Central America: U.S. Agencies Considered Various Factors in Funding Security Activities, but Need to Assess Progress in Achieving Interagency Objectives
Published: 2013-09-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Drug trafficking organizations and gangs have expanded in Central America, threatening the security of these countries and the United States. Since 2008, the U.S. government has helped Central America and Mexico respond to these threats and in 2010 established CARSI solely to assist Central America. CARSI's goals are to create safe streets, disrupt criminals and contraband, support capable governments, and increase state presence and cooperation among CARSI partners. GAO reported on CARSI funding in January 2013 and was asked to further review CARSI and related activities in Central America.
This report (1) provides an updated assessment of U.S. agencies' funding and activities that support CARSI goals; (2) examines whether U.S. agencies took steps to consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and U.S. and non-U.S. investments when selecting CARSI activities; and (3) examines information on the extent to which U.S. agencies reported CARSI results and evaluated CARSI activities. GAO analyzed CARSI and complementary non-CARSI funding; reviewed documents on CARSI activities, partner country needs, and CARSI results; interviewed U.S. agency officials about CARSI and related activities; and observed CARSI activities in three countries.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Since fiscal year 2008, U.S. agencies allocated over $1.2 billion in funding for Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) activities and non-CARSI funding that supports CARSI goals. As of June 1, 2013, the Department of State (State) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) obligated at least $463 million of the close to $495 million in allocated funding for CARSI activities, and disbursed at least $189 million to provide partner countries with equipment, technical assistance, and training to improve interdiction and disrupt criminal networks. Moreover, as of March 31, 2013, U.S. agencies estimated that they had allocated approximately $708 million in non-CARSI funding that supports CARSI goals, but data on disbursements were not readily available. U.S. agencies, including State, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Justice, use this funding to provide equipment, technical assistance, and training, as well as infrastructure and investigation assistance to partner countries. For example, DOD allocated $25 million in funding to help Guatemala establish an interagency border unit to combat drug trafficking.
State and USAID took a variety of steps--using assessment reports, outreach meetings with host governments and other donors, and interagency meetings--to help identify and consider partner countries' needs, absorptive capacities, and related U.S. and non-U.S. investments when selecting CARSI activities. For example, State used an assessment report on crime scene investigation and forensic programs and capacities of six partner countries to inform decisions on selecting CARSI activities. In addition, USAID officials used assessment reports to help identify and consider partner country juvenile justice and community policing needs and absorptive capacities; these assessment reports included specific recommendations for designing and selecting juvenile justice and community policing projects in partner countries. Also, in one partner country, embassy officials used donor outreach meetings to identify another donor's significant investment in police intelligence in the partner country; the embassy consequently reduced funding for CARSI activities in that area.
While U.S. agencies have reported on some CARSI results, they have not assessed progress in meeting interagency objectives for Central America. State and USAID have reported some CARSI results through various mechanisms at the initiative, country, and project levels. For example, one embassy reported that its CARSI-supported anti-gang education project had expanded nationwide and taught over 3,000 children over 3 years of the program. However, U.S. agencies have not assessed their performance using the metrics outlined in a 2012 interagency strategy for Central America that were designed to measure the results of CARSI and related non-CARSI activities. GAO recognizes that collecting performance data may be challenging and that the metrics could require some adjustments. Nevertheless, assessing progress toward achieving the strategy's objectives could help guide U.S. agencies' decisions about their activities and identify areas for improvement. In addition to ongoing assessments of progress, GAO has concluded in prior work that evaluations are important to obtain more in-depth information on programs' performance and context. USAID is conducting an evaluation of its CARSI crime prevention programming to be completed in 2014. State officials said that they are planning to conduct an evaluation of some of their CARSI activities beginning in fiscal year 2014.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that State and USAID work with other agencies to assess progress in achieving the objectives of the interagency strategy for Central America. State and USAID concurred with the recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In recent years, the security situation in Central America has deteriorated  as drug trafficking organizations, gangs, and other criminal groups have  expanded their activities, taking advantage of weak government  institutions and poor social conditions. These groups have reportedly  been able to operate with virtual impunity and the situation threatens both  the stability and security of Central American countries, as well as the  national security of the United States, as drugs, violence, and crime  spread across borders. The U.S. government established the Mérida  Initiative in 2008 to help Mexico and Central American countries respond  to these threats. In 2010, the U.S. government established a new  initiative, solely for Central American countries, called the Central   CARSI funds U.S.  America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI).assistance activities in Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,  Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama (hereafter referred to as “partner  countries”).
The Department of State (State) and the United States Agency for  International Development (USAID) both implement CARSI activities  using an integrated approach to support judicial reform, community  policing, and corrections efforts, as well as crime prevention, law  enforcement, and counternarcotics programs. Given the range of  challenges facing partner countries and limited U.S. resources, State and  USAID pursue a mix of activities in an effort to maximize results and best  achieve CARSI goals. U.S. agencies such as the Departments of  Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ), and the  Treasury (Treasury)—along with State and USAID—have also used non- CARSI funding to support complementary activities and programs in  Central America. In 2012, the National Security Staff approved an  interagency citizen security strategy for Central America designed to help  coordinate and focus the U.S. government’s CARSI and complementary  non-CARSI activities in the region.
You asked us to review several issues related to CARSI. In January  2013, we issued a report with information on the status of funding for  CARSI activities, including the amount that was disbursed to support  partner countries during fiscal years 2008 through 2011, and information  on amounts allocated, obligated, and disbursed by year of appropriation.  This report (1) provides an updated assessment of U.S. agencies’ funding  and activities that support CARSI goals; (2) examines whether U.S.  agencies took steps to consider partner country needs, absorptive  capacities, and related U.S. and non-U.S. investments when selecting  activities to fund under CARSI; and (3) examines information on the  extent to which U.S. agencies reported CARSI results and evaluated  CARSI activities.
To examine CARSI funding and activities, we collected data from State  and USAID on funds allocated, obligated, and disbursed for CARSI  activities from fiscal year 2008 through June 1, 2013, and reviewed  documentation on CARSI-funded activities. As agencies may use slightly  different funding terms, we provided them with definitions from GAO’s A  Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process and worked with  agencies to obtain data that met these definitions, to the extent possible.In providing technical comments on a draft of this report, State officials  reported an amount of almost $10.6 million in additional International  Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) funding that was  allocated for CARSI activities in fiscal year 2010 that had not been  previously reported to GAO. State officials also said that they could not  provide obligation or disbursement information related to this amount  because these INCLE funds are centrally managed and State’s financial  systems do not allow them to track such funds by region or country.   According to State officials, that is why these funds were not previously  reported to GAO. We confirmed with State officials that the funds had  been applied to CARSI activities and documented the programs toward  which the funds had been applied. Although State officials were not able  to track the obligation or disbursement of these funds, we have included  this amount in the total allocated for CARSI activities. We made note of  this discrepancy in presenting these data in the report. To examine non- CARSI funding and activities that support CARSI goals, we collected data  and reviewed documentation on non-CARSI activities from State and  USAID, as well as DOD, DOJ, DHS, and Treasury, for fiscal year 2008  through the first half of fiscal year 2013. To assess the reliability of the  CARSI and non-CARSI data provided, we requested and reviewed  information from agency officials regarding the underlying financial data  systems and the checks, controls, and reviews used to generate the data  and ensure their accuracy and reliability. We found the data sufficiently  reliable for our purposes. At the time of reporting, the most recent data  available on funding for CARSI were as of June 1, 2013, and the most  recent non-CARSI funding data available were as of March 31, 2013.  However, we found no change in the total CARSI allocations between  March 31, 2013, and June 1, 2013. Thus, it is possible to compare CARSI  and non-CARSI funding allocations.
To examine steps U.S. agencies used to help identify and consider key  factors when selecting activities to fund under CARSI, we reviewed  documentation from State and USAID, including U.S. agency  assessments of partner countries, as well as written statements provided  to us from embassies in partner countries and from State and USAID on  the steps they utilized. To examine the extent to which U.S. agencies  reported CARSI results and evaluated CARSI activities, we reviewed  State, USAID, and other agencies’ documentation on CARSI activities  and the results of these activities. We also compared U.S. agencies’  actions to assess and report their progress toward achieving the  objectives in the interagency strategy for Central America against key  considerations that we identified in 2012 for implementing interagency  collaboration mechanisms. In our previous work, we found that one key  feature in the successful implementation of such mechanisms is the  development of a system for monitoring and reporting on results. In  addition, we compared agencies’ activities against leading practices GAO  identified in 1996 for performance management of federal programs.
To support work on all three objectives, we conducted interviews with  State, USAID, DOD, DOJ (and its components), DHS (and its  components), and Treasury officials in Washington, D.C. In addition, we  visited three partner countries—Belize, Guatemala, and Panama. We  selected these three countries as a sample considering the following  elements—the scope of the citizen security problem; the amount of  funding for CARSI activities received from fiscal year 2008 to 2012; the  range of CARSI activities undertaken; the extent of non-CARSI U.S.  government activities that support CARSI objectives; and the extent of  host government or other donor citizen security efforts in these countries.  In these three countries, we met with U.S. agency officials as well as host  government, international organization, and other donor government  officials. We also visited CARSI and non-CARSI activity locations during  these visits. For additional details about our scope and methodology, see  appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to September  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The security situation in Central America has continued to deteriorate in  recent years as Mexican drug trafficking organizations, transnational  gangs, and other criminal groups have expanded their activities,  contributing to escalating levels of crime and violence. Violence is  particularly high in the “northern triangle” countries of El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras, with homicide rates among the highest in the  world. Efforts to counter illicit trafficking in Colombia and Mexico created  an environment that became increasingly inhospitable to drug trafficking  organizations, forcing criminal groups to displace operations into Central  America where they could exploit institutional weaknesses. Recognizing  this situation, the United States has sought to develop collaborative  security partnerships with Central American countries. As part of this  effort, in 2010 the United States split off the Central America portion of  the Mérida Initiative and established a new initiative named CARSI.  According to State, CARSI is designed as a collaborative partnership  between the United States and Central American partner countries. Its  focus is on improving citizen security within the region, taking a broad  approach to the issues of security beyond traditional counternarcotics  activities. Figure 1 shows the CARSI partner countries in Central  America.
According to State, CARSI’s five primary goals are to disrupt the movement of criminals and contraband to, within, and  create safe streets for citizens in the region;  between the nations of Central America;  support the development of strong, capable, and accountable Central  American governments;  re-establish effective state presence and security in communities at  risk; and  foster enhanced levels of security coordination and cooperation  among nations in the region.
Funding for CARSI activities has come from a combination of four U.S.  foreign assistance accounts—the INCLE account; the Economic Support  Fund (ESF) account; the Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and  Related Programs (NADR) account; and the Foreign Military Financing  (FMF) account. General descriptions of how these accounts are used  globally are provided below.  the INCLE account is used to provide assistance to foreign countries  and international organizations to assist them in developing and  implementing policies and programs that maintain the rule of law and  strengthen institutional law enforcement and judicial capabilities,  including countering drug flows and combating transnational crime;  the ESF account is used to assist foreign countries in meeting their  political, economic, and security needs by funding a range of  activities, including those designed to counter terrorism and extremist  ideology, increase the role of the private sector in the economy,  develop effective legal systems, build transparent and accountable  governance, and empower citizens;  the NADR account is used to fund contributions to certain  organizations supporting nonproliferation, and provides assistance to  foreign countries for nonproliferation, demining, antiterrorism, export  control assistance, and other related activities; and  the FMF account is used to provide grants to foreign governments  and international organizations for the acquisition of U.S. defense  equipment, services, and training to enhance the capacity of foreign  security forces.
State manages the INCLE, NADR, and FMF accounts, and shares  responsibility with USAID to manage and administer the ESF account.  Within State, the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement  Affairs (INL) administers the INCLE account. The Bureau of Political- Military Affairs administers the FMF account, while DOD oversees the  actual procurement and transfer of goods and services purchased with  these funds. State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation  and its Bureau of Counterterrorism administer their NADR subaccounts.  State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs administers a portion of  ESF. However, USAID oversees the implementation of most CARSI  programs funded from ESF. State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural  Affairs also previously administered a onetime use of ESF funds for  CARSI activities.
State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) has the lead within  State for integrating CARSI activities with State’s broader policy of  promoting citizen security in Central America. State’s primary funding  source for CARSI activities is the INCLE account and the ESF account is  USAID’s primary funding source for CARSI activities. In addition to State  and USAID, a number of other U.S. agencies use non-CARSI funding to  implement activities in Central America that address various aspects of  promoting citizen security that complement CARSI activities—including  improving law enforcement and the criminal justice system, promoting  rule of law and human rights, enhancing customs and border control, and  encouraging economic and social development. DOD, DOJ, DHS, and  Treasury are the key agencies involved in these non-CARSI funded  activities.
section_title: U.S. Agencies Have Allocated Over $1.2 Billion in CARSI and Non-CARSI Funds to Support Various Security Activities in Central America
paragraphs: Since fiscal year 2008, U.S. agencies have allocated more than $1.2  billion in funding for CARSI activities and non-CARSI funding that  supports CARSI goals. As of June 1, 2013, State and USAID had  allocated close to $495 million and disbursed at least $189 million in  funding for CARSI activities to provide partner countries with equipment,  technical assistance, and training to improve interdiction and disrupt  criminal networks. As of March 31, 2013, U.S. agencies (State, USAID,  DOD, DOJ, and DHS) estimated that they had also allocated  approximately $708 million in non-CARSI funding that supports CARSI  goals. U.S. agencies, including State, DOD, and DOJ, have used non- CARSI funding to provide additional security-related equipment, technical  assistance, and training, as well as infrastructure and investigation  assistance to the region. Data on disbursements of non-CARSI funding  were not readily available for some agencies because of the complexity  and challenges associated with how these agencies track their  disbursement data. At the time of reporting, the most recent data  available on funding for CARSI were as of June 1, 2013 and the most  recent non-CARSI funding data available were as of March 31, 2013.  However, we found no change in the total CARSI allocations between  March 31, 2013 and June 1, 2013. Thus, it is possible to compare CARSI  and non-CARSI funding allocations.
subsections: section_title: State and USAID Have Obligated the Majority of the Close to $495 Million Allocated for CARSI since Fiscal Year 2008
paragraphs: As of June 1, 2013, State and USAID had allocated close to $495 million  in funding for CARSI activities; the same amount had been allocated as of  March 31, 2013, the time frame we use later to report on non-CARSI  funding allocations. State and USAID have obligated at least $463 million  of the close to $495 million allocated, and have disbursed at least $189  million of the allocated CARSI funds from the INCLE, ESF, and NADR  accounts for activities in partner countries. State and USAID disbursed  funds to support activities in partner countries that improve law  enforcement and maritime interdiction capabilities, support capacity  building and training activities, prevent crime and violence, and deter and  detect border criminal activity. After reviewing a draft of this report, State  officials reported an amount of almost $10.6 million in INCLE funding that  was allocated for CARSI activities in fiscal year 2010 that had not been  previously reported to GAO. State officials also said that they could not  provide obligation or disbursement information related to this amount  because these INCLE funds are centrally managed and State’s financial  systems do not allow them to track such funds by region or country.  According to State officials, this is why these funds were not previously  reported to GAO. Although State officials were not able to track the  obligation or disbursement of these funds, we have included this amount  in the total of the close to $495 million allocated for CARSI activities.
Of the seven partner countries, the largest amounts of CARSI funds were  allocated to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. In addition, 17  percent of the total allocations was for regional activities; that is, region- wide activities in Central America that are not tied to an activity in a  specific country. Table 1 provides a breakdown of allocated, obligated,  and disbursed funds for CARSI activities by country. To demonstrate how  funding for CARSI activities has been allocated, obligated, and disbursed  by year of appropriation, we are providing this information by account and  by country in appendix II. In addition, we present data on how funding for  CARSI activities under FMF have been allocated and committed by year  of appropriation in appendix III.
Since we initially reported on CARSI in January 2013, the amount of  funding for CARSI activities disbursed has increased from at least $75  million as of September 30, 2011, to at least $189 million as of June 1,  2013 from the INCLE, ESF, and NADR accounts. According to State  officials, disbursements increased because State took steps to alleviate  delays associated with program administration in the implementation of  CARSI (particularly in the early years), including an insufficient number of  staff at embassies in partner countries to manage CARSI activities. For  example, in June 2013, the Assistant Secretary of State for INL reported  in a congressional hearing that INL had increased staff positions in  embassies in CARSI partner countries as INCLE funding represented  about 64 percent of total CARSI allocations in these countries.  Currently, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama have INL  Sections (formerly known as Narcotics Affairs Sections); and Belize,  Costa Rica, and Nicaragua have Narcotics Affairs Offices, according to  State officials. State and USAID have 5 years from the time the period  of availability for obligation has expired to disburse funds.
section_title: State and USAID Fund Law Enforcement and Crime Prevention Activities in Partner Countries
paragraphs: State and USAID disbursed funds to support various activities in partner  countries that improve law enforcement and maritime interdiction  capabilities, support capacity building and training activities, prevent  crime and violence, and deter and detect border criminal activity.  However, there is a slight difference in emphasis between State and  USAID in their CARSI-funded activities. State’s efforts focus on capacity  building of partner countries, while USAID’s efforts focus on establishing  prevention programs for at-risk youth in partner countries.
In general, State uses INCLE, ESF, FMF, and NADR funds to support  activities such as  strengthening the abilities of Central American law enforcement  institutions to fight crime, violence, and trafficking in drugs and  firearms;  implementing high-impact, sustainable activities that focus on at-risk  youth (such as job training and after school activities) and  communities that are experiencing high levels of crime and violence; preventing the proliferation of advanced conventional weapons by  helping to build effective national export control systems in countries  that process, produce, or supply strategic items, as well as in  countries through which such items are most likely to transit; and building and improving partner nation security force capacity to protect  maritime borders and land territory against transnational threats such  as illicit narcotics trafficking.
USAID uses ESF funds for CARSI activities in the following areas:  services for at-risk youth, focusing on vocational training, job  placement, after-school activities, community centers, and leadership  development; municipal crime prevention activities, including community outreach  for local police and support for crime observatories that coordinate  data sharing to track crime statistics; and national and regional political reform activities to strengthen rule of  law institutions and that reflect partner countries’ commitments to  reduce violence while creating the environment needed to  institutionalize and sustain USAID efforts under CARSI.
Across the region, State and USAID use various CARSI-funded activities  to carry out CARSI goals in each of the seven partner countries. Funding  for CARSI activities provides partner countries with communication,  border inspection, and security force equipment such as radios,  computers, X-ray cargo scanners, narcotics identification kits, ballistic  vests, and night-vision goggles. Funding for CARSI activities also  provides related maintenance for this equipment. Figure 2 below shows  examples of crime investigation forensic equipment and vehicles provided  with funding for CARSI activities to the Belize Police Department.
In addition, funding for CARSI activities provides technical support and  training to enhance partner countries’ prosecutorial capabilities;  management of courts, police academies, and prisons; and to support law  enforcement operations (e.g., training to support narcotics interdiction).  Funding for CARSI activities also provides support to partner countries to   that  form specialized law enforcement units (also known as vetted units)are vetted by, and work with, U.S. personnel to investigate and disrupt the  operations of transnational gangs and trafficking networks. Moreover,  CARSI provides funding for partner countries to establish prevention  activities designed to address underlying conditions (such as insufficient  access to educational or economic opportunities and the prevalence of  gangs) that leave communities vulnerable to crime and violence. Table 2  provides examples of CARSI activities in the seven partner countries.
As of March 31, 2013, U.S. agencies estimated that they had allocated  approximately $708 million in non-CARSI funding that supported CARSI  goals from fiscal year 2008 through the first half of fiscal year 2013, with  State, USAID, and DOD allocating the largest amount of non-CARSI  funds to support CARSI goals. U.S. agencies (State, USAID, DOD,  DOJ, and DHS) reported using their non-CARSI funding to implement a  range of activities that supported CARSI goals, including providing  training, technical assistance, equipment, infrastructure, and investigation  and operational support to partner countries. To estimate the amount of  non-CARSI assistance that has been allocated for partner countries that  supported CARSI goals, we collected data from State and USAID as well  as DOD, DOJ, DHS, and Treasury for fiscal year 2008 through the  second quarter of fiscal year 2013. We did not report data on  disbursements of non-CARSI funding because these data were not  readily available for some agencies owing to the complexity and  challenges associated with how these agencies track their disbursement  data.
The allocated amount of non-CARSI funding supporting CARSI goals was  43 percent greater than the allocated amount of funds for CARSI  activities, as of March 31, 2013. The largest share of non-CARSI funding  was allocated to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, as shown in  table 3.
According to State officials, the U.S. government has identified CARSI as  its primary initiative for addressing citizen security threats in Central  America. U.S. agencies developed an interagency strategy to ensure an  integrated approach to all U.S. citizen security activities in Central  America whether funded through CARSI or other sources. Established in  2012, the strategy sets up CARSI and its five goals as the national policy  framework for all U.S. government citizen security efforts in Central  America and states that agencies’ activities in the region should link to  one or more of the CARSI pillars. Agency officials noted that because the  goals of CARSI are broad, a wide array of activities can be seen as  supporting the goals, and agencies have sought to align their own  strategy documents with the interagency strategy and five pillars of  CARSI. Officials from some U.S. agencies, including DOD and the Drug  Enforcement Administration (DEA), noted that the CARSI goals reflect the  types of activities that their agencies were already undertaking in the  region. The largest shares of non-CARSI funds allocated are from State,  USAID, and DOD (see table 4).
U.S. agencies reported using their non-CARSI funding to implement a  range of activities that supported CARSI goals, including providing  training, technical assistance, equipment, infrastructure, and investigation  and operational support to partner countries. For example, State funds  complementary activities from a variety of non-CARSI sources, including  security assistance accounts such as the International Military Education  and Training account; other foreign assistance accounts, such as the  Democracy Fund; and non-foreign assistance sources, such as the  Conflict Stabilization Operations account. State identified 11 offices that  support complementary citizen security activities in Central America with  non-CARSI funds. For example, according to State officials, State’s  Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations funded mediation and  community dialogue activities in Belize to reduce gang violence that  complemented a related CARSI-funded activity. State’s Bureau of  Political-Military Affairs used non-CARSI FMF funding to provide boats to  Panama’s Coast Guard to assist in conducting drug interdictions in  Panama’s territorial waters. USAID used non-CARSI Development  Assistance funds to support a variety of activities in the rule of law and  human rights, good governance, political competition and conflict  resolution, and education areas. For example, USAID is using non-CARSI  Development Assistance funds in Guatemala to help strengthen its  security and justice sector institutions, according to USAID officials.
In addition, DOD, DHS, and DOJ also use funding other than CARSI to  implement activities in Central America that support CARSI goals. For  example, according to officials,
DOD has used funds from its Central Transfer Account for  Counternarcotics to help establish an interagency border unit along  the Guatemala/Mexico border to support Guatemalan efforts to stop  the illicit movement of people and contraband. In Panama, a DOD  medical team used non-CARSI funds to work with the Panamanian  Ministry of Health in a poor and remote area in Panama to provide  medical attention to this community. In Belize, DOD used non-CARSI  funds for equipment, training, and infrastructure, including  construction of a Belize Coast Guard Joint Operation Center that  houses drug interdiction boats provided with funds for CARSI  activities (see fig. 3).
DHS and its components used non-CARSI funding to support  activities such as training by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on  how to conduct searches and seizures at ports of entry that  complemented other types of CARSI support.
DOJ and its components used non-CARSI funding to support a variety  of activities designed to improve partner countries’ law enforcement  capabilities. For example, DEA provided funding to support vetted  Sensitive Investigative Units in Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama.
While not included in our reported non-CARSI allocation totals above,  U.S. agencies also used other non-CARSI resources to support CARSI  goals in ways other than directly funding activities in partner countries.  For example, Treasury has used non-CARSI funding to pay for the  salaries and other costs associated with posting its personnel in several  partner countries to serve as resident advisors. These advisors work with  the partner countries to improve their ability to detect and prevent money  laundering and have used funding for CARSI activities to implement  regional programs. In addition, the FBI’s Criminal Investigations Division  has not directly funded non-CARSI activities in partner countries;  however, it has assigned personnel to Transnational Anti-Gang Units that  have been set up in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Agencies  such as CBP, the U.S. Coast Guard, and DOD also support CARSI goals  by using their assets, including aircraft and boats, to conduct  counternarcotics operations in Central America. For example, U.S.  agencies contribute resources to Operation Martillo, which is a joint  counternarcotics operation involving the U.S. government, several partner  countries, and other international partners.
section_title: State and USAID Took Steps to Consider Partner Country Needs, Absorptive Capacities, and Investments When Selecting CARSI Activities
paragraphs: When selecting activities to fund under CARSI, State and USAID took  steps to help identify and consider partner country needs, absorptive  capacities, and related U.S. and non-U.S. citizen security assistance  investments in partner countries. First, State and USAID officials used  assessment reports to help identify and consider partner country needs  and absorptive capacities. Second, State and USAID officials used  outreach meetings with officials from partner country governments, other  donor governments, and international organizations to consider partner  country needs, absorptive capacities, and non-U.S. citizen security  assistance investments in partner countries. Third, State and USAID  officials used interagency meetings at embassies in partner countries and  in Washington, D.C., to coordinate U.S. efforts, as well as to help identify  and consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related  non-U.S. investments in partner countries.
subsections: section_title: Assessment Reports Used to Help Identify and Consider Partner Country Needs and Absorptive Capacities
paragraphs: State officials used assessment reports to help identify and consider  partner country needs and absorptive capacities when selecting activities  to fund under CARSI. For example, State conducted reviews of the  forensic capabilities in six partner countries over the course of 2011 to  evaluate the crime scene investigation, prosecution, and forensic science  programs and capacities in each country. In a 2011 report, State  assessed deficiencies in these areas and developed recommendations to  address those deficiencies. According to State, State officials used the  conclusions and recommendations from this report to inform their  decisions on selecting activities to fund under CARSI. State officials also  reported that they used assessment reports produced by interagency  partners to determine assistance needs, refine assistance efforts, and  avoid absorptive capacity issues. For example, State officials used a  series of technical assessment reports on the law enforcement and  interdiction capabilities and needs of key Central American land ports of  entry produced by CBP. Similarly, State officials reported that they used  comprehensive assessment reports on the firearms regulations,  oversight, investigative, and forensic capabilities of Central American  governments produced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and  Explosives to determine that firearms interdiction activities could assist in  reducing the trafficking of arms into the region.
USAID officials also used assessment reports to help identify and  consider partner country needs and absorptive capacities when selecting  activities to fund under CARSI. For example, USAID officials reported that  they used assessment reports to help identify and consider partner  country juvenile justice and community policing needs and absorptive  capacities; these assessment reports included specific recommendations  for designing and selecting juvenile justice and community policing  projects in partner countries. According to USAID officials in Washington,  D.C., and at U.S. embassies, USAID staff used information from these  and other assessment reports to help select and design CARSI activities  in partner countries. In addition, both State and USAID officials used  country-specific CARSI assessment reports—produced by embassy staff  in November 2009 and covering all seven partner countries—to help  identify and consider partner country needs and absorptive capacities  when selecting activities to fund under CARSI. These country-specific  assessment reports included information on (1) the partner country’s  security environment, (2) embassy and host government perspectives on  the effectiveness of activities implemented to date, (3) partner country  strengths and weaknesses and opportunities and threats, and (4) the  partner country’s regional and bilateral security engagements.
section_title: Outreach Meetings Used to Help Identify and Consider Partner Country Needs, Absorptive Capacities, and Non-U.S. Investments
paragraphs: State and USAID officials also used outreach meetings with host  government officials to help identify and consider partner country needs,  absorptive capacities, and non-U.S. citizen security assistance  investments in partner countries when selecting activities to fund under  CARSI. Outreach meetings included both routine interactions between  U.S. agency and host government officials—at the subject matter expert  level—and broader, high-level meetings, typically at the ambassador and  head of host government level. At these meetings, topics such as the  status of current CARSI activities and the future of CARSI programming,  including potential future CARSI activities, can be discussed. For  example, embassy officials in one partner country reported that they held  an ambassador/head of host government-level meeting with a delegation  from the host government in June 2010. At this meeting, the U.S.  government and the host government agreed to pursue bilateral,  multiagency efforts to combat identified threats from transnational illicit  trafficking and criminal organizations. Following this high-level meeting,  embassy and host government officials established bilateral working  groups to identify and develop activities in the partner country in areas  such as border security, counternarcotics operations and strategy, gang  prevention and law enforcement, community development, asset seizure,  and investigation and prosecution. These bilateral working groups  provided input on selecting activities to fund under CARSI and are now  coordinating information-sharing efforts and progress updates on those  activities.
State and USAID officials also used outreach meetings with other donor  governments and international organizations to help identify and consider  non-U.S. citizen security investments in partner countries when selecting  CARSI activities. For example, in one partner country, embassy officials  reported that they held numerous meetings with other donor  governments. Through these outreach meetings, embassy officials were  able to identify one donor government’s investments in police intelligence  in the partner country and consequently reduced funding for CARSI  activities in that area. Also, through regular outreach meetings, embassy  officials in the same partner country reported that they were able to  identify another donor government’s investments in ballistic imaging  systems in the partner country. Embassy officials subsequently redirected  funding for CARSI activities that would otherwise have been spent in that  area.
State and USAID officials also used meetings with other donor  governments through the Group of Friends of Central America’s Security  Experts Group to help identify and consider non-U.S. citizen security  assistance investments in partner countries when selecting activities to  fund under CARSI. For example, through Group of Friends and other  donor meetings, State reported that they worked with another donor  government to coordinate an anti-crime capacity-building activity for a  partner country by de-conflicting donor purchases and leveraging  investments between the U.S. and the other donor government. In  addition, both USAID and State reported that they utilized a donor  database on third-country and multilateral assistance hosted by the Inter- American Development Bank (IDB) to help identify and consider non-U.S.  investments. The database includes information on projects sponsored by  other donors and international organizations in partner countries, such as  when the project started, when it is scheduled to be completed, and the  total project cost. State officials said that they are eager for IDB to update  the database with more detailed donor information that could increase the  effectiveness of U.S. agencies’ efforts to coordinate with other donors.
section_title: Interagency Meetings Used to Coordinate U.S. Efforts and Help Identify and Consider Partner Country Needs, Absorptive Capacities, and Non-U.S. Investments
paragraphs: When selecting activities to fund under CARSI, State and USAID officials  also used interagency meetings at embassies in all seven partner  countries to coordinate U.S. efforts, as well as to help identify and  consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related non- U.S. investments in those partner countries. For example, embassy  officials in one partner country reported that they used interagency  meetings to discuss the partner country’s needs for a digital radio  communication network to connect the host government’s police, military,  and related agencies and the ability of the partner country to absorb such  assistance. State and DOD officials used information from the  interagency meetings to help design and select a digital radio  communication project using both CARSI and non-CARSI funding.  According to agency officials, by involving DOD in the project selection  process, embassy officials leveraged DOD’s contribution to help meet the  partner country’s needs and help the partner country conduct joint  operations with the United States. In another partner country, embassy  officials reported that they used interagency meetings to identify and  consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related U.S.  agency non-CARSI investments to support the host government’s efforts  to regain control over a conflict-ridden portion of the country. According to  agency officials, through the interagency meetings, U.S. agencies  identified and considered these factors and coordinated the use of CARSI  and non-CARSI funding to support the host government’s efforts.
State and USAID officials also reported that they used high-level  interagency meetings, such as those of the Central America Interagency  Working Group (IAWG) in Washington, D.C., to help identify and consider  partner country needs and coordinate related U.S. agency non-CARSI  investments in partner countries when selecting activities to fund under  CARSI. The IAWG was launched in February 2012 and includes  representatives from State and USAID, as well as representatives from  other agencies engaged in citizen security efforts in Central America,  including DHS, DOD, DOJ, and Treasury. According to State, from March  2012 through April 2013, the IAWG and its associated subgroups held 21  meetings. Through interagency meetings, State officials were able identify  and consider non-CARSI proposed investments when selecting activities  to fund under CARSI; for example, according to State, officials identified  and considered non-CARSI proposed border management and migration  projects for the region. State officials coordinated the disbursement of  CARSI and non-CARSI funds to support the implementation of these  border management and migration projects, while avoiding duplication  among activities. In addition, through interagency meetings, agency  officials were able to review various CARSI and non-CARSI land border  security and interdiction activities and identified land border security  short-to-medium-term capacity deficits. Consequently, agency officials  are working to focus U.S. land interdiction security assistance on a limited  number of high-impact engagements designed to increase seizures of  contraband. By continuing to coordinate CARSI and non-CARSI  investments through these interagency meetings, State officials said they  will produce a more coordinated and integrated U.S. response to the  region, with the goal of increasing seizures of contraband and supporting  partner country border security initiatives.
section_title: U.S. Agencies Reported on Some CARSI Results, but Not on Progress toward Interagency Objectives, and Efforts Are Under Way to Evaluate CARSI Activities
paragraphs: Using various mechanisms, State and USAID have reported on some  CARSI results at the initiative, country, and project levels. For example,  embassies in partner countries produce monthly CARSI implementation  reports that identify the impacts of CARSI or related activities in the  country. However, U.S. agencies have not assessed or reported their  performance using the metrics outlined in a 2012 interagency strategy for  Central America that are designed to measure the results of CARSI and  complementary non-CARSI programming. USAID is currently  implementing an evaluation of selected CARSI activities and State is  planning an evaluation of some of its CARSI activities.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Agencies Reported on Some CARSI Results through Various Mechanisms
paragraphs: State and USAID monitored and reported on some CARSI results through  a variety of mechanisms at the initiative, country, and project levels.  Initiative-level reporting addresses CARSI results across the different  CARSI accounts and the seven partner countries. Country-level reporting  describes CARSI results in a particular partner country. Project-level  reporting describes the results of individual CARSI projects.
According to State and USAID officials, the primary source of  consolidated information on CARSI results at the initiative level—across  accounts and countries—is State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere  Affairs’ (WHA) annual Performance Plan and Report. State and USAID  use the annual Performance Plan and Report to monitor the performance  of foreign assistance activities in the region. In its 2012 report, WHA  provides information on some CARSI-wide results using a number of  performance metrics that measure outputs against WHA’s established  targets. For example, WHA uses metrics such as narcotics seizures and  the establishment of local crime prevention groups to measure CARSI  results. To produce the information on CARSI results in the report, WHA  aggregated data on activities funded through all CARSI accounts and in  all seven partner countries.
We do not provide more detailed information on the CARSI results discussed in the  2012 Performance Plan and Report because the document is labeled “Sensitive But  Unclassified.” specific metric, State did not establish a fiscal year 2012 target against  which to measure CARSI results. WHA noted that in its fiscal year 2012  report there are eight additional metrics that included combined results  information on CARSI and other initiatives in the Western Hemisphere,  but these metrics did not provide separate results information for CARSI- funded activities. For example, WHA reported that CARSI and other  initiatives in the region together exceeded their target for a metric related  to the training of foreign law enforcement officers by almost 75 percent in  fiscal year 2012.
State and USAID also report on CARSI results at the country level.  According to State and USAID officials, monthly CARSI implementation  reports produced by the embassies in each partner country are one of the  key ways in which they monitor and report on CARSI results at the  country level. State and USAID officials stated that these implementation  reports are part of their ongoing effort to monitor the impact and  effectiveness of CARSI and related non-CARSI assistance. State requires  embassies to include in the reports a section discussing the impact of  CARSI and related activities. These impact sections do not provide  information on performance relative to established CARSI metrics or  specific goals, but instead consist of descriptions of the results of various  activities taking place in the partner countries over the course of the  month. For example, one embassy reported in May 2013 that the host  government used a body scanner purchased with CARSI funds to  successfully detect a man attempting to smuggle narcotics onto a plane  bound for the United States. A different embassy reported in April 2013  that a CARSI-supported anti-gang education and training program had  been successfully expanded nationwide and had taught over 3,000  children over 3 years of the program. The 55 monthly reports we  reviewed included a range of other results from CARSI-funded activities  that were identified by embassies, but we also found that some  embassies did not always link some of the reported results to specific  U.S. assistance activities. For example, a number of reports noted  seizures or arrests made by the host government, but the reports did not  provide any information on how CARSI or related U.S. non-CARSI  assistance had facilitated these efforts.
State officials identified INL’s annual end-use monitoring reports as a  second mechanism for monitoring and reporting on CARSI activities at  the country level, although these end-use monitoring reports are not  specific to CARSI. State officials said that these end-use monitoring  reports are used to monitor all INCLE-funded items that have been  provided to the partner country to ensure that items are accounted for and  used in accordance with the terms agreed to by the U.S. government and  the partner country. As part of the end-use monitoring reports, State  requires embassy officials to include a discussion of the impact of any  INCLE-funded equipment, infrastructure, training, or other services that  have been provided, including under CARSI. The reports from partner  countries for fiscal years 2009 through 2012 identified a number of  positive results from CARSI assistance. For example, the embassy in El  Salvador stated in its 2012 end-use monitoring report that trucks provided  to the national police had a significant impact on the number of cases  investigated and improved the national police’s response capabilities.  However, the reports also identified some issues related to upkeep,  maintenance, and use of CARSI-funded equipment. For example, the  embassy in Guatemala reported in 2012 that 11 motorcycles provided to  the National Police became inoperable as a result of a lack of proper  maintenance and funding; State then covered the cost of refurbishing the  motorcycles.
Finally, USAID officials noted that annual portfolio reviews conducted by  USAID missions in partner countries are an important tool for reporting  CARSI results at the country level. USAID first began requiring its  missions to conduct such reviews in November 2012. According to  USAID guidance, portfolio reviews should, among other things, examine  the mission’s progress in achieving its objectives over the past year. The  portfolio reviews that we examined included varying levels of information  about CARSI results. For example, one review did not provide any results  information, but instead provided a general description of the types of  activities funded under the USAID mission’s portfolio. However, in other  cases, the USAID missions did provide specific results information. For  example, one mission reported that one of its programs had provided  access to vocational training to improve job competitiveness for 1,763  young people either at risk of becoming gang members or trying to leave  gangs. In some cases, the portfolio reviews did not specify whether  certain results were from CARSI or related non-CARSI projects.
State and USAID officials also stated that they perform certain monitoring  and reporting on CARSI results at the project level. State’s INL conducts  quarterly desk reviews of INCLE-funded CARSI activities to track the  progress of projects over time. INL requires these quarterly desk reviews  to include a discussion of the project objectives, measure project results  against established performance metrics, and identify success stories.  For example, INL reported in the quarterly desk review for one CARSI  project that, as of the end of 2012, it had trained 259 host government  investigators, prosecutors, and judges on the use of forensic evidence in  court proceedings. In another quarterly desk review, INL reported that the  project implementer had successfully developed an improved case  management system to assist the Costa Rican Attorney General’s Office  in conducting drug trafficking prosecutions. USAID also conducts  quarterly reporting on its CARSI projects. USAID’s quarterly reports  include information on the project’s accomplishments for the quarter and  progress that had been made relative to the project’s established  performance metrics. For example, in a report for the second quarter of  fiscal year 2013, the implementer of USAID’s crime prevention program in  Panama reported that it had met or exceeded its targets for 20 of the  project’s 26 metrics, including its target for the number of municipalities  that had set up municipal crime prevention committees.
section_title: U.S. Agencies Have Not Assessed and Reported Progress toward Objectives Outlined in the U.S. Interagency Strategy for Central America
paragraphs: While State and USAID have reported on some CARSI results, U.S.  agencies have not assessed and reported on their results using the  performance metrics identified in the February 2012 interagency citizen  security strategy for Central America. U.S. agencies developed this  strategy to help coordinate and focus the U.S. government’s CARSI and  related non-CARSI activities in the region. In the interagency strategy,  U.S. agencies outlined five metrics for measuring the performance of U.S.  government citizen security programming, including CARSI activities, in  achieving the strategy’s objectives. For example, the strategy includes a  metric to reduce homicide rates each year from 2012 through 2017.
According to State and USAID officials, the strategy and the metrics it  identifies were developed through an iterative, interagency process that  included other agencies such as DOD, DOJ, and DHS. However, to date,  U.S. agencies have not assessed and reported on their performance  using the metrics identified in the strategy.
GAO-12-1022. that have proven their effectiveness in solving the region’s most pressing  problems.
section_title: USAID Is Conducting an Evaluation of Some of Its CARSI Activities, and State Is Planning an Evaluation
paragraphs: USAID is currently conducting an evaluation of some of its CARSI  activities, and State is developing an evaluation of INL activities under  CARSI, consistent with its evaluation policy. USAID and State have both  taken steps to monitor and report on the results of CARSI-funded  activities. However, in our previous work we concluded that monitoring  activities do not take the place of program evaluations. As we previously  concluded, monitoring is ongoing in nature and measures agencies’  progress in meeting established objectives, typically using performance  metrics. Evaluations are individual, systematic studies that typically  examine a broader range of information on program performance and its  context than is feasible to monitor on an ongoing basis. Thus, evaluations  allow for overall assessments of whether a program is working and what  adjustments need to be made to improve results.
USAID officials stated that they will also conduct evaluations of other CARSI activities  that meet the criteria established in USAID’s 2011 evaluation policy. USAID’s evaluation  policy requires each USAID operating unit to evaluate all projects that equal or exceed the  average project size for that operating unit, at least once during the project’s lifetime. preliminary results from El Salvador show that murder and robbery rates  have been reduced in communities receiving USAID assistance under the  program.
USAID officials identified a range of ways that they expect the crime  prevention programming evaluation to assist them, once it is completed.  For example, they expect the evaluation to provide evidence of the extent  to which USAID’s crime prevention program reduced crime victimization  and perceptions of insecurity in at-risk communities. USAID officials also  anticipated that they would be able to use the evaluation’s findings as a  tool to encourage partner countries to make their own investments in  crime prevention activities.
State officials noted that they are currently working on a scope of work for  an evaluation of CARSI activities. In 2012, State issued an evaluation  policy that requires bureaus to evaluate two to four programs, projects, or  activities every 2 years, starting in fiscal year 2012, with all “large”  programs, projects, and activities required to be evaluated at least once in  their lifetime or every 5 years, whichever is less. The policy also  requires all State bureaus to complete a bureau evaluation plan and to  update it annually. According to State officials, given other priority areas,  INL did not select CARSI for evaluation in its first bureau evaluation plan,  covering fiscal years 2012 through 2014, although CARSI qualifies as a  large program for INL. Nevertheless, INL officials stated that they intend  to conduct an evaluation of their CARSI activities beginning in fiscal year  2014, as CARSI approaches its 5-year point. INL officials stated that they  are currently working on a scope of work for this evaluation, which will  cover CARSI programming across the partner countries. INL officials  stated that their intention is to issue a solicitation by the end of 2013 for a  contractor to conduct the CARSI evaluation. However, INL officials noted  that many decisions have not yet been made about the scope or  methodology for the evaluation and that funding has not yet been secured  for the evaluation. In regard to WHA, State officials noted that the bureau  manages only a small percentage of State’s funding for CARSI activities.  Given the small percentage of CARSI funding WHA manages, State  officials said that WHA does not have any plans to conduct a separate  CARSI evaluation from the one INL intends to do.
Our guidance on evaluation design indicates that State could increase the  value of any future evaluation it conducts by ensuring that it  systematically plans the evaluation. As we have previously concluded,  systematically planning for evaluations is important to (1) enhance the  quality, credibility, and usefulness of evaluations and (2) use time and   In our earlier work on evaluation design, we  resources effectively.recommended that agencies take five steps to effectively design an  evaluation, as shown in table 5.
Evaluations of CARSI activities, such as the one that INL has stated it  intends to undertake, could provide State with important information to  help it manage and oversee CARSI. As State’s evaluation policy notes,  evaluations are essential to documenting program impact and identifying  best practices and lessons learned. Among other things, an evaluation  could help State as it seeks to identify successful CARSI activities and  determine how best to replicate them in other locations.
State officials noted that designing a CARSI evaluation will be challenging  because CARSI involves a diverse set of activities that are being  implemented in seven different countries. Thus, State officials stated that  one challenge they will face in evaluating CARSI is selecting a mix of  activities to evaluate that are sufficiently representative of their various  CARSI activities that conclusions can be drawn about the broader impact  of their CARSI efforts. Given such challenges, effectively planning any  CARSI evaluation would help State ensure that the evaluation provides  the types of information it can use to guide future decisions about CARSI  programming.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: CARSI partner countries face significant challenges that threaten the  security of their citizens as well as the interests of the United States. U.S.  agencies have allocated over $1.2 billion to support a range of activities  to help partner countries respond to these threats. While State and  USAID have reported on some results from CARSI-funded activities, the  agencies have not worked with their interagency partners to assess  progress made in meeting performance targets outlined in the 2012 U.S.  interagency citizen security strategy for Central America. Without  assessing their performance meeting these targets, agencies lack  important information on progress made toward achieving the objectives  outlined in the interagency strategy that could help guide future decisions.  To evaluate some of its CARSI activities, USAID is currently overseeing  an evaluation of its CARSI crime prevention programming and intends to  use the evaluation to help it better target, design, and prioritize future  CARSI programming. State is planning an evaluation of some of its  CARSI activities as the initiative approaches its 5-year mark. These  evaluations will help agencies better manage and oversee their programs  and activities. Among other things, the evaluations can be used to (1)  help agencies assess the effectiveness of completed activities, (2) modify  the current mix of existing projects to increase program effectiveness, and  (3) better prioritize future projects to achieve results. While these are  commendable steps, assessing progress made toward achieving the  objectives outlined in the U.S. interagency strategy for Central America  would provide important information on the performance of CARSI and  related U.S. government activities and better guide U.S. decision making.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that U.S. agencies have relevant information on the  progress of CARSI and related U.S. government activities, we  recommend that the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator  direct their representatives on the Central America Interagency Working  Group to work with the other members to assess the progress of CARSI  and related U.S. government activities in achieving the objectives outlined  in the U.S. government’s interagency citizen security strategy for Central  America.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS, DOD, DOJ, State, Treasury,  and USAID for their review and comment. DHS, State, and USAID  provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.  USAID and State also provided written comments, which are reproduced  in appendixes IV and V, respectively. In their written comments, State and  USAID both concurred with our recommendation and State noted that  GAO’s recommended steps for evaluation design would guide an  evaluation of CARSI programming.
As discussed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents  of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to DHS, DOD, DOJ, State,  Treasury, and USAID, and other interested parties. In addition, the report  will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@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 VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This report (1) provides an updated assessment of U.S. agencies’ funding  and activities that support Central America Regional Security Initiative  (CARSI) goals; (2) examines whether U.S. agencies took steps to  consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related U.S.  and non-U.S. investments when selecting activities to fund under CARSI;  and (3) examines information on the extent to which U.S. agencies  reported CARSI results and evaluated CARSI activities.
To assess U.S. agencies’ funding and activities that supported CARSI  goals, we obtained data and program documentation from the  Department of State (State) and the United States Agency for  International Development (USAID) concerning funds allocated to support  programs in Central American countries under the Mérida Initiative in  fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and under CARSI from fiscal year 2010 to  June 1, 2013, through four accounts—International Narcotics Control and  Law Enforcement (INCLE); Economic Support Fund (ESF);  Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs  (NADR); and Foreign Military Financing (FMF). We obtained the data  from each bureau at State that administers those accounts: International  Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), Western Hemisphere  Affairs (WHA), International Security and Nonproliferation,  Counterterrorism, and Political-Military Affairs. We also obtained data  from USAID, which also allocates and implements the ESF account. In  particular, State and USAID provided data on the status of allocations,  unobligated balances, unliquidated obligations, and disbursements for the  ESF account; State also provided these data for the INCLE and NADR  accounts. State’s bureaus and USAID administer the accounts separately  and utilize their own data collection systems and budgeting terms.
To address differences between their systems, we provided State and  USAID with the definitions from GAO’s A Glossary of Terms Used in the  Federal Budget Process and requested that State and USAID provide the  relevant data according to those definitions. To the extent possible, we  worked with agencies to ensure that they provided data that met these  definitions. However, the Department of Defense budgets and tracks FMF  funds in a different way than the other foreign assistance accounts that  support CARSI. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) and  the Defense Financing and Accounting Service (DFAS) are responsible  for the financial systems that account for FMF funds, as well as tracking  the implementation and disbursement of those funds. DSCA’s system can  only track FMF uncommitted and committed amounts, not unliquidated  obligations or disbursements. DFAS tracks disbursements using the  Defense Integrated Finance System; however, there is no direct link  between the DSCA and DFAS systems and the DFAS system does not  track funding for specific initiatives, such as CARSI. Therefore, State was  not able to provide data on unliquidated obligations or disbursements, but  it was able to provide us with data on CARSI FMF allocations and  commitments.
In providing technical comments on a draft of this report, State officials  reported an amount of close to $10.6 million in additional INCLE funding  that was allocated for CARSI activities in fiscal year 2010 that had not  been previously reported to GAO. State officials also said that they could  not provide obligation or disbursement information related to this amount  because these INCLE funds are centrally managed and State’s financial  systems do not allow them to track such funds by region or country.  According to State, that is why these funds were not previously reported  to GAO. We followed up with State officials to confirm that the funds had  been applied to CARSI activities and to document the programs toward  which the funds had been applied. Although State officials were not able  to provide information for the obligation or disbursement of these funds,  we have included this amount in the total allocated for CARSI activities.
We made note of this discrepancy in presenting this data in the report.
We also interviewed officials from each of State’s bureaus and USAID on  their budgeting process and terms to determine the best method for  collecting comparable data across accounts. We then reviewed the data  and consulted with State and USAID on the accuracy and completeness  of the information. When we found discrepancies, we contacted relevant  agency officials and worked with them to resolve the discrepancies. We  noted any differences in the ways the agencies collected, categorized, or  reported their data in notes to the tables in this report. To assess the  reliability of the data provided, we requested and reviewed information  from agency officials regarding the underlying financial data systems and  the checks, controls, and reviews used to generate the data and ensure  its accuracy and reliability. We determined that the data provided were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Furthermore, to identify  equipment, training, and other related activities supported by funding for  CARSI activities, we reviewed program documentation and interviewed  relevant officials from State and USAID regarding the status of program  implementation and the types of equipment, training, and other activities  provided to partner countries to date. In addition, we visited three partner  countries—Belize, Guatemala, and Panama. We selected these three  countries as a sample considering the following elements—the scope of  the citizen security problem; the amount of funding for CARSI activities  received from fiscal years 2008 to 2012, the range of CARSI activities  undertaken, the extent of non-CARSI U.S. government activities that  support CARSI objectives, and the extent of host government or other  donor citizen security efforts in these countries. In these three countries,  we met with U.S. agency officials as well as host government,  international organization, and other donor government officials. We also  visited CARSI and non-CARSI activity locations during these visits.
To determine how much non-CARSI assistance has been allocated for  partner countries that supported CARSI goals, we collected data from  State and USAID as well as DOD, the Department of Justice, the  Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of the Treasury  for fiscal year 2008 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2013. Data  on disbursements of non-CARSI funding were not readily available for  some agencies because of the complexity and challenges associated with  how these agencies track their disbursement data. In collecting allocation  data, we asked agencies to provide funding data only for activities that  they determined supported one or more of the five pillars of CARSI. In  addition, we asked agencies to provide only data on non-CARSI funding  that directly assisted partner countries, such as funding for training,  equipment, infrastructure, and operational or investigative support. To  avoid double-counting across agencies, we asked agencies to provide  data only on activities funded through their own appropriations. We  requested non-CARSI data from all the agencies in a standardized  format, but given differences in the agencies’ missions, budget  processes, and data systems, there were variations in the responses we  received. We worked with the agencies to resolve these discrepancies.  For example, some agencies provided data on funding for the salaries of  U.S. government employees, or the operation of U.S. equipment, such as  aircraft. We determined that these types of funding did not constitute  direct assistance to the partner countries and did not include these  funding amounts in our totals. In addition, in certain cases, agencies  reported that they did not allocate non-CARSI funding to activities  supporting CARSI goals in advance, but that they disbursed resources to  programs that supported CARSI goals as needs arose. In these cases,  we worked with the agencies to determine whether or not the disbursed  amounts could be considered as equivalent to the allocation amounts  given the nature of how the agencies’ programming was executed and  made adjustments accordingly.
To assess the reliability of the non-CARSI data provided, we collected  information from agency officials regarding their methodology for  determining what non-CARSI funding to include as supporting CARSI  goals and the process they used for generating the data. We worked with  agencies to make adjustments to these methodologies if we identified  concerns. As part of this effort, we gathered information from the  agencies on potential risks of underestimates or overestimates of the  allocation amounts they reported and how we might mitigate any potential  overestimates. We then took steps to mitigate these issues to the extent  possible. For example, some agencies provided us with funding data for  regional programs that benefited both partner countries and non-CARSI  countries. In these cases, we worked with the agencies to determine if  there was an appropriate way of apportioning a percentage of the costs to  the partner countries versus the other non-CARSI beneficiary countries. If  possible, we adjusted the numbers accordingly; if adjustments were not  feasible, we did not include the funding amounts in our totals. As part of  our data reliability assessments, we also reviewed information on the  underlying data systems used to produce the data and the checks,  controls, and reviews the agencies perform to ensure the accuracy and  reliability of data in these systems. There are certain inherent limitations  in the data we collected because agencies were asked to make  determinations, using their own judgments, about what portions of their  non-CARSI funding supported CARSI goals. However, we believe that  the steps we have taken mitigate these limitations, to the extent possible.  Given this, we determined that, for the purposes of this report, the data  were sufficiently reliable to provide estimates of agencies’ non-CARSI  funding that supported CARSI goals. To determine the types of activities  that this non-CARSI assistance funded, we reviewed documentation from  U.S. agencies and also conducted interviews with agency officials at  headquarters and in our three site-visit countries.
To examine whether U.S. agencies took steps to consider partner country  needs, absorptive capacities, and related U.S. and non-U.S. investments  when selecting activities to fund under CARSI, we interviewed State and  USAID officials at headquarters and at the embassies in the three partner  countries we visited. In addition, we submitted specific written questions  to two bureaus at State and USAID at headquarters and received written  response documents on the steps State and USAID officials used to help  identify and consider these key factors when selecting activities for  funding under CARSI. We also worked with State officials at headquarters  to develop written questions for the embassies in all seven partner  countries on the steps they used to help identify and consider these key  factors when selecting CARSI activities. We received comprehensive  written response documents from the embassies in all partner countries  with information cleared at the Deputy Chief of Mission level. We  reviewed and analyzed the written response documents we received from  two bureaus at State and USAID at headquarters and from embassies in  all seven partner countries. Using these various data sources, we  identified specific steps that State and USAID officials used to consider  partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and investments when  selecting CARSI activities. We also reviewed additional available written  documentation on the steps State and USAID used to help identify and  consider key factors, such as various assessment reports produced by  State, USAID, and other agency officials; trip reports and status reports  produced by agency officials; summary agendas from interagency  meetings held at embassies and in headquarters; and documentation on  the management and coordination of CARSI activities. We did not assess  the extent or effectiveness of the steps that State and USAID took to  identify and consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, or  U.S. and non-U.S. investments.
To examine information on the extent to which U.S. agencies reported  CARSI results and evaluated CARSI activities, we interviewed State and  USAID officials at headquarters and U.S. officials at the embassies in the  three partner countries we visited. In addition, we submitted questions  and received written responses from State and USAID headquarters, as  well as from the embassies in all seven partner countries, which provided  additional information on agencies’ results reporting and evaluation of  CARSI activities. Using this information, we identified the key  mechanisms State and USAID use for reporting CARSI results at the  program, country, and project level. At the initiative level, we reviewed the  WHA annual Performance Plan and Reports for fiscal years 2009 through  2012 and the interagency strategy for citizen security in Central America  and assessed the types of CARSI results identified in these documents.  At the country level, we analyzed a non-probability sample of 55 monthly  CARSI implementation reports produced by embassies in the partner  countries. We selected this sample to ensure that we obtained a mix of  old and recent reports from all 7 countries. This sample contained eight  reports from each of the seven partner countries, except for Nicaragua,  which provided seven reports, and included the three most recent reports  produced by each embassy as of May 2013, as well as reports from  earlier years going back to fiscal year 2009. At the country level, we also  reviewed completed INL annual End-Use Monitoring Reports from each  of the seven partner countries for fiscal years 2009 to 2012 and a USAID- selected sample of five portfolio reviews from USAID offices in partner  countries. Finally, we analyzed five INL Quarterly Desk Reviews and six  USAID project reports to determine the types of CARSI results identified  in project-level reporting. These reports were selected by State and  USAID respectively as examples of their project-level reporting.
We also compared U.S. agencies’ actions to assess and report their  progress toward achieving the objectives in the interagency strategy for  Central America against key considerations that we identified in 2012 for  implementing interagency collaboration mechanisms. work, we found that one key feature in the successful implementation of  such mechanisms is the development of a system for monitoring and  reporting on results. In addition, we compared agencies’ activities against  leading practices we identified in 1996 for performance management of  federal programs.
We developed this list of considerations through a review of relevant literature on  collaboration mechanisms, interviews with experts on collaboration, and a review of  findings from a number of our previous reports on collaboration in the federal government.  See GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency  Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012). ongoing, or planned evaluations of CARSI. From USAID, we gathered  information on the scope and methodology, current status, and expected  uses of their impact evaluation of their municipal crime prevention  program. We also gathered testimonial evidence from State on INL’s  planned evaluation of its CARSI activities. In addition, we reviewed  State’s 2012 Program Evaluation Policy and determined the extent to  which INL and WHA had selected CARSI activities for evaluation in their  bureau evaluation plans for fiscal years 2012 through 2014.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to September  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Status of Central America Regional Security Initiative Funds
paragraphs: To demonstrate how funding for Central America Regional Security  Initiative (CARSI) activities have been allocated, obligated, and  disbursed, we are providing the status of funds provided for CARSI  activities as of June 1, 2013. The following tables show CARSI funds by  account, describing how U.S. agencies have allocated, obligated, and  disbursed funds (by year of appropriation) toward activities in partner  countries. In addition, the tables show unobligated balances, which is the  portion of an obligational authority that has not yet been obligated, and  unliquidated obligations (or obligated balance), which is the amount of  obligation already incurred for which payment has not yet been made.  Funding for CARSI activities has primarily come from the International  Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) and Economic Support  Fund (ESF) accounts. In earlier years, funding also came from the  Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs  (NADR) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) accounts.
subsections: section_title: Status of CARSI INCLE Account Funds
paragraphs: The Department of State’s (State) Bureau for International Narcotics and  Law Enforcement Affairs administers the CARSI INCLE funds.  As of  June 1, 2013, State had allocated the largest amount of its CARSI INCLE  funds to Guatemala, regional programs, Honduras, and El Salvador (see  table 6). In addition, State had disbursed approximately $122 million of  INCLE funds to support partner countries (see table 7). In providing  technical comments on a draft of this report, State officials reported an  amount of close to $10.6 million in INCLE funding that was allocated for  CARSI activities in fiscal year 2010 that had not been previously reported  to GAO. State officials also said that they could not provide obligation or  disbursement information related to this amount, because these INCLE  funds are centrally managed and State’s financial systems do not allow  them to track such funds by region or country.  According to State, this is  why these funds were not previously reported to GAO. We followed up  with State officials to confirm that the funds had been applied to CARSI  activities and to document the programs toward which the funds had been  applied. Although State officials were not able to provide information on  the obligation or disbursement of these funds, we have included this  amount in the INCLE funding allocated for CARSI activities.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) shares  responsibility with State to administer the ESF account. USAID oversees  the implementation of most programs funded from this account, according  to USAID officials; State’s Bureau for Western Hemisphere Affairs  administers State’s portion of ESF.
As of June 1, 2013, USAID had allocated the largest amounts of its ESF  funds for CARSI activities to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (see  table 8). Furthermore, USAID had disbursed approximately $51 million of  ESF funds to support CARSI activities (see table 9). For fiscal year 2013,  USAID officials explained that the agency has not yet been allocated  funds from the Office of Management and Budget that Congress  appropriated for fiscal year 2013. Therefore, the disbursement data  provided below in table 9 for fiscal year 2013 are of funds allocated only  in prior years, and table 8 reflects no allocations for fiscal year 2013.
As of June 1, 2013, State had allocated the largest amounts of its ESF  funds for CARSI activities to Costa Rica, Belize, and Panama (see table  10). Furthermore, State had disbursed approximately $10 million of ESF  funding for CARSI activities (see table 11). In addition, State officials  explained that the agency has not yet been allocated funds that Congress  appropriated for fiscal year 2013. Therefore, the disbursement data  provided below in table 11 for fiscal year 2013 are only of funds allocated  in prior years, and table 10 reflects no allocations for fiscal year 2013.
State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation and its  Bureau of Counterterrorism administer CARSI NADR funds. NADR funds  were allocated for Central American countries under the Mérida Initiative  only for fiscal year 2008. NADR Export Control and Related Border  Security (EXBS) and Counterterrorism (CT) funds were used to support  activities in partner countries. As of June 1, 2013, the largest amount of  funds had been allocated for NADR-EXBS activities, and 96 percent of  those allocated funds had been disbursed (see table 12). Slightly more  than $6 million of CARSI NADR-EXBS and NADR-CT funds were  disbursed as of June 1, 2013 (see table 13). According to State officials, it  is not possible to provide a country-by-country breakout of CARSI NADR- EXBS funds disbursed because the funds are intended for regional  programming.
section_title: Appendix III: Status of Central America Regional Security Initiative Foreign Military Financing Account Funds
paragraphs: This appendix provides the status of Central America Regional Security  Initiative (CARSI) Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds as of June 1,  2013. Table 1 describes how U.S. agencies have allocated and  committed FMF funds (by year of appropriation) toward activities in  partner countries. The presentation of FMF allocations and commitments  is different from presentations on allocations, obligations, and  disbursements on the other CARSI accounts in appendix II because FMF  funds are budgeted and tracked in a different way.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) and the Defense  Financing and Accounting Service (DFAS) are responsible for the  financial systems that account for FMF funds, as well as tracking the  implementation and disbursement of those funds. According to DSCA  officials, FMF funds are obligated upon apportionment. Further, DSCA’s  system can only track FMF uncommitted and committed amounts, not  unliquidated obligations or disbursements. DFAS tracks disbursements  using the Defense Integrated Finance System; however, there is no direct  link between the DSCA and DFAS systems, and the DFAS system does  not track funding for specific initiatives, such as CARSI.
The Department of State (State) allocated close to $26 million of FMF  funds for Central American countries for activities under the Mérida  Initiative from fiscal years 2008 to 2010. From fiscal years 2008 to 2010,  State allocated the largest amounts of these FMF funds to El Salvador,  Costa Rica, and Panama. As of June 1, 2013, approximately 90 percent  of the total allocated amount had been committed (see table 14).
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Valérie L. Nowak (Assistant  Director), Ian Ferguson, Marisela Perez, Ryan Vaughan, and Debbie  Chung made key contributions to this report. Martin de Alteriis, Ashley  Alley, Lynn Cothern, and Etana Finkler also provided assistance.