STATE 

PARTNERSHIP 

PROGRAM

Improved Oversight, 

Guidance, and 

Training Needed for 

National Guard's 

Efforts with Foreign 

Partners

Report to Congressional Committees

May 2012

GAO-12-548

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-548, a report to 

congressional committees

May 2012

STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Improved Oversight, Guidance, and Training Needed 

for National Guard’s Efforts with Foreign Partners

Why GAO Did This Study

The National Guard’s State 

Partnership Program is a DOD security 

cooperation program that matches 

state National Guards with foreign

countries to conduct joint activities—

including visits between senior military 

leaders and knowledge sharing in 

areas such as disaster management—

that further U.S. national security 

goals. The program has partnerships 

between 52 U.S. state and territory 

National Guards and 69 countries. In 

fiscal year 2011, program expenditures 

were at least $13.2 million. The 2012 

National Defense Authorization Act 

directed GAO to study the program. 

GAO determined (1) the extent to 

which State Partnership Program 

activities are meeting program goals

and objectives; (2) the types and 

frequency of activities and funding 

levels of the program; and (3) any 

challenges DOD faces in the program’s 

implementation. GAO collected written 

responses to questions from State 

Partnership Program Coordinators at 

the state level, Bilateral Affairs Officers 

at the U.S. embassies in the partner 

nations, and officials at the combatant 

commands, reviewed documents, and 

interviewed DOD officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD complete 

its comprehensive oversight framework 

for the State Partnership Program, 

develop guidance to achieve reliable 

data on the program, and issue 

guidance and conduct additional 

training on the appropriate use of 

funding for program activities, including

those involving civilians. DOD 

concurred with all recommendations. 

What GAO Found

Many State Partnership Program stakeholders, including State Partnership 

Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, and combatant command 

officials, cited benefits to the program, but the program lacks a comprehensive 

oversight framework that includes clear program goals, objectives, and metrics to 

measure progress against those goals, which limits the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) and Congress’ ability to assess whether the program is an effective and 

efficient use of resources. The benefits described by all stakeholders focused on 

the program’s contributions to meeting their specific missions, such as building 

security relationships, providing experience to guardsmen, and supporting 

combatant commands’ missions. Goals, objectives, and metrics to measure 

progress are necessary for management oversight, and National Guard Bureau

officials told GAO that they recognize the need to update the program’s goals

and develop metrics and have initiated efforts in these areas. Officials expect 

completion of these efforts in summer 2012. Until program goals and metrics are 

implemented, DOD cannot fully assess or adequately oversee the program. 

State Partnership Program activity data are incomplete as well as inconsistent 

and funding data are incomplete for fiscal years 2007 through 2011; therefore 

GAO cannot provide complete information on the types and frequency of 

activities or total funding amounts for those years. GAO found that the multiple 

data systems used to track program activities and funding are not interoperable 

and users apply varying methods and definitions to guide data inputs. The 

terminology used to identify activity types is inconsistent across the combatant 

commands and the National Guard Bureau. Further, funding data from the 

National Guard Bureau and the combatant commands were incomplete, and 

while the National Guard Bureau provided its total spending on the program 

since 2007, it could not provide information on the cost of individual activities. 

Although the National Guard Bureau has initiated efforts to improve the accuracy 

of its own State Partnership Program data, without common agreement with the 

combatant commands on what types of data need to be tracked and how to 

define activities, the data cannot be easily reconciled across databases. 

The most prominent challenge cited by State Partnership Program stakeholders 

involved how to fund activities that include U.S. and foreign partner civilian 

participants. Activities involving civilians, for example, have included subjectmatter expert exchanges on military support to civil authorities and maritime 

border security. Although DOD guidance does not prohibit civilian involvement in 

activities, many stakeholders have the impression that the U.S. military is not 

permitted to engage civilians in State Partnership Program activities and some 

states may have chosen not to conduct any events with civilians due to the 

perception that it may violate DOD guidance. DOD and the National Guard 

Bureau are working on developing additional guidance and training in this area. 

Until these efforts are completed, confusion may continue to exist and hinder the 

program’s full potential to fulfill National Guard and combatant command 

missions.

View GAO-12-548. For more information, 

contact John Pendleton at (202) 512-3489 or 

pendletonj@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Letter 1 

Background 5

State Partnership Program Stakeholders Cited Benefits but 

Program Oversight Is Hindered by Lack of Clear Goals, 

Objectives, and Progress Measures 8

Complete Information about Activities and Funding Is Unavailable 13

Challenges in Funding Activities and Incorporating U.S. and 

Foreign Partner Civilians Require Additional Guidance and 

Training 20

Conclusions 25

Recommendations for Executive Action 26

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 29

Appendix II State Partnership Program Participating States and Countries, by 

Combatant Command 32

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 38

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 41

Table

Table 1: Key Benefits of the State Partnership Program, as Cited by 

State Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs 

Officers, and Officials from Combatant Commands 10

Figures

Figure 1: State Partnership Program Participating States and 

Countries, by Combatant Command 6

Figure 2: Process for Establishing New Partnerships 8

Figure 3: Approximate Expenditures on State Partnership Program 

Events, Fiscal Year 2011 19

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Figure 4: State Partnership Program Participating States and 

Countries, Africa Command 32

Figure 5: State Partnership Program Participating States and 

Countries, Central Command 33

Figure 6: State Partnership Program Participating States and 

Countries, European Command 34

Figure 7: State Partnership Program Participating States and 

Countries, Northern Command 35

Figure 8: State Partnership Program Participating States and 

Countries, Pacific Command 36

Figure 9: State Partnership Program Participating States and 

Countries, Southern Command 37

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-12-548 State Partnership Program

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

May 15, 2012

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable John McCain

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The National Guard State Partnership Program—a Department of 

Defense (DOD) security cooperation program that pairs state National 

Guards with foreign countries—works to promote national objectives, 

stability, partner capacity, and better understanding and trust between the 

United States and foreign countries. The State Partnership Program is 

one of many efforts within DOD to address security cooperation and its 

overarching vision is to establish and sustain enduring relationships with 

partner countries in support of the U.S. national security strategy. The 

program began in 1993 with 13 partner countries, primarily from the 

former Soviet Union, to help improve relations with these countries and 

help reform their defense establishments after the end of the Cold War. 

Today the program has partnerships between 52 states and territories 

and 691

 

1

There are currently 63 active partnerships. One of those partnerships is between Florida 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands with the Regional Security System, a collective security 

agreement for seven island nations in the Eastern Caribbean. The seven nations that 

participate in the Regional Security System are Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, 

Dominica, Grenada, Saints Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the 

Grenadines. Two countries, Colombia and Turkmenistan, do not currently have a state 

National Guard partner assigned.

foreign countries spread throughout the regions of all six 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

geographic combatant commands2

DOD defines State Partnership Program activities as any security 

cooperation activity supported by funds appropriated to DOD, occurring 

between a state’s National Guard personnel and that state’s partner 

nation, consistent with the State Partnership Program. Activities can vary 

depending on the needs of the partner nation, the capabilities of the state 

or territory National Guard, and the priorities of the geographic combatant 

commander and the U.S. ambassador of the partner country. Through 

this program, states’ National Guard personnel work with their partner 

countries to conduct activities, such as knowledge sharing from subject 

matter experts, demonstrations of particular National Guard capabilities, 

and visits between senior military leaders, and cover topics such as 

disaster management, military education, non-commissioned officer 

development, and border operations. The National Guard Bureau 

provides guidance to the states participating in the program, but the 

program is primarily managed by a State Partnership Program 

Coordinator—a full-time National Guardsman at the state level—and a 

Bilateral Affairs Officer—normally a full-time National Guardsman or other 

military officer assigned to the geographic combatant command and 

under the direction of the U.S. embassy in the partner country.

and focuses on building the capacity 

of and relationships with partner countries’ militaries through exchanges 

of military skills and experience, sharing defense knowledge, enhancing 

partnership capacity, and furthering mutual security cooperation.

3

 

2

There are six geographic combatant commands: U.S. European Command, U.S. Africa 

Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Southern Command, 

and U.S. Central Command. There are also three functional combatant commands: U.S. 

Strategic Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and U.S. Transportation 

Command. The functional combatant commands play no role in the State Partnership 

Program, and throughout this report we refer only to the geographic combatant 

commands. 

State 

Partnership Program activities are planned collaboratively by the State 

Partnership Program Coordinators, the Bilateral Affairs Officers, the U.S. 

embassy country teams, and the geographic combatant commands.

3

Some countries within the U.S. Southern Command use Traditional Commander’s 

Activities coordinators in this role. The combatant commands fund Traditional 

Commander’s Activities coordinators, while the National Guard Bureau funds Bilateral 

Affairs Officers. For consistency purposes in this report, we refer to all of these personnel 

as Bilateral Affairs Officers. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

According to National Guard Bureau officials, in fiscal year 2008, the 

National Guard Bureau spent about $2.52 million on the program and in 

fiscal year 2011 the National Guard Bureau spent about $6.1 million. This 

money, according to National Guard Bureau officials, provides for the pay 

and allowances of guardsmen while they are conducting an activity with a 

partner country and is authorized to be used for military personnel only. 

Additional money, about $7.1 million in fiscal year 2011, is provided by 

the combatant commands from a variety of sources, such as Traditional 

Combatant Commander’s Activities funds, Cooperative Threat Reduction 

Program funds, and Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace funds.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 directed us 

to conduct a study of the National Guard State Partnership Program.4

To address these objectives, we obtained perspectives, including views 

on the benefits of the program, from the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense for Policy, Joint Staff, National Guard Bureau, and program 

stakeholders including State Partnership Program coordinating officials at 

the geographic combatant commands, State Partnership Program 

Coordinators, and Bilateral Affairs Officers. We also collected information 

on the process that DOD uses to establish partnerships. We requested 

and analyzed documentation about the goals and objectives of the 

To 

meet this mandate, we assessed (1) the extent to which State Partnership 

Program activities are meeting the goals and objectives of the program; 

(2) the types and frequency of activities and funding levels associated 

with the program; and (3) the challenges, if any, that DOD faces in the 

implementation of the program.

 

4

Section 1234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. No. 

112-81 (2011), requires us to submit a report to the House and Senate Armed Services 

Committees on the State Partnership Program that includes: (1) a summary of the sources 

of funds for the State Partnership Program over the last 5 years; (2) an analysis of the 

types and frequency of activities performed by participants in the State Partnership 

Program; (3) a description of the objectives of the State Partnership Program and the 

manner in which objectives under the program are established and coordinated with the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, the geographic combatant commands, United States 

Country Teams, and other departments and agencies of the United States Government; 

(4) a description of the manner in which the Department of Defense selects and 

designates particular State and foreign country partnerships under the State Partnership 

Program; (5) a description of the manner in which the department measures the 

effectiveness of the activities under the State Partnership Program in meeting the 

objectives of the program; and (6) an assessment of the effectiveness of the activities 

under the State Partnership Program in meeting the objectives of the program. 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

program and any guidance that would describe how the program is to be 

implemented. To determine the extent to which State Partnership 

Program activities are meeting the goals and objectives of the program, 

we interviewed National Guard Bureau officials about the development of 

goals, objectives, and performance metrics for the program. We also 

contacted all State Partnership Program Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs 

Officers who participate in this program with open-ended questions by email. We collected and analyzed responses from 50 of the 52 State 

Partnership Program Coordinators and from 23 out of 47 Bilateral Affairs 

Officers.5

 

5

There are 52 states and territories currently participating in the State Partnership 

Program. While there are 63 partnerships in the program, not every country has a Bilateral 

Affairs Officer assigned. 

We also collected and analyzed written responses to similar 

questions from the coordinating officials at the six U.S. geographic 

combatant commands. To determine the types and frequency of activities 

and funding levels associated with the program, we collected and 

analyzed data on State Partnership Program activities—including types of 

activities, funding sources, and funding amounts—obtained from the 

National Guard Bureau and the six U.S. geographic combatant 

commands from fiscal years 2007 through 2011. To assess the reliability 

of the data, we collected written information from the combatant 

commands on their databases. We also discussed the procedures for 

generating and verifying the data with knowledgeable combatant 

command and National Guard Bureau officials and, where possible, 

examined the data for anomalies. We discussed the limitations we 

identified in the data with the officials, and those limitations are discussed 

in this report. To identify challenges that DOD faces in implementing the 

program, we included relevant questions when we contacted all State 

Partnership Program Coordinators and all Bilateral Affairs Officers who 

participate in this program, and the six U.S. geographic combatant 

commands, as described above. We conducted this performance audit 

from August 2011 to 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 audit objectives. A 

more detailed description of our scope and methodology is included in 

appendix I.
 

Page 5 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

The State Partnership Program grew from the former Joint Contact Team 

Program, a program comprised of active component personnel that 

sought to establish professional contacts between the U.S. military and 

the militaries of newly independent nations of the former Soviet Union. 

The Joint Contact Team Program was intended to promote subordination 

to civilian leadership, respect for human rights, and a defensively oriented 

military posture. In 1993, the National Guard Bureau was integrated into 

the Joint Contact Team Program to initiate the first state partnerships, as 

it was believed that Russia would find the National Guard less 

provocative than a U.S. active duty full-time military presence. The 

program has since expanded to 63 partnerships covering all combatant 

commands, with nearly all state National Guards participating. Figure 1 

illustrates the number of partner country relationships within each 

combatant command.

Background 
Page 6 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

*Indicates country has a Bilateral Affairs Officer. 

Figure 1: State Partnership Program Participating States and Countries, by Combatant Command

Source: National Guard Bureau.

Interactivity instructions

Roll over the combatant command 

name to view partnerships.

See appendix II for the non-interactive, 

printer-friendly version.

U.S. Northern 

Command

U.S. Southern 

Command

U.S. Africa

Command

U.S. Pacific

Command

U.S. European

Command

U.S. 

Central

Command
 

Page 7 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Both the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report and the 2011 

National Military Strategy of the United States of America identify security 

cooperation and building partner capacity as priorities in multiple regions, 

including the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. In addition, both documents 

emphasize the need to strengthen and expand the United States’ network 

of international partnerships to enhance security, and the National Military 

Strategy instructs the combatant commands, among others, to partner 

with other agencies to pursue theater security cooperation. As such, the 

State Partnership Program acts as a force enabler for the combatant 

commands, and State Partnership Program activities are part of the 

combatant commands’ theater security cooperation plans. State 

Partnership Program activities are to be approved by the combatant 

commands, as well as the U.S. ambassador in their respective partner 

nations, before they can be executed.

Any nation requesting a state partnership sends its official request to its 

respective U.S. ambassador. Once the partnership is endorsed, the 

request is forwarded to the appropriate combatant command. If the 

combatant command finds that the partnership meets strategic objectives 

and priorities, the combatant command sends the request to the National 

Guard Bureau. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau reviews the 

request to determine the viability of the partnership. If the Chief accepts 

the request, he or she notifies the combatant command and solicits 

proposals from the adjutants general of the state Guards. State Guard 

proposals include a statement of intent; background on the state Guard 

and its capabilities; proposed areas of military engagement with the 

partner nation; potential benefits to both the state Guard and partner 

nation; discussion of historical, cultural, and academic similarities 

between the state and the partner nation; and any documentation 

supporting the state Guard’s nomination. The proposals go through three 

levels of review within DOD, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 

forwards a recommended nominee to the combatant command and the 

partner country’s U.S. embassy for final approval. Figure 2 illustrates the 

request and approval process.
 

Page 8 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Figure 2: Process for Establishing New Partnerships

State Partnership Program stakeholders, including State Partnership 

Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, and combatant command 

officials, cited benefits of the program, but the program lacks clear goals, 

objectives, and performance metrics. Without a comprehensive oversight 

framework for defining and measuring progress, DOD cannot fully assess 

whether the program is an effective and efficient use of resources.

State Partnership Program Coordinators provided examples of how the 

program benefits their states and their National Guard units, including 

providing experience and training for guardsmen and developing 

relationships between the state and the partner country. For example, 39 

of the 50 State Partnership Program Coordinators who responded to our 

questions reported that the State Partnership Program provides 

experience to participating guardsmen. In another instance, one State 

Partnership Program Coordinator reported that by demonstrating medical 

techniques to partner country participants, the guardsmen simultaneously 

gain direct experience performing those techniques. Three State 

Partnership Program Coordinators specifically noted that the program 

allows participants to deploy and complete realistic military training 

outside a warzone. In addition, 17 State Partnership Program 

Coordinators noted the value of the State Partnership Program in 

providing a mechanism for developing relationships between the state 

Guard units and the partner countries. Another State Partnership 

State Partnership 

Program Stakeholders 

Cited Benefits but 

Program Oversight Is 

Hindered by Lack of 

Clear Goals, 

Objectives, and 

Progress Measures

Stakeholders Cited 

Benefits of the State 

Partnership Program
 

Page 9 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Program Coordinator noted that establishing such relationships improves 

long-term international security, and several State Partnership Program 

Coordinators noted that the relationships fostered by the program were 

instrumental in the partner countries’ deployments to Afghanistan or Iraq.

All six combatant commands and all 23 Bilateral Affairs Officers who 

responded to our questions reported that the State Partnership Program 

supports their missions and objectives, including promoting stability and 

security cooperation and assisting with building partner capacity. For 

example, one Bilateral Affairs Officer reported that a State Partnership 

Program activity on women’s leadership in the military met the geographic 

combatant command’s objective of building partner capacity, as well as 

U.S. country team objectives to advance human rights, advance public 

diplomacy, and strengthen regional security capabilities. The activity 

covered deployment preparations, leadership development, and sexual 

assault prevention. Three of the six combatant commands specifically 

noted that the National Guard units are uniquely suited to assist the 

combatant command in building the capacity of partner countries as a 

result of their civilian and military experiences. For example, in one 

combatant command, State Partnership Program activities were used to 

support combatant command objectives by providing subject matter 

expertise to Royal Bahamas Police Force Drug Enforcement Unit officers 

in the field of combat trauma care. Thirteen Bilateral Affairs Officers also 

cited the benefit of the State Partnership Program’s ability to develop and 

maintain relationships between the state Guard units and the partner 

countries. For example, one Bilateral Affairs Officer stated that the 

relationship between one state Guard unit and its partner country was 

leveraged to assist the country in making progress toward the country 

team’s goal of anchoring the country in European and Euro-Atlantic 

institutions. The partner country was originally reluctant to accept 

assistance with military personnel management due to cultural 

sensitivities, but based on the established relationship, the state Guard 

unit was granted full access and made suggestions that were 

implemented by the partner country. Table 1 summarizes the key benefits 

of the program as described by State Partnership Program Coordinators, 

Bilateral Affairs Officers, and officials from the combatant commands.
 

Page 10 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Table 1: Key Benefits of the State Partnership Program, as Cited by State Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs

Officers, and Officials from Combatant Commands

State Partnership Program Coordinators Bilateral Affairs Officers Officials from combatant commands

Provides experience and training for 

guardsmen

Events are tied to combatant command or 

country team mission

Events support combatant command 

mission and objectives

Develops relationship with partner country Good communication and coordination 

between stakeholders

National Guard units possess unique 

skills that are useful for supporting 

combatant command objectives

Encourages partner countries to co-deploy 

to Iraq or Afghanistan

Provides information sharing and support to 

partner country

Encourages partner nation deployment 

to Iraq or Afghanistan

Improves retention or provides other 

incentives for guardsmen

Builds relationship with partner country

Guardsmen benefit from partner country’s 

experiences

Encourages partner countries to co-deploy to 

Iraq or Afghanistan

Source: GAO analysis of responses to e-mailed questions.

In addition, European Command’s combatant commander testified to 

Congress in February 2012 that the State Partnership Program develops 

important strategic relationships that benefit ongoing military activities.6

 

6

Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from U.S. European 

Command and U.S. Africa Command, 112th Cong. 16 (2012), statement of Admiral James 

G. Stavridis, United States Navy Commander, United States European Command before 

the House Armed Services Committee.

The European Command indicated in written responses to our questions 

that this program helps maintain access to partner countries’ leadership 

and is vital to defense institution building. Similarly, the National Guard 

Bureau describes the State Partnership Program as fitting within the 

building partner capacity portfolio of DOD, and views the program as an 

integral component of DOD’s global security cooperation strategy that can 

contribute to enhanced security. Further, it sees the program as integral 

to the combatant commands’ theater engagement plans and the U.S. 

Ambassadors’ Mission Strategic Resource Plans. Moreover, the National 

Guard Bureau told us that it found that the State Partnership Program is 

valuable to U.S. ambassadors. In October 2010, the National Guard 

Bureau, in conjunction with the Department of State, surveyed the 

ambassadors of U.S. embassies with State Partnership Program 

partnerships as part of an effort to conduct a strategic review of the 

program. Forty-one of the 62 ambassadors surveyed provided responses, 

and 40 of the respondents agreed that the State Partnership Program is a 

valuable tool in advancing their mission goals and objectives. 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Respondents noted that the activities and relationships developed by the 

program—fostering activities to support joint military exercises and 

deployments, providing support for international peacekeeping 

operations, and embedding training teams—promote overall national 

security and strategic interests. Thirty-nine ambassadors agreed that 

there are mechanisms to ensure that activities are properly integrated 

with U.S. country team priorities.

Despite considerable anecdotal evidence from many State Partnership 

Program stakeholders about the program’s benefits, we were unable to 

comprehensively assess the State Partnership Program because the 

National Guard Bureau has not updated its program goals or objectives to 

match the program’s current operations. The National Guard Bureau 

developed goals and objectives for the program in 2007, but officials told 

us that these goals and objectives need to be updated to reflect the 

program as it currently operates. The previous goals and supporting 

objectives were broadly stated and reflected the desire to build partner 

capacity, but did little to clarify the specific goals for the State Partnership 

Program. We have previously reported that achieving results in 

government requires a comprehensive oversight framework that includes 

clear goals, measurable objectives, and metrics for assessing progress.7

National Guard Bureau officials also acknowledged that once they update 

program goals and objectives, they will need to develop metrics to 

measure results of the program. However, they indicated that due to the 

relationship-building nature of the program, it is difficult to establish 

appropriate metrics that capture the effects of the program. As we have 

previously reported, performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring 

and reporting of program accomplishments, focused on regularly 

Officials stated that they recognize the need to update program goals and 

objectives to more accurately reflect the current environment and the 

focus on military-to-military activities, and reported that they have initiated 

such efforts and expect the new goals and objectives to be finalized by 

July 2012. Officials also indicated that the new program goals and 

objectives will be more closely aligned with the combatant commands’ 

strategic goals and objectives.

 

7

GAO, Preventing Sexual Harassment: DOD Needs Greater Leadership Commitment and 

an Oversight Framework, GAO-11-809 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2011).

The State Partnership 

Program Does Not Have 

Agreed-Upon Goals or 

Metrics to Assess Progress
 

Page 12 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

collected data on the level and type of program activities, direct products 

and services delivered by the program, and the results of those activities.8

As we have previously reported, it is sometimes difficult to establish 

performance measures for outcomes that are not readily observable and 

that in those cases, more in-depth program evaluation may be needed in 

addition to performance measures.9 Program evaluations are systematic 

studies conducted periodically that examine programs in-depth and 

include context in order to examine the extent to which a program is 

meeting its objectives.10 The RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan nonprofit 

organization that conducts public policy research, has reported on 

performance measures that programs like the State Partnership Program, 

which engage in building partner capacity and other security cooperation 

activities, can use to demonstrate results.11

 

8

GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships,

Further, other federal 

agencies engaged in security cooperation activities use program 

evaluations in addition to performance measures. For example, the 

United States Agency for International Development has implemented 

multiple program evaluations for its foreign assistance programs, and the 

Global Peace Operations Initiative within the Department of State uses 

program evaluations to gauge the effectiveness of its training programs. 

National Guard Bureau officials told us that they are working with experts 

from other organizations including RAND and the Defense Security 

Cooperation Agency and have begun to develop metrics for the program. 

They provided us with a draft document containing some key assessment 

indicators in the areas of operational and mission support, doctrine and 

training, and systemic support. Under the area of mission support, for 

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

9

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for 

Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004) and 

GAO-11-646SP. 

10GAO-11-646SP. 

11RAND, Developing an Army Strategy for Building Partner Capacity for Stability 

Operations (2010). In this report, RAND lists generic indicators used as a basis for 

measuring the effectiveness of various types of security cooperation programs in meeting 

the objective of establishing a safe and secure environment in the partner nation. See also 

RAND, Prototype Handbook for Monitoring and Evaluating Department of Defense

Humanitarian Assistance Projects (2011). In this handbook, RAND provides guidance, 

analytic tools, and measures to demonstrate the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance 

projects, which also are intended to build upon nations’ capacities; and show how those 

projects link to strategic-level goals, including those of the country teams and combatant 

commands.
 

Page 13 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

example, officials stated they are planning to track how effective State 

Partnership Program activities are in meeting combatant command and 

country team priorities. Officials further stated that these metrics are 

expected to be finalized during the summer of 2012. Such goals and 

metrics would form the foundation for a comprehensive oversight 

framework and, until they are put into place, DOD cannot fully assess 

whether the program is an effective and efficient use of resources.

We cannot provide complete information on the types and frequency of 

State Partnership Program activities or the total funding amounts for 

these activities for fiscal years 2007 to 2011 because activity data are 

incomplete as well as inconsistent and funding data are incomplete. 

According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

program managers and decision makers should have reliable data to 

determine whether they are meeting goals and using resources effectively 

and efficiently.12 Without complete and consistent data on the State 

Partnership Program, we and DOD cannot assess the program’s 

efficiency nor provide complete information to decision makers, including 

Congress.

Data on State Partnership Program activities from the combatant 

commands and the National Guard Bureau are incomplete and 

inconsistent. The National Guard Bureau and the combatant commands 

maintain separate databases for tracking events. Each entity 

independently tracks its activities and funding in databases that are not 

interoperable. According to National Guard Bureau officials, DOD’s 

Guidance for Employment of the Force mandates that all security 

cooperation activities be tracked, including State Partnership Program 

activities, in management information system databases. The National 

Guard Bureau uses its own system to track State Partnership Program 

events that it funds. National Guard Bureau officials indicated that events 

funded by a combatant command and the National Guard Bureau would 

 

12GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).

Complete Information 

about Activities and 

Funding Is 

Unavailable 

Data on State Partnership 

Program Activities Are 

Incomplete and 

Inconsistent 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

be tracked in both databases.13

We asked the combatant commands and the National Guard Bureau to 

provide us with a list of all State Partnership Program activities since 

fiscal year 2007, but the data that they provided to us were incomplete. 

Africa Command could only provide data since fiscal year 2009, when the 

command became fully operational, but officials told us that it is possible 

not all State Partnership Program activities are included in the data it 

provided because there is no way to electronically search for State 

Partnership Program activities in its database since they are not 

annotated as State Partnership Program activities. According to an Africa 

Command official, the data provided were selected manually, and some 

activities may have been overlooked. Activity data provided to us by 

European Command were also incomplete in that the location of events 

was missing for 482 of 753 (64 percent) activities. European Command 

officials told us that while the database does not always contain 

information on the location of events, individual records, such as afteraction reviews for specific events, would have this information. In 

addition, the National Guard Bureau data were missing for fiscal year 

2009 because the data system was not yet operational and data were not 

centrally maintained. National Guard Bureau officials told us that data 

were incomplete for 2010 because it was the first year that the National 

Guard Bureau began to use this data system to collect State Partnership 

Program data and staff had to learn how to use the system.

National Guard Bureau officials told us 

that as a result, data must be pulled from both the combatant commands’ 

and the National Guard Bureau’s data systems to glean the most 

complete information on the funding of State Partnership Program 

activities.

Further, we found that some activity information that should have been 

contained in both combatant command and National Guard Bureau 

databases was not. For example, Northern Command and Pacific 

Command reported that a majority of State Partnership Program activities 

in their areas of responsibility were funded by the National Guard Bureau. 

As a result, we expected that the activity data would be maintained in 

both the combatant commands’ and the National Guard Bureau’s 

 

13The combatant commands use several types of databases to maintain their information. 

Several of the combatant commands use the Theater Security Cooperation Management 

Information System. The National Guard Bureau currently uses the Army Global Outlook 

System as its database for maintaining information on the State Partnership Program.
 

Page 15 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

databases. However, when we compared the data provided by the 

combatant commands, including Northern Command, to the data 

provided by the National Guard Bureau, we found that both had records 

of State Partnership Program activities that were not accounted for in the 

other’s database. In addition, we compared a sample of the data provided 

to us by the combatant commanders and the National Guard Bureau to 

the activities listed in a DOD report to Congress on a subset of State 

Partnership Program activities involving civilians.14

Through our data analysis, we also found that activities in the National 

Guard Bureau and the combatant command databases were 

inconsistently defined, which hindered our ability to report on the types 

and frequency of activities. The combatant commands and the National 

Guard Bureau reported a broad range of activities conducted for fiscal 

years 2007 through 2011, but common activities included knowledge 

sharing on an area of expertise by National Guard personnel with partner 

nation participants, demonstrations of National Guard capabilities, and 

visits between an adjutant general or other high ranking U.S. military 

official with senior leaders of the partner nation’s armed forces. However, 

the terminology used to identify activity types varied both across the 

combatant commands and between the combatant commands and the 

National Guard Bureau. An August 2011 Directive Type Memorandum 

from the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy provides a definition for a 

State Partnership Program activity, but it does not define specific activity 

types.

Our analysis showed 

that 32 activities in the report to Congress were not accounted for in the 

data provided to us, despite the broader scope of our data request. The 

National Guard Bureau officials told us that their database was not used 

to meet the data request for the DOD report because they don’t have data 

from the required years. Instead, individual state Guard units were asked 

through a data call from the National Guard Bureau to provide lists of 

activities.

15

 

14Department of Defense, State Partnership Program Fiscal Years 2009 & 2011 (Dec. 

2011). 

We found that the combatant commands use different terms to 

15Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Memorandum, Directive-Type Memorandum 

(DTM) 11-010, “Use of Appropriated Funds for Conducting State Partnership Program 

(SPP) Activities” (Aug. 19, 2011). According to the Directive Type Memorandum, a State 

Partnership Program activity is any security cooperation activity supported by funds 

appropriated to DOD, occurring between a State’s National Guard personnel and the 

partner country, consistent with the State Partnership Program.
 

Page 16 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

define similar activities. For example, one combatant command used the 

term orientation to describe the partner country observances of U.S. 

forces in action, whereas another combatant command referred to those 

activities as familiarizations. The user’s manual for the National Guard 

Bureau’s database contains a list of different activity types, but the types 

themselves are not consistent with the terminology used by the 

combatant commands. For example, in their respective databases, the 

National Guard Bureau used the term military-to-military for most of its 

activities that involve U.S. military activities conducted with host country 

militaries, whereas the combatant commands used terms like 

familiarization or traveling contact team, making it difficult to identify if the 

data in different databases were describing the same activity or two 

separate activities.16 In addition, although State Partnership Program 

activities that are funded by both a combatant command and the National 

Guard Bureau should be entered into each entity’s database for its 

respective funded amount, four combatant commands and the National 

Guard Bureau reported that there is no standard method for all the 

combatant commands and the National Guard Bureau to ensure the 

separate entries can be easily compiled in order to see all data 

maintained on a particular activity, including the total funding amount of 

the activity. Because of these inconsistencies, we could not summarize 

the types or frequency of activities that have taken place under the State 

Partnership Program.

The funding data for State Partnership Program activities from fiscal 

years 2007 through 2011 are incomplete, thus preventing us from 

providing complete information on the total cost of the program. As 

previously discussed, funding data on State Partnership Program 

activities are maintained in multiple databases, depending primarily on 

the funding source for the activity. We found that funding data from the 

National Guard Bureau and some of the combatant commands were 

incomplete. For example, National Guard Bureau officials told us that that 

there was no standardized method for collecting and centrally managing 

its own State Partnership Program data prior to fiscal year 2009, when 

 

16Other terms for activity types used in the National Guard Bureau’s database include 

seminar/workshop, bilateral conference, senior official visit, and subject matter expert 

exchange, among others. The combatant commands use a variety of terms for activity 

types, including subject matter expert exchange, exchange, senior leadership visit, 

conference, and assessment. 

State Partnership Program 

Funding Information Is 

Incomplete 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

their database was first implemented. While the National Guard Bureau 

could tell us the total amount of money it spent on the program since 

2007, it could not tell us how much money the National Guard Bureau 

spent on individual activities. In addition, our analysis also indicated that 

the funding data maintained by the combatant commands are incomplete, 

as described below.

• European Command: From fiscal years 2007 through 2011, 

European Command’s funding data were missing for 415 out of 753 

activities (about 55 percent). European Command officials told us that 

missing information could indicate that an event had not been 

executed, that the activity was funded by a source other than the 

combatant command, or that the information was not updated in the 

database. Officials stated that business processes were put into place 

at the end of fiscal year 2010 to prevent this problem from recurring 

and our analysis showed that data were improved in fiscal year 2011.

• Africa Command: For fiscal years 2009 through 2011, Africa 

Command was missing funding data for 9 out of 70 (about 13 percent) 

State Partnership Program events. An Africa Command official 

explained that this could indicate that the event had not yet occurred 

or had been canceled, or it could indicate that the data were missing.

• Pacific Command: Data provided by Pacific Command showed that 

118 events took place in its area of responsibility from fiscal years 

2007 through 2011, but information on the source of funding for 41 

events (about 35 percent) was missing. According to Pacific 

Command officials, most of the State Partnership Program activities in 

Pacific Command’s area of responsibility were funded by the National 

Guard Bureau rather than the command. However, for the activities 

that it did fund, it could only provide projected funding amounts and 

not expenditure data.17

• Southern Command: Data provided by Southern Command were 

likely complete, but Southern Command officials stated that gathering 

the data was difficult due to the lack of interoperability of the multiple 

databases containing the data.

According to a Pacific Command official, 

missing data were most likely due to personnel turnover at the state 

level.

 

17Pacific Command provided funding for three events through the Asia Pacific Regional 

Initiative since fiscal year 2007. The Asia Pacific Regional Initiative is a program designed 

to build cooperative military relationships with allies in the pacific region.
 

Page 18 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

• Central Command: Data provided by Central Command were also 

likely complete but officials told us that Central Command’s data 

systems do not always update accurately and therefore officials 

manually track events on a spreadsheet outside of the database. Data 

provided to us were based on this spreadsheet, rather than the 

database.

• Northern Command: Officials from Northern Command told us that it 

did not fund any State Partnership Program events as all events 

within Northern Command’s area of responsibility were funded by the 

National Guard Bureau.

As a result, funding data for 2007 through 2010 are unavailable due to the 

incompleteness of the data. Funding data for fiscal year 2011 are the 

most complete, but the amount presented is only an estimate, as some 

data are still missing. We found that for fiscal year 2011 the National 

Guard Bureau and the combatant commands spent at least $13.2 million 

on State Partnership Program activities. Figure 3 below depicts available 

expenditure information for fiscal year 2011.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Figure 3: Approximate Expenditures on State Partnership Program Events, Fiscal Year 2011

Note: Funding data presented in this figure are estimates as the data are not complete.

a

The National Guard Bureau provided total amounts expended per state by year, while the combatant 

commands provided amounts expended per activity. We totaled these amounts to obtain the amounts 

shown in this figure.

b

Data provided by Africa Command and European Command were incomplete.

DOD is developing a single global data system, but currently there are no 

common methods for tracking data on the State Partnership Program or 

coordinated efforts to address inconsistencies. Specifically, DOD has 

recognized that multiple databases, operating independently and lacking

interoperability, are a problem and is developing a single, global data 

system—the Global Theater Security Cooperation Management 

Information System—to replace the multiple databases now being used to 

capture theater security-type information from various programs, of which 

the State Partnership Program is one. However, the development of this 

global data system is still in its early stages and the department does not 

know when the system is expected to have full operational capabilities. In 

DOD Lacks Guidance on 

Current State Partnership 

Program Data 

Management
 

Page 20 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

the absence of a common data system, we found that currently there is 

no guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,18 the 

National Guard Bureau, or the combatant commands on what data need 

to be tracked or how the data should be entered to ensure it is complete 

and consistent across all the databases, and that current efforts to 

improve the accuracy of the data are not coordinated. For example, 

officials from the National Guard Bureau told us that the efforts they have 

initiated are specific to the database the National Guard Bureau uses and 

that they have not coordinated with the combatant commands to address 

the inconsistency issues that occur across databases. Moreover, there is 

not agreement among stakeholders on common terms to use in 

describing how to annotate activities in their respective databases so that 

they can be easily identified and reconciled from one database to 

another. Given the current inconsistency and incompleteness of the data, 

DOD cannot assess the program’s performance and neither we nor DOD 

can provide complete and accurate information on activity types, 

frequency, and funding to decision makers.

State Partnership Program stakeholders that we contacted, including 

combatant commands, State Partnership Program Coordinators, and 

Bilateral Affairs Officers, cited several types of challenges in funding State 

Partnership Program activities and in incorporating U.S. and foreign 

partner civilians into events. Specifically, stakeholders cited funding 

challenges such as concerns about funding availability and funding for 

events that included civilians. Although guidance and training exist on 

funding for the program, stakeholders expressed confusion in response to 

our questions. Until clarifying guidance and training are developed and 

provided, the National Guard Bureau and the combatant commanders 

may not be able to fully maximize the State Partnership Program in 

meeting their missions.

 

18According to Directive Type Memorandum 11-010, the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy is the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense for State Partnership Program 

policy and programs. 

Challenges in Funding 

Activities and 

Incorporating U.S. 

and Foreign Partner 

Civilians Require 

Additional Guidance 

and Training
 

Page 21 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

When we asked stakeholders a broad, open-ended question about 

challenges facing the program, funding was a frequently cited problem. 

Four combatant commands, six Bilateral Affairs Officers, and 20 State 

Partnership Program Coordinators told us that funding was a challenge to 

the program. The combatant commands expressed concerns about the 

availability of funding for the program. For example, one combatant 

command stated that the most challenging aspect of the State 

Partnership Program is the funding of the guardsmen because they need 

to be put on special orders that are not necessary when using active duty 

personnel. Another combatant command stated that additional funding for 

the program “is critical for the continued success of the program” as 

several other countries would like to join the program, and two combatant 

commands expressed concerns that State Partnership Program funding 

would be cut in the future. Bilateral Affairs Officers also expressed similar 

challenges with funding. For example, one Bilateral Affairs Officer told us 

that obtaining pay and allowances for guardsmen is difficult compared to 

active duty forces. Further, three Bilateral Affairs Officers mentioned that 

they would like to have additional funding to conduct more events and 

one State Partnership Program Coordinator told us that the National 

Guard Bureau and the combatant commands do not always have the 

necessary funds available to support an event.

State Partnership Program Coordinators also expressed concerns about 

the funding process that extended beyond funding availability. For 

example, one State Partnership Program Coordinator commented that 

because funds come from dual sources—the National Guard Bureau and 

the combatant commands—there is sometimes confusion and funding 

uncertainties as the two organizations negotiate who will pay for what 

events or portions of events. Another commented that “the myriad of 

funding authorizations and their specific peculiarities [are] a challenge to 

even the most experienced State Partnership Program Coordinator.” 

Further, one State Partnership Program Coordinator told us that because 

he was not active duty, he did not have access to training offered by the 

Air Force that he felt would be beneficial to understanding how to better 

fund events.

The most prominent challenge cited by State Partnership Program 

stakeholders involved concerns about conducting and funding activities 

that include civilian participants. In the past, the State Partnership 

Program has incorporated both U.S. and foreign partner civilians into a 

variety of activities. These included activities such as subject matter 

expert exchanges with members of the state’s fire department and the 

host nation on military support to civil authorities; a familiarization on 911 

Stakeholders Expressed 

Concerns about Funding of 

Activities and Civilian 

Involvement
 

Page 22 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

system operations between U.S. and host country civilians; and a subject 

matter expert exchange with U.S. and foreign partner law enforcement 

officials on maritime border security issues. However, in response to our 

question about challenges facing the program, 31 State Partnership 

Program Coordinators cited difficulties in conducting activities with 

civilians. In response to our question about how the program should be 

changed, 36 State Partnership Program Coordinators stated that the 

program should be changed to better facilitate civilian engagements. 

Further, many of the State Partnership Program Coordinators expressed 

the opinion that they were not allowed to conduct activities with civilians 

at all, even though DOD officials told us that civilians are permitted to 

participate in activities as long as the proper funding authority is used. For 

example, one State Partnership Program Coordinator told us that his 

state’s greatest challenge is the current DOD guidance which, based on 

his understanding, restricts all events to strict military-to-military events. 

Another State Partnership Program Coordinator told us that the state 

recently had to cancel planned events with its partner country’s civilian 

authorities because of its interpretation of this guidance. A third State 

Partnership Program Coordinator stated that the perceived “requirement 

[to] strictly limit operations to military-to-military engagements limits [the] 

ability to support” the needs of the embassy and of the partner country. 

Another State Partnership Program Coordinator told us that the perceived 

restriction in the DOD guidance prevents his state’s capabilities from 

being fully used.

Bilateral Affairs Officers from the partner country embassies and 

combatant commands had similar perceptions about civilian participation 

in State Partnership Program activities. Out of the 23 Bilateral Affairs 

Officers who provided answers to our questions, 9 cited this area as a 

challenge for the program. For example, in regard to the challenges 

posed for the program, one Bilateral Affairs Officer told us that the 

inability of the National Guard Bureau to bring civilian subject matter 

experts to the partner countries diminishes the value of events. In 

addition, 14 of the 23 Bilateral Affairs Officers that responded to our 

questions expressed the opinion that the State Partnership Program 

should be changed to better facilitate civilian engagements. For example, 

one Bilateral Affairs Officer told us that expanding activities into other 

sectors, such as medical or law enforcement, would help to fulfill 

embassy and combatant command missions. In addition, one combatant 

command stated that the restrictions on funding civilians are a challenge 

facing the program. However, according to DOD officials, the combatant 

commands have certain funds, such as Traditional Combatant 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Commander’s Activities funds, which may be available to use for funding 

events involving civilians.

DOD has issued some guidance on the State Partnership Program, 

including guidance on the use of funds for civilians, in part to respond to 

congressional direction. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 required the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations on 

the use of funds appropriated to DOD to pay the costs incurred by the 

National Guard in conducting activities under the State Partnership 

Program, and also required the Secretary to submit annual reports to the 

appropriate congressional committees describing the civilian engagement 

activities conducted under the State Partnership Program.19 In response 

to the requirement to issue regulations, DOD issued its Directive Type 

Memorandum in August 2011.20

 

19Pub. L. No 111-84, § 1210 (2009).

The Directive Type Memorandum does 

not explicitly prohibit the involvement of civilians in State Partnership 

Program activities; however, it stipulates that funds appropriated to DOD 

shall not be used to conduct activities with civilians unless those activities 

are based on legal authority that allows the use of such funds for those 

activities. National Guard Bureau officials told us that since the issuance 

of the Directive Type Memorandum, states have become cautious about 

conducting events with civilians, and many have chosen to not conduct 

any events with civilians due to a concern about violating DOD guidance. 

The Directive Type Memorandum will expire in August 2012 and the 

Under Secretary of Defense, Policy, has drafted an instruction that is 

intended to further clarify the use of funds appropriated to DOD, including 

funds for civilian participation, under the State Partnership Program. 

Officials indicate that this instruction is currently undergoing review within 

DOD and should be issued sometime during 2012, but could not provide 

us with a confirmed issuance date. In addition, the National Guard Bureau 

is working on guidance for implementing the State Partnership Program. 

According to National Guard Bureau officials, an instruction will establish 

policy, assign responsibilities, and provide guidance for the execution of 

the State Partnership Program. An accompanying manual will provide 

more details on how to implement the program. National Guard Bureau 

officials indicated that the instruction and the manual are expected to be 

20Under Secretary of Defense, Policy Directive Type Memorandum, Directive-Type 

Memorandum (DTM) 11-010, “Use of Appropriated Funds for Conducting State 

Partnership Program (SPP) Activities” (Aug. 19, 2011).

DOD Has Taken Initial 

Steps to Clarify Civilian 

Funding Concerns, but It Is 

Unclear When Formal 

Guidance and Training 

Programs Will Be in Place
 

Page 24 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

issued sometime during 2012, but also could not provide us with a 

confirmed issuance date.

During the course of our review, Congress enacted the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which provides authority for the 

use of up to $3 million to pay for some costs associated with civilian 

participation.21

Beyond the lack of guidance, the responses stakeholders provided to our 

questions revealed that there is widespread confusion about aspects of 

program implementation, including addressing funding concerns. We 

have previously reported that challenges facing such programs can be 

mitigated by improving training and that training can help ensure that 

program policies and procedures are consistently adhered to by program 

However, National Guard Bureau officials stated that DOD 

has not issued guidance on the implementation of this provision. 

According to officials, due to this lack of guidance, funds have not been 

used for this purpose. The draft DOD instruction is still undergoing review 

and is intended to provide clarifying information on the use of funds 

appropriated to DOD prior to the enactment of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Therefore, it may be appropriate 

for the Under Secretary of Defense, Policy, to determine whether or not 

the draft instruction is the right mechanism for conveying additional 

guidance addressing section 1085 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or determine alternative plans for how to 

address the confusion expressed by National Guard Bureau officials. 

Without additional guidance, however, the National Guard Bureau does 

not plan to use this authority so the concerns about how to fund civilian 

participation are likely to persist.

 

21Section 1085 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. 

No. 112-81 (2011), allows the Secretary of Defense to use up to $3,000,000 of the funds 

made available to the National Guard to pay for travel and per diem costs associated with 

the participation of the United States and foreign civilian and non-defense agency 

personnel in conducting activities under the State Partnership Program of the National 

Guard, subject to Section 1210 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010, Pub. L. No. 111–84 (2009), codified at 32 U.S.C. 107 note. Section 1210 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 states that funds shall not be 

available for activities conducted under the State Partnership Program in a foreign country 

unless such activities are jointly approved by the commander of the combatant command 

and the chief of mission concerned. 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

offices.22 Further, DOD guidance emphasizes the need for proper training 

and staffing to increase effectiveness in budgeting.23 The National Guard 

Bureau has taken steps to provide training but told us that their efforts 

needed improvement in some areas. For example, State Partnership 

Program Coordinators have the opportunity to attend the Defense 

Institute of Security Assistance Management course, which in 2012 and 

several years prior, included topics such as an introduction to security 

cooperation, understanding the State Partnership Program, emphasizing 

security cooperation administration as well as emphasizing the interaction 

and constraints of the State Partnership Program with other DOD security 

cooperation activities. Moreover, officials indicated that the National 

Guard Bureau holds annual State Partnership Program conferences and 

participates in combatant commands’ conferences, where some training 

on the processes and authorities are presented. National Guard Bureau 

officials stated that they are planning some training for State Partnership 

Program Coordinators for the summer of 2012 and plan to include an 

overview of funding, but have not determined the specific content related 

to funding for this training event. Without further guidance and training in 

this area, the National Guard Bureau and the combatant commands may 

miss additional opportunities to use the program to fulfill their missions.

In recent years, DOD has emphasized the importance of strengthening 

security cooperation with other countries as a way of promoting stability 

and partner capacity around the world, and the State Partnership 

Program is one of many efforts in this area. While many State Partnership 

Program stakeholders cited anecdotal benefits to the program such as 

training and experience for guardsmen and supporting combatant 

commanders’ goals and priorities, DOD and Congress do not have an 

effective means to assess the program because fundamental elements 

such as agreed-upon goals are missing. As a result, little oversight of the 

program has been conducted in the past. Officials informed us that they 

are working on goals, objectives, and metrics and expect to implement 

them in the next few months. Such goals and measures are critical 

because they form the foundation of an oversight framework that would 

 

22GAO, Indian Health Service: Increased Oversight Needed to Ensure Accuracy of Data 

Used for Estimating Contract Health Service Need, GAO-11-767 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 

23, 2011).

23Joint Publication 1-04, Legal Support to Military Operations (Mar. 1, 2007).

Conclusions 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

enable decision makers and stakeholders to objectively judge the 

program’s effectiveness and gauge progress over time. However, in order 

to make use of metrics, DOD and the National Guard Bureau will need 

complete and consistent data from the combatant commands and state 

National Guards engaged in State Partnership Program activities. In the 

interim period until DOD fully implements its global data system, guidance 

that establishes an agreed-upon set of definitions and rules for inputting 

data, and that would apply to the National Guard Bureau, all combatant 

commands, and state National Guards, could provide a foundation for 

measuring the State Partnership Program’s effectiveness and efficiency. 

Finally, some activities that stakeholders believe could have a broad 

impact—such as those involving civilians—are not being conducted due 

primarily to a lack of guidance and understanding on how to fund those 

activities. Ensuring that stakeholders understand how to use funding from 

the National Guard Bureau, combatant commands, and other sources to 

support the State Partnership Program would help state National Guards 

fully utilize the program.

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following four 

actions: 

• To improve the management of the State Partnership Program, direct 

the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, in coordination with the 

combatant commands and the embassy country teams, to complete 

and implement the program’s comprehensive oversight framework by 

using the goals, objectives, and metrics currently being developed as 

its basis.

• To enable oversight and improve the completeness and consistency 

of data needed to manage the State Partnership Program, direct the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Joint Staff, in coordination 

with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the combatant 

commands, and the embassy country teams, to develop guidance for 

all stakeholders that includes agreed-upon definitions for data fields 

and rules for maintaining data until the global data system is fully 

implemented.

• To address concerns about how funds can be used to include civilians 

in State Partnership Program activities, direct the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Policy, to develop guidance that clarifies how to use funds 

for civilian participation in the State Partnership Program.

• To improve program implementation, direct the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau to develop additional training for State Partnership 

Program Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs Officers on the appropriate 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 27 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

use of funds for supporting the State Partnership Program, especially 

in regard to including civilians in program events.

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our 

findings and recommendations. Regarding our first recommendation to 

complete and implement the program’s comprehensive oversight 

framework, DOD concurred and noted that these efforts are underway 

with target implementation for the end of fiscal year 2012. In response to 

our second recommendation to develop guidance for all stakeholders that 

includes agreed-upon definitions for data fields and rules for maintaining 

data, and our third recommendation to develop guidance that clarifies the 

use of funds for civilian participation in State Partnership Program 

activities, DOD concurred and stated that it is currently developing a DOD 

instruction that will provide additional guidance to stakeholders on these 

issues. DOD did not, however, indicate timelines for the issuance of this 

instruction. We believe that prompt action in this regard will help DOD 

achieve greater visibility over the State Partnership Program, and we urge 

DOD to determine a timeline for issuance. Regarding our final 

recommendation to develop additional training for State Partnership 

Program Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs Officers on the appropriate 

use of funds for supporting the State Partnership Program, especially in 

regard to including civilians in program events, DOD concurred and 

stated that the National Guard Bureau has developed some additional 

training and will use existing workshops to increase training opportunities. 

We are pleased with DOD’s efforts and continue to believe that increased 

training in this area will help DOD fully utilize the State Partnership 

Program. DOD’s comments are printed in their entirety in appendix III.

We also provided a draft of this report to the Department of State and the 

United States Agency for International Development, but they did not 

provide any comments.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

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

Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development. 

This report is also available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 28 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

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

contact me at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

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

this report are listed in appendix IV.

John H. Pendleton

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

To address our objectives, we collected perspectives on the program 

from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Policy; Joint Staff; National 

Guard Bureau; and program stakeholders including State Partnership 

Program coordinating officials at the geographic combatant commands; 

State Partnership Program Coordinators; and Bilateral Affairs Officers, 

including their views on the benefits of the program. We also collected 

information on the process that the Department of Defense (DOD) uses to 

establish partnerships and the steps taken by all U.S. program 

stakeholders, including State Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral 

Affairs Officers, and combatant commanders, to coordinate State 

Partnership Program activities and prevent duplication of effort. We also 

obtained and reviewed DOD documents, including Defense Strategic 

Guidance, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and The National Military 

Strategy of the United States of America to place the State Partnership 

Program within the broader context of DOD’s strategic efforts.

To determine the extent to which State Partnership Program activities are 

meeting the goals and objectives of the program, we gathered 

documentation; interviewed National Guard Bureau officials about the 

development of goals, objectives, and performance metrics for the 

program; and assessed their efforts based on criteria from our previous 

work. We also reviewed an improvement plan for the State Partnership 

Program provided by the National Guard Bureau and assessed the extent 

to which the plan addressed the need for goals, objectives, and metrics 

and identified timeframes for implementation. In addition, we obtained 

and reviewed DOD guidance, including the Directive Type Memorandum 

released in August 2011, to determine if goals and objectives for the 

State Partnership Program were specified in those documents. To identify 

benefits of the program, we contacted all State Partnership Program 

Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs Officers via e-mail with a standard set 

of questions. In addition to program benefits, the questions addressed 

roles in implementing the State Partnership Program, steps to avoid 

duplication of program activities, any challenges faced when 

implementing the program, and any suggested areas for improvement. 

We received and analyzed responses from 50 of the 52 State Partnership 

Program Coordinators and from 23 out of 47 Bilateral Affairs Officers.1

 

1

There are 53 U.S. states and territories currently participating in the State Partnership 

Program. While there are 63 partnerships in the program, not every country has a Bilateral 

Affairs Officer assigned. 

We also collected and analyzed written responses to similar questions 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

from coordinating officials at the six U.S. geographic combatant 

commands.

In conducting our content analysis, a GAO analyst independently 

reviewed each response from the State Partnership Program 

Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs Officers to identify recurring themes in 

the answers to each question. A second GAO analyst independently 

reviewed the responses from the State Partnership Program Coordinators 

and Bilateral Affairs Officers and reviewed the recurring themes identified 

by the first analyst to reach concurrence and identify any themes that the 

first analyst may have overlooked. Using the identified recurring themes, 

the analysts developed categories and definitions for what should and 

should not be included under each category when coding the responses. 

A GAO analyst then independently reviewed the answers to each 

question and placed them into one or more of the relevant categories. In 

some cases, the respondent may have provided information to answer 

the question in other areas of the response. When that occurred, the 

analyst also coded that information and noted that it was provided in an 

answer to a different question. A second GAO analyst independently 

reviewed the answers to each question and placed them into one or more 

of the relevant categories. The coding of both analysts was compared to 

identify areas of disagreement. For items in which there was not 

agreement, the two analysts met to discuss reasons for selecting the 

categories they did until an agreement about the category that was most 

appropriate was reached.

To determine the completeness and consistency of activity and funding 

data for the program, we collected and analyzed data on State 

Partnership Program activities from fiscal years 2007 through 2011—

including types of activities, funding sources, and funding amounts—

obtained from the National Guard Bureau and the six U.S. geographic 

combatant commands. To assess the reliability of the data, we collected 

written information from the combatant commands to gain an 

understanding of the processes and databases used to collect and record 

data and to identify any known limitations to the data. We also collected 

written information on any data quality control procedures in place for 

data on State Partnership Program activities and reviewed user manuals 

for the various databases, where provided. We discussed the procedures 

for generating and verifying the data with knowledgeable combatant 

command and National Guard Bureau officials. We examined the data 

provided for obvious anomalies and compared the data to DOD’s report 

to Congress on State Partnership Program activities involving civilians. 

We found missing information and inconsistencies as well as a lack of 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

guidance on data inputs to ensure complete and consistent information. 

We discussed these limitations with the officials in an attempt to obtain 

more complete information and reconcile the differences. We ultimately 

determined that the data we received were not reliable for the purposes of 

providing complete information on the types and frequency of activities, 

the funding sources used, or the total cost of the activities because of our 

concerns about the completeness and consistency of the data, which we 

discuss in our report. As a result, the data we included in the report do not 

represent the complete scope of the State Partnership Program. The data 

do, however, illustrate the limitations we found.

To identify challenges that DOD faces in implementing the program, we 

included a question on any challenges in implementing the program and 

any areas for improvement in our email to all State Partnership Program 

Coordinators and all Bilateral Affairs Officers who participate in this 

program, as described above. Our content analysis included categories 

for challenges and areas for improvement. We also collected and 

analyzed written responses to similar questions from the six U.S. 

geographic combatant commands. On the basis of the challenges cited 

by stakeholders, we also reviewed legislation and guidance on the State 

Partnership Program, including the Directive Type Memorandum and 

internal National Guard Bureau memoranda on the use of funds for State 

Partnership Program activities, to identify areas of confusion that might 

require clarification or additional training. We also identified criteria in our 

previous work for combating the challenges identified by State 

Partnership Program stakeholders. We discussed these areas with 

National Guard Bureau officials and any efforts in place to address the 

challenges.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2011 to 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 audit objectives.
Appendix II: State Partnership Program 

Participating States and Countries, by 

Combatant Command

Page 32 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Figure 4: State Partnership Program Participating States and Countries, Africa Command

*Indicates country has a Bilateral Affairs Officer.

Appendix II: State Partnership Program 

Participating States and Countries, by 

Combatant Command
Appendix II: State Partnership Program 

Participating States and Countries, by 

Combatant Command

Page 33 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Figure 5: State Partnership Program Participating States and Countries, Central Command
Appendix II: State Partnership Program 

Participating States and Countries, by 

Combatant Command

Page 34 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Figure 6: State Partnership Program Participating States and Countries, European Command

*Indicates country has a Bilateral Affairs Officer.
Appendix II: State Partnership Program 

Participating States and Countries, by 

Combatant Command

Page 35 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Figure 7: State Partnership Program Participating States and Countries, Northern Command
Appendix II: State Partnership Program 

Participating States and Countries, by 

Combatant Command

Page 36 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Figure 8: State Partnership Program Participating States and Countries, Pacific Command
Appendix II: State Partnership Program 

Participating States and Countries, by 

Combatant Command

Page 37 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Figure 9: State Partnership Program Participating States and Countries, Southern Command

*Indicates country has a Bilateral Affairs Officer.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 38 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense

Note: GAO received 

DOD’s letter 

April 27, 2012
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 39 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 40 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 41 GAO-12-548 State Partnership Program

John H. Pendleton, (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report 

were Marie Mak, Assistant Director; Leslie Bharadwaja; Michele Fejfar; 

Kelly Liptan; Erik Wilkins-McKee; Amie Steele; and Nicole Willems. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(351649)
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.