RULE OF LAW

ASSISTANCE 

DOD Should Assess 

Workforce Size of 

Defense Institute of 

International Legal 

Studies

Report to the Committee on Armed 

Services, House of Representatives 

December 2016

GAO-17-118

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-118, a report to the 

Committee on Armed Services, House of 

Representatives

December 2016

RULE OF LAW ASSISTANCE

DOD Should Assess Workforce Size of

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies

What GAO Found

For fiscal years 2013 through 2016, the Defense Institute of International Legal 

Studies (DIILS) conducted over 500 rule of law events in almost 100 countries, 

and it assessed the quality of its assistance in a variety of ways. DIILS provides

three types of assistance: (1) core rule of law training in the United States and 

abroad, (2) defense institution-building, and (3) statutorily required human rights 

training. DIILS takes steps to assess the quality of its assistance, such as by 

conducting student feedback surveys and real-time classroom assessments of 

students’ learning. Foreign partner recipients of DIILS assistance and U.S. 

officials working to provide it told us they generally held positive views about the 

quality of DIILS’s services.

Number and Type of Rule of Law Assistance Events Held by the Defense Institute of 

International Legal Studies, and Full-Time Equivalent Staff, Fiscal Years 2013–2016 

Although the demand for DIILS’s assistance has increased since 2013, the 

Department of Defense (DOD) has not assessed whether the size of DIILS’s 

workforce aligns with the scope of its mission. Federal internal control standards

highlight the need for management to conduct reviews at the functional or activity 

level, including conducting a workforce review, if needed. Since fiscal year 2013, 

the demand for DIILS’s assistance has grown by nearly 50 percent, while its 

workforce has increased by one full-time equivalent (FTE) staff position. 

According to DIILS officials, as a result of staffing constraints, DIILS staff have

completed 55 percent of required after action reports, which capture lessons 

learned for future events; expended 55 percent of all defense institution-building 

funds that DOD has made available since fiscal year 2013; and faced challenges 

in increasing capacity of residence courses to help meet demand. According to 

DOD officials, DOD has declined DIILS’s requests for additional FTE staff based 

on budget considerations and not on an assessment of whether the size of 

DIILS’s workforce aligns with the scope of its mission. Without a clear 

understanding provided by such an assessment, DOD cannot adequately ensure 

that DIILS is effectively meeting demands for its training and assistance to 

foreign military officials, which may contribute to more robust rule of law systems, 

more accountable governments, and greater respect for human rights. 

View GAO-17-118. For more information,

contact Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., at (202) 

512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. 

Why GAO Did This Study

Rule of law assistance is an important 

component of U.S. efforts to build the 

capacity of foreign partners to support 

international peace and security. DIILS

is DOD’s lead global resource for 

providing professional legal education 

and assistance to foreign military 

personnel and civilian defense officials 

on core rule of law issues. Such issues 

include military justice, anticorruption, 

and professionalization of the military. 

In addition, DIILS provides defense 

institution-building assistance and 

statutorily required human rights 

training to foreign partners. In fiscal 

years 2013 through 2016, DIILS 

disbursed over $24 million.

House Report 114-102 includes a 

provision for GAO to review DOD’s 

efforts to build partner capacity in the 

rule of law. This report examines, 

among other things, the extent to 

which (1) DIILS has provided rule of 

law assistance to foreign partners and 

assessed its quality and (2) DOD has 

considered whether the size of DIILS’s 

workforce aligns with the scope of its 

mission. GAO reviewed and analyzed 

agency funding, planning, and 

organizational structure documents for 

fiscal years 2013 through 2016. GAO

interviewed U.S. officials in 

Washington, D.C., and conducted 

fieldwork in Newport, Rhode Island; 

Botswana; Germany; and Uganda. 

Locations were selected on the basis 

of the nature and timing of assistance. 

What GAO Recommends

The Secretary of Defense should 

assess the extent to which the size of 

DIILS’s workforce is aligned with the 

scope of its mission. DOD concurred 

with the recommendation.
Page i GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Letter 1

Background 3

DIILS Has Conducted a Variety of Rule of Law Events in Almost 

100 Countries since Fiscal Year 2013 and Has Assessed Its 

Quality in Various Ways 8

Interagency Planning Processes for DIILS Rule of Law Assistance 

Generally Consider Foreign Partner Needs 17

DOD Has Not Assessed Whether the Size of DIILS’s Workforce 

Aligns with the Scope of Its Mission 22

Conclusions 26

Recommendation for Executive Action 26

Agency Comments 26

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 28

Appendix II Examples of Rule of Law Assistance Implemented by the 

Department of Defense Other Than through the Defense Institute of 

International Legal Studies 33

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 35

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 36

Tables

Table 1: Types of Rule of Law Assistance Provided through the 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies, with 

Primary Funding Sources for Fiscal Years 2013–2016 9

Table 2: Chronology of Key Changes to the Mission of the 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies 22

Table 3: Examples of Rule of Law Assistance Implemented by the 

Department of Defense through Entities Other Than the 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies 33

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Figures

Figure 1: Funding Sources for Rule of Law Assistance Disbursed 

by the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies in 

Fiscal Years 2013–2016 5

Figure 2: Sources of Requests for Defense Institute of 

International Legal Studies Assistance, since Fiscal Year 

2013 10

Figure 3: Number of Training and Institution-Building Events the 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies 

Conducted in Fiscal Years 2013–2016, by Department of 

Defense Geographic Combatant Command 12

Figure 4: Number of Training and Institution-Building Events 

Conducted by the Defense Institute of International Legal 

Studies for Fiscal Years 2013–2016, by Geographic 

Combatant Command and Assistance Type 13

Figure 5: Examples of Training Participant Feedback Mechanisms 

Used by the Defense Institute of International Legal 

Studies 15

Figure 6: Agenda Cover for a 2016 Security Cooperation

Education and Training Working Group and an 

Accompanying Brochure for the Defense Institute of 

International Legal Studies 19

Figure 7: Number and Type of Rule of Law Assistance Events 

Held by the Defense Institute of International Legal 

Studies, and Full-Time Equivalent Staff, Fiscal Years 

2013–2016 23
Page iii GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

DIILS Defense Institute of International Legal Studies

DSCA Defense Security Cooperation Agency

FTE full-time equivalent

IMET International Military Education and Training

State Department of State

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 14, 2016

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

Rule of law assistance is an important component of U.S. efforts to 

promote the capacity and will of foreign partner security forces to carry 

out internal military justice and accountability functions that also support 

international peace and security. The Department of Defense (DOD) 

supports efforts to help U.S. partners build more robust rule of law 

systems, more accountable governments, and greater respect for human 

rights. DOD incorporates rule of law assistance and training as part of a 

wide range of assistance programs. The Defense Institute of International 

Legal Studies (DIILS) is DOD’s lead global resource for providing 

professional legal education and rule of law engagement programs to 

foreign military personnel and civilian defense officials.

House Report 114-102 includes a provision for us to review DOD’s efforts 

to work with its foreign military partners to build rule of law capacity.1 This 

report examines the extent to which, for fiscal years 2013 through 2016, 

(1) DIILS has provided rule of law assistance to foreign partners and 

assessed its quality, (2) the planning processes for DIILS’s rule of law 

efforts have considered foreign partner needs, and (3) DOD has 

considered whether the size of DIILS’s workforce aligns with the scope of 

its mission.

To address our objectives, we analyzed documents and data and 

interviewed officials from DOD and the Department of State (State), 

including DIILS, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), and 

the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, as well as incountry DOD security cooperation and State officials, DIILS training 

 1House Report 114-102 accompanied H.R. 1735, a bill to authorize appropriations for 

fiscal year 2016 for the military activities of DOD and for other purposes. The President 

vetoed H.R. 1735.Subsequently, Congress passed and the President signed S. 1356, 

which became Pub. L. No. 114-92, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

facilitators, and foreign partner officials. We focused on rule of law 

assistance that DIILS provided and excluded rule of law assistance 

provided by other DOD entities, the U.S. Agency for International 

Development, and the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice. 

We also excluded State assistance that DOD did not implement. To 

examine the extent to which DIILS has provided rule of law assistance to 

foreign partners and assessed its quality for fiscal years 2013 through 

2016, we reviewed relevant authorities and identified the processes that 

DOD and State have in place to plan rule of law assistance. We focused 

on DIILS and the primary processes used to implement (1) core rule of 

law training, determined through a series of interagency working groups;2

(2) defense institution-building assistance, determined by the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and State’s Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs in coordination with DOD; and (3) statutorily required 

human rights training, delivered pursuant to the authority to build the 

capacity of foreign security forces as part of the Global Train and Equip 

Program.3 We also analyzed event data from DIILS for fiscal years 2013 

through 2016. Based on the data checks we performed, we determined 

that the funding data we collected from DIILS were sufficiently reliable for 

the purposes of our reporting objectives. To examine the extent to which 

DIILS assessed the quality of its assistance to foreign partners, we 

interviewed DIILS officials about the steps they take to assess the quality 

of their assistance and foreign recipients about their perspectives on the 

assistance they received. We compared DIILS officials’ statements with 

leading practices that we have identified for assessing the quality of 

strategic training.4

 2We define core rule of law training as DIILS’s 3-day to 10-week resident and mobile 

training events provided to foreign military officials that are primarily funded through the 

International Military Education and Training (IMET) program. 

3The Global Train and Equip Program was previously referred to as the “Section 1206” 

program because it was originally authorized in Section 1206 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006; see Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 1206, 119 Stat. 3456, 

Jan. 6, 2006. The Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 authorized a permanent program codified at 10 

U.S.C § 2282, and the program is now often referred to as “Section 2282.” See Pub. L. 

No. 113-291, § 1205(a)(1), 128 Stat. 3533, Dec. 19, 2014. This report covers periods of 

time during which both “Section 1206” and “Section 2282” were common nomenclature for 

the Global Train and Equip Program.

4GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts 

in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).
Page 3 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

To examine the extent to which planning processes for DIILS’s rule of law 

efforts have considered the needs of foreign partners, we observed a 

U.S. Africa Command interagency working group conference for 

developing this assistance and reviewed DOD and State strategic 

guidance. We compared these processes with Presidential Policy 

Directive 23, which provides policy guidance for U.S. security sector 

assistance.5 To examine the extent to which DOD has considered 

whether DIILS’s workforce aligns with its mission, we examined DIILS’s 

organizational structure and work requirements and actions DOD has 

taken to address DIILS’s organizational needs. We compared DOD’s 

actions with federal internal control standards and guiding principles 

articulated in DOD’s Fiscal Years 2013–2018 Strategic Workforce Plan 

Report.6 For more detail on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to December 

2016 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.

The United States is committed to building foreign partner capacity to, 

among other things, (1) encourage effective and mutually beneficial 

relations to support international peace and security efforts and (2) enable 

partner countries to use their own resources with maximum effectiveness. 

Rule of law assistance is an important component of U.S. efforts to build 

foreign partner capacity, and according to officials, includes defense 

institution-building and foreign partner training focused on military justice, 

human rights, anticorruption, and professionalization of the military. 

Officials noted that countries with an established rule of law system have 

 5The White House, Presidential Policy Directive 23 on Security Sector Assistance 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5, 2013). 

6See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards were in 

effect prior to fiscal year 2016 and cover the time period of agencies’ data in our report. 

The standards were subsequently updated in 2014. The updated standards went into 

effect on October 1, 2015. See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.: September 2014). See also DOD, Fiscal 

Years 2013–2018 Strategic Workforce Plan Report, July 2013. 

Background
Page 4 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

more stability and fewer people trying to flee to other countries or turning 

to terrorism. DOD integrates rule of law concepts into various types of 

training and assistance carried out under Title 10 and Title 22 of the 

United States Code. Title 10 covers authorities for the armed forces, 

focusing primarily on DOD, whereas Title 22 covers authorities regarding 

foreign relations, which primarily fall under State. According to officials, 

most of this assistance is carried out through military-to-military events. 

DOD schools, such as the U.S. Army War College, may also cover some 

rule of law concepts as part of other training.7 (See app. II for examples of 

rule of law assistance that various DOD entities implement.)

DIILS is located in Newport, Rhode Island; its predecessor, the 

International Training Detachment of the Naval Justice School, was 

created in 1992 to provide foreign militaries with training on the rule of 

law, including human rights and the law of armed conflict, such as rules 

for the use of force. In response to DOD and State initiatives in the past 

decade, DIILS has expanded its curriculum to include rule of law issues 

related to peacekeeping and combating terrorism. Since 1992, DIILS’s 

primary focus has been to provide rule of law assistance. According to 

officials, DIILS has reached over 30,000 participants in over 140 countries 

since it was created.

DIILS is funded entirely through reimbursements from DOD and State. 

Demand for DIILS assistance may change from year to year. For fiscal 

years 2013 through 2016, DOD and State used five primary funding 

accounts to fund DIILS’s rule of law assistance each year, with various 

other accounts used less consistently. During this period, DIILS disbursed 

about $6.2 million a year, on average, for rule of law events, $24.6 million 

in total. Figure 1 shows the funding sources and the proportion of DIILS 

disbursements attributed to each source for fiscal years 2013 through 

2016.

 7U.S. military schools, among other things, may be used to provide professional military 

education training to foreign military officials.

DIILS Funding Sources
Page 5 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Figure 1: Funding Sources for Rule of Law Assistance Disbursed by the Defense 

Institute of International Legal Studies in Fiscal Years 2013–2016

Notes: Data are current as of October 2016.

a

These funds are appropriated to the President. The Department of State (State) determines policy 

priorities.

b

These funds are appropriated to DOD.

c

These funds are appropriated to DOD but require State concurrence.

d

These funds are appropriated to State, w hich determines policy priorities.

e

Appropriations for other sources of funds vary. For fiscal years 2013 through 2016, other funding 

sources included the Combating Terrorism Fellow ship Program and the Global Security Contingency 

Fund, among others.

The funding sources for DIILS assistance are described below, in order of 

the amount of total disbursements for fiscal years 2013 through 2016, 

from largest to smallest.

1. International Military Education and Training (IMET) funds account for 

48 percent, $11.9 million, of DIILS disbursements for fiscal years 2013 
Page 6 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

through 2016 and include DIILS operating expenses.8 IMET funds are 

appropriated to the President. State prioritizes assistance and 

develops policy guidance, while DOD has the primary responsibility 

for implementing IMET activities.9 Primarily through IMET, DIILS 

currently provides 17 mobile and 8 resident courses on topics ranging 

from military justice and peacekeeping operations to legal aspects of 

combating corruption and terrorism. Most mobile courses are taught 

within a week, while resident courses are generally 3 weeks.

2. Operation and Maintenance Defense-Wide funds account for 24 

percent, $5.9 million, of DIILS disbursements for fiscal years 2013 

through 2016 and cover overhead and planning requirements for 

DIILS to develop and implement long-term global strategies for rule of 

law security cooperation, including defense institution-building 

assistance. DOD’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 

is responsible for setting priorities and distributing these funds. For 

example, DIILS has completed legal assessments in Armenia, 

Indonesia, and Ukraine; supported military legislative reform in 

Botswana; and conducted defense institution-building scoping visits in 

Cambodia, Guatemala, and Thailand, among other efforts.

3. Global Train and Equip Program funds account for about 11 percent, 

$2.6 million, of DIILS disbursements for fiscal years 2013 through 

2016. DOD’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Special 

Operations and Low Intensity Conflict is responsible for policy 

guidance and oversight of the Global Train and Equip Program, with 

State concurrence. These funds provide military equipment, supplies, 

and training to build the capacity of foreign military forces to conduct 

counterterrorism operations, among other things.10 The legislation 

authorizing these activities includes a provision requiring each project 

to include elements that promote human rights and respect for civilian 

 8For more information on IMET, see GAO, International Military Education and Training: 

Agencies Should Emphasize Human Rights Training and Improve Evaluations, 

GAO-12-123 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 2011).

9State, in addition to determining each country’s eligibility for security assistance programs 

as well as the scope of security assistance and funding level for each country, also 

identifies the annual IMET goals and objectives for each country through State’s 

Congressional Budget Justification. DOD, through DSCA, is responsible for developing 

the administrative policy and administering program guidance and direction to the military 

departments.

10For more information on the Global Train and Equip Program, see GAO, 

Counterterrorism: DOD Should Enhance Management of and Reporting on Its Global 

Train and Equip Program, GAO-16-368 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 18, 2016). 
Page 7 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

authority within that country,11 a requirement that DOD has 

designated DIILS to fulfill. According to DIILS, it meets this 

requirement in a 2-day, in-country seminar.

4. Peacekeeping Operations funds account for about 9 percent, $2.2 

million, of DIILS disbursements for fiscal years 2013 through 2016 

and are appropriated to State, and managed by its Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs, for use in regional security peacekeeping operations 

and other programs carried out to further U.S. national security 

interests. According to DOD, these funds can be transferred to DOD 

to support specific requirements identified by a U.S. embassy or 

geographic combatant command. Peacekeeping Operations funding 

provided to DIILS since fiscal year 2013 has primarily focused on 

building the legal capacity of magistrates in the Armed Forces of the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo.

5. Foreign Military Financing funds account for 4 percent, $1.0 million, of 

DIILS disbursements for fiscal years 2013 through 2016. Foreign 

Military Financing funds are appropriated to the President. State 

determines policy priorities for the use of the account, while DOD’s

DSCA has overall responsibility for implementing Foreign Military 

Financing funded programs. Foreign Military Financing funds allow for 

the United States to sell defense articles and services to foreign 

countries and international organizations if doing so will strengthen 

the security of the United States and promote world peace. DIILS is 

one DOD school, among others, that uses these funds to provide 

training, such as resident and mobile courses, as well as defense 

institution-building efforts. Since fiscal year 2013, these funds have 

been used in Belize, Colombia, Ghana, Mexico, and Ukraine, among 

others.

6. Other sources account for 4 percent, $0.9 million, of DIILS 

disbursements for fiscal years 2013 through 2016 and include the 

Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program and the Global Security 

Contingency Fund, among others. The purpose of the Combating 

Terrorism Fellowship Program is to provide foreign partners’ mid- and 

senior-level defense and security officials with operational and 

strategic-level education on combating terrorism while reinforcing 

partner-nation capabilities. The Global Security Contingency Fund 

 1110 U.S.C § 2282. 
Page 8 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

aims to address key security challenges in partner countries in the 

near- to midterm.12

DIILS provides three types of rule of law assistance, each with a different 

DOD or State entity requesting the assistance. The three assistance 

types are core rule of law training, defense institution-building, and 

statutorily required human rights training. For fiscal years 2013 through 

2016, DIILS conducted over 500 rule of law events in almost 100 

countries, with U.S. Africa Command followed by U.S. European 

Command as the U.S. geographic combatant commands holding the 

most DIILS events. DIILS assesses the quality of its assistance in various 

ways, including implementing student surveys, conducting pre- and postcourse tests, and instituting real-time classroom assessments of 

participants’ comprehension. In some cases, DIILS course facilitators also 

produce after action reports that may include observations of the 

assistance provided and challenges, if any, in providing the assistance. 

Our interviews with foreign partner recipients of DIILS assistance and 

U.S. officials working to provide it generally reflected positive views about 

the quality of DIILS’s services.

DIILS assistance includes three types of rule of law assistance, each with 

different DOD or State entities generating requests. A summary of these 

assistance types, along with the primary funding source of each, is shown 

in table 1.

 12For more information on the Global Security Contingency Fund, see GAO, Building 

Partner Capacity: State and DOD Need to Define Time Frames to Guide and Track Global 

Security Contingency Fund Projects, GAO-15-75 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 20, 2014).

DIILS Has Conducted 

a Variety of Rule of 

Law Events in Almost 

100 Countries since 

Fiscal Year 2013 and 

Has Assessed Its 

Quality in Various 

Ways

DIILS Rule of Law 

Assistance Includes Core 

Rule of Law Training, 

Defense InstitutionBuilding Assistance, and 

Statutorily Required 

Human Rights Training
Page 9 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Table 1: Types of Rule of Law Assistance Provided through the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies, with Primary 

Funding Sources for Fiscal Years 2013–2016 

Assistance type Summary of assistance

Primary funding

source for fiscal years 2013-2016

Core rule of law training A selection of 25 resident and mobile courses on 

topics such as military justice, anticorruption, 

professionalization of the military, human rights, and 

the law of armed conflict.

International Military Education and Training, 

$11.9 million

Defense institution- building 

assistance

Targeted, multiphase engagements catered to a 

country’s rule of law needs, such as modernizing 

military legislation and regulations. 

Operation and Maintenance Defense-Wide, 

$5.9 million

Peacekeeping Operations, $2.2 million

Foreign Military Financing, $1.0 million

Statutorily required human 

rights training

A 2-day course intended to satisfy a legislative 

requirement that human rights training, including 

respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, and 

civilian control of the military, be incorporated into 

Global Train and Equip Program assistance. 

Global Train and Equip Program, $2.6 million

Sources: GAO analysis of Departments of Defense and State data. | GAO-17-118

Note: Primary funding sources represented in the table reflect those sources for fiscal years 2013 

through 2016 that contributed the most funds to each assistance type provided through the Defense 

Institute of International Legal Studies. The funds listed do not reflect all sources with the authority to 

provide each type of assistance.

Figure 2 illustrates the various DOD and State entities involved in 

requesting and funding the different types of DIILS assistance.
Page 10 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Figure 2: Sources of Requests for Defense Institute of International Legal Studies Assistance, since Fiscal Year 2013
Page 11 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

For fiscal years 2013 through 2016, DIILS provided over 500 training and 

institution-building events to about 100 countries; that includes over 200 

core rule of law events, about 200 defense institution-building events, and 

about 100 statutorily required human rights training events. Of DOD’s six 

geographic combatant commands, U.S. Africa Command had the 

greatest number of DIILS events, with 164, followed by U.S. European 

Command, with 101. Figure 3 further illustrates the comparison in number 

of DIILS events by geographic location.

Since Fiscal Year 2013, 

DIILS Has Provided 

Assistance to Almost 100 

Countries, with the 

Greatest Number of 

Events in Africa
Page 12 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Figure 3: Number of Training and Institution-Building Events the Defense Institute 

of International Legal Studies Conducted in Fiscal Years 2013–2016, by Department 

of Defense Geographic Combatant Command

Note: Resident courses, in w hich participants from numerous countries and regions participate, 

primarily are held in New port, Rhode Island (represented in the map w ith a star).

Figure 4 breaks out the DIILS assistance within each geographic 

combatant command and DIILS headquarters by assistance type for 

fiscal years 2013 through 2016. This figure shows that U.S. Africa 

Command and U.S. Pacific Command have held the most defense 

institution-building assistance events, while U.S. Africa Command and 

U.S. European Command have held the most statutorily required human 
Page 13 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

rights training events. In addition, the figure shows that DIILS’s school in 

Newport, Rhode Island, holds the most core rule of law training events.

Figure 4: Number of Training and Institution-Building Events Conducted by the 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies for Fiscal Years 2013–2016, by 

Geographic Combatant Command and Assistance Type
Page 14 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

DIILS officials provided examples of several steps that they take to 

assess the quality of DIILS’s assistance. These actions generally aligned 

with leading practices for assessing the quality of training, based on the

information officials provided.13 These include using multiple assessment 

methods, such as the following types of activities:

• Student surveys, pre- and post-course tests, and instructor feedback. 

To improve course content, DIILS facilitators solicit feedback on their 

effectiveness and on the relevance of the course materials through 

student surveys and pre- and post-course tests. In addition, DIILS 

encourages facilitators to provide feedback on how courses can be 

improved. For example, during fieldwork in Uganda, we reviewed 

student feedback surveys from a 2-day course providing statutorily 

required human rights training. The survey responses expressed 

student opinions about the usefulness of the course content and the 

topics that were most valuable to them. The responses were generally 

positive, and participants most frequently noted that human rights, 

international humanitarian law, and rules of engagement were the 

most valuable topics covered in the course.

• Real-time assessments of participant comprehension. DIILS 

facilitators generally encourage participation and gather feedback 

from participants in real time to assess understanding, generally 

making adjustments to their teaching as needed. For example, in

Uganda, we observed facilitators using classroom voting technology 

as a basis for discussion and to signal when students were struggling 

with the course content, allowing instructors to identify difficult 

concepts and spend more time clarifying those concepts. During 

fieldwork in Botswana, we observed DIILS officials updating planned 

topics daily and corresponding preparatory materials nightly based on 

how the meetings progressed and on daily feedback from foreign 

partners as to what topics would be most helpful to discuss.

• After action reports. DIILS facilitators prepare after action reports for 

certain events to record a summary of the assistance they provided, 

outcomes of the training, any challenges they encountered, and 

further actions to be taken. DIILS officials stated that after action 

reports provide continuity and capture lessons learned for DIILS 

facilitators who will be traveling to those countries in the future. 

According to DIILS officials’ estimates, due to limited staff resources, 

 13For more information, see GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic 

Training and Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G

(Washington, D.C.: March 2004).

DIILS Takes Several Steps 

to Assess the Quality of Its 

Assistance, Which Is 

Generally Viewed 

Positively by Recipients 

and U.S. Officials
Page 15 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

facilitators had completed only a little more than half of the after action 

reports required during fiscal years 2013 through 2016, an issue we 

discuss later in this report.

Photographs in figure 5 show classroom voting technology that DIILS 

facilitators use to assess training participants’ understanding in real time, 

a typical post-course student feedback survey, and DIILS facilitators 

soliciting student participation and feedback during a training session in 

Uganda.

Figure 5: Examples of Training Participant Feedback Mechanisms Used by the 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies

Officials from the five geographic combatant commands we spoke with as 

well as other DOD and State officials and foreign partners who 

participated in DIILS’s events lauded DIILS for its high-quality expertise 

and assistance.
Page 16 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

• U.S. Southern Command officials noted that its service components—

Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines—provide rule of law assistance 

when DIILS cannot provide it. However, according to these officials, 

the training its service components provide generally lacks the same 

level of expertise as the training provided by DIILS.

• Senior foreign military officials in Botswana referred to DIILS’s 

assistance as “invaluable” and told us that although they examined 

the best practices of several countries for modernizing defense 

legislation, they chose to work most closely with DIILS. Further, the 

foreign officials noted that the progress they have made could not 

have been achieved without DIILS’s assistance.

• Foreign military officials in Uganda and Newport told us that they 

would rate the DIILS facilitators a 10 out of 10 and said they wanted 

more DIILS training. A participant specifically reported learning new 

material that he could apply during his upcoming deployment.

• According to DIILS officials, senior foreign military officials reacted 

positively to DIILS’s resident courses. For example, a participant 

praised the course content and told DIILS officials that a lecture on 

gender-based violence had been particularly thought-provoking and 

had changed the way he viewed the topic. Another foreign official told 

DIILS staff that prior to attending the course he did not have a high 

opinion of U.S. military personnel but that he left the course with 

positive opinions of the United States and U.S. military officials.

• Underscoring the value that U.S. officials hold for DIILS institutionbuilding assistance, DIILS officials cited the following example. DIILS 

was planning to provide defense institution-building assistance to 

military officials in Belize, but when the country team there learned 

that funding from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy was no longer available for use in Belize, the U.S. officials in 

Belize found another funding source to bring DIILS facilitators incountry to provide the assistance. In addition, several DIILS officials 

noted that they view defense institution-building—more than any other 

type of assistance DIILS provides—as contributing to concrete, 

measurable outcomes, such as developing an instruction manual for 

magistrates in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and to longterm relationships with partner nations.
Page 17 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

DOD considers foreign partner needs in planning for DIILS’s rule of law 

assistance in accordance with Presidential Policy Directive 23. This 

directive provides policy guidance for U.S. security sector assistance, 

including rule of law, and highlights that U.S. agencies should consider 

key factors such as foreign partner needs in planning and implementing 

assistance. In-country U.S. officials are primarily responsible for working 

with foreign partners to identify and propose efforts to address their 

needs, which get incorporated into DIILS’s rule of law assistance, among 

other military training. For its core rule of law training, DIILS participates 

in regional and annual interagency Security Cooperation Education and 

Training Working Groups to identify and address foreign partner needs. 

For its defense institution-building assistance, DIILS conducts in-depth 

assessments in-country to identify and address foreign partner needs.

In-country DOD security cooperation officials are primarily responsible for 

identifying and addressing foreign partner needs that get incorporated 

into DIILS’s rule of law assistance, among other military training; for 

planning this training and assistance; and for ensuring that it is aligned 

with overall U.S. strategy as well as with regional and country-specific 

military strategies. In particular, they are required to know the partner 

nation’s requirements and capabilities for rule of law assistance, and they 

regularly advise and assist host-nation counterparts in identifying and 

programming training requirements. In addition to regular communication 

with the partner nation, in-country DOD security cooperation officials 

coordinate regularly with their respective geographic combatant 

commands and country teams and with DOD and State headquarter 

officials to ensure that the assistance is aligned with U.S. strategy.

Additionally, in-country DOD security cooperation officials develop 

integrated country strategies with country teams to further address 

partner needs. State requires all embassies to complete an integrated 

country strategy—a 3-year strategy to be developed collaboratively under 

chief-of-mission leadership and authority with the input of DOD and any 

other in-country U.S. agencies under chief-of-mission authority. These 

strategies aim to articulate the U.S.’s priorities in a given country by 

setting mission goals and objectives, including those pertaining to rule of 

law assistance, among other security sector assistance programs. State’s 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs officials use these integrated country 

strategies, as well as DOD’s theater campaign plans and country plans, 

Interagency Planning 

Processes for DIILS 

Rule of Law 

Assistance Generally 

Consider Foreign 

Partner Needs

In-Country U.S. Officials 

Identify Foreign Partner 

Needs for Rule of Law 

Assistance
Page 18 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

as the basis for resource allocation for core rule of law assistance.14 The 

country team consults with the host-nation government and military 

officials, when appropriate, regarding the nation’s needs, priorities, and 

constraints. In reviewing integrated country strategies of the top 10 

partner countries receiving DIILS assistance, we determined that eight of 

the 10 strategies specifically noted the importance of foreign military rule 

of law assistance. These eight strategies mentioned several aspects of 

rule of law, including professionalization of the military, human rights, and 

military justice. Additionally, seven of these eight strategies noted one or 

more specific actions to be taken to address rule of law assistance to 

foreign military partners, such as creating anticorruption task forces and 

holding human rights-themed discussions with foreign military officials.

For its core rule of law training, DIILS participates in regional, annual 

interagency Security Cooperation Education and Training Working 

Groups to identify and address foreign partner needs. For defense 

institution-building assistance, DIILS conducts in-depth assessments to 

identify and address foreign partner needs. DIILS works closely with 

various entities to plan and deliver statutorily required human rights 

training. However, since the law requires that DOD provide this training 

as part of its Global Train and Equip Program assistance, we do not 

include a discussion about planning this type of assistance in this review.

DIILS staff coordinate with geographic combatant commands, DOD 

security cooperation officials, and State officials, among others, at annual 

interagency working group conferences to identify and plan for training 

opportunities in line with foreign partner needs. DOD requires each 

geographic combatant command to host such a conference each year—

known as a Security Cooperation Education and Training Working Group. 

In addition to addressing foreign partner needs, these conferences also 

allow interagency collaboration on reviewing, coordinating, and finalizing 

each country’s rule of law education and training plan for the upcoming 

budget year and ensuring that activities are within policy guidelines, 

among other things. DIILS—along with other DOD schools—attends 

these conferences to educate in-country DOD security cooperation 

officials, and sometimes locally employed staff from host-nations, about 

the core rule of law training and defense institution-building assistance it 

 14Theater campaign plans are military plans that aim to guide events for each geographic 

combatant command’s area of responsibility.

DIILS Participates in 

Interagency Planning 

Efforts and Conducts 

Assessments to Identify 

and Address Foreign 

Partner Needs

Annual Interagency 

Conferences Are Key Planning 

Events for Considering Foreign 

Partner Needs in DIILS’s Core 

Rule of Law Assistance
Page 19 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

can offer and to identify opportunities to match U.S. courses with partnercountry needs (see fig. 6).

Figure 6: Agenda Cover for a 2016 Security Cooperation Education and Training 

Working Group and an Accompanying Brochure for the Defense Institute of 

International Legal Studies

In advance of a Security Cooperation Education and Training Working 

Group, in-country DOD security cooperation officials develop countryspecific education and training plans to address foreign partner and U.S. 

strategic needs, often with input from foreign partners. These plans 

include the partner country’s rule of law assistance and other education 

goals and identify the individuals who will participate, with input from the 

host-nation’s military officials. DOD in-country security cooperation 

officials then select training courses to address the mix of partner-country 

and U.S. goals outlined in the combatant command and country plans. 

During the 2016 U.S. Africa Command Security Cooperation Education 

and Training Working Group in Germany, we observed a DIILS official 

discussing assistance options with security cooperation officials to 

determine the best way to respond to identified foreign partner needs.

According to DIILS, State headquarters, and geographic combatant 

command officials, holding these conferences in person has various 

benefits in addition to planning the rule of law assistance that DIILS 
Page 20 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

provides. For example, the conferences facilitate discussions between 

DIILS officials and DOD security cooperation officials, which can clarify 

for DIILS officials the needs of foreign partners and enable the DIILS 

officials to make better recommendations on what courses are best suited 

to meet those needs. The conferences also help to ensure that country 

teams stay within their allotted IMET budgets and assist in-country DOD 

security cooperation officials in adhering to State policy and any legal 

requirements. For example, we observed State officials asking several incountry DOD security cooperation officials about the availability of female 

foreign military officials to participate in training, a State policy priority, 

and State officials informing the security cooperation officials about the 

requirement to allocate a certain percentage of their IMET funds for 

Expanded-IMET.15

In addition to assisting with U.S. efforts to meet the needs of foreign 

partners, the Security Cooperation Education and Training Working 

Group conferences also provide an opportunity for U.S. officials to ensure 

that training aligns with U.S. strategic goals, among other benefits. State 

officials noted that DOD security cooperation officials benefit from taking 

time to think strategically and deepen their understanding of how their 

efforts fit into the broader context of U.S. strategy. We observed State 

officials discussing U.S. strategic goals and making adjustments to 

several countries’ training plans with these goals in mind. According to 

officials from State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, holding these 

conferences in person also helps in-country DOD security cooperation 

officials build relationships among agencies and country teams and offers 

opportunities for security cooperation officials to learn from each other 

about what is working well and what is not. Moreover, they noted that it is 

easier to hold officials accountable to identify and address problems when 

the working group is held in person than when it is held virtually. For 

example, a State official said that he has removed courses from a country 

list that were not consistent with the priorities expressed in the integrated 

country strategy; he noted that identifying and addressing such concerns 

is more challenging in the absence of the real-time, person-to-person 

communication that the conferences facilitate.

 15As we previously reported, Congress expanded the objectives of the IMET program in 

1990 to focus on fostering greater understanding of and respect for civilian control of the 

military and contributing to improving military justice systems and procedures,in 

accordance with internationally recognized human rights, among other things.State and 

DOD refer to the expanded IMET objectives as Expanded-IMET. GAO-12-123.
Page 21 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

For defense institution-building assistance, DIILS conducts in-depth 

assessments to ensure that foreign partner needs are addressed and 

consonant with U.S. goals. To identify candidates for these assessments, 

DIILS leverages its familiarity with countries’ needs and capacity for rule 

of law assistance—knowledge gained through regular communication 

with in-country DOD security cooperation officials, geographic combatant 

commands, and foreign military officials who communicate the assistance 

needs of their countries, according to DIILS officials. DIILS and other 

defense institution-building providers then share recommendations for 

countries they would like to assist, contingent on the availability of 

resources, with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. 

That office considers the recommendations in setting priorities for 

defense institution-building assistance, including the assistance that the 

office will request of DIILS. According to State officials, for State-funded 

defense institution-building assistance, in-country State officials identify 

needs for defense institution-building assistance and work through State 

to provide funding to DOD for DIILS to implement the assistance.

Once the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and State 

select a country to receive defense institution-building assistance, DIILS 

will travel to the individual countries to meet with in-country DOD security 

cooperation officials and foreign military and government officials to 

assess that country’s needs. DIILS officials take these needs into account 

to formulate an individualized assistance plan for each country. For 

example, according to a DIILS official, to conduct an assessment of a 

country’s legal system, it could take about 2 months of study for DIILS 

officials to learn everything they can about the country before traveling 

there, including whom they will need to meet with while in-country. In 

addition, for such an assessment, DIILS would research the country’s 

legal authorities beforehand to generate questions. DIILS would send a 

team of up to four people to conduct the assessment, each with one or 

more areas to focus on, such as the penal system. Typically, the DIILS 

team would be in-country for 3 to 5 days and would produce a 40- to 70-

page assessment, including a history of the foreign government, 

information on its key military officials and military-related legal 

authorities, and a roadmap for helping the partner nation move forward. 

In-country DOD security cooperation officials could use this assessment 

to decide whether and to what extent to pursue the course of action 

outlined in the assessment. According to DIILS officials, DIILS does not 

provide assistance to a country if that country is not receptive to it.

DIILS Conducts In-Depth 

Assessments to Identify 

Foreign Partner Needs to Be 

Addressed with Defense 

Institution-Building Assistance
Page 22 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

The demand for DIILS’s assistance has increased over time, as 

summarized in table 2. However, DOD has not assessed whether the size 

of DIILS’s workforce aligns with the scope of its mission, which has been 

expanded in response to statutory requirements and U.S. strategic goals. 

Federal internal control standards highlight the need for management to 

conduct reviews at the functional or activity level, which may include 

conducting a workforce review or developing a corrective action plan, if 

needed.

Table 2: Chronology of Key Changes to the Mission of the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies 

1992 The Department of Defense (DOD) established the predecessor of Defense Institute of International Legal Studies 

(DIILS), the International Training Detachment of the Naval Justice School, to provide core rule of law training.a

2008 The Department of State (State) asked DIILS to provide defense institution-building assistance to the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo, a longer-term and more resource-intensive type of effort than DIILS’s core rule of law 

training.b

DOD tasked DIILS to be the sole provider for the statutorily required human rights training pursuant to the authority to 

build the capacity of foreign security forces as part of the Global Train and Equip Program.c

2010 The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy tasked DIILS with delivering additional defense institutionbuilding assistance, according to DIILS officials.

Sources: GAO analysis of DOD and State information and legislative documents. | GAO-17-118

a

DOD renamed the organization to DIILS in 1997.

b

Defense institution-building generally involves facilitators providing this assistance through multiple 

events that may occur over a year or longer. In comparison, core rule of law training generally 

involves facilitators delivering training in a one-time event ranging from 3 days to 10 w eeks.

c

The Global Train and Equip Program w as previously referred to as the “Section 1206” program 

because it w as originally authorized in section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006; see Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 1206, 119 Stat. 3456, Jan. 6, 2006. The Carl Levin and 

How ard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 authorized a 

permanent program, codified at 10 U.S.C § 2282, and the program is now often referred to as 

“Section 2282.” See Pub. L. No. 113-291, § 1205(a)(1), 128 Stat. 3533, Dec. 19, 2014.

Amid increasing demand and interest in DIILS’s provision of defenseinstitution building assistance and statutorily required human rights 

training, the number of events that DIILS has provided has increased 

since fiscal year 2013, while its workforce has increased by a single fulltime equivalent (FTE) staff, going from 28 FTE staff in 2013 to 29 FTE 

staff in 2016, as illustrated by figure 7.16

 16The number of FTE staff is the total number of hours worked by employees divided by 

the number of compensable hours applicable to each fiscal year. 

DOD Has Not 

Assessed Whether 

the Size of DIILS’s 

Workforce Aligns with 

the Scope of Its 

Mission
Page 23 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Figure 7: Number and Type of Rule of Law Assistance Events Held by the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies, and 

Full-Time Equivalent Staff, Fiscal Years 2013–2016

Because the demand for DIILS’s assistance is generated externally, 

DIILS does not have full control of its workload. As figure 7 further shows, 

the number of events that DIILS has provided for all rule of law assistance 

has increased since fiscal year 2013—with various DOD and State 

sources requesting that DIILS complete 52 more events in fiscal year 

2016 than it completed in fiscal year 2013. Currently, to respond to 

requests for assistance, DIILS employs 29 FTE staff, which consist of 20 

civilian staff and 9 military Staff Judge Advocates who represent the 

Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, and the Coast Guard.17 To 

meet increasing demands for assistance and requests for specialized 

subject matter expertise, DIILS augments its FTE staff with military 

reserve Staff Judge Advocates and civilian experts. DIILS officials said 

 17According to a DIILS official, military personnel assigned to DIILS generally serve a 3-

year tour of duty with DIILS. 
Page 24 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

that its adjunct database lists about 700 individuals and that multiple 

adjunct staff generally participate in each DIILS event.

Although DIILS is funded entirely through reimbursements from DOD and 

State, its FTE staff must be approved by DSCA. In fiscal year 2015, 

DSCA authorized one additional military FTE staff to address increasing 

partner countries’ maritime security needs.18 DIILS also requested an 

additional civilian FTE staff in fiscal year 2015 in part to help meet the 

increasing demands of defense institution-building assistance; however, 

according to DOD officials, DSCA did not approve this request. DOD 

officials told us that the decision was based on budget considerations 

rather than on an assessment of whether the size of DIILS’s workforce 

aligns with the scope of its mission to provide rule of law assistance. 

Although DIILS officials expressed the need for more than one additional 

FTE staff, they noted that they have not requested additional FTE staff 

because DSCA has communicated that additional requests would not be 

approved.

According to DIILS officials, DIILS faces staffing constraints in part 

because of increased demands and in part because defense institutionbuilding assistance is more resource intensive than DIILS core rule of law 

and statutorily required human rights training. As a result of the staffing 

constraints, DIILS has expended only 55 percent—$5.9 of $10.7 million—

of the defense institution-building funds that the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy has made available since fiscal year 

2013. In addition, DIILS has not completed all required after action 

reports for the training and assistance it conducted because DIILS has 

not had the staff capacity to do so, according to DIILS officials. These 

reports are necessary, according to DIILS officials, for conveying lessons 

learned and providing consistency for military officials that serve on 

rotational assignments and others who serve as adjunct faculty. 

According to DIILS officials, only about 55 percent of required after action 

reports since fiscal year 2013 had been completed as of August 2016 

because the staff assigned to complete them spend up to three-quarters 

of their time on assignments requiring travel abroad. These staff often 

travel several weeks in a row to multiple events on different continents 

where they are presenting course materials and executing logistics 

arrangements for the teams of facilitators and the participants.

 18According to a DIILS official, DSCA approved an agreement that allowed DIILS to fund 

the salary of a second Coast Guard Judge Advocate General assigned to a tour of duty at 

DIILS.
Page 25 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Moreover, as a result of staffing constraints, DIILS has potentially missed 

opportunities to provide additional training and assistance to further 

address foreign partner needs. For example, an official from U.S. 

Southern Command told us that they would hire DIILS to provide 

additional assistance if they thought DIILS had the staff capacity to 

provide it. However, because of the perceived lack of resources possibly 

limiting DIILS’s ability to provide the assistance, the official at U.S. 

Southern Command said that resources within the combatant command 

are used to provide assistance instead, often by officials that lack the 

same level of expertise provided through DIILS. During fieldwork in 

Germany, we also observed a DIILS official explaining to a DOD incountry official that he could only guarantee providing the country with 

core rule of law training if the country official used IMET funds. He noted 

that this is because DIILS’s priority is to deliver IMET-funded core rule of 

law training and DIILS may lack staff resources to provide assistance 

through other funds.

In addition, according to DIILS officials, although DIILS has the physical 

space to increase the capacity for the courses it holds in Newport, Rhode 

Island, from 50 to 75 participants, DIILS is facing logistical challenges in 

increasing capacity as a result of staffing constraints. For example, DIILS 

does not have sufficient administrative staff to process travel documents 

and provide the necessary transportation for that number of resident 

course participants, according to DIILS officials.

Federal internal control standards highlight the need for management to 

conduct reviews at the functional or activity level, which may include 

conducting a workforce review or developing a corrective action plan, if 

needed.19 Applying this standard would help DOD address its Fiscal 

Years 2013–2018 Strategic Workforce Plan Report, which states that the 

success of the DOD mission requires a well-maintained, properly sized, 

and highly capable civilian workforce that aligns to mission and workload 

requirements.20

 19See GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. These standards were in effect prior to fiscal year 2016 and 

cover the time period of agencies’ data in our report. The standards were subsequently 

updated and went into effect on October 1, 2015. See GAO-14-704G. 

20DOD, Fiscal Years 2013–2018 Strategic Workforce Plan Report, July 2013. This 

criterion applies to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy because its 

employees are part of DOD’s civilian workforce.
Page 26 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Upholding the rule of law is critical to U.S. peace- and security-building 

efforts abroad. DIILS’s efforts to train foreign partners in respect for 

human rights, the laws of armed conflict, and rules on the use of force, 

among other rule of law concepts, is an essential element of U.S. efforts 

to build stronger coalitions to combat international threats. Since fiscal 

year 2013, the demand for DIILS’s assistance has increased by nearly 50 

percent. According to DIILS officials, because of its expanded mission 

and the static size of its workforce, DIILS’s ability to meet demands for 

training and assistance has been constrained. These officials further note 

that DIILS’s ability to complete its after action reports—internal records 

necessary for conveying lessons learned—and to increase the capacity of 

its resident courses has also been constrained. DOD, however, has not 

assessed the extent to which the size of DIILS’s workforce aligns with the 

scope of its mission. As such, DOD may not be assured that DIILS’s 

existing workforce is properly aligned with its expanded mission. Ensuring 

a properly aligned workforce is essential for enabling DIILS to achieve its 

mission of training foreign partners on rule of law concepts, including 

greater respect for human rights, while also maximizing the efficiency of 

providing this training.

To help ensure that DOD successfully achieves the goal of supporting 

foreign nations in upholding the rule of law, we recommend that the 

Secretary of Defense assess the extent to which the size of DIILS’s 

workforce is aligned with the scope of its mission, including whether DIILS 

has sufficient staff to complete required after action reports and to 

increase its resident course capacity.

We provided a draft of this report to DOD and State for comment. In its 

written comments, which are reproduced in appendix III, DOD concurred 

with our recommendation. DOD also provided technical comments, which 

we incorporated as appropriate. State had no comments on the draft.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the 

GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

Conclusions

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Page 27 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7331, or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix IV.

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 28 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

House Report 114-102 includes a provision for us to review Department 

of Defense (DOD) efforts to work with DOD’s foreign military partners to 

build rule of law capacity.1 This report examines the extent to which, for 

fiscal years 2013 through 2016, (1) the Defense Institute of International 

Legal Studies (DIILS) has provided rule of law assistance to foreign 

partners and assessed its quality, (2) planning processes for DIILS’s rule 

of law efforts have considered foreign partner needs, and (3) DOD has 

considered whether the size of DIILS’s workforce aligns with the scope of 

its mission.

To address our objectives, we analyzed documents and data and 

interviewed officials from DOD and the Department of State (State), 

including DIILS, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), and 

the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, as well as incountry DOD security cooperation and State officials, DIILS training 

facilitators, and foreign partner officials. We focused on rule of law 

assistance that DIILS provided and excluded rule of law assistance 

provided by other DOD entities, the U.S. Agency for International 

Development, and the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice. 

We also excluded State assistance not covered under Title 22, such as 

assistance provided by State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 

Enforcement Affairs.

To examine the extent to which DIILS has provided rule of law assistance 

to foreign partners and assessed its quality for fiscal years 2013 through 

2016, we reviewed relevant authorities and identified the processes that 

DOD and State have in place to plan rule of law assistance. We focused 

on DIILS and the primary processes used to implement (1) core rule of 

law training,2 determined through a series of interagency working groups; 

(2) defense institution-building assistance, determined by the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and State’s Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs in coordination with DOD; and (3) statutorily required 

human rights training, delivered pursuant to the authority to build the 

 1House Report 114-102 accompanying H.R. 1735, a bill to authorize appropriations for 

fiscal year 2016 for the military activities of the Department of Defense and for other 

purposes.The President vetoed H.R. 1735. Subsequently, Congress passed and the 

President signed S. 1356, which became Pub. L. No. 114-92, the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.

2We define core rule of law training as DIILS’s 3-day to 10-week resident and mobile 

training events provided to foreign military officials that are primarily funded through the 

International Military Education and Training (IMET) program. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

capacity of foreign security forces as part of DOD’s Global Train and 

Equip Program.3 We also analyzed event data from DIILS for fiscal years 

2013 through 2016. We used these data to determine the number of rule 

of law events in various countries and geographic combatant commands. 

To determine the reliability of DIILS’s funding data, we compared and 

corroborated the information, requested information from DIILS officials 

regarding the processes they use to collect and verify the data, and 

checked the data sets for reasonableness and completeness. When we 

found discrepancies or missing data fields, we brought them to the 

attention of relevant agency officials and worked with the officials to 

correct the discrepancies and missing fields. The funding and activity data 

we received from DIILS are current as of October 2016. We did not 

conduct a financial audit of the funding data and are not expressing a 

financial opinion on them. Based on the checks we performed, we 

determined that the funding data we collected from DIILS were sufficiently 

reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. Additionally, we 

obtained perspectives on the steps DIILS takes to make its assistance 

effective by observing DIILS training in the United States, Botswana, and 

Uganda and by reviewing select DIILS after action reports to gather 

information about the contents of these reports. We also interviewed 

DIILS officials and recipients of DIILS assistance. For the purposes of this 

review, we did not examine the extent to which DIILS takes these steps 

consistently. To examine the extent to which DIILS assessed the quality 

of its assistance to foreign partners, we interviewed DIILS officials about 

the steps they take to assess the quality of their assistance and foreign 

recipients about their perspectives on the assistance they received. We 

compared DIILS officials’ statements with leading practices that we have 

identified for assessing the quality of strategic training.4

To examine the extent to which the planning processes for DIILS’s rule of 

law efforts have considered the needs of foreign partners since fiscal year 

 3The Global Train and Equip Program was previously referred to as the “Section 1206” 

program because it was originally authorized in Section 1206 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006; see Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 1206, 119 Stat. 3456, 

Jan. 6, 2006. The Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 authorized a permanent program, codified at 10 

U.S.C § 2282, and the program is now often referred to as “Section 2282.” See Pub. L. 

No. 113-291, § 1205(a)(1), 128 Stat. 3533, Dec. 19, 2014. This report covers periods of

time during which both “Section 1206” and “Section 2282” were common nomenclature for 

the Global Train and Equip Program. 

4GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts 

in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

2013, we observed a U.S. Africa Command interagency working group 

conference for developing this assistance in Garmisch, Germany. We 

selected this conference to observe because it was scheduled during the 

period from March through May 2016 when we were available to conduct 

fieldwork and did not conflict with other planned fieldwork. Additionally, 

we reviewed integrated country strategies for the 10 countries for which 

DIILS was reimbursed the most money for assistance in fiscal years 2013 

through 2015. Of country-specific disbursements in over 70 countries 

between fiscal years 2013 through 2015, we selected integrated country 

strategies for the 10 countries that spent the most money on DIILS 

assistance between fiscal years 2013 and 2015, accounting for over 60 

percent of country-specific funds disbursed during that timeframe, or $3.6 

million of $5.8 million. DIILS does not track DOD Operation and 

Maintenance Defense-Wide defense institution-building funds on a 

country-by-country basis, so funding for this type of assistance was not 

considered in selecting the top 10 countries. Ranked from most to least 

amount of DIILS assistance, these countries are (1) the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo, (2) Colombia, (3) Botswana, (4) the Czech 

Republic, (5) Lebanon, (6) Mexico, (7) India, (8) Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

(9) Burma, and (10) Niger. Additionally, the countries represent all six 

Geographic Combatant Commands: (1) U.S. Africa Command, (2) U.S. 

Central Command, (3) U.S. European Command, (4) U.S. Northern 

Command, (5) U.S. Pacific Command, and (6) U.S. Southern Command. 

We reviewed those country strategies that covered 2015 and 2016 

because the strategies were created on a 3-year rolling basis, and 

strategies for 2015 and 2016 were the ones available for all 10 countries 

in our scope. The results of our analysis are not generalizable to all 

integrated country strategies. We selected two countries—Uganda and 

Botswana—for observation based on the nature and timing of assistance 

and the assistance that DIILS provided from March through May 2016, 

when we were available to conduct overseas fieldwork. We also 

conducted fieldwork at DIILS’s headquarters in Newport, Rhode Island.

• In Uganda, we observed DIILS officials providing statutorily required 

human rights training to military personnel in the Uganda People’s 

Defense Force, which received $12.7 million in vehicles, weapons, 

and communications equipment, among other supplies, in support of 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

the African Union Mission in Somalia and its counterterrorism 

operations against al-Shabaab.5

• In Botswana, we observed DIILS officials providing a week of 

technical assistance to representatives of the Botswana Defence 

Force in support of its effort to revise and update the foundational 

military legislative authority of Botswana. These discussions included 

best practices and U.S. experiences related to gender integration; 

compensation for various employee groups, including recruits and 

retirees; and nonpunitive measures in the military. This was the 

seventh of eight planned exchanges since 2013, with the final 

exchange planned to occur prior to when Botswana’s legislature 

would consider the revised legislation.

• In Newport, Rhode Island, we observed part of a 3-week military 

justice resident course held at DIILS that included an exercise on 

nonjudicial punishment attended by foreign military lawyers from 

various military services and one civilian official.

Additionally, we reviewed theater campaign plans for U.S. Africa 

Command, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. 

Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command but did not include an 

analysis of these documents because DOD deems them sensitive. We 

focused on core rule of law training and defense institution-building 

assistance for this discussion. We excluded statutorily required human 

rights training because although DIILS works closely with various entities 

to plan and deliver this training, the law requires that DOD provide this 

training pursuant to the authority to build the capacity of foreign security 

forces as part of the Global Train and Equip Program. We compared 

these processes with the terms of Presidential Policy Directive 23, which 

provides policy guidelines for U.S. security sector assistance.6

To examine the extent to which DOD has considered whether DIILS’s 

workforce aligns with its mission since fiscal year 2013, we examined 

DIILS’s organizational structure and work requirements and actions DOD 

has taken to address DIILS’s organizational needs. Specifically, we 

reviewed DIILS’s full-time equivalent allocations from fiscal years 2013 

through 2016, and we compared these to the number of events DIILS 

 5The African Union Mission in Somalia is an active, regional peacekeeping mission 

operated by the African Union with the approval of the United Nations. It was created by 

the African Union’s Peace and Security Council in January 2007.

6The White House, Presidential Policy Directive 23 on Security Sector Assistance 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5, 2013). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

provided in the three assistance types during this timeframe. We worked 

closely with DIILS officials to identify the events for which after action 

reports were required during this time period. In addition, we reviewed a 

DIILS official’s analysis of the number of after action reports that were 

completed, as well as his methodology for completing this analysis. 

We found that the data were generally reliable for the purposes of our 

review. We compared DOD’s actions with federal internal control 

standards and guiding principles articulated in DOD’s Fiscal Years 2013–

2018 Strategic Workforce Plan Report.

7

We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to December 

2016 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.

7See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards were in 

effect prior to fiscal year 2016 and cover the time period of agencies’ data in our report. 

The standards were subsequently updated in 2014. The updated standards went into 

effect on October 1, 2015. See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.: September 2014). See also DOD, Fiscal 

Years 2013–2018 Strategic Workforce Plan Report, July 2013. This criterion applies to the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy because its employees are part of 

DOD’s civilian workforce.
Appendix II: Examples of Rule of Law 

Assistance Implemented by the Department of 

Defense Other Than through the Defense 

Institute of International Legal Studies

Page 33 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Table 3 provides some examples of rule of law assistance that was 

implemented by Department of Defense (DOD) entities other than the 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS), but this is not an 

exhaustive list.

Table 3: Examples of Rule of Law Assistance Implemented by the Department of Defense through Entities Other Than the 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies

DOD governing entity Examples

Geographic Combatant 

Commands / Staff Judge Advocate 

offices

The Staff Judge Advocate in U.S. European Command noted that events are focused on rule of 

law assistance that will enable interoperability and include conducting assessments as to where 

the U.S. European Command may want to partner in the future. Assessments may identifyareas 

for targeted assistance over a 5-year span, such as providing the foreign partner with a better 

understanding of international agreements. 

The Staff Judge Advocate in U.S. Africa Command identified several events related to rule of law, 

including the African Accountability Colloquium, a 3-day event held each year with legal 

professionals. It covers a different topic each year. In 2013 the topic was military justice, and in 

2016 it was gender-based violence. The African Military Law Forum is another such event, 

dedicated to identifying issues that African military legal professionals want to address.

The Staff Judge Advocate in U.S. Northern Command said that, in addition to Defense Institute of 

International Legal Studies (DIILS) events to provide rule of law assistance, the U.S. Northern 

Command Staff Judge Advocate is supporting foreign partner participation at American 

University’s Human Rights Academy and to train military judges on ethics, procedure, and 

evidence at the Judicial Studies Institute.

Geographic Combatant 

Commands / Service Components 

(Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine 

Corps)

Officials noted that Special Forces battalions have their own Judge Advocates General and that 

these provide rule of law training catered to addressing local issues, which may not be 

standardized across regions and is not tracked. For example, in Uganda, the Special Forces unit 

stationed there provided some training on the importance of rule of law as part of their operational 

training, and the Marine Corps had provided some human rights training as part of their efforts.

The Staff Judge Advocate in U.S. Southern Command noted that most rule of law assistance in 

the U.S. Southern Command’s area of responsibility is implemented through service components 

rather than through DIILS because most of the assistance is focused on long-term defense 

institution-building, which is too resource intensive for DIILS to always take the lead. For 

example, through service components, the Staff Judge Advocate has spent the last several years 

developing a Judge Advocate General corps in Belize, with topics ranging from establishing 

requirements for becoming a judge advocate general to developing the training.

Joint Chiefs of Staff / Directorate of 

Strategic Plans and Policy / 

National Guard Bureau State 

Partnership Program 

This program links a U.S. state’s National Guard with the armed forces or equivalent in a partner 

country and is currently engaging with 76 nations around the globe. Officials said that of the 800 

events they conducted in 2015, 15 were focused on rule of law. These events emphasize 

information exchange. For example, the program shared information with Croatia on legal issues 

such as human trafficking, law of war, sexual harassment and prevention, and human dignity.

Joint Chiefs of Staff / Directorate 

for Joint Force Development in 

coordination with Geographic 

Combatant Commands

Rule of law is not the main focus for a joint exercise, where the goal is to establish interoperability 

with partner nations. However, rule of law concepts such as international humanitarian law or 

professionalization of the military may be covered for exercises where the focus is on peace 

support operations or defense institution- building. Such training may take place through lawyer 

briefings or a pre-exercise brief.

Appendix II: Examples of Rule of Law 

Assistance Implemented by the Department 

of Defense Other Than through the Defense 

Institute of International Legal Studies
Appendix II: Examples of Rule of Law 

Assistance Implemented by the Department of 

Defense Other Than through the Defense 

Institute of International Legal Studies

Page 34 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

DOD governing entity Examples

Joint Chiefs of Staff / International 

Military Education and Training 

Schools

The U.S. Army and Navy War Colleges, among others, host foreign partners to obtain degrees 

that include topics on rule of law. For example, at the Naval Postgraduate School, the Center for 

Civil-Military Relations hosts foreign partners with some classes touching on rule of law, though 

there is no class specific to rule of law. Officials noted that the International Defense Acquisition 

Resource Management Program addresses the topic of corruption, the UN Peacekeeping 

Operations Contingent Commanders course discusses rule of law and international humanitarian 

law, and many other courses address issues related to professionalization of the military. Mobile 

courses may also include rule of law topics tailored to a country’s particular need. The center also 

conducts some defense institution-building with a focus on transparency and developing 

processes that are less susceptible to corruption.

Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency / Department of Defense 

(DOD) Regional Centers

The Africa Center for Strategic Studies conducts several programs that have a rule of law 

component, such as the Pan-African Next Generation of Security Sector Leaders, designed for 

midlevel military officers. This program varies year to year but usually includes courses on 

corruption and may include modules on rule of law concepts such as ethical leadership and 

peace support. Officials also noted that the center holds thematic programs that may highlight 

rule of law concepts.

The William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies promotes greater understanding of 

U.S. policy; mutually supportive approaches to security challenges; and improved, sustainable 

institutional capacity through courses, seminars, outreach, strategic dialogue, and focused 

research with senior civilian and military officials from the Americas.The center has a 2-week rule 

of law course with 35–40 lectures on topics that include human rights and good governance for 

civilian and military personnel. 

Sources: GAO interviews with DOD officials, and open source documents. | GAO-17-118
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 35 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Appendix III: Comments from the

Department of Defense
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 36 GAO-17-118 DOD Rule of Law Assistance

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., (202) 512-7331, or johnsoncm@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Hynek Kalkus (Assistant 

Director), Jaime Allentuck (Analyst-in-Charge), Kendal Robinson, David 

Dayton, Neil Doherty, Mark Dowling, and Jill Lacey made key 

contributions to this report. Gustavo Crosetto and Peter del Toro provided 

technical assistance.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100325)
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.