DOD’s counterdrug mission focuses on supporting local, state, federal, and foreign government agencies in addressing the illegal drug trade and narcotics-related terrorism. DOD conducts its mission in three primary areas: detecting and monitoring drug trafficking into the United States, sharing information on illegal drugs with U.S. and foreign government agencies, and building the counterdrug capacity of U.S. and foreign partners. The National Guard identifies three state-specific projects as comprising its counterdrug program—state plans, counterdrug schools, and counterthreat finance. The authority to provide funding for the first state project—state plans—began in 1989 when DOD was authorized by Congress under section 112 of Title 32 of the United States Code to fund the National Guard’s drug interdiction and counterdrug activities. Each participating state counterdrug program must develop an annual plan of activities, in coordination with the state’s Governor and Attorney General. In developing their plans, states use annual guidance issued by DOD outlining the department’s domestic counterdrug program priorities. Once the state plans have been developed, they are reviewed by National Guard counterdrug program officials, and are then sent to DOD for approval. National Guard policy states that state counterdrug programs can provide assistance to interagency partners in 5 mission areas: reconnaissance, technical support, general support, civil operations, and counterdrug training. In 2006, Congress provided authority to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to operate up to five counterdrug schools. These five schools, located in Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Washington, provide training in drug interdiction and counterdrug activities to personnel from federal agencies; state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies; community-based organizations; and other non-federal governmental and private organizations. In 2011 the program added a third state project—counterthreat finance—to assist interagency partners with investigations of drug trafficking and transnational criminal organizations’ money laundering schemes. Appendix II provides funding information by project and appendix III provides details on the state plans’ activities and supported organizations. The National Guard counterdrug program is part of DOD’s larger counterdrug effort. Congress appropriates funds to DOD’s Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account, and DOD is authorized to transfer Drug Interdiction account funds to other armed services’ and defense agencies’ appropriation accounts. It is from this account that DOD funds the National Guard’s participation in domestic interdiction and counterdrug activities. In his fiscal year 2016 budget the President requested approximately $850.6 million for this account to support DOD-wide drug interdiction efforts. Budget data provided by DOD identify $87.9 million intended for the National Guard counterdrug program’s state-specific projects—a little more than 10 percent of the overall fiscal year 2016 Drug Interdiction account request. The National Guard counterdrug program budget data provided by DOD show that for fiscal years 2004 through 2014 the program’s total directed funding ranged between $219.3 million and $242.1 million–with a peak of $247 million in fiscal year 2013–but in fiscal year 2015 was reduced substantially. Congress appropriates funds into DOD’s Drug Interdiction account but through its committee reports provides direction to DOD on the specific amounts to allocate for the counterdrug program. Based on DOD data, in every year since fiscal year 2004, Congress has directed funding above DOD’s requested amount, keeping program amounts generally steady through 2014. In fiscal year 2013, when DOD began to reduce the amount of funding within the budget request for this program in order to prioritize funding for other DOD counterdrug programs, Congress directed program amounts generally comparable to those of prior years. Specifically, in fiscal year 2013, DOD requested $117 million for the National Guard counterdrug program, about a 40 percent decrease from the prior year’s request. From fiscal years 2013 to 2016, DOD reduced its budget request for counterdrug intelligence and technology support, as well as domestic efforts such as those supported by the National Guard more than international interdiction support activities. DOD officials stated that by decreasing requested funding for the counterdrug program they planned to address spending limits required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 and to fund counternarcotics programs in locations deemed a priority, such as Central and South America. According to DOD’s data, Congress directed $130 million more than requested in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. These additions offset DOD’s reduced request and kept overall counterdrug program funding generally steady. DOD’s data show that DOD’s budget request for the counterdrug program continued to decline from $112.1 million in fiscal year 2014 to $89.5 million in fiscal year 2015.In fiscal year 2015 Congress directed $86 million more than DOD requested for the program, ultimately leaving the program with a lower total funding of $175.5 million. Figure 1 details DOD’s budget data on the counterdrug program’s congressionally directed funding, including the DOD’s request and the increases above DOD’s request. According to DOD’s data, in recent years the program has not obligated all of the funding allocated to it from the Drug Interdiction account. In fiscal years 2004 through 2010 the program obligated at least 95 percent of its allocation. However, from fiscal years 2011 through 2014 the program’s obligations fluctuated between 83 percent and 96 percent of DOD’s allocations, partly due to the timing and amount of allocations received by the program. Funds transferred or allocated from the Drug Interdiction account to various other DOD drug interdiction accounts or programs, including the National Guard program, can be transferred back to the account upon a determination that all or part of the funds are not necessary and remain unobligated. Once funds are returned to the Drug Interdiction account, they are available for reallocation to other DOD counterdrug programs for obligation. Figure 2 details the counterdrug program’s obligations from fiscal years 2004 through 2014. NGB and state counterdrug programs officials stated that DOD’s internal transfer process for the Drug Interdiction account causes delays when funds become available for the program, thereby impacting the program’s ability to obligate funds for planned activities. For example, state program officials stated that in many cases the program cannot provide long-term analytical support, such as investigative and counterthreat finance analysts, throughout the year, and must wait for additional funding before assigning personnel. In some instances, the program can offer partial-year support, but some interagency partners may not accept support for only part of the year because it is difficult for them to provide the necessary training and access to appropriate databases necessary for investigative case work to be assigned before the fiscal year ends and the funding for the position is no longer available. DOD is examining whether it can improve upon the transfer process in order to reduce delays. According to DOD’s data, DOD has reallocated some of the National Guard counterdrug program’s unobligated funds that were returned to the Drug Interdiction account to other DOD counterdrug programs. Specifically, in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, DOD reallocated a total of $51.8 million of amounts returned to the Drug Interdiction account from the National Guard’s counterdrug program to counternarcotic capacity building efforts in the U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Southern Command areas of responsibility. The NGB has developed performance measures to report on its counterdrug program; however, we found that the information collected is not used to evaluate and inform funding for state-level programs or oversee the counterdrug schools’ training. Without performance information to inform funding decisions for state-level programs and oversee the counterdrug schools, DOD and Congress cannot ensure that the counterdrug program achieves its desired results and uses its resources most efficiently. In 2012 the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats issued the Counternarcotics and Global Threats Performance Metrics System Standard Operating Procedures to be used in the development and documentation of performance metrics for all DOD counternarcotics activities. In response to the guidance, National Guard counterdrug program officials stated that they developed a set of performance measures for use by their program. In fiscal year 2015 the counterdrug program included 26 performance measures that officials stated they used to evaluate the counterdrug program and report on its aggregate performance. These measures include indicators such as the number of cases supported, analytic products produced, students trained, mobile training courses delivered, and reconnaissance hours flown. Appendix V provides details on each of the 26 measures. Our review of the counterdrug program’s fiscal year 2015 performance measures against key attributes of successful performance measures identified by GAO found that the set of measures provided information across the program’s broad goals, measured three of the program’s five core activities, and had limited overlap with each other. We also found that the individual performance measures were linked to the overall objectives of the program and were focused on measurable goals. Some key attributes, such as a clarity, reliability, and objectivity, were reflected to varying degrees, but we found that the National Guard had actions underway to better define and document the program’s individual performance measures to improve the clarity and reliability of those individual measures. In February 2015 the National Guard officials completed the Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Counterdrug Analyst Performance Metrics Guide and stated that they were drafting guides for other program activities. We found that the NGB does not use the performance information it collects to help evaluate and inform funding for state-level programs and oversee the type of training offered by counterdrug schools. We have previously reported that setting useful performance measures can assist oversight; with them, program managers can monitor and evaluate the performance of the program’s activities, track how the activities contribute to attaining the program’s goals, or identify potential problems and the need for corrective measures.According to leading practices for results- oriented management, to ensure that performance information will be both useful and used in decision making throughout the organization, agencies need to consider users’ differing policy and management information needs. Performance measures should be selected specifically on the basis of their ability to inform the decisions made at each organizational level, and they should be appropriate to the responsibilities and control at each level. NGB officials stated that they are using performance information to report on the program’s aggregate performance to DOD and to respond to other requests for information, such as regarding whom the program supports. DOD officials further stated that they use performance information on an ad hoc basis to inform the funding request for the Drug Interdiction transfer account, but that they do not collect information that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of individual state-level programs or could be used in decision making about funding distributions to states. Such information could include a measure of the quality of the support provided by the National Guard to interagency partners, among other things. Instead, NBG officials were making funding distribution decisions for individual state programs based solely on assessments of threat. According to NGB officials, in 2012 they began using a model to determine the severity of the drug threat in each state and using the assessments of threat to determine funding levels for state counterdrug programs to implement their plans. NGB officials stated that to employ the threat-based resourcing model, NGB uses statistics from national- level databases to develop a distribution percentage for each state that reflects its relative drug threat. This percentage is then applied to the funding provided to the National Guard’s counterdrug program. In fiscal year 2015 the amount distributed to the states was $146.1 million. Table 1 shows the distribution percentage to the states and territories, and table 8 in appendix VI provides a detailed breakout by state. Moreover, during the course of our review, we found that the performance information collected did not assist the DOD Counternarcotic Program to oversee the type of training offered by the counterdrug schools. Specifically, the performance measures employed by the NGB focused on the number of students trained and the number of courses available, among other aspects. The officials stated these measures were not useful in the evaluation of the counterdrug school’s training activities because they did not provide information on the type of training being offered, such as whether it had a counterdrug focus. In addition, DOD Counternarcotics Program officials acknowledged that they did not have a full understanding of the counterdrug schools’ activities. To improve their oversight of the schools, DOD Counternarcotics Program officials began a review in December 2014 of the counterdrug schools’ activities to assess their training efforts. In May 2015, based on the preliminary findings of the review, the DOD Counternarcotics Program included guidance in its memorandum, Preparation of the Fiscal Year 2016 National Guard State Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities Plan, that clarified the mission of the counterdrug schools and the department’s priorities for their training, including that all training offered be explicitly linked to counterdrug efforts. As a result, the counterdrug schools are required to submit annual training plans that detail course offerings for review by the NGB and DOD to ensure that the training is focused on DOD’s priorities. However, the guidance did not include any changes to the performance information that would be collected by the NGB on the counterdrug schools. We continue to believe that collecting additional performance information, such as on the type of training offered, could help inform evaluations and identify any need for corrective actions in the future for the counterdrug schools. According to NGB officials, their current performance measures were developed in response to DOD guidance to report on the program’s aggregate performance to support DOD’s annual performance summary report to ONDCP. NGB officials stated that the guidance did not specifically require them to assess the performance of state-level programs; therefore, they did not fully consider the types of measures or information that would be useful to evaluate the effectiveness of individual state-level programs and oversee the counterdrug schools. NGB officials stated that their performance measures were evolving and they believed incorporating performance information in future funding distribution decisions for state programs would be helpful. Officials stated that they were working to develop an approach that uses performance information to inform future funding decisions. Without performance information to evaluate state-level programs and oversee the counterdrug schools, DOD and Congress cannot ensure that the counterdrug program achieves its desired results and uses its resources most efficiently. The National Guard’s counterdrug program was established more than 25 years ago to assist efforts of the Governors of 50 states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories in addressing illicit drug production, trade, and consumption. In recent years DOD has sought to focus its counterdrug efforts on international interdiction support activities with less emphasis on other activities including supporting domestic efforts like the National Guard’s counterdrug program. Congress has resisted the reductions to domestic efforts, and has directed increased funding to the program. Given the resources that the program offers to individual states and the interagency partners it supports, it is important to ensure that the program uses these resources efficiently and effectively. While threat is an important factor to consider in funding distributions, performance information can also be used to better inform such decisions. DOD and NGB have taken steps to develop performance measures, but DOD has used performance information only in an ad hoc basis to inform the funding request for the Drug Interdiction transfer account, and has not used performance information to evaluate the effectiveness of individual state programs or to oversee training offered by the counterdrug schools. Therefore, the effectiveness of state efforts is not being considered in DOD’s funding distribution decisions, and useful information is not being collected to support oversight of the counterdrug schools’ training. Without an approach that enables decision makers to objectively judge the performance of all elements of the program, neither DOD nor Congress will have assurance that the counterdrug program is achieving its goals in an effective manner. To ensure that resources are being efficiently applied to meet the National Guard counterdrug program’s objectives, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the National Guard Bureau in consultation with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats to take the following two actions: Identify additional information needed to evaluate the performance of the state programs and oversee counterdrug schools’ training; and Subsequently collect and use performance information to help inform funding distribution decisions to state programs and to conduct oversight of the training offered by the counterdrug schools. In the written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our two recommendations and identified specific steps it planned to take to address them. With respect to the first recommendation to identify additional information needed to evaluate the performance of state programs and to oversee the counterdrug schools’ training, DOD stated that it will hold discussions with the counterdrug program’s stakeholders to reassess the current performance criteria and to identify new performance criteria to allow it to assess the support the program provides. DOD then will evaluate the criteria to ensure it is reflective of the current information needs of the program both internally and externally and meets national objectives. These steps, once implemented, should help DOD obtain useful information to better inform decision making and to conduct oversight of the program and would satisfy the intent of our recommendation. With respect to the second recommendation to collect and use performance information to help inform funding-distribution decisions to state programs and to conduct oversight of the training offered by the counterdrug schools, DOD stated that it will apply the criteria it identifies to evaluate the effectiveness of each state program to provide support and to meet its objectives. Furthermore, DOD stated that it would take steps to assist states with any needed corrective- action plans. These steps, once implemented, should help to ensure that the program uses resources efficiently and effectively and would satisfy the intent of our recommendation. DOD’s comments are printed in their entirety in appendix VII. DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. We also provided a draft of this report to DOJ, DHS, and ONDCP for review and comment. DOJ, DHS, and ONDCP officials provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Director of National Drug Control Policy. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3489 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 VIII. To address our objectives, we reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from the Department of Defense (DOD) who oversee and manage the National Guard’s counterdrug program, select state counterdrug programs, and select interagency partners that receive support from state counterdrug programs. Our analysis focused on the state-level operations of the National Guard’s counterdrug program, which includes three state-specific projects: 1) state plans, 2) counterdrug schools, and 3) counterthreat finance. We excluded any counterdrug program projects that were specific to federal operations. Also, we used a nongeneralizable case study approach to obtain the perspectives of state counterdrug program officials and interagency partners receiving support from the program. Specifically, we selected 8 of the 53 participating states and territories identifying 2 states within each of the four counterdrug program regions (selecting 1 state with high and 1 state with low drug threat assessments) that also had a counterdrug school or an international boundary. The 8 states that we included in our review were: Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Washington. In the states selected for case study, we interviewed state counterdrug program officials and officials from the following interagency partners, where applicable: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA), Drug Enforcement Administration, Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations. We selected interagency partners based on their receiving support from the counterdrug program and on logistics associated with travel. In addition, we obtained and analyzed information fiscal years 2011 through 2014 from a National Guard counterdrug program database that included descriptive statistics of the number of staff days by mission category, support activities, and supported organization. To ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information from the database, we took steps to review the data fields for consistency and missing data; we found that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the audit. To identify the changes in funding for the National Guard counterdrug program, we conducted an analysis of relevant appropriations and program budget-related documents provided by DOD for fiscal years 2004 through 2015. We began our analysis with fiscal year 2004 data to ensure that our review included data covering at least a 10-year period. To ensure the reliability of our data, we reviewed documentation on funding distributions and financial management policy and interviewed knowledgeable officials about DOD’s Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities account, and about how counterdrug program funds are transferred from the account. We also reviewed financial documentation and interviewed DOD, counterdrug program, and interagency partner officials to obtain information on obligations of available funding. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit. To assess the extent to which the performance information is used to evaluate the counterdrug program’s activities, we reviewed documentation and interviewed counterdrug officials about program activities, types of performance information collected, and funding levels for individual state counterdrug programs. First, we evaluated the counterdrug program’s 26 fiscal year 2015 performance measures against nine key attributes of successful performance established by GAO. Next, we evaluated the counterdrug program’s use of performance information against leading practices for results-oriented management that help agencies develop useful performance measures and use performance information for management decision making as identified by GAO through a review of literature and interviews with experts and staff from five U.S. agencies. Specifically, we interviewed officials from: National Guard Bureau Counterdrug Program o Connecticut Counterdrug Program o Florida Counterdrug Program  Multijurisdictional Task Force Training Center  Midwest Counterdrug Training Center  Regional Counterdrug Training Academy  Northeast Counterdrug Training Center o Texas Counterdrug Program o Utah Counterdrug Program o Washington Counterdrug Program  Western Region Counterdrug Training Center National Guard Bureau Budget Execution Office Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Office of the Undersecretary of Defense, Comptroller Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) o DEA Miami Division o DEA Houston Division o DEA Philadelphia Division o DEA Denver Division o DEA New Orleans Division o DEA Seattle Division o DEA St. Louis Division o DEA New England Division o DEA Office of Training Federal Bureau of Investigation United States Marshals Service Executive Office for United States Attorneys Department of Homeland Security: Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) o HSI Special Agent in Charge, Miami, Florida o HSI Special Agent in Charge, Seattle, Washington o HSI Special Agent in Charge, Houston, Texas Customs and Border Protection (CBP) o CBP, Miami, Florida – Sector Intelligence Unit o CBP, Spokane, Washington – Oroville Station o CBP, Spokane, Washington – Sector Intelligence Unit o CBP, Laredo, Texas – Special Operation Detachment United States Coast Guard High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas: North Florida HIDTA South Florida HIDTA Rocky Mountain HIDTA Houston HIDTA Philadelphia/Camden HIDTA New England HIDTA Gulf Coast HIDTA Northwest HIDTA Midwest HIDTA Office of National Drug Control Policy We conducted this performance audit from August 2014 to October 2015 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. The National Guard identifies three state-specific projects as comprising its counterdrug program—state plans, counterdrug schools, and counterthreat finance. Table 2 provides the obligations by each state project. The National Guard’s state plans include 15 support activities, which are grouped into five broad mission categories, as shown in table 3. The National Guard counterdrug program collects information on the activities and supported organizations and uses staff days to measure its resource investment. Our analysis of this information found that from fiscal years 2011 through 2014 the state plans invested most of their staff days in the mission categories of technical support and reconnaissance. During this period, the number of staff days invested in civil operations decreased, as shown in figure 3. Of the 15 support activities, investigative case and analyst support was the support activity most frequently provided from fiscal years 2011 through 2014, as shown in table 4. Among the various categories of supported organizations, law enforcement received the most support from the state plans, as shown in table 5. Lastly, the federal agencies to which state plans provided the most support were the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security. The specific components that received the most support included the Drug Enforcement Administration, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as shown in table 6. After Congress appropriates amounts to the Drug Interdiction account, there are multiple steps by various organizations before the funds are received by each individual state counterdrug program. To begin each transfer process, DOD Counternarcotic Program officials prepare and submit to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) a DD1415-3, which details the allocation of funds by appropriation or budget activity account for each program. If no defense appropriations act has been passed and DOD is operating under a continuing resolution, amounts transferred are based on a rate-per-day formula developed by DOD. Once a defense appropriation act is enacted, the Comptroller is required to submit to Congress the department’s intended budget execution based on the appropriation act and congressional directions as expressed in House and Senate Appropriation committee reports. This report, which DOD calls the base for reprogramming and transfer authorities (DD1414), is to be submitted no later than 60 days from the enactment of an appropriation. After this baseline is submitted, Comptroller officials review and approve the DD1415-3 and forward it to the Office of Management and Budget. Once approved by the Office of Management and Budget, the Comptroller issues a funding authorization document to transfer funds to the military services appropriation accounts (such as military personnel or operation and maintenance). The military services then transfer funds to appropriation accounts managed by Army National Guard and Air National Guard, which, in turn, distribute the funds onto each state National Guard participating in the program. Figure 4 outlines the fund transfer process to the counterdrug program. The National Guard Bureau’s Counterdrug Program office coordinates the process involving the DOD Counternarcotic Program, the Army and Air National Guard budget and financial management offices, and the individual state counterdrug programs. In fiscal year 2015 the counterdrug program officials used 26 performance measures to report on the program’s aggregate performance to DOD and respond to requests for information, as shown in table 7. Each state within the counterdrug program develops an annual plan of activities, in coordination with the state’s Governor and Attorney General, that identifies its counterdrug priorities and how it intends to obligate its available funds. To develop these plans, states use annual guidance from DOD that identifies approved activities for the counterdrug program. For instance, investigative case support, ground and aerial reconnaissance, and counterthreat finance analysis are approved activities. The threat-based resource model uses 22 variables to assess the drug threat across the 53 counterdrug programs. Almost half of the variables are based on information from the National Seizure System database. Other variables are based on information from federal agencies such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. To ensure that every state has a viable counterdrug program, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau established $500,000 as the minimum level of funding for each state. According to counterdrug program officials, this amount enables all the states to maintain some capability to address drug threats while limiting the impact on states with higher threats. Table 8 provides details on the state plans distribution percentages by state and territories for fiscal year 2015. The amount of funding each state receives depends on that state’s distribution percentage and available funds for the state plans project. Table 9 details the funding distributed to each state and territory in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. In addition to the contact named above, Rich Geiger (Assistant Director), Tom Jessor, Linda S. Keefer, Susan C. Langley, Amie Steele Lesser, Felicia M. Lopez, Tobin J. McMurdie, Carol D. Petersen, Richard Powelson, Caitlin N. Rice, Michael D. Silver, Sabrina C. Streagle, and Cheryl A. Weissman made key contributions to this report. Budget Issues: Effects of Budget Uncertainty From Continuing Resolutions on Agency Operations. GAO-13-464T. Washington D.C.: March 13, 2013. Drug Control: Initial Review of the National Strategy and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Programs. GAO-12-744R. Washington D.C.: July 6, 2012. Office of National Drug Control Policy: Agencies View the Budget Process as Useful for Identifying Priorities, but Challenges Exist. GAO-11-261R. Washington D.C.: May 2, 2011. Drug Control: DOD Needs to Improve Its Performance Measurement System to Better Manage and Oversee Its Counternarcotics Activities. GAO-10-835. Washington D.C.: July 21, 2010. Preliminary Observations on the Department of Defense’s Counternarcotics Performance Measurement System. GAO-10-594R. Washington D.C.: April 30, 2010. Continuing Resolutions: Uncertainty Limited Management Options and Increased Workload in Selected Agencies. GAO-09-879. Washington D.C.: September 24, 2009.

Summary: Since 1989 the National Guard has received hundreds of millions of dollars to help enhance the effectiveness of state-level counterdrug efforts by providing military support to assist interagency partners with their counterdrug activities. The program funds the drug interdiction priorities of each state Governor; counterdrug-related training to interagency partners at five counterdrug schools; and state-level counterthreat finance investigations, all of which are part of DOD's broader counterdrug efforts. Senate Report 113-176 included a provision for GAO to conduct an assessment of the state operations of the National Guard's counterdrug program. This report: (1) identifies the changes in funding for the program since fiscal year 2004, and (2) assesses the extent to which performance information is used to evaluate the program's activities. GAO analyzed the program's budgets and obligations data, performance measures, and program guidance, and interviewed knowledgeable officials. The National Guard Bureau (NGB) counterdrug program's budget data show that funding has ranged from about $219.3 million to $242.1 million in fiscal years 2004 through 2014–with a peak of $247 million in fiscal year 2013–but in fiscal year 2015 funding was reduced substantially. Based on Department of Defense (DOD) data, every year since 2004 Congress has directed funding above the requested amount, thus keeping program amounts steady through 2014. In fiscal year 2013, DOD reported requesting $117 million for the program, about a 40 percent decrease from the prior year's request. While DOD reduced its request, however, Congress in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 directed funding at generally comparable amounts from prior years. In fiscal year 2015 Congress directed less of an increase above DOD's request, leaving the program with lower total funding of $175.5 million. The NGB has developed performance measures to report on its counterdrug program; however, the information collected is not used to evaluate and inform funding for state-level programs or oversee the counterdrug schools' training. GAO has previously reported that setting useful measures is important for oversight; without them, managers cannot monitor and evaluate the performance of programs' activities. NGB officials stated that they developed the current measures in response to DOD guidance to report on the program's aggregate performance and did not fully consider the types of measures or information that would be useful to evaluate individual state-level programs and oversee the counterdrug schools. Without collecting and using useful performance information to evaluate state-level programs and oversee the counterdrug schools, DOD and Congress cannot ensure that the counterdrug program is achieving its desired results and is distributing its funding most efficiently. GAO recommends that DOD (1) identify additional information needed to evaluate the performance of state programs and oversee counterdrug schools' training; and (2) subsequently collect and use performance information to help inform funding distribution decisions to state programs and to conduct oversight of the training offered by the counterdrug schools. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations.