State Partnership Program: Improved Oversight, Guidance, and Training Needed for National Guard's Efforts with Foreign Partners
Published: 2012-05-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The National Guards State Partnership Program is a DOD security cooperation program that matches state National Guards with foreign countries to conduct joint activitiesincluding visits between senior military leaders and knowledge sharing in areas such as disaster managementthat further U.S. national security goals. The program has partnerships between 52 U.S. state and territory National Guards and 69 countries. In fiscal year 2011, program expenditures were at least $13.2 million. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act directed GAO to study the program. GAO determined (1) the extent to which State Partnership Program activities are meeting program goals and objectives; (2) the types and frequency of activities and funding levels of the program; and (3) any challenges DOD faces in the programs implementation. GAO collected written responses to questions from State Partnership Program Coordinators at the state level, Bilateral Affairs Officers at the U.S. embassies in the partner nations, and officials at the combatant commands, reviewed documents, and interviewed DOD officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Many State Partnership Program stakeholders, including State Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, and combatant command officials, cited benefits to the program, but the program lacks a comprehensive oversight framework that includes clear program goals, objectives, and metrics to measure progress against those goals, which limits the Department of Defenses (DOD) and Congress ability to assess whether the program is an effective and efficient use of resources. The benefits described by all stakeholders focused on the programs contributions to meeting their specific missions, such as building security relationships, providing experience to guardsmen, and supporting combatant commands missions. Goals, objectives, and metrics to measure progress are necessary for management oversight, and National Guard Bureau officials told GAO that they recognize the need to update the programs goals and develop metrics and have initiated efforts in these areas. Officials expect completion of these efforts in summer 2012. Until program goals and metrics are implemented, DOD cannot fully assess or adequately oversee the program.
State Partnership Program activity data are incomplete as well as inconsistent and funding data are incomplete for fiscal years 2007 through 2011; therefore GAO cannot provide complete information on the types and frequency of activities or total funding amounts for those years. GAO found that the multiple data systems used to track program activities and funding are not interoperable and users apply varying methods and definitions to guide data inputs. The terminology used to identify activity types is inconsistent across the combatant commands and the National Guard Bureau. Further, funding data from the National Guard Bureau and the combatant commands were incomplete, and while the National Guard Bureau provided its total spending on the program since 2007, it could not provide information on the cost of individual activities. Although the National Guard Bureau has initiated efforts to improve the accuracy of its own State Partnership Program data, without common agreement with the combatant commands on what types of data need to be tracked and how to define activities, the data cannot be easily reconciled across databases.
The most prominent challenge cited by State Partnership Program stakeholders involved how to fund activities that include U.S. and foreign partner civilian participants. Activities involving civilians, for example, have included subject-matter expert exchanges on military support to civil authorities and maritime border security. Although DOD guidance does not prohibit civilian involvement in activities, many stakeholders have the impression that the U.S. military is not permitted to engage civilians in State Partnership Program activities and some states may have chosen not to conduct any events with civilians due to the perception that it may violate DOD guidance. DOD and the National Guard Bureau are working on developing additional guidance and training in this area. Until these efforts are completed, confusion may continue to exist and hinder the programs full potential to fulfill National Guard and combatant command missions.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD complete its comprehensive oversight framework for the State Partnership Program, develop guidance to achieve reliable data on the program, and issue guidance and conduct additional training on the appropriate use of funding for program activities, including those involving civilians. DOD concurred with all recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The National Guard State Partnership Program—a Department of  Defense (DOD) security cooperation program that pairs state National  Guards with foreign countries—works to promote national objectives,  stability, partner capacity, and better understanding and trust between the  United States and foreign countries. The State Partnership Program is  one of many efforts within DOD to address security cooperation and its  overarching vision is to establish and sustain enduring relationships with  partner countries in support of the U.S. national security strategy. The  program began in 1993 with 13 partner countries, primarily from the  former Soviet Union, to help improve relations with these countries and  help reform their defense establishments after the end of the Cold War.  Today the program has partnerships between 52 states and territories  and 69 foreign countries spread throughout the regions of all six  geographic combatant commands and focuses on building the capacity  of and relationships with partner countries’ militaries through exchanges  of military skills and experience, sharing defense knowledge, enhancing  partnership capacity, and furthering mutual security cooperation.
DOD defines State Partnership Program activities as any security  cooperation activity supported by funds appropriated to DOD, occurring  between a state’s National Guard personnel and that state’s partner  nation, consistent with the State Partnership Program. Activities can vary  depending on the needs of the partner nation, the capabilities of the state  or territory National Guard, and the priorities of the geographic combatant  commander and the U.S. ambassador of the partner country. Through  this program, states’ National Guard personnel work with their partner  countries to conduct activities, such as knowledge sharing from subject  matter experts, demonstrations of particular National Guard capabilities,  and visits between senior military leaders, and cover topics such as  disaster management, military education, non-commissioned officer  development, and border operations. The National Guard Bureau  provides guidance to the states participating in the program, but the  program is primarily managed by a State Partnership Program  Coordinator—a full-time National Guardsman at the state level—and a  Bilateral Affairs Officer—normally a full-time National Guardsman or other  military officer assigned to the geographic combatant command and  under the direction of the U.S. embassy in the partner country. Partnership Program activities are planned collaboratively by the State  Partnership Program Coordinators, the Bilateral Affairs Officers, the U.S.  embassy country teams, and the geographic combatant commands.
Some countries within the U.S. Southern Command use Traditional Commander’s  Activities coordinators in this role. The combatant commands fund Traditional  Commander’s Activities coordinators, while the National Guard Bureau funds Bilateral  Affairs Officers. For consistency purposes in this report, we refer to all of these personnel  as Bilateral Affairs Officers.
According to National Guard Bureau officials, in fiscal year 2008, the  National Guard Bureau spent about $2.52 million on the program and in  fiscal year 2011 the National Guard Bureau spent about $6.1 million. This  money, according to National Guard Bureau officials, provides for the pay  and allowances of guardsmen while they are conducting an activity with a  partner country and is authorized to be used for military personnel only.  Additional money, about $7.1 million in fiscal year 2011, is provided by  the combatant commands from a variety of sources, such as Traditional  Combatant Commander’s Activities funds, Cooperative Threat Reduction  Program funds, and Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace funds.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 directed us   To  to conduct a study of the National Guard State Partnership Program.meet this mandate, we assessed (1) the extent to which State Partnership  Program activities are meeting the goals and objectives of the program;  (2) the types and frequency of activities and funding levels associated  with the program; and (3) the challenges, if any, that DOD faces in the  implementation of the program.
To address these objectives, we obtained perspectives, including views  on the benefits of the program, from the Office of the Secretary of  Defense for Policy, Joint Staff, National Guard Bureau, and program  stakeholders including State Partnership Program coordinating officials at  the geographic combatant commands, State Partnership Program  Coordinators, and Bilateral Affairs Officers. We also collected information  on the process that DOD uses to establish partnerships. We requested  and analyzed documentation about the goals and objectives of the  program and any guidance that would describe how the program is to be  implemented. To determine the extent to which State Partnership  Program activities are meeting the goals and objectives of the program,  we interviewed National Guard Bureau officials about the development of  goals, objectives, and performance metrics for the program. We also  contacted all State Partnership Program Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs  Officers who participate in this program with open-ended questions by e- mail. We collected and analyzed responses from 50 of the 52 State  Partnership Program Coordinators and from 23 out of 47 Bilateral Affairs  Officers. We also collected and analyzed written responses to similar  questions from the coordinating officials at the six U.S. geographic  combatant commands. To determine the types and frequency of activities  and funding levels associated with the program, we collected and  analyzed data on State Partnership Program activities—including types of  activities, funding sources, and funding amounts—obtained from the  National Guard Bureau and the six U.S. geographic combatant  commands from fiscal years 2007 through 2011. To assess the reliability  of the data, we collected written information from the combatant  commands on their databases. We also discussed the procedures for  generating and verifying the data with knowledgeable combatant  command and National Guard Bureau officials and, where possible,  examined the data for anomalies. We discussed the limitations we  identified in the data with the officials, and those limitations are discussed  in this report. To identify challenges that DOD faces in implementing the  program, we included relevant questions when we contacted all State  Partnership Program Coordinators and all Bilateral Affairs Officers who  participate in this program, and the six U.S. geographic combatant  commands, as described above. We conducted this performance audit  from August 2011 to May 2012 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan  and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide  a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A  more detailed description of our scope and methodology is included in  appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The State Partnership Program grew from the former Joint Contact Team  Program, a program comprised of active component personnel that  sought to establish professional contacts between the U.S. military and  the militaries of newly independent nations of the former Soviet Union.  The Joint Contact Team Program was intended to promote subordination  to civilian leadership, respect for human rights, and a defensively oriented  military posture. In 1993, the National Guard Bureau was integrated into  the Joint Contact Team Program to initiate the first state partnerships, as  it was believed that Russia would find the National Guard less  provocative than a U.S. active duty full-time military presence. The  program has since expanded to 63 partnerships covering all combatant  commands, with nearly all state National Guards participating. Figure 1  illustrates the number of partner country relationships within each  combatant command.
Both the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report and the 2011  National Military Strategy of the United States of America identify security  cooperation and building partner capacity as priorities in multiple regions,  including the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. In addition, both documents  emphasize the need to strengthen and expand the United States’ network  of international partnerships to enhance security, and the National Military  Strategy instructs the combatant commands, among others, to partner  with other agencies to pursue theater security cooperation. As such, the  State Partnership Program acts as a force enabler for the combatant  commands, and State Partnership Program activities are part of the  combatant commands’ theater security cooperation plans. State  Partnership Program activities are to be approved by the combatant  commands, as well as the U.S. ambassador in their respective partner  nations, before they can be executed.
Any nation requesting a state partnership sends its official request to its  respective U.S. ambassador. Once the partnership is endorsed, the  request is forwarded to the appropriate combatant command. If the  combatant command finds that the partnership meets strategic objectives  and priorities, the combatant command sends the request to the National  Guard Bureau. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau reviews the  request to determine the viability of the partnership. If the Chief accepts  the request, he or she notifies the combatant command and solicits  proposals from the adjutants general of the state Guards. State Guard  proposals include a statement of intent; background on the state Guard  and its capabilities; proposed areas of military engagement with the  partner nation; potential benefits to both the state Guard and partner  nation; discussion of historical, cultural, and academic similarities  between the state and the partner nation; and any documentation  supporting the state Guard’s nomination. The proposals go through three  levels of review within DOD, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau  forwards a recommended nominee to the combatant command and the  partner country’s U.S. embassy for final approval. Figure 2 illustrates the  request and approval process.
section_title: State Partnership Program Stakeholders Cited Benefits but Program Oversight Is Hindered by Lack of Clear Goals, Objectives, and Progress Measures
paragraphs: State Partnership Program stakeholders, including State Partnership  Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, and combatant command  officials, cited benefits of the program, but the program lacks clear goals,  objectives, and performance metrics. Without a comprehensive oversight  framework for defining and measuring progress, DOD cannot fully assess  whether the program is an effective and efficient use of resources.
subsections: section_title: Stakeholders Cited Benefits of the State Partnership Program
paragraphs: State Partnership Program Coordinators provided examples of how the  program benefits their states and their National Guard units, including  providing experience and training for guardsmen and developing  relationships between the state and the partner country. For example, 39  of the 50 State Partnership Program Coordinators who responded to our  questions reported that the State Partnership Program provides  experience to participating guardsmen. In another instance, one State  Partnership Program Coordinator reported that by demonstrating medical  techniques to partner country participants, the guardsmen simultaneously  gain direct experience performing those techniques. Three State  Partnership Program Coordinators specifically noted that the program  allows participants to deploy and complete realistic military training  outside a warzone. In addition, 17 State Partnership Program  Coordinators noted the value of the State Partnership Program in  providing a mechanism for developing relationships between the state  Guard units and the partner countries. Another State Partnership  Program Coordinator noted that establishing such relationships improves  long-term international security, and several State Partnership Program  Coordinators noted that the relationships fostered by the program were  instrumental in the partner countries’ deployments to Afghanistan or Iraq.
All six combatant commands and all 23 Bilateral Affairs Officers who  responded to our questions reported that the State Partnership Program  supports their missions and objectives, including promoting stability and  security cooperation and assisting with building partner capacity. For  example, one Bilateral Affairs Officer reported that a State Partnership  Program activity on women’s leadership in the military met the geographic  combatant command’s objective of building partner capacity, as well as  U.S. country team objectives to advance human rights, advance public  diplomacy, and strengthen regional security capabilities. The activity  covered deployment preparations, leadership development, and sexual  assault prevention. Three of the six combatant commands specifically  noted that the National Guard units are uniquely suited to assist the  combatant command in building the capacity of partner countries as a  result of their civilian and military experiences. For example, in one  combatant command, State Partnership Program activities were used to  support combatant command objectives by providing subject matter  expertise to Royal Bahamas Police Force Drug Enforcement Unit officers  in the field of combat trauma care. Thirteen Bilateral Affairs Officers also  cited the benefit of the State Partnership Program’s ability to develop and  maintain relationships between the state Guard units and the partner  countries. For example, one Bilateral Affairs Officer stated that the  relationship between one state Guard unit and its partner country was  leveraged to assist the country in making progress toward the country  team’s goal of anchoring the country in European and Euro-Atlantic  institutions. The partner country was originally reluctant to accept  assistance with military personnel management due to cultural  sensitivities, but based on the established relationship, the state Guard  unit was granted full access and made suggestions that were  implemented by the partner country. Table 1 summarizes the key benefits  of the program as described by State Partnership Program Coordinators,  Bilateral Affairs Officers, and officials from the combatant commands.
In addition, European Command’s combatant commander testified to  Congress in February 2012 that the State Partnership Program develops  important strategic relationships that benefit ongoing military activities.  The European Command indicated in written responses to our questions  that this program helps maintain access to partner countries’ leadership  and is vital to defense institution building. Similarly, the National Guard  Bureau describes the State Partnership Program as fitting within the  building partner capacity portfolio of DOD, and views the program as an  integral component of DOD’s global security cooperation strategy that can  contribute to enhanced security. Further, it sees the program as integral  to the combatant commands’ theater engagement plans and the U.S.  Ambassadors’ Mission Strategic Resource Plans. Moreover, the National  Guard Bureau told us that it found that the State Partnership Program is  valuable to U.S. ambassadors. In October 2010, the National Guard  Bureau, in conjunction with the Department of State, surveyed the  ambassadors of U.S. embassies with State Partnership Program  partnerships as part of an effort to conduct a strategic review of the  program. Forty-one of the 62 ambassadors surveyed provided responses,  and 40 of the respondents agreed that the State Partnership Program is a  valuable tool in advancing their mission goals and objectives.
Respondents noted that the activities and relationships developed by the  program—fostering activities to support joint military exercises and  deployments, providing support for international peacekeeping  operations, and embedding training teams—promote overall national  security and strategic interests. Thirty-nine ambassadors agreed that  there are mechanisms to ensure that activities are properly integrated  with U.S. country team priorities.
section_title: The State Partnership Program Does Not Have Agreed-Upon Goals or Metrics to Assess Progress
paragraphs: Despite considerable anecdotal evidence from many State Partnership  Program stakeholders about the program’s benefits, we were unable to  comprehensively assess the State Partnership Program because the  National Guard Bureau has not updated its program goals or objectives to  match the program’s current operations. The National Guard Bureau  developed goals and objectives for the program in 2007, but officials told  us that these goals and objectives need to be updated to reflect the  program as it currently operates. The previous goals and supporting  objectives were broadly stated and reflected the desire to build partner  capacity, but did little to clarify the specific goals for the State Partnership  Program. We have previously reported that achieving results in  government requires a comprehensive oversight framework that includes clear goals, measurable objectives, and metrics for assessing progress.Officials stated that they recognize the need to update program goals and  objectives to more accurately reflect the current environment and the  focus on military-to-military activities, and reported that they have initiated  such efforts and expect the new goals and objectives to be finalized by  July 2012. Officials also indicated that the new program goals and  objectives will be more closely aligned with the combatant commands’  strategic goals and objectives.
National Guard Bureau officials also acknowledged that once they update  program goals and objectives, they will need to develop metrics to  measure results of the program. However, they indicated that due to the  relationship-building nature of the program, it is difficult to establish  appropriate metrics that capture the effects of the program. As we have  previously reported, performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring  and reporting of program accomplishments, focused on regularly  collected data on the level and type of program activities, direct products  and services delivered by the program, and the results of those activities.  As we have previously reported, it is sometimes difficult to establish  performance measures for outcomes that are not readily observable and  that in those cases, more in-depth program evaluation may be needed in  addition to performance measures. Program evaluations are systematic  studies conducted periodically that examine programs in-depth and  include context in order to examine the extent to which a program is  meeting its objectives. The RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan nonprofit  organization that conducts public policy research, has reported on  performance measures that programs like the State Partnership Program,  which engage in building partner capacity and other security cooperation  activities, can use to demonstrate results. Further, other federal  agencies engaged in security cooperation activities use program  evaluations in addition to performance measures. For example, the  United States Agency for International Development has implemented  multiple program evaluations for its foreign assistance programs, and the  Global Peace Operations Initiative within the Department of State uses  program evaluations to gauge the effectiveness of its training programs.  National Guard Bureau officials told us that they are working with experts  from other organizations including RAND and the Defense Security  Cooperation Agency and have begun to develop metrics for the program.  They provided us with a draft document containing some key assessment  indicators in the areas of operational and mission support, doctrine and  training, and systemic support. Under the area of mission support, for  example, officials stated they are planning to track how effective State  Partnership Program activities are in meeting combatant command and  country team priorities. Officials further stated that these metrics are  expected to be finalized during the summer of 2012. Such goals and  metrics would form the foundation for a comprehensive oversight  framework and, until they are put into place, DOD cannot fully assess  whether the program is an effective and efficient use of resources.
section_title: Complete Information about Activities and Funding Is Unavailable
paragraphs: We cannot provide complete information on the types and frequency of  State Partnership Program activities or the total funding amounts for  these activities for fiscal years 2007 to 2011 because activity data are  incomplete as well as inconsistent and funding data are incomplete.  According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,  program managers and decision makers should have reliable data to  determine whether they are meeting goals and using resources effectively  and efficiently. Without complete and consistent data on the State  Partnership Program, we and DOD cannot assess the program’s  efficiency nor provide complete information to decision makers, including  Congress.
subsections: section_title: Data on State Partnership Program Activities Are Incomplete and Inconsistent
paragraphs: Data on State Partnership Program activities from the combatant  commands and the National Guard Bureau are incomplete and  inconsistent. The National Guard Bureau and the combatant commands  maintain separate databases for tracking events. Each entity  independently tracks its activities and funding in databases that are not  interoperable. According to National Guard Bureau officials, DOD’s  Guidance for Employment of the Force mandates that all security  cooperation activities be tracked, including State Partnership Program  activities, in management information system databases. The National  Guard Bureau uses its own system to track State Partnership Program  events that it funds. National Guard Bureau officials indicated that events  funded by a combatant command and the National Guard Bureau would  be tracked in both databases.that as a result, data must be pulled from both the combatant commands’  and the National Guard Bureau’s data systems to glean the most  complete information on the funding of State Partnership Program  activities.
National Guard Bureau officials told us  We asked the combatant commands and the National Guard Bureau to  provide us with a list of all State Partnership Program activities since  fiscal year 2007, but the data that they provided to us were incomplete.  Africa Command could only provide data since fiscal year 2009, when the  command became fully operational, but officials told us that it is possible  not all State Partnership Program activities are included in the data it  provided because there is no way to electronically search for State  Partnership Program activities in its database since they are not  annotated as State Partnership Program activities. According to an Africa  Command official, the data provided were selected manually, and some  activities may have been overlooked. Activity data provided to us by  European Command were also incomplete in that the location of events  was missing for 482 of 753 (64 percent) activities. European Command  officials told us that while the database does not always contain  information on the location of events, individual records, such as after- action reviews for specific events, would have this information. In  addition, the National Guard Bureau data were missing for fiscal year  2009 because the data system was not yet operational and data were not  centrally maintained. National Guard Bureau officials told us that data  were incomplete for 2010 because it was the first year that the National  Guard Bureau began to use this data system to collect State Partnership  Program data and staff had to learn how to use the system.
Further, we found that some activity information that should have been  contained in both combatant command and National Guard Bureau  databases was not. For example, Northern Command and Pacific  Command reported that a majority of State Partnership Program activities  in their areas of responsibility were funded by the National Guard Bureau.  As a result, we expected that the activity data would be maintained in  both the combatant commands’ and the National Guard Bureau’s  databases. However, when we compared the data provided by the  combatant commands, including Northern Command, to the data  provided by the National Guard Bureau, we found that both had records  of State Partnership Program activities that were not accounted for in the  other’s database. In addition, we compared a sample of the data provided  to us by the combatant commanders and the National Guard Bureau to  the activities listed in a DOD report to Congress on a subset of State  Partnership Program activities involving civilians. Our analysis showed  that 32 activities in the report to Congress were not accounted for in the  data provided to us, despite the broader scope of our data request. The  National Guard Bureau officials told us that their database was not used  to meet the data request for the DOD report because they don’t have data  from the required years. Instead, individual state Guard units were asked  through a data call from the National Guard Bureau to provide lists of  activities.
Through our data analysis, we also found that activities in the National  Guard Bureau and the combatant command databases were  inconsistently defined, which hindered our ability to report on the types  and frequency of activities. The combatant commands and the National  Guard Bureau reported a broad range of activities conducted for fiscal  years 2007 through 2011, but common activities included knowledge  sharing on an area of expertise by National Guard personnel with partner  nation participants, demonstrations of National Guard capabilities, and  visits between an adjutant general or other high ranking U.S. military  official with senior leaders of the partner nation’s armed forces. However,  the terminology used to identify activity types varied both across the  combatant commands and between the combatant commands and the  National Guard Bureau. An August 2011 Directive Type Memorandum  from the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy provides a definition for a  State Partnership Program activity, but it does not define specific activity  types. We found that the combatant commands use different terms to define similar activities. For example, one combatant command used the  term orientation to describe the partner country observances of U.S.  forces in action, whereas another combatant command referred to those  activities as familiarizations. The user’s manual for the National Guard  Bureau’s database contains a list of different activity types, but the types  themselves are not consistent with the terminology used by the  combatant commands. For example, in their respective databases, the  National Guard Bureau used the term military-to-military for most of its  activities that involve U.S. military activities conducted with host country  militaries, whereas the combatant commands used terms like  familiarization or traveling contact team, making it difficult to identify if the  data in different databases were describing the same activity or two  separate activities. In addition, although State Partnership Program  activities that are funded by both a combatant command and the National  Guard Bureau should be entered into each entity’s database for its  respective funded amount, four combatant commands and the National  Guard Bureau reported that there is no standard method for all the  combatant commands and the National Guard Bureau to ensure the  separate entries can be easily compiled in order to see all data  maintained on a particular activity, including the total funding amount of  the activity. Because of these inconsistencies, we could not summarize  the types or frequency of activities that have taken place under the State  Partnership Program.
section_title: State Partnership Program Funding Information Is Incomplete
paragraphs: The funding data for State Partnership Program activities from fiscal  years 2007 through 2011 are incomplete, thus preventing us from  providing complete information on the total cost of the program. As  previously discussed, funding data on State Partnership Program  activities are maintained in multiple databases, depending primarily on  the funding source for the activity. We found that funding data from the  National Guard Bureau and some of the combatant commands were  incomplete. For example, National Guard Bureau officials told us that that  there was no standardized method for collecting and centrally managing  its own State Partnership Program data prior to fiscal year 2009, when  their database was first implemented. While the National Guard Bureau  could tell us the total amount of money it spent on the program since  2007, it could not tell us how much money the National Guard Bureau  spent on individual activities. In addition, our analysis also indicated that  the funding data maintained by the combatant commands are incomplete,  as described below.
European Command: From fiscal years 2007 through 2011,  European Command’s funding data were missing for 415 out of 753  activities (about 55 percent). European Command officials told us that  missing information could indicate that an event had not been  executed, that the activity was funded by a source other than the  combatant command, or that the information was not updated in the  database. Officials stated that business processes were put into place  at the end of fiscal year 2010 to prevent this problem from recurring  and our analysis showed that data were improved in fiscal year 2011.
Africa Command: For fiscal years 2009 through 2011, Africa  Command was missing funding data for 9 out of 70 (about 13 percent)  State Partnership Program events. An Africa Command official  explained that this could indicate that the event had not yet occurred  or had been canceled, or it could indicate that the data were missing.
Pacific Command: Data provided by Pacific Command showed that  118 events took place in its area of responsibility from fiscal years  2007 through 2011, but information on the source of funding for 41  events (about 35 percent) was missing. According to Pacific  Command officials, most of the State Partnership Program activities in  Pacific Command’s area of responsibility were funded by the National  Guard Bureau rather than the command. However, for the activities  that it did fund, it could only provide projected funding amounts and  not expenditure data. According to a Pacific Command official,  missing data were most likely due to personnel turnover at the state  level.
Southern Command: Data provided by Southern Command were  likely complete, but Southern Command officials stated that gathering  the data was difficult due to the lack of interoperability of the multiple  databases containing the data.
Central Command: Data provided by Central Command were also  likely complete but officials told us that Central Command’s data  systems do not always update accurately and therefore officials  manually track events on a spreadsheet outside of the database. Data  provided to us were based on this spreadsheet, rather than the  database.
Northern Command: Officials from Northern Command told us that it  did not fund any State Partnership Program events as all events  within Northern Command’s area of responsibility were funded by the  National Guard Bureau.
As a result, funding data for 2007 through 2010 are unavailable due to the  incompleteness of the data. Funding data for fiscal year 2011 are the  most complete, but the amount presented is only an estimate, as some  data are still missing. We found that for fiscal year 2011 the National  Guard Bureau and the combatant commands spent at least $13.2 million  on State Partnership Program activities. Figure 3 below depicts available  expenditure information for fiscal year 2011.
DOD is developing a single global data system, but currently there are no  common methods for tracking data on the State Partnership Program or  coordinated efforts to address inconsistencies. Specifically, DOD has  recognized that multiple databases, operating independently and lacking  interoperability, are a problem and is developing a single, global data  system—the Global Theater Security Cooperation Management  Information System—to replace the multiple databases now being used to  capture theater security-type information from various programs, of which  the State Partnership Program is one. However, the development of this  global data system is still in its early stages and the department does not  know when the system is expected to have full operational capabilities. In  the absence of a common data system, we found that currently there is  no guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the  National Guard Bureau, or the combatant commands on what data need  to be tracked or how the data should be entered to ensure it is complete  and consistent across all the databases, and that current efforts to  improve the accuracy of the data are not coordinated. For example,  officials from the National Guard Bureau told us that the efforts they have  initiated are specific to the database the National Guard Bureau uses and  that they have not coordinated with the combatant commands to address  the inconsistency issues that occur across databases. Moreover, there is  not agreement among stakeholders on common terms to use in  describing how to annotate activities in their respective databases so that  they can be easily identified and reconciled from one database to  another. Given the current inconsistency and incompleteness of the data,  DOD cannot assess the program’s performance and neither we nor DOD  can provide complete and accurate information on activity types,  frequency, and funding to decision makers.
section_title: Challenges in Funding Activities and Incorporating U.S. and Foreign Partner Civilians Require Additional Guidance and Training
paragraphs: State Partnership Program stakeholders that we contacted, including  combatant commands, State Partnership Program Coordinators, and  Bilateral Affairs Officers, cited several types of challenges in funding State  Partnership Program activities and in incorporating U.S. and foreign  partner civilians into events. Specifically, stakeholders cited funding  challenges such as concerns about funding availability and funding for  events that included civilians. Although guidance and training exist on  funding for the program, stakeholders expressed confusion in response to  our questions. Until clarifying guidance and training are developed and  provided, the National Guard Bureau and the combatant commanders  may not be able to fully maximize the State Partnership Program in  meeting their missions.
subsections: section_title: Stakeholders Expressed Concerns about Funding of Activities and Civilian Involvement
paragraphs: When we asked stakeholders a broad, open-ended question about  challenges facing the program, funding was a frequently cited problem.  Four combatant commands, six Bilateral Affairs Officers, and 20 State  Partnership Program Coordinators told us that funding was a challenge to  the program. The combatant commands expressed concerns about the  availability of funding for the program. For example, one combatant  command stated that the most challenging aspect of the State  Partnership Program is the funding of the guardsmen because they need  to be put on special orders that are not necessary when using active duty  personnel. Another combatant command stated that additional funding for  the program “is critical for the continued success of the program” as  several other countries would like to join the program, and two combatant  commands expressed concerns that State Partnership Program funding  would be cut in the future. Bilateral Affairs Officers also expressed similar  challenges with funding. For example, one Bilateral Affairs Officer told us  that obtaining pay and allowances for guardsmen is difficult compared to  active duty forces. Further, three Bilateral Affairs Officers mentioned that  they would like to have additional funding to conduct more events and  one State Partnership Program Coordinator told us that the National  Guard Bureau and the combatant commands do not always have the  necessary funds available to support an event.
State Partnership Program Coordinators also expressed concerns about  the funding process that extended beyond funding availability. For  example, one State Partnership Program Coordinator commented that  because funds come from dual sources—the National Guard Bureau and  the combatant commands—there is sometimes confusion and funding  uncertainties as the two organizations negotiate who will pay for what  events or portions of events. Another commented that “the myriad of  funding authorizations and their specific peculiarities  a challenge to  even the most experienced State Partnership Program Coordinator.”  Further, one State Partnership Program Coordinator told us that because  he was not active duty, he did not have access to training offered by the  Air Force that he felt would be beneficial to understanding how to better  fund events.
The most prominent challenge cited by State Partnership Program  stakeholders involved concerns about conducting and funding activities  that include civilian participants. In the past, the State Partnership  Program has incorporated both U.S. and foreign partner civilians into a  variety of activities. These included activities such as subject matter  expert exchanges with members of the state’s fire department and the  host nation on military support to civil authorities; a familiarization on 911  system operations between U.S. and host country civilians; and a subject  matter expert exchange with U.S. and foreign partner law enforcement  officials on maritime border security issues. However, in response to our  question about challenges facing the program, 31 State Partnership  Program Coordinators cited difficulties in conducting activities with  civilians. In response to our question about how the program should be  changed, 36 State Partnership Program Coordinators stated that the  program should be changed to better facilitate civilian engagements.  Further, many of the State Partnership Program Coordinators expressed  the opinion that they were not allowed to conduct activities with civilians  at all, even though DOD officials told us that civilians are permitted to  participate in activities as long as the proper funding authority is used. For  example, one State Partnership Program Coordinator told us that his  state’s greatest challenge is the current DOD guidance which, based on  his understanding, restricts all events to strict military-to-military events.  Another State Partnership Program Coordinator told us that the state  recently had to cancel planned events with its partner country’s civilian  authorities because of its interpretation of this guidance. A third State  Partnership Program Coordinator stated that the perceived “requirement   strictly limit operations to military-to-military engagements limits   ability to support” the needs of the embassy and of the partner country.  Another State Partnership Program Coordinator told us that the perceived  restriction in the DOD guidance prevents his state’s capabilities from  being fully used.
Bilateral Affairs Officers from the partner country embassies and  combatant commands had similar perceptions about civilian participation  in State Partnership Program activities. Out of the 23 Bilateral Affairs  Officers who provided answers to our questions, 9 cited this area as a  challenge for the program. For example, in regard to the challenges  posed for the program, one Bilateral Affairs Officer told us that the  inability of the National Guard Bureau to bring civilian subject matter  experts to the partner countries diminishes the value of events. In  addition, 14 of the 23 Bilateral Affairs Officers that responded to our  questions expressed the opinion that the State Partnership Program  should be changed to better facilitate civilian engagements. For example,  one Bilateral Affairs Officer told us that expanding activities into other  sectors, such as medical or law enforcement, would help to fulfill  embassy and combatant command missions. In addition, one combatant  command stated that the restrictions on funding civilians are a challenge  facing the program. However, according to DOD officials, the combatant  commands have certain funds, such as Traditional Combatant  Commander’s Activities funds, which may be available to use for funding  events involving civilians.
section_title: DOD Has Taken Initial Steps to Clarify Civilian Funding Concerns, but It Is Unclear When Formal Guidance and Training Programs Will Be in Place
paragraphs: DOD has issued some guidance on the State Partnership Program,  including guidance on the use of funds for civilians, in part to respond to  congressional direction. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal  Year 2010 required the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations on  the use of funds appropriated to DOD to pay the costs incurred by the  National Guard in conducting activities under the State Partnership  Program, and also required the Secretary to submit annual reports to the  appropriate congressional committees describing the civilian engagement  activities conducted under the State Partnership Program. In response  to the requirement to issue regulations, DOD issued its Directive Type  Memorandum in August 2011. The Directive Type Memorandum does  not explicitly prohibit the involvement of civilians in State Partnership  Program activities; however, it stipulates that funds appropriated to DOD  shall not be used to conduct activities with civilians unless those activities  are based on legal authority that allows the use of such funds for those  activities. National Guard Bureau officials told us that since the issuance  of the Directive Type Memorandum, states have become cautious about  conducting events with civilians, and many have chosen to not conduct  any events with civilians due to a concern about violating DOD guidance.  The Directive Type Memorandum will expire in August 2012 and the  Under Secretary of Defense, Policy, has drafted an instruction that is  intended to further clarify the use of funds appropriated to DOD, including  funds for civilian participation, under the State Partnership Program.  Officials indicate that this instruction is currently undergoing review within  DOD and should be issued sometime during 2012, but could not provide  us with a confirmed issuance date. In addition, the National Guard Bureau  is working on guidance for implementing the State Partnership Program.  According to National Guard Bureau officials, an instruction will establish  policy, assign responsibilities, and provide guidance for the execution of  the State Partnership Program. An accompanying manual will provide  more details on how to implement the program. National Guard Bureau  officials indicated that the instruction and the manual are expected to be  issued sometime during 2012, but also could not provide us with a  confirmed issuance date.
During the course of our review, Congress enacted the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which provides authority for the  use of up to $3 million to pay for some costs associated with civilian  participation. However, National Guard Bureau officials stated that DOD  has not issued guidance on the implementation of this provision.  According to officials, due to this lack of guidance, funds have not been  used for this purpose. The draft DOD instruction is still undergoing review  and is intended to provide clarifying information on the use of funds  appropriated to DOD prior to the enactment of the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Therefore, it may be appropriate  for the Under Secretary of Defense, Policy, to determine whether or not  the draft instruction is the right mechanism for conveying additional  guidance addressing section 1085 of the National Defense Authorization  Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or determine alternative plans for how to  address the confusion expressed by National Guard Bureau officials.  Without additional guidance, however, the National Guard Bureau does  not plan to use this authority so the concerns about how to fund civilian  participation are likely to persist.
Beyond the lack of guidance, the responses stakeholders provided to our  questions revealed that there is widespread confusion about aspects of  program implementation, including addressing funding concerns. We  have previously reported that challenges facing such programs can be  mitigated by improving training and that training can help ensure that  program policies and procedures are consistently adhered to by program  offices. Further, DOD guidance emphasizes the need for proper training  and staffing to increase effectiveness in budgeting. The National Guard  Bureau has taken steps to provide training but told us that their efforts  needed improvement in some areas. For example, State Partnership  Program Coordinators have the opportunity to attend the Defense  Institute of Security Assistance Management course, which in 2012 and  several years prior, included topics such as an introduction to security  cooperation, understanding the State Partnership Program, emphasizing  security cooperation administration as well as emphasizing the interaction  and constraints of the State Partnership Program with other DOD security  cooperation activities. Moreover, officials indicated that the National  Guard Bureau holds annual State Partnership Program conferences and  participates in combatant commands’ conferences, where some training  on the processes and authorities are presented. National Guard Bureau  officials stated that they are planning some training for State Partnership  Program Coordinators for the summer of 2012 and plan to include an  overview of funding, but have not determined the specific content related  to funding for this training event. Without further guidance and training in  this area, the National Guard Bureau and the combatant commands may  miss additional opportunities to use the program to fulfill their missions.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In recent years, DOD has emphasized the importance of strengthening  security cooperation with other countries as a way of promoting stability  and partner capacity around the world, and the State Partnership  Program is one of many efforts in this area. While many State Partnership  Program stakeholders cited anecdotal benefits to the program such as  training and experience for guardsmen and supporting combatant  commanders’ goals and priorities, DOD and Congress do not have an  effective means to assess the program because fundamental elements  such as agreed-upon goals are missing. As a result, little oversight of the  program has been conducted in the past. Officials informed us that they  are working on goals, objectives, and metrics and expect to implement  them in the next few months. Such goals and measures are critical  because they form the foundation of an oversight framework that would  enable decision makers and stakeholders to objectively judge the  program’s effectiveness and gauge progress over time. However, in order  to make use of metrics, DOD and the National Guard Bureau will need  complete and consistent data from the combatant commands and state  National Guards engaged in State Partnership Program activities. In the  interim period until DOD fully implements its global data system, guidance  that establishes an agreed-upon set of definitions and rules for inputting  data, and that would apply to the National Guard Bureau, all combatant  commands, and state National Guards, could provide a foundation for  measuring the State Partnership Program’s effectiveness and efficiency.  Finally, some activities that stakeholders believe could have a broad  impact—such as those involving civilians—are not being conducted due  primarily to a lack of guidance and understanding on how to fund those  activities. Ensuring that stakeholders understand how to use funding from  the National Guard Bureau, combatant commands, and other sources to  support the State Partnership Program would help state National Guards  fully utilize the program.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following four  actions:
To improve the management of the State Partnership Program, direct  the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, in coordination with the  combatant commands and the embassy country teams, to complete  and implement the program’s comprehensive oversight framework by  using the goals, objectives, and metrics currently being developed as  its basis.
To enable oversight and improve the completeness and consistency  of data needed to manage the State Partnership Program, direct the  Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Joint Staff, in coordination  with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the combatant  commands, and the embassy country teams, to develop guidance for  all stakeholders that includes agreed-upon definitions for data fields  and rules for maintaining data until the global data system is fully  implemented.
To address concerns about how funds can be used to include civilians  in State Partnership Program activities, direct the Under Secretary of  Defense for Policy, to develop guidance that clarifies how to use funds  for civilian participation in the State Partnership Program.
To improve program implementation, direct the Chief of the National  Guard Bureau to develop additional training for State Partnership  Program Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs Officers on the appropriate  use of funds for supporting the State Partnership Program, especially  in regard to including civilians in program events.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our  findings and recommendations. Regarding our first recommendation to  complete and implement the program’s comprehensive oversight  framework, DOD concurred and noted that these efforts are underway  with target implementation for the end of fiscal year 2012. In response to  our second recommendation to develop guidance for all stakeholders that  includes agreed-upon definitions for data fields and rules for maintaining  data, and our third recommendation to develop guidance that clarifies the  use of funds for civilian participation in State Partnership Program  activities, DOD concurred and stated that it is currently developing a DOD  instruction that will provide additional guidance to stakeholders on these  issues. DOD did not, however, indicate timelines for the issuance of this  instruction. We believe that prompt action in this regard will help DOD  achieve greater visibility over the State Partnership Program, and we urge  DOD to determine a timeline for issuance. Regarding our final  recommendation to develop additional training for State Partnership  Program Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs Officers on the appropriate  use of funds for supporting the State Partnership Program, especially in  regard to including civilians in program events, DOD concurred and  stated that the National Guard Bureau has developed some additional  training and will use existing workshops to increase training opportunities.  We are pleased with DOD’s efforts and continue to believe that increased  training in this area will help DOD fully utilize the State Partnership  Program. DOD’s comments are printed in their entirety in appendix III.
We also provided a draft of this report to the Department of State and the  United States Agency for International Development, but they did not  provide any comments.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the  Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development.  This report is also available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address our objectives, we collected perspectives on the program  from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Policy; Joint Staff; National  Guard Bureau; and program stakeholders including State Partnership  Program coordinating officials at the geographic combatant commands;  State Partnership Program Coordinators; and Bilateral Affairs Officers,  including their views on the benefits of the program. We also collected  information on the process that the Department of Defense (DOD) uses to  establish partnerships and the steps taken by all U.S. program  stakeholders, including State Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral  Affairs Officers, and combatant commanders, to coordinate State  Partnership Program activities and prevent duplication of effort. We also  obtained and reviewed DOD documents, including Defense Strategic  Guidance, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and The National Military  Strategy of the United States of America to place the State Partnership  Program within the broader context of DOD’s strategic efforts.
To determine the extent to which State Partnership Program activities are  meeting the goals and objectives of the program, we gathered  documentation; interviewed National Guard Bureau officials about the  development of goals, objectives, and performance metrics for the  program; and assessed their efforts based on criteria from our previous  work. We also reviewed an improvement plan for the State Partnership  Program provided by the National Guard Bureau and assessed the extent  to which the plan addressed the need for goals, objectives, and metrics  and identified timeframes for implementation. In addition, we obtained  and reviewed DOD guidance, including the Directive Type Memorandum  released in August 2011, to determine if goals and objectives for the  State Partnership Program were specified in those documents. To identify  benefits of the program, we contacted all State Partnership Program  Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs Officers via e-mail with a standard set  of questions. In addition to program benefits, the questions addressed  roles in implementing the State Partnership Program, steps to avoid  duplication of program activities, any challenges faced when  implementing the program, and any suggested areas for improvement.  We received and analyzed responses from 50 of the 52 State Partnership Program Coordinators and from 23 out of 47 Bilateral Affairs Officers.We also collected and analyzed written responses to similar questions  from coordinating officials at the six U.S. geographic combatant  commands.
In conducting our content analysis, a GAO analyst independently  reviewed each response from the State Partnership Program  Coordinators and Bilateral Affairs Officers to identify recurring themes in  the answers to each question. A second GAO analyst independently  reviewed the responses from the State Partnership Program Coordinators  and Bilateral Affairs Officers and reviewed the recurring themes identified  by the first analyst to reach concurrence and identify any themes that the  first analyst may have overlooked. Using the identified recurring themes,  the analysts developed categories and definitions for what should and  should not be included under each category when coding the responses.  A GAO analyst then independently reviewed the answers to each  question and placed them into one or more of the relevant categories. In  some cases, the respondent may have provided information to answer  the question in other areas of the response. When that occurred, the  analyst also coded that information and noted that it was provided in an  answer to a different question. A second GAO analyst independently  reviewed the answers to each question and placed them into one or more  of the relevant categories. The coding of both analysts was compared to  identify areas of disagreement. For items in which there was not  agreement, the two analysts met to discuss reasons for selecting the  categories they did until an agreement about the category that was most  appropriate was reached.
To determine the completeness and consistency of activity and funding  data for the program, we collected and analyzed data on State  Partnership Program activities from fiscal years 2007 through 2011— including types of activities, funding sources, and funding amounts— obtained from the National Guard Bureau and the six U.S. geographic  combatant commands. To assess the reliability of the data, we collected  written information from the combatant commands to gain an  understanding of the processes and databases used to collect and record  data and to identify any known limitations to the data. We also collected  written information on any data quality control procedures in place for  data on State Partnership Program activities and reviewed user manuals  for the various databases, where provided. We discussed the procedures  for generating and verifying the data with knowledgeable combatant  command and National Guard Bureau officials. We examined the data  provided for obvious anomalies and compared the data to DOD’s report  to Congress on State Partnership Program activities involving civilians.  We found missing information and inconsistencies as well as a lack of  guidance on data inputs to ensure complete and consistent information.  We discussed these limitations with the officials in an attempt to obtain  more complete information and reconcile the differences. We ultimately  determined that the data we received were not reliable for the purposes of  providing complete information on the types and frequency of activities,  the funding sources used, or the total cost of the activities because of our  concerns about the completeness and consistency of the data, which we  discuss in our report. As a result, the data we included in the report do not  represent the complete scope of the State Partnership Program. The data  do, however, illustrate the limitations we found.
To identify challenges that DOD faces in implementing the program, we  included a question on any challenges in implementing the program and  any areas for improvement in our email to all State Partnership Program  Coordinators and all Bilateral Affairs Officers who participate in this  program, as described above. Our content analysis included categories  for challenges and areas for improvement. We also collected and  analyzed written responses to similar questions from the six U.S.  geographic combatant commands. On the basis of the challenges cited  by stakeholders, we also reviewed legislation and guidance on the State  Partnership Program, including the Directive Type Memorandum and  internal National Guard Bureau memoranda on the use of funds for State  Partnership Program activities, to identify areas of confusion that might  require clarification or additional training. We also identified criteria in our  previous work for combating the challenges identified by State  Partnership Program stakeholders. We discussed these areas with  National Guard Bureau officials and any efforts in place to address the  challenges.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2011 to May 2012 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: State Partnership Program Participating States and Countries, by Combatant Command
paragraphs: Appendix II: State Partnership Program  Participating States and Countries, by  Combatant Command *Indicates country has a Bilateral Affairs Officer.  *Indicates country has a Bilateral Affairs Officer.  *Indicates country has a Bilateral Affairs Officer.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report  were Marie Mak, Assistant Director; Leslie Bharadwaja; Michele Fejfar;  Kelly Liptan; Erik Wilkins-McKee; Amie Steele; and Nicole Willems.