Drug Control: Additional Performance Information Is Needed to Oversee the National Guard's State Counterdrug Program
Published: 2015-10-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Since 1989 the National Guard has received hundreds of millions of dollars to help enhance the effectiveness of state-level counterdrug efforts by providing military support to assist interagency partners with their counterdrug activities. The program funds the drug interdiction priorities of each state Governor; counterdrug-related training to interagency partners at five counterdrug schools; and state-level counterthreat finance investigations, all of which are part of DOD's broader counterdrug efforts.
Senate Report 113-176 included a provision for GAO to conduct an assessment of the state operations of the National Guard's counterdrug program. This report: (1) identifies the changes in funding for the program since fiscal year 2004, and (2) assesses the extent to which performance information is used to evaluate the program's activities. GAO analyzed the program's budgets and obligations data, performance measures, and program guidance, and interviewed knowledgeable officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The National Guard Bureau (NGB) counterdrug program's budget data show that funding has ranged from about $219.3 million to $242.1 million in fiscal years 2004 through 2014–with a peak of $247 million in fiscal year 2013–but in fiscal year 2015 funding was reduced substantially. Based on Department of Defense (DOD) data, every year since 2004 Congress has directed funding above the requested amount, thus keeping program amounts steady through 2014. In fiscal year 2013, DOD reported requesting $117 million for the program, about a 40 percent decrease from the prior year's request. While DOD reduced its request, however, Congress in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 directed funding at generally comparable amounts from prior years. In fiscal year 2015 Congress directed less of an increase above DOD's request, leaving the program with lower total funding of $175.5 million.
The NGB has developed performance measures to report on its counterdrug program; however, the information collected is not used to evaluate and inform funding for state-level programs or oversee the counterdrug schools' training. GAO has previously reported that setting useful measures is important for oversight; without them, managers cannot monitor and evaluate the performance of programs' activities. NGB officials stated that they developed the current measures in response to DOD guidance to report on the program's aggregate performance and did not fully consider the types of measures or information that would be useful to evaluate individual state-level programs and oversee the counterdrug schools. Without collecting and using useful performance information to evaluate state-level programs and oversee the counterdrug schools, DOD and Congress cannot ensure that the counterdrug program is achieving its desired results and is distributing its funding most efficiently.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD (1) identify additional information needed to evaluate the performance of state programs and oversee counterdrug schools' training; and (2) subsequently collect and use performance information to help inform funding distribution decisions to state programs and to conduct oversight of the training offered by the counterdrug schools. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: To assist state efforts to address illicit drug production, trade, and  consumption, Congress has provided the Department of Defense (DOD)  with hundreds of millions of dollars since 1989 to fund the National  Guard’s participation in domestic drug interdiction and counterdrug  activities. The type of military support provided by the National Guard can  range from reconnaissance to analytical support, but it generally reflects  the drug interdiction priorities of the Governors of the 50 states, the  District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories; the capabilities of each  state’s National Guard; and the needs of interagency partners. These  interagency partners include state, local, and tribal law enforcement  organizations, as well as several federal agencies—Department of  Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of  Treasury—all of whom are involved in efforts to disrupt and dismantle the  leadership and financial infrastructure of major drug-trafficking  organizations. Given ongoing fiscal constraints within the federal  government, the National Guard’s counterdrug program, like all federal  programs, must use resources efficiently and achieve results.
A Senate Armed Services Committee report accompanying a bill for the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 included a  provision for GAO to conduct an independent assessment of the state- level activities of the National Guard’s counterdrug program. In this  report, we (1) identify the changes in funding for the National Guard’s  counterdrug program since fiscal year 2004; and (2) assess the extent to  which performance information is used to evaluate the counterdrug  program’s activities.
To identify the changes in funding for the National Guard counterdrug  program, we conducted an analysis of the relevant appropriations and  program budget-related documents provided by DOD for fiscal years  2004 through 2015. We began our analysis with fiscal year 2004 to  ensure that our review included data covering at least a 10-year period.  We also reviewed documentation on funding allocations and financial  management policy and interviewed DOD and interagency partner  officials regarding the changes in funding. To assess the extent to which  performance information is used to evaluate the counterdrug program’s  activities, we reviewed documentation and interviewed counterdrug  officials about program activities, types of performance information  collected, and funding levels for individual state counterdrug programs.  Specifically, first, we evaluated the counterdrug program’s 26 fiscal year  2015 performance measures against nine key attributes of successful  performance established by GAO. Next, we evaluated the counterdrug  program’s use of performance information against leading practices for  results-oriented management that help agencies develop useful  performance measures and use performance information for  management decision making as identified by GAO. We selected 8 of  the 53 participating states and territories for a nongeneralizable case  study, identifying 2 states within each of the four counterdrug program  regions by selecting 1 state with high and 1 state with low drug threat  assessments that also had a counterdrug school or an international  boundary.  In each of the 8 states, we interviewed officials from the  state’s counterdrug program. We also selected and interviewed officials  from interagency partners who received support from the counterdrug  program in order to obtain their perspectives on the program. We  interviewed officials from the National Guard Bureau; Deputy Assistant  Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats; Office of  the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Office of National Drug  Control Policy; nine High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas; Drug  Enforcement Administration Office of Training and eight field divisions;  three Customs and Border Protection field units; and three U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security  Investigations field offices. Additional details on our scope and  methodology can be found in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2014 to October 2015  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOD’s counterdrug mission focuses on supporting local, state, federal,  and foreign government agencies in addressing the illegal drug trade and  narcotics-related terrorism. DOD conducts its mission in three primary  areas: detecting and monitoring drug trafficking into the United States,  sharing information on illegal drugs with U.S. and foreign government  agencies, and building the counterdrug capacity of U.S. and foreign  partners.
The National Guard identifies three state-specific projects as comprising  its counterdrug program—state plans, counterdrug schools, and  counterthreat finance. The authority to provide funding for the first state  project—state plans—began in 1989 when DOD was authorized by  Congress under section 112 of Title 32 of the United States Code to fund  the National Guard’s drug interdiction and counterdrug activities. Each  participating state counterdrug program must develop an annual plan of  activities, in coordination with the state’s Governor and Attorney General.  In developing their plans, states use annual guidance issued by DOD  outlining the department’s domestic counterdrug program priorities. Once  the state plans have been developed, they are reviewed by National  Guard counterdrug program officials, and are then sent to DOD for  approval. National Guard policy states that state counterdrug programs  can provide assistance to interagency partners in 5 mission areas:  reconnaissance, technical support, general support, civil operations, and  counterdrug training. In 2006, Congress provided authority to the Chief  of the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to operate up to five counterdrug  schools. These five schools, located in Florida, Iowa, Mississippi,  Pennsylvania, and Washington, provide training in drug interdiction and  counterdrug activities to personnel from federal agencies; state, local, and  tribal law enforcement agencies; community-based organizations; and  other non-federal governmental and private organizations. In 2011 the  program added a third state project—counterthreat finance—to assist  interagency partners with investigations of drug trafficking and  transnational criminal organizations’ money laundering schemes.  Appendix II provides funding information by project and appendix III  provides details on the state plans’ activities and supported organizations.
The National Guard counterdrug program is part of DOD’s larger  counterdrug effort. Congress appropriates funds to DOD’s Drug  Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account, and DOD is  authorized to transfer Drug Interdiction account funds to other armed  services’ and defense agencies’ appropriation accounts. It is from this  account that DOD funds the National Guard’s participation in domestic  interdiction and counterdrug activities. In his fiscal year 2016 budget the  President requested approximately $850.6 million for this account to  support DOD-wide drug interdiction efforts.  Budget data provided by  DOD identify $87.9 million intended for the National Guard counterdrug  program’s state-specific projects—a little more than 10 percent of the  overall fiscal year 2016 Drug Interdiction account request.
section_title: Funding Was Generally Steady for Past Decade but Decreased in Fiscal Year 2015
paragraphs: The National Guard counterdrug program budget data provided by DOD  show that for fiscal years 2004 through 2014 the program’s total directed  funding ranged between $219.3 million and $242.1 million–with a peak of  $247 million in fiscal year 2013–but in fiscal year 2015 was reduced  substantially. Congress appropriates funds into DOD’s Drug Interdiction  account but through its committee reports provides direction to DOD on  the specific amounts to allocate for the counterdrug program. Based on  DOD data, in every year since fiscal year 2004, Congress has directed  funding above DOD’s requested amount, keeping program amounts  generally steady through 2014. In fiscal year 2013, when DOD began to  reduce the amount of funding within the budget request for this program  in order to prioritize funding for other DOD counterdrug programs,  Congress directed program amounts generally comparable to those of  prior years. Specifically, in fiscal year 2013, DOD requested $117 million  for the National Guard counterdrug program, about a 40 percent  decrease from the prior year’s request. From fiscal years 2013 to 2016,  DOD reduced its budget request for counterdrug intelligence and  technology support, as well as domestic efforts such as those supported  by the National Guard more than international interdiction support  activities. DOD officials stated that by decreasing requested funding for  the counterdrug program they planned to address spending limits  required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 and to fund counternarcotics  programs in locations deemed a priority, such as Central and South  America. According to DOD’s data, Congress directed $130 million more  than requested in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. These additions offset  DOD’s reduced request and kept overall counterdrug program funding  generally steady. DOD’s data show that DOD’s budget request for the  counterdrug program continued to decline from $112.1 million in fiscal  year 2014 to $89.5 million in fiscal year 2015.In fiscal year 2015  Congress directed $86 million more than DOD requested for the program,  ultimately leaving the program with a lower total funding of $175.5 million.
Figure 1 details DOD’s budget data on the counterdrug program’s  congressionally directed funding, including the DOD’s request and the  increases above DOD’s request.
According to DOD’s data, in recent years the program has not obligated  all of the funding allocated to it from the Drug Interdiction account. In  fiscal years 2004 through 2010 the program obligated at least 95 percent  of its allocation. However, from fiscal years 2011 through 2014 the  program’s obligations fluctuated between 83 percent and 96 percent of  DOD’s allocations, partly due to the timing and amount of allocations  received by the program. Funds transferred or allocated from the Drug  Interdiction account to various other DOD drug interdiction accounts or  programs, including the National Guard program, can be transferred back  to the account upon a determination that all or part of the funds are not  necessary and remain unobligated. Once funds are returned to the Drug  Interdiction account, they are available for reallocation to other DOD  counterdrug programs for obligation. Figure 2 details the counterdrug  program’s obligations from fiscal years 2004 through 2014.
NGB and state counterdrug programs officials stated that DOD’s internal  transfer process for the Drug Interdiction account causes delays when  funds become available for the program, thereby impacting the program’s  ability to obligate funds for planned activities. For example, state  program officials stated that in many cases the program cannot provide  long-term analytical support, such as investigative and counterthreat  finance analysts, throughout the year, and must wait for additional funding  before assigning personnel. In some instances, the program can offer  partial-year support, but some interagency partners may not accept  support for only part of the year because it is difficult for them to provide  the necessary training and access to appropriate databases necessary  for investigative case work to be assigned before the fiscal year ends and  the funding for the position is no longer available. DOD is examining  whether it can improve upon the transfer process in order to reduce  delays.
According to DOD’s data, DOD has reallocated some of the National  Guard counterdrug program’s unobligated funds that were returned to the  Drug Interdiction account to other DOD counterdrug programs.  Specifically, in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, DOD reallocated a total of  $51.8 million of amounts returned to the Drug Interdiction account from  the National Guard’s counterdrug program to counternarcotic capacity  building efforts in the U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Southern Command  areas of responsibility.
section_title: NGB Has Performance Measures, but Does Not Use the Information Collected to Inform State-Level Programs or Oversee the Counterdrug Schools
paragraphs: The NGB has developed performance measures to report on its  counterdrug program; however, we found that the information collected is  not used to evaluate and inform funding for state-level programs or  oversee the counterdrug schools’ training. Without performance  information to inform funding decisions for state-level programs and  oversee the counterdrug schools, DOD and Congress cannot ensure that  the counterdrug program achieves its desired results and uses its  resources most efficiently.
subsections: section_title: NGB Has Developed a Set of Performance Measures to Report on the Counterdrug Program’s Activities
paragraphs: In 2012 the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics  and Global Threats issued the Counternarcotics and Global Threats  Performance Metrics System Standard Operating Procedures to be used  in the development and documentation of performance metrics for all  DOD counternarcotics activities. In response to the guidance, National  Guard counterdrug program officials stated that they developed a set of  performance measures for use by their program. In fiscal year 2015 the  counterdrug program included 26 performance measures that officials  stated they used to evaluate the counterdrug program and report on its  aggregate performance. These measures include indicators such as the  number of cases supported, analytic products produced, students trained,  mobile training courses delivered, and reconnaissance hours flown.  Appendix V provides details on each of the 26 measures.
Our review of the counterdrug program’s fiscal year 2015 performance  measures against key attributes of successful performance measures  identified by GAO found that the set of measures provided information  across the program’s broad goals, measured three of the program’s five  core activities, and had limited overlap with each other. We also found  that the individual performance measures were linked to the overall  objectives of the program and were focused on measurable goals. Some  key attributes, such as a clarity, reliability, and objectivity, were reflected  to varying degrees, but we found that the National Guard had actions  underway to better define and document the program’s individual  performance measures to improve the clarity and reliability of those  individual measures. In February 2015 the National Guard officials  completed the Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Counterdrug Analyst Performance  Metrics Guide and stated that they were drafting guides for other program  activities.
section_title: NGB Does Not Use its Performance Information to Evaluate and Inform Funding for State-Level Programs and Oversee the Counterdrug Schools
paragraphs: We found that the NGB does not use the performance information it  collects to help evaluate and inform funding for state-level programs and  oversee the type of training offered by counterdrug schools. We have  previously reported that setting useful performance measures can assist  oversight;  with them, program managers can monitor and evaluate the  performance of the program’s activities, track how the activities contribute  to attaining the program’s goals, or identify potential problems and the  need for corrective measures.According to leading practices for results- oriented management, to ensure that performance information will be  both useful and used in decision making throughout the organization,  agencies need to consider users’ differing policy and management  information needs. Performance measures should be selected specifically  on the basis of their ability to inform the decisions made at each  organizational level, and they should be appropriate to the responsibilities  and control at each level.
NGB officials stated that they are using performance information to report  on the program’s aggregate performance to DOD and to respond to other  requests for information, such as regarding whom the program supports.  DOD officials further stated that they use performance information on an  ad hoc basis to inform the funding request for the Drug Interdiction  transfer account, but that they do not collect information that could be  used to evaluate the effectiveness of individual state-level programs or  could be used in decision making about funding distributions to states.  Such information could include a measure of the quality of the support  provided by the National Guard to interagency partners, among other  things. Instead, NBG officials were making funding distribution decisions  for individual state programs based solely on assessments of threat.  According to NGB officials, in 2012 they began using a model to  determine the severity of the drug threat in each state and using the  assessments of threat to determine funding levels for state counterdrug  programs to implement their plans. NGB officials stated that to employ  the threat-based resourcing model, NGB uses statistics from national- level databases to develop a distribution percentage for each state that  reflects its relative drug threat. This percentage is then applied to the  funding provided to the National Guard’s counterdrug program. In fiscal  year 2015 the amount distributed to the states was $146.1 million. Table  1 shows the distribution percentage to the states and territories, and table  8 in appendix VI provides a detailed breakout by state.
Moreover, during the course of our review, we found that the  performance information collected did not assist the DOD  Counternarcotic Program to oversee the type of training offered by the  counterdrug schools. Specifically, the performance measures  employed by the NGB focused on the number of students trained and  the number of courses available, among other aspects. The officials  stated these measures were not useful in the evaluation of the  counterdrug school’s training activities because they did not provide  information on the type of training being offered, such as whether it  had a counterdrug focus. In addition, DOD Counternarcotics Program  officials acknowledged that they did not have a full understanding of  the counterdrug schools’ activities. To improve their oversight of the  schools, DOD Counternarcotics Program officials began a review in  December 2014 of the counterdrug schools’ activities to assess their  training efforts. In May 2015, based on the preliminary findings of the  review, the DOD Counternarcotics Program included guidance in its  memorandum, Preparation of the Fiscal Year 2016 National Guard  State Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities Plan, that clarified  the mission of the counterdrug schools and the department’s priorities  for their training, including that all training offered be explicitly linked to  counterdrug efforts. As a result, the counterdrug schools are required  to submit annual training plans that detail course offerings for review  by the NGB and DOD to ensure that the training is focused on DOD’s  priorities. However, the guidance did not include any changes to the  performance information that would be collected by the NGB on the  counterdrug schools. We continue to believe that collecting additional  performance information, such as on the type of training offered, could  help inform evaluations and identify any need for corrective actions in  the future for the counterdrug schools.
According to NGB officials, their current performance measures were  developed in response to DOD guidance to report on the program’s  aggregate performance to support DOD’s annual performance  summary report to ONDCP. NGB officials stated that the guidance did  not specifically require them to assess the performance of state-level  programs; therefore, they did not fully consider the types of measures  or information that would be useful to evaluate the effectiveness of  individual state-level programs and oversee the counterdrug schools.  NGB officials stated that their performance measures were evolving  and they believed incorporating performance information in future  funding distribution decisions for state programs would be helpful.   Officials stated that they were working to develop an approach that  uses performance information to inform future funding decisions.  Without performance information to evaluate state-level programs and  oversee the counterdrug schools, DOD and Congress cannot ensure  that the counterdrug program achieves its desired results and uses its  resources most efficiently.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The National Guard’s counterdrug program was established more  than 25 years ago to assist efforts of the Governors of 50 states, the  District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories in addressing illicit drug  production, trade, and consumption. In recent years DOD has sought  to focus its counterdrug efforts on international interdiction support  activities with less emphasis on other activities including supporting  domestic efforts like the National Guard’s counterdrug program.  Congress has resisted the reductions to domestic efforts, and has  directed increased funding to the program.
Given the resources that the program offers to individual states and  the interagency partners it supports, it is important to ensure that the  program uses these resources efficiently and effectively. While threat  is an important factor to consider in funding distributions, performance  information can also be used to better inform such decisions. DOD  and NGB have taken steps to develop performance measures, but  DOD has used performance information only in an ad hoc basis to  inform the funding request for the Drug Interdiction transfer account,  and has not used performance information to evaluate the  effectiveness of individual state programs or to oversee training  offered by the counterdrug schools. Therefore, the effectiveness of  state efforts is not being considered in DOD’s funding distribution  decisions, and useful information is not being collected to support  oversight of the counterdrug schools’ training. Without an approach  that enables decision makers to objectively judge the performance of  all elements of the program, neither DOD nor Congress will have  assurance that the counterdrug program is achieving its goals in an  effective manner.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that resources are being efficiently applied to meet the  National Guard counterdrug program’s objectives, we recommend  that the Secretary of Defense direct the National Guard Bureau in  consultation with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Counternarcotics and Global Threats to take the following two actions:  Identify additional information needed to evaluate the performance  of the state programs and oversee counterdrug schools’ training;  and
Subsequently collect and use performance information to help  inform funding distribution decisions to state programs and to  conduct oversight of the training offered by the counterdrug  schools.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In the written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with  our two recommendations and identified specific steps it planned to  take to address them.  With respect to the first recommendation to  identify additional information needed to evaluate the performance of  state programs and to oversee the counterdrug schools’ training, DOD  stated that it will hold discussions with the counterdrug program’s  stakeholders to reassess the current performance criteria and to  identify new performance criteria to allow it to assess the support the  program provides. DOD then will evaluate the criteria to ensure it is  reflective of the current information needs of the program both  internally and externally and meets national objectives. These steps,  once implemented, should help DOD obtain useful information to  better inform decision making and to conduct oversight of the program  and would satisfy the intent of our recommendation. With respect to  the second recommendation to collect and use performance  information to help inform funding-distribution decisions to state  programs and to conduct oversight of the training offered by the  counterdrug schools, DOD stated that it will apply the criteria it  identifies to evaluate the effectiveness of each state program to  provide support and to meet its objectives. Furthermore, DOD stated  that it would take steps to assist states with any needed corrective-  action plans. These steps, once implemented, should help to ensure  that the program uses resources efficiently and effectively and would  satisfy the intent of our recommendation. DOD’s comments are  printed in their entirety in appendix VII. DOD also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.
We also provided a draft of this report to DOJ, DHS, and ONDCP for  review and comment. DOJ, DHS, and ONDCP officials provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland  Security, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Director  of National Drug Control Policy. In addition, the report is available at  no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address our objectives, we reviewed documentation and  interviewed officials from the Department of Defense (DOD) who  oversee and manage the National Guard’s counterdrug program,  select state counterdrug programs, and select interagency partners  that receive support from state counterdrug programs. Our analysis  focused on the state-level operations of the National Guard’s  counterdrug program, which includes three state-specific projects: 1)  state plans, 2) counterdrug schools, and 3) counterthreat finance. We  excluded any counterdrug program projects that were specific to  federal operations. Also, we used a nongeneralizable case study  approach to obtain the perspectives of state counterdrug program  officials and interagency partners receiving support from the program.  Specifically, we selected 8 of the 53 participating states and territories  identifying 2 states within each of the four counterdrug program  regions (selecting 1 state with high and 1 state with low drug threat  assessments) that also had a counterdrug school or an international  boundary. The 8 states that we included in our review were:  Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah,  and Washington. In the states selected for case study, we interviewed  state counterdrug program officials and officials from the following  interagency partners, where applicable: High Intensity Drug  Trafficking Areas (HIDTA), Drug Enforcement Administration,  Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations. We selected  interagency partners based on their receiving support from the  counterdrug program and on logistics associated with travel. In  addition, we obtained and analyzed information fiscal years 2011  through 2014 from a National Guard counterdrug program database  that included descriptive statistics of the number of staff days by  mission category, support activities, and supported organization. To  ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information from the  database, we took steps to review the data fields for consistency and  missing data; we found that these data were sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of the audit.
To identify the changes in funding for the National Guard counterdrug  program, we conducted an analysis of relevant appropriations and  program budget-related documents provided by DOD for fiscal years  2004 through 2015. We began our analysis with fiscal year 2004 data  to ensure that our review included data covering at least a 10-year  period. To ensure the reliability of our data, we reviewed  documentation on funding distributions and financial management  policy and interviewed knowledgeable officials about DOD’s Drug  Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities account, and about how  counterdrug program funds are transferred from the account. We also  reviewed financial documentation and interviewed DOD, counterdrug  program, and interagency partner officials to obtain information on  obligations of available funding. We determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit.
To assess the extent to which the performance information is used to  evaluate the counterdrug program’s activities, we reviewed  documentation and interviewed counterdrug officials about program  activities, types of performance information collected, and funding  levels for individual state counterdrug programs. First, we evaluated  the counterdrug program’s 26 fiscal year 2015 performance measures  against nine key attributes of successful performance established by  GAO. Next, we evaluated the counterdrug program’s use of  performance information against leading practices for results-oriented  management that help agencies develop useful performance  measures and use performance information for management decision  making as identified by GAO through a review of literature and  interviews with experts and staff from five U.S. agencies.
Specifically, we interviewed officials from:
National Guard Bureau Counterdrug Program  o  Connecticut Counterdrug Program  o  Florida Counterdrug Program    Multijurisdictional Task Force Training Center    Midwest Counterdrug Training Center    Regional Counterdrug Training Academy    Northeast Counterdrug Training Center  o  Texas Counterdrug Program  o  Utah Counterdrug Program  o  Washington Counterdrug Program    Western Region Counterdrug Training Center
National Guard Bureau Budget Execution Office
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and
Office of the Undersecretary of Defense, Comptroller
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)   o  DEA Miami Division   o  DEA Houston Division   o  DEA Philadelphia Division   o  DEA Denver Division   o  DEA New Orleans Division   o  DEA Seattle Division   o  DEA St. Louis Division   o  DEA New England Division   o  DEA Office of Training
Federal Bureau of Investigation
United States Marshals Service
Executive Office for United States Attorneys  Department of Homeland Security:
Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers
Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)   o  HSI Special Agent in Charge, Miami, Florida  o  HSI Special Agent in Charge, Seattle, Washington  o  HSI Special Agent in Charge, Houston, Texas
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)   o  CBP, Miami, Florida – Sector Intelligence Unit  o  CBP, Spokane, Washington – Oroville Station  o  CBP, Spokane, Washington – Sector Intelligence Unit  o  CBP, Laredo, Texas – Special Operation Detachment
United States Coast Guard   High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas:
North Florida HIDTA
South Florida HIDTA
Rocky Mountain HIDTA
Houston HIDTA
Philadelphia/Camden HIDTA
New England HIDTA
Gulf Coast HIDTA
Northwest HIDTA
Midwest HIDTA  Office of National Drug Control Policy  We conducted this performance audit from August 2014 to October 2015  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Obligations by State Project
paragraphs: The National Guard identifies three state-specific projects as comprising  its counterdrug program—state plans, counterdrug schools, and  counterthreat finance. Table 2 provides the obligations by each state  project.
section_title: Appendix III: Overview of National Guard State Plans’ Counterdrug Activities and Supported Organizations, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2014
paragraphs: The National Guard’s state plans include 15 support activities, which are  grouped into five broad mission categories, as shown in table 3.
The National Guard counterdrug program collects information on the  activities and supported organizations and uses staff days to measure its  resource investment. Our analysis of this information found that from  fiscal years 2011 through 2014 the state plans invested most of their staff  days in the mission categories of technical support and reconnaissance.
During this period, the number of staff days invested in civil operations  decreased, as shown in figure 3.
Of the 15 support activities, investigative case and analyst support was  the support activity most frequently provided from fiscal years 2011  through 2014, as shown in table 4.
Among the various categories of supported organizations, law  enforcement received the most support from the state plans, as shown in  table 5.
Lastly, the federal agencies to which state plans provided the most  support were the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland  Security. The specific components that received the most support  included the Drug Enforcement Administration, Customs and Border  Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as shown in table  6.
section_title: Appendix IV: Overview of DOD’s Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities Account Fund Transfer Process
paragraphs: After Congress appropriates amounts to the Drug Interdiction account,  there are multiple steps by various organizations before the funds are  received by each individual state counterdrug program. To begin each  transfer process, DOD Counternarcotic Program officials prepare and  submit to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) a  DD1415-3, which details the allocation of funds by appropriation or  budget activity account for each program. If no defense appropriations act  has been passed and DOD is operating under a continuing resolution,  amounts transferred are based on a rate-per-day formula developed by  DOD. Once a defense appropriation act is enacted, the Comptroller is  required to submit to Congress the department’s intended budget  execution based on the appropriation act and congressional directions as  expressed in House and Senate Appropriation committee reports. This  report, which DOD calls the base for reprogramming and transfer  authorities (DD1414), is to be submitted no later than 60 days from the  enactment of an appropriation. After this baseline is submitted,  Comptroller officials review and approve the DD1415-3 and forward it to  the Office of Management and Budget. Once approved by the Office of  Management and Budget, the Comptroller issues a funding authorization  document to transfer funds to the military services appropriation accounts  (such as military personnel or operation and maintenance). The military  services then transfer funds to appropriation accounts managed by Army  National Guard and Air National Guard, which, in turn, distribute the funds  onto each state National Guard participating in the program. Figure 4  outlines the fund transfer process to the counterdrug program.
The National Guard Bureau’s Counterdrug Program office coordinates the  process involving the DOD Counternarcotic Program, the Army and Air  National Guard budget and financial management offices, and the  individual state counterdrug programs.
section_title: Appendix V: National Guard Counterdrug Program's Fiscal Year 2015 Performance Measures
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2015 the counterdrug program officials used 26  performance measures to report on the program’s aggregate  performance to DOD and respond to requests for information, as shown  in table 7.
section_title: Appendix VI: Overview of the Threat-Based Resource Model and Funding Amounts by State and Territory
paragraphs: Each state within the counterdrug program develops an annual plan of  activities, in coordination with the state’s Governor and Attorney General,  that identifies its counterdrug priorities and how it intends to obligate its  available funds. To develop these plans, states use annual guidance from  DOD that identifies approved activities for the counterdrug program. For  instance, investigative case support, ground and aerial reconnaissance,  and counterthreat finance analysis are approved activities.
The threat-based resource model uses 22 variables to assess the drug  threat across the 53 counterdrug programs. Almost half of the variables  are based on information from the National Seizure System database.  Other variables are based on information from federal agencies such as  the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the  Federal Bureau of Investigation.
To ensure that every state has a viable counterdrug program, the Chief of  the National Guard Bureau established $500,000 as the minimum level of  funding for each state. According to counterdrug program officials, this  amount enables all the states to maintain some capability to address drug  threats while limiting the impact on states with higher threats. Table 8  provides details on the state plans distribution percentages by state and  territories for fiscal year 2015.
The amount of funding each state receives depends on that state’s  distribution percentage and available funds for the state plans project.  Table 9 details the funding distributed to each state and territory in fiscal  years 2014 and 2015.
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Defense
subsections: section_title: DOD’s comments refer to GAO report number, GAO-15-533. Given that GAO is issuing its final report in fiscal year 2016, it has changed the report number to GAO-16-133.
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Rich Geiger (Assistant Director),  Tom Jessor, Linda S. Keefer, Susan C. Langley, Amie Steele Lesser,  Felicia M. Lopez, Tobin J. McMurdie, Carol D. Petersen, Richard   Powelson, Caitlin N. Rice, Michael D. Silver, Sabrina C. Streagle, and  Cheryl A. Weissman made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Budget Issues: Effects of Budget Uncertainty From Continuing  Resolutions on Agency Operations. GAO-13-464T. Washington D.C.:  March 13, 2013.
Drug Control: Initial Review of the National Strategy and Drug Abuse  Prevention and Treatment Programs. GAO-12-744R. Washington D.C.:  July 6, 2012.
Office of National Drug Control Policy: Agencies View the Budget Process  as Useful for Identifying Priorities, but Challenges Exist. GAO-11-261R.  Washington D.C.: May 2, 2011.
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.
Preliminary Observations on the Department of Defense’s  Counternarcotics Performance Measurement System. GAO-10-594R.  Washington D.C.: April 30, 2010.
Continuing Resolutions: Uncertainty Limited Management Options and  Increased Workload in Selected Agencies. GAO-09-879. Washington  D.C.: September 24, 2009.