Central America: U.S. Agencies Considered Various Factors in Funding Security Activities, but Need to Assess Progress in Achieving Interagency Objectives
Released: 2013-11-01T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The security situation in Central America has continued to deteriorate in recent years as Mexican drug trafficking organizations, transnational gangs, and other criminal groups have expanded their activities, contributing to escalating levels of crime and violence. Violence is particularly high in the “northern triangle” countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, with homicide rates among the highest in the world. Efforts to counter illicit trafficking in Colombia and Mexico created an environment that became increasingly inhospitable to drug trafficking organizations, forcing criminal groups to displace operations into Central America where they could exploit institutional weaknesses. Recognizing this situation, the United States has sought to develop collaborative security partnerships with Central American countries. As part of this effort, in 2010 the United States split off the Central America portion of the Mérida Initiative and established a new initiative named CARSI. According to State, CARSI is designed as a collaborative partnership between the United States and Central American partner countries. Its focus is on improving citizen security within the region, taking a broad approach to the issues of security beyond traditional counternarcotics activities. Figure 1 shows the CARSI partner countries in Central America.

According to State, CARSI’s five primary goals are to disrupt the movement of criminals and contraband to, within, and create safe streets for citizens in the region; between the nations of Central America; support the development of strong, capable, and accountable Central American governments; re-establish effective state presence and security in communities at risk; and foster enhanced levels of security coordination and cooperation among nations in the region.

Funding for CARSI activities has come from a combination of four U.S. foreign assistance accounts—the INCLE account; the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account; the Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) account; and the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) account. General descriptions of how these accounts are used globally are provided below. the INCLE account is used to provide assistance to foreign countries and international organizations to assist them in developing and implementing policies and programs that maintain the rule of law and strengthen institutional law enforcement and judicial capabilities, including countering drug flows and combating transnational crime; the ESF account is used to assist foreign countries in meeting their political, economic, and security needs by funding a range of activities, including those designed to counter terrorism and extremist ideology, increase the role of the private sector in the economy, develop effective legal systems, build transparent and accountable governance, and empower citizens; the NADR account is used to fund contributions to certain organizations supporting nonproliferation, and provides assistance to foreign countries for nonproliferation, demining, antiterrorism, export control assistance, and other related activities; and the FMF account is used to provide grants to foreign governments and international organizations for the acquisition of U.S. defense equipment, services, and training to enhance the capacity of foreign security forces.

State manages the INCLE, NADR, and FMF accounts, and shares responsibility with USAID to manage and administer the ESF account. Within State, the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) administers the INCLE account. The Bureau of Political- Military Affairs administers the FMF account, while DOD oversees the actual procurement and transfer of goods and services purchased with these funds. State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation and its Bureau of Counterterrorism administer their NADR subaccounts. State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs administers a portion of ESF. However, USAID oversees the implementation of most CARSI programs funded from ESF. State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs also previously administered a onetime use of ESF funds for CARSI activities.

State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) has the lead within State for integrating CARSI activities with State’s broader policy of promoting citizen security in Central America. State’s primary funding source for CARSI activities is the INCLE account and the ESF account is USAID’s primary funding source for CARSI activities. In addition to State and USAID, a number of other U.S. agencies use non-CARSI funding to implement activities in Central America that address various aspects of promoting citizen security that complement CARSI activities—including improving law enforcement and the criminal justice system, promoting rule of law and human rights, enhancing customs and border control, and encouraging economic and social development. DOD, DOJ, DHS, and Treasury are the key agencies involved in these non-CARSI funded activities.

U.S. Agencies Have Allocated Over $1.2 Billion in CARSI and Non-CARSI Funds to Support Various Security Activities in Central America

Since fiscal year 2008, U.S. agencies have allocated more than $1.2 billion in funding for CARSI activities and non-CARSI funding that supports CARSI goals. As of June 1, 2013, State and USAID had allocated close to $495 million and disbursed at least $189 million in funding for CARSI activities to provide partner countries with equipment, technical assistance, and training to improve interdiction and disrupt criminal networks. As of March 31, 2013, U.S. agencies (State, USAID, DOD, DOJ, and DHS) estimated that they had also allocated approximately $708 million in non-CARSI funding that supports CARSI goals. U.S. agencies, including State, DOD, and DOJ, have used non- CARSI funding to provide additional security-related equipment, technical assistance, and training, as well as infrastructure and investigation assistance to the region. Data on disbursements of non-CARSI funding were not readily available for some agencies because of the complexity and challenges associated with how these agencies track their disbursement data. At the time of reporting, the most recent data available on funding for CARSI were as of June 1, 2013 and the most recent non-CARSI funding data available were as of March 31, 2013. However, we found no change in the total CARSI allocations between March 31, 2013 and June 1, 2013. Thus, it is possible to compare CARSI and non-CARSI funding allocations.

State and USAID Have Obligated the Majority of the Close to $495 Million Allocated for CARSI since Fiscal Year 2008

As of June 1, 2013, State and USAID had allocated close to $495 million in funding for CARSI activities; the same amount had been allocated as of March 31, 2013, the time frame we use later to report on non-CARSI funding allocations. State and USAID have obligated at least $463 million of the close to $495 million allocated, and have disbursed at least $189 million of the allocated CARSI funds from the INCLE, ESF, and NADR accounts for activities in partner countries. State and USAID disbursed funds to support activities in partner countries that improve law enforcement and maritime interdiction capabilities, support capacity building and training activities, prevent crime and violence, and deter and detect border criminal activity. After reviewing a draft of this report, State officials reported an amount of almost $10.6 million in INCLE funding that was allocated for CARSI activities in fiscal year 2010 that had not been previously reported to GAO. State officials also said that they could not provide obligation or disbursement information related to this amount because these INCLE funds are centrally managed and State’s financial systems do not allow them to track such funds by region or country. According to State officials, this is why these funds were not previously reported to GAO. Although State officials were not able to track the obligation or disbursement of these funds, we have included this amount in the total of the close to $495 million allocated for CARSI activities.

Of the seven partner countries, the largest amounts of CARSI funds were allocated to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. In addition, 17 percent of the total allocations was for regional activities; that is, region- wide activities in Central America that are not tied to an activity in a specific country. Table 1 provides a breakdown of allocated, obligated, and disbursed funds for CARSI activities by country. To demonstrate how funding for CARSI activities has been allocated, obligated, and disbursed by year of appropriation, we are providing this information by account and by country in appendix II. In addition, we present data on how funding for CARSI activities under FMF have been allocated and committed by year of appropriation in appendix III.

Since we initially reported on CARSI in January 2013, the amount of funding for CARSI activities disbursed has increased from at least $75 million as of September 30, 2011, to at least $189 million as of June 1, 2013 from the INCLE, ESF, and NADR accounts. According to State officials, disbursements increased because State took steps to alleviate delays associated with program administration in the implementation of CARSI (particularly in the early years), including an insufficient number of staff at embassies in partner countries to manage CARSI activities. For example, in June 2013, the Assistant Secretary of State for INL reported in a congressional hearing that INL had increased staff positions in embassies in CARSI partner countries as INCLE funding represented about 64 percent of total CARSI allocations in these countries. Currently, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama have INL Sections (formerly known as Narcotics Affairs Sections); and Belize, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua have Narcotics Affairs Offices, according to State officials. State and USAID have 5 years from the time the period of availability for obligation has expired to disburse funds.

State and USAID Fund Law Enforcement and Crime Prevention Activities in Partner Countries

State and USAID disbursed funds to support various activities in partner countries that improve law enforcement and maritime interdiction capabilities, support capacity building and training activities, prevent crime and violence, and deter and detect border criminal activity. However, there is a slight difference in emphasis between State and USAID in their CARSI-funded activities. State’s efforts focus on capacity building of partner countries, while USAID’s efforts focus on establishing prevention programs for at-risk youth in partner countries.

In general, State uses INCLE, ESF, FMF, and NADR funds to support activities such as strengthening the abilities of Central American law enforcement institutions to fight crime, violence, and trafficking in drugs and firearms; implementing high-impact, sustainable activities that focus on at-risk youth (such as job training and after school activities) and communities that are experiencing high levels of crime and violence; preventing the proliferation of advanced conventional weapons by helping to build effective national export control systems in countries that process, produce, or supply strategic items, as well as in countries through which such items are most likely to transit; and building and improving partner nation security force capacity to protect maritime borders and land territory against transnational threats such as illicit narcotics trafficking.

USAID uses ESF funds for CARSI activities in the following areas: services for at-risk youth, focusing on vocational training, job placement, after-school activities, community centers, and leadership development; municipal crime prevention activities, including community outreach for local police and support for crime observatories that coordinate data sharing to track crime statistics; and national and regional political reform activities to strengthen rule of law institutions and that reflect partner countries’ commitments to reduce violence while creating the environment needed to institutionalize and sustain USAID efforts under CARSI.

Across the region, State and USAID use various CARSI-funded activities to carry out CARSI goals in each of the seven partner countries. Funding for CARSI activities provides partner countries with communication, border inspection, and security force equipment such as radios, computers, X-ray cargo scanners, narcotics identification kits, ballistic vests, and night-vision goggles. Funding for CARSI activities also provides related maintenance for this equipment. Figure 2 below shows examples of crime investigation forensic equipment and vehicles provided with funding for CARSI activities to the Belize Police Department.

In addition, funding for CARSI activities provides technical support and training to enhance partner countries’ prosecutorial capabilities; management of courts, police academies, and prisons; and to support law enforcement operations (e.g., training to support narcotics interdiction). Funding for CARSI activities also provides support to partner countries to that form specialized law enforcement units (also known as vetted units)are vetted by, and work with, U.S. personnel to investigate and disrupt the operations of transnational gangs and trafficking networks. Moreover, CARSI provides funding for partner countries to establish prevention activities designed to address underlying conditions (such as insufficient access to educational or economic opportunities and the prevalence of gangs) that leave communities vulnerable to crime and violence. Table 2 provides examples of CARSI activities in the seven partner countries.

As of March 31, 2013, U.S. agencies estimated that they had allocated approximately $708 million in non-CARSI funding that supported CARSI goals from fiscal year 2008 through the first half of fiscal year 2013, with State, USAID, and DOD allocating the largest amount of non-CARSI funds to support CARSI goals. U.S. agencies (State, USAID, DOD, DOJ, and DHS) reported using their non-CARSI funding to implement a range of activities that supported CARSI goals, including providing training, technical assistance, equipment, infrastructure, and investigation and operational support to partner countries. To estimate the amount of non-CARSI assistance that has been allocated for partner countries that supported CARSI goals, we collected data from State and USAID as well as DOD, DOJ, DHS, and Treasury for fiscal year 2008 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2013. We did not report data on disbursements of non-CARSI funding because these data were not readily available for some agencies owing to the complexity and challenges associated with how these agencies track their disbursement data.

The allocated amount of non-CARSI funding supporting CARSI goals was 43 percent greater than the allocated amount of funds for CARSI activities, as of March 31, 2013. The largest share of non-CARSI funding was allocated to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, as shown in table 3.

According to State officials, the U.S. government has identified CARSI as its primary initiative for addressing citizen security threats in Central America. U.S. agencies developed an interagency strategy to ensure an integrated approach to all U.S. citizen security activities in Central America whether funded through CARSI or other sources. Established in 2012, the strategy sets up CARSI and its five goals as the national policy framework for all U.S. government citizen security efforts in Central America and states that agencies’ activities in the region should link to one or more of the CARSI pillars. Agency officials noted that because the goals of CARSI are broad, a wide array of activities can be seen as supporting the goals, and agencies have sought to align their own strategy documents with the interagency strategy and five pillars of CARSI. Officials from some U.S. agencies, including DOD and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), noted that the CARSI goals reflect the types of activities that their agencies were already undertaking in the region. The largest shares of non-CARSI funds allocated are from State, USAID, and DOD (see table 4).

U.S. agencies reported using their non-CARSI funding to implement a range of activities that supported CARSI goals, including providing training, technical assistance, equipment, infrastructure, and investigation and operational support to partner countries. For example, State funds complementary activities from a variety of non-CARSI sources, including security assistance accounts such as the International Military Education and Training account; other foreign assistance accounts, such as the Democracy Fund; and non-foreign assistance sources, such as the Conflict Stabilization Operations account. State identified 11 offices that support complementary citizen security activities in Central America with non-CARSI funds. For example, according to State officials, State’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations funded mediation and community dialogue activities in Belize to reduce gang violence that complemented a related CARSI-funded activity. State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs used non-CARSI FMF funding to provide boats to Panama’s Coast Guard to assist in conducting drug interdictions in Panama’s territorial waters. USAID used non-CARSI Development Assistance funds to support a variety of activities in the rule of law and human rights, good governance, political competition and conflict resolution, and education areas. For example, USAID is using non-CARSI Development Assistance funds in Guatemala to help strengthen its security and justice sector institutions, according to USAID officials.

In addition, DOD, DHS, and DOJ also use funding other than CARSI to implement activities in Central America that support CARSI goals. For example, according to officials,

DOD has used funds from its Central Transfer Account for Counternarcotics to help establish an interagency border unit along the Guatemala/Mexico border to support Guatemalan efforts to stop the illicit movement of people and contraband. In Panama, a DOD medical team used non-CARSI funds to work with the Panamanian Ministry of Health in a poor and remote area in Panama to provide medical attention to this community. In Belize, DOD used non-CARSI funds for equipment, training, and infrastructure, including construction of a Belize Coast Guard Joint Operation Center that houses drug interdiction boats provided with funds for CARSI activities (see fig. 3).

DHS and its components used non-CARSI funding to support activities such as training by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on how to conduct searches and seizures at ports of entry that complemented other types of CARSI support.

DOJ and its components used non-CARSI funding to support a variety of activities designed to improve partner countries’ law enforcement capabilities. For example, DEA provided funding to support vetted Sensitive Investigative Units in Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama.

While not included in our reported non-CARSI allocation totals above, U.S. agencies also used other non-CARSI resources to support CARSI goals in ways other than directly funding activities in partner countries. For example, Treasury has used non-CARSI funding to pay for the salaries and other costs associated with posting its personnel in several partner countries to serve as resident advisors. These advisors work with the partner countries to improve their ability to detect and prevent money laundering and have used funding for CARSI activities to implement regional programs. In addition, the FBI’s Criminal Investigations Division has not directly funded non-CARSI activities in partner countries; however, it has assigned personnel to Transnational Anti-Gang Units that have been set up in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Agencies such as CBP, the U.S. Coast Guard, and DOD also support CARSI goals by using their assets, including aircraft and boats, to conduct counternarcotics operations in Central America. For example, U.S. agencies contribute resources to Operation Martillo, which is a joint counternarcotics operation involving the U.S. government, several partner countries, and other international partners.

State and USAID Took Steps to Consider Partner Country Needs, Absorptive Capacities, and Investments When Selecting CARSI Activities

When selecting activities to fund under CARSI, State and USAID took steps to help identify and consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related U.S. and non-U.S. citizen security assistance investments in partner countries. First, State and USAID officials used assessment reports to help identify and consider partner country needs and absorptive capacities. Second, State and USAID officials used outreach meetings with officials from partner country governments, other donor governments, and international organizations to consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and non-U.S. citizen security assistance investments in partner countries. Third, State and USAID officials used interagency meetings at embassies in partner countries and in Washington, D.C., to coordinate U.S. efforts, as well as to help identify and consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related non-U.S. investments in partner countries.

Assessment Reports Used to Help Identify and Consider Partner Country Needs and Absorptive Capacities

State officials used assessment reports to help identify and consider partner country needs and absorptive capacities when selecting activities to fund under CARSI. For example, State conducted reviews of the forensic capabilities in six partner countries over the course of 2011 to evaluate the crime scene investigation, prosecution, and forensic science programs and capacities in each country. In a 2011 report, State assessed deficiencies in these areas and developed recommendations to address those deficiencies. According to State, State officials used the conclusions and recommendations from this report to inform their decisions on selecting activities to fund under CARSI. State officials also reported that they used assessment reports produced by interagency partners to determine assistance needs, refine assistance efforts, and avoid absorptive capacity issues. For example, State officials used a series of technical assessment reports on the law enforcement and interdiction capabilities and needs of key Central American land ports of entry produced by CBP. Similarly, State officials reported that they used comprehensive assessment reports on the firearms regulations, oversight, investigative, and forensic capabilities of Central American governments produced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to determine that firearms interdiction activities could assist in reducing the trafficking of arms into the region.

USAID officials also used assessment reports to help identify and consider partner country needs and absorptive capacities when selecting activities to fund under CARSI. For example, USAID officials reported that they used assessment reports to help identify and consider partner country juvenile justice and community policing needs and absorptive capacities; these assessment reports included specific recommendations for designing and selecting juvenile justice and community policing projects in partner countries. According to USAID officials in Washington, D.C., and at U.S. embassies, USAID staff used information from these and other assessment reports to help select and design CARSI activities in partner countries. In addition, both State and USAID officials used country-specific CARSI assessment reports—produced by embassy staff in November 2009 and covering all seven partner countries—to help identify and consider partner country needs and absorptive capacities when selecting activities to fund under CARSI. These country-specific assessment reports included information on (1) the partner country’s security environment, (2) embassy and host government perspectives on the effectiveness of activities implemented to date, (3) partner country strengths and weaknesses and opportunities and threats, and (4) the partner country’s regional and bilateral security engagements.

Outreach Meetings Used to Help Identify and Consider Partner Country Needs, Absorptive Capacities, and Non-U.S. Investments

State and USAID officials also used outreach meetings with host government officials to help identify and consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and non-U.S. citizen security assistance investments in partner countries when selecting activities to fund under CARSI. Outreach meetings included both routine interactions between U.S. agency and host government officials—at the subject matter expert level—and broader, high-level meetings, typically at the ambassador and head of host government level. At these meetings, topics such as the status of current CARSI activities and the future of CARSI programming, including potential future CARSI activities, can be discussed. For example, embassy officials in one partner country reported that they held an ambassador/head of host government-level meeting with a delegation from the host government in June 2010. At this meeting, the U.S. government and the host government agreed to pursue bilateral, multiagency efforts to combat identified threats from transnational illicit trafficking and criminal organizations. Following this high-level meeting, embassy and host government officials established bilateral working groups to identify and develop activities in the partner country in areas such as border security, counternarcotics operations and strategy, gang prevention and law enforcement, community development, asset seizure, and investigation and prosecution. These bilateral working groups provided input on selecting activities to fund under CARSI and are now coordinating information-sharing efforts and progress updates on those activities.

State and USAID officials also used outreach meetings with other donor governments and international organizations to help identify and consider non-U.S. citizen security investments in partner countries when selecting CARSI activities. For example, in one partner country, embassy officials reported that they held numerous meetings with other donor governments. Through these outreach meetings, embassy officials were able to identify one donor government’s investments in police intelligence in the partner country and consequently reduced funding for CARSI activities in that area. Also, through regular outreach meetings, embassy officials in the same partner country reported that they were able to identify another donor government’s investments in ballistic imaging systems in the partner country. Embassy officials subsequently redirected funding for CARSI activities that would otherwise have been spent in that area.

State and USAID officials also used meetings with other donor governments through the Group of Friends of Central America’s Security Experts Group to help identify and consider non-U.S. citizen security assistance investments in partner countries when selecting activities to fund under CARSI. For example, through Group of Friends and other donor meetings, State reported that they worked with another donor government to coordinate an anti-crime capacity-building activity for a partner country by de-conflicting donor purchases and leveraging investments between the U.S. and the other donor government. In addition, both USAID and State reported that they utilized a donor database on third-country and multilateral assistance hosted by the Inter- American Development Bank (IDB) to help identify and consider non-U.S. investments. The database includes information on projects sponsored by other donors and international organizations in partner countries, such as when the project started, when it is scheduled to be completed, and the total project cost. State officials said that they are eager for IDB to update the database with more detailed donor information that could increase the effectiveness of U.S. agencies’ efforts to coordinate with other donors.

Interagency Meetings Used to Coordinate U.S. Efforts and Help Identify and Consider Partner Country Needs, Absorptive Capacities, and Non-U.S. Investments

When selecting activities to fund under CARSI, State and USAID officials also used interagency meetings at embassies in all seven partner countries to coordinate U.S. efforts, as well as to help identify and consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related non- U.S. investments in those partner countries. For example, embassy officials in one partner country reported that they used interagency meetings to discuss the partner country’s needs for a digital radio communication network to connect the host government’s police, military, and related agencies and the ability of the partner country to absorb such assistance. State and DOD officials used information from the interagency meetings to help design and select a digital radio communication project using both CARSI and non-CARSI funding. According to agency officials, by involving DOD in the project selection process, embassy officials leveraged DOD’s contribution to help meet the partner country’s needs and help the partner country conduct joint operations with the United States. In another partner country, embassy officials reported that they used interagency meetings to identify and consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related U.S. agency non-CARSI investments to support the host government’s efforts to regain control over a conflict-ridden portion of the country. According to agency officials, through the interagency meetings, U.S. agencies identified and considered these factors and coordinated the use of CARSI and non-CARSI funding to support the host government’s efforts.

State and USAID officials also reported that they used high-level interagency meetings, such as those of the Central America Interagency Working Group (IAWG) in Washington, D.C., to help identify and consider partner country needs and coordinate related U.S. agency non-CARSI investments in partner countries when selecting activities to fund under CARSI. The IAWG was launched in February 2012 and includes representatives from State and USAID, as well as representatives from other agencies engaged in citizen security efforts in Central America, including DHS, DOD, DOJ, and Treasury. According to State, from March 2012 through April 2013, the IAWG and its associated subgroups held 21 meetings. Through interagency meetings, State officials were able identify and consider non-CARSI proposed investments when selecting activities to fund under CARSI; for example, according to State, officials identified and considered non-CARSI proposed border management and migration projects for the region. State officials coordinated the disbursement of CARSI and non-CARSI funds to support the implementation of these border management and migration projects, while avoiding duplication among activities. In addition, through interagency meetings, agency officials were able to review various CARSI and non-CARSI land border security and interdiction activities and identified land border security short-to-medium-term capacity deficits. Consequently, agency officials are working to focus U.S. land interdiction security assistance on a limited number of high-impact engagements designed to increase seizures of contraband. By continuing to coordinate CARSI and non-CARSI investments through these interagency meetings, State officials said they will produce a more coordinated and integrated U.S. response to the region, with the goal of increasing seizures of contraband and supporting partner country border security initiatives.

U.S. Agencies Reported on Some CARSI Results, but Not on Progress toward Interagency Objectives, and Efforts Are Under Way to Evaluate CARSI Activities

Using various mechanisms, State and USAID have reported on some CARSI results at the initiative, country, and project levels. For example, embassies in partner countries produce monthly CARSI implementation reports that identify the impacts of CARSI or related activities in the country. However, U.S. agencies have not assessed or reported their performance using the metrics outlined in a 2012 interagency strategy for Central America that are designed to measure the results of CARSI and complementary non-CARSI programming. USAID is currently implementing an evaluation of selected CARSI activities and State is planning an evaluation of some of its CARSI activities.

U.S. Agencies Reported on Some CARSI Results through Various Mechanisms

State and USAID monitored and reported on some CARSI results through a variety of mechanisms at the initiative, country, and project levels. Initiative-level reporting addresses CARSI results across the different CARSI accounts and the seven partner countries. Country-level reporting describes CARSI results in a particular partner country. Project-level reporting describes the results of individual CARSI projects.

According to State and USAID officials, the primary source of consolidated information on CARSI results at the initiative level—across accounts and countries—is State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs’ (WHA) annual Performance Plan and Report. State and USAID use the annual Performance Plan and Report to monitor the performance of foreign assistance activities in the region. In its 2012 report, WHA provides information on some CARSI-wide results using a number of performance metrics that measure outputs against WHA’s established targets. For example, WHA uses metrics such as narcotics seizures and the establishment of local crime prevention groups to measure CARSI results. To produce the information on CARSI results in the report, WHA aggregated data on activities funded through all CARSI accounts and in all seven partner countries.

We do not provide more detailed information on the CARSI results discussed in the 2012 Performance Plan and Report because the document is labeled “Sensitive But Unclassified.” specific metric, State did not establish a fiscal year 2012 target against which to measure CARSI results. WHA noted that in its fiscal year 2012 report there are eight additional metrics that included combined results information on CARSI and other initiatives in the Western Hemisphere, but these metrics did not provide separate results information for CARSI- funded activities. For example, WHA reported that CARSI and other initiatives in the region together exceeded their target for a metric related to the training of foreign law enforcement officers by almost 75 percent in fiscal year 2012.

State and USAID also report on CARSI results at the country level. According to State and USAID officials, monthly CARSI implementation reports produced by the embassies in each partner country are one of the key ways in which they monitor and report on CARSI results at the country level. State and USAID officials stated that these implementation reports are part of their ongoing effort to monitor the impact and effectiveness of CARSI and related non-CARSI assistance. State requires embassies to include in the reports a section discussing the impact of CARSI and related activities. These impact sections do not provide information on performance relative to established CARSI metrics or specific goals, but instead consist of descriptions of the results of various activities taking place in the partner countries over the course of the month. For example, one embassy reported in May 2013 that the host government used a body scanner purchased with CARSI funds to successfully detect a man attempting to smuggle narcotics onto a plane bound for the United States. A different embassy reported in April 2013 that a CARSI-supported anti-gang education and training program had been successfully expanded nationwide and had taught over 3,000 children over 3 years of the program. The 55 monthly reports we reviewed included a range of other results from CARSI-funded activities that were identified by embassies, but we also found that some embassies did not always link some of the reported results to specific U.S. assistance activities. For example, a number of reports noted seizures or arrests made by the host government, but the reports did not provide any information on how CARSI or related U.S. non-CARSI assistance had facilitated these efforts.

State officials identified INL’s annual end-use monitoring reports as a second mechanism for monitoring and reporting on CARSI activities at the country level, although these end-use monitoring reports are not specific to CARSI. State officials said that these end-use monitoring reports are used to monitor all INCLE-funded items that have been provided to the partner country to ensure that items are accounted for and used in accordance with the terms agreed to by the U.S. government and the partner country. As part of the end-use monitoring reports, State requires embassy officials to include a discussion of the impact of any INCLE-funded equipment, infrastructure, training, or other services that have been provided, including under CARSI. The reports from partner countries for fiscal years 2009 through 2012 identified a number of positive results from CARSI assistance. For example, the embassy in El Salvador stated in its 2012 end-use monitoring report that trucks provided to the national police had a significant impact on the number of cases investigated and improved the national police’s response capabilities. However, the reports also identified some issues related to upkeep, maintenance, and use of CARSI-funded equipment. For example, the embassy in Guatemala reported in 2012 that 11 motorcycles provided to the National Police became inoperable as a result of a lack of proper maintenance and funding; State then covered the cost of refurbishing the motorcycles.

Finally, USAID officials noted that annual portfolio reviews conducted by USAID missions in partner countries are an important tool for reporting CARSI results at the country level. USAID first began requiring its missions to conduct such reviews in November 2012. According to USAID guidance, portfolio reviews should, among other things, examine the mission’s progress in achieving its objectives over the past year. The portfolio reviews that we examined included varying levels of information about CARSI results. For example, one review did not provide any results information, but instead provided a general description of the types of activities funded under the USAID mission’s portfolio. However, in other cases, the USAID missions did provide specific results information. For example, one mission reported that one of its programs had provided access to vocational training to improve job competitiveness for 1,763 young people either at risk of becoming gang members or trying to leave gangs. In some cases, the portfolio reviews did not specify whether certain results were from CARSI or related non-CARSI projects.

State and USAID officials also stated that they perform certain monitoring and reporting on CARSI results at the project level. State’s INL conducts quarterly desk reviews of INCLE-funded CARSI activities to track the progress of projects over time. INL requires these quarterly desk reviews to include a discussion of the project objectives, measure project results against established performance metrics, and identify success stories. For example, INL reported in the quarterly desk review for one CARSI project that, as of the end of 2012, it had trained 259 host government investigators, prosecutors, and judges on the use of forensic evidence in court proceedings. In another quarterly desk review, INL reported that the project implementer had successfully developed an improved case management system to assist the Costa Rican Attorney General’s Office in conducting drug trafficking prosecutions. USAID also conducts quarterly reporting on its CARSI projects. USAID’s quarterly reports include information on the project’s accomplishments for the quarter and progress that had been made relative to the project’s established performance metrics. For example, in a report for the second quarter of fiscal year 2013, the implementer of USAID’s crime prevention program in Panama reported that it had met or exceeded its targets for 20 of the project’s 26 metrics, including its target for the number of municipalities that had set up municipal crime prevention committees.

U.S. Agencies Have Not Assessed and Reported Progress toward Objectives Outlined in the U.S. Interagency Strategy for Central America

While State and USAID have reported on some CARSI results, U.S. agencies have not assessed and reported on their results using the performance metrics identified in the February 2012 interagency citizen security strategy for Central America. U.S. agencies developed this strategy to help coordinate and focus the U.S. government’s CARSI and related non-CARSI activities in the region. In the interagency strategy, U.S. agencies outlined five metrics for measuring the performance of U.S. government citizen security programming, including CARSI activities, in achieving the strategy’s objectives. For example, the strategy includes a metric to reduce homicide rates each year from 2012 through 2017.

According to State and USAID officials, the strategy and the metrics it identifies were developed through an iterative, interagency process that included other agencies such as DOD, DOJ, and DHS. However, to date, U.S. agencies have not assessed and reported on their performance using the metrics identified in the strategy.

GAO-12-1022. that have proven their effectiveness in solving the region’s most pressing problems.

USAID Is Conducting an Evaluation of Some of Its CARSI Activities, and State Is Planning an Evaluation

USAID is currently conducting an evaluation of some of its CARSI activities, and State is developing an evaluation of INL activities under CARSI, consistent with its evaluation policy. USAID and State have both taken steps to monitor and report on the results of CARSI-funded activities. However, in our previous work we concluded that monitoring activities do not take the place of program evaluations. As we previously concluded, monitoring is ongoing in nature and measures agencies’ progress in meeting established objectives, typically using performance metrics. Evaluations are individual, systematic studies that typically examine a broader range of information on program performance and its context than is feasible to monitor on an ongoing basis. Thus, evaluations allow for overall assessments of whether a program is working and what adjustments need to be made to improve results.

USAID officials stated that they will also conduct evaluations of other CARSI activities that meet the criteria established in USAID’s 2011 evaluation policy. USAID’s evaluation policy requires each USAID operating unit to evaluate all projects that equal or exceed the average project size for that operating unit, at least once during the project’s lifetime. preliminary results from El Salvador show that murder and robbery rates have been reduced in communities receiving USAID assistance under the program.

USAID officials identified a range of ways that they expect the crime prevention programming evaluation to assist them, once it is completed. For example, they expect the evaluation to provide evidence of the extent to which USAID’s crime prevention program reduced crime victimization and perceptions of insecurity in at-risk communities. USAID officials also anticipated that they would be able to use the evaluation’s findings as a tool to encourage partner countries to make their own investments in crime prevention activities.

State officials noted that they are currently working on a scope of work for an evaluation of CARSI activities. In 2012, State issued an evaluation policy that requires bureaus to evaluate two to four programs, projects, or activities every 2 years, starting in fiscal year 2012, with all “large” programs, projects, and activities required to be evaluated at least once in their lifetime or every 5 years, whichever is less. The policy also requires all State bureaus to complete a bureau evaluation plan and to update it annually. According to State officials, given other priority areas, INL did not select CARSI for evaluation in its first bureau evaluation plan, covering fiscal years 2012 through 2014, although CARSI qualifies as a large program for INL. Nevertheless, INL officials stated that they intend to conduct an evaluation of their CARSI activities beginning in fiscal year 2014, as CARSI approaches its 5-year point. INL officials stated that they are currently working on a scope of work for this evaluation, which will cover CARSI programming across the partner countries. INL officials stated that their intention is to issue a solicitation by the end of 2013 for a contractor to conduct the CARSI evaluation. However, INL officials noted that many decisions have not yet been made about the scope or methodology for the evaluation and that funding has not yet been secured for the evaluation. In regard to WHA, State officials noted that the bureau manages only a small percentage of State’s funding for CARSI activities. Given the small percentage of CARSI funding WHA manages, State officials said that WHA does not have any plans to conduct a separate CARSI evaluation from the one INL intends to do.

Our guidance on evaluation design indicates that State could increase the value of any future evaluation it conducts by ensuring that it systematically plans the evaluation. As we have previously concluded, systematically planning for evaluations is important to (1) enhance the quality, credibility, and usefulness of evaluations and (2) use time and In our earlier work on evaluation design, we resources effectively.recommended that agencies take five steps to effectively design an evaluation, as shown in table 5.

Evaluations of CARSI activities, such as the one that INL has stated it intends to undertake, could provide State with important information to help it manage and oversee CARSI. As State’s evaluation policy notes, evaluations are essential to documenting program impact and identifying best practices and lessons learned. Among other things, an evaluation could help State as it seeks to identify successful CARSI activities and determine how best to replicate them in other locations.

State officials noted that designing a CARSI evaluation will be challenging because CARSI involves a diverse set of activities that are being implemented in seven different countries. Thus, State officials stated that one challenge they will face in evaluating CARSI is selecting a mix of activities to evaluate that are sufficiently representative of their various CARSI activities that conclusions can be drawn about the broader impact of their CARSI efforts. Given such challenges, effectively planning any CARSI evaluation would help State ensure that the evaluation provides the types of information it can use to guide future decisions about CARSI programming.

Conclusions

CARSI partner countries face significant challenges that threaten the security of their citizens as well as the interests of the United States. U.S. agencies have allocated over $1.2 billion to support a range of activities to help partner countries respond to these threats. While State and USAID have reported on some results from CARSI-funded activities, the agencies have not worked with their interagency partners to assess progress made in meeting performance targets outlined in the 2012 U.S. interagency citizen security strategy for Central America. Without assessing their performance meeting these targets, agencies lack important information on progress made toward achieving the objectives outlined in the interagency strategy that could help guide future decisions. To evaluate some of its CARSI activities, USAID is currently overseeing an evaluation of its CARSI crime prevention programming and intends to use the evaluation to help it better target, design, and prioritize future CARSI programming. State is planning an evaluation of some of its CARSI activities as the initiative approaches its 5-year mark. These evaluations will help agencies better manage and oversee their programs and activities. Among other things, the evaluations can be used to (1) help agencies assess the effectiveness of completed activities, (2) modify the current mix of existing projects to increase program effectiveness, and (3) better prioritize future projects to achieve results. While these are commendable steps, assessing progress made toward achieving the objectives outlined in the U.S. interagency strategy for Central America would provide important information on the performance of CARSI and related U.S. government activities and better guide U.S. decision making.

Recommendation for Executive Action

To help ensure that U.S. agencies have relevant information on the progress of CARSI and related U.S. government activities, we recommend that the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator direct their representatives on the Central America Interagency Working Group to work with the other members to assess the progress of CARSI and related U.S. government activities in achieving the objectives outlined in the U.S. government’s interagency citizen security strategy for Central America.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DHS, DOD, DOJ, State, Treasury, and USAID for their review and comment. DHS, State, and USAID provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. USAID and State also provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendixes IV and V, respectively. In their written comments, State and USAID both concurred with our recommendation and State noted that GAO’s recommended steps for evaluation design would guide an evaluation of CARSI programming.

As discussed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to DHS, DOD, DOJ, State, Treasury, and USAID, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

This report (1) provides an updated assessment of U.S. agencies’ funding and activities that support Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) goals; (2) examines whether U.S. agencies took steps to consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related U.S. and non-U.S. investments when selecting activities to fund under CARSI; and (3) examines information on the extent to which U.S. agencies reported CARSI results and evaluated CARSI activities.

To assess U.S. agencies’ funding and activities that supported CARSI goals, we obtained data and program documentation from the Department of State (State) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) concerning funds allocated to support programs in Central American countries under the Mérida Initiative in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and under CARSI from fiscal year 2010 to June 1, 2013, through four accounts—International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE); Economic Support Fund (ESF); Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR); and Foreign Military Financing (FMF). We obtained the data from each bureau at State that administers those accounts: International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA), International Security and Nonproliferation, Counterterrorism, and Political-Military Affairs. We also obtained data from USAID, which also allocates and implements the ESF account. In particular, State and USAID provided data on the status of allocations, unobligated balances, unliquidated obligations, and disbursements for the ESF account; State also provided these data for the INCLE and NADR accounts. State’s bureaus and USAID administer the accounts separately and utilize their own data collection systems and budgeting terms.

To address differences between their systems, we provided State and USAID with the definitions from GAO’s A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process and requested that State and USAID provide the relevant data according to those definitions. To the extent possible, we worked with agencies to ensure that they provided data that met these definitions. However, the Department of Defense budgets and tracks FMF funds in a different way than the other foreign assistance accounts that support CARSI. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) and the Defense Financing and Accounting Service (DFAS) are responsible for the financial systems that account for FMF funds, as well as tracking the implementation and disbursement of those funds. DSCA’s system can only track FMF uncommitted and committed amounts, not unliquidated obligations or disbursements. DFAS tracks disbursements using the Defense Integrated Finance System; however, there is no direct link between the DSCA and DFAS systems and the DFAS system does not track funding for specific initiatives, such as CARSI. Therefore, State was not able to provide data on unliquidated obligations or disbursements, but it was able to provide us with data on CARSI FMF allocations and commitments.

In providing technical comments on a draft of this report, State officials reported an amount of close to $10.6 million in additional INCLE funding that was allocated for CARSI activities in fiscal year 2010 that had not been previously reported to GAO. State officials also said that they could not provide obligation or disbursement information related to this amount because these INCLE funds are centrally managed and State’s financial systems do not allow them to track such funds by region or country. According to State, that is why these funds were not previously reported to GAO. We followed up with State officials to confirm that the funds had been applied to CARSI activities and to document the programs toward which the funds had been applied. Although State officials were not able to provide information for the obligation or disbursement of these funds, we have included this amount in the total allocated for CARSI activities.

We made note of this discrepancy in presenting this data in the report.

We also interviewed officials from each of State’s bureaus and USAID on their budgeting process and terms to determine the best method for collecting comparable data across accounts. We then reviewed the data and consulted with State and USAID on the accuracy and completeness of the information. When we found discrepancies, we contacted relevant agency officials and worked with them to resolve the discrepancies. We noted any differences in the ways the agencies collected, categorized, or reported their data in notes to the tables in this report. To assess the reliability of the data provided, we requested and reviewed information from agency officials regarding the underlying financial data systems and the checks, controls, and reviews used to generate the data and ensure its accuracy and reliability. We determined that the data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Furthermore, to identify equipment, training, and other related activities supported by funding for CARSI activities, we reviewed program documentation and interviewed relevant officials from State and USAID regarding the status of program implementation and the types of equipment, training, and other activities provided to partner countries to date. In addition, we visited three partner countries—Belize, Guatemala, and Panama. We selected these three countries as a sample considering the following elements—the scope of the citizen security problem; the amount of funding for CARSI activities received from fiscal years 2008 to 2012, the range of CARSI activities undertaken, the extent of non-CARSI U.S. government activities that support CARSI objectives, and the extent of host government or other donor citizen security efforts in these countries. In these three countries, we met with U.S. agency officials as well as host government, international organization, and other donor government officials. We also visited CARSI and non-CARSI activity locations during these visits.

To determine how much non-CARSI assistance has been allocated for partner countries that supported CARSI goals, we collected data from State and USAID as well as DOD, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of the Treasury for fiscal year 2008 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2013. Data on disbursements of non-CARSI funding were not readily available for some agencies because of the complexity and challenges associated with how these agencies track their disbursement data. In collecting allocation data, we asked agencies to provide funding data only for activities that they determined supported one or more of the five pillars of CARSI. In addition, we asked agencies to provide only data on non-CARSI funding that directly assisted partner countries, such as funding for training, equipment, infrastructure, and operational or investigative support. To avoid double-counting across agencies, we asked agencies to provide data only on activities funded through their own appropriations. We requested non-CARSI data from all the agencies in a standardized format, but given differences in the agencies’ missions, budget processes, and data systems, there were variations in the responses we received. We worked with the agencies to resolve these discrepancies. For example, some agencies provided data on funding for the salaries of U.S. government employees, or the operation of U.S. equipment, such as aircraft. We determined that these types of funding did not constitute direct assistance to the partner countries and did not include these funding amounts in our totals. In addition, in certain cases, agencies reported that they did not allocate non-CARSI funding to activities supporting CARSI goals in advance, but that they disbursed resources to programs that supported CARSI goals as needs arose. In these cases, we worked with the agencies to determine whether or not the disbursed amounts could be considered as equivalent to the allocation amounts given the nature of how the agencies’ programming was executed and made adjustments accordingly.

To assess the reliability of the non-CARSI data provided, we collected information from agency officials regarding their methodology for determining what non-CARSI funding to include as supporting CARSI goals and the process they used for generating the data. We worked with agencies to make adjustments to these methodologies if we identified concerns. As part of this effort, we gathered information from the agencies on potential risks of underestimates or overestimates of the allocation amounts they reported and how we might mitigate any potential overestimates. We then took steps to mitigate these issues to the extent possible. For example, some agencies provided us with funding data for regional programs that benefited both partner countries and non-CARSI countries. In these cases, we worked with the agencies to determine if there was an appropriate way of apportioning a percentage of the costs to the partner countries versus the other non-CARSI beneficiary countries. If possible, we adjusted the numbers accordingly; if adjustments were not feasible, we did not include the funding amounts in our totals. As part of our data reliability assessments, we also reviewed information on the underlying data systems used to produce the data and the checks, controls, and reviews the agencies perform to ensure the accuracy and reliability of data in these systems. There are certain inherent limitations in the data we collected because agencies were asked to make determinations, using their own judgments, about what portions of their non-CARSI funding supported CARSI goals. However, we believe that the steps we have taken mitigate these limitations, to the extent possible. Given this, we determined that, for the purposes of this report, the data were sufficiently reliable to provide estimates of agencies’ non-CARSI funding that supported CARSI goals. To determine the types of activities that this non-CARSI assistance funded, we reviewed documentation from U.S. agencies and also conducted interviews with agency officials at headquarters and in our three site-visit countries.

To examine whether U.S. agencies took steps to consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related U.S. and non-U.S. investments when selecting activities to fund under CARSI, we interviewed State and USAID officials at headquarters and at the embassies in the three partner countries we visited. In addition, we submitted specific written questions to two bureaus at State and USAID at headquarters and received written response documents on the steps State and USAID officials used to help identify and consider these key factors when selecting activities for funding under CARSI. We also worked with State officials at headquarters to develop written questions for the embassies in all seven partner countries on the steps they used to help identify and consider these key factors when selecting CARSI activities. We received comprehensive written response documents from the embassies in all partner countries with information cleared at the Deputy Chief of Mission level. We reviewed and analyzed the written response documents we received from two bureaus at State and USAID at headquarters and from embassies in all seven partner countries. Using these various data sources, we identified specific steps that State and USAID officials used to consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and investments when selecting CARSI activities. We also reviewed additional available written documentation on the steps State and USAID used to help identify and consider key factors, such as various assessment reports produced by State, USAID, and other agency officials; trip reports and status reports produced by agency officials; summary agendas from interagency meetings held at embassies and in headquarters; and documentation on the management and coordination of CARSI activities. We did not assess the extent or effectiveness of the steps that State and USAID took to identify and consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, or U.S. and non-U.S. investments.

To examine information on the extent to which U.S. agencies reported CARSI results and evaluated CARSI activities, we interviewed State and USAID officials at headquarters and U.S. officials at the embassies in the three partner countries we visited. In addition, we submitted questions and received written responses from State and USAID headquarters, as well as from the embassies in all seven partner countries, which provided additional information on agencies’ results reporting and evaluation of CARSI activities. Using this information, we identified the key mechanisms State and USAID use for reporting CARSI results at the program, country, and project level. At the initiative level, we reviewed the WHA annual Performance Plan and Reports for fiscal years 2009 through 2012 and the interagency strategy for citizen security in Central America and assessed the types of CARSI results identified in these documents. At the country level, we analyzed a non-probability sample of 55 monthly CARSI implementation reports produced by embassies in the partner countries. We selected this sample to ensure that we obtained a mix of old and recent reports from all 7 countries. This sample contained eight reports from each of the seven partner countries, except for Nicaragua, which provided seven reports, and included the three most recent reports produced by each embassy as of May 2013, as well as reports from earlier years going back to fiscal year 2009. At the country level, we also reviewed completed INL annual End-Use Monitoring Reports from each of the seven partner countries for fiscal years 2009 to 2012 and a USAID- selected sample of five portfolio reviews from USAID offices in partner countries. Finally, we analyzed five INL Quarterly Desk Reviews and six USAID project reports to determine the types of CARSI results identified in project-level reporting. These reports were selected by State and USAID respectively as examples of their project-level reporting.

We also compared U.S. agencies’ actions to assess and report their progress toward achieving the objectives in the interagency strategy for Central America against key considerations that we identified in 2012 for implementing interagency collaboration mechanisms. work, we found that one key feature in the successful implementation of such mechanisms is the development of a system for monitoring and reporting on results. In addition, we compared agencies’ activities against leading practices we identified in 1996 for performance management of federal programs.

We developed this list of considerations through a review of relevant literature on collaboration mechanisms, interviews with experts on collaboration, and a review of findings from a number of our previous reports on collaboration in the federal government. See GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012). ongoing, or planned evaluations of CARSI. From USAID, we gathered information on the scope and methodology, current status, and expected uses of their impact evaluation of their municipal crime prevention program. We also gathered testimonial evidence from State on INL’s planned evaluation of its CARSI activities. In addition, we reviewed State’s 2012 Program Evaluation Policy and determined the extent to which INL and WHA had selected CARSI activities for evaluation in their bureau evaluation plans for fiscal years 2012 through 2014.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to September 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Status of Central America Regional Security Initiative Funds

To demonstrate how funding for Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) activities have been allocated, obligated, and disbursed, we are providing the status of funds provided for CARSI activities as of June 1, 2013. The following tables show CARSI funds by account, describing how U.S. agencies have allocated, obligated, and disbursed funds (by year of appropriation) toward activities in partner countries. In addition, the tables show unobligated balances, which is the portion of an obligational authority that has not yet been obligated, and unliquidated obligations (or obligated balance), which is the amount of obligation already incurred for which payment has not yet been made. Funding for CARSI activities has primarily come from the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) and Economic Support Fund (ESF) accounts. In earlier years, funding also came from the Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) accounts.

Status of CARSI INCLE Account Funds

The Department of State’s (State) Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs administers the CARSI INCLE funds. As of June 1, 2013, State had allocated the largest amount of its CARSI INCLE funds to Guatemala, regional programs, Honduras, and El Salvador (see table 6). In addition, State had disbursed approximately $122 million of INCLE funds to support partner countries (see table 7). In providing technical comments on a draft of this report, State officials reported an amount of close to $10.6 million in INCLE funding that was allocated for CARSI activities in fiscal year 2010 that had not been previously reported to GAO. State officials also said that they could not provide obligation or disbursement information related to this amount, because these INCLE funds are centrally managed and State’s financial systems do not allow them to track such funds by region or country. According to State, this is why these funds were not previously reported to GAO. We followed up with State officials to confirm that the funds had been applied to CARSI activities and to document the programs toward which the funds had been applied. Although State officials were not able to provide information on the obligation or disbursement of these funds, we have included this amount in the INCLE funding allocated for CARSI activities.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) shares responsibility with State to administer the ESF account. USAID oversees the implementation of most programs funded from this account, according to USAID officials; State’s Bureau for Western Hemisphere Affairs administers State’s portion of ESF.

As of June 1, 2013, USAID had allocated the largest amounts of its ESF funds for CARSI activities to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (see table 8). Furthermore, USAID had disbursed approximately $51 million of ESF funds to support CARSI activities (see table 9). For fiscal year 2013, USAID officials explained that the agency has not yet been allocated funds from the Office of Management and Budget that Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2013. Therefore, the disbursement data provided below in table 9 for fiscal year 2013 are of funds allocated only in prior years, and table 8 reflects no allocations for fiscal year 2013.

As of June 1, 2013, State had allocated the largest amounts of its ESF funds for CARSI activities to Costa Rica, Belize, and Panama (see table 10). Furthermore, State had disbursed approximately $10 million of ESF funding for CARSI activities (see table 11). In addition, State officials explained that the agency has not yet been allocated funds that Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2013. Therefore, the disbursement data provided below in table 11 for fiscal year 2013 are only of funds allocated in prior years, and table 10 reflects no allocations for fiscal year 2013.

State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation and its Bureau of Counterterrorism administer CARSI NADR funds. NADR funds were allocated for Central American countries under the Mérida Initiative only for fiscal year 2008. NADR Export Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) and Counterterrorism (CT) funds were used to support activities in partner countries. As of June 1, 2013, the largest amount of funds had been allocated for NADR-EXBS activities, and 96 percent of those allocated funds had been disbursed (see table 12). Slightly more than $6 million of CARSI NADR-EXBS and NADR-CT funds were disbursed as of June 1, 2013 (see table 13). According to State officials, it is not possible to provide a country-by-country breakout of CARSI NADR- EXBS funds disbursed because the funds are intended for regional programming.

Appendix III: Status of Central America Regional Security Initiative Foreign Military Financing Account Funds

This appendix provides the status of Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds as of June 1, 2013. Table 1 describes how U.S. agencies have allocated and committed FMF funds (by year of appropriation) toward activities in partner countries. The presentation of FMF allocations and commitments is different from presentations on allocations, obligations, and disbursements on the other CARSI accounts in appendix II because FMF funds are budgeted and tracked in a different way.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) and the Defense Financing and Accounting Service (DFAS) are responsible for the financial systems that account for FMF funds, as well as tracking the implementation and disbursement of those funds. According to DSCA officials, FMF funds are obligated upon apportionment. Further, DSCA’s system can only track FMF uncommitted and committed amounts, not unliquidated obligations or disbursements. DFAS tracks disbursements using the Defense Integrated Finance System; however, there is no direct link between the DSCA and DFAS systems, and the DFAS system does not track funding for specific initiatives, such as CARSI.

The Department of State (State) allocated close to $26 million of FMF funds for Central American countries for activities under the Mérida Initiative from fiscal years 2008 to 2010. From fiscal years 2008 to 2010, State allocated the largest amounts of these FMF funds to El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama. As of June 1, 2013, approximately 90 percent of the total allocated amount had been committed (see table 14).

Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Valérie L. Nowak (Assistant Director), Ian Ferguson, Marisela Perez, Ryan Vaughan, and Debbie Chung made key contributions to this report. Martin de Alteriis, Ashley Alley, Lynn Cothern, and Etana Finkler also provided assistance.