The past decade has seen an increasing emphasis in the United States on the role of state and local entities in the fight against violent extremism. More recently, in August 2011, the White House issued the nation’s first CVE strategy, Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States, and in December 2011, it issued an implementation plan for the CVE national strategy. The strategy leverages existing programs and structures in order to counter radicalization that leads to violence, rather than creating new programs and funding streams. The strategy highlights three major areas of activity: (1) enhancing engagement with and support to local communities that violent extremists may target, (2) building government and law enforcement expertise for preventing violent extremism, and (3) countering violent extremist propaganda while promoting U.S. ideals. The strategy also identifies the provision of training to federal, state, and local entities as a major component of the national CVE approach, and the implementation plan notes that the federal government will enhance CVE- related training offered to federal, state, and local agencies. The implementation plan states that this is necessary because of “a small number of instances of federally-sponsored or funded CVE and counterterrorism training that used offensive and inaccurate information.” Accordingly, one of the objectives of the implementation plan is to improve the development and use of standardized training with rigorous curricula that imparts information about violent extremism, improves cultural competency, and conveys best practices and lessons for effective community engagement and partnerships. The implementation plan designates federal departments, agencies, and components as leaders and partners regarding certain aspects of CVE, and DHS and DOJ have principal roles in implementing the CVE national strategy. Table 1 identifies the primary federal departments and agencies with CVE-related responsibilities and their respective missions. Other agencies involved in implementing the strategy include the Departments of the Treasury, Education, and Commerce, among others. The CVE national strategy implementation plan assigns both DHS and DOJ responsibility for supporting national CVE-related training efforts and emphasizes the importance of collaboration among federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies in order to achieve the goals of the strategy. In order for DHS and DOJ components to determine the extent to which they are fulfilling departmental CVE-related responsibilities, they must be able to identify which of the training they conduct is CVE-related, which requires that they understand what constitutes CVE-related training. The DHS Counterterrorism Working Group, the entity responsible for leading DHS’s CVE efforts under the direction of the Principal Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator, has identified topics to be addressed in CVE-related training that DHS develops, provides, or funds. The group has also undertaken efforts to communicate these topics to other DHS components, state and local law enforcement officials, and grant recipients who may allocate DHS funding for CVE-related training within their states. DHS’s communication efforts have helped DHS components and state and local partners to better understand what constitutes CVE-related training, but some DHS grantees who responded to our survey reported that they were not clear as to what topics should be addressed in CVE-related training, and most indicated that it would be helpful for DHS to provide additional information or guidance on topics covered under CVE. DHS plans to undertake additional communication efforts with these grantees to educate them about the principal topics CVE-related training addresses. In contrast, DOJ has not identified topics it considers as CVE-related training. Consequently, DOJ is unable to demonstrate how it is meeting its CVE responsibilities under the CVE national strategy. In February 2010, the Secretary of Homeland Security tasked the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) with developing recommendations regarding how DHS can better support community- based efforts to combat violent extremism domestically, focusing on the issues of training, information sharing, and the adoption of community- oriented law enforcement approaches. The council established the HSAC CVE Working Group to carry out this tasking, and the working group issued its findings in summer 2010. The HSAC CVE Working Group determined that CVE-related training should focus on (1) improving the capacity of law enforcement and other government personnel to communicate and collaborate with individuals from diverse religious, ethnic, and racial communities, and (2) promoting understanding of the threats facing a local community and recognizing behavior and indicators associated with those threats. The DHS Counterterrorism Working Group subsequently determined that, in order to support implementation of the CVE national strategy and the HSAC CVE Working Group findings, CVE- related training should address the following: violent extremism (e.g., the threat it poses), cultural demystification (e.g., education on culture and religion), community partnerships (e.g., how to build them), and community policing efforts (e.g., how to apply community policing efforts to CVE). According to the DHS Principal Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator, identifying these topics helped to provide a logical structure for DHS’s CVE-related training–related efforts. The Counterterrorism Working Group has undertaken efforts to communicate these topics to DHS components that contribute to DHS CVE-related training. Toward the beginning of our review officials from DHS components that contributed to training in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 that was CVE-related according to our framework cited lack of clarity regarding what topics CVE-related training is to address; however, by August 2012, the components reported that the topics were clear, a fact that they attributed to these communications efforts. The Counterterrorism Working Group communicated CVE-related training topics to relevant DHS components during weekly meetings as well as by involving the components in the development of new CVE-related training. For example, the Counterterrorism Working Group has invited relevant components to participate in workshops on CVE-related training, provided them with briefings and updates on its CVE-related training development efforts, and included them in review of draft CVE curricula. According to Counterterrorism Working Group officials, the group led a series of meetings with these components to communicate and review the content of multiple CVE-related trainings the group is working to develop. According to officials from relevant DHS components, these communication efforts have helped to clarify topics CVE-related training addresses. For example, according to the official that leads CVE-related training that the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties provides, reviewing the CVE curricula under development involves ensuring that training topics are clear and well understood. In addition, according to the S&T official who oversees research on CVE that is to inform CVE-related training content, DHS officials have clearly communicated topics that CVE-related training is to include during weekly meetings that the Counterterrorism Working Group leads involving all DHS CVE Working Group members. The Counterterrorism Working Group also communicated with state and local partners and associations that DHS collaborates with to achieve national CVE goals regarding DHS’s CVE-related training topics. For example, according to the director of a state police academy and a police department lieutenant, the Counterterrorism Working Group has consistently consulted with them in developing training modules addressing CVE topics. The Counterterrorism Working Group is also collaborating to develop and implement CVE-related training curricula with the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCC), the National Consortium for Advanced Policing (NCAP), and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). As reported by the official who oversees CVE-related training that the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties provides, such collaboration inherently entails discussion of topics CVE-related training is to address. DHS’s communication efforts have helped DHS components and state and local partners to better understand what constitutes CVE-related training, but our review indicates that some state administrative agency representatives are not clear about the principal topics CVE-related training addresses, making it difficult for them to determine what CVE- related training best supports national CVE efforts. According to officials from FEMA, which administers DHS grant funding, the agency has increased grant funding available for CVE-related training because the Secretary of Homeland Security has identified CVE efforts as a priority for the department. In particular, in fiscal year 2011, FEMA began to allow state and local entities to use funds awarded through the Homeland Security Grant Program for CVE-related training. Further, in fiscal year 2012, FEMA explicitly stated in its Homeland Security Grant Program funding announcement that grantees could use program funds for CVE- related training, and retroactively allowed recipients to use program funds from prior years for CVE activities. In July 2012, we surveyed the 51 training points of contact within state administrative agencies—which are responsible for managing Homeland Security Grant Program funds that DHS awards—about the extent to which they understand what is meant by CVE training. Of the 30 training points of contact who responded to our survey, 11 indicated that they were not at all clear or were somewhat clear on what is meant by CVE-related training. Further, 26 agreed or strongly agreed that it would be helpful for DHS to provide additional information or guidance on topics covered under CVE. As long as FEMA continues to make grant funding available for CVE-related training, but grantees do not have an understanding of what topics CVE-related training should address, it will be difficult for grantees to determine what training best supports the national CVE objective of improving CVE- related training and use funds appropriately toward those efforts. DHS Counterterrorism Working Group officials stated that the group had made efforts to communicate CVE-related training topics to state administrative agencies, but in light of our survey results, the group plans to expand its efforts. In winter 2011, the Principal Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator, who leads DHS CVE efforts, participated in a conference call with State Homeland Security Program advisers and staff who administer DHS grants that can be used for CVE-related training, during which this official highlighted DHS’s CVE-related training efforts and associated guidance. Nonetheless, according to the Principal Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator, some training points of contact may not be aware of what topics CVE-related training should address because the working group’s coordination efforts have focused on state and local representatives who administer law enforcement training programs (e.g., at police academies), not state administrative agencies. The Principal Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator also emphasized that DHS has focused its efforts on developing high-quality CVE-related training that state and local entities can readily access and that FEMA will pre approve as eligible for DHS grant funding. As a result, according to this official, grantees will rarely have to independently identify appropriate CVE-related training to fund or undertake steps to ensure the quality of CVE-related training they fund. Nevertheless, the Principal Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator agreed that our survey results revealed that it is important for DHS to undertake additional efforts to educate state administrative agency officials on the principal topics CVE-related training addresses. To that end, in August 2012, the Principal Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator held an additional meeting with more than 100 state administrative agency representatives and other federal, state, and local officials, during which the Coordinator provided information on DHS CVE-related training development efforts and the content of DHS’s CVE-related training, among other things. In addition, in August 2012, DHS, in partnership with the FBI, launched an online portal for a select group of law enforcement training partners that is intended to provide federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, and correctional law enforcement with access to CVE-related training materials. DHS aims to broaden access to the portal to trainers nationwide by the end of September 2012. Further, the Principal Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator stated that the Counterterrorism Working Group is developing an outreach strategy for communicating with state and local entities about DHS’s CVE-related training efforts. Given the recency of these efforts, we are not able to assess their effectiveness as part of our review. However, they are positive steps that should contribute to educating state administrative agency representatives about CVE topics, and thereby help them to fund CVE-related training that is consistent with the goals of the CVE national strategy. As with DHS, the CVE national strategy implementation plan has identified DOJ, including the FBI, as among the federal departments and agencies responsible for conducting CVE-related training. However, DOJ has not yet identified topics that should be covered in its CVE-related training. In addition, DOJ has not generally identified which of its existing training could be categorized as CVE-related training, thus limiting DOJ’s ability to demonstrate how it is fulfilling its training responsibilities under the CVE national strategy. According to senior DOJ officials, even though the department has not identified CVE-related training topics, they understand internally which of the department’s training is CVE-related and contributes either directly or indirectly to the department’s training responsibilities under the CVE national strategy. However, because DOJ has not identified what constitutes CVE-related training, CVE-related efforts undertaken at the direction of the President’s National Security Staff have been hindered, according to DHS officials who participated in an Interagency Policy Committee Working Group on Law Enforcement Training Regarding Domestic Radicalization and CVE. This group, which is chaired by DHS and NCTC, was formed at the direction of the President’s National Security Staff to identify and coordinate CVE-related training that federal agencies deliver or fund. The group’s principal objective was twofold: (1) to determine how agencies are currently developing training and (2) to identify options for ensuring that the Intelligence Community’s current analysis of radicalization informs training for federal, state, local, and tribal officials, and that customers of this type of training receive high- quality training and information consistent with U.S. government analysis. As part of this effort, the Interagency Policy Committee Working Group on Law Enforcement Training Regarding Domestic Radicalization and CVE endeavored to create an inventory of CVE- related training that the federal government offers. However, according to DHS officials that participated in the working group, members who led this effort found it challenging to do so because agencies’ views differed as to what CVE-related training includes when providing information on their training. More specifically, according to one DHS official, some components found it difficult to differentiate between counterterrorism and CVE-related training, and trying to categorize training that was not developed for CVE purposes but that can benefit CVE can be confusing. We observed this problem firsthand during our review when the DOJ components that the department identified as potentially relevant to our work, including the FBI, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services could not readily respond to our requests for information about CVE-related training they provide or fund. According to these officials, they found it difficult to respond to our requests because DOJ has not established a definition for “CVE” or “CVE-related training,” and therefore they were not sure what constitutes CVE-related training.acknowledged that training that BJA funds under the State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training (SLATT) program could be considered CVE- related training, but they also acknowledged that what constitutes CVE- related training was not clear, in part because CVE is a relatively new term. The other DOJ components, however, relied upon a framework that we developed for the purpose of this review to determine which of their existing training was CVE-related. The Community Relations Service is DOJ’s “peacemaker” for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and national origin. It is dedicated to assisting state and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony. According to DOJ, pursuant to the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Community Relations Service also works with communities to develop strategies to prevent and respond more effectively to alleged violent hate crimes committed on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. See generally Pub. L. No. 111-84, Div. E, 123 Stat. 2190, 2835 (2009). See also 18 U.S.C. § 249. and explicitly emphasize the importance of community engagement in CVE efforts while recognizing that such engagement should focus on a full range of community concerns, and not just on issues such as national security. Further, the implementation plan has assigned DOJ responsibility for supporting national CVE-related training efforts. However, because DOJ has not identified what topics it thinks should be addressed by CVE-related training, it is difficult to identify which of DOJ’s current training is related to CVE—either directly or indirectly, which also makes it difficult to determine whether and how DOJ is fulfilling its training responsibilities per the CVE national strategy. If departments are unclear regarding what constitutes CVE-related training, they will also have difficulty accounting for their CVE-related training responsibilities. By not identifying and communicating CVE- related training topics to its components, DOJ is not able to demonstrate how it is fulfilling its CVE-related training responsibilities and ensure that it is carrying out its responsibilities as established in the CVE national strategy implementation plan. Less than 1 percent of state and local participants in CVE-related training that DHS and DOJ provided or funded who provided feedback to the departments expressed concerns about information included in the course materials or that instructors presented during training. In addition, while DOJ generally solicits feedback from all participants for programs that provide formal, curriculum-based CVE-related training, the FBI and USAOs do not always solicit feedback for programs that provide less formal CVE-related training (e.g., presentations by guest speakers), even though such training was provided to about 9,900 participants in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Finally, apart from the training participants, some individuals and advocacy organizations have raised concerns about DHS and DOJ CVE-related training. As previously discussed, because DHS and DOJ components were unclear regarding what constitutes CVE-related training, for the purposes of conducting this review, we developed a framework for determining which training may be CVE-related. Our framework identifies training as CVE-related if it addressed one or more of the following three content areas: (1) radicalization, (2) cultural competency, and (3) community engagement. DHS Counterterrorism Working Group officials generally agreed with the content areas we identified, and we incorporated feedback the group provided, as appropriate. DOJ officials stated that they view the framework as reasonable for the purpose of our review. However, as previously discussed, DOJ officials do not think it is appropriate for DOJ to identify topics as addressed in CVE-related training. We applied our framework to identify CVE-related training DOJ and DHS components provided to state and local entities during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Figure 1 presents the DOJ and DHS programs that provided the CVE-related training we identified, and appendix III provides more detailed information about the training, including the number of participants and associated costs. The majority of participant feedback on CVE-related training that DHS and DOJ provided or funded during fiscal years 2010 and 2011 was positive or neutral; a minority of participants expressed concerns about information included in course materials or that instructors presented. DHS and DOJ collected and retained feedback forms from 8,424 of the more than 28,000 participants—including state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials, prison officials, and community members—of training they provided or funded in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 that was CVE-related according to our framework. We analyzed all of these evaluations and found that the vast majority of participants submitted comments about the training that were positive or neutral. For example, participants commented that the courses were among the most challenging they had taken, that the instructors were professional and knowledgeable, or that the course materials were well assembled. In addition, participants stated that the training was informative with regard to the threat posed by, and how to best counter, violent extremists or provided a valuable overview of an extremist group. In another instance, a participant stated that the course was helpful in understanding the beliefs and concerns of a particular community. Some participants also said that the training would be worthwhile to provide to a broader audience, that they intended to share what they learned with colleagues, or that they would like to see the course length expanded. We also identified 77 participant evaluations—less than 1 percent—that included comments that expressed concern of any sort. For example, we identified concerns that a training was too politically correct, as well as concerns that a training was one-sided, with regard to issues of religion and culture. The concerns the participants expressed fell into the following three categories: 1. The course information or instruction was politically or culturally biased (54 evaluations). For example, participant comments that fell into this category were that the instructor had a liberal bias, and other comments were that the instructor too often relayed his or her personal views. 2. The course information or instruction was offensive (12 evaluations). For example, one concern raised in this category was that an instructor presented Islam in a negative manner, whereas another concern was that a guest presenter spoke disrespectfully about the United States. 3. The course information was inaccurate (11 evaluations). For example, comments that fell into this category raised concern that an instructor provided misinformation about dressing norms for Middle Eastern women and that an instructor cited incorrect information about a criminal case discussed during the class. The concerns that were raised varied across different training providers and, although few, most of the concerns stemmed from the evaluation records documenting feedback from DOJ SLATT Program and FBI National Joint Terrorism Task Force Program participants. See appendix IV for additional details on the types of concerns by training provider. DOJ and DHS officials who oversee these training programs indicated that they review the feedback participants provide and assess if it warrants action. However, these officials stated that determining how to respond to feedback can be difficult when the feedback is subjective or not actionable. For example, the SLATT Program Director stated that if a comment simply says “one-sided information,” he cannot take action on it because he does not know which side the person is referring to or what the person thinks should be changed. However, if there is a trend in clear feedback participants provided, he will take action. Further, according to SLATT and Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties officials, perceptions regarding what is biased vary by audience and even by the participants within a given audience. Therefore, DHS and DOJ officials stated that they take action to address participant feedback on a case-by-case basis, as they and their staff deem appropriate. For example, the SLATT Director explained that there is no specific threshold to determine whether a participant’s comment warrants further action, but generally, if a similar concern has been submitted by multiple participants, over multiple courses, SLATT officials will review the substance of the comment and devise a plan to correct the issue. For example, the SLATT Director noted that in response to a comment that a course title did not reflect the material taught in the course, he suggested a change to the title. Most of the CVE-related training that DHS and DOJ components provided was formal, classroom-based or curriculum-based training, and the components generally solicited participant feedback for this type of training, which we describe above. In addition, two DOJ components— FBI and USAOs—also provided informal CVE-related training consisting of briefings and presentations at workshops, conferences, and other venues to about 9,900 participants in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. However, these components did not consistently solicit participant feedback for this type of training, which makes it difficult for them to assess the quality of the training, determine whether the training is achieving expected outcomes, and make changes where appropriate. According to FBI officials, training that the FBI centrally administers— including that provided under the National Academy and National Joint Terrorism Task Force programs—is to adhere to the Kirkpatrick model to help ensure its quality. The standards this model prescribes require the solicitation of student feedback. As a result, the FBI collects feedback through evaluations on the formal, classroom-based courses it provides through its National Academy. The FBI does not require entities providing informal training, such as briefings and presentations during outreach, to solicit feedback. Specifically, officials from the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs told us that the bureau does not solicit feedback on presentations, briefings, or its Citizens’ Academy and Community Relations Executive Seminar Training (CREST) outreach programs because doing so is not required, and the officials noted that the FBI does not classify these programs and activities as training. Officials also noted that some field offices, which administer the programs, do solicit feedback from participants although they are not required to do so. For example, 4 of 21 FBI field offices that provided Citizens’ Academy training that was CVE- related according to our framework collected evaluations. However, none of the 3 FBI field offices that provided CREST training or the 5 FBI field offices that provided other training that was CVE-related according to our framework solicited feedback from course participants. Similarly, USAOs are not required to obtain feedback from recipients of training that their individual offices provide. According to Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys officials, USAOs do not typically solicit feedback from participants on the presentations that our framework identified as CVE-related that they provide in their districts, particularly with respect to threat-related briefings for law enforcement officials that are intended to address a particular area of concern for that region at a particular time. Under these circumstances, according to these officials, feedback may be less useful than it would be for curriculum-based trainings, because the presentation is less likely to be repeated for many different audiences. We identified 39 USAOs that provided or facilitated training that was CVE-related according to our framework, excluding training that was facilitated by a USAO, but provided by another federal entity (such as SLATT). Out of these 39 USAOs, 15 collected feedback from CVE-related training participants. We have previously reported that evaluating training is important and that agencies need to develop systematic evaluation processes in order to We obtain accurate information about the benefits of their training. recognize the distinction between formal training programs and less formal training, such as presentations. However, the CREST and Citizens’ Academy programs, other FBI field office initiatives, and USAOs collectively trained about 39 percent (about 9,900) of all training participants in DOJ CVE-related training during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Soliciting feedback on informal training could help the FBI and USAOs obtain valuable information for determining the extent to which these programs are yielding desired outcomes (e.g., whether the FBI’s Citizens’ Academy is projecting a positive image of the FBI in the communities it serves) as well as complying with the CVE national strategy. Such feedback could also be obtained without incurring significant costs. According to officials at a FBI field office that distributes feedback forms and the DHS official who oversees the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties CVE-related training, agencies can solicit feedback from training participants at minimal cost (e.g., the paper on which the form is distributed and the employee time associated with reviewing the forms), feedback is critical to ensure the training is communicating its intended messages effectively, and soliciting feedback is a worthwhile undertaking given the significant time and resources their offices invest in providing CVE-related training. In addition to the concerns we identified in participant evaluations, individuals and advocacy organizations submitted at least six letters of complaint to DHS, DOJ, the Executive Office of the President, and other federal government entities regarding 18 alleged incidents of biased CVE and counterterrorism training that DHS or DOJ provided or funded during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Representatives of the advocacy organizations that submitted the letters generally did not participate in the training that generated these concerns. Rather, their concerns were derived from information reported in the media and individuals who attended a training session and expressed concern about the training to the organizations. We determined that 7 of the alleged incidents described in five of the letters were relevant to this review because they pertained to CVE-related training provided to state and local officials and community members, not training that was exclusively provided to federal officials. The 7 incidents described in these letters, some of which the media initially reported, articulated similar concerns as those identified in the participant evaluations we reviewed. That is, the allegations made in the letters raised concerns that course information and instructors were biased, offensive, or inaccurate. Table 2 summarizes the concerns raised in these five letters and the agency’s perspectives about the concerns. Although the number of concerns and complaints raised about CVE- related training may have been small, according to DHS and DOJ officials, the departments have generally considered the complaints as serious issues that warranted action to better ensure the quality of future training, particularly given the negative effects that such incidents can have on the departments’ reputations and trust with the communities they serve. For example, according to the DHS Principal Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator, developing CVE-related training is a priority for the department because inappropriate and inaccurate training undermines community partnerships that are critical to preventing crime and negatively impacts efforts of law enforcement to identify legitimate behaviors and indicators of violent extremism. DOJ has undertaken quality reviews of existing training materials that are CVE-related according to our framework, and both DOJ and DHS have developed guidance for CVE-related training and developed other quality assurance mechanisms for this training. DOJ components have conducted or are currently conducting internal reviews of their training materials, including those with topics that our framework identified as related to CVE, in an effort to identify and purge potentially objectionable materials. In September 2011, the FBI launched a review of all FBI counterterrorism training materials, including materials that were CVE-related according to our framework. This review included approximately 160,000 pages of training materials, and the FBI determined that less than one percent of the pages contained factually inaccurate or imprecise information or used stereotypes. The Office of the Deputy Attorney General has also ordered a departmentwide review of training materials. Unlike the FBI’s internal review, which focused on counterterrorism training materials, a memorandum issued by the Deputy Attorney General to heads of DOJ components and U.S. Attorneys in September 2011 directed them to carefully review all training material and presentations that their personnel provided. The memorandum stated components particularly should review training related to combating terrorism, CVE, and other subjects that may relate to ongoing outreach efforts in Arab, Muslim, Sikh, South Asian, and other communities. The purpose of the review was to ensure that the material and information presented are consistent with DOJ standards, goals, and instructions. Officials from the four DOJ components that we identified as having provided or funded CVE-related training reported that their components have completed, or intend to complete, the review the Deputy Attorney General ordered. According to DOJ officials, as of August 2012, some components are still reviewing relevant materials and the Deputy Attorney General asked components to provide any questionable training materials to the Deputy Attorney General’s office. DOJ officials also told us that each DOJ component is to make its own determination on what materials are appropriate, but that components are to review all training materials, even if the components do not have specific plans to present the materials in the future. DHS, DOJ, and the FBI have developed guidance to avoid future incidences or allegations of biased or otherwise inappropriate training. In October 2011, the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties issued Countering Violent Extremism Training Guidance & Best Practices (DHS CVE Guidance), which acknowledges that it is important for law enforcement personnel to be appropriately trained in understanding and detecting ideologically motivated criminal behavior and in working with communities and local law enforcement to counter domestic violent extremism.accurate, based on current intelligence, and include cultural competency training. To this end, its goals are to help ensure that (1) trainers are experts and well regarded; (2) training is sensitive to constitutional values; (3) training facilitates further dialogue and learning; (4) training adheres to government standards and efforts; and (5) training and objectives are appropriately tailored, focused, and supported. The guidance provides best practices for federal, state, and local officials organizing CVE, cultural awareness, or counterterrorism training to adhere to in support of these goals. Best practices include reviewing a prospective trainer’s résumé; reviewing the training program to ensure that it uses examples to demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion; and reaching out to sponsors of existing government training efforts for input. The DHS CVE guidance states that training must be Following the release of DHS’s CVE Guidance, FEMA issued an information bulletin to its state, local, and private sector partners and grantees to emphasize the importance of ensuring that all CVE-related training is consistent with DHS and U.S. government policy.referenced the DHS CVE Guidance and stated, among other things, that grant-funded training should avoid the use of hostile, stereotypical, or factually inaccurate information about Muslims and Islam or any community. The bulletin also emphasized the importance of community engagement and interaction to promote communities as part of the solution. According to FEMA officials, if a grantee were to provide CVE- related training and not follow the DHS CVE guidance, DHS may require that the grantee repay any grant funds that were spent on the training. However, several DHS grantees indicated that they would not necessarily know when to apply the best practices for ensuring the quality of CVE- related training described in the informational bulletin. Specifically, of the 30 Homeland Security Grant Program training points of contact who responded to our survey, 18 said that they were not at all clear or only somewhat clear about when to apply the principles in the FEMA bulletin. In addition, 20 said that topics that may be covered during CVE-related training are not at all clear or only somewhat clear in the bulletin. As a result, these grantees could have difficulty in determining when to apply the principles. As previously discussed, the additional efforts DHS is undertaking to educate state administrative agency officials on the principal topics CVE-related training addresses could further enable the officials to fund training that supports the CVE national strategy. These survey results indicate that such educational efforts should help grantees more readily identify topics that may be covered during CVE-related training, and thus more appropriately apply DHS CVE-related training quality assurance guidance. DHS is also developing additional mechanisms to ensure the quality of CVE-related training. Specifically, Counterterrorism Working Group officials told us that in June 2012 DHS established a CVE-related training Working Group within the department to develop a framework to (1) ensure that training DHS components provide meets DHS and the U.S. government’s CVE standards; (2) ensure that grantees using grant funds for training utilize certified trainers; and (3) disseminate DHS training through agency partners, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police. In July 2012, this working group proposed recommendations for meeting these goals in a memorandum to the DHS Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator. For example, the group recommended that the department establish and maintain a database of certified CVE instructors and appoint a CVE program coordinator to oversee the instructor vetting and training process. According to Counterterrorism Working Group officials, DHS is working on plans to implement these recommendations. As these recommendations were made recently and DHS has just decided to implement them, it is too early to assess any quality assurance impact they will have on CVE-related training. DOJ also developed guidance applicable to all training, including CVE- related training, conducted or funded by DOJ to help ensure its quality. DOJ formed a working group on training issues chaired by its Civil Rights Division within the Attorney General’s Arab-Muslim Engagement Advisory Group. The working group developed the DOJ training principles to guide DOJ’s training and to ensure that all communities that DOJ serves are respected. In March 2012, the Deputy Attorney General issued a memorandum for DOJ heads of components and USAOs outlining guiding principles to which all training that DOJ conducted or funded must adhere. Specifically, it stated that (1) training must be consistent with the U.S. Constitution and DOJ values; (2) the content of training and training materials must be accurate, appropriately tailored, and focused; (3) trainers must be well qualified in the subject area and skilled in presenting it; (4) trainers must demonstrate the highest standards of professionalism; and (5) training must meet department standards. Also in March 2012, the FBI published The FBI’s Guiding Principles Touchstone Document on Training. This document is intended to be consistent with the March 2012 Deputy Attorney General guidance, but elaborates on each training principle outlined in the document. The FBI’s guidance states that training must (1) conform to constitutional principles and adhere to the FBI’s core values; (2) be tailored to the intended audience, focused to ensure message clarity, and supported with the appropriate course materials; and (3) be reviewed, and trainers must be knowledgeable of applicable subject material. DOJ officials also told us that the department’s guiding principles are meant to memorialize department training standards and values and are the group’s first step for ongoing work to ensure the quality of future counterterrorism and CVE-related training. Although developing these principles marks an important first step, we were unable to assess the extent to which they can help ensure the quality of CVE-related training moving forward because the review is ongoing and DOJ officials are in the process of planning additional efforts. Providing high-quality and balanced CVE-related training is a difficult task given the complexity and sensitivities surrounding the phenomenon of violent extremism. However, misinformation about the threat and dynamics of radicalization to violence can harm security efforts by unnecessarily creating tensions with potential community partners. The CVE national strategy implementation plan commits the federal government, including DHS and DOJ, to supporting state and local partners in their efforts to prevent violent extremism by providing CVE- related training. By identifying and communicating CVE-related training topics, DOJ could better demonstrate the extent to which it is fulfilling departmental CVE-related responsibilities as established in the implementation plan for the CVE national strategy. In addition, by proactively soliciting feedback from participants in informal CVE-related training on a more consistent basis, FBI field offices and USAOs could more effectively obtain information on the strengths and weaknesses of their presentations and briefings, and thus better ensure their quality. To better enable DOJ to demonstrate the extent to which it is fulfilling its CVE-related training responsibilities, we recommend that the Deputy Attorney General identify principal topics that encompass CVE-related training—including training that is directly related to CVE or that has ancillary benefits for CVE—and communicate the topics to DOJ components. To obtain valuable information for determining the extent to which CVE- related programs are yielding the desired outcomes and complying with the CVE national strategy, we recommend that the Deputy Attorney General direct USAOs and the Director of the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs direct FBI field offices to consider soliciting feedback more consistently from participants in informal training, such as presentations and briefings, that covers the type of information addressed in the CVE national strategy. We provided a draft of the sensitive version of this report to DHS, DOJ, ODNI, and DOD for their review and comment. We received written comments from DHS and DOJ, which are reproduced in full in appendixes V and VI, respectively. DHS generally agreed with the findings in its comments, and DOJ agreed with one of the recommendations in this report, but disagreed with the other recommendation. ODNI and DOD did not provide written comments on the draft report. However, ODNI provided technical comments, as did DHS and DOJ, which we incorporated throughout the report as appropriate. In its written comments, DHS noted that the report recognizes DHS’s efforts to develop and improve the quality of CVE training and identified additional efforts that the department is taking to improve communication with its various CVE stakeholders and to implement the priorities outlined in its framework for vetting CVE training. For example, DHS stated that it will be hosting a CVE train-the-trainer workshop in September 2012, and identifying trainers on its online CVE training portal who meet the standards included in DHS’s training guidance and best practices. DHS also stated that it remains committed to improving and expanding its development of CVE resources and providing information about those resources to state and local partners. DOJ stated that it generally agrees with the recommendation that the Deputy Attorney General and the Director of FBI’s Office of Public Affairs direct USAOs and FBI field offices to consider soliciting feedback more consistently from participants in informal training that covers the type of information addressed in the CVE national strategy. The department stated that it will develop a plan of action that describes how USAOs and FBI field offices will implement this recommendation. Developing such a plan should address the intent of our recommendations. DOJ, however, disagreed with the recommendation that the Deputy Attorney General identify principal topics that encompass CVE-related training and communicate those topics to DOJ components. According to DOJ, the CVE national strategy implementation plan assigns DOJ, through its USAOs, primary responsibility for expanding the scope of engagement and outreach events and initiatives that may have direct or indirect benefits for CVE; however, the plan does not assign the department primary responsibility for developing specific CVE-related training. We recognize that DOJ is not the lead agency for the subsection of the implementation plan related to the development of standardized CVE training; however, the CVE implementation plan nonetheless assigns DOJ as a lead or partner agency for other CVE training-related activities. For example, the implementation plan states that the FBI will lead the development of CVE-specific education modules and that DOJ will colead (1) the expansion of briefings about violent extremism for state and local law enforcement and government, and (2) the expansion of briefing efforts to raise community awareness about the threat of radicalization to violence. In addition, the implementation plan directs the FBI to develop a CVE Coordination Office, and according to the FBI, that office is in the process of developing CVE-related training. Given that DOJ has been identified as a lead or partner agency for several training related activities identified in the implementation plan, identifying CVE training topics could help DOJ demonstrate the extent to which it is fulfilling its responsibilities under the CVE national strategy. Identifying CVE training topics could also help the FBI determine what issues it should be addressing in the training that its CVE Coordination Office is developing, and assist the department in being able to publicly account for the CVE-related training that the department provides or funds. DOJ also stated in its comments that the draft report recommended that DOJ redefine its cultural competency training and community outreach efforts (which may have benefits for CVE) as “CVE.” DOJ then stated that redefining these efforts as such would be imprecise and potentially counterproductive, and that labeling these efforts as CVE would suggest that they are driven by security efforts, when they are not. To clarify, the report does not include a recommendation that DOJ redefine or label its cultural competency training and community outreach efforts as CVE. Although we included these topics in the framework we used to identify potentially CVE-related training for the purpose of this review, the recommendation was that DOJ identify principal topics that encompass CVE-related training and communicate such topics to DOJ components. We defer to the department to determine which topics are appropriate to cover in its CVE-related training. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees. We will also send copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence. In addition, this report will be made publicly available at no extra 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) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. This report answers the following questions: 1. To what extent have the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) identified and communicated topics that countering violent extremism-related (CVE-related) training addresses to their components and state and local partners? 2. What, if any, concerns have been raised by state and local partners who have participated in CVE-related training provided or funded by DHS and DOJ? 3. What actions, if any, have DHS and DOJ taken to improve the quality of CVE-related training? To determine the extent to which DHS and DOJ identified and communicated topics that should be addressed by CVE-related training, we met with officials from both departments to discuss how they define CVE-related training, which departmental training programs were relevant to our review, and how the departments communicated principal CVE- related training topics to relevant components and state and local partners. We then analyzed this information to assess the extent to which the departments’ efforts allow them to demonstrate fulfillment of their CVE-related training responsibilities under the CVE national strategy. We also met with officials from the Department of Defense (DOD) and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) who possess knowledge about CVE-related training and who are involved in interagency efforts related to CVE. More specifically, we met with officials from the components and offices listed in table 3. To obtain additional views on CVE-related training provided or funded by DHS or DOJ, we interviewed representatives from nine state and local law enforcement agencies and law enforcement representative organizations involved with federal CVE-related training efforts. They included the Minneapolis Police Department, the Los Angeles Police Department, the Las Vegas Sheriff’s Department, the Arkansas State Police Program, the Dearborn Police Department, the National Sheriff’s Association, the Major City Chief’s Association, the International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts, and the National Consortium for Advanced Policing. We selected these agencies and organizations based on their involvement with CVE-related training efforts and the extent to which they collaborate with DHS or DOJ on CVE-related training. While the views of these entities do not represent the views of all agencies and organizations involved in CVE-related training, these entities were able to offer helpful perspectives for the purpose of this review. We also interviewed individuals with expertise in CVE, such as academic researchers who have published on CVE-related topics and researchers from organizations that study CVE-related topics, to obtain their views on topics CVE-related training should address and identify potential training programs to include in our review. They included individuals from the Georgetown University Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, the RAND Corporation, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, and the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. We selected these individuals based on the depth of their experience with, and knowledge of, CVE; the relevance of their publications; referrals from other practitioners; and to develop a sample that represented various sectors (e.g., academic, advocacy, etc.). They provided valuable insight even though the perspectives they offered are not generalizable. The state administrative agencies that we surveyed are responsible for managing DHS grant awards to states and the District of Columbia that are eligible for CVE-related training and ensuring that grant recipients comply with grant requirements. such as California and Texas, did not. As a result, the experiences of state administrative agencies from some of the larger states may not be captured in our survey results. Nevertheless, the survey results provide insights into the level of clarity about DHS CVE-related guidance for other grantees. To obtain a better understanding of the departments’ CVE-related training responsibilities, we requested information from DOJ and DHS on the approximate number and type of participants that attended training we determined was CVE-related and the estimated cost. We provide additional details on how we classified training as CVE-related below. We assessed the reliability of the training data provided by interviewing agency officials familiar with the data to learn more about the processes used to collect, record, and analyze the data. For example, we found that several training providers collected information on the number and type of participants through sign-in sheets. We used these data to approximate the dollar amount spent by agencies on CVE-related training in appendix III. As described above, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for showing general trends in attendance and spending, but some agencies either did not record participant data, and thus could not provide them; did not record participant figures and provided estimates of attendance based on the instructor’s recall; or recorded participant figures, but not the participants’ places of employment, so they could not specify how many of the attendees were from state and local versus federal entities. We noted these instances in our report. During our initial interviews with DHS and DOJ, officials expressed difficulty in responding to our request for CVE-related training materials, in part because agency officials were not clear on which training should be considered CVE-related. To facilitate our request for course materials for CVE-related training, we developed a framework to classify training as CVE-related based on our review and analysis of information from the following sources: (1) federal strategies related to violent extremism, such as Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States and its associated implementation plan;reports, or strategies that address CVE-related training topics such as DHS’s CVE-related training Guidance and Best Practices; and (3) perspectives provided by individuals with CVE expertise. Specifically, we conducted a content analysis of our transcripts of interviews with experts and CVE-related documents to determine the current understanding of the content areas covered by CVE-related training and the knowledge state and local officials should possess or principles they should understand to effectively carry out CVE efforts. We then analyzed this information to identify similar themes and principles across the sources and grouped them together into three distinct content areas CVE-related training likely addresses: (2) DHS and DOJ plans, 1. Radicalization addresses approaches that are based on research and accurate information to understanding the threat radicalization poses, how individuals may become radicalized, how individuals seek to radicalize Americans (threat of violent extremist recruitment), behaviors exhibited by radicalized individuals, or what works to prevent radicalization that results in violence. 2. Cultural competency seeks to enhance state and local law enforcement’s understanding of culture or religion, and civil rights and civil liberties, or their ability to distinguish, using information driven and standardized approaches, between violent extremism and legal behavior. 3. Community engagement addresses ways to build effective community partnerships, such as through outreach, and community capacity for the purpose of, among other things, mitigating threats posed by violent extremism. We solicited feedback on this framework from DHS and DOJ. DHS Counterterrorism Working Group officials generally agreed with the content areas we identified, and we incorporated feedback the group provided, as appropriate. DOJ officials stated that they view the framework as reasonable for the purpose of our review. For this review, we considered CVE-related training to include instruction, presentations, briefings, or related outreach efforts conducted, sponsored, promoted, or otherwise supported by DOJ, DHS, or a respective component, to help state, local, or tribal entities related to the three aforementioned content areas. We asked DHS and DOJ to identify and provide all course materials for any courses that they provided or funded during fiscal years 2010 and 2011 through grant programs for state and local entities, including law enforcement officers and community members, assumed to be CVE- related based on GAO’s framework. We focused generally on training provided in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 because “countering violent extremism” is a relatively nascent term. In addition, we focused on training provided to state and local entities because the CVE national strategy emphasizes the importance of providing CVE-related training to these entities. While the FBI identified its National Academy as providing training that could be considered CVE-related, it did not identify any of its other programs as germane to our review. However, complaint letters raised concerns about FBI training that was CVE-related according to our framework that was provided through two other FBI programs— the Citizens’ Academy and the National Joint Terrorism Task Force. We assessed some of the training provided through these programs and determined the training to be CVE-related according to our framework. In addition, the FBI’s internal review of counterterrorism training, which included the FBI programs within the scope of our review, assessed the training materials against criteria for CVE-related training, thereby suggesting that these programs may have provided training that was CVE-related. Accordingly, we requested course materials on these programs, as well as the Community Relations Executive Seminar Training Program, which is an abbreviated version of the Citizens’ Academy. We received approximately 290 presentations, briefings, and course materials from two components within DHS and four within DOJ. In some cases, DHS and DOJ offices provided us only with course abstracts or agendas instead of the full presentations or course materials because (1) they contracted the training with an outside provider and did not retain all of the associated training materials or (2) the training materials were particularly voluminous and, on the basis of discussions with the offices, we agreed that the course abstracts or agendas would enable us to sufficiently determine the relevancy of the training to our review. In those cases, we determined CVE-relevancy based on the agenda or abstract alone. We reviewed these training materials to assess whether each of the individual courses, presentations, briefings, and other training-related activities undertaken or funded by DHS and DOJ agencies addressed one or more of the three content areas described above. If they addressed any of these content areas, we considered them CVE-related, even if the primary focus of the materials was not CVE-related. To ensure consistency in our analysis, two analysts independently reviewed the materials for each training and recorded their assessment of whether the training addressed each content area. Any discrepancies in the initial determinations were then discussed and reconciled. To determine what concerns, if any, participants raised about CVE- related training, we reviewed course evaluations completed by participants of CVE-related training offered by DHS I&A, DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, DOJ BJA, and the FBI, and identified complaints or concerns about CVE-related training made formally in writing. We limited our analysis to training that was provided or funded by DHS or DOJ during fiscal years 2010 or 2011 and provided to a state or local entity (e.g., police department, community group, or fusion center). Two analysts independently reviewed 8,424 course evaluations from six training programs to consistently determine which ones included concerns or complaints. The analysts also assessed the nature of the concerns and complaints and assigned each complaint to one of three categories: (1) politically or culturally biased, (2) offensive, or (3) inaccurate. Where there were discrepancies between the analysts, they were resolved through supervisory review. To identify formally submitted or documented complaints or concerns participants expressed, we asked DHS and DOJ to identify those submitted in writing to DHS or DOJ, or articulated to DHS or DOJ through other means but subsequently documented by the agency, from fiscal years 2010 through 2011. We also conducted keyword searches using LexisNexis and Google to identify concerns that were raised by either individuals or advocacy groups that were submitted in writing to DHS or DOJ. In addition, we interviewed representatives, including leaders, of select advocacy groups that raised concerns about CVE-related training to identify what concerns and complaints, if any, they submitted in writing to DHS or DOJ on behalf of training participants. The advocacy and civil liberties organizations we interviewed included the American Civil Liberties Union, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Council on American Islamic Relations, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. We selected these organizations based on their leadership in raising concerns we identified (e.g., by virtue of being the primary signatories) and upon the recommendation of other advocacy groups. These interviews also enabled us to confirm or obtain additional views on the formally documented complaints DHS or DOJ provided. Through these approaches, we identified a total of six letters of complaint regarding 18 alleged incidents of biased CVE and counterterrorism training that DHS or DOJ provided or funded during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Given that the scope of this review is limited to CVE-related training provided to state and local officials and community members, and not training that is exclusively provided to federal officials, we determined that 7 of the alleged incidents described in five of the letters were relevant to this review. We also interviewed relevant DHS and DOJ officials to obtain their perspectives on the concerns raised in the written complaints and information on any actions agencies took in response to these incidents. To address what actions, if any, DHS and DOJ have taken overall to improve the quality of CVE-related training, we interviewed DHS and DOJ officials responsible for providing or funding CVE-related training to inquire about any current or pending guidance, whether documented or undocumented, they adhere to when vetting training materials and instructors and other actions they have taken to ensure the quality of CVE-related training. We reviewed relevant DHS and DOJ documents including recently released guidance and best practices for training that DHS, DOJ, and the FBI developed. We also analyzed FBI and DOJ data from training reviews and information on how DHS and DOJ review and vet training curricula and instructors. Specifically, we analyzed the counterterrorism training materials that the FBI determined were inappropriate as a result of its internal review, which the FBI undertook to identify and purge potentially objectionable training materials. This analysis enabled us to better understand the review results with regard to training materials that were CVE-related under our framework, and provided context for the quality assurance steps FBI has taken in response to the review. To focus our analysis on training materials included in the FBI’s review that were CVE-related, one analyst assessed which of these training materials were CVE-related, according to our framework, and if the materials were CVE-related, the analyst entered the FBI’s observations and additional data about that training into a data collection form. A second analyst then reviewed these results. When there was disagreement, the two reviewers discussed the material, reached agreement, and modified the entries as necessary to ensure concurrence regarding which of the training materials included in the FBI’s review were germane to our review. The FBI considers the methodology it used to conduct its internal review and our analysis of the training materials that the FBI considered objectionable to be For Official Use Only; therefore, we did not include that information in this report. In addition, we conducted a site visit in San Diego, California, in January 2012, where DHS hosted a pilot of a CVE-related course under development. During the site visit, we observed the pilot training, and interviewed DHS officials who were sponsoring the training and local agencies that had developed and delivered the course curriculum. On the basis of the information we collected, we evaluated DHS’s adherence to its own CVE-related training guidance. We also assessed DHS and DOJ guidance and actions related to guidance provided by departmental leadership, such as DOJ training guidance issued to its components. We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 through October 2012 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. DHS is currently working with its components and relevant state and local entities to develop and implement CVE-focused training for state and local law enforcement officers, state police academy recruits, correctional facility officers, and new federal law enforcement officers. DHS’s Principal Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator, who heads the department’s CVE efforts, has testified that developing CVE-related training is a priority for the department because inappropriate or inaccurate training undermines community partnerships and negatively affects efforts of law enforcement to identify legitimate behaviors and indicators of violent extremism. DHS has determined that CVE-related training should address: violent extremism (e.g., the threat it poses), cultural demystification (e.g., education on culture and religion), community partnerships (e.g., how to build them), and community policing efforts (e.g., how to apply community policing efforts to CVE). Accordingly, the DHS Counterterrorism Working Group, which is overseen by the Principal Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator, is developing training that addresses these topics. These trainings include the following: A continuing education CVE curriculum for frontline and executive state and local law enforcement that DHS is developing with the Los Angeles Police Department, Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCC), and the National Consortium for Advanced Policing (NCAP). DHS hosted a first pilot for this course in San Diego, California, in January 2012 that 45 state and local law enforcement officials attended. The pilot consisted of 3 days of classroom instruction and student participation activities. According to Counterterrorism Working Group officials, DHS held a second pilot in the National Capital Region in July 2012, and a third pilot in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in August 2012. In July 2012, DHS also presented the curriculum at a CVE conference it hosted in Washington, D.C., and according to Counterterrorism Working Group officials, the department is working to enhance the curriculum based on feedback that conference attendees provided. MCC has passed a motion to adopt the curriculum, which DHS aims to implement in collaboration with state and local partners in 2013. CVE-related training modules for state police academies, which DHS is developing in collaboration with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). These training modules will be 1 to 2 hours in length, and are intended for police recruits. DHS plans for police academies to introduce the modules into their training and to make them available online for police recruits by the end of 2012. A CVE awareness training for correctional facility, probation, and patrol officers at the state and local levels that DHS is working to develop in collaboration with the Bureau of Prisons, the FBI National Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group. Counterterrorism Working Group officials reported that DHS completed pilots for this training in Maryland in March 2012 and in California in July 2012. FEMA is also developing a curriculum for rural correctional facility management. Further, according to DHS officials, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center has finalized a CVE-related training course that it integrated into its existing training for recruits. In February 2012, DHS hosted a symposium on the curriculum, and as of July 2012, FLETC had taught the curriculum to about 190 students. In addition, according to DHS officials, FLETC is also in the process of integrating aspects of the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberty’s cultural competency training, which is described in detail in appendix III, into all new CVE curriculum and training efforts. Within DOJ, the FBI is also developing CVE-related training. The CVE national strategy implementation plan tasks FBI with establishing a CVE Coordination Office that will, as part of its activities, coordinate with the National Task Force on CVE-specific education and awareness modules. According to FBI officials, the FBI established a CVE office in January 2012, and as of August 2012, had assigned staff to the office and was in the process of developing CVE-related training modules. In particular, the CVE Office developed and presented a CVE-related training module to FBI public affairs specialists and community outreach coordinators and specialists in FBI field offices from April through August, 2012, according to FBI officials. FBI officials also reported that the CVE Office is collaborating with the FBI Counterterrorism Division to develop a CVE-related training module for FBI special agents and mid- and senior- level managers that it plans to complete in December 2012 and implement in early 2013. DOJ and DHS components provided training that was CVE-related according to our framework to more than 28,000 state and local entities, including law enforcement officials, fusion center personnel, and community members, during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. That is, DOJ and DHS components provided training, including courses, briefings, presentations, and workshops, that addressed one or more of the three CVE-related training topical areas we identified: (1) the phenomenon of violent extremism and the threat posed by radicalization that leads to violence; (2) cultural competency and how to distinguish between criminal and constitutionally protected cultural and religious behaviors; and (3) how to build effective community partnerships to, among other things, mitigate threats posed by violent extremism. The majority of these trainings did not have the term “CVE” in their titles, a fact that DOJ and DHS officials attributed to CVE being a relatively new concept, or that the trainings had been developed for purposes other than CVE. Nonetheless, they provided some instruction on at least one of the three CVE-related training topics we identified, and thus are considered CVE-related for the purpose of this review. Although the CVE-related trainings that DOJ and DHS provided collectively addressed all three CVE-related training topics, the trainings more frequently addressed the phenomenon of violent extremism and cultural competency than community engagement. The specific topics addressed by each training DOJ and DHS components provided during fiscal years 2010 and 2011 are described in the tables that follow. In addition, the DOJ grant-funded State and Local Anti- Terrorism Training (SLATT) Program provided CVE-related training to approximately 11,000 state and local law enforcement officials. Within DOJ, the FBI, CRS, and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAO) provided CVE-related training directly to state and local entities during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. In total, these entities provided CVE-related training to more than 15,000 state and local law enforcement and community members. More specifically, the FBI National Academy, the FBI National Joint Terrorism Task Force (NJTTF) Program, select FBI field offices, CRS, and about half of USAOs (48 of 93 offices) provided CVE-related training to law enforcement. In addition, the FBI’s Citizens’ Academy and Community Relations Executive Seminar Training (CREST) outreach programs provided CVE-related training to community members. Tables 4, 5, and 6 provide more detailed information on these programs and trainings. Although we determined that CRS provided CVE-related training according to our framework, CRS officials emphasized that the service’s mission does not include any national security, counterterrorism, or CVE- related training efforts. CRS works with communities to help address tension associated with allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. CRS also works with communities to develop strategies to prevent and respond more effectively to alleged violent hate crimes on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. According to CRS officials, through its work preventing hate crimes, CRS helps develop relationships among Arab, Muslim, and Sikh communities who may be targeted for hate violence by violent extremists, including supremacists, and other community members, as well as local government and law enforcement officials. As a result, CRS does not conduct activities or programs with the express goal of CVE, but recognizes that its ability to help promote dialogue and develop strong relationships to create a sense of inclusion in communities may have ancillary CVE benefits in preventing violent extremism. Within DHS, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Institute and I&A provided CVE-related training to approximately 3,410 state and local intelligence and law enforcement officials during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. This training consisted of two classroom-based courses that the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Institute provided on about 40 occasions; one CVE-focused workshop that the I&A State and Local Program Office hosted; and 17 briefings that the I&A Homegrown Violent Extremism Branch (HVEB) provided in coordination with the FBI and NCTC at fusion centers and fusion center conferences. Table 7 provides more detailed information on each of these trainings. DOJ and DHS also administered four grant programs during fiscal years 2010 and 2011 that provided funding for which CVE-related training was an eligible expense: (1) the DOJ Community Policing Development (CPD) Program, (2) the DOJ Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, (3) the DHS Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), and (4) the DOJ SLATT Program. We reviewed grant documentation for CPD grant projects that DOJ identified as potentially CVE-related and determined that they were not used to pay for training that was CVE- related according to our framework. Information DHS and DOJ collect on grant projects funded through the HSGP and JAG programs suggests that minimal, if any, funds from these programs were used for CVE- related training purposes; however, the level of detail in the information the departments collect from HSGP and JAG grantees is not sufficient to reliably and conclusively make this determination. In fiscal years 2010 and 2011, SLATT provided CVE-related training to approximately 11,000 state and local officials. Additional details regarding this training are provided in table 8. Table 9 presents a summary of the 77 state and local participant concerns that we identified during our review of course evaluation forms that DHS and DOJ provided to us. In addition to the contact named above, Kristy N. Brown, Assistant Director, and Taylor Matheson, Analyst-In-Charge, managed this assignment. Melissa Bogar and Lerone Reid made significant contributions to this report. Gustavo Crosetto, Pamela Davidson, Richard, Eiserman, Eric Hauswirth, Thomas Lombardi, Linda Miller, Jan Montgomery, and Anthony Pordes also provided valuable assistance.

Summary: DHS and DOJ have responsibility for training state and local law enforcement and community members on how to defend against violent extremism--ideologically motivated violence to further political goals. Community members and advocacy organizations have raised concerns about the quality of some CVE-related training that DOJ and DHS provide or fund. As requested, GAO examined (1)the extent to which DHS and DOJ have identified and communicated topics that CVE-related training should address to their components and state and local partners, (2) any concerns raised by state and local partners who have participated in CVE-related training provided or funded by DHS or DOJ, and (3) actions DHS and DOJ have taken to improve the quality of CVE-related training. GAO reviewed relevant documents, such as training participant feedback forms and DHS and DOJ guidance; and interviewed relevant officials from DHS and DOJ components. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in September 2012. Information that the FBI deemed sensitive has been redacted. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified and is communicating to its components and state and local partners topics that the training on countering violent extremism (CVE) it provides or funds should cover; in contrast, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has not identified what topics should be covered in its CVE-related training. According to a DHS official who leads DHS's CVE efforts, identifying topics has helped to provide a logical structure for DHS's CVE-related training efforts. According to DOJ officials, even though they have not specifically identified what topics should be covered in CVE-related training, they understand internally which of the department's training is CVE-related and contributes either directly or indirectly to the department's training responsibilities under the CVE national strategy. However, over the course of this review, the department generally relied upon the framework GAO developed for potential CVE-related training topics to determine which of its existing training was CVE-related. Further, because DOJ has not identified CVE-related training topics, DOJ components have had challenges in determining the extent to which their training efforts contribute to DOJ's responsibilities under the CVE national strategy. In addition, officials who participated in an interagency working group focusing on ensuring CVE-related training quality stated that the group found it challenging to catalogue federal CVE-related training because agencies' views differed as to what CVE-related training includes. The majority of state and local participant feedback on training that DHS or DOJ provided or funded and that GAO identified as CVE-related was positive or neutral, but a minority of participants raised concerns about biased, inaccurate, or offensive material. DHS and DOJ collected feedback from 8,424 state and local participants in CVE-related training during fiscal years 2010 and 2011, and 77--less than 1 percent--provided comments that expressed such concerns. According to DHS and DOJ officials, agencies used the feedback to make changes where appropriate. DOJ's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other components generally solicit feedback for more formal, curriculum-based training, but the FBI does not require this for activities such as presentations by guest speakers because the FBI does not consider this to be training. Similarly, DOJ's United States Attorneys' Offices (USAO) do not require feedback on presentations and similar efforts. Nevertheless, FBI field offices and USAOs covered about 39 percent (approximately 9,900) of all participants in DOJ CVE-related training during fiscal years 2010 and 2011 through these less formal methods, yet only 4 of 21 FBI field offices and 15 of 39 USAOs chose to solicit feedback on such methods. GAO has previously reported that agencies need to develop systematic evaluation processes in order to obtain accurate information about the benefits of their training. Soliciting feedback for less formal efforts on a more consistent basis could help these agencies ensure their quality. DOJ and DHS have undertaken reviews and developed guidance to help improve the quality of CVE-related training. For example, in September 2011, the DOJ Deputy Attorney General directed all DOJ components and USAOs to review all of their training materials, including those related to CVE, to ensure they are consistent with DOJ standards. In addition, in October 2011, DHS issued guidance that covers best practices for CVE-related training and informs recipients of DHS grants who use the funding for training involving CVE on how to ensure high-quality training. Since the departments' reviews and efforts to implement the guidance they have developed are relatively new, it is too soon to determine their effectiveness. GAO recommends that DOJ identify and communicate principal CVE-related training topics and that FBI field offices and USAOs consider soliciting feedback more consistently. DOJ agreed that it should more consistently solicit feedback, but disagreed that it should identify CVE training topics because DOJ does not have primary responsibility for CVE-related training, among other things. GAO believes this recommendation remains valid as discussed further in this report.