GAO-11-108, National Security: An Overview of Professional Development Activities Intended to Improve Interagency Collaboration


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-108 
entitled 'National Security: An Overview of Professional Development 
Activities Intended to Improve Interagency Collaboration' which was 
released on December 15, 2010. 

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

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

United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

November 2010: 

National Security: 

An Overview of Professional Development Activities Intended to Improve 
Interagency Collaboration: 

GAO-11-108: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-108, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Agencies must engage in a whole-of-government approach to protect the 
nation and its interests from diverse threats such as terrorism and 
infectious diseases. However, GAO has reported that gaps in national 
security staff knowledge and skills pose a barrier to the interagency 
collaboration needed to address these threats. Training and other 
professional development activities could help bridge those gaps. GAO 
was asked to identify: (1) training and other professional development 
activities intended to improve the ability of key national security 
agencies’ personnel to collaborate across organizational lines and (2) 
how these activities were intended to improve participants’ 
collaboration abilities. 

To address these objectives, GAO asked nine key agencies involved in 
national security issues to submit information on professional 
development activities that were explicitly intended to build staff 
knowledge or skills for improving interagency collaboration. In 
addition, GAO gathered and analyzed other information such as target 
audience, participation levels, and participating agencies. GAO also 
interviewed responsible human capital and training officials. GAO will 
explore how interagency participation and other factors may influence 
the success of these activities in a subsequent review. 

GAO does not have any recommendations in this report. Technical 
comments from the agencies reviewed were incorporated where 
appropriate. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO identified 225 professional development activities intended to 
improve participants’ ability to collaborate across agency lines. 
These ranged from ten-month joint professional military education 
programs and year-long rotations to 30-minute online training courses. 
Because these activities varied widely across dimensions such as 
length and learning mode, the activities were grouped to allow for 
appropriate analysis and comparisons of their characteristics, as 
shown in the table. 

Table: Types and Quantity of Professional Development Activities 
Identified: 

Activity type: Training Courses and Programs; 
Description: Planned learning for acquiring and retaining the skills, 
knowledge, and attitudes required to complete specific tasks; 
Quantity: 104. 

Activity type: Exercise Programs; 
Description: Scenario-based training that allows for the development, 
improvement, or display of specific capabilities or skills; 
Quantity: 90. 

Activity type: Interagency Rotation Programs; 
Description: Work assignments at a different agency from the one in 
which the participant is normally employed, with an explicit 
professional development purpose; 
Quantity: 7. 

Activity type: Joint Professional Military Education Programs; 
Description: A subset of military career education intended to foster 
collaboration across service branches, agencies, and countries for a 
whole-of-government approach to national security; 
Quantity: 13. 

Activity type: Leadership Development Programs; 
Description: Programs with a national security focus, intended to 
build leadership skills such as communication, teamwork, and staff 
development; 
Quantity: 11. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[End of table] 

Overall, we found that DOD, State, and DHS provided most of the 
professional development activities that met our criteria. We found 
some variation within the different types of activities, mostly 
related to provider, mode of delivery, or participation levels. DHS, 
DOD, and State provided the majority of training activities, which 
primarily consisted of short-term, online, or classroom courses. DOD 
provided most of the exercise programs and all of the JPME programs. 
DOD and State provided the majority of interagency rotational programs 
and all of the leadership development programs that met our criteria. 
Although agencies could not provide participation data in every 
instance, the data obtained indicated that overall, interagency 
participation was lower in activities that required a longer time 
commitment, such as rotations and full-time joint professional 
military education. 

Analysis of the activities GAO identified showed that they are 
intended to provide opportunities to (1) build common foundational 
knowledge of the national security arena; (2) develop specific skills, 
such as how to plan, lead, and execute interagency efforts; and (3) 
establish networks among personnel from national security agencies 
that could lead to improved interagency collaboration. According to 
human capital and training officials at several agencies, the level of 
interagency participation may affect how a given professional 
development activity can improve its participants’ ability to 
collaborate. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-108] or key 
components. For more information, contact Bernice Steinhardt at (202) 
512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Key Agencies Involved in National Security Issues Offer a Range of 
Professional Development Activities Intended to Foster Interagency 
Collaboration: 

Professional Development Activities Provide Opportunities to Build 
Foundational Knowledge, Skills, and Networks That Are Intended to 
Improve Interagency Collaboration: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, And Methodology: 

Appendix II: Inventory Of Professional Development Activities Intended 
To Foster Interagency Collaboration: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact And Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Participation Levels and Selected Characteristics of Short- 
Term Training Courses by Providing Agency: 

Table 2: Participation Levels and Selected Characteristics of Long-
Term Training Programs: 

Table 3: Exercise Programs and Selected Characteristics by Providing 
Agency: 

Table 4: Participation and Selected Characteristics of Interagency 
Rotational Programs: 

Table 5: Selected JPME Program Characteristics by Education Level: 

Table 6: Academic Year 2009 Participation Levels and Selected 
Characteristics of JPME Programs by Number of Participants from Other 
Federal Agencies: 

Table 7: Participation and Selected Characteristics of Leadership 
Development Programs by Providing Agency: 

Table 8: Training Courses and Programs: 

Table 9: Exercise Programs: 

Table 10: Interagency Rotational Programs: 

Table 11: Joint Professional Military Education Programs: 

Table 12: Leadership Development Programs: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Summary of Professional Development Activity Findings: 

Figure 2: Growing Emphasis on Need for Interagency Participation in 
Army College Programs Led to Creation of Army Command and General 
Staff College's Interagency Fellowship Program: 

Abbreviations: 

DHS: Department Of Homeland Security: 

DOD: Department Of Defense: 

DOE: Department Of Energy: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

FS: Foreign Service (pay schedule): 

GS: General Schedule: 

JPME: Joint Professional Military Education: 

NGO: Nongovermental Organization: 

NDU: National Defense University: 

NNSA: National Nuclear Security Administration: 

O: Officer-Level (pay schedule): 

ROTC: Reserve Officers' Training Corps: 

SES: Senior Executive Service: 

SFS: Senior Foreign Service: 

SL/ST: Senior-Level And Scientific Or Professional: 

STATE: Department Of State: 

TREASURY: Department Of Treasury: 

USAID: United States Agency For International Development: 

USG: United States Government: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 15, 2010 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable George V. Voinovich: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 
Workforce, and The District Of Columbia: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable John F. Tierney: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Jeff Flake: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

With threats to the u.s. as diverse as terrorism, cyber attacks, drug 
trafficking, infectious diseases, energy security, and the adverse 
effects of climate change, the national security landscape has 
recently evolved in complexity and scope. As we have reported, because 
no single federal agency has the ability to address these threats 
alone, agencies must work together in a whole-of-government approach 
to protect our nation and its interests. our previous work has shown 
that there are a number of barriers to agencies' collaboration in 
addressing these threats.[Footnote 1] One barrier stems from gaps in 
the knowledge and skills national security professionals need to work 
together across agency lines. Our work has also shown that 
participation in interagency training and other professional 
development activities may help bridge such gaps by enhancing mutual 
trust and understanding among personnel from different organizations. 
[Footnote 2] The 2010 National Security Strategy also underscores the 
importance of professional development for improving interagency 
collaboration, calling for adapting the education and training of 
national security personnel to meet modern challenges.[Footnote 3] 

To help Congress better understand what actions agencies are taking to 
bridge these gaps in personnel knowledge and skills, you asked us to 
identify: (1) training and other professional development activities 
intended to improve the abilities of personnel from key agencies 
involved in national security issues to collaborate across 
organizational lines and (2) how these activities were intended to 
improve participants' collaboration abilities. As you also requested, 
a subsequent report will address factors that contribute to or 
challenge the success of such activities and programs. 

To address our objectives, we first reviewed our prior work and other 
literature and interviewed experts on workforce development, 
education, national security, organizational culture, and 
collaboration to define the types of activities relevant to our topic. 
We selected key agencies involved in national security issues--the 
Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of State (State), the U.S. 
Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Treasury (Treasury), the 
Department of Justice (Justice), the Department of Energy (DOE), the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of Commerce 
(Commerce)--based on a review of the prior work and other literature 
and interviews with subject-matter experts.[Footnotes 4, 5] Because 
there is no central repository of information on professional 
development activities across the national security community, we 
collected data directly from each of these agencies. In some cases, we 
collected information directly from academic and training institutions 
within these organizations, such as DOD's National Defense University, 
State's Foreign Service Institute, and DHS's Emergency Management 
Institute. We then administered a questionnaire to relevant training, 
education, human capital, and program officials in the agencies asking 
them to identify and submit information on all professional 
development activities they were aware of that met these criteria: 

* explicitly intends to build knowledge or skills among federal 
civilian and/or military personnel to encourage or improve 
collaboration with personnel of other federal departments; 

* targets federal civilian and/or military personnel involved in 
developing or implementing national security policy, strategy, 
missions, or operations, but not support functions such as 
administration, financial management, or procurement; 

* relates to national security activities; and: 

* is an ongoing, sustained activity, not a one-time event. 

We took several steps to obtain as complete, consistent, and accurate 
information as possible. We asked agency officials to submit 
information on relevant professional development activities they 
hosted, as well as activities their personnel attended at other 
agencies or training institutions. By comparing these responses, we 
were able to identify and include some relevant activities that host 
agencies did not submit. For example, although officials at three 
agencies said their personnel participated in the National Exercise 
Program, the two agencies chiefly responsible for organizing the 
program did not initially include the program in their 
responses.[Footnote 6] We followed up with human capital, education, 
training, and program officials multiple times to reconcile such 
differences, which may have occurred because agencies have different 
working definitions of "national security” and “collaboration,” and 
different ways of understanding how these concepts might intersect. 

Agencies submitted a number of activities that they said were 
important to improving interagency collaboration in the national 
security arena that we excluded from our analysis because they were 
not explicitly intended to improve their participants’ collaboration 
abilities and therefore did not fall within the scope of this report. 
For example, several agencies submitted information on collaborative 
work groups convened to address a particular national security 
concern, such as the Treasury-led Committee on Foreign Investment in 
the U.S., which brings together personnel from multiple federal 
agencies to identify and address potential national security risks 
posed by certain foreign investments.[Footnote 7] Several agencies 
also submitted interagency assignments such as details, attachés, and 
advisors intended to support the agencies’ missions, but the agencies 
did not manage these positions as professional development 
opportunities, and as such they lacked an explicitly developmental 
element intended to improve participants’ collaboration abilities 
beyond the specific assignment.[Footnote 8] 

More than 200 of the more than 350 activities that agencies submitted 
met our criteria and we therefore included them in our inventory. We 
gathered additional information on these, including available fiscal 
year 2009 participation data, and analyzed characteristics and 
statistics such as typical duration, eligibility criteria, 
participation rates, and participating agencies to identify groups of 
activities, patterns, themes, and other information. We determined 
these data to be reliable for the purposes of identifying and 
describing developmental activities. We further assessed the 
reliability of the participation data by interviewing knowledgeable 
agency officials and determined these data to be sufficiently reliable 
to report approximate participation levels for 2009. The complete 
inventory of activities is available in appendix II and the electronic 
supplement GAO-11-109SP. 

We conducted our work from September 2009 to November 2010 in 
accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that 
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan 
and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence 
to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our 
work. We believe that the information and data obtained and the 
analysis conducted provide a reasonable basis for any findings and 
conclusions in this product. 

Background: 

In the past, DOD, USAID, and State were the federal agencies primarily 
responsible for national security. Over the past decade, however, 
events such as 9/11 and the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 
have underscored the need for a broader and more integrated national 
security effort. One of the first structural changes Congress made to 
address this need was to integrate 22 separate agencies with domestic 
national security responsibilities to create DHS.[Footnote 9] Today, 
greater emphasis is being placed on identifying whole-of-government 
approaches to developing national security policies and carrying out 
operations. Such an approach emphasizes the contributions of agencies 
not traditionally associated with national security. For example, 
Commerce plays a role in monitoring exports of technology to make sure 
that sensitive items with military uses do not fall into the hands of 
our enemies. 

In light of the challenges that the U.S. government continues to 
experience in its efforts to coordinate the actions of the agencies 
involved—whether it be preventing a terrorist attack or overseeing 
reconstruction and stabilization efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan—there 
is an ongoing policy debate on how to enhance and sustain interagency 
collaborative efforts. Among the range of proposals for reform, there 
is a growing consensus that the government’s professional development 
efforts could contribute to more effective interagency collaboration, 
which is seen as key to U.S. national security. Specifically, a number 
of reports-—such as the Project on National Security Reform’s Forging 
a New Shield and the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, written by 
experts working in the national security field—-recommended 
establishing a cadre of national security specialists from all 
relevant departments and agencies, and placing them in a long-term 
career development program designed to provide them with a better 
understanding of the processes and cultures of other agencies. 
Proponents contend that such a program would help the U.S. government 
prepare personnel with national security responsibilities to plan, 
execute, and lead national security missions. More recently, in 
September 2010, Congressmen Ike Skelton and Geoff Davis introduced the 
Interagency National Security Professional Education, Administration, 
and Development Systems Act of 2010 which seeks to create a system to 
educate, train, and develop interagency national security 
professionals across the government.[Footnote 10] 

Agencies have historically defined their own professional development 
activities for their national security personnel. In 2007, however, 
the Bush Administration launched the National Security Professional 
Development (NSPD) initiative to integrate professional development 
activities for national security personnel as part of a larger effort 
to enhance interagency collaboration. Executive Order 13434, May 17, 
2007, entitled National Security Professional Development, required 
the heads of all agencies with national security responsibilities to 
identify or enhance current professional development activities for 
their national security personnel. In addition, the order established 
an Executive Steering Committee composed of 15 agency Secretaries or 
Directors (or their designees) to facilitate implementation of the 
National Strategy for Professional Development.[Footnote 11] To 
coordinate NSPD-related activities among agencies, the Executive 
Steering Committee established the NSPD Integration Office, which 
created an online repository of information on available training and 
other professional development activities for national security 
professionals. 

Recently, two studies have been launched to reexamine NSPD and to take 
a more comprehensive look at the skills, education, training, and 
professional experiences that interagency national security 
professionals need at various career stages. While awaiting the 
results of these studies, the NSPD executive staff is reviewing issues 
related to the scope and definition of national security professionals 
and revising the NSPD strategy and implementation plan. Several 
agencies reported putting implementation of their NSPD-related 
training and professional development activities on hold pending the 
results of these reviews, or other direction from the administration. 
In addition, the online repository of information is no longer 
available. 

Key Agencies Involved in National Security Issues Offer a Range of 
Professional Development Activities Intended to Foster Interagency 
Collaboration: 

We identified 225 professional development activities intended to 
improve participants’ abilities to collaborate across organizational 
lines.[Footnote 12] These ranged from 10-month joint professional 
military education programs and year-long rotations to 30-minute 
online courses. Because these activities varied so widely across 
dimensions such as length and learning mode, we grouped them in a way 
that would allow us to analyze their characteristics and make 
appropriate comparisons. These five general groups included training 
courses and programs, training exercises, interagency rotational 
programs, Joint Professional Military Education (JPME), and leadership 
development programs. We provide further description of these groups 
in figure 1. 

Additionally, six of the eight agencies represented on the Executive 
Steering Committee established by the executive order—DOD, DHS, 
Justice, Commerce, State, and DOE—identified training related to the 
National Security Professional Development (NSPD) initiative.[Footnote 
13] We categorized NSPD separately because, although the developmental 
activities created under its auspices to date have included mostly 
online training courses, when fully implemented, NSPD was intended to 
include a range of activities from training courses to interagency 
assignments, fellowships, and exchanges. NSPD was intended to play a 
critical role in informing national security professional development 
activities, and as such, is included in our review in addition to the 
five groups listed above. 

Overall, we found that DOD, State, and DHS provided most of the 
professional development activities that met our criteria. We found 
some variation within the different types of activities, mostly 
related to provider, mode of delivery, or participation levels. DHS, 
DOD, and State provided the majority of training activities, which 
primarily consisted of short-term, online, or classroom courses. DOD 
provided most of the exercise programs and all of the JPME programs. 
DOD and State provided the majority of interagency rotational programs 
and all of the leadership development programs that met our criteria. 
Each of the other agencies we reviewed provided at least one relevant 
professional development activity.[Footnote 14] All of the agencies we 
reviewed reported sending personnel to participate in one or more 
activities in fiscal year 2009. 

Among the activities for which agencies provided participation data, 
we found that short-term, online training tended to have the highest 
participation levels. Participation levels associated with longer-term 
activities—such as interagency rotational programs—were much lower. 
Figure 1 below summarizes these and other findings and provides more 
detailed descriptions of our six activity groups.[Footnote 15] 

Figure 1: Summary of Professional Development Activity Findings: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration containing 6 photographs and 
accompanying information] 

Training Courses and Programs[A] identified: 104: 

Planned learning for acquiring and retaining skills, knowledge, and 
attitudes. In our review, most were online courses provided by DHS's 
EMI or DOD's Joint Forces Command, or classroom courses provided by 
State's FSI.[B] 
* Fiscal year 2009 participation: 228,000 in online courses; 13,000 in 
classroom courses; 2,000 in a combination of online and classroom 
courses[C]. 
* Most courses provided a common framework for understanding national 
security topics or information on how to work with an agency with 
national security responsibilities. 

Exercise Programs identified: 90: 

Scenario-based training that allows for the development, improvement, 
or display of specific capabilities or skills. In our review, most 
were DOD joint military exercises. 
* Fiscal year 2009 participation: data not provided for most.[D] 
* Most exercises intended to bring participants together to practice 
working collaboratively within a range of national security-related 
scenarios. 

Interagency Rotational Programs identified: 7: 

Work assignments at a different agency from the one in which the 
participant is normally employed, with an explicit professional 
development purpose. In our review, most involved sending personnel 
between civilian agencies and the military.
* Fiscal year 2009 participation: 240. 
* Most rotations provided participants opportunities to learn about 
organizational culture and build networks among partner national 
security agencies. 

In our review, the majority of training was through OHS Emergency 
Management Institute's online courses on integrated national emergency 
response topics (far left) or through State Foreign Service 
Institute's classroom courses (not pictured). A few other agencies and 
organizations also provided training courses on specialized topics. 
For example, DOJ provided a course for law enforcement officials on 
conducting post-blast investigations (far right), and State's Office 
of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization provided a 
course that develops the skills planners need to conduct interagency 
conflict assessments in the field (center). 

Photo Sources: 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 
State. 
DHS/Emergency Management Institute. 

Joint Professional Military Education programs identified: 13: 

A subset of military career education intended to foster collaboration 
across military service branches, agencies, and countries. In our 
review, most civilian agencies reported sending personnel to these 
programs. 
* Academic year 2009 participation:[E] 5,100. 
* Programs sought to provide a whole-of-government perspective to 
national security through curriculum and by exposing students to other 
agencies’ perspectives. 

Leadership Development Programs identified: 11: 

Programs with a national security focus intended to build leadership 
skills such as communication, teamwork, and staff development. In our 
review, programs were provided by State or DOD. 
* Fiscal year 2009 participation: 560. 
* Most programs intended to prepare personnel to lead within a 
complex, explicitly interagency environment. 

National Security Professional Development activities identified: 
N/A[F]: 

A governmentwide initiative established by executive order in 2007 to 
identify and develop national security professionals at 15 federal 
agencies. 
* Fiscal year 2009 participation: Most NSPD training suspended for 
fiscal year 2009. 
* Initial NSPD-related training provided a common framework for 
understanding national security topics or information on how to work 
with partner agencies with national security responsibilities. Some 
provided interagency networking opportunities. 

In our review, DOD provided the majority of professional development 
activities. These included JPME programs such as the National War 
College Master of Science in National Security Strategy at the 
National Defense University (far left) and leadership development 
programs with a national security focus, such as the Program for 
Emerging Leaders at the National Defense University’s Center for the 
Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction (top). In addition, DOD conducted 
numerous joint-military exercises open to interagency participation 
(near left). DOD also created an office to implement its NSPD program 
(not pictured). 

Photo sources: 
DOD’s National Defense University. 
USAF/Staff Sgt. Ricky A. Bloom/Released. 
Photo: DOD’s National Defense University. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] This number includes 101 individual courses and 3 programs 
comprising multiple courses: we could not obtain course-specific 
information for some of these programs within our reporting time frame. 

[B] The U.S. Joint Forces Command, through its Joint Training 
Directorate/Joint Warfighting Center (J7), coordinates the military's 
overall joint training efforts while working with a range of partners 
including the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the 
services, combatant commands, and interagency and multinational 
communities. 

[C] Rounded to nearest 1,000. All other participation numbers in this 
table rounded to nearest 10. 

[D] A DOD Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness official said it collects exercise-level data from the 
services and combatant commands on whether exercises included 
interagency participation, but does not collect data on the number of 
individuals who participated in the exercises. The official said that 
this is the level of information needed for management decision making 
related to its goal to increase interagency participation in joint 
military exercises. Also, DHS provided participation data for only one 
of its National Exercise Program exercises. 

[E] Most JPME programs reported participation by academic year. 

[F] N/A = not applicable. Agencies submitted a range of activities 
under NSPD and did not consistently provide 2009 participation data. 

[End of figure] 

DHS, DOD, and State Provided Majority of Short-Term Training Courses 
and DHS Online Courses Had Highest Participation Levels of All 
Training Activities: 

According to our analysis, DHS, DOD, and State provided the majority 
of the 101 short-term training courses that met our criteria. Over 
half of these courses were provided in a classroom setting; most of 
the other courses were provided as online independent study courses, 
and several courses either mixed or offered a choice between the two 
modes. State’s Foreign Service Institute (FSI) provided most of the 52 
classroom directed-study courses, which typically lasted several days 
or longer and covered the range of policy issues that State addresses, 
such as post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization and commercial 
and trade activity. DHS’s Emergency Management Institute (EMI) and DOD—
through its Joint Knowledge Online system—provided the 43 online 
courses, most of which lasted less than 3 hours. These online courses 
covered topics ranging from the National Response Framework, which is 
a framework for how agencies collaborate on national preparedness 
planning efforts, to the roles and responsibilities of different 
agencies involved in interagency planning efforts such as Joint 
Interagency Coordination Groups.[Footnotes 16, 17] DOD’s Information 
Resources Management College at the National Defense University (NDU) 
provided the six courses that mixed classroom and online learning or 
offered participants a choice between the two modes. These courses, 
such as Multiagency Collaboration and Enterprise Strategic Planning, 
covered organizational management topics in the context of national 
security and interagency collaboration, and could be taken either in a 
10-to 12-week online format or as a 5-day classroom seminar on the NDU 
campus. 

Some of the courses targeted participants of certain career levels or 
with certain areas of responsibility. For example, EMI’s introductory 
national response framework course targeted executive-level personnel 
from government and other organizations with responsibilities for 
emergency response. Other courses, such as FSI’s Foundations of 
Interagency Reconstruction and Stabilization Operations course, did 
not target a specific employee level or rank but were open to anyone 
preparing to deploy to Afghanistan, Iraq, or other conflict-prone 
countries. 

The vast majority of participation in short-term training courses—95 
percent—was associated with DHS online courses offered through EMI, 
which is housed within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 
EMI tracks participation in two categories: (1) FEMA, and (2) all 
other entities, including participants from other DHS agencies. 
Therefore, we could not determine how many participants were from DHS 
and how many came from other agencies. State and most of the other 
agencies providing classroom courses did track interagency 
participation. Data show that interagency participation varied widely; 
some courses had none at all, while others featured a mix of 
participants from various agencies. For most courses, interagency 
participation was less than 15 percent. See table 1 for additional 
information on training courses we identified. 

TABLE 1: Participation Levels and Selected Characteristics of Short-
Term Training Courses by Providing Agency: 

Online Courses: 

Providing agency[A] and subject matter: DHS's Emergency Management 
Institute; National Response Framework, National Incident Management 
System, Incident Command System; 
Number of Courses: 26; 
Participant time commitment (range): 30 minutes -5 hours; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 226,590; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Percentage from outside of 
providing agency: Not Available[C]. 

Providing agency[A] and subject matter: DOD[D]; Joint military and 
humanitarian operations, roles and responsibilities of partner 
agencies; 
Number of Courses: 17; 
Participant time commitment (range): 1-57 hours; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 1,870; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Percentage from outside of 
providing agency: Not Available[C]. 

Total online courses and participation levels; 
Number of Courses: 43; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 228,460. 

Classroom courses: 

Providing agency[A] and subject matter: State or State's Foreign 
Service Institute; Reconstruction and stabilization, foreign 
assistance, predeployment orientation, economic and commercial 
activity, crisis management abroad, etc.; 
Number of Courses: 36; 
Participant time commitment (range): 2 days - 12 weeks; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 9,050; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Percentage from outside of 
providing agency: 19. 

Providing agency[A] and subject matter: DOD; Reconstruction and 
stabilization, homeland security planning, planning in a collaborative 
environment; 
Number of Courses: 7; 
Participant time commitment (range): 1-4 weeks; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 480; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: 13. 

Providing agency[A] and subject matter: USAID; Conflict mitigation, 
reconstruction and stabilization; 
Number of Courses: 2; 
Participant time commitment (range): 2 days and 2 weeks; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 1,670; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Percentage from outside of 
providing agency: 81. 

Providing agency[A] and subject matter: Justice; Law enforcement, 
explosives; 
Number of Courses: 2; 
Participant time commitment (range): 1 week; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 260; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Percentage from outside of 
providing agency: 86. 

Providing agency[A] and subject matter: Coprovided; Nuclear safety and 
security (DOE and DOD), physical security (DOD and State); 
Number of Courses: 2; 
Participant time commitment (range): 1 day - 8 weeks; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 650; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Percentage from outside of 
providing agency: 17. 

Providing agency[A] and subject matter: DOE; Nuclear weapons safety 
and security; 
Number of Courses: 1; 
Participant time commitment (range): 1 day; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 120; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Percentage from outside of 
providing agency: 23. 

Providing agency[A] and subject matter: USDA; Security of nation's 
food supply; 
Number of Courses: 1; 
Participant time commitment (range): 5 days; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 30; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Percentage from outside of 
providing agency: 100. 

Providing agency[A] and subject matter: Treasury; Terrorist financing 
and financial crimes policy issues; 
Number of Courses: 1; 
Participant time commitment (range): 26 hours; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 60; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Percentage from outside of 
providing agency: Not open to other agencies. 

Total classroom courses and participation levels; 
Number of Courses: 52; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 12,300. 

Choice between classroom and online: 

Providing agency[A] and subject matter: DOD NDU Information Resources 
Management College; 
Communications, organizational culture, and national security; 
Number of Courses: 6; 
Participant time commitment (range): 5 days classroom or 10-12 weeks 
online; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Total: 190[E]; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[B]: Percentage from outside of 
providing agency: 27. 

Source: GAO: 

[A] Providing agency is the agency that offers the course. 

[B] Participation numbers are rounded to the nearest ten. Most 
participation numbers were reported in terms of federal fiscal years. 
However, some academic institutions tracked and reported participation 
by academic year time frames. 

[C] For these courses, EMI collected participation information for 
FEMA participants and non-FEMA participants. Non-FEMA participants may 
include those from other DHS component agencies, since EMI's current 
learning management system predate DHS, and would not count as 
"interagency" as we have defined it for this report (a FEMA official 
noted that system changes will allow DHS vs. non-DHS tracking by March 
2011). Similarly, DOD did not collect information on these online 
courses that would allow us to determine the percentage of interagency 
participation as defined in this report. 

[D] These online courses were provided through DOD's Joint Knowledge 
Online system. According to training officials in OUSD-Readiness and 
Joint Forces Command, because the system's course content is not 
managed centrally, there may be additional Joint Knowledge Online 
courses that are intended to improve federal interagency collaboration 
on national security. One official said that the system is a useful 
tool to support training for the larger national security community, 
because Joint Forces Command allows other government and non- 
governmental organizations, such as DHS and the North American Treaty 
Organization, to deliver relevant training through the system: 

[E] Participant information for DOD-provided courses is for academic 
calendar year 2009, which runs from July through June. 

[End of table] 

In addition to individual training courses, there were also three long-
term programs associated with advanced degrees that met our criteria. 
The College of International Security Affairs at DOD’s NDU provides a 
part-time certificate or 10-month full-time master’s program that 
teaches students how to develop and implement whole-of-government 
national and international security strategies for conditions of 
peace, crisis, and war. The Interamerican Defense College provides an 
11-month Advanced Course on Hemispheric Security and Defense.[Footnote 
18] Although the majority of the participants are from other 
countries, State and DOD also send personnel to this program, and one 
of its stated objectives is to foster connections among participants. 
Finally, DOD’s Naval Postgraduate School provides graduate programs 
ranging from month-long courses to multiyear master’s and doctoral 
programs that focus on various aspects of the defense and national 
security arenas within an interagency and intergovernmental context. 

Table 2: Participation Levels and Selected Characteristics of Long-
Term Training Programs: 

Providing agency and institute: DOD's NDU College of International 
Security Affairs; 
Subject matter: Whole-of-government national and international 
security strategies for conditions of peace, crisis, and war; 
Length: Part-time certificate program or 10 months full-time; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[A]: 300[B]. 

Providing agency and institute: Interamerican Defense College[C]; 
Subject matter: Hemispheric defense and security efforts; 
Length: 11 months; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[A]: 10. 

Providing agency and institute: DOD's Naval Postgraduate School; 
Subject matter: Increasing combat effectiveness to enhance national 
security; 
Length: Programs range from month-long courses to multiyear master's 
and doctoral programs; 
Approximate FY 2009 participation[A]: 2,210. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] Interagency participation was not available for these programs. 
Participant information for DOD-provided courses is for academic 
calendar year 2009, which runs from August through June. 

[B] Participation numbers are rounded to the nearest ten. 

[C] This program is sponsored by an international educational 
institution rather than a federal agency. 

[End of table] 

Through Its Military Services and Combatant Commands, DOD Provided 
Majority of Exercise Programs: 

According to officials in DOD’s Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD-Readiness), in fiscal year 
2009, the military services or combatant commands led an estimated 84 
joint-military exercise programs that addressed a range of national 
security matters and sought to improve the ability of participants to 
work across agency lines by encouraging interagency participation. 
[Footnote 19] In addition, First Army, which is responsible for U.S. 
Army Reserve and Army National Guard training, led an exercise program 
for military and interagency civilian personnel preparing to deploy to 
Afghanistan provincial reconstruction teams.[Footnote 20] DOD’s Center 
for Applied Strategic Learning at NDU also provided an exercise 
program for mid- and senior-level federal personnel and members of 
Congress, which included crisis simulations in a range of national 
security areas such as the Horn of Africa, international water rights, 
and space policy. 

During fiscal year 2009, there were also four exercise programs 
provided by civilian agencies, including State, USDA, and DHS’s FEMA, 
which is responsible for coordinating the National Exercise Program 
(NEP). Officials from DHS Headquarters and FEMA said that FEMA had 
conducted five NEP exercises in fiscal year 2009, including one 
national-level exercise and four principle-level exercises, which 
targeted senior officials. They also said that although FEMA does not 
track information on all levels of NEP exercises, up to three more 
federal strategy or policy-focused exercises are required annually, 
and there may have been many more conducted regionally throughout the 
country during fiscal year 2009.[Footnote 21] 

Some of the exercises, such as those conducted by the Center for 
Applied Strategic Learning, targeted mid- and senior-level leadership 
of federal agencies and other organizations. However, most of the 
exercise programs did not specify a rank or career level for their 
target participant population. See table 3 for more information on the 
subject matter and number of military and civilian-agency-led 
exercises. 

Table 3: Exercise Programs and Selected Characteristics by Providing 
Agency:[A] 

Agency: DOD--Military Service or Combatant Command; 
Program: Various joint military exercise programs; 
Number of programs FY 2009: 84; 
Exercise subject matter: Military and civilian response to insurgency, 
terrorist, and criminal activities, humanitarian assistance and 
disaster relief, mission rehearsal, logistics and combat operations, 
etc.; 
Participant time commitment: 1 day - 6 weeks depending on program, and 
whether participant helps to plan, conduct, and/or attends as training 
audience. 

Agency: DOD--First Army; 
Program: Afghanistan Provincial Reconstruction Team Predeployment 
Training; 
Number of programs FY 2009: 1; 
Exercise subject matter: Interagency provincial reconstruction team 
predeployment training; 
Participant time commitment: 60 - 90 days for military personnel; 
civilian participants join exercise for 2 - 3 weeks. 

Agency: DOD--NDU's Center for Applied Strategic Learning; 
Program: Policy-related exercises; 
Number of programs FY 2009: 1; 
Exercise subject matter: Crisis-based policy decision making related 
to humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, international water 
rights, cybersecurity, the Horn of Africa, anti-terrorism/force 
protection, space policy issues, etc.; 
Participant time commitment: 1/2 - 2 days depending on exercise. 

Agency: State; 
Program: The Interagency Civilian-Military Integration Training 
Exercise Program; 
Number of programs FY 2009: 1; 
Exercise subject matter: Interagency provincial reconstruction team 
predeployment training; 
Participant time commitment: 1 week. 

Agency: State; 
Program: Foreign Emergency Support Team Quarterly Exercises; 
Number of programs FY 2009: 1; 
Exercise subject matter: Interagency emergency response overseas 
crises and emergencies; 
Participant time commitment: Varied depending on exercise. 

Agency: USDA; 
Program: Food Defense Exercise Program; 
Number of programs FY 2009: 1; 
Exercise subject matter: Federal, state, and local response to food 
crises incidents, food defense; 
Participant time commitment: 1 day. 

Agency: DHS--Federal Emergency Management Agency; 
Program: National Exercise Program; 
Number of programs FY 2009: 1; 
Exercise subject matter: Coordinated federal, state, and local 
preparation and response to emergencies such as terrorist attacks or 
natural disasters, etc.; 
Participant time commitment: Varied depending on exercise. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] Participation levels are not included in the table because 
individual participation numbers were not available for the majority 
of exercises. 

[End of table] 

DOD OUSD-Readiness officials identified 84 exercise programs which 
reported 212 individual joint-military exercises during fiscal year 
2009. Although the joint-military exercises were not necessarily 
created to facilitate interagency collaboration, officials from both 
OUSD-Readiness and the Joint Forces Command acknowledged the 
importance of such interagency participation. They recognized that 
shared training experiences strengthen the collaborative partnerships 
between the military and civilian interagency communities by making 
the exercises more realistic and establishing interagency networks 
among participants.[Footnote 22] Joint Forces Command has taken steps 
to increase interagency participation, creating a “Partnership 
Opportunities Catalog” of joint exercises open to interagency and 
other partners. It has also begun to collect and assist with requests 
for interagency participation from military services and combatant 
commands looking for participants from specific agencies or other 
partner organizations. 

According to DOD, in fiscal year 2009, about 50 percent of the 
exercise programs-—43 of 84-—had some interagency participation. 
[Footnote 23] However, because DOD included state and local personnel 
in its definition of interagency participation, it is possible that 
there were fewer exercise programs with interagency participation as 
it is defined in this report. Also, even though participation data 
were not systematically tracked for the two First Army-led fiscal year 
2009 Afghanistan provincial reconstruction team predeployment 
exercises, an Army official estimated that approximately 2,500 
military personnel participated. In addition, a USAID official 
estimated that approximately 40 civilians from USAID and other 
agencies, such as State and USDA, participated in the interagency 
modules of these exercises during the same time period. 

An official at NDU’s Center for Applied Strategic Learning reported 
that in fiscal year 2009, through its Strategic Policy Forum and its 
other policy-related exercises, the Center provided 18 crises 
simulations for personnel from a range of agencies. Examples of 
participating agencies include DOD, State, DHS, DOJ, USAID, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and others. 

Both State and USDA provided participation data on their fiscal year 
2009 exercises, which reported 24 participants for one State-led 
exercise and 170 for the USDA exercise.[Footnote 24] While DHS’s FEMA 
did not provide NEP data that differentiated between federal, state, 
local, and other participants, one FEMA official estimated that 
approximately 2,500 personnel from more than 230 organizations 
participated in the 2009 national-level exercise. 

Majority of Interagency Rotational Programs Send Personnel between 
Civilian Agencies and DOD: 

We identified seven interagency rotational assignment programs that 
supported participating agencies’ efforts to achieve their missions 
while explicitly seeking to develop participants’ abilities to 
collaborate on national security. Five of these rotational assignment 
programs involved sending personnel between civilian agencies and the 
Pentagon or military learning institutions. For example, State’s 
Foreign Policy Advisors program places Foreign Service Officers in the 
Pentagon and military commands worldwide as personal advisors to 
senior military commanders. State participants work alongside DOD 
civilians and officers on a range of national security issues such as 
international relations and diplomatic practices. The other two 
programs involved sending civilian agency personnel to other federal 
agencies or executive offices. 

Only one of the rotation programs is open to all levels of personnel. 
The other programs target personnel at specific ranks or career 
levels. The three State-sponsored programs target mid- and senior-
level personnel, while the DOD-sponsored programs are intended for 
junior or mid-level personnel and are associated with educational 
programs. For example, the Military Academic Collaborations program 
sends select midshipmen, cadets, and some instructors from military 
officer development programs such as the Academies and university 
Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs to DOE NNSA laboratories for 
summer internships. Table 4 describes selected characteristics of each 
rotational program. 

Table 4: Participation and Selected Characteristics of Interagency 
Rotational Programs: 

Program name: DHS's Rotational Assignments Program; 
Participating agencies: DHS and other federal agencies; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES: [Check]; 
Length of assignment: At least 60 days; 
Participation FY 2009[B]: 80[C]. 

Program name: Military Academic Collaborations; 
Participating agencies: DOD and DOE's National Nuclear Security 
Administration; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: SES: [Empty]; 
Length of assignment: 3-12 weeks; 
Participation FY 2009[B]: 10. 

Program name: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Interagency 
Exchange Program and Intermediate Level Education Interagency 
Fellowship Program; 
Participating agencies: DOD and various federal agencies; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES: [Empty]; 
Length of assignment: 9-12 months; 
Participation FY 2009[B]: 20[D]. 

Program name: Navy Washington DC Intern Program; 
Participating agencies: DOD and various Washington, D.C. area agencies; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES: [Empty]; 
Length of assignment: 2 5-month internships; 
Participation FY 2009[B]: 1. 

Program name: State Rotations at JPME and other Federal Learning 
Institutions; 
Participating agencies: State and various JPME colleges or other 
institutions such as the U.S. Coast Guard Academy; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES: [Check]; 
Length of assignment: 1-3 years; 
Participation FY 2009[B]: 30. 

Program name: State Rotations at Federal Agencies and Executive 
Offices; 
Participating agencies: State and various federal agencies or 
executive offices that play a role in developing and implementing 
national security policy; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES: [Check]; 
Length of assignment: 1-3 years; 
Participation FY 2009[B]: 30. 

Program name: State Rotations at DOD; 
Participating agencies: State and DOD; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES: [Check]; 
Length of assignment: 1-3 years; 
Participation FY 2009[B]: 70. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] May also target military or Foreign Service equivalents to General 
Schedule levels. 

[B] We rounded participation numbers to the nearest 10, unless they 
were below 5. 

[C] This number represents outbound rotations, in other words the 
number of participants from DHS rotating to other agencies. 
Participation in intraagency rotations (from one DHS component to 
another) is not included here. 

[D] This number represents outbound rotations, in other words the 
number of participants from Army rotating to other agencies. 

[End of table] 

One of the programs, the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College’s 
Interagency Fellows Program, went beyond the scope of a typical 
rotation, temporarily assigning military personnel to a civilian 
agency to enable civilian personnel from that agency to attend a long-
term JPME program. See figure 2 for more information on that program. 

Figure 2: Growing Emphasis on Need for Interagency Participation in 
Army College Programs Led to Creation of Army Command and General 
Staff College's Interagency Fellowship Program: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration: 2 photographs and accompanying 
information] 

Army Command and General Staff College’s Interagency Fellows Program: 

Officials from DOD, USAID, State, and other agencies say that the 
disparity in the size of the military and civilian workforces can make 
it difficult for civilian agencies to “keep up” with the military in 
participating in longer-term training programs. In particular, 
officials point out that military staffing levels take into account 
the need for extended training at standard career intervals, while 
civilian agency staffing levels do not. According to officials at the 
Army Command and General Staff College and USAID, the Interagency 
Fellows Program was created to help alleviate such resource 
limitations, while providing Army participants with valuable 
developmental opportunities. 

Established in 2010 after a 2-year pilot phase, the Interagency 
Fellowship Program sends field-grade Army officers to work at federal 
agencies, and in return, participating agencies send personnel to 
study or teach at the college, alongside their military counterparts. 
College officials say that interagency students and faculty enrich the 
curriculum and classroom discussions by sharing firsthand experiences 
and perspectives. In return, officials say that Army participants 
learn about the culture, capabilities, and constraints of the agencies 
where they work, and share with their colleagues the Army’s approach 
to planning and decision-making. Military and civilian officials 
concur that it is important to bring students together from a mix of 
organizations to provide a realistic whole-of-government perspective. 

A USAID official involved in the program said that it is not a perfect 
exchange, and that the agency is still learning how to most 
effectively make use of the Interagency Fellows. For example, she 
explained that there is a learning curve for people on rotation to a 
new agency, and that it can take a while to get them up to speed. She 
also said that Interagency Fellows are not always of an equivalent 
rank to the USAID personnel away at the College, which means they 
cannot always truly cover their responsibilities. However, despite 
these challenges, she said, she believes that the program provides a 
creative solution to participation barriers and will continue to 
improve over time. An Army official at the College agreed that it’s a 
“win-win situation” for the College, the agencies, and the 
participants. 

Photos: Noah Albro, Army Command and General Staff College. 

A student from the Department of State participates in the Interagency 
Fellows program (above). Interagency students join military students 
in a class at the Army Command and General Staff College (below). 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Interagency Participation Varied across DOD-Led JPME Programs: 

According to our analysis, DOD provides relevant JPME programs through 
13 academic institutions operated by one of the four military services 
or NDU. These programs must meet specific JPME curriculum requirements 
established for intermediate, senior, and executive-level education, 
which include learning objectives related to a whole-of-government 
approach to national security, among other objectives.[Footnote 25] 
Such whole-of-government approaches seek to identify or incorporate 
all agencies’ contributions to addressing national security 
challenges. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines each have command 
and staff colleges that provide intermediate-level JPME and war 
colleges that provide senior-level JPME, within military service-
specific graduate programs. NDU has three colleges—the Industrial 
College of the Armed Forces, the National War College, and the Joint 
Forces Staff College—that incorporate senior-level JPME curriculum 
into 10-month-long master’s programs, among other offerings. NDU also 
administers Capstone, an executive-level JPME program that met our 
criteria. The program length and target participant populations varied 
depending on the level of education, as described in table 5. 

Table 5: Selected JPME Program Characteristics by Education Level:[A] 

Intermediate-level education: 

Provider: Military service colleges; 
* Air Command and Staff College; 
* Army Command and General Staff College; 
* College of Naval Command and Staff; 
* Marine Corps Command and Staff College; 
Provider: National Defense University; 
* Joint and Combined War Fighting School at the Joint Forces Staff 
College[B]; 
Target participant rank: Major; Lieutenant Commander; GS-12; 
Program length: 3 - 10 months; 
Subject matter examples: 
* War fighting at the operational level; 
* Introduction to theater strategy and plans, national military and 
national security strategy; 
* Joint services doctrine and concepts, planning and execution, etc. 

Senior-level education or combined intermediate-and senior-level 
education: 

Provider: Military service colleges; 
* Air War College; 
* Army War College; 
* College of Naval Warfare; 
* Marine Corps War College; 
Provider: National Defense University; 
* Industrial College of the Armed Forces; 
* National War College; 
* Joint Advanced Warfighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College; 
Target participant rank: Lieutenant Colonel-Colonel; Commander-Captain; 
GS-13-15; 
Program length: 10 months; 
Subject matter examples: 
Military service colleges; 
* Strategic leadership, national military strategy and theater 
strategy; 
National Defense University; 
* National security strategy; 
Military service colleges and National Defense University; 
* National strategies, planning systems, and processes, joint warfare, 
theater strategy, and campaigning in a joint, interagency, 
intergovernmental, and multinational environment, joint leadership, 
etc. 

Executive-level education: 

Provider: National Defense University; Capstone; 
Target participant rank: General/Flag Officer; Senior Executive 
Service; 
Program length: 6 weeks; 
Subject matter examples: 
* Joint matters and national security; 
* Interagency process; 
* Multinational operations. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] This table is not inclusive of all levels of JPME or all JPME 
institutions or courses and focuses only on those relevant to our 
review. For additional information on the full continuum of JPME, see 
Office of Professional Military Education Policy, Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1800.01D, July, 15 2009, Annex A to 
Appendix A to Enclosure A. 

[B] Although shown here under intermediate-level education, the Joint 
and Combined War Fighting School incorporates senior-level learning 
objectives in its curriculum and counts intermediate (O-4) and senior 
military officers (O-5 and O-6) among its participants. The course 
grants an advanced JPME certificate in an intensive 10-week format. 

[End of table] 

Six of the nine agencies we reviewed—DOD, DHS, State, USAID, DOJ, and 
DOE—said they sent personnel to one or more of DOD’s JPME programs. 
According to information DOD provided for academic year 2009, some 
programs, such as those at Air University, had few or no participants 
from federal agencies outside of DOD. NDU’s National War College and 
its Industrial College of the Armed Forces, which offered senior-level 
JPME programs, had the greatest number of interagency participants. 
See table 6 for information on participation levels at each 
institution. 

Table 6: Academic Year 2009 Participation Levels and Selected 
Characteristics of JPME Programs by Number of Participants from Other 
Federal Agencies: 

DOD academic institution: NDU, Industrial College of the Armed Forces; 
Education level: Senior; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 320; 
DOD military & civilian: 250; 
Other federal agency: 40. 

DOD academic institution: NDU, National War College; 
Education level: Senior; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 220; 
DOD military & civilian: 160; 
Other federal agency: 30. 

DOD academic institution: Army Command and General Staff College; 
Education level: Intermediate; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 1,430; 
DOD military & civilian: 1,290; 
Other federal agency: 20. 

DOD academic institution: Naval War College, College of Naval Warfare; 
Education level: Senior; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 260; 
DOD military & civilian: 200; 
Other federal agency: 20. 

DOD academic institution: NDU, Capstone; 
Education level: Executive; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 200; 
DOD military & civilian: 180; 
Other federal agency: 10. 

DOD academic institution: Marine Corps Command and Staff College; 
Education level: Intermediate; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 200; 
DOD military & civilian: 160; 
Other federal agency: 10. 

DOD academic institution: Army War College[C]; 
Education level: Senior; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 340; 
DOD military & civilian: 280; 
Other federal agency: 10. 

DOD academic institution: Naval War College, College of Naval Command 
and Staff; 
Education level: Intermediate; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 320; 
DOD military & civilian: 280; 
Other federal agency: 10. 

DOD academic institution: Marine Corps War College; 
Education level: Senior; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 30; 
DOD military & civilian: 20; 
Other federal agency: 10. 

DOD academic institution: NDU, Joint Advanced Warfighting School at 
Joint Forces Staff College; 
Education level: Senior; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 40; 
DOD military & civilian: 30; 
Other federal agency: 4. 

DOD academic institution: Air University, Air War College; 
Education level: Senior; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 240; 
DOD military & civilian: 190; 
Other federal agency: 3. 

DOD academic institution: Air University, Air Command and Staff 
College; 
Education level: Intermediate; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 510; 
DOD military & civilian: 430; 
Other federal agency: 2. 

DOD academic institution: NDU, Joint and Combined Warfighting School 
at Joint Forces Staff College; 
Education level: Intermediate/Senior; 
Approximate number of participants in academic year 2009[A]: 
Total[B]: 1,010; 
DOD military & civilian: 910; 
Other federal agency: 0. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The reporting year for the various DOD colleges varies. For 
example, most NDU colleges reported participation during a July 
through June academic year time frame. Other colleges used the 
standard federal fiscal year report time frame. We rounded 
participation numbers to the nearest 10, unless they were below 5. 

[B] Columns do not add to total because DOD totals include students 
from outside of federal government, such as military officers or 
civilians from other nations as well as personnel from other levels of 
government, non-governmental organizations, private industry, and 
elsewhere. 

[C] Army War College also offers a master's degree and intermediate- 
level JPME certification through its Distance Education Program. 

[End of table] 

State and DOD Reported Relevant Leadership Development Programs with 
Varying Degrees of Interagency Participation: 

According to our analysis, DOD and State offer 11 leadership 
development programs that include a focus on interagency collaboration 
in the national security arena. Several programs include participation 
in other activities described elsewhere in this report, such as JPME 
or interagency rotations. For example, the Defense Senior Leadership 
Development Program combines specialized courses with attendance in a 
10-month JPME program and a short-term rotation, as indicated by the 
participant’s individual development plan, to help participants gain 
the competencies needed to lead people and programs and achieve 
national security goals in joint, interagency, and multinational 
environments. 

These programs varied in length, mode of delivery, target population, 
and interagency participation. The length of time and mode of delivery 
of these courses ranged from 1 day of classroom training to 14 weeks 
of in-resident training to a series of courses and seminars to be 
completed over a 3-year period. Most of the programs targeted 
personnel at GS-12 or above, because, according to officials at 
several agencies, these employees had the experience needed to benefit 
from and contribute to training and development programs with an 
interagency focus. For more information about the target population 
and interagency participation of these programs, see table 7. 

Table 7: Participation and Selected Characteristics of Leadership 
Development Programs by Providing Agency: 

Providing agency: DOD; 
Program name: Defense Senior Leader Development Program; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12; FS 6-4; O-1-O-4: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15; FS 3-1; O-5-O-6: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES; SL/ST; SFS; O-7-O-10: [Empty]; 
Participation (FY 2009): Total[B]: 40; 
Participation (FY 2009): Percentage from other agencies: Not open to 
other agencies. 

Providing agency: DOD; 
Program name: Executive Leader Development Program; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12; FS 6-4; O-1-O-4: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15; FS 3-1; O-5-O-6: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES; SL/ST; SFS; O-7-O-10: [Empty]; 
Participation (FY 2009): Total[B]: 60; 
Participation (FY 2009): Percentage from other agencies: 3. 

Providing agency: DOD; 
Program name: Defense Information Systems Agency Executive Leadership 
Development Program; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12; FS 6-4; O-1-O-4: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15; FS 3-1; O-5-O-6: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES; SL/ST; SFS; O-7-O-10: [Check]; 
Participation (FY 2009): Total[B]: 30; 
Participation (FY 2009): Percentage from other agencies: Not open to 
other agencies. 

Providing agency: DOD/NDU; 
Program name: Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction: 
Program for Emerging Leaders; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12; FS 6-4; O-1-O-4: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15; FS 3-1; O-5-O-6: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES; SL/ST; SFS; O-7-O-10: [Empty]; 
Participation (FY 2009): Total[B]: 50; 
Participation (FY 2009): Percentage from other agencies: 32. 

Providing agency: DOD/NDU; 
Program name: Information Resources Management College, Advanced 
Management Program: Government Strategic Leadership Certificate; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12; FS 6-4; O-1-O-4: GS-12; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15; FS 3-1; O-5-O-6: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES; SL/ST; SFS; O-7-O-10: [Check]; 
Participation (FY 2009): Total[B]: 0[C]; 
Participation (FY 2009): Percentage from other agencies: 0[C]. 

Providing agency: State; 
Program name: Ambassadorial Seminar; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12; FS 6-4; O-1-O-4: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15; FS 3-1; O-5-O-6: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: SES; SL/ST; SFS; O-7-O-10: [Check]; 
Participation (FY 2009): Total[B]: 70; 
Participation (FY 2009): Percentage from other agencies: Not open to 
other agencies. 

Providing agency: State; 
Program name: Deputy Chief of Mission/Principal Officer Seminar; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12; FS 6-4; O-1-O-4: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15; FS 3-1; O-5-O-6: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: SES; SL/ST; SFS; O-7-O-10: [Check]; 
Participation (FY 2009): Total[B]: 60; 
Participation (FY 2009): Percentage from other agencies: Not open to 
other agencies. 

Providing agency: State; 
Program name: Interagency Effectiveness: Strategies and Best Practices; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12; FS 6-4; O-1-O-4: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15; FS 3-1; O-5-O-6: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES; SL/ST; SFS; O-7-O-10: [Check]; 
Participation (FY 2009): Total[B]: 40; 
Participation (FY 2009): Percentage from other agencies: 8. 

Providing agency: State; 
Program name: Interagency Policy Seminar Series; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12; FS 6-4; O-1-O-4: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15; FS 3-1; O-5-O-6: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES; SL/ST; SFS; O-7-O-10: [Check]; 
Participation (FY 2009): Total[B]: 50; 
Participation (FY 2009): Percentage from other agencies: 0. 

Providing agency: State; 
Program name: Senior Executive Threshold Seminar; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12; FS 6-4; O-1-O-4: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15; FS 3-1; O-5-O-6: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: SES; SL/ST; SFS; O-7-O-10: [Check]; 
Participation (FY 2009): Total[B]: 110; 
Participation (FY 2009): Percentage from other agencies: 1. 

Providing agency: State; 
Program name: National Security Executive Leadership Seminar; 
Target population[A]: GS-7-12; FS 6-4; O-1-O-4: [Empty]; 
Target population[A]: GS-13-15; FS 3-1; O-5-O-6: [Check]; 
Target population[A]: SES; SL/ST; SFS; O-7-O-10: [Check]; 
Participation (FY 2009): Total[B]: 60; 
Participation (FY 2009): Percentage from other agencies: 27. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] Also targets military or Foreign Service equivalents to General 
Schedule and Senior Executive Service levels. See appendix A for more 
information. 

[B] Participation numbers are rounded to the nearest ten. 

[C] College officials explained that although there were students in 
the Advanced Management Program in 2009, none of them elected to 
participate in the Government Strategic Leadership Certificate track 
during the 2009 academic year. 

[End of table] 

Of the 11 reported programs, 6 leadership development programs were 
open to and encouraged interagency participation. Two of these 6—the 
Program for Emerging Leaders at NDU’s Center for the Study of Weapons 
of Mass Destruction, and State’s National Security Executive 
Leadership Seminar—intended to create an interagency cohort of leaders 
who can work together seamlessly on national security issues. For 
example, to promote a professional network among future U.S. 
government leaders in the field of weapons of mass destruction, NDU’s 
Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction offered Program 
for Emerging Leaders students a variety of ways to connect outside the 
classroom, such as a members-only Web site for online dialogue, school-
sponsored social events, and off-campus site visits. 

Five of the 11 programs were closed to participation from other 
agencies. For example, the Ambassadorial Seminar offered by State’s 
FSI only prepares ambassadors-designate for their unique positions of 
leadership at the head of an embassy, which requires extensive 
collaboration with personnel from multiple agencies and other 
organizations. 

Some Training Provided as Part of Agencies’ NSPD Programs: 

Six of the eight agencies represented on the Executive Steering 
Committee—DOD, DHS, State, Justice, Commerce, and DOE—reported making 
NSPD-related training available to their personnel with national 
security responsibilities. 

DOD and DHS reported developing some training specifically for their 
NSPD programs, which consisted primarily of online courses on key 
national security policies and procedures. Some agencies, however, 
directed their national security personnel to take existing training, 
such as EMI’s various online courses on national emergency response 
topics. Other agencies augmented existing training with NSPD-specific 
materials. Several of the existing courses that agencies used or 
modified under the auspices of NSPD were included in previous sections 
of this report. Officials from Commerce and DOE reported that in 
addition to taking advantage of existing courses, they also sent their 
personnel to attend in-person orientation sessions or seminars, where 
they had the opportunity to network with personnel from other agencies. 

According to officials at most of these agencies, although they have 
continued to work on planning and implementation efforts, much of the 
actual training activity has slowed or stopped altogether since fiscal 
year 2008. As mentioned previously, many of these agencies have put 
implementation of their NSPD-related training and professional 
development activities on hold pending the results of executive-level 
review of this governmentwide initiative. 

Professional Development Activities Provide Opportunities to Build 
Foundational Knowledge, Skills, and Networks That Are Intended to 
Improve Interagency Collaboration: 

Based on our analysis, the relevant professional development 
activities were intended to improve the ability of national security 
personnel to collaborate across agency lines by focusing on three 
general approaches: providing foundational knowledge, developing 
skills, and providing networking opportunities. We found that the 
activities included one or more of these approaches to improving their 
participants’ abilities to collaborate: 

* Building common foundational knowledge of the national security 
arena. Some of the activities establish a common foundation of shared 
knowledge for understanding partner agencies’ roles, responsibilities, 
authorities or capabilities, or specific national security subject 
matters. According to agency officials, such training can help 
reinforce a common vocabulary or framework for understanding complex 
policy issues. This is important for allowing personnel who may 
normally approach national security issues from sometimes disparate 
diplomatic, defense, commercial, or law enforcement perspectives to 
employ a whole-of-government approach to national security. For 
example, DHS offers an introductory online course on the National 
Incident Management System, which is available to personnel across 
federal, state, and local government and provides an overview of the 
roles and responsibilities of various agencies and how they are 
supposed to work together in different emergency situations such as 
responding to terrorist attacks and other national security-related 
incidents. 

* Developing skills for interagency collaboration on national 
security. Some of the activities agencies identified build specific 
skills needed for interagency collaboration, such as how to plan, 
lead, and execute interagency efforts. For example, the Whole-of-
Government Planning for Reconstruction and Stabilization course, 
offered by NDU in cooperation with State, teaches skills to 
coordinate, facilitate, or participate in the planning process for 
reconstruction and stabilization operations. These skills include the 
ability to work effectively with federal agency and other partners 
involved in whole-of-government planning. 

* Establishing networks across national security agency lines. Some of 
the activities were explicitly designed to facilitate networks among 
personnel from two or more national security agencies. For example, 
NDU’s Capstone course for Generals, Flag Officers, and members of the 
civilian Senior Executive Service brings together participants from 
the four military services and a range of federal agencies to deepen 
their understanding of the whole-of-government-approach to national 
security, among other things. One of Capstone’s learning objectives is 
that participants establish a peer network for future cooperation and 
the program is designed to maximize peer-to-peer interaction. 

The way these approaches manifest themselves in the activities we 
reviewed varied. For example, activities that required the least time 
commitment, such as EMI’s online courses and NSPD online orientations, 
primarily provided basic foundational knowledge of a specific partner 
agency or national security topic. Conversely, more time-intensive 
activities, such as JPME and some of the leadership development 
programs and classroom courses that lasted several months or brought 
participants together on a recurring basis tended to incorporate two 
or more approaches to improving participants’ abilities to collaborate 
across agency lines. For example, a 10-month program at NDU’s College 
of International Security Affairs included coursework on foundational 
knowledge of national security issues and specific skills related to 
interagency planning and management, along with interagency networking 
events. 

According to human capital and training officials we interviewed at 
several agencies, the level of interagency participation may affect 
how a given professional development activity can improve its 
participants’ abilities to collaborate. Agency officials noted that 
interagency collaboration in the development and design of activities 
can lead to a more accurate portrayal of different agencies’ policies 
and processes. Moreover, agency officials said a mix of interagency 
participants can provide a realistic perspective of their respective 
agencies’ cultures, capabilities, and constraints. Greater interagency 
participation can also lead to the development of professional 
networks, and improve working relationships. Several military 
officials we interviewed emphasized that in order to work effectively 
side by side, civilian and military personnel should train together to 
learn how operate before they are out in the field. Several agency 
officials agreed, noting that even when a professional development 
activity is designed to build foundational knowledge, skills, or 
networks, lack of interagency participation can limit the extent to 
which this occurs. For example, as a DHS official pointed out, if only 
one agency participates in an exercise, there is clearly no 
opportunity to establish a network that could facilitate future 
interagency collaboration. 

Concluding Observations: 

Training, interagency rotations, exercises, and other professional 
development activities can help to improve participants’ abilities to 
collaborate in an increasingly complex national security arena. 
However, with national security responsibilities and associated 
personnel located throughout the U.S. government, it could be 
challenging for agency officials to identify the relevant training and 
professional development opportunities available to the national 
security community. Our review is a first step in describing the broad 
spectrum of professional development activities that are intended to 
build foundational knowledge, skills, and networks among federal 
national security professionals. According to agency officials who 
develop and oversee these professional development activities, 
interagency participation can be key to the activities’ success, 
enhancing the knowledge and skills participants acquire and the 
professional networks they establish. Although agencies could not 
provide participation data in every instance, the data we were able to 
obtain indicated that overall, interagency participation was lower in 
activities that required a longer time commitment, such as rotations 
and full-time joint professional military education. This raises 
questions about barriers to participation and other factors that may 
influence the success of such professional development activities, 
which we will explore in a subsequent review. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft report for review and comment to the Secretaries 
of State, Defense, DHS, the Treasury, Commerce, Agriculture, and 
Energy, the Administrator of USAID, and the Attorney General. State, 
DHS, Commerce, Energy, USDA and USAID provided technical comments 
which we incorporated where appropriate. DOD, DOJ, and Treasury did 
not provide comments. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the date of this letter. We will then send copies of this report 
to the Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security, the Treasury, 
Commerce, Agriculture, and Energy, the Administrator of USAID, and the 
Attorney General, and other congressional committees interested in 
improving collaboration among agencies involved in national security 
issues. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 
GAO’s Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Bernice Steinhardt: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of our review were to identify: 

* training and other professional development activities intended to 
improve the abilities of personnel from key agencies involved in 
national security issues to collaborate across organizational lines 
and; 

* how these activities were intended to improve participants’ 
collaboration abilities. 

To address our objectives, we first reviewed our prior work and other 
literature and interviewed experts on workforce development, 
education, national security, organizational culture, and 
collaboration to define the types of activities relevant to our topic. 
We then selected key agencies involved in national security issues—the 
Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of State (State), the U.S. 
Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Treasury (Treasury), the 
Department of Justice (Justice), the Department of Energy (Energy), 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of 
Commerce (Commerce)—based on a review of our prior work and other 
literature and interviews with subject-matter experts.[Footnote 26] We 
excluded the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and its 
member agencies because it overlapped with similar work we have 
underway.[Footnote 27] 

In order to identify and obtain key information on national security 
collaboration-related professional development activities, we 
undertook extensive data collection efforts involving both formal data 
collection instruments and intensive interactions with the agencies 
noted above. There were two main phases to this effort. In each, 
several steps were taken to ensure the reliability of the information 
obtained, including its consistency, completeness, and accuracy. 

In the first phase, we developed a data collection instrument (DCI) to 
obtain a broad list of activities potentially applicable to our review 
as well as a number of key general characteristics of the activities 
including, for example, overall goals, how the program prepares 
participants to collaborate across department lines, agencies 
involved, and general information about participation levels. 

We validated the DCI by conducting pretests of the instrument with 
points of contact (POCs) in four agencies. These pretests included in-
depth probing on the clarity of instrument, the criteria for including 
activities in the instrument, respondent burden, and usability of the 
instrument spreadsheet. The GAO engagement team staff worked with 
their technical advisors to revise the DCI as appropriate to address 
issues that arose over these topics during the pretesting process. 

A key element of this first phase of data collection was defining the 
criteria to guide agency POCs in determining the appropriate 
professional development activities for submission. These criteria 
were included in the instrument itself, with instructions to the POCs 
to include all programs open to their staff that met all of the 
following four criteria: 

(1) The activity explicitly prepares federal civilian and/or military 
personnel to collaborate with personnel of other federal departments. 
In particular, the activity: (a) can involve personnel of other 
entities—such as contractors or NGOs—or can include only personnel 
from the POC’s department; (b) may be provided by the POC’s department 
or it may be provided by another organization; and (c) must prepare 
personnel for interagency collaboration. POCs were not to include 
activities that focused solely on intraagency collaboration (e.g., 
collaboration among DHS component agencies or among other services 
within DOD). This criterion excludes programs that bring personnel of 
multiple agencies together for specific assignments but did not have 
preparation for future interagency collaboration as an explicit 
purpose. 

(2) The activity targets agency personnel involved in developing or 
implementing national security policy, strategy, missions, or 
operations, but not support functions such as administration, 
financial management, or procurement. 

(3) The activity relates to the agency’s national security activities. 
In particular, an activity can and should be included despite having a 
broader focus than interagency national security collaboration as long 
as it includes a component on this topic; for example, a leadership 
development program may have a module on interagency collaboration or 
provide an interagency rotation to a national security mission. 

(4) The activity is ongoing and sustained, not a one-time event. 

We identified POCs in each of the selected agencies who were to 
determine which activities met our criteria and complete the DCI for 
each. We identified the POCs during our initial conference with agency 
personnel and then in subsequent meetings or conversations, in which 
we requested the names of individuals who could work with us to 
identify the appropriate offices, bureaus, or functional areas that 
should receive our questionnaire, disseminate our questionnaire to the 
appropriate contacts throughout the agency, and consolidate their 
responses. We sent DCIs to POCs and asked them to provide the 
requested information for all activities that met our criteria. In 
addition to completing the DCIs, POCs also provided other relevant 
information including course manuals and evaluations. 

We then compiled all of the DCIs received from the nine agencies into 
one master file. A key element of this effort was to eliminate from 
the master list duplicate activities reported by POCs in multiple 
offices or agencies. In general, we relied on submissions from the 
agency we determined to be the “lead agency” for administering the 
activity. In some cases, however, an activity was identified by an 
agency that participated in, but did not provide, the activity. For 
example, although officials at three agencies said their personnel 
participated in the National Exercise Program, the two agencies 
chiefly responsible for organizing the program did not initially 
include the program in their responses. To reconcile such differences, 
which may have occurred because agencies have different working 
definitions of “national security” and “collaboration,” and different 
ways of understanding how these concepts might intersect, we followed 
up with our POCs. In some cases, the titles of activities were similar 
but not identical and to determine whether they were the same we 
contacted the relevant POCs for clarification. This process resulted 
in more than 350 total activities. 

The final step in phase 1 of our work was to review the entire list of 
activities identified to verify that they conformed to our four 
criteria. To make this assessment and to ensure its reliability, two 
analysts separately analyzed the list, identifying those activities 
that conformed and did not conform to our criteria. In cases where the 
analysts differed they had a third analyst review the information and 
then met to reconcile these differences. In cases where the data 
provided were ambiguous we contacted our agency POCs to obtain 
additional information in the form of additional interviews and/or 
documentation. This process reduced the number of activities in our 
review to 225. 

In the second phase, we collected more detailed information on the 
activities that met our criteria for inclusion, as follows: 

(1) The number of participants in each activity in fiscal year 2009, 
both from the agency that hosted the activity and from outside the 
agency; 

(2) The levels or ranks of staff targeted for participation in the 
activity, if any. Agencies described target populations in terms of 
General Schedule (GS) levels, Foreign Service (FS) levels, and/or 
Officer grade (O) levels. At the executive level, target populations 
were described as Senior Executive Service (SES), Senior Foreign 
Service (SFS), Senior-Level and Scientific or Professional (SL/ST), or 
Generals/Flag Officers (O-7–O-10). In some cases, the equivalent 
levels from other federal pay schedules or personnel systems were 
noted; and; 

(3) The methods of evaluation the agency might use to evaluate the 
effectiveness or impact of the activity. 

A second DCI was developed for this purpose. For each POC, we 
customized this data collection instrument with information about 
activities they had reported to us in phase 1. Like the first phase of 
data collection, this second phase involved close interaction with the 
POCs, and in some instances POCs provided information to us in forms 
other than the data collection instrument (e.g., published program 
materials, or e-mails containing the information we requested). Data 
collected during this phase were compiled and combined with data from 
the first phase to yield an overall set of data on activities that met 
our criteria for inclusion. We analyzed data for these activities, 
such as typical duration, eligibility criteria, participation rates, 
and participating agencies, to identify groups of activities, 
patterns, themes and other information. We determined these data to be 
reliable for the purposes of identifying and describing such 
activities. 

Upon reviewing the data the agencies provided, we found that 
activities varied widely across dimensions such as length and learning 
mode, and decided to group the activities in a way that would allow us 
to analyze their characteristics and make appropriate comparisons. To 
develop these categories of training and professional development 
activities, we reviewed activity data, conducted a limited literature 
search of GAO reports and agency guidance, and met with human resource 
professionals. These five general groups included training courses and 
programs, training exercises, interagency rotational programs, Joint 
Professional Military Education, and leadership development programs. 

After the data had been compiled, we conducted a series of follow-up 
interviews with POCs to gauge the completeness and accuracy of the 
participation data we had received. POCs were asked about the sources 
of counts of participants, how these counts had been stored, whether 
they had been checked for accuracy, and other topics relevant to 
verifying the reliability of these data. All of the participation data 
used in the present report were judged reliable for the purpose of 
establishing approximate levels of participation in the national 
security collaboration activities. 

As part of the data collection instrument used in phase I, we asked 
agency officials to describe how each activity they submitted was 
intended to improve the ability of national security personnel to 
collaborate across agency lines. We reviewed the answers they provided 
as well as other materials such as course descriptions and catalogues 
of exercises and JPME programs to identify common themes. Based on our 
analysis, we determined that these activities generally employed one 
or more of the following approaches: building foundational knowledge 
of the national security arena such as other agencies’ roles, 
responsibilities, authorities or capabilities; developing skills for 
interagency collaboration, such as how to plan, lead, and execute 
interagency efforts; or establishing networks among national security 
professionals. We also discussed these approaches with agency 
officials during our interviews, and they concurred that they were 
appropriate and accurate. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Inventory of Professional Development Activities Intended 
to Foster Interagency Collaboration: 

Table 8: Training Courses and Programs: 

Department of State: 

Activity name: Afghanistan Familiarization Course; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding Afghanistan and its political 
situation, providing information about Afghanistan's history and 
culture and the U.S.'s role in the region; 
Target audience: USG personnel preparing to deploy to Afghanistan; 
2009 approximate participation: 220. 

Activity name: Afghanistan Provincial Reconstruction Team Orientation; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that provides 
knowledge and skills for working in an interagency organization in a 
combat environment; 
Target audience: Federal personnel about to deploy to Afghanistan to 
serve on a provincial reconstruction team; 
2009 approximate participation: 140. 

Activity name: Advanced Negotiation; 
Activity description: A 4-day course that teaches advanced skills in 
negotiation to an interagency student population through case studies, 
practical exercises, and role-play simulations. Participants often 
represent the USG in leadership roles in interagency delegations; 
Target audience: Foreign and civil service employees (FS-02-01 level 
and above); 
2009 approximate participation: 10. 

Activity name: Crisis Management Training; 
Activity description: A 3-hour, in-person course that provides a 
common vocabulary for dealing with crisis management situations and 
includes a tabletop exercise; 
Target audience: Embassy personnel from multiple agencies; 
2009 approximate participation: 2,990. 

Activity name: Iraq Familiarization Course; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding Iraq and its political situation, 
providing information about Iraq's history and culture and the U.S.'s 
role in the region; 
Target audience: USG personnel preparing to deploy to Iraq; 
2009 approximate participation: 940. 

Activity name: Iraq Provincial Reconstruction Team Orientation; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that provides the 
knowledge and skills for working in an interagency organization in an 
unstable operating environment; 
Target audience: USG personnel about to deploy to Iraq to serve on a 
provincial reconstruction team; 
2009 approximate participation: 440. 

Activity name: Orientation for Foreign Service Generalists; 
Activity description: A 5-week, in-person orientation that includes 2 
days dedicated to information on the roles and responsibilities of 
other agencies that work closely with State on foreign policy; 
Target audience: New foreign service generalists; 
2009 approximate participation: 710. 

Activity name: Political-Economic Counselors' Seminar; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course designed to teach new 
Political and Economic Counselors skills for operating in the 
interagency environment of an Embassy's country team; 
Target audience: New Political-Economic Counselors; 
2009 approximate participation: 20. 

Activity name: Commercial Tradecraft; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that provides 
information about partner agencies that are working on trade policy 
with State, such as the Department of Commerce; 
Target audience: USG personnel who are responsible for assisting U.S. 
businesses overseas; 
2009 approximate participation: 70. 

Activity name: Oil and Petroleum Course; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding international energy concerns; 
Target audience: USG personnel who are responsible for energy policy 
positions such as extraction, refinement, or transport of oil; 
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

Activity name: Aviation Course; 
Activity description: A 3-day, in-person course that provides 
information about partner agencies that are working on civil aviation 
policy with State, such as the Departments of Transportation and 
Homeland Security; 
Target audience: USG personnel with civil aviation responsibilities; 
2009 approximate participation: 20. 

Activity name: Coal/Power Technology; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that provides 
information about the DOE: a partner agency working with State on 
commercial, economic, and environmental issues; 
Target audience: USG personnel who are responsible for energy 
activities such as monitoring developments in the extraction and use 
of coal; 
2009 approximate participation: 20. 

Activity name: Intellectual Property Rights; 
Activity description: A 2-day, in-person course that provides 
information on partner agencies that are working with State on 
enforcing intellectual property rights worldwide; 
Target audience: USG personnel who are responsible for activities 
involving intellectual property rights; 
2009 approximate participation: 10. 

Activity name: Combating Terrorist Financing; 
Activity description: A 3-day, in-person course that provides 
information about the members of the intelligence community and the 
partner agencies that are working with State to track the movement of 
funds for criminal or terrorist purposes, such as Treasury; 
Target audience: USG personnel who are responsible for combating 
illegal efforts to finance terrorist activity; 
2009 approximate participation: 60. 

Activity name: Resource Economic Seminar; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that provides 
information on economic, mining, and environmental issues that play a 
role in national security policy; 
Target audience: USG personnel who are responsible for issues related 
to natural resources and economic development; 
2009 approximate participation: 10. 

Activity name: Environmental, Science, Technological and Health 
Training for Foreign Service Nationals; 
Activity description: A 2-week, in-person course on core issues in the 
environmental, technological, health and science fields and how they 
relate to national security policy; 
Target audience: Foreign Service Nationals; 
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

Activity name: Washington Energy Seminar; 
Activity description: A 3-day, in-person course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding U.S. international energy policy; 
Target audience: USG personnel who are responsible for international 
energy issues; 
2009 approximate participation: 100. 

Activity name: U.S. Role in Multilateral Development Banks; 
Activity description: A 2-day, in-person course that provides an 
overview on multilateral development banks such as the World Bank and 
the U.S. government's approach to funding projects; 
USG personnel with domestic responsibilities for countries where 
Target audience: Multilateral Development Banks operate; 
2009 approximate participation: 10. 

Activity name: U.S. Global Investment Policy; 
Activity description: A 2-day, in-person course that provides an 
overview of U.S. investment policy and information about the partner 
agencies working with State on global investment issues; 
Target audience: USG personnel with domestic responsibilities covering 
investment issues; 
2009 approximate participation: 10. 

Activity name: Economic Issues; 
Activity description: A 3-week, in-person course that covers a wide 
range of economic issues such as financial crises and trade disputes 
and provides information about the partner agencies working with State 
on economic policy; 
Target audience: USG personnel responsible for international economic 
issues; 
2009 approximate participation: 20. 

Activity name: Hub Officer Orientation; 
Activity description: A 3-day, in-person course that provides 
information about the partner agencies working with State on 
environmental policy; 
Target audience: New regional Environmental Hub Officers; 
2009 approximate participation: 0. 

Activity name: Environmental Science, Technology and Health Tradecraft; 
Activity description: A 2-week, in-person course that provides 
information about the partner agencies and members of the intelligence 
community that are working with State on environmental science, 
technology, and health issues with transnational implications; 
Target audience: USG personnel responsible for environmental science, 
technology, and health issues; 
2009 approximate participation: 40. 

Activity name: Political Economic Tradecraft; 
Activity description: A 3-week, in-person course that presents an 
overview of global issues such as terrorism, foreign assistance, and 
economic competitiveness, and provides information about the partner 
agencies that are working with State on these issues; 
Target audience: Entry-level State personnel; 
2009 approximate participation: 340. 

Activity name: Arms Control and Nonproliferation; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that provides subject 
area expertise and information about partner agencies that are working 
with State on arms control and proliferation issues, such as DOD. This 
course engages an interagency student population in a collaborative 
policy planning exercise involving critical national security issues; 
USG personnel (GS-9--15 and above; 
Target audience: FS and military equivalents); 
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

Activity name: Intelligence and Foreign Policy; 
Activity description: A 3-day course on the role of intelligence in 
foreign affairs policy making that presents an overview of the 
intelligence community; 
USG personnel (GS-9--15 and above; 
Target audience: FS and military equivalents); 
2009 approximate participation: 60. 

Activity name: Foreign Policy Advisors Orientation Course; 
Activity description: A 2-day, in-person course that provides 
information about the differences between State and DOD cultures and 
teaches the skills needed for navigating the interagency policy 
environment; 
Target audience: Senior-level State officers detailed as political 
advisors to U.S. military commanders; 
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

Activity name: Managing Foreign Assistance Awards Overseas; 
Activity description: A 3-day, in-person course on U.S. funding 
priorities that provides information about the partner agencies that 
are working with State on overseeing foreign assistance awards, such 
as DOD and USAID; 
Target audience: USG personnel responsible for overseeing foreign 
assistance awards overseas; 
2009 approximate participation: 80. 

Activity name: International Negotiations; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that develops skills 
needed to engage in interagency settings, such as communication and 
negotiation; 
USG personnel (GS-9-15 and above; 
Target audience: FS and military equivalents); 
2009 approximate participation: 90. 

Activity name: Political Military Affairs; 
Activity description: A 4-day, in-person course on the roles and 
responsibilities of DOD and State on political-military issues; 
USG personnel (GS-9--15 and above; 
Target audience: FS and military equivalents); 
2009 approximate participation: 60. 

Activity name: International Terrorism; 
Activity description: A 3-day, in-person course that explores the root 
causes of international terrorism and provides information on the 
partner agencies that are working with State to combat the 
international terrorist threat; 
USG personnel (GS-9--15 and above; 
Target audience: FS and military equivalents); 
2009 approximate participation: 50. 

Activity name: Foundations of Interagency Reconstruction and 
Stabilization Operations; 
Activity description: A 2-week, in-person course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding post-conflict reconstruction and 
stabilization operations and builds the skills needed to work together 
in an interagency environment; 
Target audience: USG civilian and military members of the Civilian 
Response Corps; 
2009 approximate participation: 240. 

Activity name: Maritime Policy and International Shipping; 
Activity description: A 2-day, in-person course that provides an 
overview of maritime commerce and security issues including 
information about the partner agencies that are working with State, 
such as the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security; 
Target audience: USG personnel responsible for maritime commerce; 
2009 approximate participation: 20. 

Activity name: Washington Tradecraft; 
Activity description: A 4-day, in-person course that provides 
information on how to work within the interagency policy process; 
Target audience: Foreign service officers returning for a first tour 
in Washington, D.C; 
2009 approximate participation: 140. 

Activity name: Information Assurance and Cybersecurity Training 
Program; 
Activity description: A series of in-person courses that can range 
from 3 to 5 days depending on the audience that introduces a common 
framework for addressing information security challenges required to 
support U.S. foreign policy in a global threat environment; 
Target audience: Federal information security officers and other 
personnel who are responsible for cybersecurity issues; 
2009 approximate participation: 1,380. 

Activity name: Basic Regional Security Officer Course; 
Activity description: A 12-week, in-person course that provides 
information about the partners working with State on national security 
and law enforcement issues; 
Target audience: Special Agents about to start their initial overseas 
assignments in regional security offices; 
2009 approximate participation: 130. 

Activity name: Orientation for Foreign Service Specialists; 
Activity description: A 3-week, in-person orientation that includes a 
half day dedicated to information on the roles and responsibilities of 
other agencies that work closely with the Department of State on 
foreign policy; 
Target audience: New foreign service specialists; 
2009 approximate participation: 540. 

Department of Homeland Security: 

Activity name: Introduction to the Incident Command System; 
Activity description: A 3-hour, online course that introduces a common 
framework for understanding the Incident Command System and its 
relationship to the National Incident Management System; 
Target audience: Personnel involved with emergency planning and 
response or recovery efforts who require a basic understanding of the 
Incident Command System; 
2009 approximate participation: 60,790. 

Activity name: Introduction to the Incident Command System for Law 
Enforcement; 
Activity description: A 3-hour, online course that introduces a common 
framework for understanding the Incident Command System as it applies 
to law enforcement; 
Target audience: Law enforcement personnel who have a direct role in 
emergency planning and recovery efforts; 
2009 approximate participation: 11,510. 

Activity name: Introduction to Incident Command System for Federal 
Workers; 
Activity description: A 3-hour, online course that introduces a common 
framework for understanding the Incident Command System as it applies 
to incidents involving federal assistance; 
Target audience: Federal workers involved with federal disasters; 
2009 approximate participation: 70. 

Activity name: Incident Command System for Single Resources and 
Initial Action Incidents; 
Activity description: A 3-hour, online course that introduces a common 
framework for understanding how to operate efficiently during an 
incident or event within the Incident Command System; 
Target audience: Personnel who are likely to assume a supervisory 
position within the Incident Command System during an incident; 
2009 approximate participation: 43,840. 

Activity name: Introduction to the National Incident Management System; 
Activity description: A 3-hour, online course that introduces a common 
framework for understanding the National Incident Management System, 
which is intended to enable federal, state, and local agencies to work 
together during domestic incidents; 
Target audience: DHS personnel and individuals responsible for 
emergency management; 
2009 approximate participation: 44,160. 

Activity name: National Incident Management System Multiagency 
Coordination Systems; 
Activity description: A 5-hour, online course that introduces a common 
framework for understanding Multiagency Coordination Systems within 
the National Incident Management System, and teaches how these systems 
can be used to improve incident response; 
Target audience: A broad audience of individuals responsible for 
emergency management; 
2009 approximate participation: 3,370. 

Activity name: National Incident Management System Public Information 
Systems; 
Activity description: A 3-hour, online course that introduces a common 
framework for understanding the use of public information systems 
described in the National Incident Management System; 
Target audience: Local and state public information officers; 
2009 approximate participation: 1,410. 

Activity name: National Incident Management System Communications and 
Information Management; 
Activity description: A 2-hour, online course that introduces a common 
framework for understanding the Communications and Information 
Management component of the National Incident Management System; 
Target audience: A broad audience of individuals responsible for 
emergency management; 
2009 approximate participation: 240. 

Activity name: Introduction to the National Response Framework; 
Activity description: A 5-hour, online course that introduces a common 
framework for understanding the concepts and principles of the 
National Response Framework, and how agencies collaborate on national 
preparedness planning efforts; 
Target audience: DHS personnel, senior-level government and private 
executives; 
2009 approximate participation: 39,820. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 1: 
Transportation; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for transportation activities; 
State and local officials, government executives, private-sector and 
Target audience: NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 1,390. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 2: 
Communication; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for communication activities; 
Target audience: State and local officials, government executives, 
private-sector and NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 1,350. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 3: 
Public Works and Engineering; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for activities related to public works and engineering; 
Target audience: State and local officials, government executives, 
private-sector and NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 830. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 4: 
Firefighting; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for firefighting activities; 
State and local officials, government executives, private-sector and 
NGO leaders, and any other federal department or agency heads who are 
responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 1,360. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 5: 
Emergency Management; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for emergency management activities; 
State and local officials, government executives, private-sector and 
NGO leaders, and any other federal department or agency heads who are 
responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 1,750. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 6: Mass 
Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing and Human Services; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for activities related to mass care, emergency assistance, 
housing and human services; 
Target audience: State and local officials, government executives, 
private-sector and NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 2,120. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 7: 
Logistics Management and Resource Support Annex; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for activities related to logistics management and resource 
support annex; 
Target audience: State and local officials, government executives, 
private-sector and NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 1,550. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 8: 
Public Health and Medical Services; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for activities related to public health and medical 
services; 
Target audience: State and local officials, government executives, 
private-sector and NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 1,480. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 9: 
Search and Rescue; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for search and rescue activities; 
Target audience: State and local officials, government executives, 
private-sector and NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 1,520. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 10: Oil 
and Hazardous Materials Response Annex; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for activities related to oil and hazardous materials 
response annex; 
Target audience: State and local officials, government executives, 
private-sector and NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 1,150. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 11: 
Agriculture and Natural Resources; 
Activity description: A 45-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for activities related to agriculture and natural resources; 
Target audience: State and local officials, government executives, 
private-sector and NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 770. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 12: 
Energy; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for energy activities; 
Target audience: State and local officials, government executives, 
private-sector and NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 760. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 13: 
Public Safety and Security Annex; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for public safety activities and security annex; 
Target audience: State and local officials, government executives, 
private-sector and NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 2,240. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 14: 
Long Term Community Recovery; 
Activity description: A 30-minute, online course that introduces a 
common framework for understanding National Response Framework 
principles for activities related to long-term community recovery; 
Target audience: State and local officials, government executives, 
private-sector and NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 1,060. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA Emergency Support Function 15: 
External Affairs; 
Activity description: A 1-hour, online course that introduces a common 
framework for understanding National Response Framework principles for 
external affairs activities; 
Target audience: FEMA External Affairs staff and all federal agencies 
that are signatories of the National Response Plan, along with state 
and local partners; 
2009 approximate participation: 840. 

Activity name: Introduction to FEMA National Response Framework 
Support Annex; 
Activity description: A 1.5-hour, online course that introduces the 
National Response Framework, which describes the roles and 
responsibilities of federal departments and agencies, the private 
sector, volunteer organizations, and NGOs during an incident; 
Target audience: Emergency practitioners and state and local 
officials, government executives, private-sector and NGO leaders, and 
any other federal department or agency heads who are responsible for 
providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 340. 

Activity name: Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Support Annex; 
Activity description: A 1-hour, online course that introduces a common 
framework for understanding the relationship between the Critical 
Infrastructure and Key Resources Support Annex and the National 
Response Framework, and identifies the process for ensuring that 
critical infrastructure and key resource considerations are integrated 
into incident response efforts; 
Target audience: State and local officials, government executives, 
private-sector and NGO leaders, and any other federal department or 
agency heads who are responsible for providing effective response; 
2009 approximate participation: 880. 

Department of Defense: 

Activity name: NDU, College of International Security Affairs: 
Strategic Security Studies; 
Activity description: A part-time certificate program or a 10-month, 
full-time master's program (both in-person) that teaches students how 
to develop and implement whole-of-government national and 
international security strategies for conditions of peace, crisis, and 
war; 
Target audience: USG and international military officers, civilians, 
and congressional staff; 
2009 approximate participation: 300. 

Activity name: NDU, College of International Security Affairs: Whole-
of-Government Planning for Reconstruction and Stabilization, Level I; 
Activity description: A 3-week, in-person course that provides 
theoretical and practical training on the whole-of-government planning 
process for reconstruction and stabilization operations, including the 
skills to work effectively with other agencies; 
Target audience: Civilian Response Corps members and other USG 
personnel such as provincial reconstruction team officers GS-7 and 
above and military and FS equivalents; 
2009 approximate participation: 20. 

Activity name: DOD National Security Studies Program at the George 
Washington University, Elliot School of International Affairs: 
Executive Course on National and International Security; 
Activity description: A 2-week, in-person course that examines the 
U.S. defense environment, which includes the Executive Branch and 
national and international policy communities. Through lectures, 
briefings, site visits, tabletop exercises, and a simulation, 
participants acquire an analytic framework for understanding the 
challenges facing U.S. national security and defense policy making. 
Taught by faculty from the Elliot School and Massachusetts Institute 
of Technology's Security Studies program; 
Target audience: SES members and General/Flag Officers; 
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

Activity name: DOD National Security Studies Program at the George 
Washington University, Elliot School of International Affairs: Senior 
Managers Course in National Security; 
Activity description: A 4-week, in-person course that builds senior 
managers' knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of public and 
private organizations involved in national security matters and 
develops the skills needed for effective implementation of strategy 
and coordination of efforts. The course involves lectures, briefings, 
site visits, and a simulation. Taught by faculty from the Elliot 
School and Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Security Studies 
program; 
Target audience: DOD personnel at the GS-15 or O-6 level; 
2009 approximate participation: 50. 

Activity name: DOD National Security Studies Program at the George 
Washington University, Elliot School of International Affairs: Defense 
Policy Seminar; 
Activity description: A 3-day, in-person course that strengthens 
participants' knowledge of and capacity for crisis management and 
decision making in a complex and fast-paced environment, using a 
simulation based on a real-world scenario; 
Target audience: SES members and General/Flag Officers; 
2009 approximate participation: 25. 

Activity name: NDU, Information Resources Management College: 
Multiagency Information-Enabled Collaboration; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person or 10-to 12-week, 
interactive, online course that focuses on multiagency national 
security collaboration, examining current and proposed approaches to 
improved collaboration; impediments to collaboration and lessons 
learned; behaviors and skills of collaborative leadership; and 
collaborative tool sets. One of six courses NDU recommended for 
national security professionals; 
Target audience: USG national security professionals GS-13 and above; 
FS and military equivalents with national security responsibilities); 
2009 approximate participation: 40. 

Activity name: NDU, Joint Forces Staff College: Homeland Security 
Planner's Course; 
Activity description: A 40-hour, in-person certificate program that 
teaches national policies and strategies, homeland defense and 
homeland security strategies, and the joint and national planning 
process through classroom seminars and a computer-assisted exercise; 
Target audience: Military and civilian homeland security planners (O-4-
6), with priority given to combatant command and federal agency 
personnel; 
2009 approximate participation: 190. 

Activity name: NDU, Joint Forces Staff College: Joint, Interagency, 
and Multinational Planner's Course; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that provides 
knowledge of the latest developments in interagency coordination and 
serves as a forum for the exchange of best practices, to enable 
students to discover new approaches to solving complex problems. 
Includes a computer-assisted exercise requiring a comprehensive 
approach to solve a theater-level interagency problem; 
Target audience: Military civilian planners (O-4-O-6) and their 
civilian interagency counterparts; 
2009 approximate participation: 130. 

Activity name: Introduction to Homeland Security/Homeland Defense 
Planning; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that introduces 
homeland security planning, doctrine, methods, and techniques. It 
provides a first step in educating planners to think through the depth 
and breadth of homeland security challenges; 
integrating homeland security and military planning; 
and developing a complete homeland security plan; 
Target audience: DOD and DHS personnel interested in the fundamentals 
of planning; 
personnel who support homeland security planning; 
current and future homeland security planners and leaders; 
2009 approximate participation: 40. 

Activity name: Naval Postgraduate School; 
Activity description: Through multiple degree-and certificate- 
granting programs ranging from month-long courses to multiyear 
master's and doctoral programs (online or in-person) and research on 
the defense and security at specialized research centers such as the 
Center for Homeland Defense and Security, the Naval Postgraduate 
School seeks to increase the combat effectiveness of the Naval 
Services and other Armed Forces of the U.S. and its partners, and to 
enhance national security; 
Target audience: USG and international military officers, interagency 
civilians, and a limited number of defense contractors; 
2009 approximate participation: 2,210. 

Activity name: NDU, Information Resources Management College: 
Enterprise Strategic Planning; 
Activity description: A 5-day, full-time, in-person or 10-to 12-week, 
interactive online course that reviews the interagency national 
security strategic planning process, the U.S. National Security 
Strategy, and related plans. The course also teaches scenario-based 
planning and other approaches to strategy development in the face of 
uncertainty. One of six courses NDU recommended for national security 
professionals; 
Target audience: USG national security professionals (GS-13 and above; 
FS and military equivalents); 
2009 approximate participation: 10. 

Activity name: NDU, Information Resources Management College: 
Organizational Culture for Strategic Leaders; 
Activity description: A 5-day, full-time, in-person or 10-to 12-week, 
interactive online course that explores the effects of culture on 
mission performance, with an examination of how culture can influence 
organizational excellence and stimulate change. One of six courses NDU 
recommended for national security professionals; 
Target audience: USG national security professionals (GS-13 and above; 
FS and military equivalents); 
2009 approximate participation: 40. 

Activity name: NDU, Information Resources Management College: Global 
Strategic Landscape; 
Activity description: A 5-day, full-time, in-person or 10-to 12-week, 
interactive online course that focuses on how global changes may 
affect future U.S. national security strategy and the implications of 
such changes for information-age government with national security 
responsibilities. One of six courses NDU recommended for national 
security professionals; 
Target audience: USG national security professionals (GS-13 and above; 
FS and military equivalents); 
2009 approximate participation: 50. 

Activity name: NDU, Information Resources Management College: Decision 
Making for Government Leaders; 
Activity description: A 5-day, full-time, in-person or 10-to 12-week, 
interactive online course that examines the environment, 
opportunities, and challenges of leadership decision making in 
government agency and interagency settings from individual, 
managerial, and multiparty perspectives. One of six courses NDU 
recommended for national security professionals; 
Target audience: USG national security professionals (GS-13 and above; 
FS and military equivalents); 
2009 approximate participation: 10. 

Activity name: NDU, Information Resources Management College: 
Strategic Communication for Government Leaders; 
Activity description: A 5-day, full-time, in-person or 10-to 12-week, 
interactive online course that introduces communications theories and 
applications and explores the role of communications for government 
leaders in achieving organizational and national strategies. One of 
six courses NDU recommended for national security professionals; 
Target audience: USG national security professionals (GS-13 and above; 
FS and military equivalents); 
2009 approximate participation: 20. 

Activity name: Planning Course: Operation Enduring Freedom; 
Activity description: A 1-hour, online course that provides 
participants with basic knowledge of DOD's Joint Operational Planning 
Process, including information about interagency roles and the 
importance of including stakeholders in the planning process; 
Target audience: Reservists and other military personnel individually 
deploying to Combined Joint Task Force 82 in Afghanistan; 
2009 approximate participation: 370. 

Activity name: Joint Staff Business Processes Course; 
Activity description: A 3.5-hour, online course that provides 
participants with a common understanding of the Joint Staff structure 
and function within the National Security arena, the National Security 
Council decision-making process for developing and implementing U.S. 
national security policy, and related information; 
Target audience: Military enlisted personnel (E-4-E-9), officers (O-2-
O-6), and federal civilians (GS-7-15); 
2009 approximate participation: 10. 

Activity name: The Interagency Process Course; 
Activity description: A 20-hour, online course, developed by the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization's Partnership for Peace program, that 
provides participants with information on interagency structures, 
policy decision-making, and advance planning processes for crisis 
response to security threats in the Western hemisphere; 
Target audience: Military enlisted personnel (E3-E9) and federal 
civilians (GS-7-13); 
2009 approximate participation: 160. 

Activity name: Critical Infrastructure Awareness Course; 
Activity description: A 3-hour, online course, developed by the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization's Partnership for Peace program, that 
provides information on issues related to critical infrastructure 
protection in the context of global and national security. The course 
focuses on public safety and security, national security, emergency 
planning, and operational planning; 
Target audience: Military enlisted personnel (E4-E8), officers (O2-
O6), and federal civilians (GS-9-13); 
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

Activity name: Joint Operation Planning and Execution System Executive 
Presentation Course; 
Activity description: A 2-hour, online course that gives participants 
an overview of the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System and 
provides a common framework for understanding it. This system has been 
used to facilitate interagency coordination for joint military and 
humanitarian operations, such as the USG response to Hurricane Katrina 
and the earthquake in Haiti; 
Target audience: Military enlisted personnel (E-7 and above), officers 
(O-5 and above), and federal civilians (GS-14 and above); 
2009 approximate participation: 4. 

Activity name: Department of Defense 101: Interagency Course; 
Activity description: A 1-hour, online course that provides knowledge 
of DOD procedures and processes in an interagency, national security 
context; 
Target audience: DOD and other USG personnel; 
2009 approximate participation: 160. 

Activity name: Department of State 101: Interagency Course; 
Activity description: A 1-hour, online course that provides knowledge 
of Department of State procedures and processes in an interagency, 
national security context; 
Target audience: DOD and other USG personnel; 
2009 approximate participation: 160. 

Activity name: USAID 101: Interagency Course; 
Activity description: A 1-hour, online course that provides knowledge 
of U.S. Agency for International Development procedures and processes 
in an interagency, national security context; 
Target audience: DOD and other USG personnel; 
2009 approximate participation: 90. 

Activity name: Joint Interagency Coordination Group Course; 
Activity description: A 14-hour, online course that provides an 
overview of a Joint Interagency Coordination Group, a part of a 
combatant commander's staff that facilitates interagency information 
sharing. The course prepares interagency personnel to participate in 
the group; 
Target audience: Personnel to be assigned to a Joint Interagency 
Coordination Group; 
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

Activity name: The Interagency Process: Full Spectrum Implementation 
Presentation; 
Activity description: A 1-hour, online course that provides basic 
knowledge about how combatant commanders and staff participate in the 
interagency process, highlights major issues in the interagency 
process, and examines some new organizational tools developed to 
improve interagency coordination. The course also provides an 
introduction to the Joint Interagency Coordination Group; 
Target audience: Not available; 
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

Activity name: Interagency Coordination Course: Operation Enduring 
Freedom; 
Activity description: A 1-hour, online course that provides basic 
knowledge of interagency coordination activities and challenges 
related to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and explains the 
authorities and roles of State and DOD; 
Target audience: Not available; 
2009 approximate participation: 350. 

Activity name: Homeland Security and Defense Course; 
Activity description: A 20-hour, online course that provides basic 
background knowledge of key joint homeland and security defense 
subjects to prepare Joint Task Force Headquarters staff to more 
effectively accomplish their tasks during joint exercises and real- 
world operations; 
Target audience: Personnel assigned to Joint Task Force Headquarters; 
2009 approximate participation: 110. 

Activity name: Defense Support of Civil Authorities Course; 
Activity description: A 5-hour, online course that provides an 
overview of the Defense Support of Civil Authorities, including its 
organization, structure, and role in homeland security and defense 
missions; 
Target audience: Not available; 
2009 approximate participation: 140. 

Activity name: Joint Deployment Distribution Operations Center Course; 
Activity description: A 17-hour, online course that provides 
participants with foundational knowledge about the Joint Deployment 
Distribution Operations Center, which is intended to integrate 
military, interagency, and intergovernmental deployment and 
distribution operations; 
Target audience: DOD governmental and NGO personnel assigned to and/or 
working with the Joint Deployment Distribution Operations Center; 
2009 approximate participation: 160. 

Activity name: Joint Information Operations Orientation Course; 
Activity description: An 18-hour, online course that provides military 
and civilian participants with knowledge of joint information 
operations doctrine and a foundation for duty as joint information 
operations officers. Information operations include safeguarding 
national information and responding to information campaigns from USG 
adversaries, among other priorities; 
Target audience: USG personnel (O-3-O-6); 
2009 approximate participation: 40. 

Activity name: Joint Task Force State Staff Course; 
Activity description: A 57-hour, online course (with 31 distinct 
lessons) that provides National Guard participants with the knowledge 
and skills they need to work with joint, interagency, 
interjurisdictional, and intergovernmental organizations; 
Target audience: National Guard personnel; 
2009 approximate participation: 20. 

Activity name: Standing Joint Force Headquarters Course; 
Activity description: A 4-hour, online course that provides 
introductory knowledge that joint staff or interagency participants at 
a standing joint force headquarters need to participate as a member of 
the staff; 
Target audience: Standing Joint Force Headquarters staff and other 
joint staff working on operational and/or strategic issues; 
2009 approximate participation: 40. 

Department of Energy: 

Activity name: Joint Surety Days Conference; 
Activity description: A 1-day conference that serves as a forum for 
discussions between DOE and DOD on nuclear weapon surety topics such 
as latest technologies, best practices, and overviews of 
organizational structures and responsibilities to aid in interagency 
collaboration; 
Target audience: DOE and DOD personnel that work on issues related to 
nuclear weapon surety; 
2009 approximate participation: 120. 

Department of Justice: 

Activity name: Home Made Explosives Course; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that introduces a 
common vocabulary and framework for conducting investigations related 
to the criminal manufacture and use of explosives; 
Target audience: Personnel from the law enforcement, military, and 
intelligence communities; 
2009 approximate participation: 150. 

Activity name: Post Blast Investigative Techniques; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that introduces a 
common vocabulary and framework for conducting post-blast 
investigations; 
Target audience: Military, civilian, and federal law enforcement 
personnel responsible for conducting post-blast investigations; 
2009 approximate participation: 110. 

Department of the Treasury: 

Activity name: Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes Policy Advisor 
Training Course; 
Activity description: A 26-hour, in-person course that provides an 
overview of Treasury's national security activities related to 
terrorist financing and financial crimes, international and domestic 
frameworks and tools for countering illicit finance, and information 
on Treasury's role in working with other federal agencies, foreign 
governments, and international bodies in the development and 
implementation of policies and programs to counter illicit finance; 
Target audience: GS-7-12 terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes 
Policy Advisors; 
2009 approximate participation: 60. 

U.S. Agency for International Development: 

Activity name: Tactical Conflict Assessment and Planning Framework[A]; 
Activity description: A 2-day, in-person course that introduces a 
common vocabulary and framework for identifying and mitigating sources 
of conflict; 
Target audience: Military and civilian personnel about to deploy to an 
unstable environment; 
2009 approximate participation: 1,650. 

Activity name: USAID Civilian Response Corps Orientation; 
Activity description: A 2-week, in-person course that describes the 
roles and responsibilities of USAID and how it works with other 
agencies involved in the Civilian Response Corps. The course includes 
lectures, case studies, and exercises; 
Target audience: USAID members of the Civilian Response Corps; 
2009 approximate participation: 20. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Activity name: Food Emergency Response Network Civil Support Team Food 
Course; 
Activity description: A 5-day, in-person course that provides 
information on roles and responsibilities in a food emergency crisis 
and hands-on laboratory exercises on a variety of topics such as 
detection of toxins and food sampling; 
Target audience: GS-7-12 members of the National Guard Civil Support 
Team; 
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

Coproviders: 

Activity name: Joint Nuclear Surety Executive Course; 
Activity description: A 1-to 3-day, in-person course coprovided by DOD 
and DOE that provides technical, programmatic, and process information 
to facilitate an overview-level understanding of nuclear weapon 
surety, which includes safety, security, and control matters; 
Target audience: Mid and senior-level personnel; 
2009 approximate participation: 170. 

Activity name: Marine Security Guard School; 
Activity description: An 8-week, in-person course coprovided by DOD 
and State that introduces a common vocabulary or framework for 
protecting classified information and addressing external threats to 
U.S. embassies; 
Target audience: Marines (O-1 and above); 
2009 approximate participation: 480. 

Other: 

Activity name: Advanced Course on Hemispheric Security and Defense; 
Activity description: An 11-month, full-time, JPME-certified academic 
study program provided by the Interamerican Defense College on 
hemispheric defense and security efforts. One objective is to foster 
connections among participants. Most participants are foreign, but 
some are also from U.S. federal agencies; 
Target audience: Military and civilian personnel from member states of 
the Organization of American States who are in strategic advisory 
positions related to hemispheric defense and security; 
2009 approximate participation: 12. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: Exercise Programs: 

Department of Homeland Security: 

Activity name: National Exercise Program; 
Activity description: A program of exercises that examines and 
evaluates national policies, such as the National Preparedness 
Guidelines, National Incident Management System, and the National 
Response Framework, on domestic incident management and response to 
terrorism or nonterrorist catastrophic events; 
Target audience: Federal department and agency principals and other 
key officials responsible for domestic incident management of 
terrorism or nonterrorist catastrophic events; 
2009 approximate participation: Not Available. 

Department of Defense: 

Activity name: First-Army: Afghanistan Provincial Reconstruction Team 
Predeployment Training; 
Activity description: A 60-to 90-day training exercise providing the 
knowledge and skills for operating effectively in an Afghanistan 
provincial reconstruction team. Military team members participate for 
60 days; team leaders for 90 days; and civilian members join their 
military counterparts for the last 2-3 weeks of the exercise; 
Target audience: Primarily military and some civilian personnel 
scheduled to deploy to an Afghanistan provincial reconstruction team; 
2009 approximate participation: 2,540. 

Activity name: NDU, Center for Applied Strategic Learning: Policy-
Related Exercises; 
Activity description: These half-day to 2-day, in-person crisis 
simulations provide policy and decision-making experiences, 
encouraging interagency dialogue and whole-of-government approaches to 
future national security challenges; 
Target audience: Midlevel to senior-level civilian and military 
leadership (GS-13, O-5 and above) and members of Congress; 
2009 approximate participation: Not Available. 

Activity name: Joint Military Exercises Programs[A]; 
Activity description: Joint exercises range in duration and can be 
hosted by a military Service or combatant command. They are typically 
training events or simulations of wartime operations and could include 
multinational, nongovernmental, joint, or single-service participants. 
Rather than focusing solely on DOD's military missions, joint 
exercises address areas such as counterterrorism, homeland defense and 
security, combat operations, domestic and foreign consequence 
management, stability operations, noncombatant evacuations, 
humanitarian assistance, and disaster response; 
Target audience: Various; 
2009 approximate participation: Not Available. 

Department of State: 

Activity name: The Interagency Civilian-Military Integration Training 
Exercise Program; 
Activity description: A 1-week field exercise program at the 
Muscatatuck Urban Training Center in Butlerville, Indiana, that 
provides information about the roles and responsibilities of federal 
agencies working in Afghanistan and the skills needed to work together 
in a post-conflict, interagency environment; 
Target audience: USG personnel deploying to Afghanistan to serve on or 
work with civilian-military platforms, such as provincial 
reconstruction teams; 
2009 approximate participation: 20. 

Activity name: Foreign Emergency Support Team Quarterly Exercises; 
Activity description: Quarterly exercises intended to teach Foreign 
Emergency Support Team members how to work together to assess an 
emergency involving an embassy and how to best respond to a crisis 
overseas; 
Target audience: USG members of an interagency team responsible for 
responding to incidents and crises around the world; 
2009 approximate participation: Not Available. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Activity name: Food Defense Exercise Program; 
Activity description: A 1-day food defense exercise program hosted 
several times annually by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service 
that focuses on building effective and efficient coordination of 
state, local, federal agencies, and industry stakeholder responses to 
food crises incidents, food defense; 
Target audience: GS-13 and above (or equivalent) employees from 
federal, state, and local government, private industry, and academia; 
2009 approximate participation: 170. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] This entry for joint military exercises represents 84 individual 
exercise programs which conducted multiple exercises during fiscal 
year 2009. 

[End of table] 

Table 10: Interagency Rotational Programs: 

Department of Homeland Security: 

Activity name: Rotational Assignments Program; 
Activity description: A 60-day or longer interagency rotational 
assignment between DHS and other federal agencies that provides 
opportunities to obtain breadth and depth of experience while 
exchanging knowledge with other organizations; 
Target audience: SES, managers, supervisors; personnel in SES 
candidate or other career development programs (GS-7-SES); 
2009 approximate participation: 80[A]. 

Department of Defense: 

Activity name: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College: 
Interagency Exchange Program and Intermediate Level Education 
Interagency Fellowship Program; 
Activity description: A 9-to 12-month rotational assignment that 
places Army officers in intermediate-level positions at other federal 
agencies and allows them to learn about the culture of the host 
agency, hone collaborative skills such as communication and teamwork, 
and establish networks with their civilian counterparts; 
Target audience: Field-grade Army officers, typically majors; 
2009 approximate participation: 20. 

Activity name: Navy Washington DC Intern Program; 
Activity description: This program places mid-level Naval officers who 
are pursuing a master of arts degree in organizational management from 
George Washington University in two different 5-month, part-time 
internships at federal agencies such as DHS and State; 
Target audience: Navy Officers, O-4-O-5; 
2009 approximate participation: 1. 

Department of Defense and Department of Energy: 

Activity name: Military Academic Collaborations Program; 
Activity description: A 3-to 12-week program that provides internship 
opportunities at NNSA sites with a focus on science, technology, 
engineering, national security, and other relevant fields. Interns 
work closely with a senior researcher or team and have the benefit of 
a dedicated mentor. NNSA sites may also offer briefings, networking, 
and other opportunities to expose participants to a variety of 
programs that support DOD and to interact with other onsite military 
personnel; 
Target audience: Cadets, midshipmen, and instructors from U.S. 
Military Academies and ROTC programs at universities throughout the 
country; 
2009 approximate participation: 10. 

Department of State: 

Activity name: State Rotations at DOD; 
Activity description: A 1-to 3-year rotational assignment that places 
State personnel at the Pentagon or at military commands to work 
alongside DOD civilians and military officers. These include Foreign 
Policy Advisors, State-Defense Exchange Officers, and State positions 
with the Joint Interagency Coordination Groups. Participants have 
opportunities to develop their knowledge of military culture, roles 
and responsibilities, while providing a foreign policy perspective to 
military planning and operations. These assignments also provide 
opportunities to establish networks between diplomats and military 
staff who must work together on global issues; 
Target audience: Mid to senior-level State Foreign Service officers; 
2009 approximate participation: 70. 

Activity name: State Rotations at JPME and other Federal Learning 
Institutions; 
Activity description: A 1-to 3-year rotational assignment that places 
State personnel as faculty at one of the JPME colleges, or other DOD 
or federal learning institutions such as the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. 
Participants have opportunities to establish networks with other 
faculty members from the interagency community while providing a 
foreign policy perspective to curriculum development and classroom 
discussions; 
Target audience: Mid to senior-level State Foreign Service officers; 
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

Activity name: State Rotations at Federal Agencies and Executive 
Offices; 
Activity description: A 1-to 3-year rotational assignment that places 
State personnel at another federal agency or executive office. 
Participants have opportunities to learn about the roles and 
responsibilities of the host agencies and to establish professional 
networks with personnel from different agencies working on similar 
issues; 
Target audience: Mid to senior-level State Foreign Service officers; 
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

[End of table] 

Source: GAO: 

[A] This number represents outbound rotations, in other words the 
number of participants from DHS rotating to other agencies. 
Participation in intraagency rotations (from one DHS component to 
another) is not included here. 

Table 11: Joint Professional Military Education Programs: 

Department of Defense: 

Activity name: NDU, National War College: Master of Science in 
National Security Strategy;
Activity description: A 10-month, full-time, in-person program that 
provides a grounding in national security strategy and policy and 
military strategy and operations. Through seminars, lectures, and 
exercises, the program emphasizes national security organizations and 
decision-making processes, the domestic and international contexts in 
which national security policy is developed, and the formulation and 
implementation of military strategy;
Target audience: Senior-level officers (O-5-O-6), civilian equivalents 
(GS-14-GS-15), and international equivalents;
2009 approximate participation: 220. 

Activity name: Air University, Air Command and Staff College: Master 
of Military Operational Art and Science;
Activity description: A 10-month, full-time, in-person program that 
prepares participants to develop, employ, and command air, space, and 
cyberspace power in joint, multinational, and interagency operations;
Target audience: Midlevel officers (O-4) and civilian interagency and 
international equivalents;
2009 approximate participation: 510. 

Activity name: Air University, Air War College: Master of Strategic 
Studies;
Activity description: A 10-month, full-time, in-person program that 
prepares students to lead in a joint environment at the strategic 
level across the range of military operations with a focus on the 
mastery of joint air, space, and cyberspace power and how such power 
contributes to national security;
Target audience: Senior-level officers (O-5-O-6) and civilian 
interagency and international equivalents;
2009 approximate participation: 240. 

Activity name: Army War College: Master of Strategic Studies;
Activity description: A 10-month, full-time, in-person program that 
prepares students for strategic leadership in a joint, interagency, 
intergovernmental, and multinational environment with core courses, a 
strategic decision-making exercise, a national security seminar, and 
other academic work;
Target audience: Senior-level officers (O-5-O-6) and civilian 
interagency and international equivalents;
2009 approximate participation: 340. 

Activity name: Naval War College, College of Naval Command and Staff: 
Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies;
Activity description: A 10-month, full-time, in-person program 
intended to produce critically thinking, operational-level leaders who 
are skilled in Navy and joint planning and are able to apply 
operational art to maritime, multiservice, multiagency, and 
multinational warfighting;
Target audience: Midlevel officers (O-4) and civilian interagency and 
international equivalents;
2009 approximate participation: 320. 

Activity name: Marine Corps Command and Staff College: Master of 
Military Studies;
Activity description: A 10-month, full-time, in-person program 
intended to produce critically thinking, operational-level leaders who 
are skilled in Marine and joint planning and are able to apply 
operational art to maritime, multiservice, multiagency, and 
multinational warfighting;
Target audience: Midlevel officers (O-4) and civilian interagency and 
international equivalents;
2009 approximate participation: 200. 

Activity name: NDU, Industrial College of the Armed Forces: Master of 
Science in National Resource Strategy;
Activity description: A 10-month, full-time, in-person program that 
prepares participants for strategic leadership and success in 
developing national security strategy and in evaluating, marshaling, 
and managing resources in the execution of that strategy;
Target audience: Senior-to executive-level officers (O-5 and above), 
USG civilians (GS-14 and above), and international and private 
industry equivalents;
2009 approximate participation: 320. 

Activity name: NDU, Joint Forces Staff College: Joint Advanced 
Warfighting School Master of Science in Joint Campaign Planning and 
Strategy;
Activity description: An 11.5-month, full-time, in-person program that 
develops expert operational and strategic planners, with coursework 
and research on history and theory of war, national security, military 
strategy, operational skills and campaigning, adaptive planning, and 
decision making;
Target audience: Senior-to executive-level officers (O-5-O-6), and 
civilian interagency and international equivalents;
2009 approximate participation: 40. 

Activity name: NDU, Joint Forces Staff College: Joint and Combined 
Warfighting School;
Activity description: A 10-week, full-time, in-person course that 
develops effective operational-level warfighting planners for joint 
and combined forces, focusing on national security strategy;
joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational capabilities;
military theater strategy and campaigning;
and joint military planning process and systems;
Target audience: Senior-level officers (O-4 and above) and civilian 
interagency equivalents preparing to take a joint duty or similar 
assignment;
2009 approximate participation: 1,010. 

Activity name: Army Command and General Staff College;
A 10-month, full-time, in-person program that prepares selected 
military and civilian participants to be critically thinking, 
operational-level leaders, skilled in Army and joint planning, and 
able to apply operational skills to maritime, multiservice, 
multiagency, and multinational war fighting;
Target audience: Senior-level officers (O-4 and above) and civilian 
interagency equivalents;
2009 approximate participation: 1,430. 

Activity name: Marine Corps War College: Master of Strategic Studies;
Activity description: A 10-month, full-time, in-person program that 
prepares its students for decision-making across the range of military 
operations in a joint, interagency, and multinational environment 
through the study of national military strategy and theater strategy 
and plans, within the context of national security policies, decision 
making, objectives, and resources;
Target audience: Senior-level officers (O-5-O-6) and civilian 
interagency and international equivalents;
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

Activity name: Naval War College, College of Naval Warfare: Master of 
Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies;
Activity description: A 10-month, full-time, in-person program that 
produces broadly educated, strategic leaders skilled in critical 
thinking, strategic analysis, planning, and warfighting in maritime, 
multiservice, multiagency, and multinational environments;
Target audience: Senior-level officers (O-5-O-6) and civilian 
interagency and international equivalents;
2009 approximate participation: 260. 

Activity name: NDU: Capstone;
Activity description: A 6-week, in-person course consisting of 
seminars, case studies, informal discussions, visits to key domestic 
U.S. military commands, and overseas field studies involving 
interactions with combatant commanders, American ambassadors, embassy 
staffs, and senior political and military leaders of foreign 
governments;
Target audience: General and flag officers, interagency civilian SES 
members, and other executive-level civilian equivalents;
2009 approximate participation: 200. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Table 12: Leadership Development Programs: 

Department of Defense: 

Activity name: Defense Senior Leader Development Program;
Activity description: A leadership development program that requires 
four in-person seminars, a 10-month full-time, in-person professional 
military education program at NDU or one of the DOD war colleges, and 
interagency rotational assignments. The program provides the 
enterprise-wide perspective to lead organizations and programs and 
achieve results in joint, interagency, and multinational environments;
Target audience: Senior civilian personnel at DOD (GS-14-15 or 
equivalents);
2009 approximate participation: 40. 

Activity name: Executive Leader Development Program;
Activity description: A leadership development program that requires 
95 contact days over a 10-month period of in-person training and a 
different week-long deployment each month for 6 months to various 
military facilities to expose civilians to military experiences;
Target audience: Primarily DOD civilian personnel at GS-12-14;
some participants from military or other civilian agencies such as DHS 
and Transportation;
2009 approximate participation: 60. 

Activity name: Defense Information Systems Agency Executive Leadership 
Development Program;
Activity description: A 3-year program that includes 17 in-person and 
online courses, 4 developmental conferences, participation in a 
mentoring program and action learning project, and 3 6-month 
rotations, to support the development of the Defense Information 
Systems Agency's technical, professional, and leadership talent;
Target audience: Senior-level civilian personnel (GS-14-15) and 
military officers (O-5-O-6);
2009 approximate participation: 30. 

Activity name: NDU, Information Resources Management College: Advanced 
Management Program, Government Strategic Leadership Certificate;
Activity description: A 14-week, full-time residential classroom 
program that teaches skills for strategic thinking, collaboration, and 
cross-boundary leadership with a focus on the roles, challenges, and 
opportunities of organizations within the context of homeland, 
national, and global security; provides participants with a network to 
share knowledge, and analyze and leverage strategic human, 
technological, and financial resources;
Target audience: USG personnel (GS-13 and above; FS and military 
equivalents);
2009 approximate participation: 0. 

Activity name: NDU, Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass 
Destruction: Program for Emerging Leaders;
Activity description: A specialized leadership development program 
with approximately 66 in-person contact hours to be completed during a 
3-year period, created to foster a community of rising U.S. government 
leaders with the awareness and skills needed to respond to the dangers 
of weapons of mass destruction;
Target audience: Early to mid-career national security professionals;
2009 approximate participation: 50. 

Department of State: 

Activity name: Ambassadorial Seminar;
A 2-week leadership development program that prepares ambassadors-
Activity description: designate and their spouses for their unique 
positions of leadership in the interagency environment of State's 
missions abroad;
Target audience: Ambassador-designates;
2009 approximate participation: 70. 

Activity name: Deputy Chief of Mission/Principal Officer Seminar;
Activity description: A 3-week leadership development program intended 
to teach the leadership skills needed to manage in an interagency 
environment;
Target audience: New Deputy Chiefs of Mission and Principal Officers;
2009 approximate participation: 60. 

Activity name: Interagency Policy Seminar Series;
Activity description: A 2-day, in-person seminar that brings together 
senior leaders to discuss key policy issues related to national 
security, such as democracy building; develop leadership skills such 
as teambuilding; and establish networks; 
Target audience: USG personnel (GS-15 and above; FS and military 
equivalents);
2009 approximate participation: 50. 

Activity name: Interagency Effectiveness: Strategies and Best Practices;
Activity description: A 1-day leadership development program that 
teaches analysis, communication, and negotiation skills needed to 
operate in an interagency environment;
Target audience: USG personnel (GS-15 and above; FS and military 
equivalents);
2009 approximate participation: 40. 

Activity name: National Security Executive Leadership Seminar;
Activity description: A leadership development program that meets 2 
days per month over the course of 5 months and provides the knowledge 
and skills needed to navigate the interagency policy implementation 
process as well as opportunities to establish professional networks;
Target audience: USG personnel (GS-15 and above; FS and military 
equivalents);
2009 approximate participation: 60. 

Activity name: Senior Executive Threshold Seminar;
Activity description: A 10-day leadership development program designed 
to prepare newly promoted senior executives in the foreign affairs 
community for the challenges they face in leading across agency and 
national boundaries;
Target audience: Newly promoted senior FS officers and senior Civil 
Service personnel in the foreign affairs community. (Open to 
interagency personnel as of 2010);
2009 approximate participation: 110. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] In 2010, USAID changed the name of this course from Tactical 
Conflict Assessment and Planning Framework to District Stability 
Framework. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Bernice Steinhardt at (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov. 

Acknowledgments: 

Elizabeth Curda and Laura Miller Craig managed this assignment. 
Jessica Nierenberg, Kate Hudson Walker, Albert Sim, Melanie Papasian, 
David Dornisch, and Russ Burnett made key contributions to all aspects 
of the report. Esther Toledo, Mark Kehoe, David P. Owen, Lauren 
Levine, Andrew Stavisky, John Mingus, Jr., John Pendleton, Marie Mak, 
Alissa Czyz, William Trancucci, Judith Kordahl, and Crystal Robinson 
also provided assistance. In addition, Lois Hanshaw and Karin Fangman 
provided legal support and Donna Miller developed the report’s 
graphics. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Defense Management: DOD Needs to Determine the Future of Its Horn of 
Africa Task Force. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-504]. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 
2010. 

Homeland Defense: DOD Needs to Take Actions to Enhance Interagency 
Coordination for Its Homeland Defense and Civil Support Missions, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-364]. Washington, D.C.: 
March 30, 2010. 

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.: September 
25, 2009. 

Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better Inventory and 
Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language Skills and Regional 
Proficiency. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568]. 
Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2009. 

Influenza Pandemic: Continued Focus on the Nation’s Planning and 
Preparedness Efforts Remains Essential. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-760T]. Washington, D.C.: June 3, 
2009. 

U.S. Public Diplomacy: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-679SP]. Washington, 
D.C.: May 27, 2009. 

Military Operations: Actions Needed to Improve Oversight and 
Interagency Coordination for the Commander’s Emergency Response 
Program in Afghanistan. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-61]. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2009. 

Foreign Aid Reform: Comprehensive Strategy, Interagency Coordination, 
and Operational Improvements Would Bolster Current Efforts. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-192]. Washington, D.C.: 
April 17, 2009. 

Iraq and Afghanistan: Security, Economic, and Governance Challenges to 
Rebuilding Efforts Should Be Addressed in U.S. Strategies. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-476T]. Washington, D.C.: March 25, 
2009. 

Drug Control: Better Coordination with the Department of Homeland 
Security and an Updated Accountability Framework Can Further Enhance DEA
’s Efforts to Meet Post-9/11 Responsibilities. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-63]. Washington, D.C.: March 20, 
2009. 

Defense Management: Actions Needed to Address Stakeholder Concerns, 
Improve Interagency Collaboration, and Determine Full Costs Associated 
with the U.S. Africa Command. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-181]. Washington, D.C.: February 
20, 2009. 

Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Enhance Implementation of Trans-
Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-860]. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 
2008. 

Information Sharing: Definition of the Results to Be Achieved in 
Terrorism-Related Information Sharing Is Needed to Guide 
Implementation and Assess Progress. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-637T]. Washington, D.C.: July 23, 
2008. 

Highlights of a GAO Forum: Enhancing U.S. Partnerships in Countering 
Transnational Terrorism. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-887SP]. Washington, D.C.: July 2008. 

Stabilization and Reconstruction: Actions Are Needed to Develop a 
Planning and Coordination Framework and Establish the Civilian Reserve 
Corps. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-39]. Washington, 
D.C.: November 6, 2007. 

Homeland Security: Federal Efforts Are Helping to Alleviate Some 
Challenges Encountered by State and Local Information Fusion Centers. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-35]. Washington, D.C.: 
October 30, 2007. 

Military Operations: Actions Needed to Improve DOD’s Stability 
Operations Approach and Enhance Interagency Planning. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-549]. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 
2007. 

Combating Terrorism: Law Enforcement Agencies Lack Directives to 
Assist Foreign Nations to Identify, Disrupt, and Prosecute Terrorists. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-697]. Washington, D.C.: 
May 25, 2007. 

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.: October 21, 
2005. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Defense Management: Improved Planning, Training, and 
Interagency Collaboration Could Strengthen DOD’s Efforts in Africa, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-794] (Washington, D.C.: 
July 28, 2010). GAO, Homeland Defense: DOD Needs to Take Actions to 
Enhance Interagency Coordination for Its Homeland Defense and Civil 
Support Missions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-364] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2010). 

[2] GAO, National Security: Key Challenges and Solutions to Strengthen 
Interagency Collaboration, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-822T] (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 
2010). 

[3] National Security Strategy (Washington, D.C.: May 2010). 

[4] 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.: September 
2009). 

[5] We excluded Intelligence Community agencies under the Office of 
the Director of National Intelligence, which will be addressed in a 
separate GAO review. 

[6] The National Exercise Program (NEP) Implementation Plan was 
approved in April 2007 (See hyperlink, 
http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/nationalexerciseprogram.htm). See 6 
U.S.C. § 748. Although DHS’s Federal Emergency Management Agency is 
responsible for administering NEP, DOD helps to conduct some of the 
large-scale NEP exercises through the U.S. Northern Command, the 
military command responsible for planning, organizing, and executing 
DOD’s homeland defense and civil support missions. See GAO, Homeland 
Defense: U.S. Northern Command has a Strong Exercise Program, but 
Involvement of Interagency Partners and States Can be Improved, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-849] (Washington, D.C.: 
September 9, 2009) and GAO, National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made 
Progress, but Needs to Complete and Integrate Planning, Exercise, and 
Assessment Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-369] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 
2009). 

[7] However, in some cases, we did identify and include training 
intended to prepare personnel for collaborative work groups and 
committees. 

[8] A range of assignments and other activities that were intended to 
improve national security collaboration were outside of our focus on 
collaboration among federal agencies. Some examples include State's 
rotational assignments involving international organizations such as 
the United Nations and DHS's rotations and training courses intended 
to improve collaboration across its component agencies and with its 
state and local partners. 

[9] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-269, 116 Stat. 2135 
(Nov. 25, 2002). 

[10] Interagency National Security Professional Education, 
Administration, and Development System Act of 2010, H.R. 6249, 111th 
Cong. (as introduced by House, Sept. 29, 2010). 

[11] Executive Order No. 13434, National Security Professional 
Development, 72 Fed. Reg. 28,583 (May 17, 2007) named 15 agency 
officials and provided that the Chairman of the Executive Steering 
Committee could designate additional members. Two other members (from 
Commerce and Interior) were later designated to participate. 

[12] The complete inventory of activities is available in appendix II 
and the electronic supplement [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-109SP]. 

[13] USAID does not have a designated official on the Executive 
Steering Committee. 

[14] Commerce reported providing a Civilian Response Corps orientation 
training course featuring a reconstruction and stabilization tabletop 
exercise; however this information was not received in time to include 
in our report. 

[15] Where available, agencies reported the number of participants in 
each activity they provided; these numbers cannot be combined to yield 
total numbers of individuals who participated in activities overall, 
because some individuals may have participated in multiple activities 
and would be counted multiple times. 

[16] The National Response Framework presents the guiding principles 
that enable all response partners to prepare for and provide a unified 
national response to disasters and emergencies—-from the smallest 
incident to the largest catastrophe. 

[17] Joint Interagency Coordination Groups, housed within DOD 
combatant commands, are intended to serve as a coordinating body among 
the civilian agencies in Washington, D.C., the country ambassadors, 
the combatant command’s staff, and other multinational and 
multilateral bodies within the region. 

[18] The Interamerican Defense College is an international educational 
institution funded by the Organization of American States and the 
Inter-American Defense Board. It is colocated with National Defense 
University at Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington, D.C. 

[19] According to a U.S. Joint Forces Command publication on joint-
military exercises, combatant commands are responsible for defense and 
security related operations by geography or function, and are composed 
of forces from the various Services. Each has joint training 
responsibilities, with U.S. Joint Forces Command designated to lead 
joint training development. 

[20] U.S.-led provincial reconstruction teams were designed to improve 
stability in Afghanistan and Iraq by increasing the host nation's 
capacity to govern; enhancing economic viability; and strengthening 
local governments' ability to deliver public services, such as 
security and health care. Provincial reconstruction teams are also 
viewed as a means of coordinating interagency diplomatic, economic, 
reconstruction, and counterinsurgency efforts among various U.S. 
agencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. See GAO, Provincial Reconstruction 
Teams in Afghanistan and Iraq, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-86R] (Washington, D.C.: October 1 
2008). 

[21] As we have previously reported (see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-369]), the NEP implementation plan 
identified four tiers of exercises intended to bring together 
participants from federal, state, and local government and other 
entities, to test and improve the nation's ability to prevent, prepare 
for, and respond to events such as terrorist attacks and natural and 
man-made disasters. According to the 2008 plan, full federal agency 
participation--which includes all appropriate department and agency 
principals, among other key organizations---is required for five tier-
one exercises and up to three tier-two exercises annually. The NEP 
Implementation Plan names the following federal departments and 
agencies as voting members of the NEP Executive Steering Committee 
with coordination responsibilities: DHS, DOD, DOJ, DOE, State, the 
Departments of Transportation and Health and Human Services, the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence. 

[22] According to DOD military training officials, agency personnel 
could participate in joint military exercises in three ways: (1) 
helping to plan and develop an exercise, (2) playing a scripted role 
during an exercise, and (3) taking part in the exercise as a member of 
the training audience. One official said that it is equally important 
to have participation in all three ways. 

[23] OUSD-Readiness officials explained that the military services and 
combatant commands identify those exercises that are appropriate for 
interagency participation. OUSD-Readiness then monitors whether these 
goals for interagency participation are met in order to identify any 
gaps in interagency participation and possible solutions. 

[24] According to data provided by State officials, there were 24 
participants in the week-long Integrated Civilian-Military Afghanistan 
Predeployment Training Exercise. Officials did not provide participant 
data for the Foreign Emergency Support Team training exercises because 
they said such data were sensitive. 

[25] JPME programs are subject to periodic reviews according to a 
formal Process for Accreditation of Joint Education, intended to 
assure, among other things, that the learning objectives are met. 

[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.: September 
2009). 

[27] Certain offices or component agencies of the departments in our 
scope have multiple functions that include intelligence and are under 
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence umbrella. We 
interviewed officials from these organizations to ensure that we 
obtained information on their relevant non-intelligence-related 
professional development activities. These components included the 
Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Treasury’s Offices of Terrorism Financing and 
Intelligence and Analysis. 

[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: