Former Soviet Union: U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Has Had Limited Impact
Released: 2001-05-17T00:00:00

Letter

Background

In December 1991, after more than 70 years of Communist rule, the Soviet Union came to an abrupt end, and the 12 new independent states emerging from the breakup started their transition to market-based democracies (see fig. 1 for a map of the 12 states). According to a 1993 study prepared for the U.S. Agency for International Development, and legal experts, these countries inherited legal systems that were, in many respects, the antitheses of the rule of law. According to this study, under the Soviet Union, law was created by an elite without general participation and was designed to further the power of the state, not to limit it. In addition, the law was applied on an ad hoc basis to achieve political goals. Private economic activity was discouraged, and the Soviet Union lacked the basic legal framework needed to facilitate and regulate private enterprise. All the actors in the legal system were, to one degree or another, under the control of the Communist party and at the service of the state. The state procuracy (prosecutor) oversaw criminal investigations and prosecutions in a heavy-handed manner, affording defendants few, if any, rights. Law enforcement agencies were inexperienced in addressing many types of crimes that would come to plague the region and threaten other countries, such as organized crime and drug trafficking. The government and the Communist party controlled both access to legal education and the licensing of lawyers. With its tradition of unpublished and secret administrative regulation, the state also limited public access to the legal system and legal information; as a result, citizens regarded the legal system with suspicion and questioned its legitimacy, according to the USAID-sponsored study. According to legal experts, courts in the Soviet Union were weak, lacked independence, and enjoyed little public respect.Administration of justice was poorly funded, facilities were not well maintained, and judges were poorly paid and received very little, if any, training.

For fiscal years 1992 through 2000, the United States has obligated at least $216 million in assistance to help establish the rule of law in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union. For fiscal years 1998 through 2000, U.S. assistance under this program has averaged about $29 million per year. Table 1 illustrates the estimated distribution of this funding among these countries. Over half of the funding has been devoted to four countries where USAID has designated rule of law development as a strategic objective: Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia. While the remaining countries have received some rule of law assistance, USAID has not made rule of law development a strategic objective in these countries. According to USAID and State, the U.S. rule of law assistance program, along with other programs of U.S. assistance to Central and Eastern Europe and the new independent states, was envisioned by the U.S. government to be a short-term program to jump-start the countries of this strategically critical region on their way to political and economic transition.

Many other foreign and U.S.-based donors have provided rule of law assistance to the new independent states. For example, the World Bank has a program to lend Russia $58 million for legal system reform. Many Western European countries, the European Union, and private international donors, such as the Ford Foundation and the Soros Foundation, have also financed projects similar to those funded by the United States. Funding data for these activities were not readily available, and we did not attempt to determine the value of all of this assistance, given the difficulty involved in identifying the many different efforts and their costs.

Fostering sustainable results through U.S. assistance projects is critical to the impact and ultimate success of this program. According to USAID’s strategic plan, promoting sustainable development among developing and transitional countries contributes to U.S. national interests and is a necessary and critical component of America’s role as a world leader. Strengthening the rule of law is a key component of USAID’s strategic goal of building sustainable democracies. The right conditions for development can only be created by the people and governments of developing and transitional countries, according to USAID. In the right settings, however, American resources, including its ideas and values, can be powerful catalysts enabling sustainable development. Achieving sustainable project results is especially important in areas where development is likely to be a difficult and long-term process, such as establishing the rule of law in this region.

Four Key U.S. Agencies Implement the Rule of Law Assistance Program

Almost all U.S. funding for rule of law assistance in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union, authorized under the Freedom Support Act of 1992, is appropriated to USAID and the Department of State. However, a significant amount of assistance has been allocated to the Departments of Justice and Treasury through interagency fund transfers from USAID and State. As shown in figure 2, from fiscal years 1992 through 2000, USAID has administered about 49 percent of program funding for rule of law activities in this region, while the Departments of Justice, State, and the Treasury have administered about 51 percent.

These agencies provide assistance under this program through a variety of means, primarily in the form of goods and services to governmental and nongovernmental organizations and individuals. For some projects, such as law enforcement training, U.S. government agencies provide the assistance directly. For other projects, such as institutional development projects, the agencies distribute aid to beneficiaries through contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants to nongovernmental organizations, private voluntary organizations, and firms located in the United States or overseas. Assistance is generally not provided directly to foreign governments through cash disbursements.

Five Elements of the U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

The United States has taken a broad approach to providing rule of law assistance. The assistance approach generally incorporates five elements: (1) developing a legal foundation for reform, (2) strengthening the judiciary, (3) modernizing legal education, (4) improving law enforcement practices, and (5) increasing civil society’s access to justice. (See fig. 3 for an illustration of these elements.)

Developing a legal foundation for reform: Projects under this element have focused on assisting governments in passing legislation that would provide the legal basis for a transparent and predictable administration of justice system, including a post-communist constitution, a law establishing an independent judiciary, and post-Soviet-era civil and criminal codes and procedures. This element also includes efforts to strengthen the legislative process.

Strengthening the judiciary: Projects under this element involve strengthening the independence of the judiciary and the efficiency and effectiveness of the courts, including increasing the expertise and status of judges and supporting the development of judicial institutions.

Modernizing legal education: Projects under this component have concentrated on improving legal education available to both students and practitioners of the law, including modernizing law school curricula, establishing legal clinics for law students, and developing indigenous continuing legal education opportunities for practicing lawyers and other legal professionals.

Improving law enforcement practices: Projects under this component have been aimed at improving law enforcement practices by training procurators and other law enforcement personnel in modern techniques of criminal investigation and prosecution that are effective yet respectful of citizens’ civil rights.

Increasing civil society’s access to justice: Projects under this component have targeted the participation of nongovernmental organizations and the general population in the judicial sector to make legal information and access to justice affordable and realizable.

In general, USAID implements assistance projects primarily aimed at development of the judiciary, legislative reform, legal education, and civil society. The Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury provide assistance for criminal law reform and law enforcement projects.

Though the program has generally included these elements throughout its existence, it has evolved over the years in response to lessons learned about effectiveness and to adapt to emerging constraints. For example, in the earlier years of the program, the United States emphasized promotion of western methods and models for reform. As it became clear that host country officials often did not consider these to be appropriate to their local contexts, USAID projects began to foster the development of more “home-grown” reforms. Also, in Russia, the United States has placed increasing emphasis on regional projects outside of Moscow instead of projects aimed at the central government, as regional officials were often more receptive to reform.

U.S. Assistance Has Had Limited Results; Project Sustainability in Question

Establishing the rule of law in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union has proven to be an extremely complex and challenging task that is likely to take many years to accomplish. U.S. assistance has had limited results, and the sustainability of those results is uncertain. In each of the five elements of the rule of law assistance program, the United States has succeeded in exposing these countries to innovative legal concepts and practices that could lead to a stronger rule of law in the future. However, we could not find evidence that many of these concepts and practices have been widely adopted. At this point, many of the U.S.- assisted reforms are dependent on continued donor funding in order to be sustained. Despite some positive developments, the reform movement has proceeded slowly overall, and the establishment of the rule of law in the new independent states remains elusive.

Legal Foundation: Some Key Reform Laws Have Been Passed, but Others Remain Unfinished

A key focus of the U.S. rule of law assistance programs has been the development of a legal foundation for reform of the justice system in the new independent states. (See fig. 4 for activities involving the legislative foundation of the rule of law assistance program.) The United States has helped several of these countries adopt new constitutions and pass legislation establishing independent judiciaries and post-communist civil and criminal codes and procedures, as well as other legislation that supports democratic and market-oriented reform. Despite considerable progress in a few countries, major gaps persist in the legal foundation for reform, particularly in such countries as Ukraine, a major beneficiary of U.S. rule of law assistance, according to U.S. and foreign government officials we interviewed.

U.S. projects in legislative assistance have been fruitful in Russia, Georgia, and Armenia, according to several evaluations of this assistance, which point to progress in passing key new laws. For example, according to a 1996 independent evaluation of the legal reform assistance program, major advances in Russian legal reform occurred in areas that USAID programs had targeted for support, including the passage of a new civil code and a series of commercial laws. This legislation included the 1996 Russian Federation Constitutional Law on the Judicial System and the 1998 Law on the Judicial Department, creating a more independent judicial branch within the Russian government. The Department of Justice provided technical assistance and advice to lawmakers in the passage of Russia’s new criminal code as well, which, according to Justice, formally eliminated the Soviet laws against private economic activity, free speech, and political dissent. Georgia has also passed many key pieces of legislation with U.S. assistance in the areas of improving the judiciary, the procuracy (the prosecutor), the media, and the criminal justice process, according to another evaluation we reviewed. In Armenia, as well, according to a 2000 USAID-sponsored evaluation, important legislation was adopted as a result of U.S. government assistance, including a new civil code, criminal procedure code, Law on the Judiciary, Law on the Status of Judges, Law on the Execution of Court Judgments, Law on Advocates, and a universal electoral code. The results of assistance in this area are not easy to discern in all cases. For example, a 1999 USAID- sponsored evaluation of a portion of the legislative assistance and policy advice provided to Russia in the mid- to late 1990s indicates that the impact of this aid could not be independently verified.

U.S. projects to help countries achieve passage of critical legal reform legislation have not always been successful, and key legislation is lacking in several new independent states. Despite providing assistance to reform legislation, Ukraine has not yet passed any new laws on the judiciary or new criminal, civil, administrative, or procedure codes since a new constitution was passed in 1996. In Russia, a revised criminal procedure code, a key component of the overall judicial reform effort, has still not been adopted by the government, despite extensive assistance from the Department of Justice in developing legislative proposals.

Furthermore, a major project in Ukraine to establish sustainable mechanisms for developing reform-oriented legislation in the future has not yet been successful. One component of the USAID assistance program in Ukraine has been advancing parliamentary expertise and institutions to provide public policy analysis that will result in a more active, informed, and transparent parliament. However, according to U.S., foreign government, and private sector officials we interviewed, parliamentary committees are still weak, and parliamentary procedures for conducting hearings and related oversight activities have not been institutionalized. The vast majority of reforms still stem from the executive, which holds a disproportionate share of power and influence over the judicial and legislative branches of government.

Judiciary: Greater Independence Achieved in Some Respects, but Continued Reform and Retraining Needed

The second key element in the U.S. government’s rule of law program has been to foster an independent judiciary with strong judicial institutions and well-trained judges and court officers who administer decisions fairly and efficiently. (See fig. 5 for activities under the judicial pillar of the rule of law assistance program.) The United States has contributed to greater independence and integrity of the judiciary by supporting key new judicial institutions and innovations in the administration of justice and by helping to train or retrain many judges and court officials. However, U.S. efforts we reviewed to help retool the judiciary have had limited impact so far. Judicial training programs have not yet been developed by the governments with adequate capacity to reach the huge numbers of judges and court officials who operate the judiciaries in these nations, and courts still lack full independence, efficiency, and effectiveness.

The United States has provided technical support and equipment to help establish and strengthen a variety of national judicial institutions. Though we could not verify the impact of this assistance on the effectiveness of their operations, representatives of the following institutions in Russia credit U.S. support for helping them enhance the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

A Supreme Qualifying Collegium in Russia: With the help of training, information, and equipment provided by USAID, this institution, comprised solely of judges, is better equipped to oversee the qualification and discipline of judges, providing greater independence from political influence in court affairs.

Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in Russia: USAID provided training, educational materials, and other technical assistance to strengthen this new independent institution, created in 1998 to assume the administrative and financial responsibility for court management previously held by the Ministry of Justice.

The United States has also helped support the following innovations in the administration of the judiciary that appear to help increase the judiciary’s integrity and independence.

Qualifying examinations in Georgia: With extensive U.S. assistance by USAID contractors, an objective judicial qualifying examination system was introduced in 1998. This step has resulted in the replacement of some poorly qualified judges with certified ones. Georgia has repeated the exam several times with decreasing amounts of technical assistance from the United States.

Jury trials in Russia: With training and educational material on trial advocacy, judges are now presiding over jury trials in 9 of Russia’s 89 regions for the first time since 1917. Although the jury trial system has not expanded beyond a pilot phase, administration of criminal justice has been transformed in these regions—acquittals, unheard of during the Soviet era, are increasing under this system (up to 16.5 percent of all jury trials by the most recent count).

At a broader level, the United States has attempted to strengthen the integrity of the judiciary by supporting a variety of educational projects for legal professionals within the court system. In particular, USAID has sponsored training and conferences and has provided educational materials for judges, bailiffs, and administrators, raising their understanding of new and existing laws and improving their knowledge and skills in operating efficient and effective court systems. According to a major aid contractor, training on the bail law in Ukraine sponsored by the Department of Justice has increased awareness among courts of the alternatives to lengthy pretrial detention for criminal defendants. The United States has also helped develop manuals that provide practical information for judges and bailiffs on how to conduct their jobs. Historically, few books like these have been widely available, which has seriously limited the development of professionalism in these legal careers. New teaching methods were introduced through U.S.-sponsored conferences. For example, according to training officials in the Russian Commercial Court, whereas conferences for their judges had traditionally been based mostly on lectures, U.S.-sponsored conferences stimulated discussions and were more interactive, included more probing questioning of the concepts presented, and provided a greater exchange of ideas. By all accounts, the information that the United States has provided on modern legal concepts and practices has been highly valued by its recipients.

However, efforts to foster sustainable new methods for training judges have had limited results, and the long-term viability of U.S.-sponsored improvements is questionable. In Ukraine, projects aimed at establishing modern judicial training centers have had very limited success. The two centers we visited that had been established with USAID assistance were functioning at far below capacity. One was only used for official judicial training for half a year and later for training classes financed by international donors. The other center had been dismantled, and the training equipment provided by USAID was dispersed to regional courts. In Russia, although training facilities have been in place for some time, their capacity for training judges is extremely limited. For example, with its current facilities, the Russian Court of General Jurisdiction can train each of its 15,000 judges only about once every 10 years. Plans for the development of a major new judicial training academy have not yet been implemented. Where training centers were already in place, some innovative training techniques introduced through U.S. assistance have not been institutionalized. For example, the training organizations we visited in Russia praised the new practical manuals developed with U.S. assistance, but they did not plan to print subsequent editions. Also, although videotape-based training had been piloted with U.S. assistance for the Russian Commercial Court to train judges in far-flung regions, no further videotaped courses have been produced by the court.

Despite progress in recent years, fully independent, efficient, and effective judiciaries have not yet been established. For example, according to a senior U.S. official responsible for Department of Justice programs in Russia, much of the former structure that enabled the Soviet government to control judges’ decisions still exists, and Russians remain suspicious of the judiciary. Furthermore, according to the State Department’s 1999 Human Rights Report, the courts are still subject to undue influence from the central and local governments and are burdened by large case backlogs and trial delays. Also, according to a 2000 USAID program document, serious problems with the court system in Russia continue to include the lack of adequate funding, poor enforcement of court judgments, and negative public attitudes toward the judiciary.

In Ukraine, according to Freedom House, a U.S. research organization that tracks political developments around the world, and U.S. and Ukrainian officials and experts we interviewed, relatively little judicial reform has taken place, other than the adoption of a new constitution in 1996 and the establishment of a Constitutional Court for its interpretation. To a large extent, the ethos and practices of the Soviet political/legal system remain in the Ukrainian legal community, according to a 1999 USAID-sponsored assessment. The justice system, in which an estimated 70 percent of sitting judges in Ukraine were appointed during the Soviet era, continues to be marked by corruption and inefficiency and limited protection of criminal defendants’ rights. Freedom House recently reported that the judiciary is not yet operating as an independent branch of government. Furthermore, according to Freedom House, local judges are subject to influence and requests for particular rulings from government officials who financially support court operations. According to the USAID- sponsored assessment, courts suffer from poor administrative procedures, which nurture corruption, inappropriate influence of judges, a lack of transparency, and waste. Moreover, the courts are unable to enforce their decisions, particularly in civil cases. This is a key constraint to the development of the rule of law in Ukraine, as it results in a loss of public confidence in the courts, according to the assessment report. Human rights advocates told us that legislated mandates for timely trials and set standards for prison conditions are often violated and result in extended detentions under poor conditions.

USAID documents we reviewed indicate that significant judicial reform is still needed in other countries as well. In Georgia, where the judicial reform process is perceived by USAID as being more advanced, most criminal trials continue to follow the Soviet model and, in many cases, prosecutors continue to wield disproportionate influence over outcomes, according to the State Department’s Human Rights Report. Also, local human rights observers report widespread judicial incompetence and corruption, according to the report. In Armenia, State reports that although the judiciary is nominally independent, in practice courts are subject to pressure from the executive branch and to corruption, and prosecutors still greatly overshadow defense lawyers and judges during trials. According to USAID, a 1999 opinion poll showed that in Armenia only 20 percent of the population believe that court decisions are rendered fairly and in keeping with the law.

Legal Education: More Practical Methods Introduced but Not Widely Practiced

The third element of the U.S. assistance program has been to modernize the system of legal education in the new independent states to make it more practical and relevant. (See fig. 6 for activities under the legal education pillar of the rule of law assistance program.) The United States has sponsored a variety of special efforts to introduce new legal educational methods and topics for both law students and existing lawyers. However, the impact and sustainability of these initiatives are in doubt, as indigenous institutions have not yet demonstrated the ability or inclination to support the efforts after U.S. and other donor funding has ceased.

The United States has provided some opportunities for law students and practicing lawyers to obtain useful new types of training. For instance, in an effort to supplement the traditionally theoretical approach to legal education in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union, USAID has introduced legal clinics into several law schools throughout Russia and Ukraine. These clinics allow law students to get practical training in helping clients exercise their legal rights. They also provide a service to the community by facilitating access to the legal system by the poor and disadvantaged. With the training, encouragement, and financing provided by USAID, there are about 30 legal clinics in law schools in Russia and about 20 in Ukraine. USAID has also provided a great deal of continuing education for legal professionals, particularly in the emerging field of commercial law. This training was highly regarded by the participants, according to a 1999 USAID-sponsored evaluation of this project in Russia. Traditionally, little of this type of training was available to lawyers in the former Soviet Union.

USAID has included some design features in its projects intended to make them sustainable. Indigenous experts are increasingly used to provide the training as a way of making it more applicable in the local context and thus more sustainable, as trainers would remain in the country. Also, sustainability is enhanced by USAID’s approach of training other trainers to perpetuate the teaching of trial advocacy skills and commercial law. According to the 1999 USAID-sponsored evaluation and an aid contractor we spoke to, materials on trial advocacy developed with U.S. assistance continue to be used in indigenous educational programs in Russia.

The United States, through long-term exchanges and partnership activities administered initially by the U.S. Information Agency and then by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the State Department, also brought young students, professionals, and faculty members to the United States to study U.S. law and legal education in depth. University partnerships also paired law schools in the United States and the new independent states to promote curriculum development and reform. We have observed some results from exchanges such as these: for example, the dean of the St. Petersburg State University Law School told us that his U.S.-funded visit to the United States inspired him to undertake major reforms at his institution, including the introduction of more practical teaching methods.

Despite the introduction of some positive innovations, however, U.S. assistance in this area has fallen far short of reforming legal education in the new independent states on a large scale. According to USAID- sponsored evaluations and project officials we spoke to, U.S. assistance has not been successful in stimulating reform in formerly Soviet law schools. Most law schools have not adopted the new, practice-oriented curricula that USAID has advocated and instead continue the traditional emphasis on legal theory. For example, in Ukraine, the emphasis in law school curricula continues to be on public rather than private law, and law students are taught little on subjects such as enterprises, contracts, real and personal property, consumer law, intellectual property, banking law, or commercial law. Also ignored are subjects relating to government regulation of businesses. As a result, students are not taught many skills important to the practice of law, including advocacy, interviewing, case investigation, negotiation techniques, and legal writing. In the area of using legal clinics to provide practical education, the impact of USAID assistance has been minor and sustainability is not yet secure. Due to the small number of faculty advisers willing to supervise the students’ work, these clinics can only provide practical experience to a fraction of the law student population. While clinics appear to be increasing in popularity, not all universities routinely fund them or give course credit to participating students. In Ukraine, the United States has helped fund the establishment of a Ukrainian Law School Association to press for reforms in the Ukrainian legal education system, but this organization has remained relatively inactive, according to a major USAID contractor involved in this program. Also, a 2000 USAID-sponsored evaluation of rule of law projects in Armenia concluded that the considerable investment in that country’s largest law school has not resulted in the intended upgrading and modernizing of curricula and teaching methodology.

In the area of continuing legal education as well, it is unclear whether the new learning opportunities that the United States has been providing to legal professionals are sustainable over the long term. We could identify few organizations that routinely sponsor the types of training and conferences and print the published materials that the United States had initially provided. In Russia, a major aid contractor we met with involved in developing legal texts and manuals for USAID in Russia could not identify any organizations that were engaged in reprinting these publications without U.S. or other donor financing. The private Ukrainian organization that has provided most of Ukraine’s continuing legal education is dependent primarily on U.S. funding to operate. The United States has largely been unsuccessful at fostering the development of legal associations, such as bar associations, national judges associations, and law school associations, to carry on this educational work. U.S. officials had viewed the development of such associations as key to institutionalizing modern legal principles and practices and professional standards on a national scale as well as serving as conduits for continuing legal education for their members. But they have not become the active, influential institutions that the United States had hoped. In Armenia, according to a 2000 USAID-sponsored study, none of the nongovernmental organizations that had been supported by USAID were financially viable in carrying out their continuing legal education goals. Sustainability is “not in the picture for the immediate future,” as the organizations were dependent on international donor assistance, according to the study.

Law Enforcement: Training, Models, and Research Provided, but Routine Application Is Not Evident

The fourth component of the U.S. government’s rule of law program involves introducing modern criminal justice techniques to local law enforcement organizations. (See fig. 7 for activities under the law enforcement pillar of rule of law assistance programs.) As part of this effort, the United States has provided many training courses to law enforcement officials throughout the new independent states of the former Soviet Union, shared professional experiences through international exchanges and study tours, implemented several model law enforcement projects, and funded scholarly research into organized crime. These programs have fostered international cooperation among law enforcement officials, according to the Department of Justice. However, we found little evidence that the new information disseminated through these activities has been routinely applied in the practice of law enforcement in the new independent states. Thus the impact and sustainability of these projects are unclear.

U.S. law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, have sent dozens of teams of experts to train their counterparts in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union on techniques for combating a wide variety of domestic and international crimes. The United States has also sponsored the attendance of their counterparts at U.S. training academies and the International Law Enforcement Academy in Budapest, Hungary. According to State and Justice, this training is intended not only to strengthen the law enforcement capabilities and, hence, the rule of law in these countries, but also to increase cooperation between law enforcement agencies in the United States and the new independent states in investigating and prosecuting transnational crimes.

U.S. law enforcement officials we spoke to have reported that, as a result of these training courses, there is a greater appreciation among Russians and Ukrainians of criminal legal issues for international crimes of great concern in the United States, such as organized crime, money laundering, and narcotics and human trafficking. They have also reported a greater willingness of law enforcement officials to work with their U.S. and other foreign counterparts on solving international crimes. According to a senior researcher conducting a State Department-funded study on the effects of law enforcement training, students participating in international police training funded in part by the U.S. government are significantly more willing to share information on criminal investigations with U.S. or other national law enforcement agencies than law enforcement officials that have not participated. Furthermore, according to Justice, there has been an increasing number of requests from the new independent states for bilateral law enforcement cooperation with the United States and a number of joint investigations of organized crime, kidnapping, and baby adoption scams.

However, the impact and sustainability of this training in building the law enforcement capabilities of the new independent states are unclear. We found little evidence in our discussions with senior law enforcement officials in Russia and Ukraine that U.S. techniques taught in these training courses were being routinely applied by their organizations. In some cases, training officials cited the use of U.S.-provided training materials by some instructors or as reference materials in their libraries, yet none identified a full-scale effort to replicate or adapt the training for routine application in their training institutions. Furthermore, we identified only two studies providing data on the application of U.S. law enforcement training, neither of which conclusively demonstrates that U.S. techniques have been widely embraced by training participants. According to a researcher we interviewed who has been evaluating U.S.-sponsored training programs under a grant from State, techniques taught at the International Law Enforcement Academy, which is partially funded by State, have had limited application in day-to-day policing activities of participants. About 20 percent of training participants surveyed reported that they frequently use the techniques they learned in academy training courses in their work, according to his research. According to an evaluation of U.S. law enforcement training conducted by the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, about 14 percent of Russian law enforcement officials surveyed indicated they have used the American experience introduced in this training in their practical work. According to Justice, this level of application of U.S. techniques suggests significant impact from U.S. training, and application and impact are likely to grow in time as the merit of these techniques become evident with use. However, due to limitations in the data available from these studies we were unable to validate or dispute Justice’s assertions about the efficacy of this training.

The United States has funded several model law enforcement projects in Russia and Ukraine to help communities and law enforcement authorities establish community policing programs and to address the problems of domestic violence and human trafficking more effectively. Some of these projects appear to have had some impact in the local communities where they have been implemented. For example, according to the State Department, in one Russian city, the number of arrests for domestic violence has more than doubled in one year as a result of a U.S.-funded model project. However, such projects are still in the early stages of implementation, and we could not find evidence that the new practices introduced by the United States have yet been adopted on a wider scale in Russia or Ukraine.

Research on organized crime in Russia and Ukraine, sponsored by USAID and Justice, has provided some information that may potentially serve as a foundation for developing new methods for fighting this type of crime.

Officials at U.S.-funded research centers told us that their researchers helped develop a methodology for investigating and prosecuting corruption and organized crime that has been incorporated into some law school curricula. However, although project officials we spoke to asserted that the knowledge and analysis produced by the centers were being used, they could not determine how this research had actually been applied by law enforcement organizations in the new independent states. To date we found no evidence that these programs have led to sustainable and meaningful innovations in fighting organized crime in Russia and Ukraine.

Civil Society: Awareness and Involvement Have Increased, but Many Nongovernmental Organizations’ Activities Depend on Continued International Donor Support

The fifth element of rule of law assistance program is the expansion of access by the general population to the system of justice. (See fig. 8 for activities conducted under the civil society pillar of the rule of law assistance program.) In both Russia and Ukraine, the United States has fostered the development of a number of nongovernmental organizations that have been active in promoting the interests of groups, increasing citizens’ awareness of their legal rights, and helping poor and traditionally disadvantaged people gain access to the courts to resolve their problems. While these projects have contributed to a greater demand for justice, for the foreseeable future many will continue to rely on donor support, since they face difficulties in obtaining adequate funds domestically to continue operations.

U.S. projects have led to greater access by citizens to the courts. The United States has supported a variety of organizations devoted to protecting the legal rights of many different segments of society, including small business owners, the handicapped, victims of domestic violence, labor unions and individual workers, poor and displaced people, and homeowners and tenants. In Russia, the proliferation of such groups may have contributed, at least in small part, to the significant increase in the use of the courts—the number of civil cases in Russian courts increased by about 112 percent between 1993 and 1997, according to the statistics of the Russian Supreme Court. For example, in Russia, USAID has sponsored a project that has helped improve access to the legal system for trade unions and their members. According to the project manager, Russian lawyers supported by this project brought litigation in the Russian Constitutional and Supreme Courts on behalf of workers, which has led to changes to three national laws, bolstering the legal rights of millions of workers.

In addition, in Ukraine, private citizens are increasingly taking their disputes on environmental matters to the courts and prevailing in their causes with the help of USAID-funded organizations. At least three active environmental advocacy organizations have emerged with the sponsorship of USAID and other donors to provide legal advice and representation. Some of these organizations have brought important lawsuits on behalf of citizens, resulting in legal decisions with far-reaching legal implications. For example, a group of more than 100 residents in one local community obtained a judgment against the Ukrainian government for violating zoning laws on the location of a city dump and won demands that the dump be constructed at a different location in accordance with zoning laws, according to USAID.

Despite their high level of activity in recent years, these organizations still face questionable long-term viability. Most nongovernmental organizations we visited were dependent upon foreign donor contributions to operate. While some continued to function even after U.S. funding ceased, they often operated at a significantly reduced level of service. Some organizations received office space from the government, collected membership fees, and relied on the work of volunteers, but very few indicated that they received a large portion of their funding from domestic sources. Thus, sustainability of even some of the most accomplished organizations, such as the Ukrainian environmental advocacy organizations, remains to be seen. These organizations had been largely supported by USAID for several years and have only recently been forced to operate more independently. In Armenia, according to a 2000 USAID- sponsored evaluation, none of the nongovernmental organizations that had been supported by USAID were financially viable in carrying out their public awareness goals. The evaluation found that these organizations’ activities were not sustainable in the long term since they were dependent on international donor assistance.

Rule of Law Remains Elusive in the New Independent States

Despite nearly a decade of work to reform the systems of justice in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union, progress in establishing the rule of law in the region has been slow overall, and serious obstacles remain. As shown in table 2, according to Freedom House, the new independent states score poorly in the development of the rule of law, and, as a whole, are growing worse over time. These data, among others, have been used by USAID and the State Department to measure the results of U.S. development assistance in this region.

In the two new independent states where the United States has devoted the largest amount of rule of law funding—Russia and Ukraine—the rule of law is slightly better than average for the region, according to Freedom House scores. However, the scores show that the reform process remains slow and the rule of law, as defined by these indicators, has deteriorated in recent years. The scores have improved in only one of the four countries (Georgia) in which USAID has made the development of the rule of law one of its strategic objectives and the United States has devoted a large portion of its rule of law assistance funding.

Limits on Impact and Sustainability Stem From Political, Economic, and Program Management Issues

Three factors have constrained the impact and sustainability of U.S. rule of law assistance: (1) a limited political consensus on the need to reform law and institutions, (2) a shortage of domestic resources to finance many of the reforms on a large scale, and (3) a number of shortcomings in U.S. program management. The first two factors, in particular, have created a very challenging climate for U.S. programs to have major, long-term impact in these states, but have also underscored the importance of effective management of U.S. programs.

Political Consensus on Reform Slow in Forming

In key areas in need of legal reform, U.S. advocates have met some steep political resistance to change. In Ukraine and Russia, lawmakers have not been able to agree to pass critical legal codes upon which reform of the judiciary must be based. In particular, Ukrainian government officials are deadlocked on legislation reforming the judiciary, despite a provision in the country’s constitution to do so by June 2001. Numerous versions of this legislation have been drafted by parties in the parliament, the executive branch, and the judiciary with various political and other agendas. Lack of progress for this legislation has stymied reforms throughout the justice system. In Russia’s Duma (parliament), where the civil and the criminal codes were passed in the mid-1990s, the criminal procedure code remains in draft form. According to a senior Justice official, Russia is still using the autocratic 1963 version of the procedure code that violates fundamental human rights. This official told us that the Russian prosecutor’s office is reluctant to support major reforms, since many would require that institution to relinquish a significant amount of the power it has had in the operation of the criminal justice system. While U.S. officials help Russian groups to lobby for legislative reforms in various ways, adoption of such reforms remain in the sovereign domain of the host country.

In the legal education system as well, resistance to institutional reform has thwarted U.S. assistance efforts. While some legal education officials we spoke with advocate more modern and practical teaching methods, legal education remains rigidly theoretical and outmoded by western standards. USAID officials in Russia told us that Russian law professors and other university officials are often the most conservative in the legal community and the slowest to reform. A USAID-sponsored assessment of legal education in Ukraine found that there was little likelihood for reform in the short term due to entrenched interests among the school administration and faculty who were resisting change. Georgia also suffers from deeply seated barriers to legal education reform, such as systemic corruption in admissions and grading, according to the 1999 USAID-sponsored evaluation.

Furthermore, little consensus could be reached among legal professionals to overcome cultural, regional, and professional barriers to form effective national associations, according to U.S. officials and contractors we spoke with. For example, according to one law school dean we interviewed, efforts to establish a national law school association in Russia were met with resistance from state legal educational institutions in Moscow, which insisted on forming an alternative local association.

Policymakers have not reached political consensus on how or whether to address the legal impediments to the development of sustainable nongovernmental organizations. This would include passing laws that would make it easier for these organizations to raise domestic funds and thus gain independence from foreign donors. For example, in Ukraine, according to a 1999 USAID report and Ukrainian officials we interviewed, the most important issues for nongovernmental organization development that need to be addressed by new legislation are granting nongovernmental organizations special tax status to enable them to raise funds for their activities and to provide tax incentives for private organizations or individuals to donate funds. Moreover, administrative acts by government agencies in Ukraine allow the government to decrease the scope of nongovernmental organizations, and some nongovernmental organizations, particularly those involved in citizen advocacy efforts, face numerous obstacles from tax authorities and other administrative agencies. In Russia, according to the USAID report, taxes are collected without distinguishing between nonprofit and profit-making enterprises, and legislation that promotes significant tax incentives is unlikely to be passed in the near future because of the government’s critical need to raise revenues.

Weak Economic Conditions Make Funding Reforms Difficult

Historically slow economic growth in the new independent states has meant limited government budgets and low wages for legal professionals and thus limited resources available to fund new initiatives. While Russia has enjoyed a recent improvement in its public finances stemming largely from increases in the prices of energy exports, public funds in the new independent states have been constrained. Continuation or expansion of legal programs initially financed by the United States and other donors has not been provided for in government budgets, as illustrated by the following examples.

In Ukraine, according to officials of the Supreme Court, the government could only afford to fund operations of the court’s judicial training center for 6 months in the year 2000.

In the Russian Commercial Court, administrators explained to us that although the donated computer network funded by USAID was very helpful, the court did not have the funds to extend it to judges outside of the court’s headquarters building in Moscow.

The system of jury trials in Russia could not be broadened beyond 9 initial regions, according to a senior judiciary official, because it was considered too expensive to administer in the other 89 regions.

According to a senior police official we spoke to in Ukraine, police forces often lack funds for equipment, such as vehicles, computers, and communications equipment, needed to implement some of the law enforcement techniques that were presented in the U.S.-sponsored training.

In addition, government ability or commitment to funding innovative new training and other improvements for the judiciary also appeared weak in Georgia, where the government has not been able to pay judges their promised salaries in a timely manner.

Nongovernmental organizations we visited said that it was difficult to raise funds from domestic sources to continue the advocacy, educational, and legal services programs that had initially been financed by the United States and other donors. For example, they indicated that while lawyers and other legal professionals valued the educational materials and opportunities offered through U.S. assistance, they generally could not afford to pay for the courses and materials privately.

Program Management Weaknesses Affect Impact and Sustainability of Aid

U.S. agencies implementing the rule of law assistance program have not always managed their projects with an explicit focus on achieving sustainable results. Our review of project documentation and our discussions with senior U.S. government officials indicate limited efforts were made to (1) develop and implement strategies to achieve sustainable results and (2) monitor projects results over time to ensure that sustainable impact was being achieved. These are important steps in designing and implementing development assistance projects, according to guidance developed by USAID.

According to USAID guidance for planning assistance projects, project descriptions should define the strategies and processes necessary to achieve specific results, both in terms of immediate outputs and longer- term outcomes. We found that, in general, USAID projects were designed with strategies for achieving sustainability, including assistance activities intended to develop new and existing indigenous institutions to adopt the concepts and practices USAID was promoting. However, at the Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury, rule of law projects we reviewed often did not establish specific strategies for achieving sustainable development results. In particular, the law enforcement- related training efforts we reviewed were generally focused on achieving short-term objectives, such as conducting training courses or providing equipment and educational materials; they did not include an explicit approach for meeting longer-term objectives, such as promoting sustainable institutional changes and reform of national law enforcement practices. According to senior U.S. embassy officials in Russia and Ukraine, these projects rarely included follow-up activities to help ensure that the concepts taught were being institutionalized or otherwise having long-term impact. For example, according to the U.S. Resident Legal Advisor in Russia, U.S. agencies’ training efforts were intended to introduce new law enforcement techniques, but no effort was made to reform the law enforcement training curriculum so that the techniques would continue to be taught after the U.S. trainers left the country. Federal Bureau of Investigation officials we spoke to indicated that their training courses in the new independent states rarely took a “train the trainer” approach aimed at providing training that is likely to be replicated by indigenous law enforcement staff. One senior Justice official described the training as “lobbying” to convince key law enforcement officers of the importance or utility of the techniques being taught in hopes that they would someday be adopted.

USAID guidance also calls for establishing a system for monitoring and evaluating performance and for reporting and using performance information. Developing and monitoring performance indicators is important for making programmatic decisions and learning from past experience, according to USAID. However, we did not find clear evidence that U.S. agencies systematically monitor and evaluate the impact and sustainability of the projects they implemented under the rule of law assistance program.

We found that the Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury have not routinely assessed the results of their rule of law projects. In particular, according to U.S. agency and embassy officials we spoke to, there was usually little monitoring or evaluation of the law enforcement training courses after they were conducted to determine their impact. U.S. law enforcement agencies that have implemented training programs report to State on each training course but do not assess the extent to which the techniques and concepts they taught have had a broader impact on law enforcement in the countries where they conduct training. To date, State has funded only one independent evaluation of the law enforcement training activities. According to Justice, it evaluates the course curriculum at the International Law Enforcement Academy on a regular basis to help ensure that it is relevant to its participants and of high quality. In addition, Justice conducts some indirect measurement of long-term effectiveness by discussing the usefulness of training with selected participants months or years after they have completed the course. However, these evaluations do not systematically assess the longer-term impact and sustainability of the training and do not cover a large portion of the training that Justice conducts.

Although USAID has a more extensive process for assessing its programs, we found that the results of its rule of law projects in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union were not always apparent. The results of most USAID projects we reviewed were reported in terms of project outputs instead of impact and sustainability. For 6 of the 11 major projects we reviewed in Russia and Ukraine, available project documentation indicated that project implementers reported project results almost exclusively in terms of outputs. These outputs include the number of USAID-sponsored conferences or training courses held, the number and types of publications produced with project funding, or the amount of computer and other equipment provided to courts. Short-term measures and indicators alone do not enable USAID to monitor and evaluate the sustainability and overall impact of the projects. Project documentation we reviewed, including work plans, progress reports, and post-completion reports, rarely addressed the longer-term impact of the assistance achieved or expected or indicated how impact could be measured into the future. Other measures or indicators that capture the productivity of U.S.- assisted organizations or the extent to which U.S.-sponsored innovations are adopted in the country shed more light on the long-term impact and sustainability. Examples of such measures would be the percentage of judges or bailiffs that a government itself has trained annually using new methods introduced by U.S.-assistance or the percentage of law schools that sponsor legal clinics or include new practical courses in their curriculum. Although USAID has reported broad, national-level indicators for its rule of law programs, without indicators or measures of the results of its individual projects, it is difficult to draw connections between the outputs produced and the national-level outcomes reported. Furthermore, only 2 of the 11 USAID projects we reviewed in Russia and Ukraine have been independently evaluated to assess their impact and sustainability.

State has recently recognized the shortcomings of its training-oriented approach to law enforcement reforms. As a result, it has mandated a new approach for implementing agencies to focus more on sustainable projects. Instead of administering discrete training courses, for example, agencies and embassies will be expected to develop longer-term projects. Justice has also developed new guidelines for the planning and evaluation of some of its projects to better ensure that these projects are aimed at achieving concrete and sustainable results. These reform initiatives are still in very early stages of implementation. It remains to be seen whether projects in the future will be more explicitly designed and carried out to achieve verifiably sustainable results. One factor that may delay the implementation of these new approaches is a significant backlog in training courses that State has already approved under this program. As of February 2001, about $30 million in funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2000 has been obligated for law enforcement training that has not yet been conducted. U.S. law enforcement agencies, principally the Departments of Justice and the Treasury, plan to continue to use these funds for a number of years to pay for their training activities, even though many of these activities have the same management weaknesses as the earlier ones we reviewed. Unless these funds are reprogrammed for other purposes or the projects are redesigned to reflect the program reforms that State and Justice are putting in place, their results may have limited impact and sustainability.

Conclusions

The U.S. government’s rule of law assistance program is a key element of the U.S. foreign policy objectives of fostering democratic and open market systems in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union. However, establishing the rule of law is a complex and long-term undertaking. After nearly a decade of effort and more than $200 million worth of assistance, the program has had difficulty fostering the sustainable institutions and traditions necessary to establish the rule of law in this region. Consequently, many of the elements of the Soviet-style legal system are still in place in the new independent states. Though this program was originally envisioned by the U.S. government as a short-term effort, achieving more significant progress is likely to take many more years. Progress is likely to remain elusive unless the new independent states make legal system reform a higher public policy and funding priority and U.S. agencies address the program management weaknesses we have identified in developing strategies for achieving impact and sustainability and conducting performance monitoring and evaluation. Although the United States has very limited influence over the political will and domestic resources of these countries, it could better design and implement its assistance projects, both those currently funded and those that it may fund in the future, with a greater emphasis on measuring impact and achieving sustainability.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To help improve the impact and sustainability of the U.S. rule of law assistance program in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union, we recommend that the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the USAID Administrator, who together control almost all of the program’s funding, require that each new project funded under this program be designed with (1) specific strategies for achieving defined long-term outcomes that are sustainable beyond U.S. funding; and (2) a provision for monitoring and evaluating the project results, using verifiable outcome indicators and measures, to determine whether the desired outcomes have been achieved and are likely to be sustainable. Furthermore, to improve the likelihood that project funds currently budgeted but not yet spent achieve sustainable results, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Treasury should jointly review the pipeline of projects and develop a plan for ensuring that all projects meet the above criteria, including reprogramming of unspent assistance funds, as necessary.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We received written comments on a draft of this report from USAID and the Departments of State and Justice, which are reprinted in appendixes II- IV. The Department of the Treasury had no comment on the report.

State, Justice, and USAID generally agreed with us that the program management improvements we recommended are needed. State indicated that it had already begun to undertake management actions consistent with these recommendations. State also suggested that we encourage the U.S. law enforcement agencies to cooperate in its ongoing efforts to reprogram or reschedule assistance funds that have been budgeted but not yet spent. Justice agreed that improved planning and evaluation of its assistance activities are needed. USAID agreed that improvement is needed in measuring project results and that greater emphasis could be given to reviewing long-term sustainability issues. We have modified our recommendation to emphasize the importance of cooperation among the agencies in resolving management weaknesses we identified.

USAID and State expressed concern that our assessment set too high a standard for program success. These agencies noted that we did not adequately recognize the complex and long-term nature of this development process. They also noted that the funding for rule of law development has been relatively meager compared to the total amount of assistance provided to the new independent states and considering the magnitude of the challenge. Furthermore, the agencies stated that achievement of a fully functioning rule of law system could not have been expected in the 8 years that the program has been in existence. We agree that establishing the rule of law in the new independent states is a complex and long-term undertaking, and we have made this observation more prominent in the report. We did not use the full development of a rule of law system as the benchmark of success for this program, however. Instead we looked for sustainable progress in each of the key elements of the U.S. assistance program as well as in the overall development of the rule of law. We found limited sustainable impact from U.S.-funded projects in the various elements of the program that we reviewed. Furthermore, we found that by the one measure, the Freedom House rule of law score, which USAID and State used to measure overall rule of law development, the situation in the new independent states is relatively poor and has actually been deteriorating in some states. We do not agree that the program funding levels were necessarily a significant factor limiting the impact and sustainability of the program; rather, we believe that better results could have been achieved with a more conducive political and economic environment and with better planning and monitoring efforts.

The agencies also indicated that we did not adequately recognize some significant program activities and achievements. These include the development of a more independent judiciary in Russia and adoption of a number of reforms in the criminal justice system. USAID also stated that its encouragement and support of legal system reforms have been a valuable accomplishment, though not always resulting in the creation of a sustainable entity to promote reforms into the future. In addition, Justice stated that its training courses have been more successful than we have given them credit for, both by helping to establish valuable working relationships between law enforcement agencies in the United States and the new independent states and by fostering the application of modern law enforcement techniques. Hence, Justice indicated that our assessment was overly pessimistic about the prospects for achieving sustainable results from its programs. State indicated that we failed to acknowledge a major educational exchange component of the program. Where appropriate, we included additional information or amplified existing information on program results and activities. In most cases, however, our analysis showed that there was insufficient evidence to draw a link between the outcomes the agencies cited and U.S. assistance efforts.

USAID and Justice indicated that we did not adequately acknowledge the monitoring and evaluation systems that they currently employ in this program. USAID indicated that while it agrees that a better project-level results measurement is needed, it currently employs a system of program monitoring that allows it to manage the program effectively. Justice pointed to training curriculum evaluation that it undertakes to help ensure that its training programs are relevant and useful. We reviewed the information that both provided and have included additional information about them in our report. However, we believe that none of the agencies employed a monitoring and evaluation process to systematically assess the direct impact of its rule of law projects in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union and measure progress toward the projects’ long- term objectives and desired outcomes.

State and USAID expressed concern that we did not rank the three factors that have limited the impact and sustainability of the program in order of importance. They believe that program management weaknesses are the least important factor and the lack of political consensus is the most important. Furthermore, USAID stated that any limitations in the effectiveness of the rule of law assistance program should not be attributed to its monitoring and evaluation shortcomings. We agree that the political and economic conditions in this region have created a difficult environment for U.S. assistance efforts and have revised the report to emphasize this point. However, we believe that improved management practices could enhance the impact and sustainability of the program, and we discuss program management weaknesses in detail in the report because the U.S. government has more control over this factor than the other two. Furthermore, insofar as project results are not routinely monitored and evaluated, the agencies’ ability to manage for results is impaired.

As arranged with your office, we plan no further distribution of this report for 30 days from the date of the report unless you publicly announce its contents earlier. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional Committees and to the Honorable Colin Powell, Secretary of State; the Honorable Paul O’Neill, Secretary of the Treasury; the Honorable John Ashcroft, Attorney General; the Honorable Donald Pressley, Acting Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development; and other interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-4128. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To (1) assess the impact and sustainability of the U.S. government’s rule of law program and to (2) identify factors that constrained impact and sustainability, we analyzed project documentation, interviewed knowledgeable officials, and reviewed assistance activities in the field. We obtained and analyzed information on the results of the U.S. rule of law assistance efforts funded between 1992 and 2000 in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union. However, we focused our review on four specific countries—Armenia, Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine. We selected these countries because they received the bulk of U.S. assistance, because the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had designated rule of law development as a strategic objective in these countries, and because significantly more relevant information was readily available about the assistance activities in these countries than the other eight new independent states. Furthermore, based on our discussions with USAID and State staff and our review of relevant documentation, we concluded that the U.S. rule of law assistance efforts in these countries were typical of the assistance provided throughout the region. Thus, we believe that our report findings about the impact and sustainability of the U.S. assistance program are applicable to the entire region.

To obtain detailed information on the impact and sustainability of specific rule of law assistance efforts, we examined projects funded in Russia and Ukraine since 1995, including 11 major USAID-managed projects and a variety of assistance activities managed by State. We selected these countries based on congressional interest and because they have received at least about half of the assistance provided under this program. We selected these projects because they were the most likely to have been substantially completed and thus have a track record that would allow us to assess whether they have begun to achieve significant results. We did not include projects initiated in 1999 or thereafter.

Specifically, we conducted the following work.

In Washington, D. C., we interviewed headquarters officials at the departments and agencies implementing rule of law projects in these new independent states, including the Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. We also met with individuals with expertise in criminal justice system reforms. For Russia and Ukraine, we reviewed Mission Performance Plans; USAID country planning documents; Department of Justice country work plans; and other reporting documents, funding agreements, contracts, and project evaluations. We obtained program funding information for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 from USAID and the Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury, which we combined and analyzed with similar information we had obtained for earlier fiscal years in the course of previous work.

We conducted fieldwork in Russia and Ukraine in August and October 2000. In each of these countries, we met with the Deputy Chief of Mission, senior U.S. officials representing agencies with rule of law programs in each country; and numerous program staff, including contractors responsible for implementing the projects. We interviewed host country officials at the supreme, constitutional, general jurisdiction, and commercial courts; justice and interior ministries; law enforcement organizations; and the Judicial Department in Russia. We visited training schools for judges and prosecutors, law schools, and several demonstration projects. We also met with numerous representatives from nongovernmental organizations and other groups representing a broad spectrum of civil society in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Petrozavodsk, and Yekaterinburg in Russia; and in Kiev, Lviv, and Kharkiv in Ukraine.

Though we did not travel to the 10 other new independent states of the former Soviet Union or review specific projects in these states in depth, we obtained and reviewed all available evaluations of these projects to determine whether they have met their major objectives and to identify the factors affecting their success or failure. We also reviewed our prior reports on rule of law assistance, and reports on foreign assistance to Russia and Ukraine.

Rule of law is a component of democracy building, and although a close relationship exists between activities, we did not evaluate other projects under the democracy program.

We performed our work from July through December 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of State

GAO Comments

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter dated March 16, 2001. 1. State indicated that it is working with law enforcement agencies to ensure that the pipeline of law enforcement training funds are used to achieve the maximum impact and sustainability. State suggested that we recommend that the U.S. law enforcement agencies cooperate with State in its ongoing efforts to reschedule or reprogram undelivered assistance. Based on our discussions with State officials, increased and continued attention and cooperation among the agencies will be needed before this issue is fully resolved. As suggested by State, we have highlighted the need for this interagency cooperation in our recommendation to the agencies. 2. State pointed out that our report failed to address the long-term exchange and partnership activities of the U.S. Information Agency and its successor, State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. We inadvertently omitted the financial data provided by State on these exchanges from our initial calculation of program funding, but we did include the exchanges in the scope of our review, insofar as time and resources allowed and as results were observable. We have revised the financial data to include the data on exchanges and also included specific mention of these exchanges in our discussion of the legal education element of the Rule of Law Assistance Program. 3. State noted that the community of nongovernmental agencies in the region was not as dependent on western funding as our report suggested, as evidenced by the large number of such organizations that receive no U.S. funding. The observations in our report did not pertain to the development of nongovernmental organizations overall. We noted questionable sustainability among those nongovernmental organizations in the rule of law field that have received a significant amount of U.S. funding under this program.

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Justice

GAO Comment

The following is GAO’s comment on the Department of Justice’s letter dated March 23, 2001.

Justice disagreed with out characterization of the extent to which law enforcement techniques taught in U.S.-sponsored training courses were being applied by training recipients. Justice stated that the data we cited supported the conclusion that its training has had significant impact and that greater application is likely to ensue as the efficacy of these techniques is validated through their use. Justice also questioned whether some additional data were available on the use of training techniques. We revised the report to include Justice’s interpretation of the available data, but we also indicated that, due to data limitations, we could not validate or dispute this interpretation. No further data were available for us to elaborate on the extent of the application of the U.S.-taught techniques.

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

GAO Comments

The following are GAO’s comments on USAID’s letter dated March 23, 2001. 1. USAID disagreed with our analytical approach to assessing sustainability and the emphasis we placed on sustainability in evaluating program success. USAID pointed out that certain organizations can have significant impact on rule of law development even though they may not be sustainable over the long term. We believe that our approach to assessing sustainability of the program is sound. In addition to reviewing the sustainability of the program’s component activities, we also reviewed the overall sustainability of rule of law development as reflected in the Freedom House scores. Both approaches raise concerns about sustainability. Furthermore, we assessed both the impact and sustainability of the projects we reviewed and have cited examples in the report where organizations supported by USAID have had some impact regardless of whether they were sustainable. However, given the long-term nature of rule of law development and the many competing demands for limited assistance funds, we believe that sustainability of program results is critical to program success and was an appropriate emphasis for our analysis. 2. USAID indicated that we did not adequately acknowledge significant program results in the area of commercial law. In general, as we had discussed with USAID, due to time and resource constraints, we did not assess the impact of USAID assistance in the area of commercial law. However, insofar as available evaluations provided information on accomplishments in this area, we included this information in our report. 3. USAID criticized the report’s use of references and quotes from evaluations as inappropriately taken out of context. We reviewed each reference to an evaluation and do not believe that we have distorted the meaning of the information cited, as USAID suggested. However, where appropriate, we have revised the language or used additional or alternative references in our report to avoid potential misinterpretation.

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, E. Jeanette Espinola, Mary E. Moutsos, Maria Z. Oliver, Rona H. Mendelsohn, and Jeffery Goebel also made key contributions to this report.