Building Partner Capacity: State and DOD Need to Define Time Frames to Guide and Track Global Security Contingency Fund Projects
Published: 2014-11-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: As instability abroad threatens U.S. and foreign partners' interests, the United States has emphasized the importance of building partner capacity to address emerging threats. Congress established GSCF in fiscal year 2012, and this pilot authority allows State and DOD to pool funds and expertise to address near- to mid-term needs for training, equipping, and enhancing foreign security forces. State and DOD jointly administer GSCF and are required to notify Congress of their intent to transfer funds and initiate GSCF activities before starting project execution. GAO was mandated to review State and DOD's procedures for managing GSCF.
This report (1) describes processes State and DOD have developed to manage the program, (2) describes the status of GSCF projects, and (3) assesses the extent to which State and DOD have clearly defined time frames for GSCF projects. GAO analyzed State and DOD guidance and GSCF documents, and compared GSCF guidance to internal control standards. GAO also interviewed State and DOD officials about GSCF.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of State (State) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have developed processes to manage the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) program. In March 2014, State and DOD officials used lessons learned from developing the initial GSCF projects to document a 14-step process to identify, develop, and execute GSCF projects. Additionally, State issued a separate document describing the process for congressional notification and internal State procedures for how to transfer and manage funds in the joint GSCF account.
State and DOD have submitted congressional notification packages for seven GSCF projects since fiscal year 2012. As of September 2014, State and DOD had not met the original dates contained in the congressional notifications for the initial five GSCF projects for beginning training and equipment delivery by an average of about 8 months. State and DOD officials stated that the dates were not met due to security concerns as well as additional details and supporting documentation required by Congress to obtain congressional approval. In July 2014, State and DOD also sent congressional notifications for two additional projects that have not begun execution. The figure below shows GAO's analysis of the identification, and original and currently planned or actual execution dates, of the initiation of training activities for the five initial GSCF projects.
State's March 2014 cable states that GSCF projects are to address near- to mid-term security concerns, but the cable does not clearly define what time frame constitutes near- or mid-term, and State and DOD do not track GSCF projects against established time frames. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government call for developing control activities to ensure management's directives are being met, such as defining a range of time for projects and tracking whether projects are meeting their goals. State officials said that GSCF is intended to address challenges outside of the normal budgeting and planning process; however, this approach does not define how long near- to mid-term GSCF projects should take. Without a range of time for GSCF projects, it is not clear how long projects should take, and State and DOD do not have time frames to track whether GSCF projects are addressing near- to mid-term needs.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that State and DOD (1) provide an overall range of time for near- to mid-term GSCF projects and (2) track projects against this time frame. State disagreed and DOD partially agreed with the first recommendation, citing the need for flexibility. GAO agreed and modified the recommendation to clarify its intent, as discussed in the report. Both departments agreed with the second recommendation to track GSCF projects.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As instability abroad increasingly threatens U.S. and foreign partners’  interests, the United States has emphasized the importance of building  and strengthening partnerships and alliances worldwide. To address this  goal, the Department of State (State) and the Department of Defense  (DOD) use a variety of statutory authorities to engage in activities that are  intended to enhance the security capability of foreign partners as part of  efforts to carry out U.S. foreign policy and advance U.S. national security  interests. Congress established a new authority in the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 called the Global Security  Contingency Fund (GSCF). This pilot authority allows State and DOD to  pool funds for the provision of training and other support to enhance the   State and DOD jointly administer  capabilities of foreign security forces.GSCF; the departments work together to formulate GSCF projects that  are approved by the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the  Secretary of Defense, before implementation. The departments are also  required to notify Congress of their intent to transfer funds and initiate  activities for GSCF projects before starting project execution, and DOD is  required to seek approval to retransfer funds.
The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 required us to conduct a review of  State and DOD procedures to administer and implement activities funded  by GSCF.  This report (1) describes processes State and DOD have developed to manage the program, (2) describes the status of GSCF  projects, and (3) assesses the extent to which State and DOD have  clearly defined time frames for GSCF projects.
Department of State, Utilizing the Global Security Contingency Fund (Washington, D.C.:  Mar. 28, 2014) and Global Security Contingency Fund Program Execution Guidance  (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2014).
Command; six geographic combatant commands;Cooperation Offices in Bangladesh and the Philippines, among others.  More details on our objectives, scope, and methodology can be found in  appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to November 2014  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: GSCF allows State and DOD to address emergent challenges and  opportunities by pooling funds from existing departmental accounts and  sharing expertise to provide equipment, supplies, and training to enhance  a partner nation’s security forces. State and DOD can use the GSCF  authority to support partner nations’ border and maritime security, internal  defense, and counterterrorism operations, or to participate in or support  military, stability, or peace support operations in partner nations. The  GSCF authority also permits State and DOD to provide assistance to a  partner nation’s justice sector.
State and DOD fund the program primarily by transferring funds from  other accounts, with at least 20 percent of the funding from State and the  remainder from DOD. In fiscal year 2012, Congress authorized State to  transfer up to $50 million from certain foreign appropriation accounts and  DOD to transfer up to $200 million from its defense-wide accounts for  operation and maintenance into the GSCF.authorized to transfer funds into GSCF until September 30, 2015;  however, these funds remain available for activities under projects that   State and DOD are  have started before that date. In The Consolidated Appropriations Act,  2014, Congress authorized State to transfer up to $25 million from  specific State appropriations accounts and authorized DOD to transfer up  to $200 million into GSCF.cable, because State is required to contribute at least 20 percent and  DOD not more than 80 percent of the funding for an approved GSCF  project, both departments are authorized to transfer up to a combined  $125 million in fiscal year 2014.
According to State’s March 2014 GSCF  State and DOD jointly administer GSCF; the departments work together  to formulate GSCF projects that are approved by the Secretary of State,  with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, before implementation.  The departments are also required to notify Congress of their intent to  transfer funds and initiate activities for GSCF projects before starting  project execution, and DOD is required to seek approval to retransfer  funds. Numerous State and DOD stakeholders are involved in the GSCF program from project identification to execution. Table 1  summarizes the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders involved in  the GSCF program.
section_title: State and DOD Have Developed Processes to Manage the GSCF Program
paragraphs: In March 2014, State and DOD developed processes to manage GSCF  project proposal development, congressional notification, and the transfer  of funds into a joint GSCF account. These processes are described in two  documents: Utilizing the Global Security Contingency Fund and Global  Security Contingency Fund Program Execution Guidance. State and DOD  officials stated that they incorporated lessons learned from other capacity- building programs to develop the process described in Utilizing the Global  Security Contingency Fund. To develop the Global Security Contingency  Fund Execution Guidance, State created intradepartmental accounting  and reporting procedures for GSCF funds.
subsections: section_title: State and DOD Guidance Describes Process for GSCF Project Development
paragraphs: State and DOD officials developed a guidance document that was issued  in March 2014 as a State cable titled Utilizing the Global Security  Contingency Fund, which describes how State and DOD are to identify,  develop, and execute GSCF projects. GSCF staff stated that they  incorporated lessons learned from developing the GSCF fiscal year 2012  projects in preparing the March 2014 guidance as well as incorporating  successful processes from other security assistance programs, such as   The March 2014 cable describes a process that can be  Section 1206.divided into three phases, with a total of 14 steps, to identify, develop,  and execute projects. The cable was sent to U.S. embassies, consulates,  and combatant commands and it contains sections that can be grouped  into the following phases: project identification, plan development, and  execution. The project identification phase is shown in figure 1.
The project identification phase consists of five steps, as described  below.  1.  Project idea origination: officials in Washington, D.C., geographic  combatant commands, or U.S. embassies are to propose an idea for  a project to address an emergent or impending threat or emergent  opportunity that aligns with the areas of assistance that the GSCF  authority can provide.  2.  Stakeholders agree to idea: key stakeholders from relevant State  and DOD offices are to gather to discuss whether the project proposal  addresses a high-priority national security interest without duplicating  efforts, the partner nation’s receptivity to the project proposal, and  whether existing State or DOD authorities are available to address the  need.3.  Proposal development: the proposal originator is to work with GSCF  staff to initiate working-level meetings with key stakeholders to assess  the proposal and discuss potential lines of effort. Additionally, the  proposal originator is to complete a proposal worksheet that asks for a  range of information, such as detailed assistance objectives, activities,  cost estimate, and envisioned timeline. The proposal originator is to  obtain endorsement of the proposal worksheet from the chief of  mission and the combatant command before submitting it to the  GSCF staff.  4.  GSCF staff review proposal: GSCF staff is to review the proposal  worksheet and confirm that it includes all required elements.  5.  Review and Selection Committee review proposal: the proposal is  to be reviewed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Deputy  Assistant Secretary of Defense Review and Selection Committee.  This senior-level committee is to meet to review the proposal within 10  business days of its receipt, when possible. During the review, the  committee can ask the proposal originator to make refinements and  resubmit the proposal. If there is no committee consensus to proceed,  the committee is to refer the proposal to the Deputy Secretaries of  State and DOD for a senior-leader decision on whether to proceed  with the project. If there is consensus to proceed with the proposal,  the committee is to task the proposal originator and key stakeholders  to develop a detailed implementation plan, which begins the plan  development phase, as shown in figure 2.
The plan development phase consists of six steps as described below.  1.  Implementation plan development: State and DOD are to establish  a Program Steering Group—jointly led by the Deputy Assistant  Secretary of State and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense from  the relevant State and DOD regional bureaus—to provide policy  guidance and oversight to the planning effort and to determine the  lead organization responsible for drafting the detailed implementation  plan. According to the March 2014 cable, the Program Steering Group  should include all stakeholders, and they are expected to contribute  to, review, and endorse the detailed implementation plan. The  proposal originator is to develop a detailed implementation plan that  includes—among other criteria, goals, and specific assistance  objectives—a detailed work plan with a breakdown of costs per  activity; related security assistance that has been implemented, is in  progress, or is planned; and a proposal of outcome-oriented indicators  for monitoring and evaluation. The detailed implementation plan is to  be completed not more than 60 days after the Review and Selection  Committee grants approval to pursue GSCF assistance.  2.  Implementation plan endorsement: once the implementation plan is  complete, the country team is expected to secure the endorsement of  the implementation plan from the chief of mission within 7 business  days, if possible.  3.  Implementation plan approval: after the chief of mission endorses  the implementation plan, the Program Steering Group leadership is to  convene to review and approve the plan within 5 business days of its  receipt.  4.  Implementation plan review for completeness: GSCF staff is to  review the implementation plan to ensure its completeness. If the plan  is incomplete, the Program Steering Group has 10 business days to  provide additional information.  5.  Implementation plan approval and concurrence: after the  implementation plan is final, the GSCF staff is to prepare appropriate  documentation for the Secretary of State’s approval and the Secretary  of Defense’s concurrence, to include the funds approval and  congressional notification packages within 10 business days.  6.  Congressional notification: once the departments secure the  required approvals, GSCF staff is to begin the congressional  notification process. After congressional notification is complete, the  project execution phase begins, as shown in figure 3.
The project execution phase consists of three steps as described below.  1.  Funds transfer: State and DOD are to transfer funds into the GSCF  account.  2.  Project oversight and implementation: project implementers are to  execute the project, and the Program Steering Group is responsible  for overseeing program execution.  3.  Project reporting: project implementers are to provide monthly and  quarterly reporting on funds execution and provide information about  project activities. Project implementers, the embassy, and the partner  nation are also expected to support and provide input to facilitate  monitoring and evaluation activities.
A contractor has developed a framework to conduct monitoring and  evaluation on the GSCF program and individual GSCF projects.  According to State officials, the program-results framework was  developed with a broad set of GSCF goals and objectives. State officials  also stated that the contractor is starting to develop the project-specific  framework for three GSCF projects and one has been delayed due to  partner nation security and project rescoping issues.
section_title: State Guidance Describes the GSCF Congressional Notification and Funding Transfer Process
paragraphs: State issued a separate document in March 2014, titled Global Security  Contingency Fund Program Execution Guidance, which describes a  process for congressional notification and internal State procedures for  transferring and managing funds in the joint GSCF account.guidance states that State and DOD should complete all congressional  notification requirements to secure approval to transfer funds. The  congressional notification process is shown in figure 4.
The congressional notification process consists of four steps, and the  guidance states that the departments should complete all congressional  notification requirements simultaneously.  1.  DOD retransferring request: while DOD is to seek written approval  from defense committees and subcommittees to retransfer funds from  the defense-wide operation and maintenance accounts into the GSCF  account, State is not required to submit a retransferring request to  Congress to transfer its funds.  2.  Congressional notification: both State and DOD are to notify  Congress of their intent to transfer funds and intent to initiate  activities. In their congressional notification packages, State and DOD  are required to include original source of funds; a detailed project  justification, including total anticipated costs and specific activities;  budget; execution plan and timeline; anticipated completion date; list  of other U.S. security-related assistance provided to the partner  nation; and any other information related to the project that the  departments consider appropriate.  3.  Waiting period: State and DOD are to wait 30 days during the  congressional notification period before executing a GSCF project.  4.  Congressional approval: GSCF projects may not begin execution  until after the 30-day notification period expires and Congress  approves DOD’s retransferring of funds. However, there may be  instances in which the departments transfer funds into the GSCF  account for a specific project but subsequently determine these funds  are no longer needed. In such cases, the departments are required to  notify Congress of the intent to initiate a new project and may use  these already transferred funds. Figure 5 shows the funds transfer  process for GSCF.
State and DOD follow their respective departmental procedures to   The three funding  transfer funds from other accounts into GSCF.transfers for GSCF are identified below.  1.  First transfer: the first transfer is into a time-limited U.S. Treasury– based account that GSCF staff call a parent account. State and DOD  are able to transfer money into this parent account until September  30, 2015.  2.  Second transfer: State created a second parent account without a  time limitation since the authority also states that amounts already  transferred to GSCF before September 30, 2015, shall remain  available for GSCF projects that have started before this date. Once  funds are transferred into the second parent account, State submits  an internal transfer request to move funds a third time.  3.  Third transfer: the third transfer is from the GSCF no-year parent  account into a State no-year subaccount and a DOD no-year  subaccount.
According to State officials, funds are considered obligated once they are  apportioned by the Office of Management and Budget, transferred into  the respective subaccounts, and allotted to the implementing bureaus.  From these accounts, State and DOD obligate funds to secure contracts  or services for implementing entities. Funds are considered expended  upon payment for those contracts or services.
section_title: State and DOD’s GSCF Projects Have Not Met Originally Planned Execution Target Dates
paragraphs: State and DOD have submitted congressional notification packages for  seven projects since fiscal year 2012. As of September 2014, State and  DOD have not met the execution target dates contained in the  congressional notifications for the five fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects by  an average of about 8 months, assuming the projects meet the currently  planned execution dates. State and DOD transferred all of the funds for  the two fiscal year 2014 GSCF projects in September 2014 and expect to  begin execution in 2015.
subsections: section_title: Seven GSCF Projects Have Been Submitted to Congress for Notification
paragraphs: State and DOD have submitted congressional notification packages for  seven projects since fiscal year 2012. The departments planned five of  the seven projects in fiscal year 2012. To provide funding, State  transferred funds from the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund,  and DOD transferred funds from the Combatant Commanders Initiative  Fund and Section 1206 into GSCF. In total, State and DOD transferred  $70.7 million into the GSCF account for the five projects: three special  operations capacity-building projects (one in Bangladesh; another in  Libya; and one in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia), a border security  capacity-building project in Libya, and a project in the Philippines to  enhance maritime security and counterterrorism capabilities.
In July 2014, State and DOD sent congressional notifications for two  additional projects. Specifically, for one project—a national guard  capacity-building project in Ukraine—State and DOD transferred $19  million for the full cost of the project. For the other project—the Counter  Boko Haram project—the departments initially transferred $10 million in  fiscal year 2012. Originally, this project was a counterterrorism and border  security project in Nigeria but was put on hold because of evolving  conditions on the ground. State and DOD subsequently rescoped the  project to include Cameroon, Chad, and Niger for the purpose of  improving cross-border security cooperation with Nigeria to counter Boko  Haram. In September 2014, DOD transferred an additional $30 million  into the GSCF account to cover the total cost. As of September 2014,  GSCF projects are located across three geographic combatant  commands’ areas of responsibility: U.S. Africa Command, U.S. European  Command, and U.S. Pacific Command, as shown in figure 6.
section_title: State and DOD’s Five Fiscal Year 2012 GSCF Projects Did Not Meet Originally Planned Execution Target Dates
paragraphs: The five State and DOD fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects have not met the  execution target dates contained in the congressional notifications due to  a variety of factors, including partner nation security concerns and the  time it took to obtain congressional approval. As of September 2014, the  projects’ planned training activities and equipment delivery are an  average of about 8 months late, assuming the projects meet the currently  planned execution dates. Figure 7 describes each project, total funds  transferred, and the original and currently planned dates of execution for  initiation of training activities and equipment delivery, as of September  2014.
In addition, the time from identification to execution for four of the five  fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects averages about 2.1 years. This  calculation includes the currently planned or actual execution dates for  initiation of training activities, as of September 2014. Figure 8 illustrates  our analysis of the time from identification through the beginning of  execution for each GSCF project, to include original and currently  planned or actual execution dates for initiation of training activities, as of  September 2014.
The five fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects were planned before State  issued the March 2014 project guidance. State and DOD officials stated  that the target dates were not met due to partner nation security concerns  as well as additional details and supporting documentation needed by  Congress to obtain congressional approval. State and DOD officials said  that the departments submitted separate congressional notification  documents containing different levels of detail about the projects. As a  result, Congress requested that State and DOD coordinate more closely  and resubmit the congressional notifications. GSCF staff provided the  following explanations for delays in the five fiscal year 2012 GSCF  projects:
Bangladesh Special Operations Forces (delayed 17 months):  State and DOD originally planned to initiate training activities in June  2013 and equipment delivery in September 2013. DOD’s  congressional notification of intent to transfer funds for this project  was submitted in August 2012, and Congress approved DOD’s funds  transfer in November 2012. State and DOD’s congressional  notification of intent to initiate activities was submitted in April 2013,  and the project was approved in August 2013. GSCF staff said the  project was delayed due to the timing of congressional approval. In  addition, the risk of unrest from the elections in Bangladesh also  delayed the project. The first training course started in August 2014,  and the first delivery of equipment is planned to occur between March  and May 2015.
Libya Special Operations Forces (delayed 12.5 months): State  and DOD originally planned to initiate training activities any time  between April and September 2013 and equipment delivery in April  2013. DOD’s congressional notification of intent to transfer funds for  this project was submitted in August 2012, and Congress approved  DOD’s funds transfer in November 2012. State and DOD submitted  the congressional notification of intent to initiate activities in April  2013, and the project was approved in August 2013. GSCF staff said  the project was delayed due to the timing of congressional approval  and the deteriorated security situation in Libya. Initiation of training  activities is pending the arrival of Libyan recruits to the training  location in Morocco and this date is unknown; however, equipment  delivery began in May 2014.
Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia Special Operations Forces  (delayed 7.5 months): State and DOD originally planned to initiate  training activities and equipment delivery any time between January  and February 2014. DOD’s congressional notification of intent to  transfer funds for this project was submitted in August 2012, and  Congress approved DOD’s funds transfer in November 2012. State  and DOD submitted the congressional notification of intent to initiate  activities in April 2013, and the project was approved in August 2013.  GSCF staff said the project was delayed due to the timing of  congressional approval and challenges with equipment encryption;  also, training could not start until equipment delivery. Initiation of  training activities is planned for November 2014, but equipment  delivery began in August 2014.
Libya Border Security (delayed 1.5 months): State and DOD  planned to initiate training activities in January 2014 and equipment  delivery in April 2014. DOD’s congressional notification of intent to  transfer funds and State and DOD’s congressional notification of  intent to initiate activities for this project were submitted in June 2013.  DOD’s transfer of funds and the project were approved in August  2013. GSCF staff said the project was delayed due to the timing of  congressional approval and safety and security concerns in Libya. As  of April 2014, the project is on hold and being rescoped; however,  three iterations of a training activity were completed before the project  was postponed.
Philippines Maritime Security and Counterterrorism (delayed 3.5  months): State and DOD planned to initiate training activities any  time between January and March 2014 and equipment delivery any  time between January 2014 and June 2015. DOD’s congressional  notification of intent to transfer part of the funds for this project was  submitted in August 2012 and approved in September 2012. State  and DOD’s congressional notifications of intent to transfer the  remaining funds and intent to initiate activities were submitted in  August 2013, and the project was approved in September 2013.  GSCF staff said the project was delayed due to the timing of  congressional approval and a typhoon that hit the Philippines in  November 2013. At the time of this report, initiation of training  activities and equipment delivery was planned for October 2014.
section_title: State and DOD Have Not Defined Time Frames to Guide and Track GSCF Projects
paragraphs: State’s March 2014 GSCF cable states that the GSCF program is to  address near- to mid-term security concerns driven by emergent  challenges or opportunities, but it does not clearly define what time  frames constitute near- or mid-term. The cable outlines time frames for  individual parts of the GSCF process, such as a goal to review project  proposals within 10 business days. However, this does not provide  stakeholders with information needed to know what meets the criteria for  a near- or mid-term GSCF project. Moreover, State and DOD do not  routinely track GSCF projects against established time frames. Our  analysis shows that the five projects planned in fiscal year 2012 were an  average of about 8 months late, assuming the projects meet the currently  planned execution dates as of September 2014, as shown above in   figure 8.
Key management practices call for developing control activities to ensure  management’s directives are being met, such as clearly defining the time  frame associated with projects and tracking whether the projects are  meeting their goals. Specifically, Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government state that control activities should be designed and  implemented to ensure that management’s directives are achieved and  require tracking projects so that managers can determine whether they  are meeting their goals. State’s March 2014 GSCF cable states that the  program is intended to be high impact, address near- to mid-term security  concerns in partner nations, and be driven by emergent challenges or  opportunities, but the guidance does not clearly define time frames for  near- to mid-term GSCF projects. The guidance also outlines time frames  for individual parts of the GSCF process, such as a goal to review project  proposals within 10 business days, but this does not provide stakeholders  with information needed to know what meets the criteria for a near- or  mid-term GSCF project. Further enhancing the definition of the program  by including a range of time for how long near- to mid-term GSCF  projects should take and tracking the projects against these goals are  examples of control activities that could ensure that management’s  directives are achieved.
State officials said that GSCF is intended to address emergent challenges  that fall outside of the normal budgeting and planning process; however,  while this approach allows for flexibility, it does not clarify how long near-  to mid-term GSCF projects should take. Officials from U.S. Africa  Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command stated  that the uncertain time frames and onerous process associated with  GSCF have inhibited the usefulness of the program to date. As a result,  officials stated that they were reluctant to propose GSCF projects  because of the lengthy time frames associated with the program.
Once projects begin execution, State and DOD officials said that they  hold biweekly meetings with project implementers to discuss the status of  projects; however, these meetings do not track the time frame from  project proposal to the beginning of project execution. Without clearly  defining a range of time for near- to mid-term GSCF projects,  stakeholders, including those proposing and approving GSCF projects,  will not know the criteria for how long a project should take. Furthermore,  without clearly defined time frames, State and DOD do not have a goal to  track GSCF projects against. Therefore, it may be difficult to assess  whether the GSCF program is meeting its goal to provide timely  assistance.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The timely provision of U.S. assistance to build partner nation capacity to  address emerging threats has become vital to U.S. national security.  Congress created GSCF as a pilot program to pool State’s and DOD’s  funds and expertise on building partner capacity to address emergent  challenges and opportunities. State and DOD have developed guidance  for the GSCF program that notes that GSCF is to focus on near- to mid- term projects. While the departments have planned seven GSCF projects,  the five GSCF projects planned in fiscal year 2012 have not met their  original execution target dates contained in their congressional  notification packages. State and DOD have not defined time frames for  near- to mid-term GSCF projects and have not routinely tracked the  projects against these goals. Clearly defined time frames will give State  and DOD goals to track GSCF projects against and will allow  stakeholders to assess whether the GSCF program is meeting its goal to  provide timely assistance. Clearly defined time frames may also help  Congress determine whether the pilot authority should be continued.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance the definition of the GSCF program and assist stakeholders  in assessing whether GSCF is meeting its goals, we recommend that the  Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense take the following two  actions:
Provide a range of time to clarify the time frames associated with  near- to mid-term GSCF projects, and  track GSCF projects against established time frames.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to State and DOD for review and  comment. State and DOD provided written comments, which are  summarized below and reprinted in appendix II and III, respectively. State  and DOD also provided technical comments, which we have  incorporated, as appropriate. In the written comments, State did not agree  and DOD partially agreed with the first recommendation, and both  departments agreed with the second recommendation.
With respect to the report’s first recommendation, State did not agree and  DOD partially agreed that the departments should clearly define what  time frames constitute “near- to mid-term” for GSCF projects. In their  written comments, both departments reprinted portions of the GSCF  guidance and stated that this guidance provides policy makers and  planners flexibility in defining requirements and tailoring training and  equipment assistance, consistent with the GSCF authority, needed to  address emergent challenges or opportunities. For example, State noted  that in many partner nations receiving GSCF assistance, the situation on  the ground is fluid and frequently unpredictable; therefore, it is important  that proposals are driven by requirements, not timelines. In addition, State  and DOD said that the guidance allows proposal submissions to occur on  a rolling basis. State’s response also noted that this flexibility enables  them to maximize their use of the authority, to include the ability to  provide assistance across ministries in partner nations. In addition, DOD  noted that GSCF guidance addresses general near- to mid-term  conditions that would warrant submission of a project proposal, but that  defining specific time frames would restrict the program’s ability to  develop detailed plans that address emergent needs.
We understand and agree with the desire for flexibility in the GSCF  program. We initially drafted the recommendation for State and DOD to  clearly define the time frames associated with near- to mid-term GSCF  projects. However, because we agree with State and DOD about the  importance of flexibility, we modified our recommendation to clarify our  intent and specify that State and DOD should define a range of time for  GSCF projects. Defining a range of time for GSCF projects would not limit  the departments’ flexibility for developing detailed plans that address  emergent needs, would still address the need for time frames for GSCF  projects, and would give key stakeholders a clear expectation of how long  GSCF projects should take. As noted in the report, all of the GSCF  projects planned in fiscal year 2012 have experienced delays, and it is  difficult to independently assess the severity of these delays because the  GSCF guidance does not set overall expectations about how long these  projects should take. Moreover, the uncertainty around GSCF time  frames has impacted key stakeholders trying to use the program. As  noted in the report, officials from the three geographic combatant  commands with GSCF projects told us that the uncertain time frames  have inhibited the usefulness of GSCF to date and the lengthy time  frames associated with the program caused them to be reluctant to  propose GSCF projects in the future. Finally, the lack of time frames for  GSCF projects creates financial risks because GSCF funds do not expire  after Congress approves the transfer of funds and initiation of activities.  As noted in the report, funds transferred into the GSCF account remain  available indefinitely. Without defining a range of time for GSCF projects,  State and DOD may lack reasonable assurance that GSCF activities are  conducted and funds expended in a timely manner. Therefore, we believe  that defining a range of time associated with near- to mid-term GSCF  projects is needed so the departments and stakeholders can manage and  assess the program and ensure accountability. Thus, we believe that  State and DOD should fully implement our modified recommendation.
With respect to the report’s second recommendation, State and DOD  agreed that the departments should track GSCF projects against  established time frames. State and DOD said that the departments plan  to track the projects against the congressional notification timelines and  plan to continue holding biweekly calls with project implementers to  identify and address implementation considerations. However, as noted in  the report, these biweekly calls discuss the status of projects and do not  track the time frame from project proposal to the beginning of project  execution. In its response, State also noted that it does not believe it  would be appropriate to track projects according to the near- to mid-term  time frame that we recommend. However, we continue to believe that  tracking projects against established time frames, as discussed above,  will be crucial for ensuring accountability. Until the departments track  projects against established time frames, they are limited in assessing  whether the program is meeting its goal of providing timely assistance.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In addition, this report is available at  no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov,  or John H. Pendleton 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: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 required GAO to review the  Department of State (State) and the Department of Defense (DOD)  procedures to administer and implement activities funded by the Global  Security Contingency Fund (GSCF). This report (1) describes the  processes State and DOD have developed to manage the program, (2)  describes the status of GSCF projects, and (3) assesses the extent to  which State and DOD have clearly defined time frames for GSCF  projects. To conduct this work and address our objectives, we identified  sources of information within State and DOD that would provide  information on the processes the departments developed to manage the  GSCF program.
To describe the processes State and DOD developed to manage the  GSCF program, we collected and analyzed guidance documents that the  departments developed to manage the GSCF program. Specifically, we  collected and analyzed the March 2014 diplomatic cable titled Utilizing the  Global Security Contingency Fund, which provides step-by-step  information on how State and DOD are to develop projects from proposal  idea to project execution. We also collected and analyzed State’s March  2014 information memorandum titled Global Security Contingency Fund  Program Execution Guidance, which provides step-by-step information on  how State and DOD are to notify Congress of their intent to transfer funds  and initiate GSCF projects as well as how the departments transfer  funding into the joint GSCF account.
To describe the status of GSCF projects, we gathered information from  congressional notification packages, funding transfer documents, and  status updates provided by State and DOD since the initiation of the  program. Specifically, we analyzed the amounts transferred for each  GSCF project from the information contained in the congressional  notifications. We also compiled the planned execution time frames from  congressional notification packages for each GSCF project, to include the  initiation of training activities and equipment delivery, as well as the  revised dates from State and DOD briefings on GSCF projects’ status.
We also discussed the reasons for any project delays and obtained  current information on the planned training and equipment delivery dates  from State and DOD officials.
To assess the extent to which State and DOD have clearly defined time  frames for GSCF projects, we obtained and analyzed State and DOD’s  congressional notification packages for GSCF projects, GSCF project  updates to Congress, and State’s GSCF guidance documents. We  compared this information to criteria in the Standards for Internal Control  in the Federal Government. We also interviewed State and DOD officials  about their management of the GSCF projects, reasons for the delays in  GSCF projects, and whether State and DOD clearly defined time frames  or track GSCF projects.
We interviewed officials, or when appropriate obtained documentation,  from the organizations listed below:
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Office of Congressional and Public Affairs
Office of Security Assistance
Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance
Bureau of African Affairs
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Joint Staff
U.S. Africa Command
U.S. Central Command
U.S. European Command
U.S. Northern Command
U.S. Pacific Command
Office of Defense Cooperation Bangladesh
Joint U.S. Military Assistance Group Philippines
U.S. Southern Command
U.S. Special Operations Command  We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to November 2014  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: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contacts named above, Judith McCloskey, Assistant  Director; Tracy Barnes; Laurie Choi; Mary Pitts; Richard Powelson; Erika  Prochaska; Michael Silver; Amie Steele; and Esther Toledo made key  contributions to this report.