The core mission of Diplomatic Security is to provide a safe and secure environment for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Diplomatic Security is one of several bureaus that report to the Undersecretary for Management within State and contains several directorates, including Diplomatic Security’s Training Directorate (see app. II). To implement U.S. statute, the Diplomatic Security Training Directorate trains or helps train Diplomatic Security’s 1,943 law enforcement agents and investigators, 340 technical security specialist engineers and technicians, 101 couriers, and a growing number of new Security Protective Specialists, as well as other U.S. government personnel, and runs several specialized programs designed to enhance Diplomatic Security’s capabilities. In fiscal year 2010, DSTC conducted 342 sessions of its 61 courses and trained 4,739 students. The training directorate is headed by a senior Foreign Service Officer and has three offices, the Offices of Training and Performance Standards, Mobile Security Deployment (MSD), and Antiterrorism Assistance, which do the following: The Office of Training and Performance Standards’ mission is to train and sustain a security workforce capable of effectively addressing law enforcement and security challenges to support U.S. foreign policy in the global threat environment—now and into the future. The office’s mission has grown along with the expanding mission of Diplomatic Security. The Office of Training and Performance Standards encompasses DSTC and is often referred to as DSTC. The office is the primary provider of Diplomatic Security’s training, and its entire mission falls within the scope of this report; its efforts are the focus of our review. The office also provides personal security training to Diplomatic Security and non-Diplomatic Security personnel posted to the high-threat environments, including the 5-week High Threat Tactical (HTT) course designed for Diplomatic Security special agents and Security Protective Specialists operating in high-threat or hazardous environments, the 3-week Security for Non-traditional Operating Environment (SNOE) course designed for Civilian Response Corps and Provincial Reconstruction Team personnel operating in remote areas, and the 1-week Foreign Affairs Counter Threat (FACT) course designed for all U.S. personnel under Chief of Mission authority at high-threat posts such as Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan. The Office of Mobile Security Deployment’s mission is to provide security training and exercises for overseas posts, enhanced security for overseas posts, and counterassault capability for domestic and overseas protective security details. The first of these missions—to provide training to U.S. government personnel and dependents at posts abroad—falls within the scope of this report. The Office of Antiterrorism Assistance’s mission is to build the counterterrorism capacity of friendly governments, enhance bilateral relationships, and increase respect for human rights. Because of its exclusive training of non-U.S. government personnel, the Office of Antiterrorism Assistance falls outside the scope of this report. Diplomatic Security’s training budget grew steadily from fiscal years 2006 to 2010—increasing from approximately $24 million in fiscal year 2006 to nearly $70 million in fiscal year 2010 (see table 1). During this period, Diplomatic Security’s training budget increased from 1.5 percent to 3 percent of the bureau’s total budget. The Diplomatic Security Training Directorate is responsible for training Diplomatic Security’s over 3,000 direct hires to carry out various security functions (see table 2). The size of Diplomatic Security’s direct-hire workforce has more than doubled since 1998. Recently, Diplomatic Security’s reliance on contractors has grown to fill critical needs in high- threat posts. According to DSTC officials, they also rely on contractors to support course development and serve as instructors in many of their courses. In addition to training Diplomatic Security personnel, the Training Directorate also provides training to non-State personnel supporting embassy security functions such as the Marine Security Guards and Navy Seabees, as well as to personnel from other federal agencies through its high-threat training and information security awareness courses. To ensure the quality and appropriateness of its training, Diplomatic Security primarily adheres to Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation standards, along with other statutory and State standards. In 2005, Diplomatic Security incorporated the FLETA standards into its standard operating procedures, using a course design framework tailored for the organization. To meet the combination of FLETA and other standards, DSTC integrates both formal and informal feedback from evaluations and other sources into its courses. However, DSTC does not have the systems in place to obtain feedback from its entire training population. Diplomatic Security’s training responsibilities are established by a number of statutory standards and State Department policies. The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, as codified at section 4802 of title 22 of the United States Code, provided the security authorities for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State delegated these security responsibilities, including law enforcement training, to Diplomatic Security and granted it authority to establish its own training academy. Diplomatic Security also follows policy guidance and procedures found in State’s Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and its Foreign Affairs Handbooks, which also establish Diplomatic Security’s Training Directorate. Diplomatic Security is accredited by and relies primarily on the standards of the FLETA process. The FLETA Board was established in 2002 to create and maintain a body of standards to enhance the quality of law enforcement training and to administer an independent accreditation process for federal law enforcement agencies. The voluntary accreditation process provides assurance that every 3 years, the agency carries out a systematic self-assessment to ensure the standards established by the law enforcement community are met; each self-assessment must be verified by FLETA’s external peer reviewers, whose findings are then reviewed by a committee of the FLETA Board. FLETA standards are designed to describe what must be accomplished; however, it is up to each agency to determine how it will meet the standards. Agencies may submit applications to have their basic agent and instructor development courses accredited, and if they obtain accreditation for both courses, they can apply for academy accreditation. In 2010, FLETA revised its standards. (For more details on the FLETA process see app. III.) Beginning in 2005, DSTC established standard operating procedures in order to comply with FLETA and other standards. In 2005, Diplomatic Security began hiring training professionals and created the Instructional Systems Management division to formalize course development, instead of relying solely on the knowledge of experienced personnel and subject matter experts. According to DSTC officials, the formalized process resulted in greater consistency in how courses are developed and taught. Diplomatic Security was the first federal agency to ever receive accreditation through the FLETA process, in 2005, and was reaccredited in 2008. (For more details on DSTC’s accreditation results see app. IV.) DSTC is currently undergoing a new cycle of reaccreditation. DSTC officials expressed confidence that their courses and the academy would be reaccredited. To meet accreditation standards and its training needs, DSTC uses an industry-recognized training framework for course design and development. According to a senior FLETA official, 44 percent of FLETA standards are based on this training framework. The seven-phased DSTC framework is applied to new courses or course revisions (see fig. 1 and app. V for examples of the documents and reports created during the different phases of the framework and hyperlinked to the figure). Throughout the process and at each phase, DSTC involves division chiefs, branch chiefs, subject matter experts, and its instructional staff. At the end of each phase, a report is produced for a DSTC training advisor to approve, before the process progresses to the next phase. The seven phases are Proposal phase: DSTC staff analyzes the request for development or revision to a training course and makes recommendations to senior management on whether to proceed. Analysis phase: DSTC staff examines the audience, identifies job tasks and job performance measures, selects the instructional setting, and validates cost estimates. A task list is developed to guide initial course development, which involves subject matter experts in verifying the job tasks. Design phase: DSTC staff determines the training objectives, lists course prerequisites, identifies needed learning objectives, and establishes the appropriate performance tests. Development phase: DSTC staff develops the appropriate instructional materials, reviews and selects existing course materials, and develops the necessary coursework. Implementation phase: A pilot course is created and taught by an approved instructor to a targeted audience. The pilot course is tested and observed by both subject matter experts and instructional design staff. Evaluation phase: DSTC staff and the students evaluate the effectiveness of the training. DSTC conducts three types of evaluations: 1. tier-1 evaluations of the training and the instructors by the students shortly after taking the course, 2. tier-2 evaluations to check extent of knowledge and skills transfer to the students during the course, and 3. tier-3 evaluations of the students’ ability to apply the training on the job 6 to 12 months after training depending on when the skills are used. According to DSTC officials, tier-1 and tier-3 evaluations are generally made up of survey questions with some short answers, while tier-2 evaluations involve testing students through either a practical or written exam, or both. Revision: Courses go through the revision process at least every 5 years, prompted and guided in part by evaluations and feedback from students, supervisors, and other stakeholders. DSTC applies its training framework to all courses, not just the courses for which it seeks accreditation through the FLETA process. We previously reported that agencies need to ensure that they have the flexibility and capability to quickly incorporate changes into training and development efforts when needed. According to DSTC, its training framework allows for flexibility and supports frequent evaluation, giving Diplomatic Security the ability to respond to changes in its mission and its customers’ requirements. Moreover, agency officials noted that because DSTC’s training framework model is well established for developing courses, Mobile Training Teams and Diplomatic Couriers—-both of which provide training to meet their own organizational needs outside of DSTC— use the model as a foundation for tailoring their courses. DSTC uses a variety of methods to collect feedback from students, supervisors, and other stakeholders. FLETA standards and DSTC’s standard operating procedures require DSTC to collect feedback and use significant feedback to shape and revise courses. According to DSTC, feedback is valued because it demonstrates the extent to which the training is yielding the desired outcomes in performance and helps instructional staff identify what should be modified to achieve the outcomes more effectively. DSTC receives feedback from multiple sources, including tier-1, tier-2, and tier-3 evaluations, as well as focus groups, in-country visits, inspection reports, counterparts across the government, and directives from senior officials—such as ambassadors. For instance, following the 1998 embassy bombings, DSTC implemented the State-convened Accountability Review Board recommendation to enhance surveillance detection and crisis management training provided to the Regional Security Officers. In addition, DSTC regularly meets with other State offices and bureaus to discuss how to maintain effective training or identify needed changes to course material. For example, DSTC meets quarterly with the Office of International Programs, which is responsible for managing the RSOs posted overseas, to ensure that the basic Regional Security Officer course materials remain relevant. HTT provides another example of course revision. HTT was initially 39 days long but was shortened to about 27 days in response to senior management’s need to get more people overseas faster, as well as feedback from agents indicating that they were not extensively using certain aspects of the course such as land navigation and helicopter training. (See the fig. 2 text box concerning revisions to the FACT course for more examples of how feedback is incorporated into course revisions.) On the basis of interviews with Diplomatic Security personnel at nine posts and training sites, we found that DSTC’s overall training was viewed as high-quality and appropriate. Diplomatic Security personnel we interviewed generally agreed that DSTC’s training was a significant improvement compared with the training they received prior to DSTC’s accreditation. Because of difficulties obtaining satisfactory response rates for some evaluations, identifying users of its distributed learning efforts, and contacting non-State students, DSTC officials acknowledged that their systems do not have the capability to obtain a comprehensive evaluation of all of their training as required by their training framework. However, DSTC officials said they are exploring ways to address identifying users of its distributed learning efforts and contacting non-State students. We previously reported that evaluating training is important and that the agencies need to develop a systematic evaluation processes to assess the benefits of training development efforts. According to DSTC officials, the tier-1 response rate for most courses averages about 80-90 percent, and the tier-3 evaluations response rate for its courses averages about 30 percent for 6-month feedback. DSTC officials acknowledged that they currently do not have a system in place to identify who has accessed distributed learning and certain other learning tools, and thus they have few effective options for soliciting student feedback on those tools. According to DSTC officials, distributed learning efforts are growing as part of DSTC efforts to save costs and reach people in the field. DSTC is exploring several different ways to deliver distributed learning efforts. For example, Diplomatic Security is expected to provide personnel recovery training to about 20,000 people— many of whom are non-State personnel. This training will be done primarily through online distributed learning as well as classroom instruction. In addition to its distributed learning efforts, DSTC sends out to posts its “Knowledge from the Field” DVDs, an information and professional development product that includes lessons learned from attacks and other incidents at consulates and embassies. DSTC is also developing new interactive computer-based training simulations. However, DSTC’s systems do not have the capability to track who is accessing its online materials or who is accessing the DVDs. Without knowing who to send evaluations to, DSTC cannot solicit feedback to see if these efforts are helpful or effective. According to DSTC officials, DSTC also has difficulty obtaining feedback from non-State personnel, which constitute a growing portion of its student body because of DSTC’s provision of training to multiple agencies. For example, DSTC provides information awareness and cybersecurity training to State, as well as the Department of Homeland Security and National Archives and Records Administration, among others. In addition, as noted in figure 2, the number of students taking FACT training, which is provided to non-State personnel, has increased significantly. While DSTC collects feedback after each lesson and course via tier-1 evaluations and makes efforts to collect tier-3 evaluations, according to DSTC officials, it is the responsibility of the students’ home agencies to send out evaluations to their personnel on the training that DSTC provides. According to DSTC officials, evaluations conducted by other agencies are not automatically shared with DSTC. Instead, to measure the effectiveness of its training for non-State personnel, DSTC relies on voluntary comments from the agencies or individual students from those agencies. DSTC officials noted that they are pursuing access to a more robust learning management system to address some of the difficulties with their existing systems. Learning management systems are software applications for the administration, documentation, tracking, and reporting of training programs, classroom and online events, e-learning programs, and training content. DSTC officials stated that their current suite of software, including Microsoft Office SharePoint and several State-specific systems, does not provide all the functionality they need to effectively evaluate all of their courses. DSTC has increased its reliance on using Microsoft Office SharePoint to store current learning materials for DSTC courses on its intranet, but the software does not have an evaluation mechanism in place. According to DSTC officials, they were interested in procuring a learning management system that would cost about $284,000, with additional maintenance and technical support costing about $28,500 a year. In 2009, DSTC officials conducted a cost-benefit analysis by examining the savings from converting two existing courses into courses delivered entirely online. The analysis indicated that State would save about $2 million a year in travel costs alone as well as give DSTC a number of additional functionalities. According to DSTC, as of May 2011, its request to purchase the system is under review, and DSTC was advised to explore FSI’s learning management system. According to FSI and DSTC officials, DSTC began discussions with FSI about the use of FSI’s learning management system. FSI officials noted that FSI’s learning management system has or can be modified to have several of the capabilities DSTC is looking for, including the ability to limit access to specific groups (such as Diplomatic Security personnel or non-State personnel), to distribute and evaluate distributed learning, and to e-mail evaluations to non-State students. According to DSTC officials, DSTC and FSI are working to create a subdomain in FSI’s learning management system for DSTC content. They are also discussing the process for using the learning management system for classified material. As of May 2011, these matters are still under discussion. Diplomatic Security developed career training paths for its personnel that identify the training required for each major job position at different career levels. Using various systems, Diplomatic Security can track instructor-led training that its personnel take. However, DSTC’s systems do not have a way of accumulating the names of personnel who have not taken required courses. DSTC also faces difficulties tracking everyone who receives training through its distributed learning and its courses for non-State personnel. However, DSTC is working to address these difficulties. DSTC established career training paths that specify the required training for entry-level, midlevel, and in some cases senior-level personnel according to their career specialty (see fig. 3, and for a description of the specialty positions, see table 2 above). All Diplomatic Security Foreign Service career specialists attend required State orientation for Foreign Service personnel provided by FSI. (For additional information on training at FSI, see our recently issued report on State training.) As they progress from entry level to midlevel, and in some specialties to senior level, Diplomatic Security personnel follow their career training paths. For example, after orientation, the Security Engineering Officers take technical and fundamental training. As the SEOs move on to midlevel positions, they complete a variety of in-service training courses. All midlevel and most senior-level positions require leadership and management training provided by FSI. DSTC officials noted that all DSTC training fulfills either a career training path requirement or some other training requirement. For example, outside of standard training courses, DSTC provides specialized training to meet evolving threats, such as HTT, that is required for special agents at high-threat posts. See appendix VI for additional details on the training requirements for different career paths. DSTC uses various systems to track participation in its training. DSTC relies on State’s Career Development and Assignments Office and its registrar database to keep records, in addition to an internal tracker for participants in FACT training. State’s Career Development and Assignments office also provides career development guidance and is responsible for ensuring that State personnel attend training required for upcoming assignments. For example, when an agent is assigned to a high- threat post, the office checks to make sure the agent has taken the HTT course; an agent who has not taken the course is scheduled for training, and must complete the course prior to deploying. Both the DSTC registrar and the Career Development and Assignments office use the Student Training Management System to track the training completed by State personnel. This system is State’s registrar system for maintaining personnel training records; it records enrollments, no shows, and completions. The Student Training Management System regularly provides updated data directly to the Government Employee Management System, State’s human resources management system, which populates training information into employee personnel records. The DSTC registrar office and State’s Career Development and Assignments office work together to confirm completion of training before personnel move on to their next assignment. However, if State employees need to demonstrate course completion, they can access the Student Training Management System online to retrieve a copy of their training record from their personal records and print out an unofficial transcript for their supervisor; alternatively, their supervisor can contact the DSTC registrar’s office to verify that the student has completed the course. The registrar database has the ability to verify personnel who have taken high-threat training, but does not have a way of accumulating the names of these personnel. Because State is responsible for the safety and security of U.S. personnel under Chief of Mission authority and requires high-threat training for all personnel at high-threat posts, DSTC officials noted that they have instituted unofficial methods of tracking completion of the training for those going to these posts. DSTC designed and implemented the FACT tracker on its internal web site to log in all personnel who take the class. The FACT tracker provides a continuously updated unofficial document listing all personnel who have taken the FACT course—which includes non-State students. The RSOs in high-threat posts can access the FACT tracker to check on new arrivals to see if they have taken the course. Those who have not completed FACT must remain within the safety of the compound until they are sent home. DSTC officials acknowledged that in the past—before the FACT tracker—they used graduation photographs of FACT graduates to ensure that personnel completed the required training. This was a flawed verification process since students could opt out of having their photos taken. In addition to the FACT tracker, Diplomatic Security maintains a separate spreadsheet of over 700 agents who have taken HTT, which is always available for the director of Diplomatic Security to consult. This enables the director to quickly determine which agents are eligible for assignments to support temporary needs at high-threat posts. According to DSTC officials, DSTC faces challenges in ensuring that personnel complete all required training, particularly in tracking personnel who use distributed learning efforts. However, DSTC has initiatives in place to address some of these issues. The challenges stem from a combination of factors, including training schedules that are constrained by the lack of resources and staff. This creates an obstacle for personnel who cannot fit the training into their work schedules or whose jobs take priority. According to several Diplomatic Security personnel, staff often do not have the time to take in-service training when required, in part because of scheduling constraints. For example, staff could be on temporary duty or travel when in-service training is offered. In addition to the costs for travel to attend in-service training at other posts, several posts are understaffed. According to the Diplomatic Security personnel, they often do not have enough personnel to support the post when staff go to in- service training. Even though DSTC relies on the Student Training Management System, the system does not allow DSTC to effectively track who has or has not taken what course, when, and also be able to schedule a person for the next available course. According to DSTC officials, their system does not have the ability to automatically identify how many people required to take a given course have not yet taken it. Additionally, agents are required to pass a firearms requalification every 4 months when they are posted domestically and once a year if posted overseas. It is the agents’ and supervisors’ responsibility to keep track when their next requalification is due. According to DSTC officials, when agents are posted overseas at certain posts where firearms training is restricted, they often fall behind on their requalification because this can be completed only at a limited number of facilities. As a result, according to Diplomatic Security officials, some personnel fail to maintain weapons qualification, especially if they have been overseas for a number of years. DSTC has increased its use of distributed learning to enhance training of its workforce, but it does not have a way to keep records of participation or performance of personnel who take training through distributed learning. For example, DSTC shares interactive online content on Microsoft Office SharePoint for personnel to use, but according to DSTC officials, SharePoint does not have a tracking mechanism to see who has accessed the content. In another example, DSTC provides distributed learning on OC Spray (also known as pepper spray) that is required every year. However, DSTC cannot say for certain if its personnel have accessed the training and does not have the systems in place to track distributed learning efforts. DSTC is working to develop the ability to ensure that personnel complete all required training and to keep track of who completes DSTC training through distributed learning. DSTC officials stated that their current suite of software systems does not include the capabilities needed to track all their training efficiently and effectively, in particular training delivered through distributed learning. As noted above, DSTC has begun discussions with FSI about the possibility of using FSI’s learning management system or procuring its own system to help DSTC improve its ability to track training. As of May 2011, it appears that some of DSTC’s tracking and evaluation needs may be met through FSI’s learning management system. DSTC is in the process of working with FSI to determine how to meet these needs. DSTC faces several challenges that affect its operations. In particular, DSTC is faced with training Diplomatic Security personnel to meet their new roles and responsibilities in Iraq as the U.S. military transfers to State many of its protective and security functions for the U.S. diplomatic presence. In addition to this expanded training mission, State has proposed a fivefold increase in the amount of training DSTC provides to non-Diplomatic Security personnel. At the same time, many of DSTC’s training facilities pose additional challenges. DSTC lacks a consolidated training facility of its own and therefore uses 16 different leased, rented, or borrowed facilities at which DSTC’s training needs are not the priority. Moreover, several of the facilities do not meet DSTC’s training needs and/or are in need of refurbishment. According to Diplomatic Security officials, this situation has proven inefficient; it has expanded training times and likely increased costs. To meet some of its current needs, in 2007 DSTC developed an Interim Training Facility, and in 2009 State allocated funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other acts to begin the process of building a consolidated training facility. State is in the process of identifying a suitable location for the facility. With the planned withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq in December 2011, Diplomatic Security is expected to assume full responsibility for ensuring safety and security for the U.S. civilian presence. As part of its new responsibilities, Diplomatic Security plans to add critical support services that the U.S. military currently provides, and which Diplomatic Security has had little or no experience in providing, including downed aircraft recovery, explosives ordnance disposal, route clearance, and rocket and mortar countermeasures, among others. Consequently, Diplomatic Security is leveraging Department of Defense expertise and equipment to build the capabilities and capacity necessary to undertake its new missions. For example, the Department of Defense is assisting Diplomatic Security with the operation of a sense-and-warn system to detect and alert to artillery and mortar fire. As a result of its increased security responsibilities, Diplomatic Security anticipates substantial use of contractors to provide many of these specialized services. Nevertheless, Diplomatic Security personnel will still need training in order to properly manage and oversee those contractors and to perform those services for which contractors are not being hired. DSTC noted that it is following events in Iraq, seeking feedback from Embassy Baghdad, and evaluating and updating its training programs to ensure they remain relevant to the needs of post personnel and conditions on the ground. To identify training needs, DSTC is collaborating with multiple offices on various contingency plans. DSTC is a member of the Diplomatic Security Iraq Transition Working Group. The purpose of this working group is to identify and analyze the structural, logistical, personnel, and training impacts of the transition on Diplomatic Security and the Regional Security Office in Baghdad as U.S. military forces draw down in Iraq. Additionally, DSTC is an active participant in the Contingency Operations Working Group, whose purpose is to improve collaboration within Diplomatic Security to support RSO operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Sudan. DSTC also is a member of the Iraq Policy and Operations Group, chaired by State’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, and the Iraq Training Course Advisory Group, chaired by FSI. DSTC is developing training plans to address various contingencies arising from anticipated Diplomatic Security personnel increases in Iraq and introduction of new equipment. Regarding personnel increases, DSTC is identifying resources and planning to train additional security personnel to meet Embassy Baghdad’s goal of filling 84 Security Protective Specialist positions and 25 new special agent positions in Iraq. High-threat courses are also being added to accommodate additional Diplomatic Security personnel being assigned to Iraq and other high-threat locations. For example, an additional four HTT courses were added to the DSTC training schedule, making a total of 13 course offerings in fiscal year 2011 compared with 9 in fiscal year 2010. According to DSTC, it is endeavoring to meet the need for new capabilities and equipment. DSTC, in coordination with the Diplomatic Security Mine- Resistant/Ambush Protection (MRAP) armored vehicles working group, is developing ways to integrate MRAP training into Diplomatic Security courses, and as of March 2011 had completed the design and development of a training course. This effort includes acquiring an MRAP egress trainer at the ITF in West Virginia and one at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. To address expanding RSO air operations, DSTC acquired UH-1 and CH-46 nonflyable helicopter airframes from Cherry Point Marine Air Station in order to improve air operations training. An additional helicopter airframe, a CH-53, is also being acquired from the same location. For FACT students, protective vests and helmets were obtained to better accustom students to working conditions on the ground. Other HTT additions will include personnel recovery, tactical communications, and tactical operations command training. DSTC is working closely with the Iraq Training Course Advisory Group to develop a new Iraq predeployment immersion training course for civilian employees, as well as special agents, which will combine both security and operational exercises. According to Diplomatic Security officials, this training will likely increase the time needed to get trained Diplomatic Security personnel into the field. Despite these efforts, Diplomatic Security noted that the locations, personnel numbers, and resources that Diplomatic Security will require in Iraq are being finalized through the various transitional working groups mentioned above, as well as by Embassy Baghdad and U.S. Forces-Iraq. However, according to State’s Inspector General, Diplomatic Security does not have the funding, personnel, experience, equipment, or training to replicate the U.S. military’s security mission in Iraq. Similar concerns were raised by the Commission on Wartime Contracting and a majority report issued by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Diplomatic Security acknowledged it is not designed to assume the military’s mission in Iraq and will have to rely on its own resources and the assistance of the host country to protect the U.S. mission in the absence of the funding, personnel, equipment, and protection formerly provided by the U.S. military. Furthermore, with clear deadlines in place for the U.S. military departure from Iraq, delays in finalizing State’s operations in Iraq could affect DSTC’s ability to develop and deliver any additional required training. In addition to the resource demands placed on DSTC by the pending drawdown of U.S. military forces in Iraq, DSTC has seen a significant increase in the number of U.S. personnel to whom it provides training, especially high-threat training such as FACT, SNOE, and HTT (see fig. 4). Most notable is the increase in the number of non-Diplomatic Security personnel to whom Diplomatic Security must provide training since both FACT and SNOE are designed for nonagents. For example, the number of U.S. personnel taking high-threat training in fiscal year 2006 was 971. That number more than doubled in fiscal year 2010 to 2,132. In addition to the significant increase in students, State has levied additional training requirements on DSTC that may further strain DSTC’s resources. State’s 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) stated that all personnel at high-threat posts, as well as those at critical-threat posts, will now receive FACT training. According to Diplomatic Security officials, this change in policy would increase the number of posts for which FACT is required from 23 to 178, increasing the number of students taking FACT each year from 2,132 in fiscal year 2010 to over 10,000. DSTC officials noted that they lack the capacity to handle so many students and that current FACT classes are already filled to DSTC’s capacity. DSTC would need to locate or build additional driving tracks, firearms ranges, and explosives ranges, as well as obtain instructors and other staff to support such a dramatic increase in students. At a cost of almost $4,000 per student, not including the need to develop additional facilities, this requirement could cost government agencies over $30 million. The QDDR did not identify additional resources or facilities to support this decision. According to Diplomatic Security officials, State has not completed an action plan or established time frames to carry out the QDDR recommendation. Given these difficulties, Diplomatic Security officials noted that they did not see how the new requirement could be implemented. The Diplomatic Security Training Directorate’s three offices, including DSTC, use 16 facilities to accomplish their training missions (see app. VII), which DSTC officials believe is inefficient and more costly than a consolidated training facility would be. For example, DSTC maintains a fleet of vehicles to transport students from one training facility to another. In 2009, DSTC officials estimated that students spent 1 week of the then 8- week HTT course in transit. According to DSTC officials, until recently the Training Directorate used four additional facilities, including three other military bases, but military officials at those bases decided that they could no longer accommodate DSTC and still meet their own training needs. This forced DSTC to find or make use of alternative training sites. Diplomatic Security leases, rents, or borrows all the facilities it uses, and the number of facilities in use at any given time and how they are used will vary based on training requirements and facility availability. For example, although Marine Corps Base Quantico is primarily used for firearms training, Diplomatic Security also uses its ranges for land navigation and its mock villages for scenario training with nonlethal ammunition. According to DSTC officials, because Diplomatic Security does not own the facilities it uses (or the land on which they are built, in the case of its ITF), its access to some facilities may be constrained by the facility owners. For example, Diplomatic Security uses the firearms ranges at Marine Corps Base Quantico to train with heavier weapons that none of its other facilities can accommodate (see fig. 5). However, according to Diplomatic Security officials, the Marines occasionally force Diplomatic Security to change its training schedule, sometimes with minimal notice, which increases costs and makes it difficult for DSTC staff to meet training objectives within the time available. DSTC noted, however, that the Marines work with them to minimize the disruptions to Diplomatic Security training at Marine Corps Base Quantico. Several of the leased facilities, notably the State Annex (SA) buildings, do not meet DSTC’s needs. For example, SA-7, in Springfield, Virginia, was originally leased commercially in the 1970s when, according to Diplomatic Security officials, Diplomatic Security had fewer than 500 special agents, less than one-third of the approximately 1,900 it has now. Both SA-7 and SA-31 are overcrowded and need various repairs, according to Diplomatic Security officials, in part because of disputes between Diplomatic Security and its lessor over which party is responsible for structural repairs such as leaks in the ceiling, repairs to water pipes, and repairs to the ventilation systems (see fig. 6 for pictures of SA-7). DSTC’s main firearms ranges are located in these buildings, but according to DSTC officials, the ranges are small and have some unusable firing lanes (see fig. 6). Because of the limitations of its facilities, Diplomatic Security has had to improvise with makeshift solutions to provide some types of training, for example, placing tape on the floors of its garage at SA-11 to simulate walls for conducting room-entry training (see fig. 7). DSTC officials commented that this was not the most effective way to conduct training. To help meet the training demands of its growing mission, DSTC has identified alternate sites as backup training locations and used them in the past year when other facilities could not be used to meet training requirements. For example, the HTT course used a paintball park in 2010 when Marine Corps Base Quantico could not accommodate DSTC’s final practical exercise. As noted below, with the increased capability at the ITF, Diplomatic Security has been able to consolidate some functions and reduce, but not eliminate, the need for other facilities. In April 2011, Diplomatic Security officials stated that DSTC began firearms training and requalifications at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s Cheltenham, Maryland, facility. Diplomatic Security now has access to the firing ranges at Cheltenham to conduct agents’ firearms requalifications, as well as support office, classroom, and storage space—allowing them to use the small SA-7 firing range as a backup range. Recognizing that its existing facilities were inadequate, in 2007, according to DSTC officials, Diplomatic Security signed a 5-year contract with one of its lessors, Bill Scott Raceway, to fence off 12.5 acres of land and build a modular Interim Training Facility in Summit Point, West Virginia, for approximately $10 million (see fig. 8). The facility includes a number of training features that Diplomatic Security needs, including a gymnasium with mat rooms, a two-story indoor tactical maze, an indoor firing range, a video-based firearms simulation, and a mock urban training area. As the ITF is located on Bill Scott Raceway land, it is colocated with the facilities Diplomatic Security leases to provide driver training, some small arms training, bunker training, and small explosives demonstrations (see fig. 9). Diplomatic Security acknowledged that the ITF is helping it meet several of its training needs, including most defensive tactics training and scenario training with nonlethal ammunition. Nevertheless, Diplomatic Security officials noted that the ITF is only a stopgap solution with inherent limitations and cannot meet a number of Diplomatic Security’s training needs such as the firing of heavier weapons, the use of more powerful explosives to train agents in incident management, and the integrated tactical use of driving and firearms training in a mock urban environment. The ITF also lacks space for Diplomatic Security to train its personnel for many of the additional missions that they are expected to take over from the U.S. military in Iraq, such as land navigation and downed aircraft recovery, among others. In addition, the ITF lacks many of the support services that a training academy might otherwise have, such as campus housing; adequate classroom, office, and dining areas, and storage areas for the explosives used in training. After years of unsuccessful funding efforts, in 2009 State allocated $118.1 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Worldwide Security and Protection funds to acquire a site for, design, and build the Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC), a consolidated training facility (see table 3). State began the search for a dedicated training facility in 1993 and revisited the need in 1998 following the embassy bombings in Africa prior to developing the Interim Training Facility. In 2004, State received funding to develop the Center for Antiterrorism and Security Training. In 2006, when the plans for locating such a center at Aberdeen Proving Ground were not successful, the development of CAST was abandoned and Diplomatic Security sought guidance from State’s legal office. According to Diplomatic Security officials, based on the legislative language, State’s legal office stated that no specific site was indicated. Therefore, according to officials, based on Diplomatic Security’s critical need for an antiterrorism training center, the funds could be spent on a temporary facility. Consequently, the remaining funds were used to expand Diplomatic Security’s use of the Bill Scott Raceway facilities and develop the ITF. State also informed us that congressional staff were briefed regarding the use of funds appropriated for CAST. In June 2009, the U.S. General Services Administration announced that it had initiated the search on behalf of State for an appropriate space to build the FASTC, thereby initiating development of the consolidated facility. According to State and General Services Administration officials, State obligated approximately $10.6 million of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds on architectural planning and project management. State obligated the remaining Recovery Act funds by transferring them to the General Services Administration to continue the identification and development of the FASTC. State also allocated about $48.1 million of fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2009 supplemental Worldwide Security and Protection funds and an additional $17.6 million of fiscal year 2010 Worldwide Security and Protection funds, all of which were obligated to the General Services Administration to build the FASTC. Subsequent phases of the project are expected to be wholly funded through Worldwide Security and Protection funds. Diplomatic Security expects future costs to be approximately $30 million annually. Diplomatic Security received no additional funds in the fiscal year 2011 budget, and the administration did not include additional funds in its fiscal year 2012 budget request; nevertheless, State and the General Services Administration continued development of the FASTC. After going through a formalized process of identifying a location and working with the General Services Administration, State identified a potential location for the FASTC in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. State had planned to begin building by early 2011; however, on June 28, 2010, State and the General Services Administration determined that the site would no longer be considered, because of local concerns regarding environmental and other land use issues that could delay the project for several years. State subsequently expanded its FASTC criteria, most notably increasing the acceptable distance from Washington, D.C., and—because of a presidential memorandum issued in June 2010 requesting that agencies try to use existing federal land instead of purchasing new property—focusing the search on publicly owned properties. The General Services Administration evaluated approximately 40 sites against the revised site criteria, which include four steps to determine the viability of the site for placement of the FASTC project. Step 1 evaluates the site regarding public ownership, size, the ability to support 24/7 operations, climate conditions, and proximity to Diplomatic Security headquarters. A site that meets Step 1 criteria continues on to Step 2, which evaluates the site’s developable area, compatible surroundings, ease of acquisition, life support and community support, and suitable climate, and includes performing initial test fits of the site. A site that meets Step 2 criteria will move on to Step 3, in which a feasibility study is conducted on the site. The feasibility study takes into consideration the mission, program requirements, phasing, risk, cost, procurement, environmental assessment, and utilities. Step 4 of the criteria is to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for the preferred site. Two of the evaluated sites met the Step 1 criteria. One site also met Step 2 criteria, and moved on to Step 3 in which a feasibility study was completed. The second site under consideration is currently being evaluated under Step 2 criteria. If the site meets Step 2 criteria, the process will continue to Step 3 and a feasibility study will be conducted. Once both sites have been assessed, senior department officials will make a recommendation on which site will proceed to Step 4. Environmental studies will be conducted on the selected site, and the master plan and construction documents will be completed. Step 4 environmental studies are estimated to take 18 to 24 months to complete. Construction could begin, pending funding availability, after the studies and construction documents are complete. State officials noted that in an ideal situation they could begin building the FASTC by the end of 2013; however, they said it was difficult to know what environmental obstacles, if any, they might encounter and how those obstacles might affect the FASTC’s development. State expects the FASTC will include state-of-the-art classrooms, simulation and practical applications laboratories, administrative support offices, and a fitness center to meet soft skill training needs. State plans to construct a series of indoor and outdoor weapons firing ranges, an explosives demonstration area, several mock urban environments designed to simulate a variety of urban scenarios, and driving tracks to meet its hard skill training needs. State also expects to provide various support elements, including dormitories, a dining facility, physical fitness facilities to include an athletic field and track, bike and jogging trails, and on-site medical and fire emergency services. State expects to build, enhance, or rely on existing infrastructure, such as power, potable water, wastewater treatment, and telecommunications capabilities. U.S. diplomats and other personnel at overseas diplomatic posts face a growing number of threats from global terrorism to cyberattacks and, in some countries, from constant dangers due to the violence of war or civil unrest. To counter these growing threats, State has expanded the mission of its Bureau of Diplomatic Security, with a corresponding rapid increase in its staffing. As a result, DSTC has had to meet the challenge of training more personnel to perform additional duties while still getting Diplomatic Security’s agents, engineers, technicians, and other staff—as well as a growing number of personnel outside of its workforce—into the field, where they are needed. DSTC has largely met this challenge. Certain issues, however, constrain the effectiveness of DSTC’s systems. First, DSTC is shifting more of its training online to better serve its student population, but does not have the systems needed to evaluate the training’s effectiveness despite its own standards to do so. Without this feedback, DSTC will be less able to ensure the effectiveness of and improve the training it provides. Second, DSTC systems do not accurately and adequately track the use of some of its training. For example, DSTC cannot identify who has not taken required training. Consequently, DSTC cannot be assured that all personnel are adequately trained to counter threats to U.S. personnel, information, and property. DSTC also faces a number of challenges as a result of an increasing number of training missions, particularly in Iraq, and inadequate training facilities. These challenges should be addressed strategically; however, State’s recent effort to conduct a strategic review, the QDDR, added to DSTC’s training missions. Specifically, the QDDR levied a requirement on Diplomatic Security to quintuple its student body by providing FACT training to an additional 8,000 students without addressing necessary resources. Without an action plan and associated time frames to meet the new requirement, it is unclear to what extent State can accomplish its training mission and ensure the security preparedness of civilian personnel assigned overseas. We recommend that the Secretary of State 1. develop or improve the process to obtain participant evaluations for all of DSTC required training, including distributed learning efforts; 2. develop or improve the process to track individual DSTC training requirements and completion of DSTC training; and 3. develop an action plan and associated time frames needed to carry out the QDDR recommendation to increase the number of posts at which FACT is required. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of State. State provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix VIII. State agreed with all three recommendations, and noted several steps it is taking or is planning to take to address the recommendations. In particular, DSTC noted that it will seek an electronic survey tool to enhance its evaluation efforts and is exploring ways to modify existing State computer systems to enhance its ability to track training. In addition, Diplomatic Security is working with the other State offices to set parameters for expanding FACT training to additional personnel. State also noted that existing Diplomatic Security training facilities and instructor resources are at maximum capacity, and emphasized DSTC’s need for a consolidated training facility to meet its expanded training mission. We also provided relevant portions of the report to FLETA and the General Services Administration for technical comments. We incorporated technical comments from both agencies and State throughout the report, as appropriate. As agreed with your office, 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 interested Members of Congress, the Secretary of State, and relevant agency heads. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-4268 or mailto:fordj@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 major contribution to this report are listed in appendix IX. We (1) evaluated how Diplomatic Security ensures the quality and appropriateness of its training, (2) examined Diplomatic Security’s training strategies for its personnel and other U.S. government personnel and how Diplomatic Security ensures that training requirements are being met, and (3) assessed the challenges that Diplomatic Security faces in meeting its training mission. To address these objectives and establish criteria, we reviewed past GAO reports on both Diplomatic Security and training, Office of Personnel Management guidance, State and other legislative and regulatory guidance and policy, and education standards and processes of established educational organizations. To understand the accreditation process to which Diplomatic Security was subject, we obtained information from a key official from Federal Law Enforcement and Training Accreditation. We also reviewed and analyzed data and documentation related to Diplomatic Security-provided training efforts, such as standard operating procedure, planning, performance, course development, course evaluation, accreditation, and career development documents; information and data on recent Diplomatic Security Training Center (DSTC)- and other Diplomatic Security-provided course offerings; and overall funding for training from 2006 to 2011. To assess the reliability of registrar data for detailing the increase in students taking high-threat courses, Diplomatic Security training budget data, and Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC) funding data, we discussed with Diplomatic Security officials the quality of the data and how they were collected, and corroborated the data by comparing them with data supplied by or interviews with other officials. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We interviewed officials and instructors at Diplomatic Security headquarters, several training facilities, and several overseas posts. Among others, we interviewed DSTC officials, including DSTC instructors and contractors at several training facilities and officials from all of DSTC’s divisions and branches (see app. II). We interviewed other Diplomatic Security Training Directorate officials, including officials from the Offices of Mobile Security Deployment and Antiterrorism Assistance. We also interviewed officials from the Diplomatic Courier Service. We asked a standard set of questions through in-person and videoconference interviews with Diplomatic Security agents in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and the Washington, D.C., field office, as well as engineers and technicians in Germany, South Africa, and Florida, to get feedback from supervisors on the quality of their staff’s training and any unmet training needs. These posts and offices represent a judgmental sample selected because of their regional coverage and relatively large number of personnel compared with that of personnel at other posts and offices. We observed a wide variety of both classroom-based and exercise-based training at six Diplomatic Security training facilities in Virginia and West Virginia and viewed examples of other types of DSTC-provided learning. In addition, we interviewed officials from State’s Foreign Service Institute (FSI) to discuss their course registration and learning management systems, as well as how they coordinate with DSTC, and States’ Career Development and Assignment office on how it tracks training. We interviewed Diplomatic Security officials from a variety of offices concerning the transition in Iraq, results of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), and how the purchase of new security technology is coordinated with DSTC. We also interviewed officials from State headquarters and the General Services Administration to discuss the status of the project to develop a consolidated training facility. We evaluated the information we received from both documentation and interviews against the identified criteria. Our review focused on the efforts of the Training Directorate’s Office of Training and Performance Standards and to a lesser extent the Training Directorate’s Office of Mobile Security Deployment and other offices within Diplomatic Security, such as the Diplomatic Courier Service— which has called upon the expertise of DSTC to help develop its own training. Because the Training Directorate’s Office of Antiterrorism Assistance provides training to non-U.S. personnel, it fell outside the scope of our work. In addition, because we recently reviewed training provided by FSI, this report does not include an assessment of the training that Diplomatic Security personnel receive through FSI. We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to May 2011, 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 Office of Training and Performance Standards, also known as DSTC, is the primary provider of Diplomatic Security’s training. To carry out its mission, DSTC is organized into four divisions, each with three or four branches (see fig. 10). The Security and Law Enforcement Training Division consists of three branches: Domestic Training, Overseas Training, and Special Skills. The division is primarily responsible for training Diplomatic Security’s agents, investigators, and Security Protective Specialists. The division is also responsible for providing personal security training to Diplomatic Security and non-Diplomatic Security personnel posted to the high-threat environments, including the High Threat Tactical (HTT), Security for Non-traditional Operating Environment (SNOE), and Foreign Affairs Counter Threat (FACT) courses. The Security Engineering and Computer Security Division consists of three branches: Security Engineering, Technical Training, and Information Assurance. The division is primarily responsible for training Diplomatic Security’s security engineers and technicians, as well as providing information technology security awareness training to a number of U.S. departments and agencies such as the National Archives and Records Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Instructional Systems Management ensures that the Diplomatic Security Training Center meets independent Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation (FLETA) standards by providing course needs analysis and course design and development for both the Security and Law Enforcement Training Division and Security Engineering and Computer Security Division, creating and posting learning tools, obtaining and analyzing student feedback, and providing instructor training. In addition, Instructional Systems Management assists other offices within Diplomatic Security, such as the Diplomatic Courier Service, with non- DSTC course development and learning tools, as needed. Administrative and Training Support Services manages the DSTC registrar and student records, coordinates with FSI, manages external training, and provides a variety of other support functions such as managing DSTC’s budget and maintaining training facilities and equipment. To ensure the quality and appropriateness of its training, Diplomatic Security relies primarily on the standards of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation process. Generally, the process involves the five steps summarized below (see fig. 11). 1. Application: An agency can apply for accreditation of a program, an academy, or both. However, a separate application must be submitted for each program and academy. In most cases, agencies first submit applications for their basic agent training and instructor training first. Once those have been accredited, the agency submits an application to have its academy accredited. 2. Agency preparation: The agency conducts a self-assessment and gap analysis to identify which of the FLETA standards it does not meet; identifies corrective steps, if necessary; and reports its results to FLETA’s Office of Accreditation. 3. FLETA assessment: FLETA carries out its assessment. The assessment teams visit training locations, review files documenting the agency’s compliance with standards, observe training, and interview administrators and trainers. If deficiencies are found during the assessment process, the agency must prepare a corrective action plan. The assessment team prepares the final report of the FLETA assessment, which is submitted to the FLETA Board Review Committee. 4. FLETA accreditation: A FLETA Board Review Committee reviews the findings before FLETA awards accreditation to the submitted course, academy, or both. Afterward, the agency provides annual updates to FLETA in order to maintain the accreditation. The updates include information that would modify the previous submissions to ensure continued compliance with current FLETA standards. 5. Reaccreditation: Reaccreditation is a fresh look at a course or academy to ensure continued compliance with the FLETA standards. Reaccreditation occurs every 3 years. The course or academy submits supporting evidence for each year since the previous accreditation. FLETA thoroughly assesses the agency’s program or academy using the FLETA guidelines and professional training standards for program and academy accreditation. For a program to receive accreditation, an agency must demonstrate that the program’s policies and procedures, facilities, and resources comply with applicable FLETA standards. In general, the academy meets the same FLETA standards as the programs, but the standards are applied to the organization as a whole. As of 2010, agencies applying for accreditation must provide evidence that at least five other programs, in addition to the basic agent training and instructor development training, comply with FLETA standards. FLETA standards are designed to describe what must be accomplished; however, it is up to each agency to determine how it will meet the standards. FLETA has one set of academy standards and four sections of program standards, which include: (1) program administration, (2) training staff, (3) training development, and (4) training delivery. Each set or section of standards has 7 to 23 individual standards. For example, 1 academy standard requires that the academy establish a vision, mission, goals, and objectives, while 1 training staff standard requires that new instructors are monitored and mentored. A FLETA Assessment Team reviews all documented administrative controls and supporting evidence submitted, including academy policies, procedures, and operations, and the team also conducts interviews with key personnel. To further support documentation, site visits are conducted at the agency’s training facilities. Live training scenarios are also observed. DSTC has gone through the accreditation process for the basic special agent and the instructor development programs and for its academy, DSTC. In 2005, DSTC opted to have the academy accredited first—an option no longer available under current FLETA standards. DSTC then sought accreditation for two programs—the basic special agent course and the instructor development course—which were accredited in 2006. In 2008, DSTC opted to have those programs and the academy go through the accreditation process simultaneously. (See table 4.) DSTC is currently undergoing reaccreditation for its programs and academy and expects that this process will be completed in 2011. Special agents are the lead operational employees of Diplomatic Security. In general, when special agents are overseas, they manage post security requirements; when they serve domestically, they conduct investigations and provide protective details. New special agents follow an entry-level career training path designed to equip them to fulfill the basic responsibilities of the job. For example, after the 3-week orientation provided by FSI, special agents go through the basic special agent course. It includes about 12 weeks at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and is followed by about 12 weeks of additional DSTC training. Upon assignment to an overseas post, special agents must take the basic Regional Security Officer course, the basic field firearms officer course, and the security overseas seminar. If special agents are posted to a designated high-threat post, they must also take the high-threat tactical training course. In addition, at all career levels, depending on the post, special agents may have to take language training. Once special agents are in a supervisory role, both midlevel and senior- level agents have additional required training. For example, they are required to attend FSI-provided leadership and management training. If agents are posted to a designated high-threat post at this level, they must take the HTT course if they have not taken HTT within the previous 5 years. Special agents are also required to take Regional Security Officer in- service training every 3 years, to keep up to date on current policies and procedures. In addition to following the standard special agent career path, special agents have the option of specializing in different areas—for example, in providing security protection and training or in focusing on investigations into visa and passport fraud, human trafficking, smuggling, and internal malfeasance. Each specialty has its own required training. Those opting to specialize in security protection and training can apply to join the Mobile Security Deployment Division (MSD) for a 3-year tour. When they become MSD agents, special agents receive 6 months of additional training. Similarly, those who opt to focus on investigations, becoming Assistant Regional Security Officers-Investigators, must also take additional training. Security engineers are responsible for the technical and informational security programs at diplomatic and consular posts overseas. While both SEOs and Security Technical Specialists (STS) share similar tasks at posts, SEOs are expected to be more engineering and design oriented, while STS are expected to be hands-on technicians. To become SEOs, personnel must have specific types of engineering or technical degrees. SEO training was recently restructured. Following the 3-week FSI-provided orientation, SEOs go through technical training and SEO fundamentals courses for about 107 days while assigned to a domestic office for 12 to 24 months. SEOs also go through technical surveillance countermeasures training, in addition to administrative training. If assigned to a technical security overseas position, the SEO then takes the Overseas SEO training course, which takes 25 days. During training, SEOs (if budget and resources are available) can complete a 3- or 4-week temporary duty training program at an Engineer Service Center or Engineer Service Office to get practical on- the-job experience. In addition, at all career levels, depending on the post, SEOs may have to take language training. Once SEOs achieve a supervisory role (both midlevel and senior-level positions), they are required to take additional FSI-provided leadership and management courses. SEOs at the midlevel are also required to take additional in-service training, which may include a focus on computer network and operating systems, access control systems, investigation skills, and video surveillance systems, among others. SEOs are required to take in-service training every 2-3 years, depending on the needs of the post and available resources. Security Technical Specialists are assigned throughout the world to develop, implement, and maintain technical security programs at posts overseas. As noted above, despite the different career paths, in practice their work is often similar to that of the SEOs. STS generally have a technical background. Following the 3-week FSI-provided orientation, STS are required to take technical training and STS fundamentals at DSTC. During training, STS (if budget and resources are available) can complete a 3- or 4-week temporary duty training program at an Engineer Service Center or Engineer Service Office to get practical on-the-job experience. STS also have to take FSI-provided administrative training. In addition, at all career levels, depending on the post, STS may have to take language training. Once STS achieve midlevel positions, they have additional required training. STS are required to take FSI-provided leadership and management training. In addition, STS are also required to take various in- service training that includes video surveillance, access control systems, and explosives detection, among others. This is similar to the in-service training that SEOs take. The STS career path, however, does not have senior-level positions, so STS do not take senior-level administrative, leadership, and management training. Couriers ensure the secure movement of classified U.S. government materials across international borders. The Diplomatic Courier Service is a small organization within Diplomatic Security whose members travel constantly; Diplomatic Courier Service officials noted that they had unique training challenges—particularly with regard to the travel logistics to attend training—and have taken responsibility for training their own personnel. Couriers first go through a 3-week orientation to the State Department that is identical to the FSI-provided orientation but is provided by the Diplomatic Courier Service; the new hires then undergo 3 weeks of functional introductory courier training. This is the only required course for couriers. However, the couriers also have a midlevel courier manager training course that prepares couriers for the manager position, focusing on supervisory and managerial issues. In addition, the Diplomatic Courier Service is developing its own in-service training and hub training courses. The in-service course will act as a refresher to the initial training, and the hub training would be a 1-day module on how overseas courier hubs function. No additional training is required for senior-level couriers. The Diplomatic Security Training Directorate’s three offices, including DSTC, currently use 16 facilities to accomplish their training missions (see table 5). In addition to the contact named above, Anthony Moran, Assistant Director; Thomas Costa; Anh Nguyen; David Dayton; and Daniel Elbert provided significant contributions to the work. Martin de Alteriis, Miriam Carroll Fenton, Cheron Green, Lisa Helmer, Grace Lui, and Jamilah Moon provided technical assistance and other support.

Summary: The Department of State's (State) Bureau of Diplomatic Security (Diplomatic Security) protects people, information, and property at over 400 locations worldwide and has experienced a large growth in its budget and personnel over the last decade. Diplomatic Security trains its workforce and others to address a variety of threats, including crime, espionage, visa and passport fraud, technological intrusions, political violence, and terrorism. To meet its training needs, Diplomatic Security relies primarily on its Diplomatic Security Training Center (DSTC). GAO was asked to examine (1) how Diplomatic Security ensures the quality and appropriateness of its training, (2) the extent to which Diplomatic Security ensures that training requirements are being met, and (3) any challenges that Diplomatic Security faces in carrying out its training mission. GAO examined compliance with accreditation processes; analyzed data and documentation related to the agency's training efforts; and interviewed officials in Washington, D.C., and five overseas posts. To ensure the quality and appropriateness of its training, Diplomatic Security primarily adheres to Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation (FLETA) standards, along with other standards. Diplomatic Security incorporated FLETA standards into its standard operating procedures, using a course design framework tailored for DSTC. To meet standards, DSTC also integrates both formal and informal feedback from evaluations and other sources to improve its courses. However, GAO found DSTC's systems do not have the capability to obtain feedback for some required training, including distributed learning efforts (interactive online course content). Without feedback, DSTC is less able to ensure the effectiveness of these efforts. Diplomatic Security developed career training paths for its personnel that identify the training required for selected job positions at different career levels. It uses various systems to track participation in its training, but DSTC's systems do not have the capability to track whether personnel have completed all required training. DSTC systems also are not designed to track training delivered through distributed learning. Diplomatic Security faces significant challenges to carrying out its training mission. DSTC must train Diplomatic Security personnel to perform new missions in Iraq as they take on many of the protective and security functions previously provided by the U.S. military. DSTC also faces dramatic increases in high-threat training provided to State and non-State personnel, but State does not have an action plan and time frames to manage proposed increases. These expanded training missions constrain DSTC's ability to meet training needs. In addition, many of DSTC's training facilities do not meet its training needs, a situation that hampers efficient and effective operations. To meet some of its needs, in 2007, DSTC developed an Interim Training Facility. In 2009, State allocated funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other acts to develop a consolidated training facility; State is in the process of identifying a suitable location. GAO recommends that State enhance DSTC's course evaluation and tracking capabilities. GAO also recommends that State develop an action plan and time frames to address proposed increases in high-threat training. State reviewed a draft of this report and agreed with all of the recommendations.