BUILDING PARTNER 

CAPACITY

Actions Needed to 

Strengthen DOD 

Efforts to Assess the 

Performance of the 

Regional Centers for 

Security Studies 

Report to Congressional Committees

June 2013

GAO-13-606

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-606, a report to 

congressional committees 

June 2013 

BUILDING PARTNER CAPACITY 

Actions Needed to Strengthen DOD Efforts to 

Assess the Performance of the Regional Centers for 

Security Studies

Why GAO Did This Study

DOD has emphasized innovative and 

low-cost approaches to build the 

defense capacity of foreign partners, 

and it uses its five Regional Centers to 

administer programs to foster 

partnerships and deepen foreign 

officials’ understanding of U.S. 

objectives. The conference report 

accompanying the fiscal year 2013 

National Defense Authorization Act 

(H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 112-705) 

mandated GAO to conduct a study of 

the Regional Centers. GAO’s report (1) 

describes how the Regional Centers’ 

activities compare with those of other 

DOD training and education 

organizations, and (2) evaluates the 

extent to which DOD has developed 

and implemented an approach to 

oversee and assess the Regional 

Centers’ progress in achieving DOD 

priorities. This report also provides 

information on the process used to 

approve Regional Center requests to 

waive reimbursement of the costs for 

nongovernmental and international 

organizations that participate in the 

Regional Centers’ activities. GAO 

reviewed public law and departmental 

directives and conducted an analysis 

comparing aspects of the Regional 

Centers with other selected DOD 

training and education institutions. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD develop 

measurable goals linked to key 

programming priorities for the Regional 

Centers, metrics for assessing 

performance against these goals, and a 

methodology to assess the Regional 

Centers’ progress in achieving DOD 

priorities. DOD generally agreed with 

the recommendations.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) five Regional Centers for Security Studies 

(Regional Centers) share similarities and differences with other DOD institutions 

that provide training and education, including professional military education, 

advanced degree-conferring, and professional development institutions, in terms 

of curriculum topics, targeted audience, and program format. GAO found that 

they all offer training and educational programs and activities to help participants 

understand security and military matters and to enhance their knowledge, skills, 

and experiences in these matters. However, there are notable differences in that 

the Regional Centers generally focus on helping foreign participants understand 

and respond to regional security issues; generally target a foreign civilian and 

military personnel audience; and offer shorter and typically less formal courses of 

study. The Regional Centers support DOD policy objectives with curricula 

designed to enhance security and foster partnerships through education and 

exchanges. By contrast, other DOD training and education organizations focus 

their curricula on military operations and leadership. While the Regional Centers’ 

target audience is foreign civilian and military officials, the other DOD educational 

organizations typically aim their programs and activities at U.S. servicemembers 

at all career levels. Regional Center participants generally do not earn credit 

toward a degree, and the offered courses, conferences, and workshops are of 

shorter duration ranging from days to weeks. DOD’s professional military 

education and advanced degree-conferring institutions are accredited and 

generally offer longer, more formal courses that provide participants the 

opportunity to earn advanced degrees.

DOD has taken some steps to enhance its oversight of the Regional Centers’ 

plans and activities, but its ability to determine whether the Regional Centers are 

achieving departmental priorities remains limited because it has not developed 

an approach for assessing progress. DOD has defined roles and responsibilities, 

issued relevant guidance that reflects departmental objectives, and established a 

governance body and planning process to facilitate information sharing and to 

achieve more integrated decision making. However, DOD has not developed an 

approach that includes measurable goals and objectives, metrics for assessing 

performance, or a methodology to assess the Regional Centers’ progress in 

achieving DOD priorities, to include clarifying how it will use performance data 

provided by the Regional Centers. GAO’s prior work has found that achieving 

results in government requires a comprehensive oversight framework that 

includes clear goals, measurable objectives, and metrics for assessing progress, 

consistent with the framework established in the Government Performance and 

Results Act. The Regional Centers report various types of performance data, 

such as summaries of past activities. While DOD has established a governance 

body to assist in monitoring the Regional Centers’ plans and activities, the body 

has not identified how it will use performance information to assess the Regional 

Centers’ progress toward achieving department priorities. Conducting routine 

assessments using measurable goals and objectives, with metrics to evaluate 

progress, and a methodology for using performance information to include 

defining the role of the governance body would provide DOD a sounder basis for 

assessing the Regional Centers’ progress in achieving results, and for better 

determining the allocation of resources.

View GAO-13-606. For more information, 

contact Sharon Pickup at (202) 512-9619 or 

pickups@gao.gov or Charles Michael 

Johnson, Jr. at (202) 512-7331 or 

johnsoncm@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

Letter 1 

Background 5

Regional Centers’ Programs and Activities Share Some Similarities 

with Those Offered by Other DOD Organizations, but There Are 

Notable Differences 8

DOD Has Taken Steps to Enhance Oversight of the Regional 

Centers Plans and Activities but Its Ability to Assess Their 

Progress Remains Limited 15

Conclusions 23

Recommendations for Executive Action 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 26

Appendix II The Department of Defense’s (DOD) Regional Centers for 

Security Studies 31

Appendix III Reimbursement Waivers 36

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 40

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 42

Related GAO Products 43

Tables

Table 1: Overview of DOD’s Regional Centers for Security Studies 6

Table 2: Comparison of DOD Programs and Activities by 

Curriculum Topic, Target Audience, and Program Format 10

Table 3: 10 U.S.C. Authorities 37

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2011 – 2013 Priorities for Waiver 

Consideration, in Order of Importance 37

Table 5: Use of Authorities by Regional Centers to Waive NGO/IO 

Reimbursements, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012 39

Figures

Figure 1: The Regional Centers’ Primary Geographic Areas of 

Focus 7

Figure 2: Overview and Timeline of OUSD Policy’s 16-month 

Planning Process for the Regional Centers for Security 

Studies (Regional Centers) (Initiated in 2011) 18

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

DSCA Defense Security Cooperation Agency

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

NGO/IO Nongovernmental and International Organization

OUSD Policy Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Regional Centers Regional Centers for Security Studies 

State Department of State

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

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

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 28, 2013

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James M. Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

In recent years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has emphasized 

security cooperation approaches to build the defense capacity of foreign 

partners and advance the U.S. objective of international peace and 

cooperation. For example, strategic guidance issued by the Secretary of 

Defense in January 2012 highlighted the importance of enhancing the 

defense capacity of foreign partners in order to share the costs and 

responsibilities of global leadership.1

As part of the department’s efforts to build partner capacity, DOD relies 

on its Regional Centers for Security Studies (Regional Centers) to 

coordinate with the geographic combatant commands in developing 

training and educational programs around the globe to enhance security, 

Termed “building partner capacity,” 

this approach, according to DOD officials, represents the way to reduced 

long-term U.S. presence while protecting the territory of other nations. 

The strategic guidance stated that a fiscally constrained environment will 

require innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint activities toward building 

partner capacity. These activities include training, educating, and

assisting foreign countries’ civilian and military personnel in becoming 

more proficient at defense-related decision making, providing security to 

their populations, and protecting their resources and territories.

 

1

Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global leadership: Priorities for 21st Century 

Defense (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 5, 2012).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

deepen foreign officials’ understanding of the United States, and foster 

bilateral and multilateral partnerships. In addition to the Regional Centers, 

DOD and the Department of State (State) offer other programs and 

activities to provide training and education to foreign military and civilian 

personnel. These include, among other programs and activities, officer 

exchange programs, educational opportunities at U.S. professional 

military schools, and programs designed to assist foreign nations with 

building more effective defense institutions. In fiscal year 2012, the 

Regional Centers obligated approximately $101.4 million. Subject to 

certain requirements, the Regional Centers are permitted to use a portion 

of these funds to waive the reimbursement of the costs for foreign officials

and other personnel, such as representatives of nongovernmental and 

international organizations, to participate in the Regional Centers’ 

programs and activities.

In our prior work we have identified challenges that DOD faces in 

managing its initiatives to build the defense capacity of foreign partners, 

as well as key practices that could provide opportunities for DOD to more 

effectively manage these efforts. Specifically, we have found instances in 

which DOD had not consistently defined measures to evaluate progress, 

and in which reporting on the progress and effectiveness of some 

defense capacity-building activities had been limited. For example, in 

2012 we reported that because the National Guard’s State Partnership 

Program did not have agreed-upon goals or metrics, DOD could not 

assess progress toward achieving program goals.2 Our work has 

emphasized how, among other things, setting clear goals can help 

stakeholders understand what defense capacity-building programs seek 

to accomplish, and how establishing mechanisms to evaluate progress 

can help ensure that programs have long-term impact.3

The conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. No. 112-239) mandated us to conduct a 

A list of our 

related work that identifies challenges DOD has faced in its efforts to build 

the defense capacity of partners can be found at the end of the report.

 

2

GAO, State Partnership Program: Improved Oversight, Guidance, and Training Needed 

for National Guard’s Efforts with Foreign Partners, GAO-12-548 (Washington, D.C.: May 

15, 2012).

3

GAO, Building Partner Capacity: Key Practices to Effectively Manage Department of 

Defense Efforts to Promote Security Cooperation, GAO-13-335T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 

14, 2013).
 

Page 3 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

study of DOD’s Regional Centers.4

To address these objectives, we interviewed officials from the Office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD Policy), the Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), and each of the five Regional 

Centers: the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, the Asia-Pacific Center 

for Security Studies, the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense 

Studies, the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, 

and the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies. We also 

interviewed officials from the six geographic combatant commands and 

State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. To determine how the Regional 

Centers’ activities compare with those of other DOD training and 

educational programs and activities, we identified three areas to use in 

comparing program features—curriculum topics, target audience, and 

program format. We reviewed the Joint DOD-State Foreign Military 

Training Report,

In this report, we (1) describe how the 

Regional Centers’ activities compare with those of other DOD training and 

education organizations, and (2) evaluate the extent to which DOD has 

developed and implemented an approach to oversee and assess the 

Regional Centers’ progress in achieving DOD priorities. In addition, we 

are providing information about the process used by DOD and State for 

approving and monitoring Regional Center requests to waive 

reimbursement of the costs for nongovernmental and international 

organizations that participate in the Regional Centers’ activities.

5 the Interagency Working Group International 

Exchanges and Training Report,6

To determine the extent to which DOD has developed and implemented 

an approach to oversee the Regional Centers’ progress and assess their 

and other DOD documents, and we 

identified 17 DOD organizations that implement programs identified in 

these documents for our analysis, and compared characteristics of these 

organizations’ programs and activities with those of the Regional Centers. 

The results of our analysis are not generalizable to DOD training and 

education programs and activities outside of those included in the scope 

of our work.

 

4

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 112-705, at 838-839 (2012).

5

Department of Defense and Department of State, Foreign Military Training, Fiscal Years 

2010 and 2011, Joint Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: n.d.). 

6

Interagency Working Group on U.S. Government-Sponsored International Exchanges 

and Training, Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Report (Washington, D.C.: n.d.). 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

progress in achieving DOD priorities we examined DOD guidance7 as 

well as DOD annual reports, Regional Center program and budget plans, 

and other documentation, and we referred to the Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) as amended by the GPRA 

Modernization Act of 20108 and our prior work that identifies elements 

that constitute a comprehensive oversight framework.9

To identify the process used by DOD and State to approve and monitor 

Regional Center requests to waive reimbursement of costs for

nongovernmental and international organizations that participate in the 

Regional Centers’ activities, we reviewed DSCA guidance identifying the 

procedures for submitting requests and the criteria applied to 

consideration of waivers for nongovernmental and international 

organizations. We discussed the process with DSCA and State officials 

and obtained information on the waivers requested, as well as the 

amounts waived, between fiscal years 2009 and 2012.

We also 

interviewed officials from OUSD Policy, from DSCA, and from the 

Regional Centers to obtain their perspectives on the processes used to 

oversee the Regional Centers’ programs and activities and to assess their 

performance in achieving DOD priorities.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to June 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. A more detailed description of 

our scope and methodology is included in appendix I.

 

7

Department of Defense Directive 5200.41, DOD Centers for Regional Security Studies, 

(July 30, 2004, certified current as of Dec. 5, 2008).

8

Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993); Pub. L. No. 111-352 (2011).

9

See, for example, GAO-12-548 and Preventing Sexual Harassment: DOD Needs Greater 

Leadership Commitment and an Oversight Framework, GAO-11-809 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 21, 2011). 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

According to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, a component 

of DOD’s strategy to prevent and deter conflict is to help build the 

capacity of partners to maintain and promote stability, and such an 

approach requires working closely with U.S. allies and partner nations to 

leverage existing alliances and create conditions to advance common 

interests. Such “building partner capacity initiatives” comprise a broad 

range of security cooperation and security assistance activities.

Security cooperation is the broad term used by DOD for those activities 

taken to build relationships that promote specified U.S. interests, build 

partner nation capabilities for self-defense and coalition operations, and 

provide U.S. forces with access both in peacetime and during 

contingencies. These activities are carried out under various statutory 

authorities. For example, DOD may conduct activities with partner 

nations, such as sending out military liaison teams, exchanging military 

personnel between units, or conducting seminars and conferences in 

theaters of operations under Title 10 U.S. Code.10 DOD also conducts 

security cooperation activities through security assistance programs 

authorized by Title 22 U.S. Code.11 These Title 22 programs are a part of 

U.S. efforts to provide foreign assistance through military assistance and 

sales.

The five Regional Centers for Security Studies (Regional Centers) 

support DOD’s objective to build the defense capacity of partner nations. 

The Regional Centers’ activities include education, exchanges, research, 

and information sharing. The Regional Centers conduct in-residence 

courses, in-country seminars, and conferences, among other activities, 

that address global and regional security challenges such as terrorism 

and maritime security. DOD policy states that a core Regional Center 

mission is to assist military and civilian leaders in the region in developing 

strong defense establishments and strengthening civil-military relations in 

 

10See, for example, 10 U.S.C. §168.

11See, for example, 22 U.S.C. §§ 2311–2322 (Foreign Military Assistance) and 22 U.S.C. 

§§ 2347–2347h (International Military Education and Training).

Background

DOD’s Emphasis on 

Initiatives to Build the 

Defense Capacity of 

Partner Nations

DOD Regional Centers’ 

Mission
 

Page 6 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

a democratic society.12

Table 1: Overview of DOD’s Regional Centers for Security Studies

In doing so, the Regional Centers are expected to 

coordinate with the department’s geographic combatant commands in 

developing and implementing activities for their region. Table 1 lists the 

five Regional Centers, the year in which each was established, their 

locations, and their corresponding geographic combatant commands.

Regional Center

Year 

established Location

Primary geographic 

combatant command

George C. Marshall European Center for Security 

Studies

1993 Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 

Germany

U.S. European Command

Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies 1995 Honolulu, Hawaii U.S. Pacific Command

William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense 

Studies

1997 Washington, D.C. U.S. Southern Command

U.S. Northern Command

Africa Center for Strategic Studies 1999 Washington, D.C. U.S. Africa Command

Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies 2000 Washington, D.C. U.S. Central Command

Source: DOD.

Note: While each Regional Center supports a primary geographic combatant command, the Regional 

Centers also conduct programs and activities to support other geographic combatant commands. 

Figure 1 depicts each Regional Center’s primary geographic area of 

focus, which are generally consistent with each center’s corresponding 

geographic combatant command’s area of responsibility.

 

12Department of Defense Directive 5200.41.
 

Page 7 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

Figure 1: The Regional Centers’ Primary Geographic Areas of Focus

In fiscal year 2012, the Regional Centers obligated approximately $101.4 

million. Appendix II provides an overview of each Regional Center 

including a description of fiscal year 2012 resources. Subject to certain 

requirements, the Regional Centers are permitted to use a portion of

these funds to waive the reimbursement of the costs for foreign officials
 

Page 8 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

and other personnel, such as representatives of nongovernmental and 

international organizations, to participate in the Regional Centers’ 

programs and activities. Appendix III provides a more detailed discussion 

of DOD’s process to waive the reimbursement costs for personnel 

representing nongovernmental and international organizations.

DOD provides training and education opportunities to U.S. and foreign 

participants by means of various institutions, among which are the five 

Regional Centers; professional military education and degree-conferring 

institutions; and professional development institutions. For our review, we 

analyzed training and educational programs and activities administered 

by 17 selected DOD institutions, and compared them with those 

administered by the Regional Centers for the following three attributes: 

curriculum topics, targeted audience, and program format. (See appendix

I for a full list of institutions in our review.) The main similarities and 

differences we observed in comparing them are described below.

DOD provides U.S. and foreign participants with a variety of training and 

educational programs and activities through its five Regional Centers, its 

professional military education and advanced degree-conferring 

institutions, and its professional development institutions. For example, 

the Regional Centers, in accordance with DOD Directive 5200.41, support 

departmental policy objectives with activities designed to enhance 

security, foster partnerships, improve national security decision making, 

and strengthen civil-military relationships through education, exchanges, 

research, and information sharing.13

 

13Department of Defense Directive 5200.41.

Professional military education and 

advanced degree-conferring institutions aim to develop U.S. military 

personnel (enlisted and officer) with expertise and knowledge appropriate 

to their grade, branch, and military professional specialty. Examples of 

professional military education and advanced degree-conferring 

institutions include the National Defense University and the Naval 

Postgraduate School, respectively. DOD also administers training and 

Regional Centers’ 

Programs and 

Activities Share Some 

Similarities with 

Those Offered by 

Other DOD 

Organizations, but 

There Are Notable 

Differences

DOD Organizations 

Administer Various Types 

of Training and 

Educational Programs and 

Activities
 

Page 9 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

educational programs and activities to U.S. and foreign participants 

through various professional development institutions for the purpose of 

providing developmental opportunities and enhancing their missionrelated knowledge, skills, and experience. Examples of DOD’s 

professional development institutions include the Defense Acquisition 

University and the Center for Civil-Military Relations.

Programs and activities administered by the Regional Centers and other 

DOD professional military education and advanced degree-conferring 

institutions as well as professional development institutions have similar 

features in that they all

• offer curriculum topics intended to help participants enhance 

knowledge and skills on security and military matters;

• target members of the military; and

• feature program formats that include in-residence courses; seminars, 

conferences, workshops; distance learning; and in-country instruction.

However, some differences exist among the Regional Centers and the 

other programs administered by DOD organizations. Specifically:

• Regional Centers focus on bringing participants together for courses 

intended to foster understanding of regional security challenges and 

to strengthen the professional skills needed to develop effective 

strategies. In contrast, professional military education institutions 

generally focus on military operations and leadership; and advanced 

degree-conferring institutions and professional development 

institutions generally focus on professional knowledge, skills, and 

experiences.

• The Regional Centers’ audience is generally civilian and military 

officials from other countries. In contrast, professional military 

education institutions and advanced degree-conferring institutions 

target U.S. military officials.

• The Regional Centers’ program format is generally shorter than an 

academic year, and its completion does not count toward an 

academic degree. In contrast, professional military education 

institutions and advanced degree-conferring institutions offer degree 

and certificate programs that can take over a year to complete.

Table 2 summarizes a comparison of programs and activities 

administered by DOD’s Regional Centers, professional military education 

and advanced degree-conferring institutions, and professional 

development institutions, in terms of curriculum topics, targeted audience, 

Regional Centers’ 

Programs and Activities 

Share Similarities and 

Differences with Those 

Offered by Other DOD 

Institutions
 

Page 10 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

and program format. The checkmarks in the table indicate that we found 

the attribute is generally descriptive of the category, as we found 

exceptions to the attribute in some cases.

Table 2: Comparison of DOD Programs and Activities by Curriculum Topic, Target Audience, and Program Format

Attribute

Regional 

Centers

Professional military 

education 

institutionsa

Advanced degreeconferring 

institutionsb

Professional 

development 

institutionsc

Curriculum topics

Convening U.S. and other country participants to 

understand regional security challenges and to 

develop cooperative strategies

 

Military operations and leadership in support of the 

U.S. national security strategy 

 

Knowledge, skills, and experience related to security 

professions

  

Target audience

U.S. civilian  

U.S. military    

Foreign civilian   

Foreign military   

Program format

Accredited degree program   

In-residence courses     

Seminars, conferences, and workshops     

Distance learning     

In-country training and education     

Legend: = The attribute described is applicable to one or more institutions in the category. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

a

The professional military education institutions included in our review are: the Air University, Army 

Command and General Staff College, Army JFK Special Warfare School, Army War College, Joint 

Special Operations University, Marine Corps War College, National Defense University, Naval War 

College, and Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. 

b

The advanced degree-conferring institutions included in our review are: the Air Force Institute of 

Technology and Naval Postgraduate School. 

c

The professional development institutions included in our review are: the Center for Civil Military 

Relations, Defense Acquisition University, Defense Institute of International Legal Studies, Defense 

Institute for Medical Operations, Defense Resource Management Institute, and NATO School. 

To further elaborate on the information in table 2, the following 

paragraphs describe similarities and differences for each of the attributes 

we reviewed.
 

Page 11 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

We found that the Regional Centers, professional military education and 

advanced degree-conferring institutions, and professional development 

institutions are similar in that they all offer programs and activities to help 

a participant understand security and military matters and to enhance his 

or her knowledge and skills.

The Regional Centers focus their programs and activities on addressing 

OUSD Policy and geographic combatant command priorities and bringing 

participants together to understand regional security challenges and to 

develop cooperative strategies to address them. For example, the AsiaPacific Center for Security Studies administers a Comprehensive Security 

Responses to Terrorism course designed to broaden knowledge and 

improve skills in assessing terrorism threats in the Asia-Pacific region and 

to develop a community of professionals to collaborate on regional and 

global issues. Another example is the Africa Center’s African Executive 

Dialogue, which brings together African and U.S. senior officials to 

discuss how African countries can work together and with external 

stakeholders on Africa’s key security challenges. A further example is the 

Marshall Center’s Seminar on Trans-Atlantic Civil Security, which is 

designed to improve the homeland defense capacity and skills, across the 

whole of government, needed to prevent and respond to natural or manmade disasters or terrorist attacks. 

Moreover, each of the Regional Centers devotes significant programmatic 

effort to establishing, developing, and sustaining alumni networks. For 

example, officials at the Asia-Pacific Center told us that they track the 

progress of and provide support for the establishment of alumni chapters 

in Asia-Pacific countries, as well as helping to coordinate alumni events 

sponsored by these chapters. According to its program plan for fiscal year 

2013, the Near East South Asia Center plans to conduct 10 alumni events 

in the region to promote continual engagement with and among 

participants who have attended the center’s core programs and promote 

collaboration on current regional security issues.

In contrast, professional military education institutions’ programs and 

activities focus on instructing U.S. servicemembers in military operations 

and leadership in support of the U.S. national security strategy. For 

example, the National Defense University administers a Combating 

Terrorism Strategies and Policies course in which students examine the 

ongoing challenge to U.S. national security posed by the threat of 

international terrorism and the ways in which the United States is 

attempting to prevent future terror attacks. The advanced degreeconferring institutions focus on instructing U.S. military professionals on 

Curriculum Topics
 

Page 12 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

security-related knowledge and skills, such as operations research, 

logistics, and information system management. For example, the Naval 

Postgraduate School administers an Applied Mathematics Course in 

which students learn advanced mathematical techniques applicable to 

game theory and network design. The professional development 

institutions address professional security-related knowledge, skills, and 

experiences, such as consequence management, law enforcement, and 

decision making. For example, the Defense Acquisition University 

administers a variety of training courses that members of the defense 

acquisition workforce can use toward certification in various acquisition 

fields, such as systems acquisition, cost analysis, and contracting. In 

another example, the Defense Institute for Medical Operations 

administers an Emergency Management Strategies for Senior Leaders 

course to review and exercise executive-level principles for emergency 

management, disaster planning, and corrective action plan 

implementation.

In terms of target audience, we found that the Regional Centers, 

professional military education and advanced degree-conferring 

institutions, and professional development institutions are similar in that 

all of them include institutions that target programs and activities to 

members of the military.

We found that the Regional Centers are distinct in that participants in their 

programs and activities are generally from other countries, either civilians 

or members of the military. In 2012, 82 percent of the participants at the 

five Regional Centers were civilians or members of the military from other 

countries. According to officials and participants with whom we spoke, the 

preponderance of foreign participants provide U.S. participants with the 

unique experience of being in the minority during the discussion of U.S. 

security policy decisions and their impacts around the world. Further, 

officials stated that the Regional Centers intentionally invite executivelevel civilian officials as well as representatives from nongovernmental 

organizations, international organizations, and the private sector to 

ensure a broad, whole-of-government audience. Past participants of the 

Africa Center for Strategic Studies have included six current and former 

heads of state.

By contrast, professional military education and advanced degreeconferring institutions are primarily attended by members of the U.S. 

military at all career levels. For example, about 85 percent of the students 

enrolled in 2012 at the Air University were U.S. servicemembers, while 

foreign military students made up less than 2 percent of the student body.

Target Audience 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

Similarly, U.S. servicemembers comprise the majority of the student 

population at other DOD professional military education institutions. One 

notable exception is the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security 

Cooperation, which provides professional military education to Latin 

American military officers and noncommissioned officers.

In terms of program format, the Regional Centers, professional military 

education and advanced degree-conferring institutions, and professional 

development institutions all offer programs and activities in the form of inresidence courses; seminars, conferences, and workshops; distance 

learning; and in-country instruction.

The key distinctions between the Regional Centers and the other 

organizations in program format is that professional military education 

and advanced degree-conferring institutions offer degrees and certificates 

programs that are accredited by an independent accrediting institution.14

In contrast, Regional Centers and some professional development 

institutions’ programs and activities are generally not creditable toward an 

academic degree and are generally shorter than an academic year, 

ranging from a few days to a few weeks. For example, a William J. Perry 

Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies course on homeland security 

entails a 3-week online phase, a 3-week in-residence phase, and a 3-

week paper-writing phase. 

Professional military education or advanced degree-conferring programs 

generally entail completion of academic courses of instruction over a 

longer period for which a participant can earn credit toward a degree or 

certificate. For example, participants at the Army Command and General 

Staff College can earn a Master of Military Art and Science degree.

Further, the Army Command and General Staff College and the three 

other services’ Command and General Staff Colleges are accredited 

institutions. In another example, Naval Postgraduate School certificate, 

Master’s, and Ph.D. programs can take up to 4 years to complete.

 

14The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher 

education meets acceptable levels of quality. Accrediting agencies, which are private 

educational associations of regional or national scope, develop evaluation criteria and 

conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met. Institutions and 

programs that request an agency’s evaluation and that meet an agency’s criteria are then 

“accredited” by that agency.

Program Format
 

Page 14 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

Although the Regional Centers generally offer shorter-duration courses 

on a range of security topics, some centers provide participants with 

opportunities to obtain credit for their attendance. For example, the 

George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies offers two 

programs that can earn participants credit toward advanced degrees.

U.S. and foreign officers completing coursework at the center can earn 

credit toward a Master’s in International Security Studies from the 

Bundeswehr University in Munich, Germany, and the center also 

administers a Senior Service Fellows program whereby U.S. 

servicemembers can earn credit toward graduate degrees at their 

respective service’s war college. In addition, although the Perry Center for 

Hemispheric Defense Studies does not award degrees, some Latin 

American institutions of higher learning, such as the Universidad 

Francisco Marroquin, located in Guatemala City, Guatemala, award credit 

for successful completion of the center’s courses.

The professional development institutions also generally offer shorterduration courses. For example, the majority of Defense Institute for 

Medical Operations courses are 4 to 7 days in length, and Defense 

Institute of International Legal Studies courses range from 1 to 4 weeks.
 

Page 15 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

DOD has taken some steps to enhance its oversight of the Regional 

Centers’ plans and activities, but it does not have a sound basis to 

evaluate their progress in achieving DOD priorities because it has not 

developed an assessment approach that includes measurable goals and 

objectives with metrics or established a methodology for using the 

performance information it collects. Our prior work15 has found that 

achieving results in government requires a comprehensive oversight 

framework that includes clear goals, measurable objectives, and metrics 

for assessing progress, consistent with the framework established in the 

Government Performance and Results Act.16

Since 2005, DOD has taken several specific steps to enhance oversight 

of the Regional Centers, including defining roles and responsibilities, 

issuing guidance, and establishing a governance body and planning 

process. Specifically:

• Roles and Responsibilities: OUSD Policy, according to DOD Directive 

5200.41, is responsible for providing policy guidance and oversight 

and conducting reviews of the effectiveness of the Regional Centers 

in achieving DOD objectives, including resource allocation, 

management practices, and measures of effectiveness.17 In 2005, 

DOD designated the DSCA director as the executive agent for the 

Regional Centers and assigned it the responsibility for programming, 

budgeting, and management of the resources necessary to support 

their operation and providing them with needed staffing.18

• Guidance: OUSD Policy issues guidance to the Regional Centers that 

assigns priorities to them reflecting national security and departmental 

 

15See, for example, GAO-12-548, GAO-11-809, and Military Personnel: DOD Needs an 

Oversight Framework and Standards to Improve Management of Its Casualty Assistance 

Programs, GAO-06-1010 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2006). 

16The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993) was 

recently amended by the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 

2010, Pub. L No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). 

17Department of Defense Directive 5200.41.

18Deputy Secretary of Defense, DTM-05-002, Executive Agent for DOD Regional Centers 

for Security Studies (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2005).

DOD Has Taken Steps 

to Enhance Oversight 

of the Regional 

Centers Plans and 

Activities but Its 

Ability to Assess Their 

Progress Remains 

Limited

DOD Has Taken Steps to 

Enhance Oversight of 

Regional Centers’ Plans 

and Activities
 

Page 16 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

objectives. For example, in January 2013, OUSD Policy issued fiscal 

year 2013 guidance incorporating policy priorities identified in DOD’s 

January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance,19 and instructing the 

Regional Centers to address those priorities as they plan and execute 

programs.20 DSCA issues planning guidance that requires the 

Regional Centers to develop program plans to meet the OUSD Policy 

priorities within their projected funding baseline and existing 

authorities.21 The fiscal year 2014-2015 guidance states that each 

Regional Center’s program plan, among others requirements, should 

include a cover letter signed by the Regional Center director or 

program manager, background and concept papers for core program 

and significant events, a completed 2-year budget submission, and a 

list of efficiency initiatives to be implemented. Further, DOD Directive 

5200.41 states that the Regional Centers are required to develop and 

implement their activities according to guidance from the geographic 

combatant commanders.

22

• Governance body and planning process: In December 2011, DOD 

established a governance body within OUSD Policy, called the 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Board,23

 

19Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership. 

that 

provides guidance for and monitoring of the Regional Centers’ 

activities and plans. According to DOD officials, OUSD Policy 

established the board intending to facilitate coordination and 

information sharing among different OUSD Policy offices, and to 

achieve more integrated decision making on policies, plans, 

programs, and budgets. DOD officials told us that before the board’s 

establishment, each Regional Center reported to its respective OUSD 

Policy stakeholders, and the opportunity for broader information 

20Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), FY 13-14 Priorities for the Regional 

Center for Security Studies (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2013).

21Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Program Planning 

Guidance (Arlington, VA.: January 2013).

22We found that four of the geographic combatant commands provide general objectives 

or tasks for the Regional Centers to support their programs and activities, and two 

commands issue guidance that identifies specific programs and tasks to be implemented 

by their respective Regional Centers.

23The board is chaired by the OUSD Policy Chief of Staff, and its members include the 

OUSD Policy regional and functional Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense, 

the Director of DSCA, and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, 

and Forces. 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

sharing was minimal. The board’s activities include, in 2011, 

establishing a 16-month planning process to guide how the board and 

OUSD Policy stakeholders will provide guidance and oversee the 

development of plans and activities of the Regional Centers. As 

shown in figure 2, key steps in the planning cycle include

• identifying priorities and providing guidance to the Regional 

Centers;

• providing a means with which the Regional Center directors can 

update stakeholders on prior-year activities and future-year plans;

• coordinating proposed Regional Center program plans with OUSD 

Policy offices, the geographic combatant commands, and the 

board; and

• reviewing Regional Centers’ budgets and program plans.
 

Page 18 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

Figure 2: Overview and Timeline of OUSD Policy’s 16-month Planning Process for 

the Regional Centers for Security Studies (Regional Centers) (Initiated in 2011)
 

Page 19 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

We found that OUSD Policy largely follows the above planning process 

and has implemented the steps it describes; however, some steps, such 

as the issuance of the Regional Center priority guidance, were sometimes 

delayed.

Notwithstanding DOD’s efforts to enhance its oversight of the Regional 

Centers plans and activities described above, we found that OUSD Policy 

is limited in its ability to review the effectiveness of the Regional Centers 

in achieving DOD objectives because it has not yet developed an 

assessment approach that includes key elements, such as identifying 

measurable goals and objectives linked with performance metrics that 

would provide a means by which to evaluate their progress in achieving 

departmental priorities, or established a methodology for how it would use 

the performance information it collects to assess that progress. Our prior 

work24 has found that achieving results in government requires a 

comprehensive oversight framework that includes clear goals, 

measurable objectives, and metrics for assessing progress, consistent 

with the framework established in the Government Performance and 

Results Act.25

DOD has not developed an assessment approach that includes 

measurable goals and objectives for the Regional Centers for use in 

assessing their progress towards meeting DOD’s priorities. In February 

2011 and again in January 2013, OUSD Policy identified strategic goals 

and a number of priority objectives for the Regional Centers.26

 

24See, for example, 

However, 

many of the strategic goals were broad and not measurable, such as the 

goal to facilitate engagement with foreign participants to promote critical 

thinking on global security challenges. Additionally, although OUSD 

Policy identified priority objectives specific to each Regional Center in the 

January 2013 guidance, we found the priority objectives were still not 

measurable in many cases. For example, the priority objectives listed in 

GAO-12-548, GAO-11-809, and GAO-06-1010.

25The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993) was 

recently amended by the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 

2010, Pub. L No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011).

26Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), Policy Guidance for the Department of Defense 

Regional Centers (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2011); FY 13-14 Priorities for the Regional 

Center for Security Studies. 

DOD Has Not Yet 

Developed an Approach 

with Key Elements Needed 

to Assess the Regional 

Centers Progress in 

Achieving DOD Priorities

DOD Has Not Developed an 

Assessment Approach That 

Includes Measureable Goals 

and Objectives 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

the guidance for all of the Regional Centers include “contributing to an 

increased emphasis on security cooperation and building partnership 

capacity efforts in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East,” and ensuring that the 

United States is a security partner of choice for other nations. 

Additionally, the guidance documents list broad priority objectives for 

each Regional Center, such as supporting national security strategy 

development for one Regional Center, and addressing the growing threat 

of transnational organized crimes and illicit trafficking for another 

Regional Center. 

According to DOD Directive 5200.41, OUSD Policy is responsible for 

conducting reviews of the effectiveness of the Regional Centers in 

achieving DOD objectives.27 However, DOD has not established 

performance metrics or other indicators to assess the Regional Centers’ 

progress in achieving DOD priorities. We have previously reported that 

performance metrics that measure progress are necessary for 

management oversight.28

• In 2010, OUSD Policy tasked the Regional Centers with developing a 

comprehensive set of measures of effectiveness by which progress 

toward objectives could be assessed. In November 2010 the Regional 

Centers submitted a plan.

OUSD Policy officials acknowledge difficulties 

in developing metrics to assess security cooperation programs, such as 

those administered by the Regional Centers, observing that it is inherently 

challenging to link a security cooperation activity with desired effects. 

These officials described past and current efforts intended to provide 

information that could be used to help develop metrics. For example:

• Thereafter, OUSD Policy contracted with the RAND Corporation to 

review the November 2010 plan.29 In September 2011, RAND 

concluded that the measures of effectiveness identified in the plan 

had some weaknesses.30

 

27Department of Defense Directive, 5200.41.

RAND recommended that the Regional 

Centers develop a more comprehensive set of metrics and proposed 

a framework for developing them.

28GAO-12-548. 

29Regional Centers for Security Studies, Regional Center Enterprise: Measures of 

Effectiveness (November 2010). 

30The RAND Corporation, National Defense Research Institute, Review of the Regional 

Center Enterprise Measures of Effectiveness Plan, (Santa Monica, CA: September 2011).

DOD Has Not Established 

Metrics to Assess Progress
 

Page 21 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

• On the basis of the results, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of Defense Board concluded that further study was needed. 

Therefore, in July 2012, OUSD Policy contracted with RAND to 

conduct a study to evaluate the effect of the Regional Centers and to 

determine their contribution toward fulfilling OUSD Policy strategy 

objectives. DOD expects RAND to publish a final report in September 

2013. According to OUSD Policy officials, they believe the RAND 

study will provide additional insights into the metrics or indicators that 

could be used to evaluate the Regional Centers’ performance.

We recognize and have previously reported that it is difficult to establish 

performance measures for outcomes that are not readily observable and 

that in some cases systematic, in-depth program evaluation studies may 

be needed in addition to performance measures.31 Such program 

evaluation studies are conducted periodically and include context in order 

to examine the extent to which a program is meeting its objectives.32

Further, our prior work has shown that performance measures should 

focus on core activities that would help managers assess whether they 

are achieving organizational goals.

33

OUSD Policy has not established a methodology for assessing the 

Regional Centers’ progress in achieving DOD priorities, to include 

clarifying how it will use performance data provided by the Regional 

Centers and clearly identifying the role of its governance board in the 

assessment process. We found that, individually, the Regional Centers 

collect data on their programs and activities, and while their efforts vary, 

they all generally capture output and anecdotal data, such as summaries 

of activities, events, attendee demographics, and participant days, as well 

as the results of program surveys they conduct. For example:

• One Regional Center summarized its assessment efforts as 

conducting after-action reports, class evaluations, before and after 

program surveys, and trip reports.

 

31GAO-12-548; and Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and 

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

32GAO-12-548 and GAO-11-646SP. 

33GAO, Defense Business Transformation: Improvements Made but Additional Steps 

Needed to Strengthen Strategic Planning and Assess Progress, GAO-13-267 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2013). 

DOD Has Not Established a 

Methodology for Assessing 

Progress
 

Page 22 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

• One Regional Center sends surveys to the attendees’ supervisors to 

collect data on the attendee’s work performance and, if applicable, 

any improvement in job performance subsequent to their attendance 

at Regional Center programs, as well as to elicit the supervisors’ 

perspectives on the utility of the courses and its applicability to their 

careers. Additionally, the center has developed an internal, 

searchable database to store useful data and outcomes collected 

from surveys, e-mails, and personal anecdotes.

• Two Regional Center use a crosswalk that identifies how its programs 

and activities support stakeholder priorities, as well as the effects of 

its activities.

The Regional Centers provide data to OUSD Policy and DSCA on both 

their expected achievements and their past activities. For example, as 

required by DOD, the Regional Centers include in their program plans 

expected achievements of their specific programs and a discussion of 

how they expect their programs will support OUSD Policy priorities.34

However, OUSD Policy has not established a methodology or clarified 

how it will use this performance information to assess the Regional 

Centers’ performance against expected outcomes or in achieving DOD 

priorities. Furthermore, although DOD established a governance body to 

assist in monitoring the Regional Center’s plans and activities, DOD 

officials acknowledge that the role of the governance body in assessing 

the Regional Centers’ performance is not clearly defined. For example, 

the governance body has not identified how it will consider the 

performance information provided by the Regional Centers in making 

decisions or demonstrated how the newly established planning process 

will integrate the performance information to assess the Regional 

Centers’ progress towards OUSD Policy strategic goals and priority 

objectives.

Additionally, as discussed earlier in this report, the Regional Center 

directors brief the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Board 

on their past activities. In our review of the board presentations in January 

2013, we found that the board members had the opportunity to ask 

questions as well as request additional information on specific aspects of 

their activities.

 

34Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Program Planning 

Guidance. 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

Conducting routine assessments using measurable goals and objectives 

with metrics to evaluate progress would provide DOD with a sounder 

basis for determining whether the Regional Centers are achieving results, 

as well as for allocating resources. Until measurable program goals and 

objectives linked with performance metrics are implemented, DOD cannot 

fully assess or adequately oversee the Regional Centers. Moreover, with 

clearly defined roles and responsibilities for assessing the Regional 

Centers, oversight mechanisms such as the governance body could 

prove beneficial in evaluating the Regional Centers’ performance in 

achieving DOD priorities, as well as the performance of other DOD 

initiatives to build partner nations’ capacity.

Effective management of efforts to build the defense capacity of foreign 

partners will help DOD steward its resources to achieve its strategic 

priorities and will likely better position the U.S. government to respond to 

changing conditions and future uncertainties around the world. As a 

component of DOD’s broader effort, the Regional Centers provide an 

opportunity for the U.S. government to strengthen cooperation with 

foreign countries. While DOD has expressed challenges entailed in 

establishing metrics to capture the effects of a program premised on 

relationship-building and has taken steps to study the matter, it has yet to 

establish an initial set of metrics. We note the importance for DOD to 

have measurable goals and objectives linked with performance metrics, 

which would form the foundation for an oversight framework. While DOD 

has taken positive steps by establishing a new governance body and 

updating DOD guidance applying to the Regional Centers for fiscal year 

2013, DOD does not yet have a process to assess the Regional Centers’ 

progress. Conducting routine assessments using measurable goals and 

objectives, with metrics to evaluate progress, and a methodology for 

using performance information to include defining the role of the 

governance board, would provide DOD a sounder basis for assessing the 

Regional Centers’ progress in achieving results and better determining 

the allocation of resources. Moreover, DOD’s ability to assess the 

Regional Centers’ performance would provide Congress with the 

information it needs as it evaluates current and similar programs and 

considers future funding levels.

To enhance DOD’s ability to determine whether the Regional Centers are 

achieving departmental priorities, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 24 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

• develop an approach to assess the Regional Centers’ progress in 

achieving DOD priorities, including identifying measurable goals and 

objectives, metrics, or other indicators of performance, and

• develop a methodology for using performance information, to include 

defining the role of the governance board in the process.

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

provided written comments which are reprinted in appendix IV. In its 

written comments, DOD partially concurred with our first recommendation 

and concurred with our second recommendation. DOD also provided 

technical comments, which we have incorporated into the report, as 

appropriate. State did not provide any comments on the draft.

DOD partially concurred with our first recommendation that the Secretary 

of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to develop an 

approach to assess the Regional Centers’ progress in achieving DOD 

priorities, including identifying measurable goals and objectives, metrics, 

and other indicators of performance. In its comments, DOD noted that our 

recommendation should take into account that a process already exists 

for Regional Center program development and approval, which requires 

the Regional Centers to identify specific program goals that meet policy 

objectives. DOD further noted that the department recognized the need to 

improve the identification of measurable goals and objectives, metrics, or 

other indicators of performance, and is already taking steps to address 

this issue. DOD suggested that we revise our recommendation to state 

that DOD should bolster the current approach to assess the Regional 

Centers' progress in achieving DOD priorities, including identifying 

measurable goals and objectives, metrics, and other indicators of 

performance that appropriately measure the essential aspects of the 

Regional Centers' mission.

As noted in our report, we recognize that DOD has a process for 

developing and reviewing Regional Center programs and that the 

department has established policy priorities for the Regional Centers. The 

report also notes that the Regional Centers include in their program plans 

expected achievements of their specific programs and a discussion of 

how they expect their programs will support OUSD Policy priorities. 

However, we note that DOD’s January 2013 guidance to the Regional 

Centers contained priority objectives that were not measurable in many 

cases. Further, our report describes past and current DOD efforts that 

could be useful toward identifying metrics to assess Regional Center 

progress in achieving DOD priorities. However, DOD has not yet 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 25 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

established an initial set of metrics. Without those key elements, we do 

not believe that DOD has a sound approach to assess the Regional 

Centers’ progress. Therefore we believe our recommendation is stated 

appropriately. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense; the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and the Secretary of State. In 

addition, the report will also be available on our website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

Sharon L. Pickup at (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov, or Charles 

Michael Johnson, Jr. at (202) 512-7331. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made key contributors to this report are 

listed in appendix V.

Sharon L. Pickup

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.

Director

International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 26 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

To assess how the Regional Centers for Security Studies’ (Regional 

Centers) programs and activities compared with those of other DOD 

organizations that provide training and educational programs and 

activities, we completed the following steps. First, we researched U.S. 

government programs, activities, and initiatives providing training and 

education to foreign civilian and military individuals. We reviewed two 

U.S. government reports that provided comprehensive information on 

training and education provided to foreign civilian and military 

professionals: the Interagency Working Group on U.S. GovernmentSponsored International Exchanges and Training fiscal year 2011 Annual 

Report; and the Foreign Military Training Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 

Joint Report to Congress. The Interagency Working Group Annual 

Reports provide a review of activities over a given fiscal year and they 

include the previous fiscal year’s inventory of programs detailing the 

scope of federal international exchanges and training. The Foreign 

Military Training Report is jointly completed by DOD and the Department 

of State (State) and provides information on all military training provided 

to foreign military personnel by DOD and State during the previous fiscal 

year and all such training proposed for the current fiscal year. In addition, 

we reviewed the Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management’s 

The Management of Security Cooperation (Green Book); the Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency’s fiscal year 2013 Budget Request; and 

Army Regulation 12-15, Joint Security Cooperation Education and 

Training. The Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management 

Green Book is the publication employed by the institute for instruction 

covering the full range of security cooperation and security assistance 

activities. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s fiscal year 2013 

Budget Request identifies specific security cooperation activities 

administered by the agency. The Joint Security Cooperation Education 

and Training regulation prescribes policies, procedures, and 

responsibilities for training international personnel. By reviewing these 

documents, we identified a comprehensive inventory of U.S. security 

cooperation and security assistance programs that provide training and 

education to foreign nationals. Second, we excluded programs that: (1) 

did not have national security and policy as their primary focus, or (2) 

taught specific skill- or tactical-level training, such as language or flight 

training. We then compared these programs against the legislation 

establishing the Regional Centers and the DOD directive governing their 

activities. On the basis of this comparison, we focused our selection on 

the subset of training and education programs and building partner 

capacity initiatives that, like the Regional Centers, support DOD priorities 

by enhancing security, fostering partnerships, and assisting regional 

leaders to develop strong defense establishments. We learned that the 

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

Page 27 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

programs identified in these first two steps of our selection process could 

be classified in two categories: (1) DOD institutions that provide training 

and education and (2) DOD and State programs and authorities that 

provide funds for U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to attend these 

institutions. Because one of the Regional Centers’ activities is to provide 

for education and exchanges by conducting in-residence courses, incountry seminars, and conferences, among other activities, we focused 

our next selection step on identifying training and educational program 

providers. Third, we completed additional research on DOD institutions 

that provide training and education. We conducted a preliminary review of 

each institution by reading a description of it, and we again excluded 

those that provide tactical-level training on skills not addressed by the 

Regional Centers. The team collected additional information about these 

institutions by completing online research, reviewing documentation 

collected during the engagement, and requesting data and information 

from each institution. On the basis of this research and review, we 

identified and selected 17 organizations for this analysis; the 

organizations are DOD institutions that provide training and education, 

but U.S. citizens and foreign nationals that attend these institutions are, in 

some instances, funded by DOD and State programs and authorities. 

Where applicable, we also analyzed the various schools under each 

institution.

1. Air Force Institute of Technology (part of Air University)

2. Air University

3. Army Command and General Staff College

4. Army JFK Special Warfare School

5. Army War College

6. Center for Civil Military Relations

7. Defense Acquisition University

8. Defense Institute for Medical Operations

9. Defense Institute of International Legal Studies

10. Defense Resource Management Institute

11. Joint Special Operations University

12. Marine Corps War College

13. National Defense University

14. NATO School
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

15. Naval Postgraduate School

16. Naval War College

17. Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

Fourth, we identified which attributes to examine. For this engagement, 

we selected three similar areas for comparison—curriculum topics, target 

audience, and program type and format. In prior work, GAO has 

compared programs by examining various program attributes, such as the 

populations targeted, the types of services provided, or the program’s 

geographic focus. As the analysis entailed comparing the Regional 

Centers to the above 17 selected training and educational providers, we 

concluded a review should examine the curriculum offered by each 

provider and that the populations targeted and program format attributes 

were applicable. We determined that these attributes we selected were 

appropriate for comparing training and educational providers because 

they explain the curriculum focus of each organization’s primary training 

and educational efforts, who they engage in these efforts, and their 

method of engagement. The results of our analysis are not generalizable 

to DOD training and education programs and activities outside of those 

included in the scope of our work.

To determine the extent to which DOD has developed and implemented 

an approach to oversee the Regional Centers and assess their progress 

in achieving DOD priorities, we evaluated relevant documentation and 

interviewed knowledgeable officials. Specifically, we reviewed the 

legislation establishing the Regional Centers, DOD guidance1

 

1

Department of Defense Directive 5200.41, DOD Centers for Regional Security Studies,

(July 30, 2004, certified current as of Dec. 5, 2008). 

governing 

their activities, and the 2010 and 2011 DOD annual reports to Congress 

on Regional Center activities; the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense (OUSD) Policy fiscal year 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 policy 

guidance and DSCA Fiscal Year 2014-2015 program planning guidance 

to the Regional Centers, and the Regional Centers’ program plans 

submitted in response; and briefing documents concerning the 

establishment of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

Board. In January 2013 we attended and observed the fourth meeting of 

this board. We also reviewed a prior study conducted by the RAND 

Corporation, contracted by OUSD Policy, to evaluate the Regional 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

Centers’ measures-of-effectiveness plan, and met with RAND officials. In 

completing site visits to the Regional Centers, we reviewed 

documentation relating to their missions, anticipated outcomes, 

scheduled and proposed activities, program development processes, and 

outreach to alumni. We also observed classes and conferences in 

progress and met with international attendees. Additionally, to identify 

oversight mechanisms for the Regional Centers, we reviewed key 

geographic combatant command documents to include guidance issued 

to Regional Centers and theater planning documents, and we interviewed 

key command officials. We also referred to our prior work that identifies 

elements that constitute a comprehensive oversight framework, and to 

prior work that identifies the relationship between performance 

management and program evaluation.2

To provide information about the process used by DOD and State to 

approve and monitor Regional Center requests to waive reimbursement 

of costs for nongovernmental and international organizations that 

participate in the Regional Centers’ activities, we reviewed relevant 

legislation and DSCA guidance identifying the procedures for submitting 

requests and the criteria applied to consideration of waivers for 

nongovernmental and international organizations. We discussed the 

process with DSCA and State officials and obtained information on the 

various waivers requested, as well as the amounts waived, between fiscal 

years 2009 and 2012.

To address all of our objectives, we collected information by interviewing 

or communicating with officials in

(1) the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD 

Policy), specifically the following subordinate offices:

a) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Partnership Strategy and Stability Operations,

b) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

International Security Affairs,

 

2

See, for example, GAO, State Partnership Program: Improved Oversight, Guidance, and 

Training Needed for National Guard’s Efforts with Foreign Partners, GAO-12-548 

(Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2012); Preventing Sexual Harassment: DOD Needs Greater 

Leadership Commitment and an Oversight Framework, GAO-11-809 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 21, 2011); and Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and 

Relationships, GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011).
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

c) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense African Affairs,

d) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Russia, Ukraine & Eurasia,

e) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Western Hemispheres Affairs,

f) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense—Asia 

Pacific Security Affairs, 

g) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, and 

h) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Special Operations & Low-Intensity Conflict;

(2) the Defense Security Cooperation Agency; 

(3) each of the five Regional Centers: 

a) the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, 

b) the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, 

c) the George C. Marshall European Center for Security 

Studies, 

d) the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, and 

e) the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense 

Studies; 

(4) each of the six geographic combatant commands: 

a) U.S. Africa Command,

b) U.S. Central Command, 

c) U.S. European Command,

d) U.S. Northern Command,

e) U.S. Pacific Command, and

f) U.S. Southern Command;

(5) the Global Center for Security Cooperation;

(6) the following State bureaus:

a) Bureau of African Affairs,

b) Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs,

c) Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, and

d) Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs;

(7) the U.S. Agency for International Development; and

(8) the RAND Corporation.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 through June 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

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

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

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

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
United States Government Accountability Office

Fiscal Year 2012 Funding

Africa Center for Strategic Studies 

About the Center

Location: Washington, D.C.

Satellite locations: Addis Ababa, 

Ethiopia, and Dakar, Senegal

Founded: 1998

Mission: The Africa Center for 

Strategic Studies supports U.S. foreign 

and security policies by strengthening 

the strategic capacity of African states to 

identify and resolve security challenges 

in ways that promote civil-military 

cooperation, respect democratic values, 

and safeguard human rights.

Priorities: 

 • Counter violent extremism and 

 counterterrorism

 • Peacekeeping and stability

 • Promote and perserve partnerships

 • Security-sector transformation

 • Transnational security challenges

Courses: 

 • Next Generation of African Security 

 Leaders

 • Senior Leaders Seminar

 • African Executive Dialogue

 • Managing Security Resources in 

 Africa

 • African Defense Attaché Seminar

 • Introduction to African Security 

 Issues

 • Topical Outreach Program Series

 • Countering Violent Extremism and 

 Radicalization

 • Leadership and Accountability in 

 Countering Illicit Trafficking

 • Maritime Safety and Security

 • Security Sector Transformation 

Alumni: 5,193 (as of September 2012)

92%

Operation and maintenance, 

defense-wide

$15.0 million

Total funding: $16.3 million

Area of Focus

Fiscal Year 2012 Personnel

Military

4

Contractors

28

35%

5%

59%

Civilian

47

Total personnel: 79 (as of September 2012)

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

8%

Operation and

maintenance, reimbursable

$1.3 million

Appendix II: The Department of Defense’s (DOD) Regional Centers for Security Studies

Page 31 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity

Note: Total may not add due to rounding.
United States Government Accountability Office

Appendix II: The Department of Defense’s (DOD) Regional Centers for Security Studies

Page 32 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity

Fiscal Year 2012 DOD Operation and Maintenance Funding

Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies 

Appendix II: DOD Regional Centers for Security Studies

About the Center

Location: Honolulu, Hawaii 

Founded: 1995

Mission: Building capacities and 

communities of interest by educating, 

connecting, and empowering security 

practitioners to advance Asia-Pacific 

security.

Priorities: Contribute to regional 

stability by focusing on:

 • Counterterrorism

 • Defense institution building

 • Humanitarian assistance and 

 disaster response

 • Maritime and border security

 • Promotion of multilateral cooperation 

 /confidence-building

 • Space policy and cyber-security

 • Stability and peacekeeping

 • Transnational security threats 

Courses:

 • Advanced Security Cooperation 

 Course

 • Comprehensive Crisis Management 

 Course

 • Comprehensive Security Responses 

 to Terrorism Course

 • Transnational Security Cooperation 

 Senior Executive Course

Alumni: 7,068 (as of January 2013)

92%

Operation and maintenance, 

defense-wide

$17.2 million

Total funding: $18.8 million

Area of Focus

Fiscal Year 2012 Personnel

Contractors

12

Military

32

25%

9%

65%

Civilian

83

Total personnel: 127 (as of November 2012)

Note: Total may not add due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

8%

Operation and 

maintenance, reimbursable

$1.5 million

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

Note: Total may not add due to rounding.
United States Government Accountability Office

Fiscal Year 2012 DOD Operation and Maintenance Funding

William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric 

Defense Studies 

Appendix II: DOD Regional Centers for Security Studies

About the Center

Location: Washington, D.C. 

Founded: 1997

Mission: Conduct educational 

activities for civilians and the military in 

the Western Hemisphere to enhance 

partner capacity and foster trust, mutual 

understanding, and regional 

cooperation.

Priorities: 

 • Encourage whole-of-government 

 coordination and support 

 hemispheric coordination 

 mechanisms to enhance 

 information-sharing.

 • Facilitate bilateral and multilateral 

 cooperation to build common 

 perspectives on regional challenges 

 and greater capacity.

 • Promote a strategic dialogue and 

 communicate U.S. defense priorities 

 to regional leaders.

 • Promote partner nation defense 

 planning and strategy development 

 (peacekeeping, humanitarian 

 assistance and disaster relief, 

 stability, and counterterrorism 

 operations).

 • Support civilian military control, 

 transitions, and oversight. 

Courses: 

 • Governance, Governability and 

 Security in The Americas: 

 Responses to Transnational 

 Organized Crime 

 • Nationlab

 • Perspectives on Homeland Security 

 and Homeland Defense 

 • Strategy and Defense Policy Course 

 • Washington Security and Defense 

 Seminar

Alumni: 5,335 (as of September 2012)

99% Operation and maintenance, 

defense-wide

$12.2 million

Total funding: $12.3 million

Area of Focus

Fiscal Year 2012 Personnel

Contractors

9

Volunteers

20

26%

12%

62%

Civilian

48

Total personnel: 77 (as of September 2012)

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

Operation and 1%

maintenance, reimbursable

$62,000

Appendix II: The Department of Defense’s (DOD) Regional Centers for Security Studies

Page 33 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity
United States Government Accountability Office

Fiscal Year 2012 DOD Operation and Maintenance Funding

George C. Marshall European Center for 

Security Studies

Appendix II: DOD Regional Centers for Security Studies

About the Center

Location: Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 

Germany

Founded: 1993

Mission: Create a more stable security 

environment by advancing democratic 

institutions and relationships, especially 

in the field of defense; promoting active, 

peaceful security cooperation; and 

enhancing enduring partnerships among 

the nations of North America, Europe, 

and Eurasia.

Priorities: 

 • Address implications for transatlantic 

 security organizations based on U.S. 

 strategic rebalancing

 • Emphasize engagement with U.S. 

 European Command priority 

 countries 

 • Emphasize European and Eurasian 

 regional security issues

 • Expand engagement with Central 

 Asia on regional security, defense 

 transformation, defense strategy 

 development, and building partner 

 capacity

 • Sustain trans-regional 

 counterterrorism engagement

 • Transnational organized crime illicit 

 trafficking 

Courses: 

 • Program in Applied Security 

 Studies—Capacity Building 

 • Program in Security Sector Capacity 

 Building 

 • Program on Terrorism and Security 

 Studies 

 • Seminar on Combating Weapons of 

 Mass Destruction/Terrorism 

 • Seminar on Regional Security 

 • Seminar on Transatlantic Civil 

 Security 

 • Senior Executive Seminar 

Alumni: 9,451 (as of January 2013)

Operation and

maintenance, reimbursable

$5.2 million

Operation and maintenance, 

defense-wide

$31.2 million

Total funding: $36.9 million

Area of Focus

Fiscal Year 2012 Personnel

Contractors

40

Military

23

69%

Civilian

143

Total personnel: 206 (as of September 2012)

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

Outside funding

$487,000

85%

19%

11%

14%

1%

Appendix II: The Department of Defense’s (DOD) Regional Centers for Security Studies

Page 34 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity

Note: Total may not add due to rounding.
United States Government Accountability Office

Fiscal Year 2012 DOD Operation and Maintenance Funding

Near East South Asia Center for 

Strategic Studies

Appendix II: DOD Regional Centers for Security Studies

About the Center

Location: Washington, D.C. 

Founded: 2000

Mission: To enhance stability in the 

Near East and South Asia region by 

providing a professional academic 

environment where the key security 

issues facing the region can be 

addressed, mutual understanding is 

deepened, partnerships are fostered, 

security related decision making is 

improved, and cooperation is 

strengthened among military and 

security professionals from regional 

countries and the United States.

Priorities: 

 • Focus on Afghanistan/Pakistan and 

 Middle Eastern region security:

 ◦ Civilian control of the military,

 ◦ Increasing regional countering 

 violent extremist efforts, and 

 ◦ Increasing the involvement of 

 non-defense/Ministry of Foreign 

 Affairs officials in programs.

 • Professional military ethics

 • Reform and long-term stability

 • Support for international standards

 • Transparency and accountability

Courses: 

 • U.S. Central Command Senior 

 National Representative Seminar 

 • Combating Transnational Threats 

 Executive Seminars 

 • Combating Transnational Threats 

 Senior Executive Seminar 

 • Executive Seminars 

 • Senior Executive Seminar 

Alumni: 3,472 (as of June 2012)

Operation and 

maintenance, reimbursable

$18,000

Less than 1%

94%

Operation and maintenance, 

defense-wide

$16.2 million

Total funding: $17.3 million

Area of Focus

Fiscal Year 2012 Personnel

Military

2

Civilian

24

33%

14%

49% Contractors

35

Total personnel: 72 (as of September 2012)

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

6%

Outside funding

$1.1 million

3% 1%

Interns

10

Other

1

Appendix II: The Department of Defense’s (DOD) Regional Centers for Security Studies

Page 35 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity

Note: Total may not add due to rounding.
Appendix III: Reimbursement Waivers 

Page 36 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

The Secretary of Defense may use any of several specific authorities in 

Title 10 U.S. Code to pay the expenses of representatives from various 

regions around the world to attend Department of Defense (DOD)-

sponsored programs and activities, including those of the Regional 

Centers. These authorities vary on the basis of the type of attendees 

(civilian or military) as well as the region of the world from where they 

originate. The authority contained in 10 U.S.C. § 184note specifically 

applies to nongovernmental and international organization (NGO/IO) 

personnel attending Regional Center programs, for which DOD has 

issued specific guidance to govern approval of reimbursement waivers.

In fiscal year 2009, 10 U.S.C. § 184note was enacted to temporarily grant 

the Secretary of Defense the authority to waive reimbursement of costs 

for NGO/IO personnel to attend Regional Center programs.1 Approval of 

waived reimbursement depends on whether the NGO/IO’s attendance is 

deemed to be in the U.S. national security interest and is subject to the 

concurrence of the Secretary of State. Further, the collective 

reimbursements being waived may not exceed a total of $1 million 

(according to DOD officials, reimbursement is paid from the Regional 

Centers’ Operation and Maintenance budgets) in any fiscal year. This 

temporary waiver authority has been renewed most recently through 

fiscal year 2013. Title 10 also contains permanent authorities to pay the 

expenses of foreign representatives in order to foster cooperation with 

various countries in those regions. Specifically, 10 U.S.C. 184(f)(3) allows 

the Secretary of Defense to waive reimbursement of the costs of activities 

of the Regional Centers for foreign military officers and foreign defense 

and security civilian government officials from a developing country if the 

Secretary determines that attendance of such personnel without 

reimbursement is in the national security interest of the United States. In 

addition, 10 U.S.C. § 1050 has been in effect since 1984 and allows the 

Secretary of Defense to pay the expenses of officers and students from 

Latin American countries.2

 

1

Pub. L. No. 110-417, Div. A, Title IX, § 941(b) (Oct. 14, 2008), as amended Pub. L. No. 

111-383, Div. A, Title IX, § 941 (Jan. 7, 2011); Pub. L. No. 112-239, Div. A, Title IX, § 953 

(Jan. 2, 2013), (10 U.S.C. § 184note). 

In 2011, Congress enacted 10 U.S.C. § 

1050a, allowing the Secretary of Defense to pay the expenses of officers 

and students from African countries. Under 10 U.S.C. § 113note, the 

2

Similar provisions had been contained in appropriations dating back to 1942. 

Appendix III: Reimbursement Waivers

Multiple Authorities Exist
Appendix III: Reimbursement Waivers 

Page 37 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

Secretary of Defense has the ability to pay the expenses of military 

officers and civilian officials from European countries. The authorities are 

summarized in table 3.

Table 3: 10 U.S.C. Authorities

Authority Applies to From

10 U.S.C. § 1050 officers and students Latin American countries 

10 U.S.C. § 1050a officers and students African countries 

10 U.S.C. § 113note military officers and civilian 

officials 

European countries 

10 U.S.C. § 184 military officials and defense 

and security civilians 

developing countries 

10 U.S.C. § 184note personnel nongovernmental and 

international organizations 

(NGO/IO)

Source: GAO.

DOD has set up specific procedures to direct the use of the authority 

granted under 10 U.S.C. § 184note to waive reimbursement of expenses 

by NGO/IOs. This procedural guidance cites national security interests 

when considering waiver of reimbursement and encourages the Regional 

Centers to request waivers on the basis of each NGO/IO’s financial need.

It also outlines six specific priorities to be used for determining waiver 

consideration, as described in table 4.

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2011 – 2013 Priorities for Waiver Consideration, in Order of 

Importance

Priority Description

1 NGO/IOs that participate alongside or in the vicinity of U.S. forces during 

postconflict stability and/or disaster-management operations, and whose 

participation has a direct benefit to DOD operations.

2 NGO/IOs that participate in disaster-management and stability operations with 

partners.

3 NGO/IOs that play an important role in countering violent extremism.

4 NGO/IOs that provide civil society oversight of foreign partner security sectors.

5 NGO/IOs that engage in “sustainable development and stabilization” (also 

known as Phase Zero) activities, where U.S. or foreign partner security forces 

are actively engaged (e.g., health affairs).

6 NGO/IOs that broadly influence security policies in their countries or 

international organizations.

Source: DOD.

Reimbursement Waiver 

Approval Process under 10 

U.S.C. § 184
Appendix III: Reimbursement Waivers 

Page 38 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

According to the procedural guidance issued by DOD, as well as 

discussions with DOD and State Department officials, the process 

through which waivers are requested and approved under 10 U.S.C. § 

184note is as follows:

• The Regional Centers send the Defense Security Cooperation Agency 

(DSCA) their waiver requests identifying each organization, individual 

attendees, and dollar amounts, and providing justifications for their 

requests.

• DSCA then reviews the requests and transmits them to the 

Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs for its 

concurrence and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy (OUSD Policy) for approval.

• The Department of State and OUSD Policy circulate the requests 

among their respective regional and functional bureaus, which 

perform a review of each candidate organization, principally to ensure 

that the organization’s participation would not undermine the 

program’s purpose.

• The Department of State transmits its concurrence to DSCA which, in 

turn, notifies OUSD Policy of the concurrence. OUSD Policy transmits 

its approvals to DSCA.

• DSCA designates a portion of the $1 million total waiver authority to 

each Regional Center, setting a cap on how much of each center’s 

Operation and Maintenance budget may be spent on waiving 

reimbursements by NGO/IOs attending their programs.

In addition to the legislative authority provided for waiver of 

reimbursement for NGO/IO personnel, OUSD Policy and the Regional 

Centers may use other Title 10 authorities granted to the Secretary of 

Defense. To date, only the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric 

Defense Studies has paid the expenses of NGO/IO personnel with an 

authority other than 10 U.S.C. § 184note. Using the authority under 10 

U.S.C. § 1050, whereby the Secretary of Defense may pay the expenses 

of officers and students from Latin American countries, the William J. 

Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies has paid the expenses of 

NGO/IO personnel. According to DOD, the Regional Centers have not 

used 10 U.S.C. § 1050a, whereby the Secretary of Defense may pay the 

expenses of officers and students from African countries; or 10 U.S.C. § 

113note, through which the Secretary of Defense has the ability to pay 

the expenses of military officers and civilian officials from European 

countries, to waive reimbursements for participating NGO/IOs. Table 5 

shows the extent to which the Regional Centers have used Title 10 

Use of Other Authorities
Appendix III: Reimbursement Waivers

Page 39 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

authorities each fiscal year since 2009 to cover expenses for NGO/IO 

personnel attending their programs.

Table 5: Use of Authorities by Regional Centers to Waive NGO/IO Reimbursements, 

Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012

Current year dollars

Fiscal year

Authority/Regional Center 2009 2010 2011 2012

10 U.S.C. § 184note

Africa Center for Strategic Studies 0 33,785 50,900 0 

Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies

15,797 13,794 0 67,035

George C. Marshall European 

Center for Security Studies

0 56,000 10,500 4,648

Near East South Asia Center for 

Strategic Studies

78,586 33,900 133,300 0 

10 U.S.C. § 184note total $94,383 $137,479 $194,700 $71,683

10 U.S.C. § 1050

William J. Perry Center for 

Hemispheric Defense Studies

573,110 579,800 251,750 333,363

Grand total $667,493 $717,279 $446,450 $405,046

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 40 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 41 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 42 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

Sharon L. Pickup, (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov

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

In addition to the contacts named above, Matthew Ullengren, Assistant

Director; Judith McCloskey, Assistant Director; David Keefer; Ricardo 

Marquez; Shirley Min; Jamilah Moon; Amie Steele; Michael Silver; 

Sabrina Streagle; and Cheryl Weissman made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 43 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

U.S. Assistance to Yemen: Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of 

Emergency Food Aid and Assess Security Assistance. GAO-13-310. 

Washington, D.C.: March 20, 2013

Security Assistance: Evaluations Needed to Determine Effectiveness of 

U.S. Aid to Lebanon's Security Forces. GAO-13-289. Washington, D.C.: 

March 19, 2013

Building Partner Capacity: Key Practices to Effectively Manage 

Department of Defense Efforts to Promote Security Cooperation. 

GAO-13-335T. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2013.

Security Assistance: DOD’s Ongoing Reforms Address Some 

Challenges, but Additional Information Is Needed to Further Enhance 

Program Management. GAO-13-84. Washington, D.C.: November 16, 

2012.

State Partnership Program: Improved Oversight, Guidance, and Training 

Needed for National Guard’s Efforts with Foreign Partners. GAO-12-548. 

Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2012.

Security Force Assistance: Additional Actions Needed to Guide 

Geographic Combatant Command and Service Efforts. GAO-12-556. 

Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2012.

Humanitarian and Development Assistance: Project Evaluations and 

Better Information Sharing Needed to Manage the Military’s Efforts. 

GAO-12-359. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2012.

Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and 

Relationships. GAO-11-646SP. Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2011.

Preventing Sexual Harassment: DOD Needs Greater Leadership 

Commitment and an Oversight Framework. GAO-11-809. Washington, 

D.C.: September 21, 2011.

Defense Management: U.S. Southern Command Demonstrates 

Interagency Collaboration, but Its Haiti Disaster Response Revealed 

Challenges Conducting a Large Military Operation. GAO-10-801. 

Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2010.

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 44 GAO-13-606 Building Partner Capacity 

Defense Management: Improved Planning, Training, and Interagency 

Collaboration Could Strengthen DOD’s Efforts in Africa. GAO-10-794. 

Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2010.

Drug Control: DOD Needs to Improve Its Performance Measurement 

System to Better Manage and Oversee Its Counternarcotics Activities. 

GAO-10-835. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2010.

Defense Management: DOD Needs to Determine the Future of Its Horn of 

Africa Task Force. GAO-10-504. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2010.

(351753)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

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

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.