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

Letter

Background

GSCF allows State and DOD to address emergent challenges and opportunities by pooling funds from existing departmental accounts and sharing expertise to provide equipment, supplies, and training to enhance a partner nation’s security forces. State and DOD can use the GSCF authority to support partner nations’ border and maritime security, internal defense, and counterterrorism operations, or to participate in or support military, stability, or peace support operations in partner nations. The GSCF authority also permits State and DOD to provide assistance to a partner nation’s justice sector.

State and DOD fund the program primarily by transferring funds from other accounts, with at least 20 percent of the funding from State and the remainder from DOD. In fiscal year 2012, Congress authorized State to transfer up to $50 million from certain foreign appropriation accounts and DOD to transfer up to $200 million from its defense-wide accounts for operation and maintenance into the GSCF.authorized to transfer funds into GSCF until September 30, 2015; however, these funds remain available for activities under projects that State and DOD are have started before that date. In The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Congress authorized State to transfer up to $25 million from specific State appropriations accounts and authorized DOD to transfer up to $200 million into GSCF.cable, because State is required to contribute at least 20 percent and DOD not more than 80 percent of the funding for an approved GSCF project, both departments are authorized to transfer up to a combined $125 million in fiscal year 2014.

According to State’s March 2014 GSCF State and DOD jointly administer GSCF; the departments work together to formulate GSCF projects that are approved by the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, before implementation. The departments are also required to notify Congress of their intent to transfer funds and initiate activities for GSCF projects before starting project execution, and DOD is required to seek approval to retransfer funds. Numerous State and DOD stakeholders are involved in the GSCF program from project identification to execution. Table 1 summarizes the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders involved in the GSCF program.

State and DOD Have Developed Processes to Manage the GSCF Program

In March 2014, State and DOD developed processes to manage GSCF project proposal development, congressional notification, and the transfer of funds into a joint GSCF account. These processes are described in two documents: Utilizing the Global Security Contingency Fund and Global Security Contingency Fund Program Execution Guidance. State and DOD officials stated that they incorporated lessons learned from other capacity- building programs to develop the process described in Utilizing the Global Security Contingency Fund. To develop the Global Security Contingency Fund Execution Guidance, State created intradepartmental accounting and reporting procedures for GSCF funds.

State and DOD Guidance Describes Process for GSCF Project Development

State and DOD officials developed a guidance document that was issued in March 2014 as a State cable titled Utilizing the Global Security Contingency Fund, which describes how State and DOD are to identify, develop, and execute GSCF projects. GSCF staff stated that they incorporated lessons learned from developing the GSCF fiscal year 2012 projects in preparing the March 2014 guidance as well as incorporating successful processes from other security assistance programs, such as The March 2014 cable describes a process that can be Section 1206.divided into three phases, with a total of 14 steps, to identify, develop, and execute projects. The cable was sent to U.S. embassies, consulates, and combatant commands and it contains sections that can be grouped into the following phases: project identification, plan development, and execution. The project identification phase is shown in figure 1.

The project identification phase consists of five steps, as described below. 1. Project idea origination: officials in Washington, D.C., geographic combatant commands, or U.S. embassies are to propose an idea for a project to address an emergent or impending threat or emergent opportunity that aligns with the areas of assistance that the GSCF authority can provide. 2. Stakeholders agree to idea: key stakeholders from relevant State and DOD offices are to gather to discuss whether the project proposal addresses a high-priority national security interest without duplicating efforts, the partner nation’s receptivity to the project proposal, and whether existing State or DOD authorities are available to address the need.3. Proposal development: the proposal originator is to work with GSCF staff to initiate working-level meetings with key stakeholders to assess the proposal and discuss potential lines of effort. Additionally, the proposal originator is to complete a proposal worksheet that asks for a range of information, such as detailed assistance objectives, activities, cost estimate, and envisioned timeline. The proposal originator is to obtain endorsement of the proposal worksheet from the chief of mission and the combatant command before submitting it to the GSCF staff. 4. GSCF staff review proposal: GSCF staff is to review the proposal worksheet and confirm that it includes all required elements. 5. Review and Selection Committee review proposal: the proposal is to be reviewed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Review and Selection Committee. This senior-level committee is to meet to review the proposal within 10 business days of its receipt, when possible. During the review, the committee can ask the proposal originator to make refinements and resubmit the proposal. If there is no committee consensus to proceed, the committee is to refer the proposal to the Deputy Secretaries of State and DOD for a senior-leader decision on whether to proceed with the project. If there is consensus to proceed with the proposal, the committee is to task the proposal originator and key stakeholders to develop a detailed implementation plan, which begins the plan development phase, as shown in figure 2.

The plan development phase consists of six steps as described below. 1. Implementation plan development: State and DOD are to establish a Program Steering Group—jointly led by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense from the relevant State and DOD regional bureaus—to provide policy guidance and oversight to the planning effort and to determine the lead organization responsible for drafting the detailed implementation plan. According to the March 2014 cable, the Program Steering Group should include all stakeholders, and they are expected to contribute to, review, and endorse the detailed implementation plan. The proposal originator is to develop a detailed implementation plan that includes—among other criteria, goals, and specific assistance objectives—a detailed work plan with a breakdown of costs per activity; related security assistance that has been implemented, is in progress, or is planned; and a proposal of outcome-oriented indicators for monitoring and evaluation. The detailed implementation plan is to be completed not more than 60 days after the Review and Selection Committee grants approval to pursue GSCF assistance. 2. Implementation plan endorsement: once the implementation plan is complete, the country team is expected to secure the endorsement of the implementation plan from the chief of mission within 7 business days, if possible. 3. Implementation plan approval: after the chief of mission endorses the implementation plan, the Program Steering Group leadership is to convene to review and approve the plan within 5 business days of its receipt. 4. Implementation plan review for completeness: GSCF staff is to review the implementation plan to ensure its completeness. If the plan is incomplete, the Program Steering Group has 10 business days to provide additional information. 5. Implementation plan approval and concurrence: after the implementation plan is final, the GSCF staff is to prepare appropriate documentation for the Secretary of State’s approval and the Secretary of Defense’s concurrence, to include the funds approval and congressional notification packages within 10 business days. 6. Congressional notification: once the departments secure the required approvals, GSCF staff is to begin the congressional notification process. After congressional notification is complete, the project execution phase begins, as shown in figure 3.

The project execution phase consists of three steps as described below. 1. Funds transfer: State and DOD are to transfer funds into the GSCF account. 2. Project oversight and implementation: project implementers are to execute the project, and the Program Steering Group is responsible for overseeing program execution. 3. Project reporting: project implementers are to provide monthly and quarterly reporting on funds execution and provide information about project activities. Project implementers, the embassy, and the partner nation are also expected to support and provide input to facilitate monitoring and evaluation activities.

A contractor has developed a framework to conduct monitoring and evaluation on the GSCF program and individual GSCF projects. According to State officials, the program-results framework was developed with a broad set of GSCF goals and objectives. State officials also stated that the contractor is starting to develop the project-specific framework for three GSCF projects and one has been delayed due to partner nation security and project rescoping issues.

State Guidance Describes the GSCF Congressional Notification and Funding Transfer Process

State issued a separate document in March 2014, titled Global Security Contingency Fund Program Execution Guidance, which describes a process for congressional notification and internal State procedures for transferring and managing funds in the joint GSCF account.guidance states that State and DOD should complete all congressional notification requirements to secure approval to transfer funds. The congressional notification process is shown in figure 4.

The congressional notification process consists of four steps, and the guidance states that the departments should complete all congressional notification requirements simultaneously. 1. DOD retransferring request: while DOD is to seek written approval from defense committees and subcommittees to retransfer funds from the defense-wide operation and maintenance accounts into the GSCF account, State is not required to submit a retransferring request to Congress to transfer its funds. 2. Congressional notification: both State and DOD are to notify Congress of their intent to transfer funds and intent to initiate activities. In their congressional notification packages, State and DOD are required to include original source of funds; a detailed project justification, including total anticipated costs and specific activities; budget; execution plan and timeline; anticipated completion date; list of other U.S. security-related assistance provided to the partner nation; and any other information related to the project that the departments consider appropriate. 3. Waiting period: State and DOD are to wait 30 days during the congressional notification period before executing a GSCF project. 4. Congressional approval: GSCF projects may not begin execution until after the 30-day notification period expires and Congress approves DOD’s retransferring of funds. However, there may be instances in which the departments transfer funds into the GSCF account for a specific project but subsequently determine these funds are no longer needed. In such cases, the departments are required to notify Congress of the intent to initiate a new project and may use these already transferred funds. Figure 5 shows the funds transfer process for GSCF.

State and DOD follow their respective departmental procedures to The three funding transfer funds from other accounts into GSCF.transfers for GSCF are identified below. 1. First transfer: the first transfer is into a time-limited U.S. Treasury– based account that GSCF staff call a parent account. State and DOD are able to transfer money into this parent account until September 30, 2015. 2. Second transfer: State created a second parent account without a time limitation since the authority also states that amounts already transferred to GSCF before September 30, 2015, shall remain available for GSCF projects that have started before this date. Once funds are transferred into the second parent account, State submits an internal transfer request to move funds a third time. 3. Third transfer: the third transfer is from the GSCF no-year parent account into a State no-year subaccount and a DOD no-year subaccount.

According to State officials, funds are considered obligated once they are apportioned by the Office of Management and Budget, transferred into the respective subaccounts, and allotted to the implementing bureaus. From these accounts, State and DOD obligate funds to secure contracts or services for implementing entities. Funds are considered expended upon payment for those contracts or services.

State and DOD’s GSCF Projects Have Not Met Originally Planned Execution Target Dates

State and DOD have submitted congressional notification packages for seven projects since fiscal year 2012. As of September 2014, State and DOD have not met the execution target dates contained in the congressional notifications for the five fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects by an average of about 8 months, assuming the projects meet the currently planned execution dates. State and DOD transferred all of the funds for the two fiscal year 2014 GSCF projects in September 2014 and expect to begin execution in 2015.

Seven GSCF Projects Have Been Submitted to Congress for Notification

State and DOD have submitted congressional notification packages for seven projects since fiscal year 2012. The departments planned five of the seven projects in fiscal year 2012. To provide funding, State transferred funds from the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, and DOD transferred funds from the Combatant Commanders Initiative Fund and Section 1206 into GSCF. In total, State and DOD transferred $70.7 million into the GSCF account for the five projects: three special operations capacity-building projects (one in Bangladesh; another in Libya; and one in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia), a border security capacity-building project in Libya, and a project in the Philippines to enhance maritime security and counterterrorism capabilities.

In July 2014, State and DOD sent congressional notifications for two additional projects. Specifically, for one project—a national guard capacity-building project in Ukraine—State and DOD transferred $19 million for the full cost of the project. For the other project—the Counter Boko Haram project—the departments initially transferred $10 million in fiscal year 2012. Originally, this project was a counterterrorism and border security project in Nigeria but was put on hold because of evolving conditions on the ground. State and DOD subsequently rescoped the project to include Cameroon, Chad, and Niger for the purpose of improving cross-border security cooperation with Nigeria to counter Boko Haram. In September 2014, DOD transferred an additional $30 million into the GSCF account to cover the total cost. As of September 2014, GSCF projects are located across three geographic combatant commands’ areas of responsibility: U.S. Africa Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command, as shown in figure 6.

State and DOD’s Five Fiscal Year 2012 GSCF Projects Did Not Meet Originally Planned Execution Target Dates

The five State and DOD fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects have not met the execution target dates contained in the congressional notifications due to a variety of factors, including partner nation security concerns and the time it took to obtain congressional approval. As of September 2014, the projects’ planned training activities and equipment delivery are an average of about 8 months late, assuming the projects meet the currently planned execution dates. Figure 7 describes each project, total funds transferred, and the original and currently planned dates of execution for initiation of training activities and equipment delivery, as of September 2014.

In addition, the time from identification to execution for four of the five fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects averages about 2.1 years. This calculation includes the currently planned or actual execution dates for initiation of training activities, as of September 2014. Figure 8 illustrates our analysis of the time from identification through the beginning of execution for each GSCF project, to include original and currently planned or actual execution dates for initiation of training activities, as of September 2014.

The five fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects were planned before State issued the March 2014 project guidance. State and DOD officials stated that the target dates were not met due to partner nation security concerns as well as additional details and supporting documentation needed by Congress to obtain congressional approval. State and DOD officials said that the departments submitted separate congressional notification documents containing different levels of detail about the projects. As a result, Congress requested that State and DOD coordinate more closely and resubmit the congressional notifications. GSCF staff provided the following explanations for delays in the five fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects:

Bangladesh Special Operations Forces (delayed 17 months): State and DOD originally planned to initiate training activities in June 2013 and equipment delivery in September 2013. DOD’s congressional notification of intent to transfer funds for this project was submitted in August 2012, and Congress approved DOD’s funds transfer in November 2012. State and DOD’s congressional notification of intent to initiate activities was submitted in April 2013, and the project was approved in August 2013. GSCF staff said the project was delayed due to the timing of congressional approval. In addition, the risk of unrest from the elections in Bangladesh also delayed the project. The first training course started in August 2014, and the first delivery of equipment is planned to occur between March and May 2015.

Libya Special Operations Forces (delayed 12.5 months): State and DOD originally planned to initiate training activities any time between April and September 2013 and equipment delivery in April 2013. DOD’s congressional notification of intent to transfer funds for this project was submitted in August 2012, and Congress approved DOD’s funds transfer in November 2012. State and DOD submitted the congressional notification of intent to initiate activities in April 2013, and the project was approved in August 2013. GSCF staff said the project was delayed due to the timing of congressional approval and the deteriorated security situation in Libya. Initiation of training activities is pending the arrival of Libyan recruits to the training location in Morocco and this date is unknown; however, equipment delivery began in May 2014.

Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia Special Operations Forces (delayed 7.5 months): State and DOD originally planned to initiate training activities and equipment delivery any time between January and February 2014. DOD’s congressional notification of intent to transfer funds for this project was submitted in August 2012, and Congress approved DOD’s funds transfer in November 2012. State and DOD submitted the congressional notification of intent to initiate activities in April 2013, and the project was approved in August 2013. GSCF staff said the project was delayed due to the timing of congressional approval and challenges with equipment encryption; also, training could not start until equipment delivery. Initiation of training activities is planned for November 2014, but equipment delivery began in August 2014.

Libya Border Security (delayed 1.5 months): State and DOD planned to initiate training activities in January 2014 and equipment delivery in April 2014. DOD’s congressional notification of intent to transfer funds and State and DOD’s congressional notification of intent to initiate activities for this project were submitted in June 2013. DOD’s transfer of funds and the project were approved in August 2013. GSCF staff said the project was delayed due to the timing of congressional approval and safety and security concerns in Libya. As of April 2014, the project is on hold and being rescoped; however, three iterations of a training activity were completed before the project was postponed.

Philippines Maritime Security and Counterterrorism (delayed 3.5 months): State and DOD planned to initiate training activities any time between January and March 2014 and equipment delivery any time between January 2014 and June 2015. DOD’s congressional notification of intent to transfer part of the funds for this project was submitted in August 2012 and approved in September 2012. State and DOD’s congressional notifications of intent to transfer the remaining funds and intent to initiate activities were submitted in August 2013, and the project was approved in September 2013. GSCF staff said the project was delayed due to the timing of congressional approval and a typhoon that hit the Philippines in November 2013. At the time of this report, initiation of training activities and equipment delivery was planned for October 2014.

State and DOD Have Not Defined Time Frames to Guide and Track GSCF Projects

State’s March 2014 GSCF cable states that the GSCF program is to address near- to mid-term security concerns driven by emergent challenges or opportunities, but it does not clearly define what time frames constitute near- or mid-term. The cable outlines time frames for individual parts of the GSCF process, such as a goal to review project proposals within 10 business days. However, this does not provide stakeholders with information needed to know what meets the criteria for a near- or mid-term GSCF project. Moreover, State and DOD do not routinely track GSCF projects against established time frames. Our analysis shows that the five projects planned in fiscal year 2012 were an average of about 8 months late, assuming the projects meet the currently planned execution dates as of September 2014, as shown above in figure 8.

Key management practices call for developing control activities to ensure management’s directives are being met, such as clearly defining the time frame associated with projects and tracking whether the projects are meeting their goals. Specifically, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that control activities should be designed and implemented to ensure that management’s directives are achieved and require tracking projects so that managers can determine whether they are meeting their goals. State’s March 2014 GSCF cable states that the program is intended to be high impact, address near- to mid-term security concerns in partner nations, and be driven by emergent challenges or opportunities, but the guidance does not clearly define time frames for near- to mid-term GSCF projects. The guidance also outlines time frames for individual parts of the GSCF process, such as a goal to review project proposals within 10 business days, but this does not provide stakeholders with information needed to know what meets the criteria for a near- or mid-term GSCF project. Further enhancing the definition of the program by including a range of time for how long near- to mid-term GSCF projects should take and tracking the projects against these goals are examples of control activities that could ensure that management’s directives are achieved.

State officials said that GSCF is intended to address emergent challenges that fall outside of the normal budgeting and planning process; however, while this approach allows for flexibility, it does not clarify how long near- to mid-term GSCF projects should take. Officials from U.S. Africa Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command stated that the uncertain time frames and onerous process associated with GSCF have inhibited the usefulness of the program to date. As a result, officials stated that they were reluctant to propose GSCF projects because of the lengthy time frames associated with the program.

Once projects begin execution, State and DOD officials said that they hold biweekly meetings with project implementers to discuss the status of projects; however, these meetings do not track the time frame from project proposal to the beginning of project execution. Without clearly defining a range of time for near- to mid-term GSCF projects, stakeholders, including those proposing and approving GSCF projects, will not know the criteria for how long a project should take. Furthermore, without clearly defined time frames, State and DOD do not have a goal to track GSCF projects against. Therefore, it may be difficult to assess whether the GSCF program is meeting its goal to provide timely assistance.

Conclusions

The timely provision of U.S. assistance to build partner nation capacity to address emerging threats has become vital to U.S. national security. Congress created GSCF as a pilot program to pool State’s and DOD’s funds and expertise on building partner capacity to address emergent challenges and opportunities. State and DOD have developed guidance for the GSCF program that notes that GSCF is to focus on near- to mid- term projects. While the departments have planned seven GSCF projects, the five GSCF projects planned in fiscal year 2012 have not met their original execution target dates contained in their congressional notification packages. State and DOD have not defined time frames for near- to mid-term GSCF projects and have not routinely tracked the projects against these goals. Clearly defined time frames will give State and DOD goals to track GSCF projects against and will allow stakeholders to assess whether the GSCF program is meeting its goal to provide timely assistance. Clearly defined time frames may also help Congress determine whether the pilot authority should be continued.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To enhance the definition of the GSCF program and assist stakeholders in assessing whether GSCF is meeting its goals, we recommend that the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense take the following two actions:

Provide a range of time to clarify the time frames associated with near- to mid-term GSCF projects, and track GSCF projects against established time frames.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to State and DOD for review and comment. State and DOD provided written comments, which are summarized below and reprinted in appendix II and III, respectively. State and DOD also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated, as appropriate. In the written comments, State did not agree and DOD partially agreed with the first recommendation, and both departments agreed with the second recommendation.

With respect to the report’s first recommendation, State did not agree and DOD partially agreed that the departments should clearly define what time frames constitute “near- to mid-term” for GSCF projects. In their written comments, both departments reprinted portions of the GSCF guidance and stated that this guidance provides policy makers and planners flexibility in defining requirements and tailoring training and equipment assistance, consistent with the GSCF authority, needed to address emergent challenges or opportunities. For example, State noted that in many partner nations receiving GSCF assistance, the situation on the ground is fluid and frequently unpredictable; therefore, it is important that proposals are driven by requirements, not timelines. In addition, State and DOD said that the guidance allows proposal submissions to occur on a rolling basis. State’s response also noted that this flexibility enables them to maximize their use of the authority, to include the ability to provide assistance across ministries in partner nations. In addition, DOD noted that GSCF guidance addresses general near- to mid-term conditions that would warrant submission of a project proposal, but that defining specific time frames would restrict the program’s ability to develop detailed plans that address emergent needs.

We understand and agree with the desire for flexibility in the GSCF program. We initially drafted the recommendation for State and DOD to clearly define the time frames associated with near- to mid-term GSCF projects. However, because we agree with State and DOD about the importance of flexibility, we modified our recommendation to clarify our intent and specify that State and DOD should define a range of time for GSCF projects. Defining a range of time for GSCF projects would not limit the departments’ flexibility for developing detailed plans that address emergent needs, would still address the need for time frames for GSCF projects, and would give key stakeholders a clear expectation of how long GSCF projects should take. As noted in the report, all of the GSCF projects planned in fiscal year 2012 have experienced delays, and it is difficult to independently assess the severity of these delays because the GSCF guidance does not set overall expectations about how long these projects should take. Moreover, the uncertainty around GSCF time frames has impacted key stakeholders trying to use the program. As noted in the report, officials from the three geographic combatant commands with GSCF projects told us that the uncertain time frames have inhibited the usefulness of GSCF to date and the lengthy time frames associated with the program caused them to be reluctant to propose GSCF projects in the future. Finally, the lack of time frames for GSCF projects creates financial risks because GSCF funds do not expire after Congress approves the transfer of funds and initiation of activities. As noted in the report, funds transferred into the GSCF account remain available indefinitely. Without defining a range of time for GSCF projects, State and DOD may lack reasonable assurance that GSCF activities are conducted and funds expended in a timely manner. Therefore, we believe that defining a range of time associated with near- to mid-term GSCF projects is needed so the departments and stakeholders can manage and assess the program and ensure accountability. Thus, we believe that State and DOD should fully implement our modified recommendation.

With respect to the report’s second recommendation, State and DOD agreed that the departments should track GSCF projects against established time frames. State and DOD said that the departments plan to track the projects against the congressional notification timelines and plan to continue holding biweekly calls with project implementers to identify and address implementation considerations. However, as noted in the report, these biweekly calls discuss the status of projects and do not track the time frame from project proposal to the beginning of project execution. In its response, State also noted that it does not believe it would be appropriate to track projects according to the near- to mid-term time frame that we recommend. However, we continue to believe that tracking projects against established time frames, as discussed above, will be crucial for ensuring accountability. Until the departments track projects against established time frames, they are limited in assessing whether the program is meeting its goal of providing timely assistance.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov, or John H. Pendleton at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 required GAO to review the Department of State (State) and the Department of Defense (DOD) procedures to administer and implement activities funded by the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF). This report (1) describes the processes State and DOD have developed to manage the program, (2) describes the status of GSCF projects, and (3) assesses the extent to which State and DOD have clearly defined time frames for GSCF projects. To conduct this work and address our objectives, we identified sources of information within State and DOD that would provide information on the processes the departments developed to manage the GSCF program.

To describe the processes State and DOD developed to manage the GSCF program, we collected and analyzed guidance documents that the departments developed to manage the GSCF program. Specifically, we collected and analyzed the March 2014 diplomatic cable titled Utilizing the Global Security Contingency Fund, which provides step-by-step information on how State and DOD are to develop projects from proposal idea to project execution. We also collected and analyzed State’s March 2014 information memorandum titled Global Security Contingency Fund Program Execution Guidance, which provides step-by-step information on how State and DOD are to notify Congress of their intent to transfer funds and initiate GSCF projects as well as how the departments transfer funding into the joint GSCF account.

To describe the status of GSCF projects, we gathered information from congressional notification packages, funding transfer documents, and status updates provided by State and DOD since the initiation of the program. Specifically, we analyzed the amounts transferred for each GSCF project from the information contained in the congressional notifications. We also compiled the planned execution time frames from congressional notification packages for each GSCF project, to include the initiation of training activities and equipment delivery, as well as the revised dates from State and DOD briefings on GSCF projects’ status.

We also discussed the reasons for any project delays and obtained current information on the planned training and equipment delivery dates from State and DOD officials.

To assess the extent to which State and DOD have clearly defined time frames for GSCF projects, we obtained and analyzed State and DOD’s congressional notification packages for GSCF projects, GSCF project updates to Congress, and State’s GSCF guidance documents. We compared this information to criteria in the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also interviewed State and DOD officials about their management of the GSCF projects, reasons for the delays in GSCF projects, and whether State and DOD clearly defined time frames or track GSCF projects.

We interviewed officials, or when appropriate obtained documentation, from the organizations listed below:

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

Office of Congressional and Public Affairs

Office of Security Assistance

Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance

Bureau of African Affairs

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

Joint Staff

U.S. Africa Command

U.S. Central Command

U.S. European Command

U.S. Northern Command

U.S. Pacific Command

Office of Defense Cooperation Bangladesh

Joint U.S. Military Assistance Group Philippines

U.S. Southern Command

U.S. Special Operations Command We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to November 2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, Judith McCloskey, Assistant Director; Tracy Barnes; Laurie Choi; Mary Pitts; Richard Powelson; Erika Prochaska; Michael Silver; Amie Steele; and Esther Toledo made key contributions to this report.