Rule of Law Assistance: DOD Should Assess Workforce Size of Defense Institute of International Legal Studies
Published: 2016-12-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:
Upholding the rule of law is critical to U.S. efforts to support international peace and security. DOD's Defense Institute of International Legal Studies trains military partners in over 100 countries on rule of law concepts such as human rights, rules on the use of force, and anticorruption.
We found that demand for DIILS assistance has increased by over 50 percent since 2013, while its workforce has remained constant. Consequently, DIILS staff face challenges in meeting the demands for their services. We recommended that DOD assess whether the size of DIILS’s workforce allows it to fulfill its mission.

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Rule of law assistance is an important component of U.S. efforts to build the capacity of foreign partners to support international peace and security. DIILS is DOD's lead global resource for providing professional legal education and assistance to foreign military personnel and civilian defense officials on core rule of law issues. Such issues include military justice, anticorruption, and professionalization of the military. In addition, DIILS provides defense institution-building assistance and statutorily required human rights training to foreign partners. In fiscal years 2013 through 2016, DIILS disbursed over $24 million.
House Report 114-102 includes a provision for GAO to review DOD's efforts to build partner capacity in the rule of law. This report examines, among other things, the extent to which (1) DIILS has provided rule of law assistance to foreign partners and assessed its quality and (2) DOD has considered whether the size of DIILS's workforce aligns with the scope of its mission. GAO reviewed and analyzed agency funding, planning, and organizational structure documents for fiscal years 2013 through 2016. GAO interviewed U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., and conducted fieldwork in Newport, Rhode Island; Botswana; Germany; and Uganda. Locations were selected on the basis of the nature and timing of assistance.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: For fiscal years 2013 through 2016, the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS) conducted over 500 rule of law events in almost 100 countries, and it assessed the quality of its assistance in a variety of ways. DIILS provides three types of assistance: (1) core rule of law training in the United States and abroad, (2) defense institution-building, and (3) statutorily required human rights training. DIILS takes steps to assess the quality of its assistance, such as by conducting student feedback surveys and real-time classroom assessments of students' learning. Foreign partner recipients of DIILS assistance and U.S. officials working to provide it told us they generally held positive views about the quality of DIILS's services.
Although the demand for DIILS's assistance has increased since 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) has not assessed whether the size of DIILS's workforce aligns with the scope of its mission. Federal internal control standards highlight the need for management to conduct reviews at the functional or activity level, including conducting a workforce review, if needed. Since fiscal year 2013, the demand for DIILS's assistance has grown by nearly 50 percent, while its workforce has increased by one full-time equivalent (FTE) staff position. According to DIILS officials, as a result of staffing constraints, DIILS staff have completed 55 percent of required after action reports, which capture lessons learned for future events; expended 55 percent of all defense institution-building funds that DOD has made available since fiscal year 2013; and faced challenges in increasing capacity of residence courses to help meet demand. According to DOD officials, DOD has declined DIILS's requests for additional FTE staff based on budget considerations and not on an assessment of whether the size of DIILS's workforce aligns with the scope of its mission. Without a clear understanding provided by such an assessment, DOD cannot adequately ensure that DIILS is effectively meeting demands for its training and assistance to foreign military officials, which may contribute to more robust rule of law systems, more accountable governments, and greater respect for human rights.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: The Secretary of Defense should assess the extent to which the size of DIILS's workforce is aligned with the scope of its mission. DOD concurred with the recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Rule of law assistance is an important component of U.S. efforts to  promote the capacity and will of foreign partner security forces to carry  out internal military justice and accountability functions that also support  international peace and security. The Department of Defense (DOD)  supports efforts to help U.S. partners build more robust rule of law  systems, more accountable governments, and greater respect for human  rights. DOD incorporates rule of law assistance and training as part of a  wide range of assistance programs. The Defense Institute of International  Legal Studies (DIILS) is DOD’s lead global resource for providing  professional legal education and rule of law engagement programs to  foreign military personnel and civilian defense officials.
House Report 114-102 includes a provision for us to review DOD’s efforts  to work with its foreign military partners to build rule of law capacity. This  report examines the extent to which, for fiscal years 2013 through 2016,  (1) DIILS has provided rule of law assistance to foreign partners and  assessed its quality, (2) the planning processes for DIILS’s rule of law  efforts have considered foreign partner needs, and (3) DOD has  considered whether the size of DIILS’s workforce aligns with the scope of  its mission.
To address our objectives, we analyzed documents and data and  interviewed officials from DOD and the Department of State (State),  including DIILS, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), and  the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, as well as in- country DOD security cooperation and State officials, DIILS training  facilitators, and foreign partner officials. We focused on rule of law  assistance that DIILS provided and excluded rule of law assistance  provided by other DOD entities, the U.S. Agency for International  Development, and the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice.  We also excluded State assistance that DOD did not implement. To  examine the extent to which DIILS has provided rule of law assistance to  foreign partners and assessed its quality for fiscal years 2013 through  2016, we reviewed relevant authorities and identified the processes that  DOD and State have in place to plan rule of law assistance. We focused  on DIILS and the primary processes used to implement (1) core rule of  law training, determined through a series of interagency working groups;  (2) defense institution-building  assistance, determined by the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and State’s Bureau of Political- Military  Affairs in coordination with DOD; and (3) statutorily required  human rights training, delivered pursuant to the authority to build the  capacity of foreign security forces as part of the Global Train and Equip  Program. We also analyzed event data from DIILS for fiscal years 2013  through 2016. Based on the data checks we performed, we determined  that the funding data we collected from DIILS were sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of our reporting objectives. To examine the extent to which  DIILS assessed the quality of its assistance to foreign partners, we  interviewed DIILS officials about the steps they take to assess the quality  of their assistance and foreign recipients about their perspectives on the  assistance they received. We compared DIILS officials’ statements with  leading practices that we have identified for assessing the quality of  strategic training.
To examine the extent to which planning processes for DIILS’s rule of law  efforts have considered the needs of foreign partners, we observed a  U.S. Africa Command interagency working group conference for  developing this assistance and reviewed DOD and State strategic  guidance. We compared these processes with Presidential Policy  Directive 23, which provides policy guidance for U.S. security sector  assistance. To examine the extent to which DOD has considered  whether DIILS’s workforce aligns with its mission, we examined DIILS’s  organizational structure and work requirements and actions DOD has  taken to address DIILS’s organizational needs. We compared DOD’s  actions with federal internal control standards and guiding principles  articulated in DOD’s Fiscal Years 2013–2018 Strategic Workforce Plan  Report. For more detail on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to December  2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The United States is committed to building foreign partner capacity to,  among other things, (1) encourage effective and mutually beneficial  relations to support international peace and security efforts and (2) enable  partner countries to use their own resources with maximum effectiveness.  Rule of law assistance is an important component of U.S. efforts to build  foreign partner capacity, and according to officials, includes defense  institution-building  and foreign partner training focused on military justice,  human rights, anticorruption, and professionalization of the military.  Officials noted that countries with an established rule of law system have  more stability and fewer people trying to flee to other countries or turning  to terrorism. DOD integrates rule of law concepts into various types of  training and assistance carried out under Title 10 and Title 22 of the  United States Code. Title 10 covers authorities for the armed forces,  focusing primarily on DOD, whereas Title 22 covers authorities regarding  foreign relations, which primarily fall under State. According to officials,  most of this assistance is carried out through military-to-military events.  DOD schools, such as the U.S. Army War College, may also cover some  rule of law concepts as part of other training. (See app. II for examples of  rule of law assistance that various DOD entities implement.)
DIILS is located in Newport, Rhode Island; its predecessor, the  International  Training Detachment of the Naval Justice School, was  created in 1992 to provide foreign militaries with training on the rule of  law, including human rights and the law of armed conflict, such as rules  for the use of force. In response to DOD and State initiatives in the past  decade, DIILS has expanded its curriculum to include rule of law issues  related to peacekeeping and combating terrorism. Since 1992, DIILS’s  primary focus has been to provide rule of law assistance. According to  officials, DIILS has reached over 30,000 participants in over 140 countries  since it was created.
subsections: section_title: DIILS Funding Sources
paragraphs: DIILS is funded entirely through reimbursements from DOD and State.  Demand for DIILS assistance may change from year to year. For fiscal  years 2013 through 2016, DOD and State used five primary funding  accounts to fund DIILS’s rule of law assistance each year, with various  other accounts used less consistently. During this period, DIILS disbursed  about $6.2 million a year, on average, for rule of law events, $24.6 million  in total. Figure 1 shows the funding sources and the proportion of DIILS  disbursements attributed to each source for fiscal years 2013 through  2016.
The funding sources for DIILS assistance are described below, in order of  the amount of total disbursements for fiscal years 2013 through 2016,  from largest to smallest.  1.  International Military Education and Training (IMET) funds account for  48 percent, $11.9 million, of DIILS disbursements for fiscal years 2013  through 2016 and include DIILS operating expenses. IMET  funds are  appropriated to the President. State prioritizes assistance and  develops policy guidance, while DOD has the primary responsibility  for implementing IMET activities. Primarily through IMET, DIILS  currently provides 17 mobile and 8 resident courses on topics ranging  from military justice and peacekeeping operations to legal aspects of  combating corruption and terrorism. Most mobile courses are taught  within a week, while resident courses are generally 3 weeks.  2.  Operation and Maintenance Defense-Wide funds account for 24  percent, $5.9 million, of DIILS disbursements for fiscal years 2013  through 2016 and cover overhead and planning requirements for  DIILS to develop and implement long-term global strategies for rule of  law security cooperation, including defense institution-building  assistance. DOD’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy  is responsible for setting priorities and distributing these funds. For  example, DIILS has completed legal assessments in Armenia,  Indonesia, and Ukraine; supported military legislative reform in  Botswana; and conducted defense institution-building  scoping visits in  Cambodia, Guatemala, and Thailand, among other efforts.  3.  Global Train and Equip Program funds account for about 11 percent,  $2.6 million, of DIILS disbursements for fiscal years 2013 through  2016. DOD’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Special  Operations and Low Intensity Conflict is responsible for policy  guidance and oversight of the Global Train and Equip Program, with  State concurrence. These funds provide military equipment, supplies,  and training to build the capacity of foreign military forces to conduct  counterterrorism operations, among other things. The legislation  authorizing these activities includes a provision requiring each project  to include elements that promote human rights and respect for civilian  authority within that country, a requirement that DOD has  designated DIILS to fulfill. According to DIILS, it meets this  requirement in a 2-day, in-country seminar.  4.  Peacekeeping Operations funds account for about 9 percent, $2.2  million, of DIILS disbursements for fiscal years 2013 through 2016  and are appropriated to State, and managed by its Bureau of Political- Military  Affairs, for use in regional security peacekeeping operations  and other programs carried out to further U.S. national security  interests. According to DOD, these funds can be transferred to DOD  to support specific requirements identified by a U.S. embassy or  geographic combatant command. Peacekeeping Operations funding  provided to DIILS since fiscal year 2013 has primarily focused on  building the legal capacity of magistrates in the Armed Forces of the  Democratic Republic of the Congo.  5.  Foreign Military Financing funds account for 4 percent, $1.0 million, of  DIILS disbursements for fiscal years 2013 through 2016. Foreign  Military  Financing funds are appropriated to the President. State  determines policy priorities for the use of the account, while DOD’s  DSCA has overall responsibility for implementing Foreign Military  Financing funded programs. Foreign Military Financing funds allow for  the United States to sell defense articles and services to foreign  countries and international organizations if doing so will strengthen  the security of the United States and promote world peace. DIILS is  one DOD school, among others, that uses these funds to provide  training, such as resident and mobile courses, as well as defense  institution-building  efforts. Since fiscal year 2013, these funds have  been used in Belize, Colombia, Ghana, Mexico, and Ukraine, among  others.  6.  Other sources account for 4 percent, $0.9 million, of DIILS  disbursements for fiscal years 2013 through 2016 and include the  Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program and the Global Security  Contingency Fund, among others. The purpose of the Combating  Terrorism Fellowship Program is to provide foreign partners’ mid- and  senior-level defense and security officials with operational and  strategic-level education on combating terrorism while reinforcing  partner-nation capabilities. The Global Security Contingency Fund  aims to address key security challenges in partner countries in the  near- to midterm.
section_title: DIILS Has Conducted a Variety of Rule of Law Events in Almost 100 Countries since Fiscal Year 2013 and Has Assessed Its Quality in Various Ways
paragraphs: DIILS provides three types of rule of law assistance, each with a different  DOD or State entity requesting the assistance. The three assistance  types are core rule of law training, defense institution-building, and  statutorily required human rights training. For fiscal years 2013 through  2016, DIILS conducted over 500 rule of law events in almost 100  countries, with U.S. Africa Command followed by U.S. European  Command as the U.S. geographic combatant commands holding the  most DIILS events. DIILS assesses the quality of its assistance in various  ways, including implementing student surveys, conducting pre- and post- course tests, and instituting real-time classroom assessments of  participants’ comprehension. In some cases, DIILS course facilitators also  produce after action reports that may include observations of the  assistance provided and challenges, if any, in providing the assistance.  Our interviews with foreign partner recipients of DIILS assistance and  U.S. officials working to provide it generally reflected positive views about  the quality of DIILS’s services.
subsections: section_title: DIILS Rule of Law Assistance Includes Core Rule of Law Training, Defense Institution- Building Assistance, and Statutorily Required Human Rights Training
paragraphs: DIILS assistance includes three types of rule of law assistance, each with  different DOD or State entities generating requests. A summary of these  assistance types, along with the primary funding source of each, is shown  in table 1.
Figure 2 illustrates the various DOD and State entities involved in  requesting and funding the different types of DIILS assistance.
section_title: Since Fiscal Year 2013, DIILS Has Provided Assistance to Almost 100 Countries, with the Greatest Number of Events in Africa
paragraphs: For fiscal years 2013 through 2016, DIILS provided over 500 training and  institution-building  events to about 100 countries; that includes over 200  core rule of law events, about 200 defense institution-building events, and  about 100 statutorily required human rights training events. Of DOD’s six  geographic combatant commands, U.S. Africa Command had the  greatest number of DIILS events, with 164, followed by U.S. European  Command, with 101. Figure 3 further illustrates the comparison in number  of DIILS events by geographic location.
Figure 4 breaks out the DIILS assistance within each geographic  combatant command and DIILS headquarters by assistance type for  fiscal years 2013 through 2016. This figure shows that U.S. Africa  Command and U.S. Pacific Command have held the most defense  institution-building  assistance events, while U.S. Africa Command and  U.S. European Command have held the most statutorily required human  rights training events. In addition, the figure shows that DIILS’s school in  Newport, Rhode Island, holds the most core rule of law training events.
section_title: DIILS Takes Several Steps to Assess the Quality of Its Assistance, Which Is Generally Viewed Positively by Recipients and U.S. Officials
paragraphs: DIILS officials provided examples of several steps that they take to  assess the quality of DIILS’s assistance. These actions generally aligned  with leading practices for assessing the quality of training, based on the  information officials provided. These include using multiple assessment  methods, such as the following types of activities:
Student surveys, pre- and post-course tests, and instructor feedback.  To improve course content, DIILS facilitators solicit feedback on their  effectiveness and on the relevance of the course materials through  student surveys and pre- and post-course tests. In addition, DIILS  encourages facilitators to provide feedback on how courses can be  improved. For example, during fieldwork in Uganda, we reviewed  student feedback surveys from a 2-day course providing statutorily  required human rights training. The survey responses expressed  student opinions about the usefulness of the course content and the  topics that were most valuable to them. The responses were generally  positive, and participants most frequently noted that human rights,  international humanitarian law, and rules of engagement were the  most valuable topics covered in the course.
Real-time assessments of participant comprehension. DIILS  facilitators generally encourage participation and gather feedback  from participants in real time to assess understanding, generally  making adjustments to their teaching as needed. For example, in  Uganda, we observed facilitators using classroom voting technology  as a basis for discussion and to signal when students were struggling  with the course content, allowing instructors to identify difficult  concepts and spend more time clarifying those concepts. During  fieldwork in Botswana, we observed DIILS officials updating planned  topics daily and corresponding preparatory materials nightly based on  how the meetings progressed and on daily feedback from foreign  partners as to what topics would be most helpful to discuss.
After action reports. DIILS facilitators prepare after action reports for  certain events to record a summary of the assistance they provided,  outcomes of the training, any challenges they encountered, and  further actions to be taken. DIILS officials stated that after action  reports provide continuity and capture lessons learned for DIILS  facilitators who will be traveling to those countries in the future.  According to DIILS officials’ estimates, due to limited staff resources,  facilitators had completed only a little more than half of the after action  reports required during fiscal years 2013 through 2016, an issue we  discuss later in this report.
Photographs in figure 5 show classroom voting technology that DIILS  facilitators use to assess training participants’ understanding in real time,  a typical post-course student feedback survey, and DIILS facilitators  soliciting student participation and feedback during a training session in  Uganda.
Officials from the five geographic combatant commands we spoke with as  well as other DOD and State officials and foreign partners who  participated in DIILS’s events lauded DIILS for its high-quality expertise  and assistance.
U.S. Southern Command officials noted that its service components— Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines—provide rule of law assistance  when DIILS cannot provide it. However, according to these officials,  the training its service components provide generally lacks the same  level of expertise as the training provided by DIILS.
Senior foreign military officials in Botswana referred to DIILS’s  assistance as “invaluable” and told us that although they examined  the best practices of several countries for modernizing defense  legislation, they chose to work most closely with DIILS. Further, the  foreign officials noted that the progress they have made could not  have been achieved without DIILS’s assistance.
Foreign military officials in Uganda and Newport told us that they  would rate the DIILS facilitators a 10 out of 10 and said they wanted  more DIILS training. A participant specifically reported learning new  material that he could apply during his upcoming deployment.
According to DIILS officials, senior foreign military officials reacted  positively to DIILS’s resident courses. For example, a participant  praised the course content and told DIILS officials that a lecture on  gender-based violence had been particularly thought-provoking and  had changed the way he viewed the topic. Another foreign official told  DIILS staff that prior to attending the course he did not have a high  opinion of U.S. military personnel but that he left the course with  positive opinions of the United States and U.S. military officials.
Underscoring the value that U.S. officials hold for DIILS institution- building assistance, DIILS officials cited the following example. DIILS  was planning to provide defense institution-building assistance to  military officials in Belize, but when the country team there learned  that funding from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Policy was no longer available for use in Belize, the U.S. officials in  Belize found another funding source to bring DIILS facilitators in- country to provide the assistance. In addition, several DIILS officials  noted that they view defense institution-building—more than any other  type of assistance DIILS provides—as contributing to concrete,  measurable outcomes, such as developing an instruction manual for  magistrates in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and to long- term relationships with partner nations.
section_title: Interagency Planning Processes for DIILS Rule of Law Assistance Generally Consider Foreign Partner Needs
paragraphs: DOD considers foreign partner needs in planning for DIILS’s rule of law  assistance in accordance with Presidential Policy Directive 23. This  directive provides policy guidance for U.S. security sector assistance,  including rule of law, and highlights that U.S. agencies should consider  key factors such as foreign partner needs in planning and implementing  assistance. In-country U.S. officials are primarily responsible for working  with foreign partners to identify and propose efforts to address their  needs, which get incorporated into DIILS’s rule of law assistance, among  other military training. For its core rule of law training, DIILS participates  in regional and annual interagency Security Cooperation Education and  Training Working Groups to identify and address foreign partner needs.  For its defense institution-building  assistance, DIILS conducts in-depth  assessments in-country to identify and address foreign partner needs.
subsections: section_title: In-Country U.S. Officials Identify Foreign Partner Needs for Rule of Law Assistance
paragraphs: In-country DOD security cooperation officials are primarily responsible for  identifying and addressing foreign partner needs that get incorporated  into DIILS’s rule of law assistance, among other military training; for  planning this training and assistance; and for ensuring that it is aligned  with overall U.S. strategy as well as with regional and country-specific  military strategies. In particular, they are required to know the partner  nation’s requirements and capabilities for rule of law assistance, and they  regularly advise and assist host-nation counterparts in identifying and  programming training requirements. In addition to regular communication  with the partner nation, in-country DOD security cooperation officials  coordinate regularly with their respective geographic combatant  commands and country teams and with DOD and State headquarter  officials to ensure that the assistance is aligned with U.S. strategy.
Additionally,  in-country DOD security cooperation officials develop  integrated country strategies with country teams to further address  partner needs. State requires all embassies to complete an integrated  country strategy—a 3-year strategy to be developed collaboratively under  chief-of-mission leadership and authority with the input of DOD and any  other in-country U.S. agencies under chief-of-mission authority. These  strategies aim to articulate the U.S.’s priorities in a given country by  setting mission goals and objectives, including those pertaining to rule of  law assistance, among other security sector assistance programs. State’s  Bureau of Political-Military  Affairs officials use these integrated country  strategies, as well as DOD’s theater campaign plans and country plans,  as the basis for resource allocation for core rule of law assistance. The  country team consults with the host-nation government and military  officials, when appropriate, regarding the nation’s needs, priorities, and  constraints. In reviewing integrated country strategies of the top 10  partner countries receiving DIILS assistance, we determined that eight of  the 10 strategies specifically noted the importance of foreign military rule  of law assistance. These eight strategies mentioned several aspects of  rule of law, including professionalization of the military, human rights, and  military justice. Additionally,  seven of these eight strategies noted one or  more specific actions to be taken to address rule of law assistance to  foreign military partners, such as creating anticorruption task forces and  holding human rights-themed discussions with foreign military officials.
section_title: DIILS Participates in Interagency Planning Efforts and Conducts Assessments to Identify and Address Foreign Partner Needs
paragraphs: For its core rule of law training, DIILS participates in regional, annual  interagency Security Cooperation Education and Training Working  Groups to identify and address foreign partner needs. For defense  institution-building  assistance, DIILS conducts in-depth assessments to  identify and address foreign partner needs. DIILS works closely with  various entities to plan and deliver statutorily required human rights  training. However, since the law requires that DOD provide this training  as part of its Global Train and Equip Program assistance, we do not  include a discussion about planning this type of assistance in this review.
subsections: section_title: Annual Interagency Conferences Are Key Planning Events for Considering Foreign Partner Needs in DIILS’s Core Rule of Law Assistance
paragraphs: DIILS staff coordinate with geographic combatant commands, DOD  security cooperation officials, and State officials, among others, at annual  interagency working group conferences to identify and plan for training  opportunities in line with foreign partner needs. DOD requires each  geographic combatant command to host such a conference each year— known as a Security Cooperation Education and Training Working Group.  In addition to addressing foreign partner needs, these conferences also  allow interagency collaboration on reviewing, coordinating, and finalizing  each country’s rule of law education and training plan for the upcoming  budget year and ensuring that activities are within policy guidelines,  among other things. DIILS—along with other DOD schools—attends  these conferences to educate in-country DOD security cooperation  officials, and sometimes locally employed staff from host-nations, about  the core rule of law training and defense institution-building  assistance it  can offer and to identify opportunities to match U.S. courses with partner- country needs (see fig. 6).
In advance of a Security Cooperation Education and Training Working  Group, in-country DOD security cooperation officials develop country- specific education and training plans to address foreign partner and U.S.  strategic needs, often with input from foreign partners. These plans  include the partner country’s rule of law assistance and other education  goals and identify the individuals who will participate, with input from the  host-nation’s military officials. DOD in-country security cooperation  officials then select training courses to address the mix of partner-country  and U.S. goals outlined in the combatant command and country plans.  During the 2016 U.S. Africa Command Security Cooperation Education  and Training Working Group in Germany, we observed a DIILS official  discussing assistance options with security cooperation officials to  determine the best way to respond to identified foreign partner needs.
According to DIILS, State headquarters, and geographic combatant  command officials, holding these conferences in person has various  benefits in addition to planning the rule of law assistance that DIILS  provides. For example, the conferences facilitate discussions between  DIILS officials and DOD security cooperation officials, which can clarify  for DIILS officials the needs of foreign partners and enable the DIILS  officials to make better recommendations on what courses are best suited  to meet those needs. The conferences also help to ensure that country  teams stay within their allotted IMET budgets and assist in-country DOD  security cooperation officials in adhering to State policy and any legal  requirements. For example, we observed State officials asking several in- country DOD security cooperation officials about the availability of female  foreign military officials to participate in training, a State policy priority,  and State officials informing the security cooperation officials about the  requirement to allocate a certain percentage of their IMET funds for  Expanded-IMET.
In addition to assisting with U.S. efforts to meet the needs of foreign  partners, the Security Cooperation Education and Training Working  Group conferences also provide an opportunity for U.S. officials to ensure  that training aligns with U.S. strategic goals, among other benefits. State  officials noted that DOD security cooperation officials benefit from taking  time to think strategically and deepen their understanding of how their  efforts fit into the broader context of U.S. strategy. We observed State  officials discussing U.S. strategic goals and making adjustments to  several countries’ training plans with these goals in mind. According to  officials from State’s Bureau of Political-Military  Affairs, holding these  conferences in person also helps in-country DOD security cooperation  officials build relationships among agencies and country teams and offers  opportunities for security cooperation officials to learn from each other  about what is working well and what is not. Moreover,  they noted that it is  easier to hold officials accountable to identify and address problems when  the working group is held in person than when it is held virtually. For  example, a State official said that he has removed courses from a country  list that were not consistent with the priorities expressed in the integrated  country strategy; he noted that identifying and addressing such concerns  is more challenging in the absence of the real-time, person-to-person  communication that the conferences facilitate.
section_title: DIILS Conducts In-Depth Assessments to Identify Foreign Partner Needs to Be Addressed with Defense Institution-Building Assistance
paragraphs: For defense institution-building  assistance, DIILS conducts in-depth  assessments to ensure that foreign partner needs are addressed and  consonant with U.S. goals. To identify candidates for these assessments,  DIILS leverages its familiarity with countries’ needs and capacity for rule  of law assistance—knowledge gained through regular communication  with in-country DOD security cooperation officials, geographic combatant  commands, and foreign military officials who communicate the assistance  needs of their countries, according to DIILS officials. DIILS and other  defense institution-building  providers then share recommendations for  countries they would like to assist, contingent on the availability of  resources, with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.  That office considers the recommendations in setting priorities for  defense institution-building  assistance, including the assistance that the  office will request of DIILS. According to State officials, for State-funded  defense institution-building  assistance, in-country State officials identify  needs for defense institution-building assistance and work through State  to provide funding to DOD for DIILS to implement the assistance.
Once the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and State  select a country to receive defense institution-building assistance, DIILS  will travel to the individual countries to meet with in-country DOD security  cooperation officials and foreign military and government officials to  assess that country’s needs. DIILS officials take these needs into account  to formulate an individualized assistance plan for each country. For  example, according to a DIILS official, to conduct an assessment of a  country’s legal system, it could take about 2 months of study for DIILS  officials to learn everything they can about the country before traveling  there, including whom they will need to meet with while in-country. In  addition, for such an assessment, DIILS would research the country’s  legal authorities beforehand to generate questions. DIILS would send a  team of up to four people to conduct the assessment, each with one or  more areas to focus on, such as the penal system. Typically, the DIILS  team would be in-country for 3 to 5 days and would produce a 40- to 70- page assessment, including a history of the foreign government,  information on its key military officials and military-related legal  authorities, and a roadmap for helping the partner nation move forward.  In-country DOD security cooperation officials could use this assessment  to decide whether and to what extent to pursue the course of action  outlined in the assessment. According to DIILS officials, DIILS does not  provide assistance to a country if that country is not receptive to it.
section_title: DOD Has Not Assessed Whether the Size of DIILS’s Workforce Aligns with the Scope of Its Mission
paragraphs: The demand for DIILS’s assistance has increased over time, as  summarized in table 2. However, DOD has not assessed whether the size  of DIILS’s workforce aligns with the scope of its mission, which has been  expanded in response to statutory requirements and U.S. strategic goals.  Federal internal control standards highlight the need for management to  conduct reviews at the functional or activity level, which may include  conducting a workforce review or developing a corrective action plan, if  needed.
Amid increasing demand and interest in DIILS’s provision of defense- institution building assistance and statutorily required human rights  training, the number of events that DIILS has provided has increased  since fiscal year 2013, while its workforce has increased by a single full- time equivalent (FTE) staff, going from 28 FTE staff in 2013 to 29 FTE  staff in 2016, as illustrated by figure 7.
Because the demand for DIILS’s assistance is generated externally,  DIILS does not have full control of its workload. As figure 7 further shows,  the number of events that DIILS has provided for all rule of law assistance  has increased since fiscal year 2013—with various DOD and State  sources requesting that DIILS complete 52 more events in fiscal year  2016 than it completed in fiscal year 2013. Currently, to respond to  requests for assistance, DIILS employs 29 FTE staff, which consist of 20  civilian staff and 9 military Staff Judge Advocates who represent the  Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, and the Coast Guard. To  meet increasing demands for assistance and requests for specialized  subject matter expertise, DIILS augments its FTE staff with military  reserve Staff Judge Advocates and civilian experts. DIILS officials said that its adjunct database lists about 700 individuals and that multiple  adjunct staff generally participate in each DIILS event.
Although DIILS is funded entirely through reimbursements from DOD and  State, its FTE staff must be approved by DSCA. In fiscal year 2015,  DSCA authorized one additional military FTE staff to address increasing  partner countries’ maritime security needs. DIILS also requested an  additional civilian FTE staff in fiscal year 2015 in part to help meet the  increasing demands of defense institution-building  assistance; however,  according to DOD officials, DSCA did not approve this request. DOD  officials told us that the decision was based on budget considerations  rather than on an assessment of whether the size of DIILS’s workforce  aligns with the scope of its mission to provide rule of law assistance.  Although DIILS officials expressed the need for more than one additional  FTE staff, they noted that they have not requested additional FTE staff  because DSCA has communicated that additional requests would not be  approved.
According to DIILS officials, DIILS faces staffing constraints in part  because of increased demands and in part because defense institution- building assistance is more resource intensive than DIILS core rule of law  and statutorily required human rights training. As a result of the staffing  constraints, DIILS has expended only 55 percent—$5.9 of $10.7 million— of the defense institution-building  funds that the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Policy has made available since fiscal year  2013. In addition, DIILS has not completed all required after action  reports for the training and assistance it conducted because DIILS has  not had the staff capacity to do so, according to DIILS officials. These  reports are necessary, according to DIILS officials, for conveying lessons  learned and providing consistency for military officials that serve on  rotational assignments and others who serve as adjunct faculty.  According to DIILS officials, only about 55 percent of required after action  reports since fiscal year 2013 had been completed as of August 2016  because the staff assigned to complete them spend up to three-quarters  of their time on assignments requiring travel abroad. These staff often  travel several weeks in a row to multiple events on different continents  where they are presenting course materials and executing logistics  arrangements for the teams of facilitators and the participants.
Moreover, as a result of staffing constraints, DIILS has potentially missed  opportunities to provide additional training and assistance to further  address foreign partner needs. For example, an official from U.S.  Southern Command told us that they would hire DIILS to provide  additional assistance if they thought DIILS had the staff capacity to  provide it. However, because of the perceived lack of resources possibly  limiting DIILS’s ability to provide the assistance, the official at U.S.  Southern Command said that resources within the combatant command  are used to provide assistance instead, often by officials that lack the  same level of expertise provided through DIILS. During fieldwork in  Germany, we also observed a DIILS official explaining  to a DOD in- country official that he could only guarantee providing the country with  core rule of law training if the country official used IMET  funds. He noted  that this is because DIILS’s priority is to deliver IMET-funded  core rule of  law training and DIILS may lack staff resources to provide assistance  through other funds.
In addition, according to DIILS officials, although DIILS has the physical  space to increase the capacity for the courses it holds in Newport, Rhode  Island, from 50 to 75 participants, DIILS is facing logistical challenges in  increasing capacity as a result of staffing constraints. For example, DIILS  does not have sufficient administrative staff to process travel documents  and provide the necessary transportation for that number of resident  course participants, according to DIILS officials.
Federal internal control standards highlight the need for management to  conduct reviews at the functional or activity level, which may include  conducting a workforce review or developing a corrective action plan, if  needed. Applying this standard would help DOD address its Fiscal  Years 2013–2018 Strategic Workforce Plan Report, which states that the  success of the DOD mission requires a well-maintained, properly sized,  and highly capable civilian workforce that aligns to mission and workload  requirements.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Upholding the rule of law is critical to U.S. peace- and security-building  efforts abroad. DIILS’s efforts to train foreign partners in respect for  human rights, the laws of armed conflict, and rules on the use of force,  among other rule of law concepts, is an essential element of U.S. efforts  to build stronger coalitions to combat international threats. Since fiscal  year 2013, the demand for DIILS’s assistance has increased by nearly 50  percent. According to DIILS officials, because of its expanded mission  and the static size of its workforce, DIILS’s ability to meet demands for  training and assistance has been constrained. These officials further note  that DIILS’s ability to complete its after action reports—internal records  necessary for conveying lessons learned—and to increase the capacity of  its resident courses has also been constrained. DOD, however, has not  assessed the extent to which the size of DIILS’s workforce aligns with the  scope of its mission. As such, DOD may not be assured that DIILS’s  existing workforce is properly aligned with its expanded mission. Ensuring  a properly aligned workforce is essential for enabling DIILS to achieve its  mission of training foreign partners on rule of law concepts, including  greater respect for human rights, while also maximizing the efficiency of  providing this training.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that DOD successfully achieves the goal of supporting  foreign nations in upholding the rule of law, we recommend that the  Secretary of Defense assess the extent to which the size of DIILS’s  workforce is aligned with the scope of its mission, including whether DIILS  has sufficient staff to complete required after action reports and to  increase its resident course capacity.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD and State for comment. In its  written comments, which are reproduced in appendix III,  DOD concurred  with our recommendation. DOD also provided technical comments, which  we incorporated as appropriate. State had no comments on the draft.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the  GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7331, or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: House Report 114-102 includes a provision for us to review Department  of Defense (DOD) efforts to work with DOD’s foreign military partners to  build rule of law capacity. This report examines the extent to which, for  fiscal years 2013 through 2016, (1) the Defense Institute of International  Legal Studies (DIILS) has provided rule of law assistance to foreign  partners and assessed its quality, (2) planning processes for DIILS’s rule  of law efforts have considered foreign partner needs, and (3) DOD has  considered whether the size of DIILS’s workforce aligns with the scope of  its mission.
To address our objectives, we analyzed documents and data and  interviewed officials from DOD and the Department of State (State),  including DIILS, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), and  the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, as well as in- country DOD security cooperation and State officials, DIILS training  facilitators, and foreign partner officials. We focused on rule of law  assistance that DIILS provided and excluded rule of law assistance  provided by other DOD entities, the U.S. Agency for International  Development, and the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice.  We also excluded State assistance not covered under Title 22, such as  assistance provided by State’s Bureau of International  Narcotics and Law  Enforcement Affairs.
To examine the extent to which DIILS has provided rule of law assistance  to foreign partners and assessed its quality for fiscal years 2013 through  2016, we reviewed relevant authorities and identified the processes that  DOD and State have in place to plan rule of law assistance. We focused  on DIILS and the primary processes used to implement (1) core rule of  law training, determined through a series of interagency working groups;  (2) defense institution-building  assistance, determined by the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and State’s Bureau of Political- Military  Affairs in coordination with DOD; and (3) statutorily required  human rights training, delivered pursuant to the authority to build the  capacity of foreign security forces as part of DOD’s Global Train and  Equip Program. We also analyzed event data from DIILS for fiscal years  2013 through 2016. We used these data to determine the number of rule  of law events in various countries and geographic combatant commands.  To determine the reliability of DIILS’s funding data, we compared and  corroborated the information, requested information from DIILS officials  regarding the processes they use to collect and verify the data, and  checked the data sets for reasonableness and completeness. When we  found discrepancies or missing data fields, we brought them to the  attention of relevant agency officials and worked with the officials to  correct the discrepancies and missing fields. The funding and activity data  we received from DIILS are current as of October 2016. We did not  conduct a financial audit of the funding data and are not expressing a  financial opinion on them. Based on the checks we performed, we  determined that the funding data we collected from DIILS were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. Additionally,  we  obtained perspectives on the steps DIILS takes to make its assistance  effective by observing DIILS training in the United States, Botswana, and  Uganda and by reviewing select DIILS after action reports to gather  information about the contents of these reports. We also interviewed  DIILS officials and recipients of DIILS assistance. For the purposes of this  review, we did not examine the extent to which DIILS takes these steps  consistently. To examine the extent to which DIILS assessed the quality  of its assistance to foreign partners, we interviewed DIILS officials about  the steps they take to assess the quality of their assistance and foreign  recipients about their perspectives on the assistance they received. We  compared DIILS officials’ statements with leading practices that we have  identified for assessing the quality of strategic training.
To examine the extent to which the planning processes for DIILS’s rule of  law efforts have considered the needs of foreign partners since fiscal year 2013, we observed a U.S. Africa Command interagency working group  conference for developing this assistance in Garmisch, Germany. We  selected this conference to observe because it was scheduled during the  period from March through May 2016 when we were available to conduct  fieldwork and did not conflict with other planned fieldwork. Additionally,  we reviewed integrated country strategies for the 10 countries for which  DIILS was reimbursed the most money for assistance in fiscal years 2013  through 2015. Of country-specific disbursements in over 70 countries  between fiscal years 2013 through 2015, we selected integrated country  strategies for the 10 countries that spent the most money on DIILS  assistance between fiscal years 2013 and 2015, accounting for over 60  percent of country-specific funds disbursed during that timeframe, or $3.6  million of $5.8 million. DIILS does not track DOD Operation and  Maintenance Defense-Wide defense institution-building  funds on a  country-by-country basis, so funding for this type of assistance was not  considered in selecting the top 10 countries. Ranked from most to least  amount of DIILS assistance, these countries are (1) the Democratic  Republic of the Congo, (2) Colombia, (3) Botswana, (4) the Czech  Republic, (5) Lebanon, (6) Mexico, (7) India, (8) Bosnia and Herzegovina,  (9) Burma, and (10) Niger. Additionally,  the countries represent all six  Geographic Combatant Commands: (1) U.S. Africa Command, (2) U.S.  Central Command, (3) U.S. European Command, (4) U.S. Northern  Command, (5) U.S. Pacific Command, and (6) U.S. Southern Command.  We reviewed those country strategies that covered 2015 and 2016  because the strategies were created on a 3-year rolling basis, and  strategies for 2015 and 2016 were the ones available for all 10 countries  in our scope. The results of our analysis are not generalizable to all  integrated country strategies. We selected two countries—Uganda and  Botswana—for observation based on the nature and timing of assistance  and the assistance that DIILS provided from March through May 2016,  when we were available to conduct overseas fieldwork. We also  conducted fieldwork at DIILS’s headquarters in Newport, Rhode Island.
In Uganda, we observed DIILS officials providing statutorily required  human rights training to military personnel in the Uganda People’s  Defense Force, which received $12.7 million in vehicles, weapons,  and communications equipment, among other supplies, in support of  the African Union Mission in Somalia and its counterterrorism  operations against al-Shabaab.
In Botswana, we observed DIILS officials providing a week of  technical assistance to representatives of the Botswana Defence  Force in support of its effort to revise and update the foundational  military legislative authority of Botswana. These discussions included  best practices and U.S. experiences related to gender integration;  compensation for various employee groups, including recruits and  retirees; and nonpunitive measures in the military. This was the  seventh of eight planned exchanges since 2013, with the final  exchange planned to occur prior to when Botswana’s legislature  would consider the revised legislation.
In Newport, Rhode Island, we observed part of a 3-week military  justice resident course held at DIILS that included an exercise on  nonjudicial punishment attended by foreign military lawyers from  various military services and one civilian official.
Additionally,  we reviewed theater campaign plans for U.S. Africa  Command, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S.  Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command but did not include an  analysis of these documents because DOD deems them sensitive. We  focused on core rule of law training and defense institution-building  assistance for this discussion. We excluded statutorily required human  rights training because although DIILS works closely with various entities  to plan and deliver this training, the law requires that DOD provide this  training pursuant to the authority to build the capacity of foreign security  forces as part of the Global Train and Equip Program. We compared  these processes with the terms of Presidential Policy Directive 23, which  provides policy guidelines for U.S. security sector assistance.
To examine the extent to which DOD has considered whether DIILS’s  workforce aligns with its mission since fiscal year 2013, we examined  DIILS’s organizational structure and work requirements and actions DOD  has taken to address DIILS’s organizational needs. Specifically, we  reviewed DIILS’s full-time equivalent allocations from fiscal years 2013  through 2016, and we compared these to the number of events DIILS provided in the three assistance types during this timeframe. We worked  closely with DIILS  officials to identify  the events  for which after action  reports were required during this time period. In addition,  we reviewed a  DIILS  official’s analysis of the number of after action reports that were  completed, as well as his methodology for completing this analysis.          We found that the data were generally  reliable for the purposes of our  review. We compared DOD’s actions with federal internal control  standards and guiding principles  articulated in DOD’s Fiscal Years 2013– 2018 Strategic Workforce Plan Report.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to December  2016 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: Examples of Rule of Law Assistance Implemented by the Department of Defense Other Than through the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies
paragraphs: Table 3 provides some examples of rule of law assistance that was  implemented by Department of Defense (DOD) entities other than the  Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS), but this is not an  exhaustive list.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., (202) 512-7331, or johnsoncm@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Hynek Kalkus (Assistant  Director), Jaime Allentuck (Analyst-in-Charge), Kendal Robinson, David  Dayton, Neil Doherty, Mark Dowling, and Jill Lacey made key  contributions to this report. Gustavo Crosetto and Peter del Toro provided  technical assistance.