FOREIGN POLICE 

ASSISTANCE 

Defined Roles and 

Improved Information 

Sharing Could 

Enhance Interagency 

Collaboration 

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on National Security, 

Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations, 

Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, House of Representatives 

MAY 2012 

GAO-12-534 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-534, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National 

Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign 

Operations, Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

May 2012 

FOREIGN POLICE ASSISTANCE

Defined Roles and Improved Information Sharing 

Could Enhance Interagency Collaboration

Why GAO Did This Study

In April 2011, we reported that the 

United States provided an estimated 

$3.5 billion for foreign police 

assistance to 107 countries during 

fiscal year 2009. We agreed to follow 

up that report with a review of the 

extent to which U.S. agencies 

evaluated and coordinated their foreign 

police assistance activities. 

As such, this report (1) updates our 

analysis of the funding U.S. agencies 

provided for foreign police assistance 

during fiscal years 2009 through 2011, 

(2) examines the extent to which DOD 

and State/INL assess or evaluate their 

activities for countries with the largest 

programs, and (3) examines the 

mechanisms U.S. agencies use to 

coordinate foreign police assistance 

activities. GAO focused on DOD and 

State because they have the largest 

foreign police assistance programs.

GAO analyzed program and budget 

documents and interviewed officials 

from DOD, State, Energy, the U.S. 

Agency for International Development, 

Justice, the Treasury, and Homeland 

Security. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that (1) NSC 

complete its efforts to define agency 

roles and responsibilities, and (2) the 

Secretaries of Defense and State 

establish mechanisms to better share 

and document information among 

various U.S. agencies. NSC provided 

technical comments, but did not 

comment on our recommendation. DOD 

concurred and State partially concurred, 

noting the importance of interagency 

collaboration.

What GAO Found

The United States provided an estimated $13.9 billion for foreign police 

assistance during fiscal years 2009 through 2011. Funds provided by U.S. 

agencies rose and then fell between fiscal years 2009 and 2011. During fiscal 

years 2009 through 2011, the United States provided the greatest amount of its 

foreign police assistance to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and 

the Palestinian Territories. Department of Defense (DOD) and State (State) funds 

constituted about 97 percent of U.S. funds for police assistance in fiscal year 

2009 and 98 percent in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. 

Estimated U.S. Funding for Foreign Police Assistance by Country, Fiscal Years 2009 through 

2011 

DOD and State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs 

(State/INL) have acknowledged limitations in their procedures to assess and 

evaluate their foreign police assistance activities and are taking steps to address 

them. DOD assesses the performance of the police forces it trains and equips in 

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. However, the assessment process for 

Afghanistan does not provide data on civil policing effectiveness. DOD plans to 

expand its assessments to obtain data to assess the ability of these forces to 

conduct civil policing operations. In addition, recognizing that it had conducted 

only one evaluation of its foreign police assistance activities because it lacked 

guidelines, State/INL is developing an evaluation plan that is consistent with 

State’s February 2012 Evaluation Policy. This evaluation plan includes 

conducting evaluations for its largest programs in Iraq and Mexico.

U.S. agencies have implemented various mechanisms to coordinate their foreign 

police assistance activities as part of wider foreign assistance activities, such as

the National Security Council’s (NSC)-led interagency policy committees that 

coordinate policies at a high level and various working groups at the overseas 

posts. However, GAO noted some areas for improvement. Specifically, NSC has 

not defined agencies’ roles and responsibilities for assisting foreign police. 

Further, DOD and State do not consistently share and document information. For 

example, DOD did not provide copies of its capability assessments of the Iraqi 

police to State, which is now responsible for police development in Iraq, because 

it destroyed the database containing the assessments at the end of its mission to 

train the police. Further, some U.S. embassies, including the one in Bogotá, 

Colombia, do not publish agendas or minutes of their proceedings. 

View GAO-12-534. For more information, 

contact Charles Michael Johnson Jr., at 

(202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Letter 1 

Background 2

The United States Made Available an Estimated $13.9 Billion for 

Foreign Police Assistance during Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 4

DOD and State Are Taking Steps to Address Limitations in Their 

Procedures for Assessing and Evaluating Foreign Police 

Assistance Activities 12

U.S. Agencies Coordinate Foreign Police Assistance Activities, but 

Some Areas for Improvement Exist 20

Conclusions 25

Recommendations for Executive Action 26

Agency Comments and our Evaluation 26

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 28

Appendix II DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance, 

by Region and Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 33

Appendix III DOD and State Amounts Made Available for Police Assistance, by 

Account, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 46

Appendix IV Profiles of Selected Countries Receiving Foreign Police Assistance, 

Fiscal Year 2010 and Fiscal Year 2011 48

Appendix V Supplemental Information on DOD Assessment Process for the 

Iraqi and Afghan National Police Forces 55

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 57

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of State 58

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Appendix VIII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 61

Tables

Table 1: Other Agency Funding Made Available for Police 

Assistance, Fiscal Year 2011 12

Table 2: Examples of Proposed DOD Reporting Questions and 

Metrics for ANP Units 16

Table 3: Examples of Coordination Mechanisms for Activities That 

Include U.S. Foreign Police Assistance 22

Table 4: Descriptions of Select U.S. Accounts Used to Fund 

Foreign Police Assistance 46

Table 5: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for 

Foreign Police Assistance Activities, Fiscal Years 2010 and

2011 47

Table 6: DOD Capability Milestone Rating Definitions for the 

Afghan Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior 56

Figures

Figure 1: Estimated U.S. Funding for Foreign Police Assistance, by 

Region, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 5

Figure 2: Estimated U.S. Funding for Foreign Police Assistance, by 

Country, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 6

Figure 3: Estimated Funds Made Available for Foreign Police, by 

Agency, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 8

Figure 4: Estimated DOD and State Amounts Made Available for 

the Six Largest Recipients of U.S. Foreign Police 

Assistance, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 9

Figure 5: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for 

Police Assistance in South and Central Asia, by Country, 

Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 34

Figure 6: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for 

Police Assistance in the Near East, by Country, Fiscal 

Years 2010 and 2011 36

Figure 7: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for 

Police Assistance in the Western Hemisphere, by Country, 

Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 38

Figure 8: Estimated DOD and State Funding for Police Assistance in 

Europe and Eurasia, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 40
Page iii GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Figure 9: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police 

Assistance in Africa, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 42

Figure 10: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for 

Police Assistance in East Asia and the Pacific, by Country, 

Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 45

Abbreviations

ANA Afghan National Army

ANP Afghan National Police

DASD-CN> Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Counternarcotics and Global Threats

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOJ Department of Justice

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

INCLE International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement

INL Bureau of Narcotics and International Law 

Enforcement Affairs

IPCB International Police Coordination Board

NSC National Security Council

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

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-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

May 9, 2012

The Honorable John F. Tierney

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on National Security,

Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Tierney:

It is important to U.S. national security objectives that the United States 

effectively work with the security forces of other countries. The United 

States has devoted significant resources to training and equipping foreign 

police units in some of the most unstable countries in the world to build 

their counterinsurgency, counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and anticrime 

capabilities. As such, assessments or evaluations of U.S. efforts to train 

foreign police forces are critical to the ability of agencies to make 

informed decisions about future programming. The first phase of our work 

in response to your request focused on funding and agencies providing 

foreign police assistance in fiscal year 2009. In April 2011, we reported 

that the United States provided an estimated $3.5 billion for foreign police 

assistance to 107 countries during fiscal year 2009.1

This report (1) provides an updated analysis of the amount and type of 

assistance U.S. agencies provided for foreign police assistance 

worldwide during fiscal years 2009 through 2011, (2) examines the extent 

to which the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of State’s 

(State) Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs 

(State/INL) assess or evaluate their foreign police assistance activities for 

countries with their largest programs, and (3) examines the mechanisms 

U.S. agencies use to coordinate their foreign police assistance activities. 

We agreed to follow 

up that report with a review of the extent to which U.S agencies evaluated 

and coordinated their foreign police assistance activities.

 

1

GAO, Multiple U.S. Agencies Provided Billions of Dollars to Train and Equip Foreign 

Police Forces, GAO-11-402R (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 2011). We defined “police” as 

all foreign law enforcement units or personnel with arrest, investigative, or interdiction 

authorities. We included all training—regardless of content—and equipment. 

 
Page 2 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

For objective 2, we focused on DOD and State/INL because they have 

the largest programs that provide assistance to foreign police forces.

To address our objectives, we analyzed agency program documents and 

past GAO reports, relevant legislation, and agency and congressional 

budget documents. We also interviewed officials from DOD, State, the 

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); the Departments of 

the Treasury (Treasury), Justice (DOJ), Energy (DOE), and Homeland 

Security (DHS); and the U.S. embassies in Colombia and Peru, two 

countries with large foreign police assistance programs. We focused on 

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the Palestinian 

Territories because they had the largest programs between fiscal years 

2009 and 2011. To obtain total U.S. government funding, we analyzed 

estimated funding data provided by DOD, State, DOE, USAID, Treasury, 

and DOJ. According to agency officials, these amounts are estimates 

because activities to train and equip police are not generally categories 

the agencies use to track funding. Appendix I provides a detailed 

discussion of our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 through May 2012 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our work objectives.

Although numerous U.S. agencies are engaged in U.S. efforts to provide 

assistance to foreign police forces, DOD and State are the major 

providers—providing police training around the world through a variety of 

authorities. DOD trains and equips foreign police forces to support its 

counterinsurgency operations. It also provides support for the 

counterdrug activities of foreign law enforcement agencies for purposes 

including counterdrug training of foreign law enforcement personnel. DOD 

provides such assistance around the world through a variety of 

authorities. For example, section 1004 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 1991, 

as amended, authorizes DOD to provide support for the counterdrug 

activities of foreign law-enforcement agencies for purposes including 

counterdrug training of foreign law-enforcement personnel, if requested 

Background
Page 3 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

by an appropriate official of a federal agency with counterdrug 

responsibilities.2

State trains and equips foreign police to support a variety of U.S. foreign 

policy objectives, including suppressing international narcotics trafficking, 

combating terrorism, and developing and implementing U.S. policies to 

curb the proliferation of all types of weapons of mass destruction. Different 

State bureaus carry out police assistance under different authorities. For 

example, according to State/INL officials, State/INL carries out its mission 

under authorities in Chapter 8 of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended,3

The U.S. agencies use a variety of mechanisms to implement their 

foreign assistance activities. State and DOD may work through 

contractors to provide the assistance. For example, State managed a 

contract funded by DOD to provide training to Afghan security forces, 

including police. State contracted for training and aviation support in 

Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Colombia, the Palestinian Territories, Haiti, 

and Peru. DOD and State may also enter into agreements with U.S. 

agencies to provide foreign police assistance. For example, State has 

interagency agreements with DOJ and DHS. Training is provided at a 

variety of locations in the United States, such as the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center in Georgia and the Federal Bureau of 

 

which among other things, authorizes the provision of law-enforcement 

training. DOE provides training and equipment to overseas law 

enforcement, both at national borders and to police and security forces, as 

part of the mission of its National Nuclear Security Administration’s Second 

Line of Defense program to strengthen the capability of foreign 

governments to deter, detect and interdict illicit trafficking in nuclear and 

other radioactive materials across international borders, through the global 

maritime shipping system, and by equipping teams to be deployed 

throughout their countries. USAID provides community-based police 

assistance as part of its role in promoting the rule of law through assistance 

to the justice sector. Treasury provides training as part of its mission to

support the development of strong financial sectors and sound financial 

management overseas. DOJ and DHS implement foreign police assistance 

activities primarily funded by State. Treasury also receives some funds 

from State.

 

2

Pub. Law No. 101-510, as amended.

3

Pub. Law No. 87-195, as amended.
Page 4 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Investigation (FBI) Academy in Virginia, and at various DOD training 

facilities. Trainers provided by various U.S. agencies also travel overseas 

to provide instruction. Foreign law enforcement personnel are also trained 

at State-funded international law enforcement academies located in El 

Salvador, Thailand, Hungary, Botswana, and Peru. The training covers a 

variety of subject matter, including crime scene investigation, postblast 

investigations, forensics, and behavioral analysis.

We estimate the U.S. government made available $13.9 billion for foreign 

police assistance during fiscal years 2009 through 2011.4 Most U.S. 

funding made available for foreign police assistance during fiscal years 

2009 through 2011 provided training and equipment to Afghanistan, Iraq, 

Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the Palestinian Territories. DOD and 

State funds constituted about 97 percent of the U.S. funds for police 

assistance in fiscal year 2009 and 98 percent of U.S. funds for police 

assistance in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Four other agencies provided the 

remaining amount.

On the basis of data provided by DOD, State, DOE, USAID, Treasury, 

and DOJ, we estimate that the U.S. government made available $3.5 

billion in foreign police assistance in fiscal year 2009, $5.7 billion in fiscal 

year 2010, and $4.7 billion in fiscal year 2011 (see fig. 1).5

 

4

We use the term “made available” to mean that funds were appropriated, allotted, or 

obligated during the specified fiscal years. 

The funds 

made available focused on sustaining the counternarcotics, 

counterterrorism, anticrime, and other civilian policing efforts of police 

forces around the world.

5

Funding estimates for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 include DOD appropriations, 

allotments, and obligations; State appropriations, allotments, allocations, and obligations; 

DOE allotments, obligations, and disbursements; USAID allotments; Treasury 

appropriations; and DOJ obligations that were disbursed. DOD funding may include some 

assistance provided to military personnel.

The United States 

Made Available an 

Estimated $13.9 

Billion for Foreign 

Police Assistance 

during Fiscal Years 

2009 through 2011

Funds Made Available for 

U.S. Foreign Police 

Assistance Rose and Then 

Fell during Fiscal Years 

2009 through 2011
Page 5 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Figure 1: Estimated U.S. Funding for Foreign Police Assistance, by Region, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011

Note: (1) “Unspecified” funding for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 included funding that supported 

multiple countries and regions. (2) N/A = not applicable. (3) Numbers may not sum because of 

rounding. (4) This figure includes countries receiving police training and equipment from DOD, State, 

DOE, USAID, Treasury, and DOJ. Appendix II provides information on DOD and State funds, by 

country. 
Page 6 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

As figure 1 shows, nearly $3.7 billion, or 78 percent, of the estimated 

foreign police assistance funds that the United States made available in 

fiscal year 2011 supported activities in 12 South and Central Asian 

countries. Agencies reported making assistance available to at least 107 

countries in fiscal year 2009, 127 countries in fiscal year 2010, and 125 

countries in fiscal year 2011.

Of the estimated $13.9 billion in foreign police assistance funds that the 

United States made available during fiscal years 2009 through 2011, an 

estimated $12.0 billion, or 86 percent of the total, went to the 5 largest 

recipient countries and the Palestinian Territories (see fig. 2). As shown in 

figure 2, $8.3 billion of these funds went to Afghanistan (about 60 percent 

of the total), followed by Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the 

Palestinian Territories.

Figure 2: Estimated U.S. Funding for Foreign Police Assistance, by Country, Fiscal 

Years 2009 through 2011

Note: Unspecified funding for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 included funding that supported multiple 

countries and regions, funding made available by DOJ not separated by country, and funding made 

available by DOE not separated by country for fiscal year 2009. 
Page 7 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

The remaining $1.9 billion, or about 14 percent, of the estimated total 

U.S. assistance to foreign police supported more than 100 other countries 

during fiscal years 2009 through 2011. Appendix II lists all countries that 

received U.S. foreign police assistance from DOD and State during fiscal 

years 2010 and 2011.

DOD and State funds constituted an estimated 97 percent of total funding 

in fiscal year 2009 and 98 percent of total funding in fiscal years 2010 and 

2011 (see fig. 3). DOD funded its foreign police assistance through a 

variety of appropriations—including the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, 

the Iraq Security Forces Fund, the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund—as 

well as the Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities Defense Fund, 

and its operations and maintenance funds. State funded its foreign police 

assistance through the International Narcotics Control and Law 

Enforcement account (INCLE); the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability 

Fund; the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs 

account; the Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia account; and 

the Section 1207 program.6

 

6

Section 1207 of the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. No. 109-

163) provided authority for DOD to transfer up to $100 million per fiscal year to State to 

support reconstruction, stabilization, and security activities in foreign countries. This 

authority has expired.

See appendix III for additional information on 

DOD and State funds by account for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. 

DOD and State Funds 

Constituted Nearly All of 

the Funds for U.S. Police 

Assistance in Fiscal Years 

2009 through 2011
Page 8 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Figure 3: Estimated Funds Made Available for Foreign Police, by Agency, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011

Note: (1) Numbers may not sum because of rounding. (2) “Other” includes funds made available by 

DOE, USAID, Treasury, and DOJ. (3) DOD based its funding estimates on appropriations, allotments, 

and obligations. (4) State based its funding estimates on appropriations, allocations, allotments, and 

obligations. 

As shown in figure 3, DOD’s funding made available for foreign police 

assistance increased from an estimated $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2009 to 

an estimated $3.5 billion in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, primarily because 

of increased funding for the Afghan National Police (ANP). Over that 

same period, State’s funding made available for foreign police assistance 

increased from an estimated $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2009 to an 

estimated $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2010 before decreasing to an 

estimated $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2011.

As noted earlier, DOD and State made available the majority of U.S. 

foreign police assistance to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, 

and the Palestinian Territories. From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, DOD 

provided the majority of U.S. foreign police assistance to Afghanistan. 

DOD’s funding for foreign police assistance to Afghanistan more than 

doubled, from $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2009 to over $3 billion in fiscal years 

2010 and 2011. This increase supported U.S. efforts to accelerate the 

development of the ANP. In addition, State provided assistance to the 6 

largest recipients of U.S. foreign police assistance, and made between 

$169 million and $260 million available during fiscal years 2009 through 
Page 9 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

2011 to Afghanistan for aviation support, police mentors, and antiterrorism 

assistance, among other activities (see fig. 4).

Figure 4: Estimated DOD and State Amounts Made Available for the Six Largest Recipients of U.S. Foreign Police Assistance, 

Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011

For Iraq, DOD transitioned its police assistance program to State during 

fiscal years 2010 and 2011. DOD funds made available decreased from 

$309 million in fiscal year 2010 to $114 million in fiscal year 2011. State 

assumed responsibility for a new police development program for the 

Iraqi police in October 2011. State allocated $650 million from the fiscal 
Page 10 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

year 2010 INCLE supplemental funding7

For Pakistan, DOD and State made funds available to support Pakistan’s 

Frontier Corps and other law enforcement activities during fiscal years 

2009 through 2011. DOD funds made available decreased from an 

estimated $113 million in fiscal year 2010 to $3 million in fiscal year 2011. 

In addition to providing counterinsurgency and counternarcotics training, 

DOD provided equipment, including trucks, troop carriers, and 

ambulances, as well as protective equipment such as Kevlar helmets, 

uniforms, and night vision devices to the Frontier Corps.

and about $95 million of the 

fiscal year 2011 INCLE appropriation to train and equip the Iraqi police

forces and to support the transition from DOD and establish the new 

police development program. For fiscal year 2012, State requested $887 

million for its Iraqi Police Development Program. As of February 2012, 

State estimated it would devote a smaller amount in fiscal year 2012 

funding, $418 million, to this program, which would make it State’s largest 

foreign police assistance program in the world. However, as of April 2012, 

State revised its proposed fiscal year 2012 allocation of funds for 

State/INL’s criminal justice programs in Iraq, including the Police 

Development Program, to $250 million.

8

Foreign police assistance activities in Colombia, Mexico, and the 

Palestinian Territories cover a variety of issues. For example, U.S. foreign 

police activities in Colombia supported the government of Colombia’s 

efforts to combat the drug trade. DOD and State’s funds made available 

decreased from an estimated $185 million in fiscal year 2010 to $150 

State funds 

made available decreased from an estimated $177 million in fiscal year 

2010 to $172 million in fiscal year 2011. State launched a program in 

2009 to provide training, equipment, and other support to police to 

increase their professionalism, mobility, and communication capacity in 

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a major city in Pakistan.

 

7

See the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-212, July 29, 2010. Of 

the supplemental funds appropriated for the International Narcotics Control and Law 

Enforcement account, not less than $650 million was to be used for assistance for Iraq, of 

which $450 million was for onetime start-up costs and limited operational costs of the Iraqi 

police program; and $200 million was for implementation, management, security, 

communications, and other expenses related to the program.

8

GAO, Combating Terrorism: Pakistan Counterinsurgency Funds Disbursed, but Human 

Rights Vetting Process Can Be Enhanced, GAO-11-860SU (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 11, 2011).
Page 11 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

million in fiscal year 2011. State’s activities included support to the 

Colombian National Police’s aviation program and training on weapons 

and other equipment to rural police units. DOD support included training 

for a special unit of the Colombian National Police. In Mexico, DOD and 

State funds made available decreased from an estimated $167 million in 

fiscal year 2010 to $21 million in fiscal year 2011. Activities in Mexico 

included State’s Mérida Initiative, which provided training and equipment 

including aircraft and boats, inspection equipment, and canine units. DOD 

support to Mexico included training on aviation, communications 

equipment, maintenance, and information sharing. For the Palestinian 

Territories, State’s funds made available increased from an estimated $97 

million in fiscal year 2010 to $142 million in fiscal year 2011. State 

provided battalion-level basic law enforcement and security training 

conducted at the Jordanian International Police Training Center located 

outside Amman, Jordan. Appendix IV contains additional information on 

activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the 

Palestinian Territories.

Four other agencies—DOE, USAID, Treasury, and DOJ—also made 

available about $83 million, or 2 percent of the estimated funds, for 

foreign police assistance in fiscal year 2011 (see table 1).9 DOE made 

available the majority of the funds ($52 million) for its nuclear security 

programs; USAID, Treasury, and DOJ made available the remaining 

amounts.

 

9

DHS also implements activities, such as developing and delivering training at 

international law enforcement academies, with funds received from State.

Other U.S. Agencies Also 

Made Available Assistance 

to Foreign Police
Page 12 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Table 1: Other Agency Funding Made Available for Police Assistance, Fiscal Year 2011

(Dollars in millions)

Agency Funding made available Activities 

DOE $52.1 The Second Line of Defense Program provided nuclear detection devices and trained 

foreign border security and other law enfocement officials how to use the equipment.

The International Nonproliferation Export Control Program trained customs inspectors and 

other law enforcement officials to recognize strategic commodities that could be used to 

manufacture weapons of mass destruction in order to prevent illicit smuggling. 

USAID $20.5 USAID provided training to solidify a culture of respect for human rights within police 

forces and strengthen police abilities to provide services to citizens.

Treasury $6.4 Office of Technical Assistance advisers worked directly with foreign law enforcement, 

ministries of finance, central banks, tax departments, and public sector financial 

institutions on issues related to economic crimes, such as money laundering and terrorist 

financing. 

DOJ $3.9 The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) provided seminars on investigative and 

management techniques focusing on drug trafficking as well as training to sensitive 

investigative units.

FBI provided training globally on cyber crime and counterterrorism, among other areas. 

Total: $82.9

Source: GAO analysis of DOE, USAID Treasury, and DOJ data.

Note: (1) Numbers may not sum because of rounding. (2) DOJ amounts are obligations that were 

disbursed. 

DOD and State/INL have acknowledged limitations in their procedures to 

assess and evaluate their foreign police assistance activities and are 

taking steps to address them. DOD assesses the performance of the 

national police forces it has trained and equipped for counterinsurgency 

operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan—countries that were the 

three largest recipients of DOD’s foreign police assistance funds during 

fiscal years 2009 through 2011. However, according to an October 2011 

DOD report to Congress, the assessment process for Afghanistan does 

not provide data on civil policing operations such as referring cases to the 

justice system, a fact that hampers the department’s ability to fully assess 

the effectiveness of the training it provides to the ANP. DOD plans to 

begin collecting these data to assess civil policing effectiveness. As of 

April 2012, State/INL had conducted only one evaluation of a program 

that includes foreign police assistance activities. Recognizing the need to 

conduct such evaluations, State/INL is developing an evaluation plan that 

is consistent with State’s February 2012 Evaluation Policy and 

implementing its June 2010 guidelines that recommended including 

evaluation as a part of its budget and planning documents for programs in 

DOD and State Are 

Taking Steps to 

Address Limitations 

in Their Procedures 

for Assessing and 

Evaluating Foreign 

Police Assistance 

Activities
Page 13 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Iraq and Mexico. Other priority programs for evaluation include ones for 

Afghanistan, Colombia, the Palestinian Territories, and Pakistan. 

DOD assesses the performance of the national police forces it has trained 

and equipped for counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 

Pakistan—countries that were the three largest recipients of DOD’s 

foreign police assistance funds during fiscal years 2009 through 2011. 

For Afghanistan, DOD has assessed the Afghan National Security 

Forces, which consists of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and ANP, 

using its Commander’s Unit Assessment Tool.10 The assessment tool 

provides quantitative data for security force units, including personnel, 

equipment, and training, and qualitative assessments for functions such 

as training and education. In addition, the assessment tool reports on the 

operational performance of the ANA and ANP units using rating definition 

levels. Rating definition levels include (1) independent, (2) effective with 

advisers, (3) effective with assistance, (4) developing, (5) established, 

and (6) not assessed. As of August 2011, DOD reported 26 ANP units 

were rated as independent. We previously reported on U.S. efforts to train 

and equip the ANP in 2009 and more recently in 2012.11

For Iraq, DOD used a readiness assessment system to determine when 

units of the Iraqi security forces, including the Iraqi national police, could 

 

10ANP currently consists of six authorized components under the Ministry of Interior, 

including the (1) uniformed police, (2) border police, (3) civil order police, (4) criminal 

investigation police, (5) counternarcotics police, and (6) counterterrorism police. The 

uniformed police, the largest of these six components, report to the police commanders of 

each Afghan province. Provincial commanders report to one of five regional commanders, 

who report to the Ministry of Interior. The other five authorized components of the ANP 

report directly to the ministry. 

11GAO, Afghanistan Security: U.S. Programs to Further Reform Ministry of Interior and 

National Police Challenged by Lack of Military Personnel and Afghan Cooperation, 

GAO-9-280 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2009), and Afghanistan Security: Department of 

Defense Effort to Train Afghan Police Relies on Contractor Personnel to Fill Skill and 

Resource Gaps, GAO-12-293R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2012). 

DOD Assesses the 

Performance of Police 

Forces It Trained and 

Equipped in Afghanistan, 

Iraq, and Pakistan 
Page 14 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

assume the lead for conducting security operations.12 This system’s 

classified assessments were prepared monthly by the unit’s coalition 

commander and Iraqi commander. According to multinational force 

guidance, the purpose of the assessment system was to provide 

commanders with a method to consistently evaluate units. It also helped 

to identify factors hindering unit progress, determine resource shortfalls, 

and make resource allocations. Units were evaluated in the areas of 

personnel, command and control, equipment, sustainment/logistics, 

training, leadership, operational effectiveness, and reliability, including 

how militia and sectarian influences affected the loyalty and reliability of 

Iraqi police and military forces. Further information on the results of these 

assessments is classified. 

For Pakistan, DOD reported that, since March 2009, the Strategic 

Implementation Plan has been the principal mechanism for monitoring and 

assessing the administration’s progress in attaining the core Pakistanrelated objectives of the President’s Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, which 

include developing the counterinsurgency capabilities of Pakistan’s Frontier 

Corps and army.13 Although details of these and supporting assessments 

are classified, DOD reported that a series of events beginning in late 2010 

heightened bilateral tension between the United States and Pakistan. 

Pakistan’s military subsequently requested significant reductions in U.S. 

military personnel in Pakistan. According to the report, the reduced number 

of U.S. military personnel and trainers, along with continued delays in 

obtaining visas, hindered the United States’ provision of security-related 

assistance to Pakistan. As a result, the progress achieved since 2010 in 

training, advising, and equipping Pakistan security forces has eroded, 

particularly in the area of counterinsurgency effectiveness for tactical- and 

operational-level combat forces. 

 

12The Iraqi security forces comprised the Ministry of Defense forces—that is, the Iraqi 

Army, Navy, Air Force, and several Strategic Infrastructure Battalions—and the forces of 

the Ministry of Interior that included the police, border enforcement, and other Iraqi civilian 

security services. See GAO, Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq: Key Issues for 

Congressional Oversight, GAO-07-308SP (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 9, 2007), and 

Stabilizing Iraq: Factors Impeding the Development of Capable Iraqi Security Forces, 

GAO-07-612T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 2007. 

13The Strategic Implementation Plan is developed by the National Security Staff and 

prepared on a quarterly basis. DOD, Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in 

Pakistan (October 2011). 
Page 15 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Although DOD is assessing ANP’s operational performance, the 

department recently reported it lacked data to assess civil policing 

effectiveness. According to a DOD October 2011 report, DOD uses the 

same report template to assess ANA’s and ANP’s ability to meet their 

counterinsurgency mission, but it does not address civil policing and the 

other roles and responsibilities of ANP.14 In 2008, we reported that the 

deterioration of Afghanistan’s security situation since 2005 had led to 

increased ANP involvement in counterinsurgency operations, resulting in 

additional training in weapons and survival skills and counterinsurgency 

tactics.15

DOD reported that it plans to create a separate ANP report template that 

will include data on law enforcement operations in 2012. According to the 

DOD report, the ANP report template will provide data on community 

policing and law enforcement operations (see table 2). For example, DOD 

plans to include questions in the ANP report template that will assess the 

extent to which ANP units are recording complaints from the public.

We also reported that ANP’s role is to enforce the rule of law, 

protect the rights of citizens, maintain civil order and public safety, control 

national borders, and reduce the level of domestic and international 

organized crime, among other activities. In its report, DOD acknowledged 

that transitioning ANP’s role from performing counterinsurgency 

operations to a community police force that interacts with the population 

will be challenging, especially in contested areas.

 

14DOD, Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan. 

15GAO, Afghanistan Security: U.S. Efforts to Develop Capable Afghan Police Forces Face 

Challenges and Need a Coordinated, Detailed Plan to Help Ensure Accountability, 

GAO-08-833T (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2008).

DOD Reported It Lacks 

Data on Civil Policing 

Effectiveness for 

Afghanistan, but Plans to 

Expand Its Assessment 

Process to Include Such 

Data
Page 16 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Table 2: Examples of Proposed DOD Reporting Questions and Metrics for ANP Units

Reporting questions Metrics

Is there a system in place for the unit to record complaints 

from members of the public?

Number of complaints recorded during the reporting period

Is the unit taking people into custody? Presence of system to record arrests, number of arrests recorded 

during the reporting period

Is the unit referring cases to the justice system? Number of cases referred to the formal justice system, number of 

cases referred to the informal justice systema

Has the unit seized property during the reporting period? Number of incidents related to narcotics seizures; number of 

incidents related to weapons seizures; number of incidents related to 

other property seizures including money, valuables, and vehicles

Does the unit have a secure facility to store seized property? Recording of seized property

Does the unit have contact with the local population aside 

from incident response or checkpoint control?

Frequency of interactions with the local populationb

Source: GAO analysis of International Police Coordination Board data.

a

The formal justice system is administered by the government of Afghanistan and includes the (1) 

Central Provincial Primary Court, (2) Juveniles Court, (3) Commercial Primary Court, (4) District 

Primary Court, and (5) Family Issues Primary Court. The informal justice system includes judgments 

by tribal and religious leaders. 

b

ANP units’ interactions reported through the ANP report template will include community patrolling, 

community outreach programs, and school visits. 

In developing the new template, DOD is working with the International 

Police Coordination Board (IPCB), according to the department’s report. 

First established in the Afghanistan Compact at the London Conference 

in 2006, IPCB serves as the main coordination board for police reform in 

Afghanistan. Upon its establishment, IPCB had 13 member nations, 

including the United States. To increase DOD’s ability to assess civil 

policing effectiveness, IPCB has established a partnership with the 

International Security Assistance Force-Joint Command.16

 

16The International Security Assistance Force-Joint Command is responsible for 

operations throughout Afghanistan. It conducts operations to neutralize the insurgency in 

specific areas and supports improved governance and development.

According to 

the DOD report, IPCB is assisting DOD by having law enforcement 

professionals report data in its report template, and DOD is assisting 

IPCB by sharing current and historical ANP data. IPCB has also assisted 

DOD with drafting targeted questions that will be used within the ANP 

report template to provide data on the ANP units’ ability to conduct law 

enforcement operations, which we defined earlier.
Page 17 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

State/INL issued guidelines in June 2010 that recommended conducting 

evaluations. These guidelines were developed in response to the 

Secretary of State’s June 2009 directive for systematic evaluation and to 

promote a culture change among program offices that included support 

for conducting evaluations, according to State/INL officials. The bureau’s 

guidelines recommend that State/INL programs have 

 a defined strategy and written performance management plan that 

identifies performance measures, including indicators and targets, and 

establishes an approach for evaluation; 

 program implementation documents such as letters of agreement, 

interagency agreements, and contracts that specify State/INL, host 

country, and implementing partner responsibilities for conducting 

evaluations; and 

 budget proposals for programs that identify funding for evaluations as 

a separate item.17

State/INL guidelines for monitoring and evaluation also identify the types 

of evaluations that should be performed and the timing for them based on 

project length and budget. For example: 

 Projects shorter than 2 years may focus on output metrics such as the 

number of trained and equipped law enforcement personnel. 

 Projects longer than 2 years or greater than $25 million must evaluate 

outcomes and impacts.18

 Programs that have a life cycle longer than 5 years or exceed $5 

million should conduct one or more midterm evaluations, as well as a 

final evaluation. 

 

17According to its guidelines, program funds can be used for activities that improve 

program performance, such as midterm evaluations, while program design and support 

funds should be used for final evaluations. 

18State/INL officials reported that several projects below this threshold have both output 

and outcome metrics. These thresholds were established because of budget constraints 

so that limited evaluation resources would focus on higher-visibility programs. 

State/INL Has Conducted 

Limited Evaluation of Its 

Foreign Police Assistance 

Activities 
Page 18 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Programs that exceed $25 million must conduct periodic midterm 

evaluations and a final evaluation. To leverage external expertise for 

programs exceeding $25 million, State/INL has recommended final 

evaluations be conducted by an independent party.

As a key component of effective program management, evaluation 

assesses how well a program is working and helps managers make 

informed decisions about current and future programming.19 Evaluation 

provides an overall assessment of whether a program works and 

identifies adjustments that may improve its results. Types of evaluation 

include process (or implementation), outcome, impact, and cost-benefit 

and cost-effectiveness analyses.20

The bureau has conducted only one evaluation of a program that includes 

foreign police assistance activities because it lacked guidelines and a 

culture among program offices that supported evaluation, according to 

State/INL officials. For State/INL’s one outcome evaluation, State/INL 

reported that the U.S. Embassy, Beirut, hired a contractor to evaluate its 

training program for the Lebanese Internal Security Forces between 

November 2010 and May 2011.

First, process (or implementation) 

evaluation assesses the extent to which a program is operating as it was 

intended. Second, outcome evaluation assesses the extent to which 

program goals or targets are met. Third, impact evaluation is a form of 

outcome evaluation that assesses the net effect of a program by 

comparing program outcomes with an estimate of what would have 

happened in the absence of the program. Finally, cost-benefit and costeffectiveness analyses compare a program’s outputs or outcomes with 

the costs to produce them.

21

 

19GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, 

The purpose of the evaluation was to 

assess if the training had been successful, as well as to provide 

recommendations for its improvement. The final report was submitted to 

State/INL in June 2011. It identified what elements of the program worked 

and why the training failed to achieve its higher-order objectives. For 

GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996).

20For detailed descriptions, see GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation, 

GAO-11-646SP (Washington D.C.: May 2011). 

21State/INL Lebanon program goals included developing the Internal Security Forces into 

a competent, professional, and democratic police force with the necessary training, 

equipment, and institutional capacity to enforce the rule of law in Lebanon. 
Page 19 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

example, the evaluators noted that the police training program had 

trained over 5,000 Lebanese Internal Security Forces personnel and that 

the training had been largely effective. However, the report concluded 

that the design of the training was not informed by a systematic 

assessment of training needs and engagement from the Lebanese 

Internal Security Forces during the planning process.

In response to State’s February 2012 Evaluation Policy, State/INL is 

developing its annual evaluation plan, according to State/INL officials. 

The new policy requires that (1) all large programs, projects, and activities 

be evaluated at least once in their lifetime or every 5 years, whichever is 

less; (2) bureaus determine which programs, projects, or activities to 

evaluate; (3) bureaus evaluate two to four projects, programs, or activities 

over the 24-month period beginning with fiscal year 2012; and (4) 

program managers identify up to 3 to 5 percent of their resources for 

evaluation activities. State/INL officials said the bureau will assess its 

guidelines to ensure they are consistent with State’s policy and 

incorporate them into its annual evaluation plan.

State/INL officials said that the bureau is implementing its monitoring and 

evaluation guidelines in phases beginning with its largest programs in Iraq 

and Mexico.22

State/INL officials identified numerous goals, functions, objectives, tasks, 

and indicators for the bureau’s Police Development Program in Iraq. For 

example:

Other priority programs for independent external 

evaluations include Afghanistan, Colombia, the Palestinian Territories, 

and Pakistan. For Iraq, State/INL officials said they have established a 

three-person monitoring and evaluation unit for the bureau’s Police 

Development Program. The unit recently used its civilian police advisers 

to conduct a baseline assessment of Iraqi law enforcement capabilities 

and is relying on advice from State/INL’s Office of Resource 

Management. For example, the office is assisting the unit with developing 

program objectives and performance measures to ensure they are 

specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely.

 

22According to the bureau’s Fiscal Year 2013 Strategic Resource Plan, the bureau is 

implementing a monitoring and evaluation strategy that will focus on continuing 

State/INL’s rigorous internal monitoring processes and expanding the bureau’s use of 

independent external evaluations.

State/INL Is Developing an 

Evaluation Plan That Is 

Consistent with State’s 

Evaluation Policy
Page 20 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

• Goal: Iraq’s Police Training Systems provide basic and advanced 

instruction to impart the skills required while promoting community 

policing, gender, and human rights.

• Function: Community Policing/Community Relations—Police 

specifically trained in establishing and maintaining positive 

relationships between the law enforcement agency and the public for 

the purpose of identifying and solving crimes, enhancing public 

service, and building community trust in the police.

• Objective: Ministry of Interior establishes Community Policing Training

• Task 1: Review existing curriculum for community policing 

training.

• Task 2: Assist General Directorate for Training Qualification as 

requested to ensure community policing curriculum adopts and 

integrates international human rights standards in terms of police 

service delivery.

State/INL’s program office for Mexico has dedicated $3 million in fiscal 

year 2011 funds to conduct evaluations of its programs and is in the 

process of identifying contracting mechanisms to complete them, 

including institutions of higher education in Mexico.

U.S. agencies have implemented various mechanisms to coordinate their 

foreign police assistance activities as part of wider foreign assistance 

activities. Such mechanisms include (1) interagency policy committees 

chaired by the National Security Council (NSC) that coordinate policies at 

a high level; (2) headquarters working groups established to coordinate 

specific issues, such as antiterrorism and nonproliferation; (3) various 

working groups at the overseas posts; and (4) special positions to 

coordinate foreign police assistance activities. However, we noted some 

areas for improvement, including lack of defined agency roles and 

responsibilities and inconsistent information sharing.

U.S. Agencies 

Coordinate Foreign 

Police Assistance 

Activities, but Some 

Areas for 

Improvement Exist
Page 21 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Interagency groups at various levels coordinate policy, guidance, and 

activities related to assistance to foreign police. NSC coordinates policies 

at the highest level of government through interagency policy committees. 

For example, an NSC-led interagency policy committee on security sector 

assistance, which includes assistance to foreign police, is conducting a 

policy review of the security sector. This committee does not conduct 

coordination or oversight of the actual provision of assistance. One of the 

goals of the committee is to define the roles and missions of U.S. 

agencies providing such assistance. The committee is also attempting to 

establish interagency goals and guidelines to better shape, integrate, 

prioritize, and evaluate U.S. government efforts in this sector. The review 

of security sector assistance was proposed for a variety of reasons 

related to a desire to improve the integration, effectiveness, and 

responsiveness of security sector assistance, including a proposal by 

Secretary of Defense Gates, according to a U.S. Institute for Peace 

report.23 In addition, according to a State official, the committee was 

established as a result of NSC concerns about DOD’s increasing role in 

providing foreign assistance. According to officials of agencies 

participating in the committee, membership includes NSC, Office of 

Management and Budget, DOD, State, USAID, Treasury, DOJ, and DHS. 

The attendees are usually assistant secretaries or deputy assistant 

secretaries. Working-level officials participate in subgroups such as those 

on roles and responsibilities. The table below provides examples of 

various coordination mechanisms.

 

23United States Institute of Peace, Institutionalizing Security Sector Reform (Washington, 

D.C. October 2010).

The United States Has 

Implemented Mechanisms 

at Headquarters and 

Overseas Posts to 

Coordinate Foreign Police 

Assistance Policy, 

Guidance, and Activities
Page 22 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Table 3: Examples of Coordination Mechanisms for Activities That Include U.S. Foreign Police Assistance 

Lead organization Coordination mechanism Examples

National Security 

Council 

Interagency policy committees 

serve as the primary day-to-day 

forums for interagency 

coordination of national security 

policy. 

Interagency policy committee on security sector assistance, which 

coordinates security sector assistance policy and guidance.

There have also been committees on countries of high U.S. national 

interest, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Mexico.

Department of State Bureaus and offices coordinate 

specific activities. 

State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation coordinates 

the activities of U.S. government departments and agencies carrying out 

programs for achieving nonproliferation and threat reduction, such as 

providing detection training and equipment to overseas law enforcement 

agencies.

State’s Office of the Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan 

chairs Washington-based interagency working groups on 

counternarcotics and counter-improvised explosive devices for Pakistan. 

U.S. embassies Country team led by the 

ambassador or the deputy chief 

of mission and various formal 

and informal interagency 

working groups coordinates the 

activities of U.S. agencies 

overseas. 

Special positions established at 

posts coordinate activities that 

include foreign police 

assistance.

Bogotá, Colombia

Homeland Security Group coordinates foreign police assistance 

activities. Participants include Narcotics Affairs Section; the Regional 

Security Office; DEA; FBI; and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

at the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá, Colombia.

Mexico City, Mexico

Law Enforcement Committee coordinates the activities of all U.S. 

agencies and organizations involved in counternarcotics and law 

enforcement activities in Mexico. Participants include the Narcotics 

Affairs Section, USAID; DEA; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives; FBI, and the United States Marshals Service; DOJ; 

Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement; Customs and Border 

Protection; and DOD.

Palestinian Territories

Rule-of-law working group holds regular meetings that include relevant 

agencies in Jerusalem and representatives from Embassy Tel Aviv.

Kabul, Afghanistan

Coordinating Director for Rule of Law and Law Enforcement reports to 

the Ambassador and is the lead U.S. representative for policy.

Baghdad, Iraq

Assistant Chief of Mission for Law Enforcement Affairs coordinates all 

foreign police training activities through the embassy’s law enforcement 

working group, which meets weekly. This position was created in July 

2011.

Islamabad, Pakistan

Foreign Assistance Coordinator under the direct supervision of the 

Ambassador and the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in 

Pakistan coordinates the efforts of all agencies and offices providing 

civilian assistance.

Source: GAO analysis of State information.
Page 23 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

In addition, for Iraq, from 2009 through the end of 2011, the key 

mechanism for managing the transfer of responsibilities from DOD to 

State was the Iraq Enduring Presence Working Group composed of 

individuals from offices in Baghdad and Washington, D.C. In addition to 

this working group, the embassy’s management section operated an 

interagency structure composed of 13 sub-working groups that covered 

all major areas of the transition—provincial affairs, police training, 

security, and administrative and support initiatives.

According to State, DOD, DOJ, and DHS officials, the interagency policy 

committee on security sector assistance has met sporadically since its 

inception, which has contributed to delays in issuing a final report and 

associated recommendations that would address the roles and 

responsibilities of the various agencies and provide overall U.S. 

government policy guidance on security sector assistance. Agreeing on 

roles and responsibilities is a key practice that can enhance interagency 

collaboration.24

Several issues related to roles and responsibilities under discussion 

among the agencies have also contributed to the delayed completion of a 

final report and recommendations, according to State, DOD, DOJ, and 

DHS officials. One such issue is the role of DOJ and DHS in 

implementing security sector assistance. According to the DOJ officials, 

DOJ should have a greater role in this process. Such a role is consistent 

with the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review,

According to State, DOD, USAID, and DOJ officials, the 

committee began meeting sometime in 2009 but stopped in December 

2010. A State/INL official said the committee reconvened in June 2011 

and met or provided documents for review weekly through September. 

The committee met for a final session to review conclusions and policy 

recommendations in April 2012. State and DOD officials stated that they 

reviewed and commented on a draft policy directive on roles and 

responsibilities that was issued in 2011 and one that was issued in early 

2012. Agencies reviewed proposed draft policy on roles and missions in 

April 2012 for final review. State officials attributed the lack of regular 

meetings to National Security Staff turnover and workload issues.

25

 

24GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, 

which 

GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

25State’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review is an assessment of the 

diplomacy and development missions of State and USAID.

NSC-Led Interagency 

Policy Committee Has Not 

Defined Roles and 

Responsibilities
Page 24 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

directs State to look first to DOJ, DHS, and DOD to implement State 

programs involving counterterrorism capacity building, foreign law 

enforcement, or strengthening justice and interior ministries, according to 

the DOJ officials. However, the DOJ officials said the issue was not 

resolved and committee discussions primarily concerned the 

responsibilities and authorities of State and DOD. According to a DHS 

official, DHS also asserts that State should consider DHS when allocating 

security sector assistance funding rather than relying on contractors to 

provide that assistance. According to a State official, State is reluctant to 

expand the authorities of other agencies to administer security sector 

assistance activities. The second issue concerns the roles and 

responsibilities of State when DOD provides security assistance, 

according to State, DOD, and DOJ officials. Specifically, according to a 

State official, State generally seeks to preserve its legislated role as the 

lead agency providing foreign assistance. Additionally, according to the 

official, State generally seeks the ability to concur on the provision of 

assistance by DOD to ensure assistance activities are consistent with 

broader foreign policy goals

While State and DOD had mechanisms to manage the transition from 

DOD to a State-led police development program in Iraq, they did not 

consistently share information. Establishing collaborative mechanisms to 

share information with partners is also a key practice for enhancing and 

sustaining interagency collaboration.26

 

26GAO, Interagency Collaboration: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight of National 

Security Strategies, Organizations, Workforce, and Information Sharing, 

Moreover, timely dissemination of 

information is critical for maintaining national security. The key 

mechanism for managing the transition was the Iraq Enduring Presence 

Working Group, composed of individuals from offices in Baghdad and 

Washington, D.C. In addition, the 2010 Joint Campaign Plan for Iraq—a 

strategic document composed and approved by top State and DOD 

officials in Iraq—included tasks State would need to consider as part of 

the transition. Despite these mechanisms, there was inconsistent and 

incomplete sharing of operational readiness assessments of the Iraqi 

police by DOD. Though State requested official copies of these 

assessments, DOD did not provide them. According to a former DOD 

civilian police adviser, DOD destroyed the database that contained the 

assessments of the Iraqi police forces during the transition, because it 

GAO-09-904SP 

(Washington, D.C., Sept. 25, 2009).

Overseas Posts Do Not 

Always Document 

Information Sharing
Page 25 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

had completed its mission to train the Iraqi police. As a result, State 

developed a baseline assessment of Iraqi law enforcement capabilities 

without the benefit of DOD’s assessments.

Moreover, overseas posts do not consistently document or share the 

results of their coordination efforts. In 2009, we reported that information 

is a crucial tool in national security and its timely dissemination is critical 

for maintaining national security.27 However, State/INL officials stated that 

overseas posts do not provide documentation of the results of their 

coordination efforts. In addition, several State Inspector General reports 

have discussed the need for agendas and minutes for interagency 

groups, including in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Mexico. For example, the 

Inspector General reported that although the working group at the U.S. 

embassy in Colombia concisely addressed law enforcement issues during 

these meetings, there was no published agenda or minutes of these 

proceedings.28 In another case, while the law enforcement working group 

at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad issues minutes to the embassy 

executive office, it does not necessarily share them with headquarters.29

The Deputy Chief of Mission for the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá, Colombia, 

acknowledged that the Homeland Security Group did not record the 

results of its coordination but stated that it will begin to issue an agenda 

and minutes for the meetings. The failure of overseas posts to document 

and disseminate their coordination efforts may hamper the agencies’ 

ability to have all the information they need to analyze the results of their 

foreign police assistance activities.

Foreign partners’ counterinsurgency, counternarcotics, counterterrorism, 

and anticrime capabilities are critical to U.S. national security objectives. 

As such, interagency collaboration is essential to ensuring that U.S. 

agencies effectively and efficiently manage the resources they contribute 

to training and equipping foreign police forces. However, U.S. 

government agencies lack clearly defined roles and responsibilities for 

 

27GAO-09-904SP. 

28State Office of Inspector General, Inspection of Embassy Bogotá, Colombia, ISP-I-11-

41A (June 2011); Inspection of Embassy Kabul, Afghanistan, ISP-I-10-32A (February 

2010); Inspection of Embassy Mexico City, Mexico; ISP-I-09-21A (April 2009).

29Office of the Inspector General, Embassy Islamabad and Constituent Posts, Pakistan, 

ISP-I-10-64 (June 2010).

Conclusions
Page 26 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

providing security sector assistance, including assistance to foreign police 

forces. While NSC has been tasked with leading efforts to define 

agencies’ roles and responsibilities, progress to date has stalled. U.S. 

agencies providing foreign police assistance need to define and agree on 

their roles and responsibilities to ensure that they make the most rational 

decisions about U.S. efforts to enhance foreign police forces’ capability. 

In addition, the lack of information sharing and documentation among 

agencies at some overseas posts providing foreign police assistance can 

inhibit the effectiveness of future U.S. assistance efforts.

To better prioritize, evaluate, and avoid duplication of U.S. efforts to 

provide foreign police assistance, we recommend that NSC complete its 

efforts to define agency roles and responsibilities.

To ensure that information is available for future U.S. foreign police 

assistance efforts, we recommend that the Secretaries of Defense and 

State establish mechanisms to better share and document information 

among various U.S. agencies.

We provided a draft of this report to DOD, State, DOE, USAID, Treasury, 

DOJ, DHS, and NSC. State and DHS provided written comments which 

are reproduced in appendices VI and VII. DOD provided comments by email. In addition, State, DOD, DOE, Treasury, DOJ, and NSC provided 

technical comments that were incorporated as appropriate. USAID noted

that it had no comments.

NSC did not comment on the report’s recommendations. DOD concurred

with the report’s recommendation to establish mechanisms to better 

share and document information among various U.S. agencies. State 

partially concurred and described actions it was continuing to take to 

collaborate with other federal agencies. State noted that it will work with 

its interagency partners to identify ways to improve the sharing of best 

practices and lessons learned concerning U.S. foreign police assistance 

efforts. DHS noted that it remains committed to continuing its work with 

interagency partners such as the U.S. Department of Justice and other 

relevant agencies. This includes work to better define agency roles and 

responsibilities, as appropriate.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and our Evaluation
Page 27 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from 

the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries 

of Defense, State, Energy, Homeland Security; and the Treasury; the 

Attorney General; the Administrator of USAID; the Executive Secretary of 

the National Security Council; and interested congressional committees. 

The report will also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

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

our Offices of Public Affairs and Congressional Relations may be found 

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

this report are listed in appendix IX. 

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. 

Director 

International Affairs and Trade 
Appendix I: Scope and 

Methodology28605/9/2012

Page 28 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

To identify U.S. agencies that trained and equipped foreign police forces 

during fiscal years 2009 through 2011, we reviewed past GAO reports, 

relevant legislation, and agency websites. To identify the amount of U.S. 

government funding made available for foreign police training and 

equipment activities, we examined past GAO reports; congressional 

budget submissions, including the Department of State’s (State) Bureau 

of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs’ (State/INL) 

program and budget guides for fiscal year 2011; the Afghanistan Security 

Forces Fund fiscal year 2012 congressional budget justification; and the 

Department of Defense (DOD) fiscal year 2012 congressional budget 

justification and other budget documents. To identify countries and police 

assistance activities, we reviewed funding amounts reported to GAO by 

agencies, the fiscal year 2012 budget appendix, congressional budget 

submissions, agency annual reports, interagency agreements, and other 

program documents. We also interviewed officials from the Departments 

of Defense, State, and Energy (DOE); the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID; and the Departments of the Treasury, Justice 

(DOJ), and Homeland Security (DHS). We collected data for fiscal year 

2010 and fiscal year 2011 to update foreign police assistance funding 

information provided in our prior report.1

We used the same definition of police assistance that we used in the 

previous report. We defined police training and equipment activities (which 

we referred to as “police assistance”) as all training—regardless of its 

content—and equipment provided to law enforcement units or personnel 

with arrest, investigative, or interdiction authority. Officials from the Office of 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global 

Threats (DASD-CN>) updated information on DOD police assistance 

from fiscal year 2009 for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 using the definition we 

developed with State. DASD-CN> has oversight of program funding 

through a web-based database. However, specific funds for police 

assistance are managed at the combatant command level. The data 

DASD-CN> compiled included allotments for fiscal years 2010 and 

2011 that were provided by combatant commands for training and 

equipping activities. Using our definition, DOD’s Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency provided funding data based on allotments from DOD’s 

defensewide operations and maintenance account. We also obtained total 

 

1

GAO, Multiple U.S. Agencies Provided Billions of Dollars to Train and Equip Foreign 

Police Forces, GAO-11-402R (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 2011).

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and 

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

amounts made available after reprogramming for Afghanistan, Iraq, and 

Pakistan from the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, Iraq Security Forces 

Fund, and Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund from the Comptroller’s Office 

in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We reviewed these figures along 

with congressional budget justifications and DOD’s fourth quarter, fiscal 

year 2011 report to Congress on the Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistan Security 

Forces, as required by Section 9009 of DOD’s Appropriation Act for fiscal 

year 2011. We combined data from all funding sources to derive the DOD 

total. We included funding for equipment and transportation, training, and 

sustainment. We excluded any infrastructure costs because such costs are 

not typical of most police assistance activities. We compared the DOD data 

for reasonableness of the reported information and questioned DOD 

officials about their methodology and the reliability of the data. Some of the 

data may have included both military and civilian police personnel, which 

might result in overestimating DOD funding. However, for fiscal years 2010 

and 2011, the majority of DOD funds (over 90 percent) were provided 

through the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, Iraq Security Forces Fund, 

and Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, which separate funds provided to 

military and civilian personnel. To identify any discrepancies in the funding 

data, we compared the data from fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 with 

that provided for fiscal year 2009. We reconciled discrepancies with the 

agencies and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes.

State/INL analyzed data reported in its annual program and budget 

guides to provide allocations for police-assistance activities that fit our 

definition. The funding data covered all country programs funded through 

the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) 

account directed to law enforcement, stabilization operations, 

counternarcotics, border control, and transnational crime. State also used 

the definition to identify police assistance funded through other foreign 

assistance accounts. State analyzed appropriations and obligations 

funding data from the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking 

System database, which tracks data on U.S. foreign assistance 

programs. Allotments or allocations were provided for the Assistance for 

Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia account and the Nonproliferation, 

Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs account. State also 

provided obligations for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, 

which received funds transferred from DOD’s Pakistan 

Counterinsurgency Fund, and allotments from funding transferred from 
Appendix I: Scope and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

DOD to State under Section 1207 authority of the fiscal year 2006 

National Defense Authorization Act.2

DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration provided allotments and 

obligations funding data for police assistance for fiscal year 2010 and 

fiscal year 2011 in response to our request for funding data based on our 

definition. DOE’s funds were made available from its Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation account. USAID reviewed the Foreign Assistance 

Coordination and Tracking System database by program element to 

identify programs that might have a civilian policing component. USAID 

then consulted with its geographic bureaus and its overseas missions to 

obtain detailed data not available at headquarters. USAID provided us 

with funding data based on allotments for activities that included civilian 

police training. We reviewed the data for reasonableness and discussed 

their reliability with agency officials. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We excluded programs that did not 

meet our definition, such as judicial exchanges. Treasury provided 

appropriations funding for police assistance from its Economic Crimes 

division for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 in response to our request for 

funding data based on our definition. Funds were made available from the 

Treasury International Affairs Technical Assistance account and included 

supplemental funding provided during fiscal year 2010.

We compared State’s data for fiscal 

year 2009 with data for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for reasonableness. 

We also questioned State officials about their methodology, reviewed the 

program and budget guides, reviewed other GAO reports that used the 

same data sources, and discussed data reliability with agency officials. 

We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

We combined the data from the various funding accounts to derive the 

State total. The State data included funding provided to Treasury, DOJ, 

and DHS. It excluded funding provided to State from other agencies, with 

the exception of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund and 1207 

funds transferred from DOD. We excluded any infrastructure costs 

because such costs are not typical of most police assistance activities.

 

2

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163, 

Jan. 6, 2006. 
Appendix I: Scope and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

For DOJ, we used funding data provided by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The 

FBI explained that the primary purpose of its foreign police training is not 

to provide ‘foreign assistance. Rather, the primary purpose of such 

training is to further the FBI’s statutorily authorized mission to detect, 

investigate, and prosecute crimes against the United States, which 

include federal crimes of terrorism and other crimes that the FBI is 

authorized to investigate extraterritorially. FBI provided funding data using 

its definition of police assistance: any activity, including the provision of 

equipment in association therewith, that is intended to develop or 

enhance foreign law enforcement capabilities to prevent, deter, detect, 

investigate, or respond to criminal or terrorist acts or support public safety 

and security. Such training occurs both in the United States and abroad. 

FBI officials explained that our definition would exclude some types of law 

enforcement personnel, such as crime lab technicians, who do not have 

arrest authority, and that they could not isolate such individuals from their 

submission. FBI provided data on obligations that were also disbursed 

based on its definition. This definition did not materially affect the total 

amount of U.S. funding. We reviewed the data for reasonableness and 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. DEA 

provided data on obligations that were also disbursed in response to our 

request for data based on our definition. DEA provided funding data by 

country for Afghanistan, Colombia, and Mexico, but neither DEA nor FBI 

provided total funding data by country.

We combined the funding data provided by DOD, State, DOE, USAID, 

Treasury, and DOJ to obtain total U.S. government funds made available. 

The amounts are estimates because, according to agency officials, 

agencies do not generally track funding by a category specifically for 

activities to train and equip foreign police. In addition, to estimate funding 

for all elements of police training, the agencies relied on project code 

reports, manual estimates, and data calls to overseas posts. On the basis 

of our review of the data and discussions with agency officials, we 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for a broad estimate of 

U.S. government funding.

To assess the extent to which DOD and State/INL report on the results of 

their police assistance activities for countries with their largest programs, 

we reviewed GAO reports, including those that examined the capabilities 

of the Iraqi Security Forces and Afghan National Security Forces, 

including the Iraqi national police and Afghan National Police (ANP). We 

also reviewed DOD’s October 2011 Report on Progress toward Security 

and Stability in Afghanistan. Within DOD, we spoke with officials from 
Appendix I: Scope and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

U.S. Central Command and the Afghan National Security Forces Desk. 

Within State, we spoke with officials from relevant components about 

State/INL’s monitoring and evaluation guidelines, including the Office of 

Resource Management, Office of Program Assistance and Evaluation, 

Office of Iraq Programs, and the Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan. To 

identify reporting requirements, we reviewed letters of agreement and 

interagency agreements provided by State/INL. Further, we reviewed 

relevant documents including State/INL guidelines for program monitoring 

and evaluation and one evaluation completed by State/INL for its police 

assistance activities.

To examine the mechanisms U.S. agencies use to coordinate their police 

assistance activities, we reviewed GAO reports, including those 

describing practices for enhanced interagency collaboration;3

We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 through May 2012 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our work objectives.

State Office 

of Inspector General reports; and other reports, legislation, and 

documents describing NSC’s interagency policy committees. We also 

interviewed State, DOD, DOJ, DHS, Treasury, and USAID officials, 

including officials who participated on the NSC Security Sector 

Assistance Interagency Policy Committee. We also interviewed State and 

U.S. law enforcement officials at the U.S. embassies in Bogotá, 

Colombia, and Lima, Peru. On the basis of the document review and the 

testimonial evidence, we identified mechanisms for coordinating foreign 

police assistance and areas for improvement. We did not assess the 

overall effectiveness of the coordinating mechanisms.

 

3

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

201133605/9/2012

Page 33 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

This appendix provides information on DOD and State funds made 

available for police assistance activities during fiscal years 2010 and 

2011, by region and country. DOD and State funds constituted about 98 

percent of U.S. funds for these purposes.1

Our analysis of DOD and State data shows that both DOD and State 

made available funds for police assistance activities in 8 of 12 recipient 

countries in the South and Central Asia region for fiscal years 2010 and 

2011 (see fig. 5). For Afghanistan, agencies made available more than $3 

billion each year, and for Pakistan, agencies made available between 

$176 million and $299 million each year. Agencies made available less 

than $10 million per country each year for 8 of the remaining 10 countries.

We did not include funds made 

available from other agencies because they provided only 2 percent of 

U.S. funds and not all agencies provided information by individual 

countries. These graphs also do not include regional funds, which totaled 

$182 million for DOD and State in fiscal year 2010 and $186 million for 

DOD and State in fiscal year 2011.

 

1

DOD and State funds made available for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 included allotments, 

allocations, and obligations.

Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region 

and Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011

Page 34 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Figure 5: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in South and Central Asia, by Country, Fiscal 

Years 2010 and 2011

Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. 
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011

Page 35 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

As shown in figure 6, both DOD and State made funds available for police 

assistance activities in 3 of the 13 recipients in the Near East for fiscal 

year 2010 and 4 of the 13 recipients in the Near East for fiscal year 2011. 

State alone made assistance available for 10 recipients in fiscal year 

2010 and 9 recipients in fiscal year 2011. State and DOD made available 

more than $972 million for Iraq in fiscal year 2010 to train and equip the 

Iraqi security forces, including the provision of equipment, supplies, 

services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, and renovation. State 

alone made available $97 million and $142 million to the Palestinian 

Territories in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, respectively. Agencies made 

available less than $10 million per country in each fiscal year for 9 of the 

remaining 11 countries.
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011

Page 36 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Figure 6: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in the Near East, by Country, Fiscal Years 

2010 and 2011

Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. 
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011

Page 37 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Figure 7 shows that both DOD and State made funds available for police 

assistance activities in 7 of 20 countries in fiscal year 2010 and in 6 of 18 

countries in fiscal year 2011 in the Western Hemisphere. DOD alone 

made funds available for assistance in 7 countries each fiscal year, while 

State alone made funds available in 6 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 5 

countries in fiscal year 2011. In fiscal year 2010, Colombia, Mexico, and 

Haiti each had more than $100 million made available for police 

assistance activities, while in fiscal year 2011, only Colombia had more 

than $100 million made available. In fiscal year 2010, agencies made less 

than $10 million available in police assistance for 14 countries, and in 

fiscal year 2011, agencies made less than $10 million available in police 

assistance for 13 countries.
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011

Page 38 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Figure 7: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in the Western Hemisphere, by Country, 

Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011

Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. 
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011

Page 39 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Figure 8 shows that both DOD and State made available police 

assistance in 11 of 21 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 10 of 20 countries 

in fiscal year 2011 in Europe and Eurasia. DOD alone made assistance 

available to 7 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 5 countries in fiscal year 

2011, while State alone made assistance available to 3 countries in fiscal 

year 2010 and 5 countries in fiscal year 2011. In fiscal year 2010, 

agencies made available between $1 million and $22 million in police 

assistance to each of 11 countries, while agencies made available less 

than $1 million to each of 10 countries. In fiscal year 2011, agencies 

made available between $1 million and $8 million in police assistance to 

12 countries, while agencies made available less than $1 million to each 

of 8 countries.
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011

Page 40 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Figure 8: Estimated DOD and State Funding for Police Assistance in Europe and Eurasia, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011

Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. 
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011

Page 41 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

As shown in figure 9, both DOD and State made police assistance 

available in the Africa region in 12 of 29 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 

12 of 35 countries in fiscal year 2011. DOD alone made assistance 

available in 6 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 16 countries in fiscal year 

2011. State alone made assistance available in 11 countries in fiscal year 

2010 and 7 countries in fiscal year 2011. DOD and State made available 

between $1 million and $14 million to each of 16 countries in fiscal year 

2010, and from $1 million to $11 million to each of 13 countries in fiscal 

year 2011. Agencies made less than $1 million available to each of 13 

countries in fiscal year 2010 and less than $1 million to 22 countries in 

this region in fiscal year 2011.
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011

Page 42 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Figure 9: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in Africa, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011

Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. 
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011

Page 43 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. 
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011

Page 44 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Figure 10 shows that both DOD and State made funds available for police 

assistance in 6 of 12 countries for fiscal year 2010 and 6 of 14 countries 

for fiscal year 2011 in the East Asia and Pacific region. DOD alone made 

assistance available in 3 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 5 countries in 

fiscal year 2011, while State alone made funds available in 3 countries 

each fiscal year. DOD and State made between $1 million to $16 million 

available to each of 6 countries in this region in fiscal year 2010 and 5 

countries in fiscal year 2011. Agencies made less than $1 million 

available in police assistance to 6 countries in fiscal year 2010 and 9 

countries in fiscal year 2011.
Appendix II: DOD and State Funds Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Region and 

Country, Fiscal Years 2010 and 

2011

Page 45 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Figure 10: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Police Assistance in East Asia and the Pacific, by Country, 

Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011

Note: Totals may not sum because of rounding. 
Appendix III: DOD and State Amounts Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Account, 

Fiscal Years 2010 and 201146605/9/2012

Page 46 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

This appendix provides information on DOD and State amounts made 

available for police assistance activities by account during fiscal years 

2010 and 2011 (see tables 4 and 5). For a description of accounts, see 

table 4. For the amounts made available from each account, see table 5.

Table 4: Descriptions of Select U.S. Accounts Used to Fund Foreign Police Assistance

Account Description

DOD

Afghanistan Security Forces 

Fund 

The Afghanistan Security Forces Fund provides assistance to the security forces of Afghanistan, 

including the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, 

renovation and construction, and funding.

Iraq Security Forces Fund The Iraq Security Forces Fund is for the training and equipping of Iraq security forces, including the 

provision of equipment, supplies, services, facility and infrastructure repair, and renovation.

Drug Interdiction and CounterDrug Activities, DefenseThe Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense appropriation provides funds to support 

drug interdiction and counterdrug activities of the Department of Defense.

Pakistan Counterinsurgency 

Fund 

The Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund provides assistance to Pakistan’s security forces, including 

for program management and the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training and funds, as 

well as for facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and construction to build the 

counterinsurgency capability of Pakistan’s military and Frontier Corps.

Operation and Maintenance, 

Defense-Wide

The Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide fund supports expenses, not otherwise provided 

for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the Department of 

Defense, other than military departments.

State

International Narcotics Control 

and Law Enforcement 

The International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account provides assistance to foreign 

countries and international organizations to assist them in developing and implementing policies 

and programs that strengthen institutional law enforcement and judicial capabilities, including 

countering drug flows and combating transnational crime, and establish and maintain the rule of 

law.

Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, 

Demining, and Related 

Programs 

The Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs account funds contributions 

to certain organizations supporting nonproliferation, and provides assistance for nonproliferation, 

demining, antiterrorism, export control assistance, and other related activities.

Assistance for Europe, Eurasia 

and Central Asia

The Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia account provides funds to foster the 

democratic and economic transitions of Southeastern Europe and the Independent States of the 

Former Soviet Union as well as related efforts to address social sector reform and combat 

transnational threats.

Pakistan Counterinsurgency 

Capability Fund 

The Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund is designed to build and maintain the 

counterinsurgency capabilities of Pakistan’s security forces (including the Frontier Corps), to 

include program management and the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, and 

facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and construction.

1207 Program Section 1207 of the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. No. 109-163) 

provided authority for DOD to transfer up to $100 million per fiscal year to State to support 

reconstruction, stabilization, and security activities in foreign countries. This authority has expired.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data.

Appendix III: DOD and State Amounts Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Account, 

Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011
Appendix III: DOD and State Amounts Made 

Available for Police Assistance, by Account, 

Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011

Page 47 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Table 5: Estimated DOD and State Funds Made Available for Foreign Police Assistance Activities, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011

(Dollars in millions)

 2010 2011

Agency Account

Estimated amount 

made available 

Estimated amount 

made available

DOD Afghanistan Security Forces Fund $2,917 $3,113 

Iraq Security Forces Fund 309 114 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense 175 226 

Pakistan Counterinsurgency Funda 111 0 

Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide 3 2 

DOD subtotal 3,516 3,455 

State International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement 1,774 888 

Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related 

Programs-Antiterrorism Assistance

202 182 

Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related 

Programs-Export Control and Border Security

31 36 

Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia 42 24

Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fundb 0 54

1207 Programc 31 N/A 

State subtotal 2,080 1,184

DOD and State total $5,595 $4,639 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data.

Notes: N/A = not applicable. Totals may not sum because of rounding. 

a

Seven hundred million dollars was provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act for 2009 (Pub. L. 

No. 111-32, June 24, 2009) to State under the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund and 

transferred to DOD for execution under the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund authority. Of this 

amount, DOD made available $111 million in fiscal year 2010 police assistance activities, which 

include training, equipment, and transportation funding categorized under the Frontier Corps. 

b

State’s Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund received $297 million transferred from DOD’s 

Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, which received $800 million in its fiscal year 2011 appropriation 

(Pub. L. No 112-10, April 15, 2011). Of the $297 million, $54 million has been made available and 

obligated for police assistance activities, which included providing explosive detectors and other 

equipment for the Frontier Corps. 

c

In fiscal year 2010, State made available 1207 funds transferred from DOD under Section 1207 

authority to support construction, stabilization, and security activities in foreign countries. 
Appendix IV: Profiles of Selected Countries 

Receiving Foreign Police Assistance, Fiscal 

Year 2010 and Fiscal Year 201148605/9/2012

Page 48 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Profiles on Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Mexico, and the 

Palestinian Territories can be found on the following pages.

Appendix IV: Profiles of Selected Countries 

Receiving Foreign Police Assistance, Fiscal 

Year 2010 and Fiscal Year 2011
Page 49 Error! Reference source not found.

Foreign Police Assistance

Afghanistan Fact Sheet

Major Programs and Activities

Department of Defense

• Provided support for the development of the capabilities of the 

Afghan National Police to generate, employ, and project a force 

that can conduct and sustain independent law enforcement, 

counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and counternarcotics 

operations 

• Provided basic police training, tactical training, counterterrorism 

training, criminal investigation training, and special weapon 

tactical training 

Department of State

• Provided air transport and logistics support, rule-of-law, law 

enforcement, and related efforts by funding the operations and 

maintenance costs for U.S.-owned and -leased aircraft

• Provided four mentors to the National Interdiction Unit and two 

mentors to the Sensitive Investigation Unit of the 

Counternarcotics National Police

• Provided operations and maintenance support to regional training 

centers in Kunduz and Heart

• Provided antiterrorism assistance to build capacity in protection of 

national leadership and explosives incident countermeasures

Department of Justice

• Provided introductory and advanced training to members of the 

Sensitive Investigation Unit of the Counternarcotics National 

Police. This training focused on investigative methods for 

apprehending drug traffickers. 

Funding Information for Foreign Police Assistance 

Agency Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011

DOD $3,023,392,000 $3,297,109,000

State 229,675,000 169,950,000

DOJ 32,381 338,598

Total $3,253,099,381 $3,467,397,598

Source: GAO analysis of DOD, State, and DOJ data.

Related GAO Work

In GAO-09-280, we reported that 

the Combined Security Transition 

Command-Afghanistan had begun 

retraining Afghan National Police

units through its Focused District 

Development program. However, a 

lack of military personnel 

constrained the command’s plans 

to expand the program.

We also reported in GAO-10-291

that U.S. agencies reported 

progress within counternarcotics 

program areas, but we were unable 

to fully assess the extent of 

progress because of a lack of 

performance measures and interim 

performance targets to measure 

Afghan capacity.

GAO Recommendations

In GAO-09-280, we recommended 

that the Secretaries of Defense 

(DOD) and State provide dedicated 

personnel to support creation of 

additional police mentor teams to 

expand and complete the Focused 

District Development program. In 

September 2010, we closed this 

recommendation as implemented 

because DOD and State took 

actions to increase trainers and 

mentors for the Afghan police.

In GAO-10-291, we recommended 

DOD develop performance targets 

to measure interim results of efforts 

to train the Counternarcotics Police 

of Afghanistan. We closed this 

recommendation as implemented 

because DOD developed a new 

quality metrics/measurement 

program to evaluate effectiveness 

of its training of Afghan 

counternarcotics forces
Page 50 Error! Reference source not found.

Major Programs and Activities 

Department of State 

 Assumed full responsibility for the U.S. presence in Iraq in fiscal 

year 2012 

 Funding for 2010 supported U.S. personnel hired to position State 

to assume responsibility for the police development mission in 

Iraq. Activities included developing plans and requirements for 

transitioning police development from DOD to State, training 

curricula, statements of work, position descriptions, 

comprehensive work plans, and oversight and administrative 

processes. 

 Funding for 2011 continued transition efforts. In addition, support 

included security, communications, and transportation 

requirements as military support for those functions withdrew. 

 Provided antiterrorism assistance to build capacity in protection of 

national leadership 

Department of Defense 

 Organized, trained, and equipped Iraqi police forces from 2003 

through September 2011 

 Provided projects and programs such as training of security 

forces and equipment including weapons, ammunition, vehicles, 

communication gear, spare parts, and transportation of 

equipment 

 Provided sustainment of security forces through maintenance 

programs, human resources, information management system 

support services, and medical services 

Funding Information for Foreign Police Assistance 

Agency Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 

State $663,200,000 $100,360,000

DOD 309,270,000 113,666,000 

Total $972,470,000 $214,026,000

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data. 

Related GAO Work 

During April and May 2012, we

provided briefings to staff on 

selected committees regarding U.S 

security assistance to Iraq. The 

Sensitive But Unclassified briefings 

covered the transition of lead 

responsibility from DOD to State for 

U.S. assistance to Iraq’s military 

and police. 

GAO Recommendations 

Not applicable. 

Foreign Police Assistance

Iraq Fact Sheet 
Page 51 Error! Reference source not found.

Major Programs and Activities

Department of State

• Provided aviation support through flight and maintenance training 

to civilian Pakistani law enforcement agencies

• Provided training, technical assistance, and equipment to law 

enforcement entities, including train-the-trainer and instructor 

development courses

• Provided training and equipment to Pakistani law enforcement 

entities with counternarcotics mandates

• Provided antiterrorism assistance to build capacity in protection of 

national leadership, critical incident management, and protection 

of digital infrastructure

Department of Defense

• Provided equipment, including protective equipment such as 

helmets and night vision devices to the Frontier Corps

• Provided counterinsurgency training

• Provided counternarcotics training and equipment

Department of Energy

• Provided radiation detection equipment to the Port of Qasim. The 

program included refresher training for Pakistani officials on 

radiation detection equipment. 

Funding Information for Foreign Police Assistance

Agency Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011

State $176,925,000 $172,026,798

DOD 112,890,000 3,487,000

DOE 47,049 167

Total $289,862,049 $175,513,965

Source: GAO analysis of DOD, State, and DOE data.

 

Related GAO Work

GAO-11-860SU is sensitive but 

unclassified

GAO Recommendations

Not applicable

Foreign Police Assistance

Pakistan Fact Sheet
Page 52 Error! Reference source not found.

Major Programs and Activities

Department of State

• Provided assistance to the Colombian National Police, including 

aviation support and training and equipment to rural police. Also 

provided antiterrorism assistance to build capacity in border 

security, protection of national leadership, critical incident 

management, and protection of critical infrastructure

Department of Defense 

• Provided comprehensive training to police and a specialized 

security force using a train-the-trainer approach so that trained 

individuals can train other personnel

Department of Energy

• Provided radiation detection equipment to the Port of Cartagena 

and refresher training

U.S. Agency for International Development

• Provided training to civilian police on human rights

Department of Justice

• Provided basic and tactical sensitive investigative unit training to 

members of the Colombian National Police

Funding Information for Foreign Police Assistance

Agency Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011

State $177,500,000 $149,500,000

DOD 7,000,000 800,000

DOE 30,313 2,904

USAID 21,616 16,334,200

DOJ 262,142 419,350

Total $184,814,071 $167,056,454

Source: GAO analysis of State, DOD, DOE, USAID, and DOJ data. 

Note: DOJ did not report funding it provided for all countries, but was able 

provide funding data for Colombia. 

Related GAO Work

In GAO-09-71, we found that U.S.-

funded helicopters provided the air 

mobility needed to rapidly move 

Colombian counternarcotics and 

counterinsurgency forces. U.S. 

advisers, training, equipment, and 

intelligence assistance helped 

professionalize Colombia's military 

and police forces. We also reported 

that State and the other U.S. 

departments and agencies had 

accelerated their nationalization 

efforts, with State focusing on 

Colombian military and National 

Police aviation programs.

GAO Recommendations

We recommended that State, in 

conjunction with the other 

departments, USAID, and 

Colombia, develop an integrated 

nationalization plan that defines 

U.S. and Colombian roles and 

responsibilities, future funding 

requirements, and timelines. State 

agreed and noted that its annual 

multiyear strategy report offers the 

most useful format to address our 

recommendation. However, we did 

not believe this report sufficiently 

addressed our recommendation. In 

September 2011, State/INL officials 

in Colombia reported it reached 

agreement with the government of 

Colombia to nationalize aircraft, 

contractor personnel, facility 

maintenance, and other programs. 

For example, State/INL officials in 

Colombia told us they plan to 

nationalize 103 aircraft by 2014, 

which would represent an annual 

cost savings of $83 million. 

Foreign Police Assistance

Colombia Fact Sheet
Page 53 Error! Reference source not found.

Major Programs and Activities

State 

• Provided training and equipment under the Mérida Initiative to 

help address the problem of increasing crime and violence in 

Mexico and Central America. Equipment included aircraft and 

boats.

• Provided antiterrorism assistance to build capacity in protection of 

national leadership and investigations

DOD

• Provided counternarcotics support including pilot and 

maintenance training, surveillance aircraft, information sharing, 

technical advice, and related support

Department of Energy

SLD provided radiation detection equipment for cargo scanning at 

five Mexican ports. This includes fixed and handheld equipment, 

maintenance and in-country training to officials in the ports of 

Altamira, Lazaro, Cardenas, Manzanillo, and Veracruz. 

Additional technical assistance was provided to Mexican Customs 

officials at a national level.

Department of Justice

• Provided basic training 

Funding Information for Foreign Police Assistance

Agency Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011

State $152,900,000 $20,700,000

DOD 13,848,000 220,000

DOE 353,956 56,171

DOJ 392,618 124,086

Total $167,494,574 $21,100,257

Source: GAO analysis of DOD, State, DOE, and DOJ data.

Note: DOJ did not report funding it provided for all countries, but was able 

provide funding data for Mexico.

Related GAO Work

In GA0-10-837, we reported on the 

Mérida Initiative, which provides 

training and equipment to law 

enforcement in Mexico and Central 

American countries. We found that 

deliveries of equipment and 

training had been delayed by 

challenges associated with an 

insufficient number of staff to 

administer the program, 

negotiations on interagency and 

bilateral agreements, procurement 

processes, changes in 

government, and funding 

availability. We also found that 

while State had developed some of 

the key elements of an 

implementation strategy, its 

strategic documents lacked certain 

key elements that would facilitate 

accountability and management. In 

addition, State had not developed a 

comprehensive set of timelines for 

all expected deliveries, though it 

plans to provide additional 

equipment and training in both 

Mexico and Central America.

GAO Recommendations

We recommended that the 

Secretary of State incorporate into 

the strategy for the Mérida Initiative 

outcome performance measures 

that indicate progress toward 

strategic goals and develop more 

comprehensive timelines for future 

program deliveries. State agreed 

and is working to develop better 

metrics and more comprehensive 

timelines. As of April 2012, State is 

revising its performance measures, 

according to State officials. GAO 

will examine the extent to which 

these efforts address the 

recommendation in a separate 

engagement. 

Foreign Police Assistance

Mexico Fact Sheet
Page 54 Error! Reference source not found.

Major Programs and Activities

State 

• Provided battalion-level basic law enforcement and security 

training conducted at the Jordanian International Police Training 

Center outside of Amman, Jordan

• Provided specialized courses in the West Bank to train and assist 

security forces in areas such as leadership, human rights, media 

awareness, equipment maintenance, and food service operations

• Provided nonlethal equipment including uniforms with protective 

gear and operational equipment, including riot shields, batons, 

and handcuffs, as well as computers, tents, basic first aid kits, 

and support vehicles

Treasury

• Provided mentoring and technical assistance on financial crimes 

programs in Ramallah

Funding Information for Foreign Police Assistance

Agency Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011

State $97,000,000 $141,500,000

Treasury 175,545 496,017

Total $97,175,545 $141,996,017

Source: GAO analysis of State and Treasury data.

GAO Summary

In GAO-10-505, we reported that 

although U.S. and international 

officials said that U.S. security 

assistance programs for the 

Palestinian Authority had helped

improve security conditions in 

some West Bank areas, State and 

the Office of the United States 

Security Coordinator (USSC) had

not established clear and 

measurable outcome-based 

performance indicators to assess 

progress. State and USSC officials 

noted that they planned to 

incorporate performance indicators 

in a USSC campaign plan to be 

released in mid-2010. 

Open GAO Recommendation

We recommended that, as State 

developed the USSC campaign 

plan for providing security 

assistance to the Palestinian 

Authority, the Secretary of State 

should define specific objectives 

and establish outcome-based 

indicators enabling it to assess 

progress. State partially concurred 

with this recommendation. It 

agreed with the need for more 

performance-based indicators but 

noted that factors outside its 

control influence progress. GAO 

continues to monitor this 

development. 

Foreign Police Assistance

Palestinian Territories Fact Sheet
Appendix V: Supplemental Information on DOD 

Assessment Process for the Iraqi and Afghan 

National Police Forces55605/9/2012

Page 55 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

As a part of its assessment process in Afghanistan, DOD uses criteria—

called capability milestones—to assess the professionalism and capacity 

of departments under the Afghan Ministry of Interior, including 

components of the ANP. Departments are assessed against four 

capability milestones that range from 1 to 4. A department rated at 1 is 

fully capable of conducting its primary operational mission but may 

require coalition oversight. By contrast, a department rated at 4 has been 

established but cannot accomplish its mission.

DOD’s basic assessment system in Iraq contained capabilities ratings in 

the areas of personnel, command and control, equipment, 

sustainment/logistics, training, and leadership. Commanders used the 

assessment results and their professional judgment to determine a unit’s 

overall readiness level. The assessment reports also included the 

commanders’ estimates of the number of months needed before a unit 

could assume the lead for counterinsurgency operations. DOD also 

reported readiness assessments for headquarters service companies, 

such as engineering and signal units that support combat units.1 The 

assessment reports included the coalition commander’s narrative 

assessments of the Iraqi unit’s overall readiness level, known as the 

Performance Capability Assessment, which was designed to clarify the 

overall assessment. The narrative assessed the Iraqi unit’s leadership 

capabilities, combat experience, and ability to execute intelligence-based 

operations, and described any life support issues affecting the Iraqi unit’s 

capabilities. Commanders also explained and addressed any regression 

in the unit’s overall assessment level and listed the top three issues 

preventing the unit from assuming the lead for counterinsurgency 

operations or advancing to the next level. Remarks were intended to 

provide information and details that would help resolve the problems that 

degrade the unit’s status.

Details on DOD’s assessments of the Pakistan Security Forces are

classified.

 

1

Headquarters service companies were rated levels 1 through 4 based on their ability to 

provide combat support and combat service support to units.

Appendix V: Supplemental Information on 

DOD Assessment Process for the Iraqi and 

Afghan National Police Forces

Afghanistan

Iraq

Pakistan
Appendix V: Supplemental Information on DOD 

Assessment Process for the Iraqi and Afghan 

National Police Forces

Page 56 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

The table below provides definition of the capability milestones, as 

identified in DOD’s October 2011 Report on Progress toward Security and 

Stability in Afghanistan.

Table 6: DOD Capability Milestone Rating Definitions for the Afghan Ministry of 

Defense and Ministry of Interior

Capability 

milestone Definition

1A Department or institution capable of autonomous operations.

1B Department or institution capable of executing functions with coalition 

oversight only.

2A Department or institution capable of executing functions with minimal 

coalition assistance; only critical ministerial or institutional functions are 

covered.

2B Can accomplish its mission but requires some coalition assistance.

3 Cannot accomplish its mission without significant coalition assistance.

4 The department or institution exists but cannot accomplish its mission.

Source: DOD, Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan.

According to DOD’s October 2011 report, advisers from the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization Training Mission–Afghanistan and Combined 

Security Transition Command–Afghanistan used capability milestones to 

assess individual offices and cross-functional activities on a quarterly 

basis against specific end-state objectives, quarterly milestones, and skillbuilding requirements.2 For example, DOD reported in October 2011 that 

the Afghan National Civil Order Police advanced from requiring some 

coalition assistance to requiring minimal coalition assistance.

 

2

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Training Mission–Afghanistan and Combined 

Security Transition Command–Afghanistan, among other things, recruits, trains, and 

equips the Afghan National Security Forces. Training and fielding of all units with the 

required specialty skills to fully support the Afghan National Army and ANP is expected to 

be complete by December 2013.
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 57 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 58 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of State
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 59 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 60 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and 

Staff Acknowledgments

Page 61 GAO-12-534 Foreign Police Assistance 

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

In addition to the individual named above, Judy McCloskey (Assistant 

Director), Lynn Cothern, Brian Egger, Mark Needham, and La Verne 

Tharpes made key contributions to this report.

Robert Alarapon, Martin De Alteriis, Etana Finkler, Mary Moutsos, and 

Anthony Pordes provided technical support.

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(320842)
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 (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 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: 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

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

Please Print on Recycled Paper.