than $10 million available in police assistance for 13 countries. Figure 7: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in the Western Hemisphere, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: 2 horizontal bar graphs] Western Hemisphere, Fiscal Year 2010: Colombia: DOD: $7 million; State: $117.5 million; Total: $184.5 million. Mexico: DOD: $13.848 million; State: $152.9 million; Total: $166.748 million. Haiti: DOD: $0; State: $113.507 million; Total: $113.507 million. Bolivia: DOD: $0; State: $15.8 million; Total: $15.8 million. Ecuador: DOD: $0.010 million; State: $12.865 million; Total: $12.875 million. Panama: DOD: $7.829 million; State: $0.15 million; Total: $7.979 million. Dominican Republic: DOD: $0; State: $3.85 million; Total: $3.85 million. Brazil: DOD: $1.5 million; State: $1.768 million; Total: $3.268 million. Guatemala: DOD: $0; State: $2.92 million; Total: $2.92 million. Belize: DOD: $2.678 million; State: $0; Total: $2.678 million. Paraguay: DOD: $0; State: $0.92 million; Total: $0.92 million. St. Vincent and the Grenadines: DOD: $0.607 million; State: $0; Total: $0.607 million. Argentina: DOD: $0.007 million; State: $0.53 million; Total: $0.537 million. Chile: DOD: $0; State: $0.45 million; Total: $0.45 million. Uruguay: DOD: $0.44 million; State: $0; Total: $0.44 million. Costa Rica: DOD: $0.277 million; State: $0; Total: $0.277 million. El Salvador: DOD: $0.015 million; State: $0; Total: $0.015 million. Jamaica: DOD: $0.011 million; State: $0; Total: $0.011 million. Trinidad and Tobago: DOD: $0.008 million; State: $0; Total: $0.008 million. DOD and State total: $542.572 million. Western Hemisphere, Fiscal Year 2011: Colombia: DOD: $0.8 million; State: $149.5 million; Total: $150.3 million. Peru: DOD: $0.25 million; State: $26.15 million; Total: $26.4 million. Mexico: DOD: $0.22 million; State: $20.7 million; Total: $20.92 million. Haiti: DOD: $0; State: $17.19 million; Total: $17.19 million. Bolivia: DOD: $0; State: $10.8 million; Total: $10.8 million. Belize: DOD: $5.264 million; State: $0; Total: $5.264 million. Panama: DOD: $4.137 million; State: $0.15 million; Total: $4.287 million. Ecuador: DOD: $0.005 million; State: $3.25 million; Total: $3.255 million. Brazil: DOD: $0.21 million; State: $0.6 million; Total: $0.81 million. Argentina: DOD: $0; State: $0.52 million; Total: $0.52 million. Barbados: DOD: $0.505 million; State: $0; Total: $0.505 million. Chile: DOD: $0; State: $0.5 million; Total: $0.5 million. Paraguay: DOD: $0; State: $0.37 million; Total: $0.37 million. Costa Rica: DOD: $0.36 million; State: $0; Total: $0.36 million. Uruguay: DOD: $0.3 million; State: $0; Total: $0.3 million. Dominica: DOD: $0.031 million; State: $0; Total: $0.031 million. El Salvador: DOD: $0.03 million; State: $0; Total: $0.03 million. Guatemala: DOD: $0.02 million; State: $0; Total: $0.02 million. DOD and State total: $241.862 million. Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data. Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. [End of figure] Figure 8 shows that both DOD and State made available police assistance in 11 of 21 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 10 of 20 countries in fiscal year 2011 in Europe and Eurasia. DOD alone made assistance available to 7 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 5 countries in fiscal year 2011, while State alone made assistance available to 3 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 5 countries in fiscal year 2011. In fiscal year 2010, agencies made available between $1 million and $22 million in police assistance to each of 11 countries, while agencies made available less than $1 million to each of 10 countries. In fiscal year 2011, agencies made available between $1 million and $8 million in police assistance to 12 countries, while agencies made available less than $1 million to each of 8 countries. Figure 8: Estimated DOD and State Funding for Police Assistance in Europe and Eurasia, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: 2 horizontal bar graphs] Europe and Eurasia, Fiscal Year 2010: Kosovo: DOD: $0.329 million; State: $20.98 million; Total: $21.309 million. Bosnia and Herzegovina: DOD: $0.81 million; State: $8.051 million; Total: $8.132 million. Albania: DOD: $0.2 million; State: $3.958 million; Total: $4.158 million. Ukraine: DOD: $1.816 million; State: $1.898 million; Total: $3.714 million. Serbia: DOD: $0.239 million; State: $2.296 million; Total: $2.535 million. Georgia: DOD: $0.471 million; State: $1.643 million; Total: $2.114 million. Macedonia: DOD: $0.206 million; State: $1.637 million; Total: $1.843 million. Turkey: DOD: $0.037 million; State: $1.795 million; Total: $1.832 million. Russia: DOD: $0; State: $1.57 million; Total: $1.57 million. Armenia: DOD: $0; State: $1.25 million; Total: $1.25 million. Moldova: DOD: $0.065 million; State: $0.954 million; Total: $1.024 million. Montenegro: DOD: $0.117 million; State: $0.6 million; Total: $0.717 million. Azerbaijan: DOD: $0; State: $0.6 million; Total: $0.6 million. Croatia: DOD: $0.087 million; State: $0.45 million; Total: $0.537 million. Romania: DOD: $0.457 million; State: $0; Total: $0.457 million. Bulgaria: DOD: $0.327 million; State: $0; Total: $0.327 million. Malta: DOD: $0.21 million; State: $0; Total: $0.21 million. Estonia: DOD: $0.19 million; State: $0; Total: $0.19 million. Slovenia: DOD: $0.014 million; State: $0; Total: $0.014 million. Poland: DOD: $0.013 million; State: $0; Total: $0.013 million. Greece: DOD: $0.009 million; State: $0; Total: $0.09 million. DOD and State total: $52.556 million. Europe and Eurasia, Fiscal Year 2011: Bosnia and Herzegovina: DOD: $0.108 million; State: $7.692 million; Total: $7.8 million. Georgia: DOD: $0.105 million; State: $4.105 million; Total: $4.21 million. Albania: DOD: $0; State: $3.958 million; Total: $3.958 million. Serbia: DOD: $0.775 million; State: $2.55 million; Total: $3.325 million. Macedonia: DOD: $0.323 million; State: $1.72 million; Total: $2.043 million. Ukraine: DOD: $0.344 million; State: $1.643 million; Total: $1.987 million. Armenia: DOD: $0.151 million; State: $1.35 million; Total: $1.501 million. Turkey: DOD: $0.064 million; State: $1.425 million; Total: $1.489 million. Russia: DOD: $0; State: $1.35 million; Total: $1.35 million. Moldova: DOD: $0; State: $1.298 million; Total: $1.298 million. Montenegro: DOD: $0.077 million; State: $1.1 million; Total: $1.177 million. Kosovo: DOD: $0.117 million; State: $1.0 million; Total: $1.117 million. Azerbaijan: DOD: $0; State: $0.85 million; Total: $0.85 million. Croatia: DOD: $0.172 million; State: $0.45 million; Total: $0.622 million. Cyprus: DOD: $0; State: $0.5 million; Total: $0.5 million. Slovakia: DOD: $0.246 million; State: $0; Total: $0.246 million. Poland: DOD: $0.161 million; State: $0; Total: $0.161 million. Lithuania: DOD: $0.136 million; State: $0; Total: $0.136 million. Latvia: DOD: $0.127 million; State: $0; Total: $0.127 million. Bulgaria: DOD: $0.099 million; State: $0; Total: $0.099 million. Greece: DOD: $0.009 million; State: $0; Total: $0.09 million. DOD and State total: $33.997 million. Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data. Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. [End of figure] As shown in figure 9, both DOD and State made police assistance available in the Africa region in 12 of 29 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 12 of 35 countries in fiscal year 2011. DOD alone made assistance available in 6 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 16 countries in fiscal year 2011. State alone made assistance available in 11 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 7 countries in fiscal year 2011. DOD and State made available between $1 million and $14 million to each of 16 countries in fiscal year 2010, and from $1 million to $11 million to each of 13 countries in fiscal year 2011. Agencies made less than $1 million available to each of 13 countries in fiscal year 2010 and less than $1 million to 22 countries in this region in fiscal year 2011. Figure 9: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in Africa, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: 2 horizontal bar graphs] Africa, Fiscal Year 2010: Liberia: DOD: $0.011 million; State: $13.75 million; Total: $13.761 million. Sudan/South Sudan: DOD: $0; State: $11.671 million; Total: $11.671 million. Kenya: DOD: $0.019 million; State: $8.75 million; Total: $8.769 million. Democratic Republic of the Congo: DOD: $0; State: $3.6 million; Total: $3.6 million. Tanzania: DOD: $0.008 million; State: $2.16 million; Total: $2.168 million. Ethiopia: DOD: $0.011 million; State: $1.9 million; Total: $1.911 million. Djibouti: DOD: $0.004 million; State: $1.67 million; Total: $1.674 million. Mauritania: DOD: $0; State: $1.557 million; Total: $1.557 million. Nigeria: DOD: $0.016 million; State: $1.47 million; Total: $1.486 million. Guinea-Bissau: DOD: $0; State: $1.4 million; Total: $1.4 million. Senegal: DOD: $0.007 million; State: $1.143 million; Total: $1.150 million. Burkina Faso: DOD: $0; State: $1.143 million; Total: $1.143 million. Mali: DOD: $0; State: $1.143 million; Total: $1.143 million. Chad: DOD: $0; State: $1.143 million; Total: $1.143 million. Uganda: DOD: $0.008 million; State: $1.115 million; Total: $1.123 million. South Africa: DOD: $0.008 million; State: $1 million; Total: $1.008 million. Niger: DOD: $0; State: $0.842 million; Total: $0.842 million. Ghana: DOD: $0.109 million; State: $0.475 million; Total: $0.584 million. Cape Verde: DOD: $0.013 million; State: $0.553 million; Total: $0.566 million. Somalia: DOD: $0; State: $0.353 million; Total: $0.353 million. Mauritius: DOD: $0; State: $0.3 million; Total: $0.3 million. Mozambique: DOD: $0; State: $0.275 million; Total: $0.275 million. Sierra Leone: DOD: $0.013 million; State: $0.225 million; Total: $0.238 million. Seychelles: DOD: $0.024 million; State: $0; Total: $0.024 million. The Gambia: DOD: $0.007 million; State: $0; Total: $0.007 million. Rwanda: DOD: $0.006 million; State: $0; Total: $0.006 million. Burundi: DOD: $0.006 million; State: $0; Total: $0.006 million. Namibia: DOD: $0.002 million; State: $0; Total: $0.002 million. Zambia: DOD: $0.002 million; State: $0; Total: $0.002 million. DOD and State total: $57.911 million. Africa, Fiscal Year 2011: Sudan/South Sudan: DOD: $0; State: $11 million; Total: $11 million. Kenya: DOD: $0.289 million; State: $9.85 million; Total: $10.139 million. Liberia: DOD: $0.263 million; State: $9.8 million; Total: $10.063 million. Democratic Republic of the Congo: DOD: $0; State: $3 million; Total: $3 million. Djibouti: DOD: $0; State: $2.345 million; Total: $2.345 million. Senegal: DOD: $1.716 million; State: $0.5 million; Total: $2.216 million. South Africa: DOD: $0.069 million; State: $2 million; Total: $2.069 million. Niger: DOD: $0; State: $2 million; Total: $2 million. Uganda: DOD: $0.010 million; State: $1.915 million; Total: $1.925 million. Tanzania: DOD: $0.012 million; State: $1.74 million; Total: $1.752 million. Nigeria: DOD: $0.331 million; State: $1.3 million; Total: $1.631 million. Mali: DOD: $0.01 million; State: $1.2 million; Total: $1.21 million. Mauritania: DOD: $0.085 million; State: $1 million; Total: $1.085 million. Ethiopia: DOD: $0; State: $0.95 million; Total: $0.95 million. Mozambique: DOD: $0.456 million; State: $0.475 million; Total: $0.931 million. Burkina Faso: DOD: $0.027 million; State: $0.5 million; Total: $0.527 million. Ghana: DOD: $0.516 million; State: $0; Total: $0.516 million. Chad: DOD: $0; State: $0.5 million; Total: $0.5 million. Burundi: DOD: $0.010 million; State: $0.315 million; Total: $0.325 million. Somalia: DOD: $0; State: $0.315 million; Total: $0.315 million. The Gambia: DOD: $0.261 million; State: $0; Total: $0.261 million. Cape Verde: DOD: $0.145 million; State: $0; Total: $0.145 million. Cameroon: DOD: $0.118 million; State: $0; Total: $0.118 million. Gabon: DOD: $0.112 million; State: $0; Total: $0.112 million. Benin: DOD: $0.086 million; State: $0; Total: $0.086 million. Comoros: DOD: $0.081 million; State: $0; Total: $0.081 million. Sao Tome': DOD: $0.076 million; State: $0; Total: $0.076 million. Sierra Leone: DOD: $0.066 million; State: $0; Total: $0.066 million. Togo: DOD: $0.041 million; State: $0; Total: $0.041 million. Botswana: DOD: $0.032 million; State: $0; Total: $0.032 million. Seychelles: DOD: $0.02 million; State: $0; Total: $0.02 million. Malawi: DOD: $0.014 million; State: $0; Total: $0.014 million. Rwanda: DOD: $0.012 million; State: $0; Total: $0.012 million. Swaziland: DOD: $0.007 million; State: $0; Total: $0.007 million. Namibia: DOD: $0.006 million; State: $0; Total: $0.006 million. DOD and State total: $55.576 million. Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data. Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. [End of figure] Figure 10 shows that both DOD and State made funds available for police assistance in 6 of 12 countries for fiscal year 2010 and 6 of 14 countries for fiscal year 2011 in the East Asia and Pacific region. DOD alone made assistance available in 3 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 5 countries in fiscal year 2011, while State alone made funds available in 3 countries each fiscal year. DOD and State made between $1 million to $16 million available to each of 6 countries in this region in fiscal year 2010 and 5 countries in fiscal year 2011. Agencies made less than $1 million available in police assistance to 6 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 9 countries in fiscal year 2011. Figure 10: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in East Asia and the Pacific, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: 2 horizontal bar graphs] East Asia and the Pacific Fiscal Year 2010: Indonesia: DOD: $0.115 million; State: $15.645 million; Total: $15.760 million. Phillipines: DOD: $1.889 million; State: $6.305 million; Total: $8.194 million. Timor-Leste: DOD: $0.026 million; State: $5.685 million; Total: $5.711 million. Thailand: DOD: $1.861 million; State: $2.21 million; Total: $4.071 million. Malaysia: DOD: $1.021 million; State: $1.3 million; Total: $2.321 million. Vietnam: DOD: $0.515 million; State: $0.7 million; Total: $1.215 million. Taiwan: DOD: $0; State: $0.575 million; Total: $0.575 million. Singapore: DOD: $0; State: $0.5 million; Total: $0.5 million. Cambodia: DOD: $0.41 million; State: $0; Total: $0.41 million. Laos: DOD: $0; State: $0.3 million; Total: $0.3 million. Micronesia: DOD: $0.105 million; State: $0; Total: $0.105 million. Fiji: DOD: $0.053 million; State: $0; Total: $0.053 million. DOD and State total: $39.215 million. East Asia and the Pacific Fiscal Year 2011: Indonesia: DOD: $0.302 million; State: $14.595 million; Total: $14.897 million. Phillipines: DOD: $1.075 million; State: $10.945 million; Total: $12.020 million. Thailand DOD: $0.820 million; State: $2.046 million; Total: $2.866 million. Vietnam: DOD: $1.507 million; State: $0.7 million; Total: $2.207 million. Malaysia: DOD: $0.64 million; State: $1.3 million; Total: $1.94 million. Singapore: DOD: $0.05 million; State: $0.25 million; Total: $0.3 million. Taiwan: DOD: $0; State: $0.25 million; Total: $0.25 million. Laos: DOD: $0; State: $0.25 million; Total: $0.25 million. Mongolia: DOD: $0; State: $0.25 million; Total: $0.25 million. Cambodia: DOD: $0.17 million; State: $0; Total: $0.17 million. Timor-Leste: DOD: $0.1 million; State: $0; Total: $0.1 million. Brunei: DOD: $0.05 million; State: $0; Total: $0.05 million. Fiji: DOD: $0.048 million; State: $0; Total: $0.048 million. South Korea: DOD: $0.027 million; State: $0; Total: $0.027 million. DOD and State total: $35.375 million. Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data. Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. [End of figure] [End of section] Appendix III: DOD and State Amounts Made Available for Police Assistance, by Account, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: This appendix provides information on DOD and State amounts made available for police assistance activities by account during fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (see tables 4 and 5). For a description of accounts, see table 4. For the amounts made available from each account, see table 5. Table 4: Descriptions of Select U.S. Accounts Used to Fund Foreign Police Assistance: DOD: Account: Afghanistan Security Forces Fund; Description: The Afghanistan Security Forces Fund provides assistance to the security forces of Afghanistan, including the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation and construction, and funding. Account: Iraq Security Forces Fund; Description: The Iraq Security Forces Fund is for the training and equipping of Iraq security forces, including the provision of equipment, supplies, services, facility and infrastructure repair, and renovation. Account: Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense; Description: The Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense appropriation provides funds to support drug interdiction and counterdrug activities of the Department of Defense. Account: Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund; Description: The Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund provides assistance to Pakistan's security forces, including for program management and the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training and funds, as well as for facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and construction to build the counterinsurgency capability of Pakistan's military and Frontier Corps. Account: Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide; Description: The Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide fund supports expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the Department of Defense, other than military departments. State: Account: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; Description: The International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account provides assistance to foreign countries and international organizations to assist them in developing and implementing policies and programs that strengthen institutional law enforcement and judicial capabilities, including countering drug flows and combating transnational crime, and establish and maintain the rule of law. Account: Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs; Description: The Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs account funds contributions to certain organizations supporting nonproliferation, and provides assistance for nonproliferation, demining, antiterrorism, export control assistance, and other related activities. Account: Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia; Description: The Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia account provides funds to foster the democratic and economic transitions of Southeastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union as well as related efforts to address social sector reform and combat transnational threats. Account: Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund; Description: The Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund is designed to build and maintain the counterinsurgency capabilities of Pakistan's security forces (including the Frontier Corps), to include program management and the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, and facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and construction. Account: 1207 Program; Description: Section 1207 of the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. No. 109-163) provided authority for DOD to transfer up to $100 million per fiscal year to State to support reconstruction, stabilization, and security activities in foreign countries. This authority has expired. Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data. [End of table] Table 5: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Foreign Police Assistance Activities, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011: Agency: DOD; Account: Afghanistan Security Forces Fund; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $2.917 billion; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $3.113 billion. Account: Iraq Security Forces Fund; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $309 million; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $114 million. Account: Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $175 million; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $226 million. Account: Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund[A]; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $111 million; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $0. Account: Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $3 million; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $2 million. DOD subtotal; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $3.516 billion; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $3.455 billion. Agency: State; Account: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $1.774 billion; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $888 million. Account: Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs-Antiterrorism Assistance; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $202 million; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $182 million. Account: Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs-Export Control and Border Security; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $31 million; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $36 million. Account: Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $42 million; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $24 million. Account: Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund[B]; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $0; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $54 million. Account: 1207 Program[C]; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $31 million; 2011: Estimated amount made available: N/A. State subtotal; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $2.080 billion; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $1.184 billion. DOD and State total; 2010: Estimated amount made available: $5.595 billion; 2011: Estimated amount made available: $4.639 billion. Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data. Notes: N/A = not applicable. Totals may not sum because of rounding. [A] Seven hundred million dollars was provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act for 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-32, June 24, 2009) to State under the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund and transferred to DOD for execution under the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund authority. Of this amount, DOD made available $111 million in fiscal year 2010 police assistance activities, which include training, equipment, and transportation funding categorized under the Frontier Corps. [B] State's Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund received $297 million transferred from DOD's Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, which received $800 million in its fiscal year 2011 appropriation (Pub. L. No 112-10, April 15, 2011). Of the $297 million, $54 million has been made available and obligated for police assistance activities, which included providing explosive detectors and other equipment for the Frontier Corps. [C] In fiscal year 2010, State made available 1207 funds transferred from DOD under Section 1207 authority to support construction, stabilization, and security activities in foreign countries. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix IV: Profiles of Selected Countries Receiving Foreign Police Assistance, Fiscal Year 2010 and Fiscal Year 2011: Profiles on Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the Palestinian Territories can be found on the following pages. Foreign Police Assistance: Afghanistan Fact Sheet: Major Programs and Activities: Department of Defense: * Provided support for the development of the capabilities of the Afghan National Police to generate, employ, and project a force that can conduct and sustain independent law enforcement, counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and counternarcotics operations. * Provided basic police training, tactical training, counterterrorism training, criminal investigation training, and special weapon tactical training. Department of State: * Provided air transport and logistics support, rule-of-law, law enforcement, and related efforts by funding the operations and maintenance costs for U.S.-owned and -leased aircraft. * Provided four mentors to the National Interdiction Unit and two mentors to the Sensitive Investigation Unit of the Counternarcotics National Police. * Provided operations and maintenance support to regional training centers in Kunduz and Heart. * Provided antiterrorism assistance to build capacity in protection of national leadership and explosives incident countermeasures. Department of Justice: * Provided introductory and advanced training to members of the Sensitive Investigation Unit of the Counternarcotics National Police. This training focused on investigative methods for apprehending drug traffickers. Table: Funding Information for Foreign Police Assistance: Agency: DOD; Fiscal year 2010: $3,023,392,000; Fiscal year 2011: $3,297,109,000. Agency: State; Fiscal year 2010: $229,675,000; Fiscal year 2011: $169,950,000. Agency: DOJ; Fiscal year 2010: $32,381; Fiscal year 2011: $338,598. Agency: Total; Fiscal year 2010: $3,253,099,381; Fiscal year 2011: $3,467,397,598. Source: GAO analysis of DOD, State, and DOJ data. [End of table] Related GAO Work: In GAO-09-280, we reported that the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan had begun retraining Afghan National Police units through its Focused District Development program. However, a lack of military personnel constrained the command’s plans to expand the program. We also reported in GAO-10-291 that U.S. agencies reported progress within counternarcotics program areas, but we were unable to fully assess the extent of progress because of a lack of performance measures and interim performance targets to measure Afghan capacity. GAO Recommendations: In GAO-09-280, we recommended that the Secretaries of Defense (DOD) and State provide dedicated personnel to support creation of additional police mentor teams to expand and complete the Focused District Development program. In September 2010, we closed this recommendation as implemented because DOD and State took actions to increase trainers and mentors for the Afghan police. In GAO-10-291, we recommended DOD develop performance targets to measure interim results of efforts to train the Counternarcotics Police of Afghanistan. We closed this recommendation as implemented because DOD developed a new quality metrics/measurement program to evaluate effectiveness of its training of Afghan counternarcotics forces. [End of fact sheet] Foreign Police Assistance: Iraq Fact Sheet: Major Programs and Activities: Department of State: * Assumed full responsibility for the U.S. presence in Iraq in fiscal year 2012. * Funding for 2010 supported U.S. personnel hired to position State to assume responsibility for the police development mission in Iraq. Activities included developing plans and requirements for transitioning police development from DOD to State, training curricula, statements of work, position descriptions, comprehensive work plans, and oversight and administrative processes. * Funding for 2011 continued transition efforts. In addition, support included security, communications, and transportation requirements as military support for those functions withdrew. * Provided antiterrorism assistance to build capacity in protection of national leadership. Department of Defense: * Organized, trained, and equipped Iraqi police forces from 2003 through September 2011. * Provided projects and programs such as training of security forces and equipment including weapons, ammunition, vehicles, communication gear, spare parts, and transportation of equipment. * Provided sustainment of security forces through maintenance programs, human resources, information management system support services, and medical services. Table: Funding Information for Foreign Police Assistance: Agency: State; Fiscal year 2010: $663,200,000; Fiscal year 2011: $100,360,000. Agency: DOD; Fiscal year 2010: $309,270,000; Fiscal year 2011: $113,666,000. Agency: Total; Fiscal year 2010: $972,470,000; Fiscal year 2011: $214,026,000. Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data. [End of table] Related GAO Work: During April and May 2012, we provided briefings to staff on selected committees regarding U.S security assistance to Iraq. The Sensitive But Unclassified briefings covered the transition of lead responsibility from DOD to State for U.S. assistance to Iraq’s military and police. GAO Recommendations: Not applicable. [End of fact sheet] Foreign Police Assistance: Pakistan Fact Sheet: Major Programs and Activities: Department of State: * Provided aviation support through flight and maintenance training to civilian Pakistani law enforcement agencies. * Provided training, technical assistance, and equipment to law enforcement entities, including train-the-trainer and instructor development courses. * Provided training and equipment to Pakistani law enforcement entities with counternarcotics mandates. * Provided antiterrorism assistance to build capacity in protection of national leadership, critical incident management, and protection of digital infrastructure. Department of Defense: * Provided equipment, including protective equipment such as helmets and night vision devices to the Frontier Corps. * Provided counterinsurgency training. * Provided counternarcotics training and equipment. Department of Energy: * Provided radiation detection equipment to the Port of Qasim. The program included refresher training for Pakistani officials on radiation detection equipment. Table: Funding Information for Foreign Police Assistance: Agency: State; Fiscal year 2010: $176,925,000; Fiscal year 2011: $172,026,798. Agency: DOD; Fiscal year 2010: $112,890,000; Fiscal year 2011: $3,487,000. Agency: DOE; Fiscal year 2010: $47,049; Fiscal year 2011: $167. Agency: Total; Fiscal year 2010: $289,862,049; Fiscal year 2011: $175,513,965. Source: GAO analysis of DOD, State, and DOE data [End of table] Related GAO Work: GAO-11-860SU is sensitive but unclassified. GAO Recommendations: Not applicable. [End of fact sheet] Foreign Police Assistance: Colombia Fact Sheet: Major Programs and Activities: Department of State: * Provided assistance to the Colombian National Police, including aviation support and training and equipment to rural police. Also provided antiterrorism assistance to build capacity in border security, protection of national leadership, critical incident management, and protection of critical infrastructure. Department of Defense: * Provided comprehensive training to police and a specialized security force using a train-the-trainer approach so that trained individuals can train other personnel. Department of Energy: * Provided radiation detection equipment to the Port of Cartagena and refresher training. U.S. Agency for International Development: * Provided training to civilian police on human rights. Department of Justice: * Provided basic and tactical sensitive investigative unit training to members of the Colombian National Police. Table: Funding Information for Foreign Police Assistance: Agency: State; Fiscal year 2010: $177,500,000; Fiscal year 2011: $149,500,000. Agency: DOD; Fiscal year 2010: $7,000,000; Fiscal year 2011: $800,000. Agency: DOE; Fiscal year 2010: $30,313; Fiscal year 2011: $2,904. Agency: USAID; Fiscal year 2010: $21,616; Fiscal year 2011: $16,334,200. Agency: DOJ; Fiscal year 2010: $262,142; Fiscal year 2011: $419,350. Agency: Total; Fiscal year 2010: $184,814,071; Fiscal year 2011: $167,056,454. Source: GAO analysis of State, DOD, DOE, USAID, and DOJ data. Note: DOJ did not report funding it provided for all countries, but was able provide funding data for Colombia. [End of table] Related GAO Work: In GAO-09-71, we found that U.S.-funded helicopters provided the air mobility needed to rapidly move Colombian counternarcotics and counterinsurgency forces. U.S. advisers, training, equipment, and intelligence assistance helped professionalize Colombia's military and police forces. We also reported that State and the other U.S. departments and agencies had accelerated their nationalization efforts, with State focusing on Colombian military and National Police aviation programs. GAO Recommendations: We recommended that State, in conjunction with the other departments, USAID, and Colombia, develop an integrated nationalization plan that defines U.S. and Colombian roles and responsibilities, future funding requirements, and timelines. State agreed and noted that its annual multiyear strategy report offers the most useful format to address our recommendation. However, we did not believe this report sufficiently addressed our recommendation. In September 2011, State/INL officials in Colombia reported it reached agreement with the government of Colombia to nationalize aircraft, contractor personnel, facility maintenance, and other programs. For example, State/INL officials in Colombia told us they plan to nationalize 103 aircraft by 2014, which would represent an annual cost savings of $83 million. [End of fact sheet] Foreign Police Assistance: Mexico Fact Sheet: Major Programs and Activities: State: * Provided training and equipment under the Mérida Initiative to help address the problem of increasing crime and violence in Mexico and Central America. Equipment included aircraft and boats. * Provided antiterrorism assistance to build capacity in protection of national leadership and investigations. DOD: * Provided counternarcotics support including pilot and maintenance training, surveillance aircraft, information sharing, technical advice, and related support. Department of Energy: SLD provided radiation detection equipment for cargo scanning at five Mexican ports. This includes fixed and handheld equipment, maintenance and in-country training to officials in the ports of Altamira, Lazaro, Cardenas, Manzanillo, and Veracruz. Additional technical assistance was provided to Mexican Customs officials at a national level. Department of Justice: * Provided basic training. Table: Funding Information for Foreign Police Assistance: Agency: State; Fiscal year 2010: $152,900,000; Fiscal year 2011: $20,700,000. Agency: DOD; Fiscal year 2010: $13,848,000; Fiscal year 2011: $220,000. Agency: DOE; Fiscal year 2010: $353,956; Fiscal year 2011: $56,171. Agency: DOJ; Fiscal year 2010: $392,618; Fiscal year 2011: $124,086. Agency: Total; Fiscal year 2010: $167,494,574; Fiscal year 2011: $21,100,257. Source: GAO analysis of DOD, State, DOE, and DOJ data. Note: DOJ did not report funding it provided for all countries, but was able provide funding data for Mexico. [End of table] Related GAO Work: In GA0-10-837, we reported on the Mérida Initiative, which provides training and equipment to law enforcement in Mexico and Central American countries. We found that deliveries of equipment and training had been delayed by challenges associated with an insufficient number of staff to administer the program, negotiations on interagency and bilateral agreements, procurement processes, changes in government, and funding availability. We also found that while State had developed some of the key elements of an implementation strategy, its strategic documents lacked certain key elements that would facilitate accountability and management. In addition, State had not developed a comprehensive set of timelines for all expected deliveries, though it plans to provide additional equipment and training in both Mexico and Central America. GAO Recommendations: We recommended that the Secretary of State incorporate into the strategy for the Mérida Initiative outcome performance measures that indicate progress toward strategic goals and develop more comprehensive timelines for future program deliveries. State agreed and is working to develop better metrics and more comprehensive timelines. As of April 2012, State is revising its performance measures, according to State officials. GAO will examine the extent to which these efforts address the recommendation in a separate engagement. [End of fact sheet] Foreign Police Assistance: Palestinian Territories Fact Sheet: Major Programs and Activities: State: * Provided battalion-level basic law enforcement and security training conducted at the Jordanian International Police Training Center outside of Amman, Jordan. * Provided specialized courses in the West Bank to train and assist security forces in areas such as leadership, human rights, media awareness, equipment maintenance, and food service operations. * Provided nonlethal equipment including uniforms with protective gear and operational equipment, including riot shields, batons, and handcuffs, as well as computers, tents, basic first aid kits, and support vehicles. Treasury: * Provided mentoring and technical assistance on financial crimes programs in Ramallah. Table: Funding Information for Foreign Police Assistance: Agency: State; Fiscal year 2010: $97,000,000; Fiscal year 2011: $141,500,000. Agency: Treasury; Fiscal year 2010: 175,545; Fiscal year 2011: 496,017. Agency: Total; Fiscal year 2010: $97,175,545; Fiscal year 2011: $141,996,017. Source: GAO analysis of State and Treasury data. [End of table] GAO Summary: In GAO-10-505, we reported that although U.S. and international officials said that U.S. security assistance programs for the Palestinian Authority had helped improve security conditions in some West Bank areas, State and the Office of the United States Security Coordinator (USSC) had not established clear and measurable outcome- based performance indicators to assess progress. State and USSC officials noted that they planned to incorporate performance indicators in a USSC campaign plan to be released in mid-2010. Open GAO Recommendation: We recommended that, as State developed the USSC campaign plan for providing security assistance to the Palestinian Authority, the Secretary of State should define specific objectives and establish outcome-based indicators enabling it to assess progress. State partially concurred with this recommendation. It agreed with the need for more performance-based indicators but noted that factors outside its control influence progress. GAO continues to monitor this development. [End of fact sheet] [End of section] Appendix V: Supplemental Information on DOD Assessment Process for the Iraqi and Afghan National Police Forces: Afghanistan: As a part of its assessment process in Afghanistan, DOD uses criteria-- called capability milestones--to assess the professionalism and capacity of departments under the Afghan Ministry of Interior, including components of the ANP. Departments are assessed against four capability milestones that range from 1 to 4. A department rated at 1 is fully capable of conducting its primary operational mission but may require coalition oversight. By contrast, a department rated at 4 has been established but cannot accomplish its mission. Iraq: DOD's basic assessment system in Iraq contained capabilities ratings in the areas of personnel, command and control, equipment, sustainment/logistics, training, and leadership. Commanders used the assessment results and their professional judgment to determine a unit's overall readiness level. The assessment reports also included the commanders' estimates of the number of months needed before a unit could assume the lead for counterinsurgency operations. DOD also reported readiness assessments for headquarters service companies, such as engineering and signal units that support combat units. [Footnote 34] The assessment reports included the coalition commander's narrative assessments of the Iraqi unit's overall readiness level, known as the Performance Capability Assessment, which was designed to clarify the overall assessment. The narrative assessed the Iraqi unit's leadership capabilities, combat experience, and ability to execute intelligence-based operations, and described any life support issues affecting the Iraqi unit's capabilities. Commanders also explained and addressed any regression in the unit's overall assessment level and listed the top three issues preventing the unit from assuming the lead for counterinsurgency operations or advancing to the next level. Remarks were intended to provide information and details that would help resolve the problems that degrade the unit's status. Pakistan: Details on DOD's assessments process of the Pakistan Security Forces are classified. The table below provides definitions of the capability milestones, as identified in DOD's October 2011 Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan. Table 6: DOD Capability Milestone Rating Definitions for the Afghan Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior: Capability milestone: 1A; Definition: Department or institution capable of autonomous operations. Capability milestone: 1B; Definition: Department or institution capable of executing functions with coalition oversight only. Capability milestone: 2A; Definition: Department or institution capable of executing functions with minimal coalition assistance; only critical ministerial or institutional functions are covered. Capability milestone: 2B; Definition: Can accomplish its mission but requires some coalition assistance. Capability milestone: 3; Definition: Cannot accomplish its mission without significant coalition assistance. Capability milestone: 4; Definition: The department or institution exists but cannot accomplish its mission. Source: DOD, Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan. [End of table] According to DOD's October 2011 report, advisers from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Training Mission-Afghanistan and Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan used capability milestones to assess individual offices and cross-functional activities on a quarterly basis against specific end-state objectives, quarterly milestones, and skill-building requirements.[Footnote 35] For example, DOD reported in October 2011 that the Afghan National Civil Order Police advanced from requiring some coalition assistance to requiring minimal coalition assistance. [End of section] Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Washington, DC 211528: May I, 2012: Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. Director, International Affairs and Trade: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street, NW: Washington, DC 20548: Re: Draft Report GAO-12-534, "Foreign Police Assistance: Defined Roles and Improved Information Sharing Could Enhance Interagency Collaboration" Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft report. The U.S, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO) work in planning and conducting its review and issuing this report. The Department is pleased to note GAO's recognition of DHS's support of foreign police assistance efforts such as training provided by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), and support to counternarcotics activities provided by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. For example, FLETC personnel collaborate in various ways with the U.S. Department of State and other Federal agencies to improve international development training and technical assistance provided by the U.S. Government to foreign law enforcement. These efforts help build the law enforcement capacity of friendly nations, and foster improved coordination and cooperation with DHS and other U.S. law enforcement agencies in the worldwide fight against terrorism and other transnational crimes. Although the report does not contain any recommendations specifically directed to DHS, the Department remains committed to continuing its work with interagency partners such as the U.S. Department of Justice and other relevant stakeholders. This includes work to better define agency roles and responsibilities, as appropriate. Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft report. We look forward to working with you on future Homeland Security issues. Sincerely, Signed by: Jim H. Crumpacker: Director: Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: [End of section] Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of State: United States Department of State: Chief Financial Officer: Washington, D.C. 20520: Mr. Loren Yager: Managing Director: International Affairs and Trade: Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: Dear Mr. Yager: We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Foreign Police Assistance: Defined Roles and Improved Information Sharing Could Enhance Interagency Collaboration," GAO Job Code 320842. The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Christina Porche, Program Analyst, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs at (202) 453-8039. Sincerely, James L. Millette Signed by: cc: GAO — Charles M. Johnson, Jr. INL — William R. Brownfield: State/OIG — Evelyn Klemstine: Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: Foreign Police Assistance: Defined Roles and Improved Information Sharing Could Enhance Interagency Collaboration (GAO 12-534, GAO Code 320842): The Department welcomes this report and appreciates GAO's views on how to improve our efforts to coordinate with the Department of Defense (DOD) as interagency partners concerning U.S. foreign police assistance efforts. Specifically, your recommendation asked that we establish mechanisms to better share and document information among U.S. agencies so that information is available for future U.S. foreign police assistance efforts. In light of current formal mechanisms, the Department partially agrees. The Department has formal mechanisms for coordination with our interagency partners concerning foreign police assistance, and we continue to make improvements. The Department via the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) has made several improvements over the last few years to official Letters of Agreement, Inter-Agency Agreements, Grants, and Contracts to better reflect interagency collaborative planning and consultation. These documents are elemental to the establishment of U.S. foreign police assistance efforts and reflect a methodical collaborative planning and consultation process with host-nations, our interagency partners, contractors and grantees. These formal mechanisms ensure that projects and programs have clear goals, performance indicators, and success measurements and that they follow a logical, tangibly-verifiable system and evaluative design. For example, in Afghanistan prior to the transfer of the Afghan National Police (ANP) training contract to the Department of Defense (DOD) in early 2011, INL and DOD entered into regular, intensive coordination in both Kabul and Washington. Informal mechanisms of collaboration were supplemented with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which established formal coordination mechanisms to enable clear information sharing and direction in the rapidly-evolving environment of the ANP development program. In fact, interagency coordination has been a priority over several years. Beginning in 2007, the MOA required the Department of State (DOS) to assign a Senior Civilian Police Advisor to coordinate with the Combined Transition Command — Afghanistan (CSTC- A) and to establish a joint DOD-DOS Police Program Planning Board to provide recommendations on programmatic and functional changes to the police program. In 2009, these coordination efforts were augmented with the assignment of additional senior personnel to provide programmatic and subject matter expertise. The interagency approach taken to implement the police training program in Afghanistan has demonstrated important lessons learned on the value and necessity of formalized coordination mechanism to ensure unity of effort and the Department intends to continue this endeavor in the future. In terms of sharing ancillary information beyond the formalized documents, the Department will work with interagency partners to identify ways to improve the sharing of best practices and lessons learned concerning U.S. foreign police assistance efforts. [End of section] Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: GAO Contact: Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. (202) 512-7331, or johnsoncm@gao.gov: Staff Acknowledgments: In addition to the individual named above, Judy McCloskey (Assistant Director), Lynn Cothern, Brian Egger, Mark Needham, and La Verne Tharpes made key contributions to this report. Robert Alarapon, Martin De Alteriis, Etana Finkler, Mary Moutsos, and Anthony Pordes provided technical support. [End of section] Footnotes: [1] GAO, Multiple U.S. Agencies Provided Billions of Dollars to Train and Equip Foreign Police Forces, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-402R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 2011). We defined "police" as all foreign law enforcement units or personnel with arrest, investigative, or interdiction authorities. We included all training--regardless of content--and equipment. [2] Pub. Law No. 101-510, as amended. [3] Pub. Law No. 87-195, as amended. [4] We use the term "made available" to mean that funds were appropriated, allotted, or obligated during the specified fiscal years. [5] Funding estimates for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 include DOD appropriations, allotments, and obligations; State appropriations, allotments, allocations, and obligations; DOE allotments, obligations, and disbursements; USAID allotments; Treasury appropriations; and DOJ obligations that were disbursed. DOD funding may include some assistance provided to military personnel. [6] Section 1207 of the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. No. 109-163) provided authority for DOD to transfer up to $100 million per fiscal year to State to support reconstruction, stabilization, and security activities in foreign countries. This authority has expired. [7] See the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111- 212, July 29, 2010. Of the supplemental funds appropriated for the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account, not less than $650 million was to be used for assistance for Iraq, of which $450 million was for onetime start-up costs and limited operational costs of the Iraqi police program; and $200 million was for implementation, management, security, communications, and other expenses related to the program. [8] GAO, Combating Terrorism: Pakistan Counterinsurgency Funds Disbursed, but Human Rights Vetting Process Can Be Enhanced, GAO-11- 860-SU (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 11, 2011). [9] DHS also implements activities, such as developing and delivering training at international law enforcement academies, with funds received from State. [10] ANP currently consists of six authorized components under the Ministry of Interior, including the (1) uniformed police, (2) border police, (3) civil order police, (4) criminal investigation police, (5) counternarcotics police, and (6) counterterrorism police. The uniformed police, the largest of these six components, report to the police commanders of each Afghan province. Provincial commanders report to one of five regional commanders, who report to the Ministry of Interior. The other five authorized components of the ANP report directly to the ministry. [11] GAO, Afghanistan Security: U.S. Programs to Further Reform Ministry of Interior and National Police Challenged by Lack of Military Personnel and Afghan Cooperation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-9-280] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2009), and Afghanistan Security: Department of Defense Effort to Train Afghan Police Relies on Contractor Personnel to Fill Skill and Resource Gaps, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-293R] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2012). [12] The Iraqi security forces comprised the Ministry of Defense forces--that is, the Iraqi Army, Navy, Air Force, and several Strategic Infrastructure Battalions--and the forces of the Ministry of Interior that included the police, border enforcement, and other Iraqi civilian security services. See GAO, Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-308SP] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 9, 2007), and Stabilizing Iraq: Factors Impeding the Development of Capable Iraqi Security Forces, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-612T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 2007. [13] The Strategic Implementation Plan is developed by the National Security Staff and prepared on a quarterly basis. DOD, Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Pakistan (October 2011). [14] DOD, Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan. [15] GAO, Afghanistan Security: U.S. Efforts to Develop Capable Afghan Police Forces Face Challenges and Need a Coordinated, Detailed Plan to Help Ensure Accountability, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-833T] (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2008). [16] The International Security Assistance Force-Joint Command is responsible for operations throughout Afghanistan. It conducts operations to neutralize the insurgency in specific areas and supports improved governance and development. [17] According to its guidelines, program funds can be used for activities that improve program performance, such as midterm evaluations, while program design and support funds should be used for final evaluations. [18] State/INL officials reported that several projects below this threshold have both output and outcome metrics. These thresholds were established because of budget constraints so that limited evaluation resources would focus on higher-visibility programs. [19] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June 1996). [20] For detailed descriptions, see GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP] (Washington D.C.: May 2011). [21] State/INL Lebanon program goals included developing the Internal Security Forces into a competent, professional, and democratic police force with the necessary training, equipment, and institutional capacity to enforce the rule of law in Lebanon. [22] According to the bureau's Fiscal Year 2013 Strategic Resource Plan, the bureau is implementing a monitoring and evaluation strategy that will focus on continuing State/INL's rigorous internal monitoring processes and expanding the bureau's use of independent external evaluations. [23] United States Institute of Peace, Institutionalizing Security Sector Reform (Washington, D.C. October 2010). [24] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). [25] State's Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review is an assessment of the diplomacy and development missions of State and USAID. [26] GAO, Interagency Collaboration: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight of National Security Strategies, Organizations, Workforce, and Information Sharing, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-904SP] (Washington, D.C., Sept. 25, 2009). [27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-904SP]. [28] State Office of Inspector General, Inspection of Embassy Bogotá, Colombia, ISP-I-11-41A (June 2011); Inspection of Embassy Kabul, Afghanistan, ISP-I-10-32A (February 2010); Inspection of Embassy Mexico City, Mexico; ISP-I-09-21A (April 2009). [29] Office of the Inspector General, Embassy Islamabad and Constituent Posts, Pakistan, ISP-I-10-64 (June 2010). [30] GAO, Multiple U.S. Agencies Provided Billions of Dollars to Train and Equip Foreign Police Forces, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-402R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 2011). [31] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163, Jan. 6, 2006. [32] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). [33] DOD and State funds made available for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 included allotments, allocations, and obligations. [34] Headquarters service companies were rated levels 1 through 4 based on their ability to provide combat support and combat service support to units. [35] The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Training Mission- Afghanistan and Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan, among other things, recruits, trains, and equips the Afghan National Security Forces. Training and fielding of all units with the required specialty skills to fully support the Afghan National Army and ANP is expected to be complete by December 2013. [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.