This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-280 entitled 'Afghanistan Security: U.S. Programs to Further Reform Ministry of Interior and National Police Challenged by Lack of Military Personnel and Afghan Cooperation' which was released on March 9, 2009. 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. Report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives: United States Government Accountability Office: GAO: March 2009: Afghanistan Security: U.S. Programs to Further Reform Ministry of Interior and National Police Challenged by Lack of Military Personnel and Afghan Cooperation: GAO-09-280: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-09-280, a report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. Why GAO Did This Study: The United States has invested more than $6.2 billion in the Afghan Ministry of Interior (MOI) and Afghan National Police (ANP). The Department of Defense’s (Defense) Combined Security Transition Command- Afghanistan (CSTC-A), with the Department of State (State), leads U.S. efforts to enhance MOI and ANP organizational structures, leadership abilities, and pay systems. This report assesses the status of U.S. efforts to help Afghanistan (1) restructure MOI and ANP, (2) retrain ANP units, (3) screen MOI and ANP personnel, and (4) enhance MOI and ANP pay systems. GAO reviewed Defense, State, and United Nations (UN) data and met with officials in the United States and Afghanistan. What GAO Found: U.S. agencies and Afghanistan have achieved their goals of restructuring and reducing a top-heavy and oversized MOI and ANP officer corps, modifying police wages, and planning a reorganization of MOI headquarters. These efforts are intended to help ensure that the MOI and ANP are directed by professional staff that can manage a national police force. U.S. agencies and MOI cut the officer corps from about 17,800 to about 9,000, reduced the percentage of high-ranking officers, and increased pay for all ranks. MOI is scheduled to implement a U.S.-supported headquarters reorganization. CSTC-A has begun retraining ANP units through its Focused District Development (FDD) program, which is intended to address district-level corruption that impeded previous efforts to retrain individual police. FDD is achieving promising results, according to Defense status reports. In February 2009, Defense assessed 19 percent of FDD-retrained units as capable of conducting missions, 25 percent as capable of doing so with outside support, 31 percent as capable of partially doing so with outside support, and 25 percent as not capable. However, a lack of military personnel is constraining CSTC-A’s plans to expand FDD and similar programs into the rest of Afghanistan by the end of 2010. Defense has identified a shortage of about 1,500 military personnel needed to expand FDD and similar police development programs. CSTC-A has previously obtained military personnel for ANP training by redirecting personnel from its Afghan army training program. However, the army program’s demand for personnel is likely to increase as the Afghan army grows from 80,000 to 134,000 personnel. MOI and ANP officers were screened by Defense and State, but the full extent of the screening is unclear because State did not systematically compile records of its efforts. The screening effort was intended to improve the professionalism and integrity of the officer corps through testing by CSTC-A and background checks by State. At least 9,797 (55 percent) of the nearly 17,800 officers who took the tests passed, according to CSTC-A. State was unable to provide us with statistics concerning the results of background checks because it did not systematically compile its records. U.S.-supported pay system efforts are intended to validate MOI and ANP personnel rosters and ensure that wages are distributed reliably. Despite progress, these efforts face challenges that include limited ANP cooperation and a shortage of banks. U.S. contractors have validated almost 47,400 MOI and ANP personnel but have been unable to validate almost 29,400 personnel—who were paid in part by $230 million in U.S. contributions to a UN trust fund—because of a lack of cooperation from some ANP commanders. As of January 2009, 97 percent of all reported MOI and ANP personnel had enrolled in an electronic payroll system and 58 percent had enrolled to have their salaries deposited directly into their bank accounts. However, growth of the direct deposit system may be constrained because almost 40 percent of ANP personnel lack ready access to banks. What GAO Recommends: GAO recommends that the Secretaries of Defense and State (1) provide dedicated personnel to support creation of additional police mentor teams to expand and complete the FDD program and (2) consider provisioning U.S. contributions for police wages to reflect the extent to which U.S. agencies have validated MOI and ANP personnel. Defense concurred with the first recommendation and State noted it is prepared to recruit additional personnel. State concurred with the second recommendation but Defense asserted that it would unduly penalize MOI. GAO maintains that the recommendation could encourage greater ANP cooperation and help ensure that only legitimate personnel receive U.S.- subsidized wages. To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on GAO-09-280. For more information, contact Charles Michael Johnson Jr. at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. [End of figure] Contents: Letter: Background: U.S. Agencies Have Helped Restructure the MOI and ANP Officer Corps and Plan the Future Reorganization of MOI Headquarters: Expansion of New Approach to Training Afghan Police Constrained by Shortage of Military Personnel: U.S. Agencies Screened MOI and ANP Officers but Did Not Systematically Compile Records of Background Checks: Efforts to Enhance MOI and ANP Pay Systems Face Challenges of Limited Cooperation and Lack of a Nationwide Bank System: Conclusion: Recommendations for Executive Action: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: Appendix II: Structure of the Ministry of Interior and Afghan National Police: Appendix III: Organizational Chart for the Ministry of Interior and Afghan National Police: Appendix IV: MOI and ANP Nonofficer Pay Rates before and after Pay Reform: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Justice: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of State: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: Tables: Table 1: Number of MOI and ANP Officers by Rank before and after Rank Reform: Table 2: MOI and ANP Officer Monthly Pay Rates before and after Pay Reform : Table 3: Test Passage and Failure of MOI and ANP Officers by Rank: Figures: Figure 1: The Afghan Ministry of Interior: Figure 2: MOI and ANP Authorized Personnel Levels: Figure 3: Attacks on Afghan Security Forces (2003-2008): Figure 4: ANP Killed in Action from January 2007 to November 2008: Figure 5: MOI and ANP Officer Corps Structure before and after Rank Reform: Figure 6: ANP Unit Members after Returning to Their District: Figure 7: Model FDD Police Mentoring Team: Figure 8: Initial FDD Districts in Relation to the Ring Road: Figure 9: Validation Status of Applicants for Identification Cards, November 2008: Figure 10: Sample ANP Identification Cards at MOI’s Headquarters in Kabul: Figure 11: Workstation Used to Process Identification Card at MOI Headquarters: Figure 12: Servers Used to Store Identification Data at MOI Headquarters in Kabul: Figure 13: LOTFA Electronic Payroll Training Class at MOI Headquarters in Kabul: Figure 14: Enrollment in Electronic Payroll System, as of January 2009: Figure 15: Enrollment in Electronic Funds Transfer System, as of January 2009: Abbreviations: ANP: Afghan National Police: CENTCOM: Central Command: CSTC-A: Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan: DEA: Drug Enforcement Administration: Defense: Department of Defense: EUPOL: European Union Police Mission: FDD: Focused District Development: IDR: In District Reform: JCS: Joint Chiefs of Staff: LOTFA: Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan: MOI: Afghan Ministry of Interior: OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense: SIU: Special Investigative Unit: State: Department of State: UN: United Nations: UNAMAUN: Assistance Mission to Afghanistan: [End of section] United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548: March 9, 2009: The Honorable Howard Berman: Chairman: The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: Ranking Member: Committee on Foreign Affairs: House of Representatives: The Afghan Ministry of Interior (MOI) and the Afghan National Police (ANP) face a wide range of problems that include a history of corruption, weak pay systems, and attacks by insurgents. Afghanistan is a very poor and underdeveloped country that needs professional and competent police to help defeat security threats to its homeland, including widespread narcotics trafficking as well as a growing insurgency. The MOI and ANP have a combined authorized personnel level of 82,000. The United States has invested more than $6.2 billion since 2002 to help professionalize the MOI and ANP, including $230 million for police wages contributed to the United Nations (UN) Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan (LOTFA). U.S. efforts to help reform the MOI and ANP are led by the Department of Defense's (Defense) Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A) in conjunction with the Department of State (State). This report assesses U.S. government efforts to help the government of Afghanistan (1) restructure the MOI and ANP, (2) retrain selected ANP units, (3) screen MOI and ANP personnel, and (4) enhance MOI and ANP identification and pay systems. To address these objectives, we reviewed a wide range of Defense and State documents and briefings concerning U.S. efforts to reform the MOI and ANP, including Defense's National Campaign Plan for Afghanistan, CSTC-A's monthly assessments of the capabilities of ANP districts participating in a focused development effort, and weekly situation reports prepared by State-contracted police mentors. We also reviewed documents concerning ANP reform efforts supported by LOTFA and by the UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA). To supplement our review of these materials, we traveled to Afghanistan, where we discussed MOI and ANP reform efforts with CSTC-A, State, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), LOTFA, MOI, and ANP officials. We also visited ANP training facilities and an ANP base in Afghanistan's Chapahar district, where we met with State contractor personnel. In addition, we spoke in the United States with officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Defense's Central Command (CENTCOM), State, DEA, and UNAMA. See appendix I for a complete description of our scope and methodology. We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 to March 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Background: Afghanistan is a very poor and underdeveloped country that has suffered from instability and war for three decades. The United States and its allies removed the ruling Taliban regime following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. The new Afghan government inherited a country with limited capacity to govern and a poorly developed infrastructure. About 70 percent of the population is illiterate. According to Transparency International, Afghanistan is the world's fifth most corrupt country.[Footnote 1] Its police do not respect human rights, according to the Fund for Peace. The MOI and ANP have a history of corruption, and much of Afghanistan lacks a functioning judicial sector. The United States and other international partners agreed in 2006 to establish a professional Afghan police service committed to the rule of law, shortly after the United States assumed the lead in reforming the MOI and ANP. U.S. goals for the MOI include ensuring that it is competent and efficient, provides strong and effective leadership, and has the organizational structures needed to reform, manage, and sustain the police. U.S. goals for the ANP include ensuring that it is fully constituted, professional, and functional; trained and equipped to uphold the rule of law; and able to effectively meet Afghan security needs, including controlling movement across Afghanistan's borders. In 2006, the United States, Afghanistan, and other international partners outlined goals for the ANP in the Afghanistan Compact. The stated goals of the compact include the establishment of, by the end of 2010, a professional and functional ANP that can meet the security needs of the country effectively and be increasingly fiscally sustainable. The United States views an effective Afghan police force as critical to extending rule of law in Afghanistan and improving Afghan security. U.S. efforts to help Afghanistan reform the MOI and ANP are directed by Defense through CSTC-A, which is also charged with training the Afghan National Army. State provides policy guidance for CSTC-A's police program and oversees civilian contractors to implement police training. To date, the United States has provided about $6.2 billion to train and equip the ANP. Figure 1: The Afghan Ministry of Interior: [Refer to PDF for image: photograph] Source: GAO. [End of figure] To achieve U.S. goals, CSTC-A has set objectives for institutional, organizational, and individual reform: * Institutional reform is intended to ensure that MOI is run by a professional and adequately trained staff that can manage and sustain a national police force. * Organizational reform is aimed at ensuring ANP units have sufficient capacity to maintain domestic order and are responsive to the local population's needs. * Individual reform seeks to ensure that the MOI and ANP consist of trained, competent, and credible individuals dedicated to public service who are accountable and transparent in their actions. The United States works with several international partners in supporting reform, including the following organizations: * The European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL) is intended to bring together European national efforts to support police reform in Afghanistan. * LOTFA was established by the United Nations Development Program in May 2002 and provides funds for ANP salaries. As of November 2008, LOTFA had received about $653.4 million from 20 international donors, including the United States. * UNAMA assists in leading international efforts to rebuild the country. The MOI and ANP have a total authorized force level of about 82,000. The ANP consists of six components. As shown in figure 2, the largest of these is the Afghan Uniformed Police, which serve as local police and perform routine policing duties in Afghanistan's 365 police districts. These districts are organized into five regional zones (North, East, West, South, and Central) and a sixth zone for the capital city of Kabul. According to State and Defense, the zone commanders report to the Chief of the Afghan Uniformed Police, who reports to the Deputy Minister of Interior for Security. (See appendices II and III for further information on the structure of the MOI and ANP.) Figure 2: MOI and ANP Authorized Personnel Levels: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] MOI and ANP Authorized Personnel Levels: Afghan Uniformed Police: 54.5% (44,801); Afghan Border Police: 21.6% (17,676); Ministry of Interior Headquarters: 7.3% (5,943); Afghan Civil Order Police: 6.5% (5,365); Criminal Investigative Division: 4.9% (4,009); Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan: 4.6% (3,756); Counter Terrorism Police: 0.5% (406). Total authorized MOI and ANP force level: 81,956. Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. Note: Percentages do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. [End of figure] Afghan police and other security forces are facing increasing attacks by insurgent forces. As shown in figure 3, attacks on Afghan security forces (including the ANP and the Afghan National Army) increased sixfold from October 2003 to October 2008, according to DOD. The number of attacks rose nearly threefold in 1 year, from 97 attacks in October 2007 to 289 in October 2008. Figure 3: Attacks on Afghan Security Forces (2003-2008): [Refer to PDF for image: line graph] Date: May 2003; Number of attacks: 36. Date: June 2003; Number of attacks: 47. Date: July 2003; Number of attacks: 36. Date: August 2003; Number of attacks: 47. Date: September 2003; Number of attacks: 31. Date: October 2003; Number of attacks: 45. Date: November 2003; Number of attacks: 60. Date: December 2003; Number of attacks: 38. Date: January 2004; Number of attacks: 27. Date: February 2004; Number of attacks: 23. Date: March 2004; Number of attacks: 37. Date: April 2004; Number of attacks: 25. Date: May 2004; Number of attacks: 50. Date: June 2004; Number of attacks: 37. Date: July 2004; Number of attacks: 34. Date: August 2004; Number of attacks: 31. Date: September 2004; Number of attacks: 54. Date: October 2004; Number of attacks: 59. Date: November 2004; Number of attacks: 43. Date: December 2004; Number of attacks: 36. Date: January 2005; Number of attacks: 36. Date: February 2005; Number of attacks: 23. Date: March 2005; Number of attacks: 33. Date: April 2005; Number of attacks: 63. Date: May 2005; Number of attacks: 63. Date: June 2005; Number of attacks: 65. Date: July 2005; Number of attacks: 62. Date: August 2005; Number of attacks: 87. Date: September 2005; Number of attacks: 93. Date: October 2005; Number of attacks: 63. Date: November 2005; Number of attacks: 64. Date: December 2005; Number of attacks: 46. Date: January 2006; Number of attacks: 60. Date: February 2006; Number of attacks: 74. Date: March 2006; Number of attacks: 84. Date: April 2006; Number of attacks: 85. Date: May 2006; Number of attacks: 87. Date: June 2006; Number of attacks: 89. Date: July 2006; Number of attacks: 115. Date: August 2006; Number of attacks: 149. Date: September 2006; Number of attacks: 128. Date: October 2006; Number of attacks: 129. Date: November 2006; Number of attacks: 111. Date: December 2006; Number of attacks: 88. Date: January 2007; Number of attacks: 96. Date: February 2007; Number of attacks: 58. Date: March 2007; Number of attacks: 88. Date: April 2007; Number of attacks: 127. Date: May 2007; Number of attacks: 123. Date: June 2007; Number of attacks: 143. Date: July 2007; Number of attacks: 159. Date: August 2007; Number of attacks: 151. Date: September 2007; Number of attacks: 149. Date: October 2007; Number of attacks: 97. Date: November 2007; Number of attacks: 95. Date: December 2007; Number of attacks: 114. Date: January 2008; Number of attacks: 70. Date: February 2008; Number of attacks: 61. Date: March 2008; Number of attacks: 103. Date: April 2008; Number of attacks: 141. Date: May 2008; Number of attacks: 163. Date: June 2008; Number of attacks: 204. Date: July 2008; Number of attacks: 233. Date: August 2008; Number of attacks: 232. Date: September 2008; Number of attacks: 295. Date: October 2008; Number of attacks: 289. Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. [End of figure] The ANP has suffered significant casualties in recent years. According to Defense, at least 3,400 police have been wounded or killed in action since January 2007. In June 2008, a Defense official testified that ANP combat losses during 2007 were roughly three times more than those of the Afghan National Army. Defense data indicate that the ANP suffered between 19 and 101 fatalities per month over a recent 23-month period (see figure 4)--an average of 56 police killed in action per month. Figure 4: ANP Killed in Action from January 2007 to November 2008: [Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] Date: January 2007; ANP deaths: 28. Date: February 2007; ANP deaths: 22. Date: March 2007; ANP deaths: 46. Date: April 2007; ANP deaths: 21. Date: May 2007; ANP deaths: 82. Date: June 2007; ANP deaths: 101. Date: July 2007; ANP deaths: 89. Date: August 2007; ANP deaths: 41. Date: September 2007; ANP deaths: 81. Date: October 2007; ANP deaths: 57. Date: November 2007; ANP deaths: 51. Date: December 2007; ANP deaths: 69. Date: January 2008; ANP deaths: 59. Date: February 2008; ANP deaths: 19. Date: March 2008; ANP deaths: 24. Date: April 2008; ANP deaths: 88. Date: May 2008; ANP deaths: 43. Date: June 2008; ANP deaths: 42. Date: July 2008; ANP deaths: 80. Date: August 2008; ANP deaths: 51. Date: September 2008; ANP deaths: 71. Date: October 2008; ANP deaths: 50. Date: November 2008; ANP deaths: 75 Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. [End of figure] U.S. Agencies Have Helped Restructure the MOI and ANP Officer Corps and Plan the Future Reorganization of MOI Headquarters: U.S. agencies have helped Afghanistan restructure the MOI and ANP officer corps, modify ANP pay rates, and plan a reorganization of MOI headquarters. CSTC-A has also acted to better coordinate international mentoring of MOI officials. These efforts were intended to help ensure that the MOI and ANP are directed by professional staff that can successfully manage and sustain a national police force in Afghanistan. The officer corps reform program reduced the oversized MOI-ANP officer corps from about 17,800 to about 9,000 personnel, reformed the ANP's top-heavy rank structure, and increased police pay. In a separate effort, CSTC-A and MOI worked together to develop a plan for increasing MOI's efficiency by restructuring the ministry and reducing its staff. In addition, CSTC-A and other international partners have adopted a plan to address problems affecting their efforts to build MOI staff capacity through mentoring. Goal of MOI-ANP Restructuring Programs Is to Promote Institutional and Organizational Reform: U.S.-supported efforts to restructure the MOI and ANP are intended to promote institutional and organizational reform and to help ensure that the MOI and ANP are directed by professional staff that can successfully manage and sustain a national police force in Afghanistan. The programs have been aimed at addressing problems concerning the size and pay structure of the MOI and ANP officer corps, MOI's organization and capacity, and mentoring of MOI officials. * According to U.S. officials, the MOI-ANP officer corps was top heavy. It consisted of nearly 18,000 individuals, including more than 3,000 generals and colonels. ANP personnel were also paid less than Afghan National Army personnel, creating recruitment and retention challenges for the ANP. * MOI headquarters suffers from numerous organizational deficiencies, according to U.S. officials. The U.S. Embassy concluded in 2007 that MOI suffered from corruption, limited control over provincial police structures, and low institutional capacity at all levels. CSTC-A reported in 2008 that MOI lacked a clear organizational structure, basic management functions, and an overall strategy for policing. CSTC- A also reported that MOI's departments did not have clearly defined missions and did not communicate and coordinate with one another. State has reported that MOI lacks a culture of accountability and transparency. According to State police contactors, MOI's organization has contributed to pervasive violations of its chain of command and to a lack of accountability in ANP districts and provincial commands. MOI's lack of clearly defined lines of authority and areas of responsibility weakens its ability to combat fraud through effective internal controls.[Footnote 2] * To help address MOI's weak institutional capacity, the United States and other international partners initiated efforts to mentor individual MOI officials but did not coordinate these efforts. CSTC-A reported in 2008 that international partners provided more than one mentor to some officials--despite a limited number of available mentors--while providing none to others. For example, one MOI commander had four mentors from two different countries at a time when four senior-level MOI officials had none. CSTC-A also found that donors had not always aligned mentor skills with the needs of MOI officials and had not established a single communication chain to share information and coordinate mentor activities. MOI and ANP Officer Corps and Pay Restructured: The United States and MOI have restructured and reduced the rank structure of the MOI and ANP officer corps while increasing police pay scales. The rank reform program cut the total number of officer positions from about 17,800 to about 9,000 and reduced the number of the highest ranking officers (generals and colonels) by nearly 85 percent. A board of MOI officials selected officers for retention with help from CSTC-A and U.S. Embassy officials. The rank reform program significantly altered the structure of the officer corps, as shown in figure 5. Figure 5: MOI and ANP Officer Corps Structure before and after Rank Reform: [Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] Rank: General; Number before rank reform: 319; Number after rank reform: 159. Rank: Colonel; Number before rank reform: 2,712; Number after rank reform: 310. Rank: Lt. Colonel; Number before rank reform: 2,140; Number after rank reform: 403. Rank: Major; Number before rank reform: 2,598; Number after rank reform: 626. Rank: Captain; Number before rank reform: 3,779; Number after rank reform: 1,507. Rank: Lieutenant (first, second, and third); Number before rank reform: 4,263; Number after rank reform: 6,013. Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. Note: CSTC-A was not able to identify the rank of 11 percent (1,985) of the officers in the officer corps as it existed before rank reform. This figure does not include these individuals. [End of figure] Table 1: Number of MOI and ANP Officers by Rank before and after Rank Reform: Rank[A]: General; Number of officers before rank reform: 319; Percentage of total officer corps before rank reform: 2; Number of officers after rank reform: 159; Percentage of total officer corps after rank reform: 2; Net percentage change in officers: 0. Rank[A]: Colonel; Number of officers before rank reform: 2,712; Percentage of total officer corps before rank reform: 17; Number of officers after rank reform: 310; Percentage of total officer corps after rank reform: 3; Net percentage change in officers: -14. Rank[A]: Lieutenant colonel; Number of officers before rank reform: 2,140; Percentage of total officer corps before rank reform: 14; Number of officers after rank reform: 403; Percentage of total officer corps after rank reform: 5; Net percentage change in officers: -9. Rank[A]: Major; Number of officers before rank reform: 2,598; Percentage of total officer corps before rank reform: 16; Number of officers after rank reform: 626; Percentage of total officer corps after rank reform: 7; Net percentage change in officers: -9. Rank[A]: Captain; Number of officers before rank reform: 3,779; Percentage of total officer corps before rank reform: 24; Number of officers after rank reform: 1,507; Percentage of total officer corps after rank reform: 17; Net percentage change in officers: -7. Rank[A]: Lieutenant (first, second, and third); Number of officers before rank reform: 4,263; Percentage of total officer corps before rank reform: 27; Number of officers after rank reform: 6,013; Percentage of total officer corps after rank reform: 67; Net percentage change in officers: 40. Rank[A]: Other[A]; Number of officers before rank reform: 1,985; Percentage of total officer corps before rank reform: 11; Number of officers after rank reform: N/A; Percentage of total officer corps after rank reform: N/A; Net percentage change in officers: N/A. Rank[A]: Total; Number of officers before rank reform: 17,796; Percentage of total officer corps before rank reform: 100; Number of officers after rank reform: 9,018; Percentage of total officer corps after rank reform: 100. Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. [A] CSTC-A informed us that it could not identify the rank of 11 percent (1,985) of the officers in its records of the officer corps as it existed prior to rank reform. [End of table] The reduction in the MOI and ANP officer corps was accompanied by substantial increases in ANP pay, as shown in table 2. The new pay rates are on a par with those of the Afghan National Army. Table 2: MOI and ANP Officer Monthly Pay Rates before and after Pay Reform: Officer rank: Lieutenant general; Monthly rates before pay reform: $107; Monthly rates after pay reform: $750; Percentage increase in salary: 601. Officer rank: Major general; Monthly rates before pay reform: $103; Monthly rates after pay reform: $650; Percentage increase in salary: $531. Officer rank: Brigadier general; Monthly rates before pay reform: $95; Monthly rates after pay reform: $550; Percentage increase in salary: $479. Officer rank: Colonel; Monthly rates before pay reform: $92; Monthly rates after pay reform: $400; Percentage increase in salary: $335. Officer rank: Lieutenant colonel; Monthly rates before pay reform: $88; Monthly rates after pay reform: $350; Percentage increase in salary: $298. Officer rank: Major; Monthly rates before pay reform: $83; Monthly rates after pay reform: $300; Percentage increase in salary: $261. Officer rank: Captain; Monthly rates before pay reform: $78; Monthly rates after pay reform: $250; Percentage increase in salary: $259. Officer rank: First lieutenant; Monthly rates before pay reform: $69; Monthly rates after pay reform: $200; Percentage increase in salary: $233. Officer rank: Second lieutenant; Monthly rates before pay reform: $66; Monthly rates after pay reform: $180; Percentage increase in salary: $218. Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. Note: Nonofficer pay was also impacted by pay reform. See appendix IV for changes to nonofficer pay. [End of table] The MOI Has Approved U.S.-Supported Plan to Restructure MOI Headquarters: In 2008, CSTC-A, MOI, and international partner officials developed a plan for restructuring MOI headquarters. Their goals in developing the plan included increasing efficiency, streamlining organization, improving coordination, creating conditions to mitigate corruption, and reducing headquarters staff by 25 percent. The plan's implementation was delayed by political resistance within MOI, according to CSTC-A. MOI was originally to have begun implementing the restructuring plan in September 2008. However, CSTC-A informed us that some MOI departments were concerned that they would lose power and personnel as a result of restructuring. The plan's implementation was further delayed by the removal of the former Minister of Interior, according to CSTC-A. The plan was approved in late December 2008 by the new Minister of Interior and implementation is scheduled to begin in March 2009. As approved, the restructuring plan provides for a 7 percent reduction in staff, rather than the 25 percent reduction goal originally set by CSTC-A, MOI, and the international partners. International Partners Have Approved Plan to Better Coordinate MOI Mentoring: CSTC-A and other international partners have agreed on a plan to better coordinate U.S. and international efforts to mentor MOI officials. CSTC- A and other international partners sought to define mentor roles and required skill sets, outline the international partners best suited to support mentoring requirements, establish a personnel management process to facilitate mentor assignments, and identify information and reporting requirements for mentors. The goal of their effort was to reach an agreement to support an integrated mentor program within MOI's headquarters. In the final plan, which was approved in January 2009, CSTC-A and other international partners agreed to provide an organizational framework to manage the mentoring program, agree on the allocation of mentors according to rationally derived priorities, and optimize the match between mentors' skill sets and position requirements. Expansion of New Approach to Training Afghan Police Constrained by Shortage of Military Personnel: CSTC-A has begun retraining ANP through its Focused District Development (FDD) program, which is intended to build professional and fully capable police units. FDD is achieving promising results in most participating districts, according to Defense status reports. In February 2009, Defense assessed 19 percent of units retrained through the FDD program as capable of conducting primary operational missions, 25 percent as capable of conducting primary operational missions with international support, 31 percent as capable of partially conducting primary operational missions with international support, and 25 percent as not yet capable of conducting primary operational missions[Footnote 3]. However, a shortage of military personnel is constraining CSTC-A's plans to expand FDD and similar programs into the rest of Afghanistan by the end of 2010. Defense has identified a shortage of about 1,500 military personnel to expand FDD and similar police development programs. CSTC-A has previously obtained military personnel for the FDD program and ANP training by redirecting such personnel from resources intended for its Afghan National Army training program. However, the Afghan army program's demand for military personnel is likely to grow due to the recent decision by the United States, Afghanistan, and international partners to increase the Afghan army from 80,000 to 134,000 individuals. Goal and Structure of Focused District Development Program: The goal of the FDD program is to enhance ANP organizational and individual capability by training all uniformed police in a district as a unit.[Footnote 4] According to State and Defense officials, corruption and local loyalties hampered past efforts to train individuals. Under the previous approach, the effects of individual training were diluted when trainees returned to corrupt police stations staffed by poorly trained personnel with little loyalty to the central government. We reported in 2005 that some returning trainees had been forced by their commanders to give their new equipment to more senior police and to help extort money from truck drivers and travelers. In 2008, State reported that the effects of previous police training had been diluted when newly trained police were reinserted to an unreformed environment. The FDD program differs from previous efforts to train ANP because it focuses on retraining entire districts and not individuals. In implementing the FDD program in a district, CSTC-A assesses the district's organization, training, facilities, and judicial infrastructure before removing the police unit from the district for 8 weeks of full-time training.[Footnote 5] During the training program, the unit receives basic training for all untrained recruits, advanced training for recruits with previous training, and management and leadership training for officers. Figure 6: ANP Unit Members after Returning to Their District: [Refer to PDF for image: photograph] Source: GAO. [End of figure] An embedded police mentor team accompanies the unit when it returns to its home district. According to CSTC-A officials, a standard police mentor team includes two civilian police mentors, four military support personnel, and six military security personnel (see figure 7). While State provides the civilian police mentors, CSTC-A is responsible for providing the 10 military support and security personnel. According to CSTC-A, the police mentor team provides the unit with continued on-the- job training following its return to its home district and assesses the unit's progress toward becoming capable of independently performing basic law and order operations. Figure 7: Model FDD Police Mentoring Team: [Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 6 Security team members: Military: 1 x team chief; 1 x Operations; 1 x Personnel; 1 x Logistics. Civilian police advisers: 1 x police chief; 1 x training officer; 1 x Linguist. Sources: Defense (data); Copyright © Corel Corp. (clip art). All rights reserved. [End of figure] Initial FDD Program Efforts Report Positive Results: The FDD program has shown positive initial results, according to Defense. In February 2009, Defense assessed 19 percent of the units retrained through the FDD program as capable of conducting primary operational missions, 25 percent as capable of conducting primary operational missions with international support, 31 percent as capable of partially conducting primary operational missions with international support, and 25 percent as not yet capable of conducting primary operational missions. In contrast, in April 2008 all of the districts enrolled in FDD were only partially capable of independent action. [Footnote 6] Police mentor teams are required to send monthly capability assessment forms to CSTC-A as part of CSTC-A's effort to monitor and assess the FDD program. The assessments rank the units on a variety of competencies, including personnel actions and pay reform, equipment accountability, maintenance, formal training, crime-handling procedures, and use of force. Mentor teams also address disciplinary issues and observe units for signs of drug use. According to Defense, in 2007, 29 FDD participants were identified as drug users, removed from the program, and released from the police force. Although Defense assesses the FDD program to be demonstrating promising initial results, FDD districts have required more time to become fully capable than CSTC-A had originally projected. CSTC-A had projected that FDD units would reach full capability in 9 months. However, only 4 of the first 7 units to undergo the FDD program reached full capability within 10 months, according to CSTC-A. CSTC-A informed us the program has been affected by growing security threats. Also, CSTC-A responded to concerns of international partners in Afghanistan by initiating FDD in districts that faced relatively greater security threats than originally anticipated. These initial districts included several on or near the ring road that links the major cities in Afghanistan, as shown in figure 8.[Footnote 7] Figure 8: Initial FDD Districts in Relation to the Ring Road: [Refer to PDF for image: map] Indicated on the map of Afghanistan are the following: Regional Highway system; Ring Road; Initial FDD Districts, and; Initial FDD Districts in Relation to the Ring Road: Regional Command North; Regional Command East; Regional Command Central; Regional Command South; Regional Command West; Regional Command Kabul. Sources: GAO analysis of Defense data; Map Resources (map). [End of figure] Existing Personnel Constraints Are Impeding Timely Expansion of FDD Program: CSTC-A currently lacks the military support and security personnel resources to expand FDD into the rest of Afghanistan.[Footnote 8] Senior CSTC-A personnel informed us that Defense has not provided CSTC- A with dedicated personnel designated to serve as police mentors. As a result, CSTC-A redirected to the police program personnel that would have been used to mentor Afghan National Army units. CSTC-A staff informed us that they redirected the personnel because the police training program used prior to FDD was not succeeding at a time when the Afghan army training program was making progress. CSTC-A intends to retrain the uniformed police in all districts in Afghanistan using FDD and other similar district-level reform programs. [Footnote 9] To do so, CSTC-A estimates it would need a total of 399 police mentor teams--365 district teams and 34 provincial level teams. CSTC-A informed us that its preference is to complete FDD using a 3- year planning model that would have 250 police mentor teams fielded by the end of December 2009 and the remaining 149 teams fielded in districts by October 2010. This schedule, however, would not allow Defense to complete FDD training and mentoring in time to meet the Afghanistan Compact's goal of achieving a fully functional and professional Afghan National Police by the end of 2010. Defense has reported that it would need about 1,500 additional military personnel to expand FDD and similar police development programs. The FDD program faces the likely possibility of increasing competition for these personnel from CSTC-A's program to fully train the Afghan National Army. In the past, FDD and other ANP training programs have relied on U.S. military personnel that had been intended for use for Afghan army training programs. However, the demand for personnel for use in Afghan army training programs is likely to increase because Afghanistan, the United States, and other international partners have agreed to increase the Afghan army from 80,000 to 134,000 personnel. In November 2008, CSTC-A officials stated they may propose that Defense use U.S. combat units, provincial reconstruction teams,[Footnote 10] and international forces to help address the shortage of personnel. The officials later informed us that six FDD police mentor teams had been staffed using personnel provided by international forces. However, according to Defense officials in headquarters, Defense has not altered its guidance to CSTC-A for staffing the FDD program. U.S. Agencies Screened MOI and ANP Officers but Did Not Systematically Compile Records of Background Checks: MOI and ANP officers were screened by Defense and State as part of a rank reform program intended to promote institutional and organizational reform, but State did not systematically compile records of background checks conducted as part of the screening effort. The screening effort included testing by CSTC-A of MOI and ANP personnel on police practices. At least 55 percent of the almost 17,800 officers tested passed, according to data provided by CSTC-A. The screening effort also included background checks based on information from State and UNAMA. However, U.S. officials were unable to provide us with detailed information concerning the number of individuals whose backgrounds had been checked and the results of those checks. ANP recruits are endorsed by local elders and officials and, according to CSTC-A, screened by MOI. Members of certain small elite units receive additional screening by U.S. agencies or high-ranking MOI officials. Screening Intended to Promote MOI and ANP Institutional and Organizational Reform: Efforts to screen MOI and ANP personnel are intended to promote institutional and organizational reform. The goals of U.S.-supported screening efforts are to help ensure that (1) MOI is run by a professional and adequately trained staff that can manage and sustain a national police force and (2) ANP units, under MOI control, have the capacity to maintain domestic order while remaining responsive to the needs of the local population. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul reported in 2007 that the effectiveness of the police had been seriously impeded by "corrupt and/or incompetent" MOI and ANP leadership. The State and Defense inspectors general reported in 2006 that then-current ANP screening efforts were ineffective and that verifying the suitability of police candidates in Afghanistan is difficult because of (1) the strength of Afghan ethnic and tribal ties and (2) the lack of reliable personnel and criminal records in Afghanistan.[Footnote 11] MOI and ANP Officers Were Tested in Connection with Rank Reform: According to CSTC-A, nearly 17,800 MOI and ANP officers took tests on human rights and policing values that were required for consideration in the reformed MOI and ANP officer corps.[Footnote 12] At least 9,797 (55 percent) of these officers passed. Higher-ranking officers below the rank of general passed the tests at higher rates than lower-ranking officers (see table 3).[Footnote 13] Table 3: Test Passage and Failure of MOI and ANP Officers by Rank: Rank: General; Passed: Not available; Failed: Not available; Percentage passed: Not available. Rank: Colonel; Passed: 2,097; Failed: 615; Percentage passed: 77. Rank: Lt. colonel; Passed: 1,459; Failed: 681; Percentage passed: 68. Rank: Major; Passed: 1,624; Failed: 974; Percentage passed: 63. Rank: Captain; Passed: 1,997; Failed: 1,711; Percentage passed: 53. Rank: First lieutenant; Passed: 858; Failed: 1,061; Percentage passed: 46. Rank: Second lieutenant; Passed: 857; Failed: 1,457; Percentage passed: 37. Rank: Third lieutenant; Passed: 32; Failed: 69; Percentage passed: 32. Rank: Other[A]; Passed: 873; Failed: 1,112; Percentage passed: 44. Source: GAO analysis of CSTC-A data. [A] CSTC-A informed us that it could not determine the ranks of 1,985 officers who were tested. [End of table] State Checked Backgrounds of MOI and ANP Officers but Did Not Systematically Compile Records: MOI and ANP officers were also subject to background checks as part of the rank reform process. The background checks were based on information from State and UNAMA. State officials informed us that the Department of State screened officers for rank reform by using its procedures for vetting foreign security personnel in connection with U.S. law.[Footnote 14] In doing so, it made use of background checks conducted at the State Department in Washington, D.C. State officials in Washington said that the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan provided them with lists of names and associated biographical information. The officials then used the information to search both a governmentwide database containing sensitive information and various nongovernment databases. UNAMA officials informed us that background checks concerning more than 18,000 names[Footnote 15] were based in part on information collected locally by UNAMA. According to a UNAMA official, UNAMA found no detailed information for "more than 10,000" names and varying degrees of information about the remaining names.[Footnote 16] State has not systematically compiled records of the background checks. A U.S. Embassy official informed us that the embassy did not maintain a database of the officers that had been checked. State officials in Washington, D.C., informed us that they had retained copies of the embassy's requests and their responses but had not systematically compiled the information contained in them. Because they had not systematically compiled their records of the background checks, State officials could not provide us with the number of officers whose backgrounds they had checked or with detailed information concerning the results of the background checks. A U.S. Embassy official provided us with a partial list of embassy screening requests. The list indicates that the embassy had asked State to check the backgrounds of 2,514 unidentified individuals in late 2007. State officials in Washington, D.C., told us they may have screened as many as 4,000 names during the rank reform program. One State official in Washington, D.C., estimated he found derogatory information about fewer than two dozen individuals. The officials in Washington, D.C., said their screening efforts were hampered by the frequent lack of adequate data about an individual's identity and date of birth. (Many Afghans use a single name, according to U.S. officials, and birth records are often lacking.) The U.S. Embassy provided us with documents indicating that UNAMA found negative information--including assertions of involvement in drug trafficking, corruption, and assaults--on 939 (38 percent) of 2,464 officers it reviewed during late 2007. A UNAMA official informed us that UNAMA had raised concerns about human rights abuses, ties to insurgent groups, corruption, and involvement in drug trafficking in "several hundred" cases. He stated MOI may have selected some officers despite negative UNAMA information because of factional influence, patronage, or possible corruption. ANP Recruits Screened by Local Authorities and MOI, While Elite Units Receive Additional Screening: ANP enlisted recruits are endorsed in groups by village elders or local government officials and vetted by local police chiefs. According to CSTC-A, the recruits are also screened by MOI's medical, intelligence, and criminal investigative departments, under MOI procedures established in 2004 and in "full implementation" as of December 2008. [Footnote 17] Recruits in certain elite units receive additional screening, according to U.S. officials. These units' authorized personnel levels constitute about 7 percent of all authorized MOI and ANP personnel. * The 56 members of the Afghan Counter Narcotics Police's Special Investigative Unit (SIU) are given periodic polygraph exams, tested for drugs, and screened for human rights violations and drug-related offenses, according to U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officials. DEA officials stated that in 2008 DEA repolygraphed 21 SIU members and eliminated 7 based on the results. DEA noted this one-third failure rate is greater than that of SIUs in other countries. * The 185 members of the Afghan Counter Narcotics Police's National Interdiction Unit are initially tested for drug use and screened for human rights violations and drug-related offenses, according to DEA officials.[Footnote 18] * The commanding general of the Afghan National Civil Order Police informed us that he personally interviews all applicants for his force. In our meeting with him in Kabul, the general stated he had dismissed 120 recruits MOI had sent to him due to allegations of drug use and other abuses.[Footnote 19] Efforts to Enhance MOI and ANP Pay Systems Face Challenges of Limited Cooperation and Lack of a Nationwide Bank System: U.S.-supported pay system efforts are intended to (1) validate the status of reported MOI and ANP personnel rosters and (2) help ensure that MOI and ANP wages are distributed reliably and fairly. Despite some progress, these efforts face challenges that include limited ANP cooperation and a shortage of commercial banks. Although U.S. contractor personnel have validated the status of almost 47,400 current MOI and ANP personnel, they have been unable to validate the status of almost 29,400 additional personnel--paid in part by U.S. contributions to LOTFA--because of a lack of cooperation from certain ANP commanders. As of January 2009, about 97 percent of reported MOI and ANP personnel had enrolled in a new U.S.-supported electronic payroll system, and 58 percent had enrolled in a new electronic funds transfer system to have salaries deposited directly into their bank accounts. However, nearly 40 percent of personnel may have difficulties using this system because they are not located within 15 miles of a commercial bank. Goal of Pay System Projects Is to Promote Individual Reform: U.S.-supported pay system reform efforts are intended to promote individual reform. Unverified personnel lists and weak pay distribution systems are closely linked to corruption in the ANP, according to U.S. agencies. Corrupt pay practices jeopardize U.S. funds provided by State and Defense to LOTFA in support of MOI and ANP wages. The United States has contributed $230 million to LOTFA as of November 2008, which constitutes more than one-third of the $653 million received by LOTFA. The number of actual MOI and ANP personnel is unclear. While LOTFA data indicate that 78,541 personnel were on MOI and ANP payrolls as of January 12, 2009, CSTC-A informed us that MOI does not have an accurate personnel manning roster or tracking system. The inspectors general of State and Defense stated in 2006 that reports of the number of police were inflated and that ANP salaries were being delivered to police stations based on the number of police listed on the rolls. Further, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul reported in 2007 that police chiefs had inflated personnel rosters by creating "ghost policemen"--allowing chiefs to obtain illegal payments. In 2008, we reported that a 2007 Defense census of ANP in several provinces could not confirm the existence of about 20 percent of uniformed police and more than 10 percent of border police listed on MOI's payroll records.[Footnote 20] Weak pay distribution systems have also fostered corruption. The U.S. Embassy reported in 2007 that MOI's use of "trusted agents" to deliver payrolls allowed district chiefs and other officials to take cuts from patrolmen's pay. The embassy also noted that problems remain in regularly and routinely providing pay to outlying districts and closing off opportunities for corruption. In 2006, the State and Defense inspectors general concluded that MOI's "completely broken" pay disbursement system was one cause of the systematic corruption associated with the police. They also found that senior police officials routinely skimmed the salaries of junior police.[Footnote 21] More examples of problems with ANP pay distribution processes can be found in the weekly reports of U.S. civilian police mentors. During a 2- month period in 2008, the mentors reported a variety of financial irregularities and fraud, including the following: * Police in several districts reported that they had not been paid. * Some individuals continued to receive officers' wages after having been demoted to noncommissioned officers. * A district commander had lied about the number of ANP personnel in his district to obtain additional funds. He then used some of these funds to hire civilian friends to "help out" at the station. * A finance officer reported concerns that district chiefs were forcing their men to pay the chiefs part of their wages. * An ANP acting provincial financial chief reported that several district police chiefs had threatened to kill him if he continued to work with the international community on pay matters. * Another ANP provincial financial chief was removed for allegedly conspiring to embezzle funds intended for the families of ANP personnel who had been killed. Effort to Validate Police Databases Challenged by Lack of Full ANP Cooperation: State and MOI have attempted to validate the status of more than 103,000 applicants for police identification cards by positively identifying all police, building a computerized police database, and issuing identification cards for use in paying police salaries. The identification card program began in 2003. State contractor personnel informed us that the validation process is being executed by joint contractor-MOI validation teams that were created because ANP regional zone commanders did not respond to requests to validate the status of applicants in their zones. State informed us in November 2008 that nearly 47,400 MOI and ANP personnel had received identification cards after the validation teams confirmed these applicants had not retired, been killed, or otherwise left the MOI or ANP (see figure 9). MOI and State contractor validation teams also determined that another 26,700 applicants had retired, been killed, or had otherwise left the MOI or ANP, including about 14,200 who had received identification cards before they retired, were killed, or otherwise left the ANP. State informed us that the validation process had been completed in two regional zones in early October 2008. Figure 9: Validation Status of Applicants for Identification Cards, November 2008: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Validation Status of Applicants for Identification Cards, November 2008: Active with ID Card: 47,325; Awaiting validation: 29,372; Retired, killed, or otherwise left ANP or MOI: 26,701; Total: 103,398. Source: GAO analysis of State Department data. [End of figure] However, according to State, these teams have been unable to validate the extent to which another 29,372 applicants--about 37 percent of the total reported MOI and ANP workforce of 78,541--are active and eligible to receive identification cards. State informed us that three ANP zone commanders are not cooperating with efforts to validate the status of these applicants and that plans to complete the validation process have been put on hold until MOI persuades the commanders to cooperate. [Footnote 22] According to CSTC-A and State contractor personnel, the identification cards will eventually be used to identify MOI and ANP personnel for pay purposes. We were informed by contractor personnel that each card has a bar code with specific information concerning each individual's salary group, name, and service number. The card also contains a fingerprint and a digital photograph that can be scanned into a facial recognition program (see figure 10). Figure 10: Sample ANP Identification Cards at MOI's Headquarters in Kabul: [Refer to PDF for image: photograph] Source: GAO. [End of figure] Data collected from individuals are processed by MOI personnel and stored in servers located at MOI headquarters (see figs. 11 and 12). According to State contractor personnel, the cards use a variety of optical features to discourage counterfeiters. Figure 11: Workstation Used to Process Identification Card at MOI Headquarters: [Refer to PDF for image: photograph] Source: GAO. [End of figure] Figure 12: Servers Used to Store Identification Data at MOI Headquarters in Kabul: [Refer to PDF for image: photograph] Source: GAO. [End of figure] Shortage of Banks Impedes Progress in Expanding Direct Deposit Pay System: According to Defense and State, the goal of the new electronic payroll and funds transfer systems is to reduce corruption in pay distribution by establishing fair and reliable pay processes. LOTFA and CSTC-A officials stated the electronic payroll system is intended to replace slow, paper-based processes with an automated system that creates a monthly payroll for police and allows MOI to track individual payments. LOTFA has sponsored training programs to familiarize MOI personnel with the new payroll system (see figure 13). As shown in figure 14, LOTFA data indicate that 97 percent (76,343) of 78,451 reported MOI and ANP personnel were enrolled in the electronic payroll system as of January 2009. Figure 13: LOTFA Electronic Payroll Training Class at MOI Headquarters in Kabul: [Refer to PDF for image: photograph] Source: GAO. [End of figure] Figure 14: Enrollment in Electronic Payroll System, as of January 2009: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Enrollment in Electronic Payroll System, as of January 2009: Enrolled in electronic payroll system: 97%; Not enrolled in electronic payroll system: 3%. Source: GAO analysis of LOTFA data. [End of figure] The electronic funds transfer system is intended to help reduce MOI's use of corruption-prone salary distribution methods by depositing wages directly into the bank accounts of individual MOI and ANP personnel. As of May 2008, LOTFA's stated goal was to enroll 80 percent of MOI and ANP personnel by September 2008. However, as of January 2009, only 58 percent (about 45,200) of 78,451 reported MOI and ANP personnel were enrolled in the system, according to LOTFA (see figure 15). Figure 15: Enrollment in Electronic Funds Transfer System, as of January 2009: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Enrollment in Electronic Funds Transfer System, as of January 2009: Enrolled in electronic funds transfer system: 58%; Not enrolled in electronic funds transfer system: 42%. Source: GAO analysis of LOTFA data. [End of figure] CSTC-A and LOTFA attributed the lack of greater enrollment in the electronic funds transfer system to the absence of a nationwide Afghan banking system. According to CSTC-A and LOTFA data, only about 61 percent (47,900) of reported MOI and ANP personnel live and work within 25 kilometers (about 15 miles) of a commercial bank. In November 2008, CSTC-A informed us that the expansion of the electronic funds transfer program was being limited primarily by the impact of security concerns on efforts to open new banks, as well as by the slow installation of automated teller machines, a lack of reliable power at remote locations, and ANP officials who have not yet embraced the program. CSTC-A officials are exploring the possibility of using cell-phone companies in lieu of commercial banks to provide direct access to wages. Conclusions: While Defense and State have worked with Afghanistan and other international partners to initiate and support reform programs that have the potential to help resolve some of the most significant challenges facing the development of a fully professional MOI and ANP, the agencies have not overcome persistent obstacles that will affect the success of the programs. These obstacles include a lack of dedicated personnel for use in creating new mentor teams to support focused development of police districts. Without dedicated personnel resources, the FDD program's ability to achieve its goals is in jeopardy because it must compete with an expanding Afghan National Army training program. In addition, the Departments of Defense and State have not overcome the resistance of ANP regional commanders who are not cooperating with efforts to validate almost 29,400 names registered to receive ANP identification cards. The United States, Afghanistan, and the international community need a validated database of ANP personnel to help ensure that contributions to LOTFA to pay the wages of Afghan police are not being used to pay nonexistent or inactive personnel. Recommendations for Executive Action: * To help ensure that the FDD program can achieve its goals, we recommend that the Secretaries of Defense and State undertake a coordinated effort to provide dedicated personnel to support the creation of additional police mentor teams needed to expand and complete the FDD program. * To help ensure that the United States does not fund the salaries of unverified ANP personnel, we recommend that the Secretaries of Defense and State consider provisioning future U.S. contributions to LOFTA to reflect the extent to which U.S. agencies have validated the status of MOI and ANP personnel. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: The Departments of State, Defense, and Justice provided written comments on a draft of this report (see apps. V, VI, and VII). In addition, Defense provided technical suggestions, which we have incorporated as appropriate. Defense concurred with our recommendation that Defense and State identify and provide dedicated personnel to support the creation of additional police mentor teams needed to expand and complete the Focused District Development program. Defense stated it is considering possible solutions to the shortfall of police mentor teams. The agency added that it plans to deploy about 17,000 additional forces to Afghanistan and to use some of these forces on police mentoring missions. State noted our recommendation and informed us that it is prepared to recruit additional civilian police mentors for new police mentor teams. State concurred with our recommendation that State and Defense consider provisioning future U.S. contributions to LOFTA to reflect the extent to which U.S. agencies have validated the status of MOI and ANP personnel. State added that U.S. contributions to LOTFA should reflect the extent to which MOI and ANP personnel have been validated. Defense did not concur with this recommendation. It asserted that the recommendation would unduly penalize MOI by significantly reducing police pay and that CSTC-A is working with MOI to identify and validate all personnel on the payroll. We disagree with Defense's comment on our recommendation. Given that the ANP identification card program has been under way for more than 5 years, we believe it is not too soon for Defense to work with State to consider whether to link future U.S. contributions to LOTFA to the number of verified ANP personnel. Our recommendation, if implemented, could help encourage uncooperative ANP commanders to cooperate with U.S.-backed verification efforts and help ensure that only legitimate ANP personnel receive wages subsidized by the United States. We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees and to the Departments of Defense, State, and Justice. The report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors are listed in appendix VIII. Signed by: Charles Michael Johnson Jr. Director, International Affairs and Trade: [End of section] Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: This report assesses U.S. government efforts to help the government of Afghanistan (1) restructure the Ministry of Interior (MOI) and the Afghan National Police (ANP), (2) retrain selected ANP units, (3) screen MOI and ANP personnel, and (4) enhance MOI and ANP identification and pay systems. To assess the status of U.S. efforts to restructure the MOI and ANP, we reviewed the Department of Defense's (Defense) Afghan National Campaign Plan, a draft joint mentor coordination plan prepared by Defense's Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A) and the European Union Police Mission to Afghanistan, and CSTC-A's MOI Development Plan. We also reviewed briefings from CSTC-A on the MOI restructuring program and the mentoring program. In addition, we reviewed Department of State (State) documents, including situation reports from State contractors in Afghanistan. We supplemented this information by meeting with officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and State's bureaus of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and South Central Asian Affairs. In Kabul, we met with CSTC-A officials tasked with MOI reform, including officials who were mentoring MOI personnel, as well as MOI officials. We also observed a weekly MOI restructuring task team group that was attended by representatives of CSTC-A and the international community. To assess the status of U.S. efforts to retrain selected ANP units, we reviewed numerous monthly capability assessments for the district police units included in the Focused District Development (FDD) program's first round. We also reviewed weekly situation reports submitted over several months by State-contracted civilian police mentors in Afghanistan. In addition, we reviewed numerous CSTC-A, OSD, and State briefings that outlined the program's goals, objectives, implementation plans, and overall status. In addition, we met with agency officials to discuss the progress made and the challenges faced by the FDD program. In Washington, D.C., we met with JCS, OSD, and State officials. We also spoke with officials at the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida. In Kabul, we met with officials from CSTC-A tasked with implementing the FDD program, and visited the CSTC-A Central Training Facility near Kabul and the Jalalabad FDD regional training center. In the Chapahar district, we visited an ANP operating base to see a police unit that had been reinserted into its district after FDD training. To assess the status of U.S. efforts to screen MOI and ANP personnel, we reviewed documents and briefings obtained from State, the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan, OSD, CSTC-A, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). In addition, we met with U.S. and other officials to discuss the screening processes for MOI and ANP personnel. In Washington, D.C., we met with officials from Defense, State, and DEA. We also spoke with CENTCOM officials located in Tampa, Florida. In Kabul, we met with State officials at the U.S. Embassy. We also met with DEA officials to discuss screening issues pertaining to the Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan. In addition, we spoke with officials at the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan. To assess the status of U.S. efforts to enhance MOI and ANP identification and pay systems, we reviewed data and documents from the United Nations Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan (LOTFA), CSTC- A, and State-contracted mentors in Afghanistan. We also met with State contractor, CSTC-A, LOTFA, and U.S. Embassy personnel in Kabul. To determine the reliability of the data we collected concerning the identification card and electronic pay systems programs, we compared data collected from multiple sources to assess their consistency and obtained written descriptions from LOTFA and State contractor personnel concerning the processes they used to compile and check the data. We concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. Any information on foreign law in this report is not a product of original analysis but was instead derived from interviews and secondary sources. [End of section] Appendix II: Structure of the Ministry of Interior and Afghan National Police: Component: Ministry of Interior; Description: Responsible for the enforcement of the rule of law. Component: Afghan Uniformed Police; Description: Assigned to police districts and provincial and regional commands; duties include patrols, crime prevention, traffic duties, and general policing. Component: Afghan Border Police; Description: Provides broad law enforcement capability at international borders and entry points. Component: Afghan National Civil Order Police; Description: Specialized police force trained and equipped to counter civil unrest and lawlessness. Component: Criminal Investigative Division; Description: Leads investigations of national interest, those with international links, and those concerned with organized and white- collar crime. Component: Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan; Description: Law enforcement agency charged with reducing narcotics production and distribution in Afghanistan. Component: Counter Terrorism Police; Description: Leads police and law enforcement efforts to defeat terrorism and insurgency. Source: U.S. Department of Defense. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix III: Organizational Chart for the Ministry of Interior and Afghan National Police: [Refer to PDF for image: organizational chart] Minister of Interior: * Deputy Minister for Counter Narcotics; - Operations Chief; -- Special Counter Narcotics Units; -- Regional and Provincial Counter Narcotics Chief; * Deputy Minister for Security; - Border Police Chief; - Afghan National Civil Order Police Chief; - Deputy Uniformed Police Chief; -- Regional Commander South; -- Regional Commander North; -- Regional Commander East; -- Regional Commander West; -- Regional Commander Central; -- Kabul Regional Commander; - Anticrime Chief; - Special Operations Chief; - Plans and Operations Chief; - Intelligence Chief; - Public Guard. Source: Department of Defense. [End of figure] [End of section] Appendix IV: MOI and ANP Nonofficer Pay Rates before and after Pay Reform: Rank: First sergeant; Monthly rates before pay reform: $62; Monthly rates after pay reform: $190; Percentage increase in salary: 206. Rank: Second sergeant; Monthly rates before pay reform: $62; Monthly rates after pay reform: $170; Percentage increase in salary: 174. Rank: Third sergeant; Monthly rates before pay reform: $62; Monthly rates after pay reform: $145; Percentage increase in salary: 134. Rank: First patrolman; Monthly rates before pay reform: $70; Monthly rates after pay reform: $110; Percentage increase in salary: 57. Rank: Second patrolman; Monthly rates before pay reform: $70; Monthly rates after pay reform: $100; Percentage increase in salary: 43. Source: GAO analysis of Defense data. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense: Office Of The Assistant Secretary Of Defense: Asian and Pacific Security Affairs: 2700 Defense Pentagon: Washington, DC 20301-2700: February 25, 2009: Mr. Charles Johnson Jr. Director, International Affairs and Trade: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548: Dear Mr. Johnson: The following are Department of Defense (DoD) comments to the GAO draft report (GAO-09-280SU), "Afghanistan Security: U.S. Programs to Further Reform Ministry of Interior and National Police Challenged by Lack of Military Personnel and Afghan Cooperation," dated February 9, 2009 (GAO Code 320570). DoD Comments refer to the two recommendations in the draft report. Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretaries of Defense and State undertake a coordinated effort to provide dedicated personnel to create additional police mentor teams needed to expand and complete the Focused District Development (FDD) program. (Page 31/GAO Draft Report) DOD Response: DoD concurs with the recommendation. DoD is considering possible solutions to the shortfall of police mentor teams, and notes that the Secretary of Defense recently approved deploying approximately 17,000 additional forces to Afghanistan, some of which will be used on police mentoring missions. Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretaries of Defense and State consider provisioning future U.S. contributions to Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan (LOFTA) to reflect the extent to which U.S. agencies have validated the status of Afghan Ministry of Interior (MOI) and Afghan National Police (ANP) personnel. (Page 31/GAO Draft Report) DOD Response: DoD non-concurs with this recommendation. Implementing it would result in significantly reducing police pay, which would unduly penalize the MOI at a time when it is taking steps to address accountability challenges. Combined Security Transition Command- Afghanistan (CSTC-A) notes that it is working with the MOI to implement programs to identify and validate all personnel on the payroll. The Minister has dispatched teams to each province whose mission is to verify personnel and equipment throughout the country. He is also setting up a program of periodic re-validations to check compliance with the new systems that the teams are implementing. My point of contact is Ms. Cara Negrette, (703) 695-2859, or email: cara.negrette@osd.mil. Sincerely, Signed by: Illegible, for: David Sedney: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense East Asia: Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of Defense Asian and Pacific Security Affairs: [End of section] Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Justice: U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, D.C 20530: February 23, 2009: Mr. Charles M. Johnson, Jr. Director, International Affairs and Trade: U.S. Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20510-1501 Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled Afghanistan Security: US. Programs to Further Reform Ministry of Interior and National Police Challenged by Lack of Military Personnel and Afghan Cooperation, GAO-09-280SU Given the GAO's finding of the lack of adequate personnel, the Department of Justice (the Department) wishes to note the GAO report reflects the absence of the Criminal Division's International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) from the Afghanistan police training mission, as well as the overall criminal justice system. ICITAP works with foreign governments to develop professional and transparent law enforcement institutions that protect human rights, combat corruption. and reduce the threat of transnational crime and terrorism. ICITAP programs are designed in partnership with the host countries, and program implementation methods include: on-the-ground, pre-program assessments; program planning, management, and review; curriculum development; classroom training, seminars, and workshops; internships; equipment donations; donor coordination; and on-the-job training and mentoring provided by embedded, long-term advisors. ICITAP is well-known as the premiere organization to provide a broad array of police, corrections, border, anti-corruption, and forensic training programs and has conducted its programs in over forty (40) countries, always with a keen eye toward capacity building of the host nation's law enforcement institutions. One of ICITAP's strengths lies with the ability to reach deep into the Department agencies for subject matter expertise, something no other law enforcement training program can do. Some of ICITAP's success stories include: * ICITAP was the first civilian law enforcement development and training organization on the ground after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, coordinating with coalition partners and deploying hundreds of professional advisors to Iraq and training thousands of Iraqis; ICITAP also developed a nationwide corrections system. * ICITAP spearheaded the Police Assistance Program for the Indonesian National Police after its separation from the Indonesian Armed Forces; the program expanded over the years to focus on building Indonesia's capability to combat trans-national crime throughout its sprawling archipelago. * Working with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, ICITAP led the building of a police academy in Kosovo to prepare and train the new Kosovo Police Service (KPS). * After the Dayton Peace Accords were signed, ICITAP supported United Nations efforts to stand up a police force in Bosnia-Herzegovina. ICITAP's developmental work-particularly its technical assistance in implementing modern information management systems-was critical to combating terrorist and organized crime threats in the region. ICITAP currently receives no direct appropriation for its valuable work. Nevertheless, if asked, ICITAP stands ready, willing, and able to assist in the wide-ranging needs of the Afghanistan Ministry of Interior, its National Police, and the entire criminal justice community. Thank you again for the opportunity to review the draft report and to submit our written comments for publication. If you have questions, please contact Richard Theis, the Department's Audit Liaison on 202 514- 0469. Sincerely, Signed by: Lee J. Lofthus: Assistant Attorney General for Administration: [End of section] Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of State: Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the end of this appendix. United States Department of State: Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial Officer: Washington, D.C. 20520: March 3, 2009: Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: Managing Director International Affairs and Trade: Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Afghanistan Security: U.S. Programs to Further Reform Ministry of Interior and National Police Challenged by Lack of Military Personnel and Afghan Cooperation," GAO Job Code 320570. 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 Melanie Brock, Program Manager, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs at (202) 776-8829. Sincerely, Signed by: James L. Millette: cc: GAO - Hynek Kalkus: INL -- David T. Johnson: State/OIG - Mark Duda: Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: Afghanistan Security: U.S. Programs to Further Ministry of Interior Reform and National Police Challenged by Lack of Military Personnel and Afghan Cooperation (GAO-09-280SU/Code 320570): The Department welcomes this report and appreciates the GAO's views on the status of Afghan National Police development and Ministry of Interior reform, as well as its recommendations on how to improve USG and international efforts to develop the Afghan National Police. The Department notes GAO's recommendations that the Secretaries of Defense and State identify and provide dedicated personnel to support the creation of additional police mentor teams needed to expand and complete the Focused District Development program. Pending completion of the comprehensive strategy review, it is likely that the Focused District Development will remain a priority effort. To that end, the Department of State is prepared to recruit up to 286 additional civilian police mentors in 2009 - paid for with Department of Defense funding - to meet the civilian police requirement for additional police mentor teams. We concur with GAO's recommendation that the Secretaries of Defense and State consider provisioning U.S. contributions to the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan for police wages. Our contributions should reflect the extent to which U.S. agencies have validated the status of Ministry of Interior and Afghan National Police personnel. While USG contributions are made through the Defense Department, the Department of State continues to support and strengthen validated identification of Afghan National Police personnel. We are accomplishing this through the issuance of ANP identification cards as part of the Focused District Development process and the development of an in-processing program - to be implemented this spring - to more accurately track trainees following their graduation from Focused District Development. Among other things, the new in-processing program will leverage the existing ID card database to capture screening results such as medical and biometrics data, fitness assessment, and financial information for electronic payment of salaries. We note with concern, however, that the report does not clearly and consistently differentiate between the separate processes of Leahy vetting and rank reform; rather, it appears to classify the two processes together as "screening." [See comment 1] Leahy vetting of individual police personnel was undertaken by the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). The DRL process vetted senior MOI officers, starting with Generals, for human rights concerns for the positions they had been selected for after testing, whereas the rank reform process of testing all senior-level Ministry of Interior officials - intended to determine appropriate rank levels of senior officials - was led by the Defense Department's Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan (CSTC-A) The following is GAO's comment on Department of State's letter dated March 3, 2009. GAO Comment: 1. As noted in our report, we use the term "screening" to include both the testing and background checks that were undertaken to accomplish the goals of the rank reform effort. [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 contact named above, Hynek Kalkus (Assistant Director), Pierre Toureille, Christopher Banks, Lucia DeMaio, Mattias Fenton, Cindy Gilbert, Mark Dowling, Lynn Cothern, and Jena Sinkfield made key contributions to this report. [End of section] Footnotes: [1] Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index ranks more than 150 countries in terms of perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys. [2] See GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). [3] According to Defense, the role of the ANP encompasses a wide range of policing, law enforcement, and security missions. [4] As described in the background section of this report, enhancing MOI and ANP organizational and individual capability are two of CSTC- A's reform objectives. [5] A force of Afghan National Civil Order Police maintains order in the district during the unit's absence. [6] We have not included the number of FDD units because Defense controls this information as For Official Use Only. We plan to issue a For Official Use Only annex to this report. [7] For more information about the ring road, see GAO, Afghanistan Reconstruction: Progress Made in Constructing Roads, but Assessments for Determining Impact and a Sustainable Maintenance Program Are Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-689] (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2008). [8] One similar district police reform program was the In District Reform (IDR) program, which used the same basic training program as FDD but relied on U.S. Marines to provide security in the district when half of the local police force was removed for training. When the first half of the force finished with the training, it was returned to active duty and the other half of the police force went to training. Marines became part of the IDR police mentor teams, along with contractor personnel and other trainers. [9] CSTC-A informed us in January 2009 that FDD-like district-level police retraining programs could draw on personnel from international forces or U.S. forces other than the U.S. Army. For example, U.S. Marine Corps personnel are supporting efforts to reform several police units in their districts. [10] See GAO, Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan and Iraq, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-86R] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2008). [11] Inspectors General, Departments of State and Defense, Interagency Assessment of Afghanistan Police Training and Readiness (Washington, D.C., and Arlington, Va., November 2006). [12] An ANP general informed us in May 2008 that senior officers were administered written and oral tests while field officers were generally tested orally. [13] CSTC-A informed us it does not have data concerning the number of generals who passed or failed the tests. The officer corps included 319 generals before rank reform and 159 generals after rank reform. [14] A recent amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act states that "no assistance shall be furnished under the Foreign Assistance Act or the Arms Export Control Act to any unit of the security forces of another country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that such unit has committed gross violations of human rights." Pub. L. 110-161, Div. J, Title VI, sec. 651 codified at 22 U.S.C. 2378d. Prior to passage of this amendment, similar language (known as the "Leahy Amendment") was regularly incorporated into annual foreign operations appropriations measures. [15] A UNAMA official informed us that some of the names screened by UNAMA may have been duplicates. [16] UNAMA officials told us they no longer provide background information because MOI officials had wrongly informed some officers that they had been rejected because of UNAMA. UNAMA informed us that it would require a formal request from the Afghan government to resume such efforts. [17] The State and Defense inspectors general reported in 2006 that MOI procedures were not always used and had been bypassed by recruiters at one U.S.-supported regional training center. See Inspectors General, U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Defense, Interagency Assessment of Afghanistan Police Training and Readiness (Washington, D.C., and Arlington, Va., November 2006). [18] DEA officials stated that the National Interdiction Unit's authorized strength is 288. [19] The Afghan National Civil Order Police is scheduled to reach its full strength of 5,365 in March 2011. [20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-661]. [21] Inspectors General, U.S. Departments of State and Defense, Interagency Assessment of Afghanistan Police Training and Readiness. [22] In commenting on a draft of this report in February 2009, Defense stated that MOI had recently formed provincial inspection teams that will attempt to verify personnel throughout the country. We were not able to independently confirm whether these teams will validate the status of identification card applicants. [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 Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 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 Web site, [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. To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Web site: [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: Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: (202) 512-4400: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7125: Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548: