Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

April 2001 FORMER SOVIET

UNION

U.S. Rule of Law

Assistance Has Had

Limited Impact

GAO-01-354
Page i GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Letter 1

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 43

Appendix II Comments From the Department of State 46

Appendix III Comments From the Department of Justice 50

Appendix IV Comments From the U.S. Agency for International

Development 56

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 69

Tables

Table 1: U.S. Funding of Rule of Law Assistance Programs in the

New Independent States, Fiscal Years 1992-2000 7

Table 2: Rule of Law Ratings for the New Independent States,

 1997-2000 32

Figures

Figure 1: Map of the New Independent States of the Former Soviet

Union 6

Figure 2: Percentage of Rule of Law Funding by Four Key U.S.

Agencies, Fiscal Years 1992-2000 9

Figure 3: Key Elements of U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Program 10

Figure 4: Legal Foundation of U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Program 13

Figure 5: Judicial Pillar of U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Program 16

Figure 6: Legal Education Pillar of U.S. Rule of Law Assistance

Program 21

Figure 7: Law Enforcement Pillar of U.S. Rule of Law Assistance

Program 25

Figure 8: Civil Society Pillar of U.S. Rule of Law Assistance

Program 29

Contents
Page ii GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Abbreviation

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
Page 1 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

April 17, 2001

The Honorable Christopher Shays

Chairman

The Honorable Dennis Kucinich

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on National Security,

 Veterans Affairs, and International Relations

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rod Blagojevich

House of Representatives

Since 1991, the 12 new independent states that emerged from the breakup

of the Soviet Union1

 have been struggling to overcome a long tradition of

totalitarian rule, marked by an arbitrary system of justice and state

suppression of human rights. The U.S. government’s efforts to support

their transition to an enduring system of democracy and open markets

include the promotion of the “rule of law” in these countries. According to

the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the rule of law

embodies the basic principles of equal treatment of all people before the

law and is founded on a predictable and transparent legal system with fair

and effective judicial and law enforcement institutions to protect citizens

against the arbitrary use of state authority and lawless acts.

For fiscal years 1992 through 2000, the U.S. government has provided

about $216 million in assistance to help the new independent states of the

former Soviet Union develop the sustainable institutions, traditions, and

legal foundations for establishing a strong rule of law. The United States

has aimed its assistance at helping these countries (1) establish a modern

legal basis for the administration of justice, (2) create a strong and

independent judiciary, (3) strengthen legal education for legal

professionals operating within the system, (4) improve law enforcement

practices, and (5) broaden access and participation of civil society2

 in the

legal system. For the purposes of this report, we refer to this array of

 1

These nations are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,

Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

2

Civil society includes the general population and nongovernmental organizations, such as

associations, trade unions, and interest groups.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

projects and assistance activities in the new independent states as the

“U.S. rule of law assistance program.” These activities were largely

implemented by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the

Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury, and were funded

primarily by annual appropriations authorized under the Freedom Support

Act of 1992.3

 This program is one component of the overall assistance

package, totaling more than $6.3 billion from fiscal years 1993 through

2000, for the new independent states of the former Soviet Union.

To determine whether the U.S. government’s rule of law assistance

program in the new independent states has been effective, you asked us to

(1) assess the extent to which the program has had an impact on the

development of the rule of law and whether the program results are

sustainable4

 and (2) analyze the factors that may have affected the

program’s impact and sustainability.

To meet these objectives, we reviewed rule of law project documentation

and interviewed knowledgeable officials from the key U.S. agencies

providing this assistance. This report focuses primarily on Armenia,

Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine, countries where the U.S. Agency for

International Development has defined the development of the rule of law

as a strategic objective.5

 We conducted fieldwork in Russia and Ukraine,

which have received at least half of the total U.S. rule of law assistance in

this region, and interviewed U.S. government officials and senior hostcountry officials as well as representatives of many nongovernmental

organizations and other project beneficiaries. To assess the impact and

sustainability of specific projects, we reviewed the projects funded in

Russia and Ukraine during fiscal years 1995 through 1998. For those

countries in which we did not conduct fieldwork, we relied primarily on

interviews with U.S. officials and documentation available in Washington,

D.C., which addressed the results of the U.S. assistance efforts. A detailed

 3

“Freedom” in the name of this act stands for the Freedom for Russia and Emerging

Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets (P.L. 102-511). Throughout this report, we refer

to the act as the “Freedom Support Act.”

4

“Sustainability” is the extent to which the benefits of a program extend beyond the

program’s life span.

5

According to USAID, a strategic objective is the most ambitious result that a USAID

operating unit, such as a country mission, can materially affect, and for which it is willing

to be held accountable.
Page 3 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

description of our scope and methodology is included in appendix I of this

report.

Overall, the U.S. government’s rule of law assistance efforts in the new

independent states of the former Soviet Union have had limited impact so

far, and results may not be sustainable in many cases. Establishing the rule

of law is a complex and long-term undertaking in these countries, where

laws and institutions were designed largely to further the power of the

state. U.S. agencies have helped support a variety of legal system reforms

in this region and have introduced some innovative legal concepts and

practices in the areas of legislative and judicial reform, legal education,

law enforcement, and civil society, which may contribute to a stronger

rule of law in the future. For example, the United States helped establish

legal education clinics in Russian and Ukrainian law schools. These clinics

provide practical training for future lawyers as well as greater access by

the poor to legal remedies for their problems. However, it is not clear

whether U.S.-supported reforms and innovations are likely to be sustained.

In some cases, countries have not clearly adopted on a wide scale the new

concepts and practices that the United States has advocated. In other

cases, continuation or expansion of the innovations depends on further

funding from the U.S. government or other foreign donors. Despite the

accomplishments of the program, progress toward establishing the rule of

law has been slow in the new independent states, and in several countries,

including Russia and Ukraine, the situation appears to have deteriorated in

recent years, according to data monitored by U.S. agencies and a host of

U.S. government and foreign officials we interviewed.

The impact and sustainability of U.S. rule of law assistance programs have

been constrained by a number of factors, including limited political

consensus on reforms, a shortage of domestic resources for many of the

more expensive innovations, and weaknesses in the design and

management of assistance programs by U.S. agencies. The first two factors

have created a very difficult environment in which to foster rule of law

development. As a result of limited political consensus by lawmakers and

leaders in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union, many

important legislative and institutional components of the rule of law have

not been established. These components include the passage of some postSoviet-era criminal and civil codes and procedures. In addition, with the

poor economic performance of most of these countries, limited domestic

funds have been available from public and private sources to sustain and

expand the legal system reforms and efforts supported by the United

States, such as jury trials and continuing legal education. Finally, U.S.

Results in Brief
Page 4 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

agencies and organizations conducting these aid projects have not always

designed and implemented them with an emphasis on achieving and

monitoring impact and sustainability. The Departments of State, Justice,

and the Treasury have not developed specific strategies for achieving longterm objectives, or desired “outcomes,” of their assistance projects, such

as reforming national law enforcement practices. Instead, efforts have

often been focused on achieving limited, short-term “outputs,” such as

training a finite number of people or supplying them with certain

equipment or educational materials. Further, none of the U.S. agencies,

including the U.S. Agency for International Development, have effective

monitoring and evaluation systems in place to assess fully the longer-term

results and sustainability of their efforts and reorient their projects based

on a thorough understanding of the lessons learned. Recently, U.S.

agencies have begun to pay increased attention to improving project

planning and evaluation and are in the process of making program

reforms. However, a significant amount of the State Department’s current

funding for this program—about $30 million—has been budgeted, but not

yet spent, for projects that were designed prior to the establishment of

these program reforms.

In this report we make recommendations to the Secretary of State, the

Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Administrator of

the U.S. Agency for International Development, who together administer

nearly all of the funding for this program, to improve program

management. Specifically, we recommended that they implement

requirements for projects to include (1) specific strategies for achieving

impact and sustainable results and (2) monitoring and evaluation of

outcomes. In written comments on a draft of this report, State, Justice, and

the U.S. Agency for International Development generally agreed that the

program management improvements we recommended are needed.6

However, the agencies felt that we measured program success by too high

a standard given the complex and long-term task of establishing the rule of

law; that we did not adequately acknowledge some significant program

accomplishments and evaluation efforts; and that we understated the

significance of weak political will as a factor limiting program impact and

sustainability. We have modified the report and included some additional

information, where appropriate, to address the agencies’ comments.

However, our overall conclusions remain essentially unchanged.

 6

Treasury did not comment on the report draft.
Page 5 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

In December 1991, after more than 70 years of Communist rule, the Soviet

Union came to an abrupt end, and the 12 new independent states emerging

from the breakup started their transition to market-based democracies

(see fig. 1 for a map of the 12 states). According to a 1993 study prepared

for the U.S. Agency for International Development, and legal experts, these

countries inherited legal systems that were, in many respects, the

antitheses of the rule of law.7

 According to this study, under the Soviet

Union, law was created by an elite without general participation and was

designed to further the power of the state, not to limit it. In addition, the

law was applied on an ad hoc basis to achieve political goals. Private

economic activity was discouraged, and the Soviet Union lacked the basic

legal framework needed to facilitate and regulate private enterprise. All

the actors in the legal system were, to one degree or another, under the

control of the Communist party and at the service of the state. The state

procuracy (prosecutor) oversaw criminal investigations and prosecutions

in a heavy-handed manner, affording defendants few, if any, rights. Law

enforcement agencies were inexperienced in addressing many types of

crimes that would come to plague the region and threaten other countries,

such as organized crime and drug trafficking. The government and the

Communist party controlled both access to legal education and the

licensing of lawyers. With its tradition of unpublished and secret

administrative regulation, the state also limited public access to the legal

system and legal information; as a result, citizens regarded the legal

system with suspicion and questioned its legitimacy, according to the

USAID-sponsored study. According to legal experts, courts in the Soviet

Union were weak, lacked independence, and enjoyed little public respect.8

Administration of justice was poorly funded, facilities were not well

maintained, and judges were poorly paid and received very little, if any,

training.

 7

An Assessment of Prospects for U.S. Assistance to Support the Rule of Law in Russia

(Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, 1993).

8

P. Solomon and T. Fogelsong, Courts and Transition in Russia: the Challenge of Judicial

Reform (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000).

Background
Page 6 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 1: Map of the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union

Source: GAO.

For fiscal years 1992 through 2000, the United States has obligated at least

$216 million in assistance to help establish the rule of law in the new

independent states of the former Soviet Union. For fiscal years 1998

through 2000, U.S. assistance under this program has averaged about

$29 million per year. Table 1 illustrates the estimated distribution of this

funding among these countries. Over half of the funding has been devoted

Russia

Russia

Belarus

Ukraine Ukraine

’

Kazakhstan Kazakhstan

Armenia

Georgia

Moldova

Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Turkmenistan Turkmenistan

Azerbaijan Azerbaijan

Tajikistan

Uzbekistan Uzbekistan
Page 7 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

to four countries where USAID has designated rule of law development as

a strategic objective:9

 Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia. While the

remaining countries have received some rule of law assistance, USAID has

not made rule of law development a strategic objective in these countries.

According to USAID and State, the U.S. rule of law assistance program,

along with other programs of U.S. assistance to Central and Eastern

Europe and the new independent states, was envisioned by the U.S.

government to be a short-term program to jump-start the countries of this

strategically critical region on their way to political and economic

transition.

Table 1: U.S. Funding of Rule of Law Assistance Programs in the New Independent

States, Fiscal Years 1992-2000

Dollars in millions

Country Amount Percent

Russia $77 35

Ukraine 25 12

Georgia 8 4

Armenia 6 3

All othersa36 16

Multiple countriesb64 30

Total $216 100

Note: Data on U.S. rule of law funding are estimates provided by USAID and the Departments of

State, Justice, and the Treasury.

a

“All others” includes Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan,

Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

b

Assistance in this category was provided to two or more countries within the region and could not

readily be broken out by recipient countries.

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. agencies’ rule of law funding data.

Many other foreign and U.S.-based donors have provided rule of law

assistance to the new independent states. For example, the World Bank

has a program to lend Russia $58 million for legal system reform. Many

Western European countries, the European Union, and private

international donors, such as the Ford Foundation and the Soros

Foundation, have also financed projects similar to those funded by the

United States. Funding data for these activities were not readily available,

 9

According to USAID, a strategic objective is the most ambitious result that a USAID

operating unit, such as a country mission, can materially affect, and for which it is willing

to be held accountable.
Page 8 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

and we did not attempt to determine the value of all of this assistance,

given the difficulty involved in identifying the many different efforts and

their costs.

Fostering sustainable results through U.S. assistance projects is critical to

the impact and ultimate success of this program. According to USAID’s

strategic plan,10 promoting sustainable development among developing and

transitional countries contributes to U.S. national interests and is a

necessary and critical component of America’s role as a world leader.

Strengthening the rule of law is a key component of USAID’s strategic goal

of building sustainable democracies. The right conditions for development

can only be created by the people and governments of developing and

transitional countries, according to USAID. In the right settings, however,

American resources, including its ideas and values, can be powerful

catalysts enabling sustainable development. Achieving sustainable project

results is especially important in areas where development is likely to be a

difficult and long-term process, such as establishing the rule of law in this

region.

Almost all U.S. funding for rule of law assistance in the new independent

states of the former Soviet Union, authorized under the Freedom Support

Act of 1992, is appropriated to USAID and the Department of State.

However, a significant amount of assistance has been allocated to the

Departments of Justice and Treasury through interagency fund transfers

from USAID and State. As shown in figure 2, from fiscal years 1992

through 2000, USAID has administered about 49 percent of program

funding for rule of law activities in this region, while the Departments of

Justice, State, and the Treasury have administered about 51 percent.

 10See “USAID Strategic Plan,” available on the World Wide Web at www.usaid.gov.

Four Key U.S. Agencies

Implement the Rule of Law

Assistance Program
Page 9 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 2: Percentage of Rule of Law Funding by Four Key U.S. Agencies, Fiscal

Years 1992-2000

Note: State funding information includes activities initially implemented by the U.S. Information

Agency and later by its successor, State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Other agencies

implementing smaller projects with interagency fund transfers from State include the Department of

Energy, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Office of

Government Ethics. The total cost of these projects represents less than 1 percent of total program

funds.

Source: GAO analysis of rule of law funding data provided by agencies.

These agencies provide assistance under this program through a variety of

means, primarily in the form of goods and services to governmental and

nongovernmental organizations and individuals. For some projects, such

as law enforcement training, U.S. government agencies provide the

assistance directly. For other projects, such as institutional development

projects, the agencies distribute aid to beneficiaries through contracts,

cooperative agreements, and grants to nongovernmental organizations,

private voluntary organizations, and firms located in the United States or

overseas. Assistance is generally not provided directly to foreign

governments through cash disbursements.

Justice

State

Treasury

USAID

Other

25%

22%

49%

State

USAID

Other

Justice

<1%

Treasury

4%
Page 10 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

The United States has taken a broad approach to providing rule of law

assistance. The assistance approach generally incorporates five elements:

(1) developing a legal foundation for reform, (2) strengthening the

judiciary, (3) modernizing legal education, (4) improving law enforcement

practices, and (5) increasing civil society’s access to justice. (See fig. 3 for

an illustration of these elements.)

Figure 3: Key Elements of U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

Source: GAO.

Developing a legal foundation for reform: Projects under this element have

focused on assisting governments in passing legislation that would provide

the legal basis for a transparent and predictable administration of justice

system, including a post-communist constitution, a law establishing an

independent judiciary, and post-Soviet-era civil and criminal codes and

procedures. This element also includes efforts to strengthen the legislative

process.

Five Elements of the U.S.

Rule of Law Assistance

Program
Page 11 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Strengthening the judiciary: Projects under this element involve

strengthening the independence of the judiciary and the efficiency and

effectiveness of the courts, including increasing the expertise and status of

judges and supporting the development of judicial institutions.

Modernizing legal education: Projects under this component have

concentrated on improving legal education available to both students and

practitioners of the law, including modernizing law school curricula,

establishing legal clinics for law students, and developing indigenous

continuing legal education opportunities for practicing lawyers and other

legal professionals.

Improving law enforcement practices: Projects under this component have

been aimed at improving law enforcement practices by training

procurators and other law enforcement personnel in modern techniques of

criminal investigation and prosecution that are effective yet respectful of

citizens’ civil rights.

Increasing civil society’s access to justice: Projects under this component

have targeted the participation of nongovernmental organizations and the

general population in the judicial sector to make legal information and

access to justice affordable and realizable.

In general, USAID implements assistance projects primarily aimed at

development of the judiciary, legislative reform, legal education, and civil

society. The Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury provide

assistance for criminal law reform and law enforcement projects.

Though the program has generally included these elements throughout its

existence, it has evolved over the years in response to lessons learned

about effectiveness and to adapt to emerging constraints. For example, in

the earlier years of the program, the United States emphasized promotion

of western methods and models for reform. As it became clear that host

country officials often did not consider these to be appropriate to their

local contexts, USAID projects began to foster the development of more

“home-grown” reforms. Also, in Russia, the United States has placed

increasing emphasis on regional projects outside of Moscow instead of

projects aimed at the central government, as regional officials were often

more receptive to reform.
Page 12 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Establishing the rule of law in the new independent states of the former

Soviet Union has proven to be an extremely complex and challenging task

that is likely to take many years to accomplish. U.S. assistance has had

limited results, and the sustainability of those results is uncertain. In each

of the five elements of the rule of law assistance program, the United

States has succeeded in exposing these countries to innovative legal

concepts and practices that could lead to a stronger rule of law in the

future. However, we could not find evidence that many of these concepts

and practices have been widely adopted. At this point, many of the U.S.-

assisted reforms are dependent on continued donor funding in order to be

sustained. Despite some positive developments, the reform movement has

proceeded slowly overall, and the establishment of the rule of law in the

new independent states remains elusive.

A key focus of the U.S. rule of law assistance programs has been the

development of a legal foundation for reform of the justice system in the

new independent states. (See fig. 4 for activities involving the legislative

foundation of the rule of law assistance program.) The United States has

helped several of these countries adopt new constitutions and pass

legislation establishing independent judiciaries and post-communist civil

and criminal codes and procedures, as well as other legislation that

supports democratic and market-oriented reform. Despite considerable

progress in a few countries, major gaps persist in the legal foundation for

reform, particularly in such countries as Ukraine, a major beneficiary of

U.S. rule of law assistance, according to U.S. and foreign government

officials we interviewed.

U.S. Assistance Has

Had Limited Results;

Project Sustainability

in Question

Legal Foundation: Some

Key Reform Laws Have

Been Passed, but Others

Remain Unfinished
Page 13 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 4: Legal Foundation of U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

Source: GAO.

U.S. projects in legislative assistance have been fruitful in Russia, Georgia,

and Armenia, according to several evaluations of this assistance, which

point to progress in passing key new laws. For example, according to a

1996 independent evaluation of the legal reform assistance program, major

advances in Russian legal reform occurred in areas that USAID programs
Page 14 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

had targeted for support, including the passage of a new civil code and a

series of commercial laws.11 This legislation included the 1996 Russian

Federation Constitutional Law on the Judicial System and the 1998 Law on

the Judicial Department, creating a more independent judicial branch

within the Russian government. The Department of Justice provided

technical assistance and advice to lawmakers in the passage of Russia’s

new criminal code as well, which, according to Justice, formally

eliminated the Soviet laws against private economic activity, free speech,

and political dissent. Georgia has also passed many key pieces of

legislation with U.S. assistance in the areas of improving the judiciary, the

procuracy (the prosecutor), the media, and the criminal justice process,

according to another evaluation we reviewed.12 In Armenia, as well,

according to a 2000 USAID-sponsored evaluation, important legislation

was adopted as a result of U.S. government assistance, including a new

civil code, criminal procedure code, Law on the Judiciary, Law on the

Status of Judges, Law on the Execution of Court Judgments, Law on

Advocates, and a universal electoral code.13 The results of assistance in

this area are not easy to discern in all cases. For example, a 1999 USAIDsponsored evaluation of a portion of the legislative assistance and policy

advice provided to Russia in the mid- to late 1990s indicates that the

impact of this aid could not be independently verified.14

U.S. projects to help countries achieve passage of critical legal reform

legislation have not always been successful, and key legislation is lacking

in several new independent states. Despite providing assistance to reform

legislation, Ukraine has not yet passed any new laws on the judiciary or

new criminal, civil, administrative, or procedure codes since a new

constitution was passed in 1996. In Russia, a revised criminal procedure

code, a key component of the overall judicial reform effort, has still not

been adopted by the government, despite extensive assistance from the

Department of Justice in developing legislative proposals.

 11USAID Programs Supporting Commercial Law and Other Legal Reform in the Russian

Federation (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, Sept. 1996).

12The American Bar Association/Central and Eastern European Law Initiative Evaluation,

Georgia Country Report (Washington, D.C.: Management Systems International, Jan. 1999).

13USAID/Armenia Rule of Law Assessment (Washington, D.C.: Management Systems

International, May 2000).

14The American Bar Association/Central and Eastern European Law Initiative Evaluation,

Russia Country Report (Washington, D.C.: Management Systems International, Jan. 1999).
Page 15 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Furthermore, a major project in Ukraine to establish sustainable

mechanisms for developing reform-oriented legislation in the future has

not yet been successful. One component of the USAID assistance program

in Ukraine has been advancing parliamentary expertise and institutions to

provide public policy analysis that will result in a more active, informed,

and transparent parliament. However, according to U.S., foreign

government, and private sector officials we interviewed, parliamentary

committees are still weak, and parliamentary procedures for conducting

hearings and related oversight activities have not been institutionalized.

The vast majority of reforms still stem from the executive, which holds a

disproportionate share of power and influence over the judicial and

legislative branches of government.

The second key element in the U.S. government’s rule of law program has

been to foster an independent judiciary with strong judicial institutions

and well-trained judges and court officers who administer decisions fairly

and efficiently. (See fig. 5 for activities under the judicial pillar of the rule

of law assistance program.) The United States has contributed to greater

independence and integrity of the judiciary by supporting key new judicial

institutions and innovations in the administration of justice and by helping

to train or retrain many judges and court officials. However, U.S. efforts

we reviewed to help retool the judiciary have had limited impact so far.

Judicial training programs have not yet been developed by the

governments with adequate capacity to reach the huge numbers of judges

and court officials who operate the judiciaries in these nations, and courts

still lack full independence, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Judiciary: Greater

Independence Achieved

in Some Respects, but

Continued Reform

and Retraining Needed
Page 16 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 5: Judicial Pillar of U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

Source: GAO.

The United States has provided technical support and equipment to help

establish and strengthen a variety of national judicial institutions. Though

we could not verify the impact of this assistance on the effectiveness of

their operations, representatives of the following institutions in Russia

credit U.S. support for helping them enhance the independence and

integrity of the judiciary.
Page 17 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

• A Supreme Qualifying Collegium in Russia: With the help of training,

information, and equipment provided by USAID, this institution,

comprised solely of judges, is better equipped to oversee the qualification

and discipline of judges, providing greater independence from political

influence in court affairs.

• Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in Russia: USAID provided

training, educational materials, and other technical assistance to

strengthen this new independent institution, created in 1998 to assume the

administrative and financial responsibility for court management

previously held by the Ministry of Justice.

The United States has also helped support the following innovations in the

administration of the judiciary that appear to help increase the judiciary’s

integrity and independence.

• Qualifying examinations in Georgia: With extensive U.S. assistance by

USAID contractors, an objective judicial qualifying examination system

was introduced in 1998. This step has resulted in the replacement of some

poorly qualified judges with certified ones. Georgia has repeated the exam

several times with decreasing amounts of technical assistance from the

United States.

• Jury trials in Russia: With training and educational material on trial

advocacy, judges are now presiding over jury trials in 9 of Russia’s

89 regions for the first time since 1917. Although the jury trial system has

not expanded beyond a pilot phase, administration of criminal justice has

been transformed in these regions—acquittals, unheard of during the

Soviet era, are increasing under this system (up to 16.5 percent of all jury

trials by the most recent count).

At a broader level, the United States has attempted to strengthen the

integrity of the judiciary by supporting a variety of educational projects for

legal professionals within the court system. In particular, USAID has

sponsored training and conferences and has provided educational

materials for judges, bailiffs, and administrators, raising their

understanding of new and existing laws and improving their knowledge

and skills in operating efficient and effective court systems. According to a

major aid contractor, training on the bail law in Ukraine sponsored by the

Department of Justice has increased awareness among courts of the

alternatives to lengthy pretrial detention for criminal defendants. The

United States has also helped develop manuals that provide practical

information for judges and bailiffs on how to conduct their jobs.

Historically, few books like these have been widely available, which has
Page 18 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

seriously limited the development of professionalism in these legal

careers. New teaching methods were introduced through U.S.-sponsored

conferences. For example, according to training officials in the Russian

Commercial Court, whereas conferences for their judges had traditionally

been based mostly on lectures, U.S.-sponsored conferences stimulated

discussions and were more interactive, included more probing questioning

of the concepts presented, and provided a greater exchange of ideas. By

all accounts, the information that the United States has provided on

modern legal concepts and practices has been highly valued by its

recipients.

However, efforts to foster sustainable new methods for training judges

have had limited results, and the long-term viability of U.S.-sponsored

improvements is questionable. In Ukraine, projects aimed at establishing

modern judicial training centers have had very limited success. The two

centers we visited that had been established with USAID assistance were

functioning at far below capacity. One was only used for official judicial

training for half a year and later for training classes financed by

international donors. The other center had been dismantled, and the

training equipment provided by USAID was dispersed to regional courts.

In Russia, although training facilities have been in place for some time,

their capacity for training judges is extremely limited. For example, with

its current facilities, the Russian Court of General Jurisdiction can train

each of its 15,000 judges only about once every 10 years. Plans for the

development of a major new judicial training academy have not yet been

implemented. Where training centers were already in place, some

innovative training techniques introduced through U.S. assistance have not

been institutionalized. For example, the training organizations we visited

in Russia praised the new practical manuals developed with U.S.

assistance, but they did not plan to print subsequent editions. Also,

although videotape-based training had been piloted with U.S. assistance

for the Russian Commercial Court to train judges in far-flung regions, no

further videotaped courses have been produced by the court.

Despite progress in recent years, fully independent, efficient, and effective

judiciaries have not yet been established. For example, according to a

senior U.S. official responsible for Department of Justice programs in

Russia, much of the former structure that enabled the Soviet government

to control judges’ decisions still exists, and Russians remain suspicious of

the judiciary. Furthermore, according to the State Department’s 1999

Human Rights Report, the courts are still subject to undue influence from

the central and local governments and are burdened by large case

backlogs and trial delays. Also, according to a 2000 USAID program
Page 19 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

document, serious problems with the court system in Russia continue to

include the lack of adequate funding, poor enforcement of court

judgments, and negative public attitudes toward the judiciary.

In Ukraine, according to Freedom House, a U.S. research organization that

tracks political developments around the world, and U.S. and Ukrainian

officials and experts we interviewed, relatively little judicial reform has

taken place, other than the adoption of a new constitution in 1996 and the

establishment of a Constitutional Court for its interpretation. To a large

extent, the ethos and practices of the Soviet political/legal system remain

in the Ukrainian legal community, according to a 1999 USAID-sponsored

assessment.15 The justice system, in which an estimated 70 percent of

sitting judges in Ukraine were appointed during the Soviet era, continues

to be marked by corruption and inefficiency and limited protection of

criminal defendants’ rights. Freedom House recently reported that the

judiciary is not yet operating as an independent branch of government.

Furthermore, according to Freedom House, local judges are subject to

influence and requests for particular rulings from government officials

who financially support court operations. According to the USAIDsponsored assessment, courts suffer from poor administrative procedures,

which nurture corruption, inappropriate influence of judges, a lack of

transparency, and waste. Moreover, the courts are unable to enforce their

decisions, particularly in civil cases. This is a key constraint to the

development of the rule of law in Ukraine, as it results in a loss of public

confidence in the courts, according to the assessment report. Human

rights advocates told us that legislated mandates for timely trials and set

standards for prison conditions are often violated and result in extended

detentions under poor conditions.

USAID documents we reviewed indicate that significant judicial reform is

still needed in other countries as well. In Georgia, where the judicial

reform process is perceived by USAID as being more advanced, most

criminal trials continue to follow the Soviet model and, in many cases,

prosecutors continue to wield disproportionate influence over outcomes,

according to the State Department’s Human Rights Report. Also, local

human rights observers report widespread judicial incompetence and

corruption, according to the report. In Armenia, State reports that

although the judiciary is nominally independent, in practice courts are

 15Ukraine Rule of Law Assessment and Strategy Recommendations (Washington D.C. :

Management Systems International, 1999).
Page 20 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

subject to pressure from the executive branch and to corruption, and

prosecutors still greatly overshadow defense lawyers and judges during

trials. According to USAID, a 1999 opinion poll showed that in Armenia

only 20 percent of the population believe that court decisions are rendered

fairly and in keeping with the law.

The third element of the U.S. assistance program has been to modernize

the system of legal education in the new independent states to make it

more practical and relevant. (See fig. 6 for activities under the legal

education pillar of the rule of law assistance program.) The United States

has sponsored a variety of special efforts to introduce new legal

educational methods and topics for both law students and existing

lawyers. However, the impact and sustainability of these initiatives are in

doubt, as indigenous institutions have not yet demonstrated the ability or

inclination to support the efforts after U.S. and other donor funding has

ceased.

Legal Education: More

Practical Methods

Introduced but Not Widely

Practiced
Page 21 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 6: Legal Education Pillar of U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

Sources: GAO, and moot court photograph from St. Petersburg Institute of Law.

The United States has provided some opportunities for law students and

practicing lawyers to obtain useful new types of training. For instance, in

an effort to supplement the traditionally theoretical approach to legal

education in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union,
Page 22 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

USAID has introduced legal clinics into several law schools throughout

Russia and Ukraine. These clinics allow law students to get practical

training in helping clients exercise their legal rights. They also provide a

service to the community by facilitating access to the legal system by the

poor and disadvantaged. With the training, encouragement, and financing

provided by USAID, there are about 30 legal clinics in law schools in

Russia and about 20 in Ukraine. USAID has also provided a great deal of

continuing education for legal professionals, particularly in the emerging

field of commercial law. This training was highly regarded by the

participants, according to a 1999 USAID-sponsored evaluation of this

project in Russia.16 Traditionally, little of this type of training was available

to lawyers in the former Soviet Union.

USAID has included some design features in its projects intended to make

them sustainable. Indigenous experts are increasingly used to provide the

training as a way of making it more applicable in the local context and

thus more sustainable, as trainers would remain in the country. Also,

sustainability is enhanced by USAID’s approach of training other trainers

to perpetuate the teaching of trial advocacy skills and commercial law.

According to the 1999 USAID-sponsored evaluation17 and an aid contractor

we spoke to, materials on trial advocacy developed with U.S. assistance

continue to be used in indigenous educational programs in Russia.

The United States, through long-term exchanges and partnership activities

administered initially by the U.S. Information Agency and then by the

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the State Department, also

brought young students, professionals, and faculty members to the United

States to study U.S. law and legal education in depth. University

partnerships also paired law schools in the United States and the new

independent states to promote curriculum development and reform. We

have observed some results from exchanges such as these: for example,

the dean of the St. Petersburg State University Law School told us that his

U.S.-funded visit to the United States inspired him to undertake major

reforms at his institution, including the introduction of more practical

teaching methods.

 16The American Bar Association/Central and Eastern European Law Initiative Evaluation,

Russia Country Report.

17The American Bar Association/Central and Eastern European Law Initiative Evaluation,

Russia Country Report.
Page 23 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Despite the introduction of some positive innovations, however, U.S.

assistance in this area has fallen far short of reforming legal education in

the new independent states on a large scale. According to USAIDsponsored evaluations and project officials we spoke to, U.S. assistance

has not been successful in stimulating reform in formerly Soviet law

schools. Most law schools have not adopted the new, practice-oriented

curricula that USAID has advocated and instead continue the traditional

emphasis on legal theory. For example, in Ukraine, the emphasis in law

school curricula continues to be on public rather than private law, and law

students are taught little on subjects such as enterprises, contracts, real

and personal property, consumer law, intellectual property, banking law,

or commercial law. Also ignored are subjects relating to government

regulation of businesses. As a result, students are not taught many skills

important to the practice of law, including advocacy, interviewing, case

investigation, negotiation techniques, and legal writing. In the area of using

legal clinics to provide practical education, the impact of USAID

assistance has been minor and sustainability is not yet secure. Due to the

small number of faculty advisers willing to supervise the students’ work,

these clinics can only provide practical experience to a fraction of the law

student population. While clinics appear to be increasing in popularity, not

all universities routinely fund them or give course credit to participating

students. In Ukraine, the United States has helped fund the establishment

of a Ukrainian Law School Association to press for reforms in the

Ukrainian legal education system, but this organization has remained

relatively inactive, according to a major USAID contractor involved in this

program. Also, a 2000 USAID-sponsored evaluation of rule of law projects

in Armenia concluded that the considerable investment in that country’s

largest law school has not resulted in the intended upgrading and

modernizing of curricula and teaching methodology.18

In the area of continuing legal education as well, it is unclear whether the

new learning opportunities that the United States has been providing to

legal professionals are sustainable over the long term. We could identify

few organizations that routinely sponsor the types of training and

conferences and print the published materials that the United States had

initially provided. In Russia, a major aid contractor we met with involved

in developing legal texts and manuals for USAID in Russia could not

identify any organizations that were engaged in reprinting these

publications without U.S. or other donor financing. The private Ukrainian

 18USAID/Armenia Rule of Law Assessment.
Page 24 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

organization that has provided most of Ukraine’s continuing legal

education is dependent primarily on U.S. funding to operate. The United

States has largely been unsuccessful at fostering the development of legal

associations, such as bar associations, national judges associations, and

law school associations, to carry on this educational work. U.S. officials

had viewed the development of such associations as key to

institutionalizing modern legal principles and practices and professional

standards on a national scale as well as serving as conduits for continuing

legal education for their members. But they have not become the active,

influential institutions that the United States had hoped. In Armenia,

according to a 2000 USAID-sponsored study, 19 none of the

nongovernmental organizations that had been supported by USAID were

financially viable in carrying out their continuing legal education goals.

Sustainability is “not in the picture for the immediate future,” as the

organizations were dependent on international donor assistance,

according to the study.

The fourth component of the U.S. government’s rule of law program

involves introducing modern criminal justice techniques to local law

enforcement organizations. (See fig. 7 for activities under the law

enforcement pillar of rule of law assistance programs.) As part of this

effort, the United States has provided many training courses to law

enforcement officials throughout the new independent states of the former

Soviet Union, shared professional experiences through international

exchanges and study tours, implemented several model law enforcement

projects, and funded scholarly research into organized crime. These

programs have fostered international cooperation among law enforcement

officials, according to the Department of Justice. However, we found little

evidence that the new information disseminated through these activities

has been routinely applied in the practice of law enforcement in the new

independent states. Thus the impact and sustainability of these projects

are unclear.

 19USAID/Armenia Rule of Law Assessment.

Law Enforcement:

Training, Models, and

Research

Provided, but Routine

Application Is Not Evident
Page 25 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 7: Law Enforcement Pillar of U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

Sources: GAO, and photographs from St. Petersburg Procuracy Institute.

U.S. law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Drug Enforcement

Administration, have sent dozens of teams of experts to train their
Page 26 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

counterparts in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union on

techniques for combating a wide variety of domestic and international

crimes. The United States has also sponsored the attendance of their

counterparts at U.S. training academies and the International Law

Enforcement Academy in Budapest, Hungary. According to State and

Justice, this training is intended not only to strengthen the law

enforcement capabilities and, hence, the rule of law in these countries, but

also to increase cooperation between law enforcement agencies in the

United States and the new independent states in investigating and

prosecuting transnational crimes.

U.S. law enforcement officials we spoke to have reported that, as a result

of these training courses, there is a greater appreciation among Russians

and Ukrainians of criminal legal issues for international crimes of great

concern in the United States, such as organized crime, money laundering,

and narcotics and human trafficking. They have also reported a greater

willingness of law enforcement officials to work with their U.S. and other

foreign counterparts on solving international crimes. According to a senior

researcher conducting a State Department-funded study on the effects of

law enforcement training, students participating in international police

training funded in part by the U.S. government are significantly more

willing to share information on criminal investigations with U.S. or other

national law enforcement agencies than law enforcement officials that

have not participated. Furthermore, according to Justice, there has been

an increasing number of requests from the new independent states for

bilateral law enforcement cooperation with the United States and a

number of joint investigations of organized crime, kidnapping, and baby

adoption scams.

However, the impact and sustainability of this training in building the law

enforcement capabilities of the new independent states are unclear. We

found little evidence in our discussions with senior law enforcement

officials in Russia and Ukraine that U.S. techniques taught in these training

courses were being routinely applied by their organizations. In some

cases, training officials cited the use of U.S.-provided training materials by

some instructors or as reference materials in their libraries, yet none

identified a full-scale effort to replicate or adapt the training for routine

application in their training institutions. Furthermore, we identified only

two studies providing data on the application of U.S. law enforcement

training, neither of which conclusively demonstrates that U.S. techniques

have been widely embraced by training participants. According to a

researcher we interviewed who has been evaluating U.S.-sponsored

training programs under a grant from State, techniques taught at the
Page 27 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

International Law Enforcement Academy, which is partially funded by

State, have had limited application in day-to-day policing activities of

participants. About 20 percent of training participants surveyed reported

that they frequently use the techniques they learned in academy training

courses in their work, according to his research.20 According to an

evaluation of U.S. law enforcement training conducted by the Russian

Ministry of Internal Affairs, about 14 percent of Russian law enforcement

officials surveyed indicated they have used the American experience

introduced in this training in their practical work.21 According to Justice,

this level of application of U.S. techniques suggests significant impact from

U.S. training, and application and impact are likely to grow in time as the

merit of these techniques become evident with use. However, due to

limitations in the data available from these studies we were unable to

validate or dispute Justice’s assertions about the efficacy of this training.22

The United States has funded several model law enforcement projects in

Russia and Ukraine to help communities and law enforcement authorities

establish community policing programs and to address the problems of

domestic violence and human trafficking more effectively. Some of these

projects appear to have had some impact in the local communities where

they have been implemented. For example, according to the State

Department, in one Russian city, the number of arrests for domestic

violence has more than doubled in one year as a result of a U.S.-funded

model project. However, such projects are still in the early stages of

implementation, and we could not find evidence that the new practices

introduced by the United States have yet been adopted on a wider scale in

Russia or Ukraine.

Research on organized crime in Russia and Ukraine, sponsored by USAID

and Justice, has provided some information that may potentially serve as a

foundation for developing new methods for fighting this type of crime.

 20Training participants surveyed in this research include law enforcement officials from

Central and Eastern European countries, including Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, and

Romania as well as the new independent states of Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan.

21On the Results of Cooperation between the Russian [Ministry of Internal Affairs] MVD and

the Law Enforcement Agencies of the United States of America in 1994-1999 (Russian

Ministry of Internal Affairs: Moscow, Russia, 1999).

22The State-sponsored study covered only a small portion of the U.S. law enforcement

training conducted for the new independent states, and detailed survey response

information, which would be necessary for more extensive analysis of the survey results,

was not available for either study at the time of our review.
Page 28 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Officials at U.S.-funded research centers told us that their researchers

helped develop a methodology for investigating and prosecuting

corruption and organized crime that has been incorporated into some law

school curricula. However, although project officials we spoke to asserted

that the knowledge and analysis produced by the centers were being used,

they could not determine how this research had actually been applied by

law enforcement organizations in the new independent states. To date we

found no evidence that these programs have led to sustainable and

meaningful innovations in fighting organized crime in Russia and Ukraine.

The fifth element of rule of law assistance program is the expansion of

access by the general population to the system of justice. (See fig. 8 for

activities conducted under the civil society pillar of the rule of law

assistance program.) In both Russia and Ukraine, the United States has

fostered the development of a number of nongovernmental organizations

that have been active in promoting the interests of groups, increasing

citizens’ awareness of their legal rights, and helping poor and traditionally

disadvantaged people gain access to the courts to resolve their problems.

While these projects have contributed to a greater demand for justice, for

the foreseeable future many will continue to rely on donor support, since

they face difficulties in obtaining adequate funds domestically to continue

operations.

Civil Society: Awareness

and Involvement Have

Increased, but Many

Nongovernmental

Organizations’

Activities Depend on

Continued International

Donor Support
Page 29 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 8: Civil Society Pillar of U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

Source: GAO.

U.S. projects have led to greater access by citizens to the courts. The

United States has supported a variety of organizations devoted to

protecting the legal rights of many different segments of society, including
Page 30 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

small business owners, the handicapped, victims of domestic violence,

labor unions and individual workers, poor and displaced people, and

homeowners and tenants. In Russia, the proliferation of such groups may

have contributed, at least in small part, to the significant increase in the

use of the courts—the number of civil cases in Russian courts increased

by about 112 percent between 1993 and 1997, according to the statistics of

the Russian Supreme Court. For example, in Russia, USAID has sponsored

a project that has helped improve access to the legal system for trade

unions and their members. According to the project manager, Russian

lawyers supported by this project brought litigation in the Russian

Constitutional and Supreme Courts on behalf of workers, which has led to

changes to three national laws, bolstering the legal rights of millions of

workers.

In addition, in Ukraine, private citizens are increasingly taking their

disputes on environmental matters to the courts and prevailing in their

causes with the help of USAID-funded organizations. At least three active

environmental advocacy organizations have emerged with the sponsorship

of USAID and other donors to provide legal advice and representation.

Some of these organizations have brought important lawsuits on behalf of

citizens, resulting in legal decisions with far-reaching legal implications.

For example, a group of more than 100 residents in one local community

obtained a judgment against the Ukrainian government for violating zoning

laws on the location of a city dump and won demands that the dump be

constructed at a different location in accordance with zoning laws,

according to USAID.

Despite their high level of activity in recent years, these organizations still

face questionable long-term viability. Most nongovernmental organizations

we visited were dependent upon foreign donor contributions to operate.

While some continued to function even after U.S. funding ceased, they

often operated at a significantly reduced level of service. Some

organizations received office space from the government, collected

membership fees, and relied on the work of volunteers, but very few

indicated that they received a large portion of their funding from domestic

sources. Thus, sustainability of even some of the most accomplished

organizations, such as the Ukrainian environmental advocacy

organizations, remains to be seen. These organizations had been largely

supported by USAID for several years and have only recently been forced

to operate more independently. In Armenia, according to a 2000 USAIDsponsored evaluation, none of the nongovernmental organizations that had

been supported by USAID were financially viable in carrying out their

public awareness goals. The evaluation found that these organizations’
Page 31 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

activities were not sustainable in the long term since they were dependent

on international donor assistance.23

Despite nearly a decade of work to reform the systems of justice in the

new independent states of the former Soviet Union, progress in

establishing the rule of law in the region has been slow overall, and

serious obstacles remain. As shown in table 2, according to Freedom

House, the new independent states score poorly in the development of the

rule of law, and, as a whole, are growing worse over time.24 These data,

among others, have been used by USAID and the State Department to

measure the results of U.S. development assistance in this region.

 23USAID/Armenia Rule of Law Assessment.

24These data are developed based on experts’ answers to the following sets of questions or

similar questions: (1) Is there a post-Communist constitution? (2) Does the constitutional

framework provide for human rights, including business and property rights? (3) Has there

been basic reform of the criminal code/criminal law? (4) Do most judges rule fairly and

impartially? How many remain from the Communist era? (5) Are the courts free of political

control and influence? Are the courts linked directly to the Ministry of Justice or any other

executive body? (6) What proportion of lawyers are in private practice? (7) Does the state

provide public defenders? (8) Has there been a comprehensive reform of

antibias/discrimination laws, including protection of ethnic minorities?

Rule of Law Remains

Elusive in the New

Independent States
Page 32 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Table 2: Rule of Law Ratings for the New Independent States, 1997-2000

Country 1997 1998 1999-2000 Trend

Armenia 4.75 5.00 5.00 Worse

Azerbaijan 5.50 5.50 5.50 No change

Belarus 6.00 6.25 6.50 Worse

Georgia 5.00 4.75 4.00 Better

Kazakhstan 5.00 5.25 5.50 Worse

Kyrgyzstan 4.50 4.50 5.00 Worse

Moldova 4.25 4.00 4.00 Better

Russia 4.00 4.25 4.25 Worse

Tajikistan 6.25 6.00 5.75 Better

Turkmenistan 6.75 6.75 6.75 No change

Ukraine 3.75 4.00 4.50 Worse

Uzbekistan 6.50 6.50 6.50 No change

Average for new independent

states

5.19 5.23 5.27 Worse

Average for other postCommunist states3.04 3.39 3.28 Worse

Note: Ratings are based on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 as the best rating.

Source: Freedom House, Nations in Transit (Washington, D.C.: Freedom House, 1997, 1998, 1999-

2000).

In the two new independent states where the United States has devoted

the largest amount of rule of law funding—Russia and Ukraine—the rule

of law is slightly better than average for the region, according to Freedom

House scores. However, the scores show that the reform process remains

slow and the rule of law, as defined by these indicators, has deteriorated in

recent years. The scores have improved in only one of the four countries

(Georgia) in which USAID has made the development of the rule of law

one of its strategic objectives and the United States has devoted a large

portion of its rule of law assistance funding.

Three factors have constrained the impact and sustainability of U.S. rule of

law assistance: (1) a limited political consensus on the need to reform law

and institutions, (2) a shortage of domestic resources to finance many of

the reforms on a large scale, and (3) a number of shortcomings in U.S.

program management. The first two factors, in particular, have created a

very challenging climate for U.S. programs to have major, long-term

impact in these states, but have also underscored the importance of

effective management of U.S. programs.

Limits on Impact and

Sustainability Stem From

Political,

Economic, and Program

Management Issues
Page 33 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

In key areas in need of legal reform, U.S. advocates have met some steep

political resistance to change. In Ukraine and Russia, lawmakers have not

been able to agree to pass critical legal codes upon which reform of the

judiciary must be based. In particular, Ukrainian government officials are

deadlocked on legislation reforming the judiciary, despite a provision in

the country’s constitution to do so by June 2001. Numerous versions of

this legislation have been drafted by parties in the parliament, the

executive branch, and the judiciary with various political and other

agendas. Lack of progress for this legislation has stymied reforms

throughout the justice system. In Russia’s Duma (parliament), where the

civil and the criminal codes were passed in the mid-1990s, the criminal

procedure code remains in draft form. According to a senior Justice

official, Russia is still using the autocratic 1963 version of the procedure

code that violates fundamental human rights. This official told us that the

Russian prosecutor’s office is reluctant to support major reforms, since

many would require that institution to relinquish a significant amount of

the power it has had in the operation of the criminal justice system. While

U.S. officials help Russian groups to lobby for legislative reforms in

various ways, adoption of such reforms remain in the sovereign domain of

the host country.

In the legal education system as well, resistance to institutional reform has

thwarted U.S. assistance efforts. While some legal education officials we

spoke with advocate more modern and practical teaching methods, legal

education remains rigidly theoretical and outmoded by western standards.

USAID officials in Russia told us that Russian law professors and other

university officials are often the most conservative in the legal community

and the slowest to reform. A USAID-sponsored assessment of legal

education in Ukraine found that there was little likelihood for reform in

the short term due to entrenched interests among the school

administration and faculty who were resisting change.25 Georgia also

suffers from deeply seated barriers to legal education reform, such as

systemic corruption in admissions and grading, according to the 1999

USAID-sponsored evaluation.26

Furthermore, little consensus could be reached among legal professionals

to overcome cultural, regional, and professional barriers to form effective

 25Ukraine Rule of Law Assessment and Strategy Recommendations.

26The American Bar Association/Central and Eastern European Law Initiative Evaluation,

Georgia Country Report.

Political Consensus on

Reform Slow in Forming
Page 34 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

national associations, according to U.S. officials and contractors we spoke

with. For example, according to one law school dean we interviewed,

efforts to establish a national law school association in Russia were met

with resistance from state legal educational institutions in Moscow, which

insisted on forming an alternative local association.

Policymakers have not reached political consensus on how or whether to

address the legal impediments to the development of sustainable

nongovernmental organizations. This would include passing laws that

would make it easier for these organizations to raise domestic funds and

thus gain independence from foreign donors. For example, in Ukraine,

according to a 1999 USAID report27 and Ukrainian officials we interviewed,

the most important issues for nongovernmental organization development

that need to be addressed by new legislation are granting

nongovernmental organizations special tax status to enable them to raise

funds for their activities and to provide tax incentives for private

organizations or individuals to donate funds. Moreover, administrative

acts by government agencies in Ukraine allow the government to decrease

the scope of nongovernmental organizations, and some nongovernmental

organizations, particularly those involved in citizen advocacy efforts, face

numerous obstacles from tax authorities and other administrative

agencies. In Russia, according to the USAID report, taxes are collected

without distinguishing between nonprofit and profit-making enterprises,

and legislation that promotes significant tax incentives is unlikely to be

passed in the near future because of the government’s critical need to raise

revenues.

Historically slow economic growth in the new independent states has

meant limited government budgets and low wages for legal professionals

and thus limited resources available to fund new initiatives. While Russia

has enjoyed a recent improvement in its public finances stemming largely

from increases in the prices of energy exports, public funds in the new

independent states have been constrained. Continuation or expansion of

legal programs initially financed by the United States and other donors has

not been provided for in government budgets, as illustrated by the

following examples.

 27The 1999 NGO [nongovernmental organization] Sustainability Index (Washington, D.C.:

USAID, Jan. 2000).

Weak Economic

Conditions Make Funding

Reforms Difficult
Page 35 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

In Ukraine, according to officials of the Supreme Court, the government

could only afford to fund operations of the court’s judicial training center

for 6 months in the year 2000.

In the Russian Commercial Court, administrators explained to us that

although the donated computer network funded by USAID was very

helpful, the court did not have the funds to extend it to judges outside of

the court’s headquarters building in Moscow.

The system of jury trials in Russia could not be broadened beyond 9 initial

regions, according to a senior judiciary official, because it was considered

too expensive to administer in the other 89 regions.

According to a senior police official we spoke to in Ukraine, police forces

often lack funds for equipment, such as vehicles, computers, and

communications equipment, needed to implement some of the law

enforcement techniques that were presented in the U.S.-sponsored

training.

In addition, government ability or commitment to funding innovative new

training and other improvements for the judiciary also appeared weak in

Georgia, where the government has not been able to pay judges their

promised salaries in a timely manner.

Nongovernmental organizations we visited said that it was difficult to raise

funds from domestic sources to continue the advocacy, educational, and

legal services programs that had initially been financed by the United

States and other donors. For example, they indicated that while lawyers

and other legal professionals valued the educational materials and

opportunities offered through U.S. assistance, they generally could not

afford to pay for the courses and materials privately.

U.S. agencies implementing the rule of law assistance program have not

always managed their projects with an explicit focus on achieving

sustainable results. Our review of project documentation and our

discussions with senior U.S. government officials indicate limited efforts

were made to (1) develop and implement strategies to achieve sustainable

results and (2) monitor projects results over time to ensure that

sustainable impact was being achieved. These are important steps in

Program Management

Weaknesses Affect Impact

and Sustainability of Aid
Page 36 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

designing and implementing development assistance projects, according

to guidance developed by USAID.28

According to USAID guidance for planning assistance projects, project

descriptions should define the strategies and processes necessary to

achieve specific results, both in terms of immediate outputs and longerterm outcomes. We found that, in general, USAID projects were designed

with strategies for achieving sustainability, including assistance activities

intended to develop new and existing indigenous institutions to adopt the

concepts and practices USAID was promoting. However, at the

Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury, rule of law projects we

reviewed often did not establish specific strategies for achieving

sustainable development results. In particular, the law enforcementrelated training efforts we reviewed were generally focused on achieving

short-term objectives, such as conducting training courses or providing

equipment and educational materials; they did not include an explicit

approach for meeting longer-term objectives, such as promoting

sustainable institutional changes and reform of national law enforcement

practices. According to senior U.S. embassy officials in Russia and

Ukraine, these projects rarely included follow-up activities to help ensure

that the concepts taught were being institutionalized or otherwise having

long-term impact. For example, according to the U.S. Resident Legal

Advisor in Russia, U.S. agencies’ training efforts were intended to

introduce new law enforcement techniques, but no effort was made to

reform the law enforcement training curriculum so that the techniques

would continue to be taught after the U.S. trainers left the country. Federal

Bureau of Investigation officials we spoke to indicated that their training

courses in the new independent states rarely took a “train the trainer”

approach aimed at providing training that is likely to be replicated by

indigenous law enforcement staff. One senior Justice official described the

training as “lobbying” to convince key law enforcement officers of the

importance or utility of the techniques being taught in hopes that they

would someday be adopted.

USAID guidance also calls for establishing a system for monitoring and

evaluating performance and for reporting and using performance

 28For more information, see “Results-Oriented Assistance: a USAID Sourcebook,” available

on the World Wide Web at www.usaid.gov. Although this guidance has not been formally

adopted by other government agencies, it reflects the expertise of the U.S. government’s

most experienced development agency and is instructive to all agencies involved in

development assistance.
Page 37 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

information. Developing and monitoring performance indicators is

important for making programmatic decisions and learning from past

experience, according to USAID. However, we did not find clear evidence

that U.S. agencies systematically monitor and evaluate the impact and

sustainability of the projects they implemented under the rule of law

assistance program.

We found that the Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury have

not routinely assessed the results of their rule of law projects. In

particular, according to U.S. agency and embassy officials we spoke to,

there was usually little monitoring or evaluation of the law enforcement

training courses after they were conducted to determine their impact. U.S.

law enforcement agencies that have implemented training programs report

to State on each training course but do not assess the extent to which the

techniques and concepts they taught have had a broader impact on law

enforcement in the countries where they conduct training. To date, State

has funded only one independent evaluation of the law enforcement

training activities. According to Justice, it evaluates the course curriculum

at the International Law Enforcement Academy on a regular basis to help

ensure that it is relevant to its participants and of high quality. In addition,

Justice conducts some indirect measurement of long-term effectiveness by

discussing the usefulness of training with selected participants months or

years after they have completed the course. However, these evaluations do

not systematically assess the longer-term impact and sustainability of the

training and do not cover a large portion of the training that Justice

conducts.

Although USAID has a more extensive process for assessing its programs,

we found that the results of its rule of law projects in the new independent

states of the former Soviet Union were not always apparent. The results of

most USAID projects we reviewed were reported in terms of project

outputs instead of impact and sustainability. For 6 of the 11 major projects

we reviewed in Russia and Ukraine, available project documentation

indicated that project implementers reported project results almost

exclusively in terms of outputs. These outputs include the number of

USAID-sponsored conferences or training courses held, the number and

types of publications produced with project funding, or the amount of

computer and other equipment provided to courts. Short-term measures

and indicators alone do not enable USAID to monitor and evaluate the

sustainability and overall impact of the projects. Project documentation

we reviewed, including work plans, progress reports, and post-completion

reports, rarely addressed the longer-term impact of the assistance

achieved or expected or indicated how impact could be measured into the
Page 38 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

future. Other measures or indicators that capture the productivity of U.S.-

assisted organizations or the extent to which U.S.-sponsored innovations

are adopted in the country shed more light on the long-term impact and

sustainability. Examples of such measures would be the percentage of

judges or bailiffs that a government itself has trained annually using new

methods introduced by U.S.-assistance or the percentage of law schools

that sponsor legal clinics or include new practical courses in their

curriculum. Although USAID has reported broad, national-level indicators

for its rule of law programs, without indicators or measures of the results

of its individual projects, it is difficult to draw connections between the

outputs produced and the national-level outcomes reported. Furthermore,

only 2 of the 11 USAID projects we reviewed in Russia and Ukraine have

been independently evaluated to assess their impact and sustainability.

State has recently recognized the shortcomings of its training-oriented

approach to law enforcement reforms. As a result, it has mandated a new

approach for implementing agencies to focus more on sustainable

projects. Instead of administering discrete training courses, for example,

agencies and embassies will be expected to develop longer-term projects.

Justice has also developed new guidelines for the planning and evaluation

of some of its projects to better ensure that these projects are aimed at

achieving concrete and sustainable results.29 These reform initiatives are

still in very early stages of implementation. It remains to be seen whether

projects in the future will be more explicitly designed and carried out to

achieve verifiably sustainable results. One factor that may delay the

implementation of these new approaches is a significant backlog in

training courses that State has already approved under this program. As of

February 2001, about $30 million in funding for fiscal years 1995 through

2000 has been obligated for law enforcement training that has not yet been

conducted.30 U.S. law enforcement agencies, principally the Departments

of Justice and the Treasury, plan to continue to use these funds for a

number of years to pay for their training activities, even though many of

these activities have the same management weaknesses as the earlier ones

we reviewed. Unless these funds are reprogrammed for other purposes or

 29These guidelines govern projects implemented by Justice’s Criminal Division and do not

extend to other agencies within the Department that implement law enforcement training,

such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the

Immigration and Naturalization Service.

30The precise amount of funding is unclear, as State program officials believe that the

implementing agencies may have actually conducted some unknown amount of this

training but not yet submitted necessary documentation to State for reimbursement.
Page 39 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

the projects are redesigned to reflect the program reforms that State and

Justice are putting in place, their results may have limited impact and

sustainability.

The U.S. government’s rule of law assistance program is a key element of

the U.S. foreign policy objectives of fostering democratic and open market

systems in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union.

However, establishing the rule of law is a complex and long-term

undertaking. After nearly a decade of effort and more than $200 million

worth of assistance, the program has had difficulty fostering the

sustainable institutions and traditions necessary to establish the rule of

law in this region. Consequently, many of the elements of the Soviet-style

legal system are still in place in the new independent states. Though this

program was originally envisioned by the U.S. government as a short-term

effort, achieving more significant progress is likely to take many more

years. Progress is likely to remain elusive unless the new independent

states make legal system reform a higher public policy and funding priority

and U.S. agencies address the program management weaknesses we have

identified in developing strategies for achieving impact and sustainability

and conducting performance monitoring and evaluation. Although the

United States has very limited influence over the political will and

domestic resources of these countries, it could better design and

implement its assistance projects, both those currently funded and those

that it may fund in the future, with a greater emphasis on measuring

impact and achieving sustainability.

To help improve the impact and sustainability of the U.S. rule of law

assistance program in the new independent states of the former Soviet

Union, we recommend that the Secretary of State, the Attorney General,

the Secretary of the Treasury, and the USAID Administrator, who together

control almost all of the program’s funding, require that each new project

funded under this program be designed with (1) specific strategies for

achieving defined long-term outcomes that are sustainable beyond U.S.

funding; and (2) a provision for monitoring and evaluating the project

results, using verifiable outcome indicators and measures, to determine

whether the desired outcomes have been achieved and are likely to be

sustainable. Furthermore, to improve the likelihood that project funds

currently budgeted but not yet spent achieve sustainable results, the

Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Treasury

should jointly review the pipeline of projects and develop a plan for

Conclusions

Recommendations for

Executive Action
Page 40 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

ensuring that all projects meet the above criteria, including

reprogramming of unspent assistance funds, as necessary.

We received written comments on a draft of this report from USAID and

the Departments of State and Justice, which are reprinted in appendixes IIIV. The Department of the Treasury had no comment on the report.

State, Justice, and USAID generally agreed with us that the program

management improvements we recommended are needed. State indicated

that it had already begun to undertake management actions consistent

with these recommendations. State also suggested that we encourage the

U.S. law enforcement agencies to cooperate in its ongoing efforts to

reprogram or reschedule assistance funds that have been budgeted but not

yet spent. Justice agreed that improved planning and evaluation of its

assistance activities are needed. USAID agreed that improvement is

needed in measuring project results and that greater emphasis could be

given to reviewing long-term sustainability issues. We have modified our

recommendation to emphasize the importance of cooperation among the

agencies in resolving management weaknesses we identified.

USAID and State expressed concern that our assessment set too high a

standard for program success. These agencies noted that we did not

adequately recognize the complex and long-term nature of this

development process. They also noted that the funding for rule of law

development has been relatively meager compared to the total amount of

assistance provided to the new independent states and considering the

magnitude of the challenge. Furthermore, the agencies stated that

achievement of a fully functioning rule of law system could not have been

expected in the 8 years that the program has been in existence. We agree

that establishing the rule of law in the new independent states is a

complex and long-term undertaking, and we have made this observation

more prominent in the report. We did not use the full development of a

rule of law system as the benchmark of success for this program, however.

Instead we looked for sustainable progress in each of the key elements of

the U.S. assistance program as well as in the overall development of the

rule of law. We found limited sustainable impact from U.S.-funded projects

in the various elements of the program that we reviewed. Furthermore, we

found that by the one measure, the Freedom House rule of law score,

which USAID and State used to measure overall rule of law development,

the situation in the new independent states is relatively poor and has

actually been deteriorating in some states. We do not agree that the

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 41 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

program funding levels were necessarily a significant factor limiting the

impact and sustainability of the program; rather, we believe that better

results could have been achieved with a more conducive political and

economic environment and with better planning and monitoring efforts.

The agencies also indicated that we did not adequately recognize some

significant program activities and achievements. These include the

development of a more independent judiciary in Russia and adoption of a

number of reforms in the criminal justice system. USAID also stated that

its encouragement and support of legal system reforms have been a

valuable accomplishment, though not always resulting in the creation of a

sustainable entity to promote reforms into the future. In addition, Justice

stated that its training courses have been more successful than we have

given them credit for, both by helping to establish valuable working

relationships between law enforcement agencies in the United States and

the new independent states and by fostering the application of modern law

enforcement techniques. Hence, Justice indicated that our assessment was

overly pessimistic about the prospects for achieving sustainable results

from its programs. State indicated that we failed to acknowledge a major

educational exchange component of the program. Where appropriate, we

included additional information or amplified existing information on

program results and activities. In most cases, however, our analysis

showed that there was insufficient evidence to draw a link between the

outcomes the agencies cited and U.S. assistance efforts.

USAID and Justice indicated that we did not adequately acknowledge the

monitoring and evaluation systems that they currently employ in this

program. USAID indicated that while it agrees that a better project-level

results measurement is needed, it currently employs a system of program

monitoring that allows it to manage the program effectively. Justice

pointed to training curriculum evaluation that it undertakes to help ensure

that its training programs are relevant and useful. We reviewed the

information that both provided and have included additional information

about them in our report. However, we believe that none of the agencies

employed a monitoring and evaluation process to systematically assess the

direct impact of its rule of law projects in the new independent states of

the former Soviet Union and measure progress toward the projects’ longterm objectives and desired outcomes.

State and USAID expressed concern that we did not rank the three factors

that have limited the impact and sustainability of the program in order of

importance. They believe that program management weaknesses are the

least important factor and the lack of political consensus is the most
Page 42 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

important. Furthermore, USAID stated that any limitations in the

effectiveness of the rule of law assistance program should not be

attributed to its monitoring and evaluation shortcomings. We agree that

the political and economic conditions in this region have created a difficult

environment for U.S. assistance efforts and have revised the report to

emphasize this point. However, we believe that improved management

practices could enhance the impact and sustainability of the program, and

we discuss program management weaknesses in detail in the report

because the U.S. government has more control over this factor than the

other two. Furthermore, insofar as project results are not routinely

monitored and evaluated, the agencies’ ability to manage for results is

impaired.

As arranged with your office, we plan no further distribution of this report

for 30 days from the date of the report unless you publicly announce its

contents earlier. At that time, we will send copies to interested

congressional Committees and to the Honorable Colin Powell, Secretary

of State; the Honorable Paul O’Neill, Secretary of the Treasury; the

Honorable John Ashcroft, Attorney General; the Honorable Donald

Pressley, Acting Administrator, U.S. Agency for International

Development; and other interested parties. We will make copies available

to others upon request.

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

on (202) 512-4128. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are

listed in appendix V.

Jess T. Ford, Director

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

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

To (1) assess the impact and sustainability of the U.S. government’s rule of

law program and to (2) identify factors that constrained impact and

sustainability, we analyzed project documentation, interviewed

knowledgeable officials, and reviewed assistance activities in the field. We

obtained and analyzed information on the results of the U.S. rule of law

assistance efforts funded between 1992 and 2000 in the new independent

states of the former Soviet Union. However, we focused our review on

four specific countries—Armenia, Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine. We

selected these countries because they received the bulk of U.S. assistance,

because the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had

designated rule of law development as a strategic objective in these

countries, and because significantly more relevant information was readily

available about the assistance activities in these countries than the other

eight new independent states. Furthermore, based on our discussions with

USAID and State staff and our review of relevant documentation, we

concluded that the U.S. rule of law assistance efforts in these countries

were typical of the assistance provided throughout the region. Thus, we

believe that our report findings about the impact and sustainability of the

U.S. assistance program are applicable to the entire region.

To obtain detailed information on the impact and sustainability of specific

rule of law assistance efforts, we examined projects funded in Russia and

Ukraine since 1995, including 11 major USAID-managed projects and a

variety of assistance activities managed by State. We selected these

countries based on congressional interest and because they have received

at least about half of the assistance provided under this program. We

selected these projects because they were the most likely to have been

substantially completed and thus have a track record that would allow us

to assess whether they have begun to achieve significant results. We did

not include projects initiated in 1999 or thereafter.

Specifically, we conducted the following work.

In Washington, D. C., we interviewed headquarters officials at the

departments and agencies implementing rule of law projects in these new

independent states, including the Departments of State, Justice, and the

Treasury, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. We also met

with individuals with expertise in criminal justice system reforms. For

Russia and Ukraine, we reviewed Mission Performance Plans; USAID

country planning documents; Department of Justice country work plans;

and other reporting documents, funding agreements, contracts, and

project evaluations. We obtained program funding information for fiscal

years 1999 and 2000 from USAID and the Departments of State, Justice,

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

and the Treasury, which we combined and analyzed with similar

information we had obtained for earlier fiscal years in the course of

previous work.

We conducted fieldwork in Russia and Ukraine in August and October

2000. In each of these countries, we met with the Deputy Chief of Mission,

senior U.S. officials representing agencies with rule of law programs in

each country; and numerous program staff, including contractors

responsible for implementing the projects. We interviewed host country

officials at the supreme, constitutional, general jurisdiction, and

commercial courts; justice and interior ministries; law enforcement

organizations; and the Judicial Department in Russia. We visited training

schools for judges and prosecutors, law schools, and several

demonstration projects. We also met with numerous representatives from

nongovernmental organizations and other groups representing a broad

spectrum of civil society in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Petrozavodsk, and

Yekaterinburg in Russia; and in Kiev, Lviv, and Kharkiv in Ukraine.

Though we did not travel to the 10 other new independent states of the

former Soviet Union or review specific projects in these states in depth,

we obtained and reviewed all available evaluations of these projects to

determine whether they have met their major objectives and to identify the

factors affecting their success or failure. We also reviewed our prior

reports on rule of law assistance, and reports on foreign assistance to

Russia and Ukraine.31

 31See Foreign Assistance: International Efforts to Aid Russia’s Transition Have Had Mixed

Results (GAO-01-8, Nov. 1, 2000); Foreign Assistance: U.S. Rule of Law Assistance to Five

Latin American Countries (GAO/NSIAD-99-195, Aug. 4, 1999); Foreign Assistance: Rule of

Law Funding Worldwide for Fiscal Years 1993-1998 (GAO/NSIAD-99-158, June 30, 1999);

Foreign Assistance: Harvard Institute for International Development’s Work in Russia and

Ukraine (GAO/NSAID-97-27, Nov. 27, 1996); and Promoting Democracy: Progress Report on

U.S. Democratic Development Assistance to Russia (GAO/NSIAD-96-40, Feb. 29, 1996).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Rule of law is a component of democracy building, and although a close

relationship exists between activities, we did not evaluate other projects

under the democracy program.

We performed our work from July through December 2000 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Comments From the Department

of State

Page 46 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix II: Comments From the

Department of State

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in

the report text appear at

the end of this appendix.
Appendix II: Comments From the Department

of State

Page 47 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union
Appendix II: Comments From the Department

of State

Page 48 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

See comment 3.

See comment 2.

See comment 1.
Appendix II: Comments From the Department

of State

Page 49 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter

dated March 16, 2001.

1. State indicated that it is working with law enforcement agencies to

ensure that the pipeline of law enforcement training funds are used to

achieve the maximum impact and sustainability. State suggested that

we recommend that the U.S. law enforcement agencies cooperate with

State in its ongoing efforts to reschedule or reprogram undelivered

assistance. Based on our discussions with State officials, increased and

continued attention and cooperation among the agencies will be

needed before this issue is fully resolved. As suggested by State, we

have highlighted the need for this interagency cooperation in our

recommendation to the agencies.

2. State pointed out that our report failed to address the long-term

exchange and partnership activities of the U.S. Information Agency

and its successor, State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

We inadvertently omitted the financial data provided by State on these

exchanges from our initial calculation of program funding, but we did

include the exchanges in the scope of our review, insofar as time and

resources allowed and as results were observable. We have revised the

financial data to include the data on exchanges and also included

specific mention of these exchanges in our discussion of the legal

education element of the Rule of Law Assistance Program.

3. State noted that the community of nongovernmental agencies in the

region was not as dependent on western funding as our report

suggested, as evidenced by the large number of such organizations that

receive no U.S. funding. The observations in our report did not pertain

to the development of nongovernmental organizations overall. We

noted questionable sustainability among those nongovernmental

organizations in the rule of law field that have received a significant

amount of U.S. funding under this program.

GAO Comments
Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Justice

Page 50 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Justice

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in

the report text appear at

the end of this appendix.
Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Justice

Page 51 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union
Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Justice

Page 52 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

See comment.

See comment.
Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Justice

Page 53 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

See comment.

See comment.
Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Justice

Page 54 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union
Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Justice

Page 55 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

The following is GAO’s comment on the Department of Justice’s letter

dated March 23, 2001.

Justice disagreed with out characterization of the extent to which law

enforcement techniques taught in U.S.-sponsored training courses were

being applied by training recipients. Justice stated that the data we cited

supported the conclusion that its training has had significant impact and

that greater application is likely to ensue as the efficacy of these techniques

is validated through their use. Justice also questioned whether some

additional data were available on the use of training techniques. We revised

the report to include Justice’s interpretation of the available data, but we

also indicated that, due to data limitations, we could not validate or dispute

this interpretation. No further data were available for us to elaborate on the

extent of the application of the U.S.-taught techniques.

GAO Comment
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 56 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S.

Agency for International Development

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in

the report text appear at

the end of this appendix.
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 57 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 58 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 59 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 60 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 61 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 62 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

See comment 1.
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 63 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

See comment 1.
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 64 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

See comment 3.

See comment 3.

See comment 2.
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 65 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

See comment 3.
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 66 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 67 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union
Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 68 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

The following are GAO’s comments on USAID’s letter dated March 23,

2001.

1. USAID disagreed with our analytical approach to assessing

sustainability and the emphasis we placed on sustainability in

evaluating program success. USAID pointed out that certain

organizations can have significant impact on rule of law development

even though they may not be sustainable over the long term. We

believe that our approach to assessing sustainability of the program is

sound. In addition to reviewing the sustainability of the program’s

component activities, we also reviewed the overall sustainability of

rule of law development as reflected in the Freedom House scores.

Both approaches raise concerns about sustainability. Furthermore, we

assessed both the impact and sustainability of the projects we

reviewed and have cited examples in the report where organizations

supported by USAID have had some impact regardless of whether they

were sustainable. However, given the long-term nature of rule of law

development and the many competing demands for limited assistance

funds, we believe that sustainability of program results is critical to

program success and was an appropriate emphasis for our analysis.

2. USAID indicated that we did not adequately acknowledge significant

program results in the area of commercial law. In general, as we had

discussed with USAID, due to time and resource constraints, we did

not assess the impact of USAID assistance in the area of commercial

law. However, insofar as available evaluations provided information on

accomplishments in this area, we included this information in our

report.

3. USAID criticized the report’s use of references and quotes from

evaluations as inappropriately taken out of context. We reviewed each

reference to an evaluation and do not believe that we have distorted

the meaning of the information cited, as USAID suggested. However,

where appropriate, we have revised the language or used additional or

alternative references in our report to avoid potential

misinterpretation.

GAO Comments
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 69 GAO-01-354 Former Soviet Union

Stephen Lord, (202) 512-4379

James Michels, (202) 512-5756

In addition to those named above, E. Jeanette Espinola, Mary E. Moutsos,

Maria Z. Oliver, Rona H. Mendelsohn, and Jeffery Goebel also made key

contributions to this report.

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments

(711540)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs