Combating Terrorism
State Department's Antiterrorism Program Needs Improved Guidance and More Systematic Assessments of Outcomes Gao ID: GAO-08-336 February 29, 2008The Department of State's (State) Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA) program's objectives are to provide partner nations with counterterrorism training and equipment, improve bilateral ties, and increase respect for human rights. State's Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism (S/CT) provides policy guidance and its Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Office of Antiterrorism Assistance, (DS/T/ATA) manages program operations. GAO assessed (1) State's guidance for determining ATA priorities, (2) how State coordinates ATA with other counterterrorism programs, (3) the extent State established ATA program goals and measures, and (4) State's reporting on U.S. international counterterrorism assistance. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed State documents and met with cognizant officials in Washington, D.C., and four ATA program partner nations.
S/CT provides minimal guidance to help prioritize ATA program recipients, and S/CT and DS/T/ATA do not systematically align ATA assistance with U.S. assessments of foreign partner counterterrorism needs. S/CT provides policy guidance to DS/T/ATA through quarterly meetings and a tiered list of priority countries, but the list does not provide guidance on country counterterrorism related program goals, objectives, or training priorities. S/CT and DS/T/ATA also did not consistently use country-specific needs assessments and program reviews to plan assistance. S/CT has established mechanisms to coordinate the ATA program with other U.S. international efforts to combat terrorism. S/CT holds interagency meetings with representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Treasury and other agencies as well as ambassador-level regional strategic coordinating meetings. GAO did not find any significant duplication or overlap among the various U.S. international counterterrorism efforts. State has made progress in establishing goals and intended outcomes for the ATA program, but S/CT and DS/T/ATA do not systematically assess the outcomes and, as a result, cannot determine the effectiveness of program assistance. For example, although sustainability is a principal focus, S/CT and DS/T/ATA have not set clear measures of sustainability or integrated sustainability into program planning. State reporting on U.S. counterterrorism assistance abroad has been incomplete and inaccurate. S/CT has not provided a congressionally mandated annual report to Congress on U.S. government-wide assistance related to combating international terrorism since 1996. After 1996, S/CT has only submitted to Congress annual reports on the ATA program. However, these reports contained inaccurate program information, such as the number of students trained and courses offered. Additionally, the reports lacked comprehensive information on the results of program assistance that would be useful to Congress.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-336, Combating Terrorism: State Department's Antiterrorism Program Needs Improved Guidance and More Systematic Assessments of Outcomes
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-336
entitled 'Combating Terrorism: State Department's Antiterrorism Program
Needs Improved Guidance and More Systematic Assessments of Outcomes'
which was released on March 31, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Security and
Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2008:
Combating Terrorism:
State Department's Antiterrorism Program Needs Improved Guidance and
More Systematic Assessments of Outcomes:
Combating Terrorism:
GAO-08-336:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-336, a report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of State‘s (State) Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA)
program‘s objectives are to provide partner nations with
counterterrorism training and equipment, improve bilateral ties, and
increase respect for human rights. State‘s Office of the Coordinator
for Counterterrorism (S/CT) provides policy guidance and its Bureau of
Diplomatic Security, Office of Antiterrorism Assistance, (DS/T/ATA)
manages program operations. GAO assessed (1) State‘s guidance for
determining ATA priorities, (2) how State coordinates ATA with other
counterterrorism programs, (3) the extent State established ATA program
goals and measures, and (4) State‘s reporting on U.S. international
counterterrorism assistance. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed
State documents and met with cognizant officials in Washington, D.C.,
and four ATA program partner nations.
What GAO Found:
S/CT provides minimal guidance to help prioritize ATA program
recipients, and S/CT and DS/T/ATA do not systematically align ATA
assistance with U.S. assessments of foreign partner counterterrorism
needs. S/CT provides policy guidance to DS/T/ATA through quarterly
meetings and a tiered list of priority countries, but the list does not
provide guidance on country counterterrorism-related program goals,
objectives, or training priorities. S/CT and DS/T/ATA also did not
consistently use country-specific needs assessments and program reviews
to plan assistance.
S/CT has established mechanisms to coordinate the ATA program with
other U.S. international efforts to combat terrorism. S/CT holds
interagency meetings with representatives from the Departments of
State, Defense, Justice, and Treasury and other agencies as well as
ambassador-level regional strategic coordinating meetings. GAO did not
find any significant duplication or overlap among the various U.S.
international counterterrorism efforts.
State has made progress in establishing goals and intended outcomes for
the ATA program, but S/CT and DS/T/ATA do not systematically assess the
outcomes and, as a result, cannot determine the effectiveness of
program assistance. For example, although sustainability is a principal
focus, S/CT and DS/T/ATA have not set clear measures of sustainability
or integrated sustainability into program planning.
State reporting on U.S. counterterrorism assistance abroad has been
incomplete and inaccurate. S/CT has not provided a congressionally
mandated annual report to Congress on U.S. government-wide assistance
related to combating international terrorism since 1996. After 1996,
S/CT has only submitted to Congress annual reports on the ATA program.
However, these reports contained inaccurate program information, such
as the number of students trained and courses offered. Additionally,
the reports lacked comprehensive information on the results of program
assistance that would be useful to Congress.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO suggests that Congress reconsider the requirement that State
prepare an annual report on U.S. counterterrorism assistance. GAO also
recommends that State review its ATA program guidance, its use of needs
assessments, and measures for assessing the ATA program. State
generally agreed with our recommendations regarding the ATA program,
and supported the matter we suggest for congressional consideration.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-336].
For more information, contact Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. at (202) 512-
7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
State's Implementation of ATA Lacks Guidance and Use of Country Needs
Assessments:
S/CT Has Established Various Mechanisms to Coordinate Program
Assistance:
State Has Made Progress in Establishing ATA Goals, but S/CT and DS/T/
ATA Do Not Assess Sustainability:
State Reporting on U.S. Counterterrorism Assistance Abroad Has Been
Incomplete and Inaccurate:
Conclusions:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Top Recipients of ATA Funding, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix IVGAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities for S/CT and DS/T/ATA in Managing
ATA:
Table 2: Top Recipients of ATA Allocations, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
Figures:
Figure 1: Training Exercise at ATA Facility in Colombia:
Figure 2: Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related
Programs Appropriations for Antiterrorism Efforts, Fiscal Years 2000 to
2008:
Abbreviations:
ATA: Antiterrorism Assistance:
DS/T/ATA: Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Office of
Antiterrorism Assistance:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:
S/CT: Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for
Counterterrorism:
State: Department of State:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 29, 2008:
The Honorable Christopher Shays:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Shays:
Combating terrorism has become the nation's top national security goal
and the highest strategic objective at U.S. embassies worldwide. The
U.S. Department of State (State) is the lead federal agency responsible
for coordinating and supervising U.S. international counterterrorism
efforts, and directly supports the objectives set forth in the U.S.
government's National Strategy for Combating Terrorism Abroad. This
mission involves collaborating with various other U.S. government
agencies working overseas, such as the Departments of Defense, Homeland
Security, and Justice, as well as with foreign partners and allies
facing terrorist threats.
State's Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA) has assumed an increasingly
important role in U.S. counterterrorism efforts, and is a key mechanism
in State's efforts to help foreign nations improve their ability to
combat terrorism. Funding for ATA has increased over fourfold in recent
years--from $38 million in fiscal year 2001 to $175 million in fiscal
year 2007. ATA's legislatively mandated [Footnote 1] objectives are to
(1) enhance the antiterrorism skills of friendly countries by providing
counterterrorism training and equipment; (2) improve bilateral ties
with partner nations by offering assistance; and (3) increase respect
for human rights by sharing modern, humane and effective antiterrorism
techniques with foreign civil authorities. Within State, the Office of
the Coordinator for Counterterrorism (S/CT) and the Bureau of
Diplomatic Security, Office of Antiterrorism Assistance (DS/T/
ATA)[Footnote 2] oversee and manage ATA. Specific roles and
responsibilities for S/CT and DS/T/ATA are described in a 1991 internal
policy guidance memorandum and summarized in State's Foreign Affairs
Manual. As outlined in these documents, S/CT is responsible for
providing written policy guidance, including suggested regional and
country training priorities, for ATA. DS/T/ATA is responsible for
implementing and managing program operations, including developing
annual, country-specific plans that designate the type of assistance to
be provided, consistent with country program goals and objectives.
In response to your request, we reviewed State's implementation,
coordination, assessment, and reporting on ATA. Specifically, we
assessed (1) State's guidance for determining country recipients and
types of program assistance to provide; (2) how State coordinates ATA
with other U.S. government counterterrorism programs; (3) the extent to
which State establishes clear ATA goals, and measures sustainability of
program outcomes; and (4) State's reporting on U.S. international
counterterrorism assistance.
To address these objectives, we reviewed and analyzed State planning,
funding, and reporting documents concerning ATA. Our work focused
primarily on the time period from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2007,
although we included more recent data where available and appropriate.
We interviewed officials from S/CT and DS/T/ATA, including ATA program
managers responsible for each of the six in-country programs--
Afghanistan, Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, and the Philippines-
-and visited four of the six in-country programs.[Footnote 3] In these
countries, we reviewed country-specific program documents, and
interviewed ATA in-country program managers, course instructors, and
other contractors; U.S embassy officials responsible for managing
counterterrorism assistance and activities; and partner nation
government officials. We also observed various types of ATA training
and equipment that were provided to partner nation security units. We
found funding and program data DS/T/ATA provided to us, with the
exception of certain program data provided in DS/T/ATA annual reports
to Congress, sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted this
performance audit from November 2006 through January 2008 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives. (See app. I for a more complete
description of our scope and methodology.)
Results in Brief:
In implementing ATA, S/CT provides minimal guidance to help prioritize
which countries receive program assistance, and S/CT and DS/T/ATA do
not systematically align types of program assistance with U.S.
assessments of foreign partner counterterrorism needs.
* S/CT provides policy guidance to DS/T/ATA through quarterly meetings
in the form of a tiered list of priority countries. However, this list
does not provide guidance on country counterterrorism-related program
goals, objectives, or training priorities that DS/T/ATA could use to
implement a country-specific counterterrorism program and ensure that
assistance provided is consistent with U.S. policy objectives. In
addition, other factors influence which countries receive program
assistance, such as an increase in the U.S. government's diplomatic or
political interest in a country that, in some cases, may not have been
on the tiered list.
* S/CT and DS/T/ATA did not consistently use country-specific needs
assessments and program reviews to plan what types of assistance to
provide to partner nations. In five of the countries receiving the
largest amounts of program assistance since fiscal year 2002, we found
that program managers did not use the assessments as the basis for
developing ATA country-specific plans. According to State policy
documents, the assessments are to guide ATA resource decisions and form
the basis of country-specific assistance plans. However, the
assessments included broad-ranging recommendations for counterterrorism
assistance, but they generally did not prioritize assistance to be
provided.
S/CT has established mechanisms to coordinate ATA with other U.S.
international efforts to combat terrorism. S/CT holds biweekly
interagency meetings with representatives from the Departments of
State, Defense, Justice, Treasury, and other agencies as well as
ambassador-level regional strategic coordinating meetings in order to
help coordinate all U.S. government international counterterrorism
training assistance and avoid duplication of efforts. Based on our
review of program documents and interviews and meetings with
counterterrorism officials in the four countries we visited, we did not
find any significant duplication or overlap among the various U.S.
international counterterrorism efforts.
State has made progress in establishing goals and intended outcomes for
ATA, but S/CT and DS/T/ATA do not systematically assess the outcomes of
program assistance. Since fiscal year 2006, State planning documents
list sustainability--that is, enabling partner nations to achieve
advanced and sustainable counterterrorism capabilities--as a key
intended program outcome. State officials confirmed that sustainability
is the principal focus of program assistance in all participant
countries. However, S/CT and DS/T/ATA have not set clear measures of
sustainability, and have not integrated sustainability into program
planning. As a result, S/CT and DS/T/ATA cannot determine the
effectiveness of program assistance or assess the extent to which ATA
is meeting its longer-term, congressionally mandated objectives;
specifically:
* Cognizant S/CT and DS/T/ATA officials were not aware that a key 2007
State-level planning document[Footnote 4] included numerical targets
and past results regarding the number of countries that had attained an
advanced level of sustainable counterterrorism capability, and program
officials also were unaware of any existing measures of sustainability.
* DS/T/ATA asserts that the needs assessments and program reviews are
the primary means of measuring program results. Although the
assessments and program reviews aim to evaluate overall partner nation
counterterrorism capabilities across a broad range of areas, the
process does not explicitly provide a means for evaluating
sustainability or measuring the specific outcomes of program
assistance.
* DS/T/ATA program managers we interviewed had disparate views on the
definition of sustainability, and had not received guidance on how to
measure sustainability within the context of their respective country
assistance programs. As a result, the country assistance plans we
reviewed did not consistently address sustainability or establish
annual objectives, measures, and program activities for achieving that
outcome.
State reporting on U.S. counterterrorism assistance abroad has been
incomplete and inaccurate. Specifically, S/CT has not provided a
congressionally mandated report to Congress on U.S. government-wide
assistance related to combating international terrorism since
1996.[Footnote 5] After 1996, S/CT has only submitted to Congress
annual reports prepared by DS/T/ATA on the program. Moreover, we found
that the ATA annual reports we analyzed contained inaccuracies
regarding basic program information, such as the number of students
trained and courses offered. Additionally, the ATA annual reports
lacked comprehensive information on the results of program assistance
that would be useful to Congress in evaluating the effectiveness of the
program.
Given changes in the overall scope and nature of U.S. international
counterterrorism assistance and the fact that State has not submitted
the mandated report on such matters since 1996, we include a matter for
congressional consideration regarding the legislative requirement for
State's reporting on U.S. counterterrorism assistance. Additionally, to
ensure that ATA, as a key element of State's broader international
counterterrorism efforts, is focused on improving partner nations'
counterterrorism capabilities and aligned with overall U.S.
counterterrorism policy goals, we recommend that the Secretary of State
improve internal program guidance. We make other recommendations to
help S/CT and DS/T/ATA more effectively link assistance needs to
resource allocations and better assess program outcomes.
State provided us comments on a draft of this report. (See app. III.)
Overall, State agreed with our principal findings and recommendations
regarding the ATA program, and outlined a number of actions to address
these matters. State also supported the matter we suggest for
congressional consideration.
Background:
Congress authorized State's ATA program in 1983 through the Foreign
Assistance Act.[Footnote 6] According to the legislation, and as noted
above, the purpose of ATA is "(1) to enhance the antiterrorism skills
of friendly countries by providing training and equipment to deter and
counter terrorism; (2) to strengthen the bilateral ties of the United
States with friendly governments by offering concrete assistance in
this area of great mutual concern; and (3) to increase respect for
human rights by sharing with foreign civil authorities modern, humane,
and effective antiterrorism techniques."
ATA Program Assistance:
ATA offers a wide range of counterterrorism assistance to partner
nations, but most assistance consists of (1) training courses on
tactical and strategic counterterrorism issues and (2) grants of
counterterrorism equipment, such as small arms, bomb detection
equipment, vehicles, and computers. DS/T/ATA also provides specialized
consultations to partner nations on specific counterterrorism issues on
an as-needed basis.[Footnote 7] ATA curricula and training focus on
enhancing critical counterterrorism capabilities, which cover issues
such as crisis management and response, cyberterrorism, dignitary
protection, bomb detection, airport security, border control, kidnap
intervention and hostage negotiation and rescue, response to incidents
involving weapons of mass destruction, countering terrorist finance,
and interdiction of terrorist organizations. According to DS/T/ATA, all
of its courses emphasize law enforcement under the rule of law and
sound human rights practices.
DS/T/ATA provides training primarily through contract employees and
interagency agreements with other U.S. law enforcement agencies. DS/T/
ATA selects, oversees, and evaluates all contracted instructors.
According to DS/T/ATA, most instructors are retired law enforcement or
military personnel who have expertise specific to the ATA curricula.
DS/T/ATA provides training both onsite in the partner nation and at
facilities in the United States, depending on the nature of the course
and the availability of special equipment and necessary facilities.
However, in fiscal year 2007, DS/T/ATA delivered nearly 90 percent of
all training overseas due, in part, to the lack of domestic facilities
in the United States during a transition in contracting for U.S.-based
facilities.[Footnote 8] ATA has provided increasingly more assistance
overseas over the past several years. An S/CT official noted that the
trend reflects a recognition that training is generally more
effectively delivered in the partner nation.
DS/T/ATA has provided most overseas assistance by sending instructors
to the partner nation to conduct a specific course. The partner nation
and the U.S. embassy provide support in designating a facility or
training site and assisting DS/T/ATA headquarters staff with other
logistical issues.[Footnote 9] DS/T/ATA has established an in-country
training presence through bilateral arrangements with six priority
partner nations: Afghanistan, Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, and
the Philippines. These countries were the largest recipients of program
assistance from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007. In general,
these programs included permanent training facilities such as
classrooms, computer labs, and shooting and demolition ranges, which
DS/T/ATA used to provide training on an ongoing basis. Each of the in-
country programs has a permanently posted in-country ATA program
manager, along with other ATA staff at the U.S. post in the host
nation--in some cases, in-country staff included trainers and course
instructors. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Training Exercise at ATA Facility in Colombia:
This figure is a photograph of a training exercise at ATA facility in
Columbia.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
ATA Program Funding:
ATA is State's largest counterterrorism program, and receives
appropriations under the Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining,
and Related Programs account. Fiscal year 2002 appropriations for ATA
increased to about $158 million--over six times the level of funding
appropriated in fiscal year 2000. Appropriations for the program have
fluctuated since fiscal year 2002, and increased to over $175 million
in fiscal year 2007, including supplemental appropriations. (See fig.
2.)
Figure 2: Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related
Programs Appropriations for Antiterrorism Efforts, Fiscal Years 2000 to
2008:
This figure is a combination vertical bar graph showing
nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining, and related programs
appropriations for antiterrorism efforts between fiscal years 2000 and
2008. One bar represents antiterrorism assistance programs, and the
other represents other antiterrorism programs.
2000;
Antiterrorism Assistance Program: 31000;
Other Antiterrorism Programs: 3250.
2001;
Antiterrorism Assistance Program: 38000;
Other Antiterrorism Programs: 19000.
2002;
Antiterrorism Assistance Program: 157934;
Other Antiterrorism Programs: 49000.
2003;
Antiterrorism Assistance Program: 90368;
Other Antiterrorism Programs: 5000.
2004;
Antiterrorism Assistance Program: 141428;
Other Antiterrorism Programs: 4971.
2005;
Antiterrorism Assistance Program: 134900;
Other Antiterrorism Programs: 14136.
2006;
Antiterrorism Assistance Program: 122265;
Other Antiterrorism Programs: 13860.
2007;
Antiterrorism Assistance Program: 175136;
Other Antiterrorism Programs: 21880.
2008 (Request);
Antiterrorism Assistance Program: 124311;
Other Antiterrorism Programs: 25713.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Congressional Budget Justifications for Foreign Operations,
fiscal years 2002 through 2008.
Notes: Includes regular, emergency response fund, and supplemental
appropriations for ATA in fiscal years 2002 to 2005, as well as a $50
million supplemental appropriation in fiscal year 2007.
Other antiterrorism programs include the Terrorist Interdiction
Program, Counterterrorism Engagement with Allies, and Counterterrorism
Financing, among other programs.
[End of figure]
From fiscal years 2002 to 2007, program assistance for the top 10
recipients of ATA allocations ranged from about $11 million to about
$78 million. The top 10 recipients represented about 57 percent of ATA
funding allocated for training and training-related activities over the
6-year period. ATA funding for the other 89 partner nations that
received assistance during this period ranged from $9,000 to about
$10.7 million. (See app. II for additional information on ATA funding
for specific partner nations.)
ATA Program Management:
The Coordinator for Counterterrorism, the head of S/CT, is
statutorily[Footnote 10] charged with the overall supervision
(including policy oversight of resources) and coordination of the U.S.
government's counterterrorism activities. The broadly mandated[Footnote
11] role of the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, the head
of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, includes implementing security
programs to protect diplomatic personnel and advise chiefs of mission
on security matters. Specific roles and responsibilities for S/CT and
DS/T/ATA regarding ATA are described in a 1991 internal policy guidance
memorandum, the Omnibus Diplomatic Security Act of 1986,[Footnote 12]
and incorporated into State's Foreign Affairs Manual.[Footnote 13]
Table 1 provides a summary of key responsibilities described in the
guidance.
Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities for S/CT and DS/T/ATA in Managing
ATA:
S/CT: Provide written policy guidance, including regional, country, and
training priorities, and general guidance on the fiscal parameters of
the program;
DS/T/ATA: Develop country-specific training proposals for new host
nation participants, including type of assistance to be provided,
location of training, budget, and other relevant factors, consistent
with S/CT policy guidance and the results of an initial assessment of
host nation counterterrorism needs.
S/CT: Lead delegation of U.S. government counterterrorism experts to
assess needs, and establish policy goals and training objectives with
partner nations in consultation with DS/T/ATA;
DS/T/ATA: Develop annual training plan for each currently participating
host nation that specifies types of assistance and short-term
objectives, consistent with S/CT policy guidance.
S/CT: Evaluate the extent to which ATA programs are furthering overall
U.S. government counterterrorism goals;
DS/T/ATA: Develop all training curricula, identify and select
instructors, and coordinate all training logistics.
DS/T/ATA: S/CTDS/T/ATA: Evaluate training effectiveness and progress
toward training program objectives.
Source: GAO summary of State policy guidance.
[End of table]
As shown in table 1, S/CT is responsible for leading the initial
assessment of a partner nation's counterterrorism needs, and DS/T/ATA
is responsible for developing annual, country-specific plans. Under
current program operations, DS/T/ATA conducts an initial assessment of
a new participant nation's counterterrorism capabilities, and conducts
subsequent assessments--referred to as program reviews--every 2 to 3
years thereafter. In general, the needs assessments include input from
the embassy teams, but the assessments themselves are conducted by
technical experts contracted by DS/T/ATA. According to DS/T/ATA, the
purpose of the needs assessment and program review process is to
determine the forms of assistance for a partner nation to detect,
deter, deny, and defeat terrorism; and to evaluate program
effectiveness.
State's Implementation of ATA Lacks Guidance and Use of Country Needs
Assessments:
ATA lacks guidance beyond a tiered list of priority countries and
assistance is not systematically aligned with counterterrorism needs.
S/CT provides minimal policy guidance to help determine ATA priorities
and ensure that assistance provided supports broader U.S. policy goals.
In addition, S/CT and DS/T/ATA did not systematically use country-
specific needs assessments and program reviews to plan what types of
assistance to provide partner nations in accordance with State policy
guidance. The assessments we reviewed had weaknesses and
inconsistencies.
S/CT Provides a Tiered Country List, but Little Additional Policy
Guidance:
In accordance with the 1991 State policy guidance memorandum, S/CT
prepares a tiered list of countries to help prioritize and determine
where to provide ATA assistance. However, S/CT provides little
additional guidance to DS/T/ATA regarding program priorities and how to
allocate program funding. Additionally, other factors besides those
reflected in the tiered list influence which countries receive
assistance.
According to State officials, S/CT places countries on the tiered list
in one of four priority categories based on criteria that address
several factors, including country-specific threats and the level and
depth of diplomatic and political engagement in a country. State
officials indicated that other factors also may be considered in
determining whether and where a country is placed on the list, such as
the presence of a U.S. military base or a planned international
sporting or cultural event with U.S. participation. Since 2006, S/CT
has reviewed and discussed the tiered list--including changes,
additions, or deletions--with DS/T/ATA during quarterly meetings. DS/T/
ATA officials stated that DS/T/ATA was able to provide more substantial
input and suggestions for the latest version of the tiered list because
S/CT provided a draft list to DS/T/ATA for comment for the first time
prior to the August 2007 meeting. As of August 2007, over 70 countries
were on the list, with 12 to 24 countries in each of the four
categories. However, countries were not ranked or prioritized within
each category.
In addition to the quarterly meetings, S/CT told us that they had
established a series of regional roundtable discussions in 2006 between
S/CT regional subject experts and DS/T/ATA counterparts. According to
the S/CT official, the roundtables are intended as a means of
identifying priority countries and their counterterrorism needs for
purposes of developing budget requests.
S/CT provides little guidance to DS/T/ATA beyond the tiered list,
although the 1991 State policy guidance memorandum states that S/CT's
written policy guidance for the program should include suggested
country training priorities. State's Office of Inspector General
previously reported that earlier versions of S/CT's tiered list
included additional guidance, such as the rationale for support, and
suggested areas for training. However, S/CT began providing
increasingly abbreviated guidance as its responsibilities beyond ATA
grew after September 11, 2001.[Footnote 14] While S/CT provides some
additional guidance to DS/T/ATA during quarterly meetings and on other
occasions, DS/T/ATA officials in headquarters and the field stated they
received little or no guidance from S/CT beyond the tiered list.
Officials responsible for the ATA in-country program in Colombia stated
they had minimal interaction with S/CT. As a result, neither S/CT nor
DS/T/ATA can ensure that program assistance provided to specific
countries supports broader U.S. antiterrorism policy goals.
Other factors beyond S/CT's tiered list of countries, such as
unforeseen events or new governmental initiatives, also influence which
countries receive program assistance. We found that 10 countries on the
tiered list did not receive ATA assistance in fiscal year 2007, while
13 countries not on the tiered list received approximately $3.2
million. S/CT and DS/T/ATA officials stated that assistance does not
always align with the tiered list because U.S. foreign policy
objectives sometimes cause State, in consultation with the President's
National Security Council, to provide assistance to a non-tiered-list
country.
S/CT and DS/T/ATA Do Not Systematically Align Program Assistance with
Counterterrorism Needs:
According to the 1991 State policy guidance memorandum and DS/T/ATA
standard operations procedures, ATA country-specific needs assessments
and program reviews are intended to guide program management and
planning. However, S/CT and DS/T/ATA did not systematically use the
assessments to determine what types of assistance to provide to partner
nations or develop ATA country-specific plans. In addition, the
assessments we reviewed had several weaknesses and inconsistencies.
Although the 1991 State policy memorandum states that S/CT should lead
the assessment efforts, a senior S/CT official stated that S/CT lacks
the capacity to do so. As a result, DS/T/ATA has led interagency
assessment teams in recent years, but the assessments and
recommendations for types of assistance to be provided may not fully
reflect S/CT policy guidance concerning overall U.S. counterterrorism
priorities.
DS/T/ATA Does Not Consistently Use Country Needs Assessments:
DS/T/ATA officials responsible for five of the top six recipients of
ATA support--Colombia, Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the
Philippines[Footnote 15]--did not consistently use ATA country needs
assessments and program reviews in making program decisions or to
create annual country assistance plans. DS/T/ATA officials responsible
for the in-country programs in four of these countries had not seen the
latest assessments for their respective countries. While some officials
responsible for three of these five in-country programs stated they had
reviewed at least one of the assessments conducted for their countries
since 2000, the officials said that the assessments were either not
useful or that they were used for informational purposes only.
* The Regional Security Officer, Deputy Regional Security Officer, and
DS/T/ATA Program Manager for Kenya had not seen any of the assessments
that had been conducted for the country since 2000. Although the in-
country program manager for Kenya was familiar with the assessments
from her work in a previous position with DS/T/ATA, she stated that in
general, the assessments were not very useful for determining what type
of assistance to provide. She said that the initial needs assessment
for Kenya failed to adequately consider local needs and capacity.
* The Regional Security Officer and Assistant Regional Security Officer
for Indonesia stated they had not seen the latest assessment for the
country. The DS/T/ATA program manager for Indonesia said that he
recalled using one of the assessments as a "frame of reference" in
making program and resource decisions. The in-country program manager
also recalled seeing one of the assessments, but stated that he did not
find the assessment useful given the changing terrorist landscape;
therefore, he did not share it with his staff.
* The DS/T/ATA Program Manager for Pakistan stated that decisions on
the types of assistance to provide in Pakistan were based primarily on
the knowledge and experience of in-country staff regarding partner
nation needs, rather than the needs assessments or program reviews. He
added that he did not find the assessments useful, as the issues
identified in the latest (2004) assessment for the country were already
outdated.
Needs Assessments Generally Lacked Prioritized Recommendations and Were
Inconsistent:
We reviewed 12 of the 21 ATA country-specific needs assessments and
program reviews[Footnote 16] that, according to ATA annual reports, DS/
T/ATA conducted between 2000 and 2007 for five of the six in-country
programs.[Footnote 17] The assessments and reviews generally included a
range of recommendations for counterterrorism assistance, but did not
prioritize assistance to be provided or include specific timeframes for
implementation. Consequently, the assessments do not consistently
provide a basis for targeting program assistance to the areas of a
partner nation's greatest counterterrorism assistance need. Only two of
the assessments--a 2000 needs assessment for Indonesia and a 2003
assessment for Kenya--prioritized the recommendations, although a 2004
assessment for Pakistan and a 2005 assessment for the Philippines
listed one or two recommendations as priority ATA efforts. In addition,
the information included in the assessments was not consistent and
varied in linking recommendations to capabilities. Of the 12
assessments we reviewed:
* Nine included narrative on a range of counterterrorism capabilities,
such as border security and explosives detection, but the number of
capabilities assessed ranged from 5 to 25. The 2001 needs assessment
for Colombia included narrative on the government's antikidnapping
capability and equipment needs, but did not assess any counterterrorism
capabilities. The 2002 assessment for Indonesia provided narrative on
ATA assistance provided, but did not include an assessment of any
counterterrorism capabilities.
* Only four of the assessments that assessed more than one capability
linked recommendations provided to the relevant capabilities. Most of
the recommendations in the assessments we reviewed were for ATA
assistance, although some recommended host government actions to
improve counterterrorism capability, or other U.S. government
assistance.
* Six included capability ratings, but the types of ratings used
varied. A 2003 assessment for Colombia rated eight capabilities, rating
them 1 through 5 with definitions for each rating level; the 2004
assessment for Colombia rated 24 capabilities, rating them as poor,
low, fair, or good, without any definitions.
* Two used a format that DS/T/ATA began implementing in 2001. The
assessments following the new format generally included consistent
types of information and clearly linked recommendations provided to an
assessment of 25 counterterrorism capabilities. However, they did not
prioritize recommendations or include specific timeframes for
implementing the recommendations.
Country Assistance Plans Were Not Used or Were Not Linked to Needs
Assessments:
Although the 1991 State policy memorandum states that DS/T/ATA should
create annual country assistance plans that specify training objectives
and assistance to be provided based upon the needs assessments and
program reviews, we found that S/CT and DS/T/ATA did not systematically
use the assessments to create annual plans for the five in-country
programs. DS/T/ATA officials we interviewed regarding the five in-
country programs stated that in lieu of relying on the assessments or
country assistance plans, program and resource decisions were primarily
made by DS/T/ATA officials in the field based on their knowledge and
experience regarding partner nation needs. Some DS/T/ATA officials said
they did not find the country assistance plans useful. The program
manager for Pakistan stated that he used the country assistance plan as
a guide, but found that it did not respond to changing needs in the
country. The ATA program manager for Kenya said that he had not seen a
country assistance plan for that country.
We requested ATA country assistance plans conducted during fiscal years
2000-2006 for the five in-country programs included in our review, but
S/CT and DS/T/ATA only provided three plans completed for three of the
five countries. Specifically, S/CT and DS/T/ATA provided a 2006 ATA
country assistance plan for Colombia, a 2007 plan for Pakistan, and a
plan covering fiscal years 2006-2008 for the Philippines. DS/T/ATA
officials stated that they were able to locate only draft and informal
planning documents for Indonesia and Kenya, and that S/CT and DS/T/ATA
did not develop plans for any programs prior to 2006.
Of the three ATA country assistance plans DS/T/ATA provided, we found
that the plans did not link planned activities to recommendations
provided in the needs assessments and program reviews. The current plan
for the Philippines included a brief reference to a 2005 needs
assessment, but the plan did not identify which recommendations from
the 2005 assessment were intended to be addressed by current or planned
efforts. The plan for Pakistan did not mention any of the assessments
conducted for that country.
S/CT Has Established Various Mechanisms to Coordinate Program
Assistance:
As a part of its responsibility, S/CT has established mechanisms to
coordinate the ATA program with other U.S. government international
counterterrorism training assistance and to help avoid duplication of
efforts. S/CT chairs biweekly interagency working group meetings of the
Counterterrorism Security Group's Training Assistance Subgroup to
provide a forum for high-level information sharing and discussion among
U.S. agencies implementing international counterterrorism
efforts.[Footnote 18] The Training Assistance Subgroup includes
representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Justice,
Homeland Security, Treasury, and other agencies. S/CT also established
the Regional Strategic Initiative in 2006 to coordinate regional
counterterrorism efforts and strategy. S/CT described the Regional
Strategic Initiative as a series of regionally based, interagency
meetings hosted by U.S. embassies to identify key regional
counterterrorism issues and develop a strategic approach to addressing
them, among other goals. A senior S/CT official stated that meetings
have generated new regional training priorities for ATA. As of November
2007, Regional Strategic Initiative meetings have been held for the
East Africa, Eastern Mediterranean, Iraq and Neighbors, Latin America,
Southeast Asia, South Asia, Trans-Sahara, and Western Mediterranean
regions.[Footnote 19]
Based on our review of program documents, interviews, and meetings with
officials in the four countries we visited, we did not find any
significant duplication or overlap among U.S. agencies' country-
specific training programs aimed at combating terrorism. Officials we
met with in each of these countries noted that they participated in
various embassy working group meetings, such as Counterterrorism
Working Group and Law Enforcement Working Group meetings, during which
relevant agencies shared information regarding operations and
activities at post. DS/T/ATA officials also coordinated ATA with other
counterterrorism efforts through daily informal communication among
cognizant officials in the countries we visited.
State Has Made Progress in Establishing ATA Goals, but S/CT and DS/T/
ATA Do Not Assess Sustainability:
In response to concerns that ATA lacked elements of adequate strategic
planning and performance measurement, State recently took action to
define goals and measures related to the program's mandated objectives.
S/CT and DS/T/ATA, however, do not systematically assess
sustainability--that is, the extent to which assistance has enabled
partner nations to achieve and sustain advanced counterterrorism
capabilities. S/CT and DS/T/ATA lack clear measures and processes for
assessing sustainability, and program managers do not consistently
include sustainability in ATA planning.
State Has Recently Established ATA Goals and Measures, and Emphasizes
Sustaining Partner Nations' Counterterrorism Capabilities:
State did not have measurable performance goals and outcomes related to
the mandated objectives for ATA prior to fiscal year 2003, but has
recently made some progress to address the deficiency. State's Office
of Inspector General recommended in 2001, 2005, and 2006 reports that
S/CT and DS/T/ATA take steps to establish measurable long-term goals
and evaluations of program performance. Similarly, State responded to
issues raised in a 2003 Office of Management and Budget
assessment[Footnote 20] of ATA by developing specific goals and
measures for each of the program's mandated objectives.
Since fiscal year 2006, State planning documents, including department
and bureau-level performance plans, have listed enabling partner
nations to achieve advanced and sustainable counterterrorism
capabilities as a key program outcome. S/CT and DS/T/ATA officials
further confirmed that sustainability is the principal intended outcome
and focus of program assistance. In support of these efforts, DS/T/ATA
appointed a Sustainment Manager in November 2006. The Sustainment
Manager's broadly defined responsibilities include coordinating with
other DS/T/ATA divisions to develop recommendations and plans to assist
partner nations in developing sustainable counterterrorism
capabilities.
S/CT and DS/T/ATA Do Not Assess Sustainability of Capabilities:
Despite progress towards establishing goals and intended outcomes,
State has not developed clear measures and a process for assessing
sustainability and has not integrated the concept into program
planning. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993[Footnote
21] (GPRA) requires agencies in charge of U.S. government programs and
activities to identify goals and report on the degree to which goals
are met. S/CT and DS/T/ATA officials noted the difficulty in developing
direct quantitative measures of ATA outcomes related to partner
nations' counterterrorism capabilities. However, GPRA and best
practices cited by the Office of Management and Budget, us, and others
provide flexible guidelines for agency and program managers to develop
adequate measures of program effectiveness. Our past work also has
stressed the importance of establishing program goals, objectives,
priorities, milestones, and measures to use in monitoring performance
and assessing outcomes as critical elements of program management and
effective resource allocation.[Footnote 22]
We found that the measure for ATA's principal intended program outcome
of sustainability is not clear. In its fiscal year 2007 Joint
Performance Summary, State reported results and future year targets for
the number of countries that had achieved an advanced, sustainable
level of counterterrorism capability. According to the document,
partner nations that achieve a sustainable level of counterterrorism
would graduate from the program and no longer receive program
assistance. However, program officials in S/CT and DS/T/ATA directly
responsible for overseeing ATA were not aware that the Joint
Performance Summary listed numerical targets and past results for the
number of partner nations that had achieved sustainability, and could
not provide an explanation of how State assessed the results. DS/T/
ATA's Sustainment Manager also could not explain how State established
and assessed the numerical targets in the reports. The Sustainment
Manager further noted that, to his knowledge, S/CT and DS/T/ATA had not
yet developed systematic measures of sustainability.
DS/T/ATA's current mechanism for evaluating partner nation capabilities
does not include guidance or specific measures to assess
sustainability. According to program guidance and DS/T/ATA officials,
needs assessments and program reviews are intended to establish a
baseline of a partner nation's counterterrorism capabilities and
quantify progress through subsequent reviews. DS/T/ATA officials also
asserted that the process is intended to measure the results of program
assistance. However, the process does not explicitly address
sustainability, and provides no specific information or instruction
regarding how reviewers are to assess sustainability. Moreover, the
process focuses on assessing a partner nation's overall
counterterrorism capabilities, but does not specifically measure the
results of program assistance. The assessment and review process also
does not provide S/CT and DS/T/ATA a means for determining whether a
partner nation's capabilities changed because of program assistance,
the country's own efforts, or through assistance provided by other U.S.
agencies or third countries. The head of DS/T/ATA's Assessment, Review,
and Evaluations Unit told us that he had not received guidance to
assess progress toward sustainability, and had only limited interaction
with the Sustainment Manager on integrating sustainability into the
assessment and review process.
DS/T/ATA has not systematically integrated sustainability into country-
specific assistance plans, and we found a lack of consensus among
program officials about how to address the issue. In-country program
managers, embassy officials, instructors, and partner nation officials
we interviewed held disparate views on how to define sustainability
across all ATA participant countries, and many were not aware that
sustainability was the intended outcome for the program. Several
program officials stated that graduating a country and withdrawing or
significantly reducing program assistance could result in a rapid
decline in the partner nation's counterterrorism capabilities, and
could undermine achieving other program objectives, such as improving
bilateral relations. Further, although State has listed sustainability
in State-level planning documents since 2006, S/CT and DS/T/ATA have
not issued guidance on incorporating sustainability into country-
specific planning, and none of the country assistance plans we reviewed
consistently addressed the outcome. As a result, the plans did not
include measurable annual objectives or planned activities targeted at
enabling the partner nation to achieve sustainability. For example,
Colombia's assistance plan listed transferring responsibility for the
antikidnapping training to the Colombian government and described
planned activities to achieve that goal. However, the plan did not
include measurable objectives to determine whether activities achieve
intended results. Although the plan for the Philippines stated that the
country program goal for fiscal year 2007 was to "maximize
sustainment," it did not include measures of sustainability or describe
how planned activities would contribute to the intended outcome.
State Reporting on U.S. Counterterrorism Assistance Abroad Has Been
Incomplete and Inaccurate:
Since 1996, State has not complied with a congressional
mandate[Footnote 23] to report to Congress on U.S. international
counterterrorism assistance. Additionally, State's annual reports on
ATA have contained inaccurate data regarding basic program information,
do not provide systematic assessments of program results, and lack
other information necessary to evaluate program effectiveness.
S/CT Has Not Prepared a Mandated Report:
The Foreign Assistance Act requires the Secretary of State to report
annually on the amount and nature of all assistance provided by the
U.S. government related to international terrorism.[Footnote 24] Since
1996, State has submitted ATA annual reports rather than the report
required by the statute.
The legislation that authorized ATA in 1983[Footnote 25] required
annual presentations to Congress of aggregate information on all
countries that received program assistance. In 1985, Congress added a
new, broader reporting obligation, requiring the Secretary of State to
report on all assistance related to international terrorism provided by
the U.S. government during the preceding fiscal year.[Footnote 26]
Although the original ATA-specific 1983 reporting provision was
repealed in 1996,[Footnote 27] the requirement for the broader report
remains.
S/CT is responsible for preparing the reports on U.S. international
counterterrorism assistance. The S/CT official directly responsible for
ATA told us that he only recently became aware of the reporting
requirement and noted confusion within State over what the statute
required. He also asserted that the ATA annual report, which is
prepared by DS/T/ATA, and State's annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism"
report[Footnote 28] were sufficiently responsive to congressional
needs. He further noted that, in his view, it would be extremely
difficult for State to compile and report on all U.S. government
terrorism assistance activities, especially given the significant
growth of agencies' programs since 2001. Officials in State's Bureau of
Legislative Affairs indicated that, to their knowledge, they had never
received an inquiry from congressional staff about the missing reports.
DS/T/ATA officials told us DS/T/ATA has continued to produce the ATA
annual report to Congress even after the reporting requirement was
removed in 1996. However, State has not issued DS/T/ATA's annual report
to Congress on ATA for fiscal year 2006 that was planned for release in
2007. DS/T/ATA officials noted that they did, however, complete and
circulate the final report within State.
ATA Annual Reports Contain Inaccuracies:
Recent ATA annual reports have contained inaccurate data relating to
basic program information on numbers of students trained and courses
offered. For example, DS/T/ATA reported inaccurate data on program
operations in ATA's two top-funded partner nations--Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
* Afghanistan. ATA annual reports for fiscal years 2002 to 2005 contain
narrative passages describing various ATA training and training-related
assistance activities for the Afghan in-country ATA program. According
to these reports, 15 students were trained as part of a single training
event over the 4-year period. DS/T/ATA subsequently provided us data
for fiscal year 2005 training activity in Afghanistan, which corrected
the participation total in that year from 15 participants in 1 training
event to 1,516 participants in 12 training events. DS/T/ATA officials
acknowledged the report disparities.
* Pakistan. According to the fiscal year 2005 ATA annual report, ATA
delivered 17 courses to 335 participants in Pakistan that year.
Supporting tables in the same report listed 13 courses provided to 283
participants. Further, a summary report provided to us from the DS/T/
ATA internal database produced a third set of numbers describing 13
courses provided to 250 course participants during fiscal year 2005.
DS/T/ATA officials acknowledged this inconsistency, but they were
unable to identify which set of figures was correct.
DS/T/ATA officials noted that similar inaccuracies could be presumed
for prior years and for other partner nations. Significantly, the
officials indicated that inaccuracies and omissions in reports of the
training participants and events were due to a lack of internal
policies and procedures for recording and reporting program data. In
the absence of documented policies and procedures, staff developed
various individual processes for collecting the information that
resulted in flawed data reporting. Additionally, DS/T/ATA officials
told us that its inadequate information management system and a lack of
consistent data collection procedures also contributed to inaccurate
reporting.
ATA Annual Reports Lack Performance and Other Useful Program
Information:
DS/T/ATA's annual reports to Congress on ATA from fiscal year 1997 to
2005 did not contain systematic assessments of program results.
Further, the reports did not consistently include information on key
aspects of the program, such as program activities, spending, and
management initiatives that would be helpful to Congress and State in
evaluating ATA.
GPRA, Office of Management and Budget guidance,[Footnote 29] and our
previous work provide a basis and rationale for the types of
information that are useful in assessing program performance. According
to this guidance, key elements of program reporting include clearly
defined objectives and goals, comparisons of actual and projected
performance that include at least 4 years of annual data, explanations
and plans for addressing unmet goals, and reliable information on the
program's activities and financial activity.
We reviewed ATA annual reports for fiscal years 1997 through 2005, and
found that the reports varied widely in terms of content, scope, and
format. Moreover, the annual reports did not contain systematic
assessments of program performance or consistent information on program
activity, such as number and type of courses delivered, types of
equipment provided, and budget activity associated with program
operations. In general, the reports contained varying levels of detail
on program activity, and provided only anecdotal examples of program
successes, from a variety of sources, including U.S. embassy officials,
ATA instructors, and partner nation officials. DS/T/ATA program
officials charged with compiling the annual reports for the past 3
fiscal years noted that DS/T/ATA does not have guidance on the scope,
content, or format for the reports.
Conclusions:
Although ATA plays a central role in State's broader effort to fight
international terrorism, deficiencies in how the program is guided,
managed, implemented, and assessed could limit the program's
effectiveness. Specifically, minimal guidance from S/CT makes it
difficult to determine the extent to which program assistance directly
supports broader U.S. counterterrorism policy goals. Additionally,
deficiencies with DS/T/ATA's needs assessments and program reviews may
limit their utility as a tool for planning assistance and prioritizing
among several partner nations' counterterrorism needs. As a result, the
assessments and reviews are not systematically linked to resource
allocation decisions, which may limit the program's ability to improve
partner nation's counterterrorism capabilities.
Although State has made some progress in attempting to evaluate and
quantitatively measure program performance, ATA still lacks a clearly
defined, systematic assessment and reporting of outcomes, which makes
it difficult to determine the overall effectiveness of the program.
This deficiency, along with State's noncompliance with mandated
reporting requirements, has resulted in Congress having limited and
incomplete information on U.S. international counterterrorism
assistance and ATA efforts. Such information is necessary to determine
the most effective types of assistance the U.S. government can provide
to partner nations in support of the U.S. national security goal of
countering terrorism abroad.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Congress should reconsider the requirement that the Secretary of State
provide an annual report on the nature and amount of U.S. government
counterterrorism assistance provided abroad given the broad changes in
the scope and nature of U.S. counterterrorism assistance abroad, in
conjunction with the fact that the report has not been submitted since
1996.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of State take the following four
actions:
1. Revisit and revise internal guidance (the 1991 State policy
memorandum and Foreign Affairs Manual, in particular) to ensure that
the roles and responsibilities for S/CT and DS/T/ATA are still relevant
and better enable State to determine which countries should receive
assistance and what type, and allocate limited ATA resources.
2. Ensure that needs assessments and program reviews are both useful
and linked to ATA resource decisions and development of country-
specific assistance plans.
3. Establish clearer measures of sustainability, and refocus the
process for assessing the sustainability of partner nations'
counterterrorism capabilities. The revised evaluation process should
include not only an overall assessment of partner nation
counterterrorism capabilities, but also provide guidance for assessing
the specific outcomes of ATA.
4. Comply with the congressional mandate to report to Congress on U.S.
international counterterrorism assistance.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
State provided us oral and written comments (see app. III) on a draft
of this report. State also provided technical comments which we have
incorporated throughout the report, as appropriate.
Overall, State agreed with our principal findings and recommendations
to improve its ATA program guidance, the needs assessment and program
review process, and its assessments of ATA program outcomes. State
noted that the report highlights the difficulties in assessing the
benefits of developing and improving long-term antiterrorism and law
enforcement relationships with foreign governments. State also outlined
a number of ongoing and planned initiatives to address our
recommendations. Some of these initiatives were underway during the
course of our review and we refer to them in the report. We will follow
up with State to ensure that these initiatives have been completed, as
planned.
However, although State supported the matter we suggest for
congressional consideration, it did not specifically address our
recommendation that it comply with the congressional mandate to report
on U.S. counterterrorism assistance.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of the report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
after the report date. At that time, we will send copies of the report
to interested congressional committees and to the Secretary of State.
We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. (202) 512-7331, e-mail
johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Other GAO contact and staff acknowledgments are listed in
appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.:
Acting Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To assess State's guidance for determining country recipients, aligning
program assistance with partner nation needs, and coordinating
Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA) with other U.S. government
counterterrorism programs, we:
* Interviewed cognizant officials from the Office of Coordinator for
Counterterrorism (S/CT) and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Office
of Antiterrorism Assistance (DS/T/ATA) in Washington, D.C., including
senior officials responsible for overseeing and managing ATA and ATA
program managers responsible for each of the six in-country programs:
Afghanistan, Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, and the Philippines.
* Reviewed and analyzed State planning, funding, and reporting
documents concerning ATA, including relevant reports from State's
Office of Inspector General on the management and implementation of
ATA; S/CT's fiscal year 2007 tiered lists of priority countries for ATA
assistance and S/CT criteria for establishing the tier list; DS/T/ATA
budget information for fiscal years 2000 to 2008; a 1991 State policy
memorandum delineating S/CT's and DS/T/ATA's roles and responsibilities
for ATA; relevant sections of State's Foreign Affairs Manual
summarizing roles and responsibilities for ATA; DS/T/ATA internal
policy and procedure documents, including DS/T/ATA's Assessment, Review
and Evaluations Unit's most current (2004) standard operations
procedures; State documents and U.S. embassy cables regarding the
Regional Strategic Initiative; and DS/T/ATA's Annual Reports to
Congress on the ATA for fiscal years 1997 to 2005.
* Reviewed and analyzed available country-specific program documents
for five of the in-country programs--Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya,
Pakistan, and the Philippines[Footnote 30]--including country-specific
needs assessments conducted for each of these partner nations; country
assistance plans; data on the number of ATA courses provided and
personnel trained in these countries; and memoranda of intent between
the U.S. government and host country governments regarding ATA in these
countries for fiscal years 2000 to 2007. These five countries were
among the largest six recipients of program assistance for fiscal years
2002 to 2007 and each country received a range of ATA training and
other assistance during the period we reviewed. DS/T/ATA was unable to
provide four of the needs assessments that, according to annual
reports, were conducted for two of these countries in that time, and
was only able to provide three ATA country assistance plans that were
completed for three of the five countries for fiscal years 2006 to
2008.
* Conducted fieldwork between July and September 2007 in four countries
where ATA provides a range of assistance through an in-country
presence: Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, and the Philippines. These four
programs represented about 55 percent of ATA allocations for training
and training-related activities in fiscal year 2006, and about 43
percent of funding in fiscal year 2007. As this was not a
generalizeable sample, our observations in these four countries may not
be representative of all programs. In these countries, we interviewed
ATA in-country program managers, course instructors, and other
contractors; U.S. embassy officials responsible for managing
counterterrorism assistance and activities; and partner nation
government officials. We also observed various types of ATA training
and examined equipment that was provided to partner nation security
units. Additionally, to assess the extent to which State establishes
clear ATA goals and measures sustainability of program outcomes, and
State's reporting on U.S. international counterterrorism assistance,
we:
* Interviewed cognizant officials from S/CT and DS/T/ATA in Washington,
D.C., including senior officials responsible for overseeing and
managing ATA and ATA program managers responsible for each of the six
in-country programs: Afghanistan, Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan,
and the Philippines. Additionally, we interviewed cognizant officials
in DS/T/ATA's Assessment, Review, and Evaluations Unit, Training
Curriculum Division, Training Delivery Division, and Training
Management Division, including the Sustainment Manager.
* Reviewed and analyzed State strategic planning and performance
reporting documents related to ATA for fiscal years 2001 to 2007,
including State budget justifications, State Performance Plans; State
Performance Summaries; Bureau Performance Plans; Mission Performance
Plans for Afghanistan, Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, and the
Philippines; and DS/T/ATA annual reports to Congress on ATA as noted
above. We also reviewed Office of Management and Budget's fiscal year
2003 review of ATA and relevant State Office of Inspector General
reports relating to performance measurement issues for ATA.
Additionally, we reviewed all available S/CT and DS/T/ATA guidance
related to assessing program performance, including internal standard
operating procedure documents and course evaluation instruments, as
well as ATA authorizing legislation and related revisions. To further
assess State's reporting on international counterterrorism assistance,
we reviewed DS/T/ATA's annual reports on ATA for consistency and
accuracy. As noted earlier, we found some errors with these reports,
and have concerns about the data on training and nontraining
activities. Although we describe the errors, we did not use these data
in our analyses. To assess the reliability of the data on funding to
recipient countries, we interviewed ATA officials and performed some
cross-checks with other sources. We determined the data on funding were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Top Recipients of ATA Funding, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
As shown in table 2, program assistance for the top 10 recipients of
ATA funding from fiscal years 2002 to 2007 ranged from about $11
million to about $78 million. The top 10 funding recipients received
about 57 percent of ATA funding allocated for training and training
related activities over the 6-year-period. ATA has established an in-
country presence in each of the top six partner nations, including in-
country program staff and permanent training facilities such as
classrooms, computer labs, and shooting and demolition ranges.
Afghanistan received the most funding over the six-year-period.
According to DS/T/ATA officials, the scope of the in-country program in
Afghanistan is more narrowly defined than other ATA programs; it
focuses principally on training and monitoring a Presidential
Protective Service.
Table 2: Top Recipients of ATA Allocations, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2007:
(Dollars in thousands)
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of DS/T/ATA budget data on allocations for
training and training-related activities.
Note: Italicized, bolded countries have an in-country ATA program.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial
Officer:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Washington, D. C. 20520
February 19, 2008:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Combating
Terrorism: State Department's Antiterrorism Program Needs Improved
Guidance and More Systematic Assessments of Outcomes," GAO Job Code
320457.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Greg
Olmstead, Special Assistant, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, at (571)
226-9632.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Sid Kaplan (Acting):
cc: GAO ” Matthew Helm:
DS ” Greg Starr:
State/OIG ” Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report
Combating Terrorism: State Department's Antiterrorism Program Needs
Improved Guidance and More Systematic Assessments of Outcomes (GAO-08-
336, GAO Code 320457):
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled
Combating Terrorism: State Department's Antiterrorism Program Needs
Improved Guidance and More Systematic Assessments of Outcomes. The
Department of State has long been a strong supporter of efforts to
improve the Antiterrorism Assistance to nations partnered with the U.S.
in the fight against terrorism and welcomes the GAO report on this
subject. The report provides timely information on several aspects of
the ongoing effort to systematize the documentation of Antiterrorism
Assistance. This review highlights the difficulties in attempting to
reduce to numeric metrics the benefits of foreign assistance in
developing and improving long-term antiterrorism and law enforcement
relationships with foreign governments.
The Department of State acknowledges the main findings and conclusions
of the GAO report. We believe that GAO's assessment of Antiterrorism
Assistance is fair. As the report notes, efforts to quantify the
results of Antiterrorism Assistance to foreign governments and to
assess the "sustainability" of their antiterrorism programs are quite
difficult. The Department of State agrees fully with the need to
determine quantifiable metrics and is working in this direction. In
fact, efforts to re-write standard operating procedures for the ATA
Needs Assessment and Program Review process, as well as accurately
define metrics of success are currently under way.
The GAO notes concerns over the process of coordination between the
Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism (S/CT) and DS/T/ATA.
S/CT works closely with DS/T/ATA to ensure that the annual budget
submission will accomplish U.S. counterterrorism priorities. The
recently established Foreign Aid budgeting process forges coordination
between S/CT and DS/T/ATA through "round table" discussions and reviews
of proposed budgets on a country-by-country basis. The resulting
document is then cleared through the Department, OMB, and submitted to
Congress. Any funding reallocations require Congressional Notification.
While the S/CT "tiered list" of countries approved for antiterrorism
support is used as one tool for prioritizing antiterrorism support,
Congressional and national security concerns over terrorism identified
during each year do re-direct funding for Antiterrorism Assistance
causing unexpected, although necessary, deviations from the "tiered
list". S/CT and DS/T/ATA participate in the Technical Assistance Sub-
Group meetings to ensure that counterterrorism policy guidance is
coordinated into effective operational programs within the interagency
community. Additionally, during meetings between the Ambassadors of
each Regional Strategic Initiative grouping, requests for refinement in
delivery of Antiterrorism Assistance are received in order to provide
guidance and adjustments to assistance. The Department of State
welcomes the GAO's recommendation to revise internal guidance on the
roles and responsibilities for S/CT and DS/T/ATA in order to ensure the
documentation is current. The Department will review all applicable
documentation to determine where relationships may be updated in order
to facilitate the delivery of Antiterrorism Assistance.
The GAO also makes several observations regarding efforts to
systematically align program assistance with counterterrorism needs.
The Department of State considers the need to align limited resources
with national security and foreign policy objectives to be essential.
The dramatic growth of the important Antiterrorism Assistance program
over the past five years has stressed the original framework for
aligning assistance resources. DS/T/ATA is in the process of revising
standard operating procedures for both its Assessment, Review,
Evaluation (ARE) Unit and Training Management Division. The resulting
revisions integrate and streamline the process of identifying
capability limitations of partner nations and developing assistance
plans to address those requirements. Additionally, S/CT is working
closely with the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance to
clarify the revised roles and responsibilities within the Department
for setting goals, objectives, and funding requirements for bilateral,
regional, and global antiterrorism programs.
The Department of State notes the GAO's conclusion that
"sustainability" of partner nation capabilities has not been clearly
defined. During the past year, the Office of Antiterrorism Assistance
has appointed a "Sustainment Coordinator" and is working on a
methodology to quantify levels of achievement of foreign governments in
the area of fighting terrorism, which can be applied internationally
and against the differing capacities of each country. DS/T/ATA is
planning to realign the "Sustainment Coordinator" with the ARE
assessments unit in order to be able to provide objective capability
ratings during an initial country assessment and each successive
country report. The reference of "sustainability" will be further
evaluated to consider whether a more easily definable and measurable
metric exists for determining the long-term results of Antiterrorism
Assistance. The GAO also assessed the Department's reporting on U.S.
counterterrorism assistance raising "a matter for congressional
consideration regarding the legislative requirement for State's
reporting on U.S. counterterrorism assistance." The Department
encourages Congress to consider the requirement that the Secretary of
State provide an annual report on the nature and amount of all U.S.
government counterterrorism assistance, considering the wide scope of
this task. Further consideration is requested as part of the detailed
annual consultations now conducted by the Office of the Director of
U.S. Foreign Assistance in compliance with the Section 653(a) process
for confirmation of the final allocations of foreign assistance funds
under each fiscal year's appropriation.
As the GAO report indicates, Antiterrorism Assistance "is a key U.S.
effort to help foreign partner nations combat terrorism."
Implementation of improved assessment and review processes will help
increase confidence in the results of this assistance in fighting
terrorism and improving cooperation with partner nation law enforcement
agencies. A well coordinated and effective program for increasing
international antiterrorism capabilities, and cooperation with the U.S.
in this effort, has long been a priority for the U.S. Government. In
this respect, the Department of State has a continuing responsibility
to evaluate carefully the effectiveness of assistance to fulfill this
objective. Implementing changes will require the Department to
thoroughly evaluate the possible need to define new metrics for the
success of Antiterrorism Assistance which can be quantified against all
77 ATA partner nations. That said, we are strongly committed to
sustaining the progress against international terrorism obtained
through this program and accurately reporting such results.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Albert H. Huntington, III,
and David C. Maurer, Assistant Directors; Karen A. Deans; Matthew E.
Helm; Elisabeth R. Helmer; Grace Lui; and Emily T. Rachman made key
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] 22 U.S.C. §§ 2349aa, 2349aa-1.
[2] ATA is part of a training directorate within Diplomatic Security
comprised of the Office of Antiterrorism Assistance, the Office of
Training and Performance Support, and the Office of Mobile Security
Training.
[3] The four countries we visited comprised about 55 percent of total
ATA funding for training and training-related activities in fiscal year
2006, and about 43 percent of funding in fiscal year 2007.
[4] Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development,
Joint Performance Summary, Fiscal Year 2007 (Washington, D.C., 2008).
[5] 22 U.S.C. § 2349aa-7 (requiring the Secretary of State to report
annually on the amount and nature of all assistance provided by the
U.S. government related to international terrorism).
[6] Pub. L. No. 87-195, Pt. II, §571, as added by Pub. L. No. 98-151,
§101(b)(2), 97 Stat. 972 (1983) (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 2349a).
[7] For example, DS/T/ATA trainers conducted a critical infrastructure
evaluation and provided training for the Bahamian government in
preparation for the 2006 Cricket World Cup.
[8] Between fiscal years 2000 and 2006, DS/T/ATA provided most U.S.-
based training through cooperative agreements for facilities and
instructional services. Pursuant to State's Office of Inspector General
concerns about the cost and lack of DS/T/ATA direct control of program
management under the agreements, DS/T/ATA discontinued the cooperative
agreements at the end of fiscal year 2006. State has issued a request
for proposals to procure similar services, but the contract has not yet
been awarded.
[9] Diplomatic Security's Regional Security Officers are directly
responsible for overseeing the ATA program in each partner nation that
receives assistance.
[10] 22 U.S.C. § 2651a.
[11] State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security in its current form is an
outgrowth of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of
1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-399, §§ 104-105).
[12] Pub. L. No. 99-399, §§ 104-105.
[13] The general responsibilities for S/CT and DS/T/ATA regarding the
ATA program are described in the 2007 U.S. Department of State Foreign
Affairs Manual, Volume 1-Organization and Functions, 1 FAM 022.5 and 1
FAM 262.3-1.
[14] See United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board
of Governors, Office of Inspector General, Report of Inspection: Office
of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Report Number ISP-I-06-25A
(March 2006).
[15] Each of these five countries receive a range of ATA training and
other assistance through an in-country presence. The sixth in-country
program, Afghanistan, also received significant program assistance
during this period. According to DS/T/ATA officials, the scope of the
in-country program in Afghanistan is more narrowly defined than other
ATA programs; it focuses principally on training and monitoring a
Presidential Protective Service.
[16] DS/T/ATA was unable to provide nine assessments that were
reportedly conducted for four of these countries between 2002 and 2007.
According to DS/T/ATA officials, they were either unable to locate
these assessments, written reports on the assessment visits were not
completed, or the annual reports stating that they had been completed
were inaccurate.
[17] he ATA in-country program in Afghanistan was not included in this
analysis because the scope of the program is narrowly focused on
presidential protection training.
[18] The Counterterrorism Security Group is chaired by the National
Security Council and is intended to serve as a means for U.S. agencies
to share information and coordinate the response to terrorist threats
against U.S. interests domestically and abroad.
[19] A recent Congressional Research Service report noted that while
interagency coordination on U.S. government efforts to strengthen weak
and failing states appears to be increasing, analysts and U.S.
officials have raised concerns about a lack of a strategic approach to
related U.S. programs and policies. See CRS Report for Congress, Weak
and Failing States: Evolving Security Threats and U.S. Policy, Order
Code RL34253 (Nov.15, 2007).
[20] Office of Management and Budget conducted the review using the
Program Assessment Rating Tool. These reviews examine specific program
purpose and design; performance measurement, evaluations, and strategic
planning; program management; and program results.
[21] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285, 287-88 (1993).
[22] GAO, Combating Terrorism: Law Enforcement Agencies Lack Directives
to Assist Foreign Nations to Identify, Disrupt, and Prosecute
Terrorists, GAO-07-697 (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2007).
[23] 22 U.S.C. § 2349aa-7.
[24] 22 U.S.C. § 2349aa-7.
[25] Pub. L. No. 98-151, § 101(b)(2), 97 Stat. 972 (1983).
[26] Pub. L. No. 99-83, Title V, § 502, 99 Stat. 220 (codified at 22
U.S.C. § 2349aa-7).
[27] Pub. L. No. 104-164, Title I, § 121(c), 110 Stat. 1428 (1996).
[28] S/CT prepares this annual report, which is required by a separate
statute (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(a)). The report primarily describes
international terrorist activity.
[29] See, for example, Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-136,
Financial Reporting Requirements, July 24, 2006.
[30] A sixth in-country program, Afghanistan, also received significant
ATA funding during the time period we reviewed, but assistance was more
narrowly focused on training and monitoring a Presidential Protective
Service. GAO is conducting ongoing work focused on U.S. government
training and equipping of Afghanistan National Security Forces that is
expected to be released in spring 2008.
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 Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
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:
