The National Guard counterdrug program is part of DOD’s broader counterdrug mission, which focuses on supporting local, state, federal, and foreign government agencies in addressing the illegal drug trade and narcotics-related terrorism. The program was originally conceived as a reconnaissance support mission largely focused on marijuana eradication efforts. In 1977, the Hawaii National Guard became the first state National Guard to assist law enforcement agencies in counterdrug missions. Hawaii law enforcement officials sought Hawaii National Guard helicopter transport to support Operation Green Harvest, a marijuana eradication mission. By 1984, four additional states’ National Guards were supporting state law enforcement agencies with counterdrug efforts. That number grew to 32 states in 1988. However, this assistance was limited in scope and generally conducted as Guard units performed normal training activities, and costs associated with this assistance were paid for by the states. The National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989 tasked DOD with the mission to ensure the availability of military support to law enforcement agencies nationwide. This law established DOD as the single lead agency of the federal government for the detection and monitoring of aerial and maritime transit of illegal drugs into the United States, and it amplified the National Guard’s role as a support agency for state law enforcement in counterdrug support missions under the Governor of each state, territory, and the District of Columbia. By 1994, the program was in operation in 54 states and territories across the United States. As of fiscal year 2018, National Guard Bureau policy allows state counterdrug programs to perform 15 support activities grouped into five broad mission categories—(1) technical support (including linguist and translator, operational and investigative case and criminal analyst, and counterthreat finance support), (2) general support (including domestic cannabis suppression and eradication operations and transportation support), (3) reconnaissance and observation (including ground and aerial reconnaissance), (4) civil operations and coalition development, and (5) counterdrug training. The National Guard counterdrug program conducts activities under the authority of two titles in the United States Code—Title 32 and Title 10. Section 502 of title 32 allows a member of the National Guard to be ordered to full-time National Guard duty status under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or Secretary of the Air Force. In addition, Section 112 of title 32 authorizes personnel of the National Guard of a State, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, to be ordered to perform full-time National Guard duty under section 502 for the purposes of carrying out drug interdiction and counterdrug activities in accordance with state plans. Section 112 also authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide funds to support the approved drug interdiction and counter-drug activities plan of state governors. In addition, Title 10 allows the Secretary of the Army or Air Force to order a member of the National Guard, under the Secretary’s jurisdiction, to active duty with the consent of the member and the governor of that state. Under Section 284 of title 10, DOD provides support to a number of partners, such as federal agencies, in their counterdrug activities, at times using National Guard personnel on active duty. Table 1 provides a summary of the Title 32 and Title 10 authorities. To fund DOD’s counterdrug mission, Congress appropriates amounts to DOD’s Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account. The categories of activities funded by the account include: detection and monitoring; international support; intelligence, technology, and other; domestic support, which includes the National Guard counterdrug program; and drug demand reduction. Of all the activities, the domestic support activity, which includes the National Guard counterdrug program, receives the largest amount of funding from DOD’s Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities account. In fiscal year 2018, Congress appropriated about $934.8 million to the Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account, of which about $261.4 million, or 28 percent, was appropriated for the National Guard counterdrug program. Figure 1 shows the program funding in DOD’s Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities Account for fiscal year 2018. DOD’s budget request to the President for the National Guard counterdrug program was generally steady from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2012, but was reduced significantly in fiscal year 2013. Since then, congressionally-directed increases have generally accounted for 50 percent or more of the program’s total funding, as shown in figure 2 below. In fiscal year 2018, the Senate Committee on Appropriations expressed concerns that DOD reduced overall funding for the National Guard counterdrug program from the fiscal year 2017 enacted levels and failed to include an individual budget line in its budget request for the National Guard counterdrug schools program. DOD’s budget request for fiscal year 2018 was about $116.4 million, while the final appropriation designated $261.4 million for the program—approximately a 125 percent increase. On July 31, 2002, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum that, among other things, assigned responsibility for DOD’s counternarcotics program to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics. The responsibilities include developing and implementing DOD’s counternarcotics policy, conducting analyses, making recommendations, and issuing guidance regarding DOD’s counternarcotics plans and programs. In addition, the office is responsible for coordinating and monitoring DOD’s counternarcotics plans and programs to ensure adherence to this policy. Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01A, National Guard Counterdrug Support, establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for the National Guard counterdrug program. The instruction assigns the Director of the National Guard Domestic Operations and Force Development as the proponent for the program. The Director’s responsibilities include publishing supporting documents for the instruction, verifying that the plans outlining each state’s proposed activities are consistent with annual instructions published by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats and are processed efficiently and on-time, and conducting periodic evaluations of program operations at the state level. DOD’s 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy, the governing strategy for the National Guard counterdrug program, is outdated and does not reflect current drug threats outlined in more recent executive branch strategies. While the 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy shares common themes with the updated executive branch strategies, such as the importance of combatting transnational criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking, it has not been updated to reflect changes in the drug threats faced by the United States that are outlined by the more recent executive branch strategies. Table 2 provides details on national-level strategies that have been released since 2011. The Office of National Drug Control Policy released a new National Drug Control Strategy each year between 2011 and 2016. Each update discussed the threat posed by opioids, which the 2016 update labeled as the greatest drug threat facing the nation. The 2017 National Security Strategy also addressed opioids by emphasizing the need to dismantle transnational criminal organizations that feed the illicit opioid epidemic. However, DOD’s 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy does not address the domestic opioid epidemic. In addition, the 2016 National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy states that the increased role of Mexican heroin manufacturers and traffickers is altering previously established trafficking patterns. While the 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy considers the illicit trafficking of cocaine from the Southwest border, it does not consider changes in the heroin threat. Further, because DOD’s Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy has not been updated, it does not take into consideration other strategies that have since been issued, such as the 2015 Caribbean Border Counternarcotics Strategy. According to officials from the National Guard Bureau, DOD’s 2011 counternarcotics strategy only addresses the National Guard counterdrug program in a limited capacity and therefore they are challenged to provide strategic direction to the state counterdrug programs. DOD’s 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy states that officials will ensure that the strategy remains consistent with and integrates key DOD and executive branch strategies, such as National Drug Control Strategy. It also states that, given the dynamic environment within which the challenges related to the flow and impact of illegal drugs exist, the strategy is meant to be a living document, to be modified regularly. However, officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats acknowledged that they have not regularly modified the strategy and that the security environment has changed. These officials stated that they have been in the process of developing an updated Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy with revised strategic goals and objectives since 2013, but the document has not been signed and released by the Secretary of Defense. DOD officials stated that after the 2018 National Defense Strategy was issued, they delayed the release of an updated Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy in order to ensure alignment between the two documents. However, according to DOD officials, the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which was issued in January 2018, did not address DOD counternarcotics efforts as they had anticipated, requiring them to reconsider their approach. Officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats stated that they now plan to issue a strategic framework, which would allow them to respond to changes in the security environment more quickly because updates to the framework would not require Secretary of Defense approval, as is the case with a DOD strategy. However, they stated that they are now waiting for the release of a new National Drug Control Strategy before issuing the framework. Officials with the Office of National Drug Control Policy stated that, while they have drafted a new National Drug Control Strategy, they have not committed to an issuance date and are waiting for their new director to be confirmed by the Senate before proceeding with reviewing and issuing the draft. However, a substantial amount of time has lapsed since DOD’s counternarcotics strategy was last issued—over 7 years— and there have been significant developments during that time in the nature of the drug threats facing the United States. DOD officials acknowledged that because the process to update its strategic framework requires less review than a full strategy, DOD could quickly update it, if necessary, to ensure that it aligns with a new National Drug Control Strategy once one is released. Without a DOD counternarcotics and global threats strategic framework that reflects DOD’s current strategic priorities and drug threats, the National Guard counterdrug program risks focusing activities and resources in areas that are less imperative to address than others and that do not counter current drug threats. The National Guard Bureau had guidance—National Guard Regulation 500-2—that prescribed policies, procedures, and responsibilities for the National Guard counterdrug program, but it was rescinded in September 2014 by Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01 to conform with new National Guard publications guidance, according to National Guard Bureau officials. Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01A, which replaced Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01 in June 2015, establishes policies and assigns responsibilities for the National Guard counterdrug program, but it does not provide detailed procedures and processes that states can use to implement these policies. For example, National Guard Regulation 500-2 provided information on how states should operate and administer the National Guard counterdrug program, including how to perform counterdrug financial management, acquisition and logistics management, personnel and administration, records and reports, and operate the counterdrug schools. Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01A does not provide these types of instructions. State counterdrug program officials we interviewed stated that without the detailed procedures and processes included in National Guard Regulation 500-2, they have no administrative guidance regarding hiring, retirement, budgeting, and planning for their counterdrug programs. Additionally, National Guard Bureau officials stated that they do not have procedures and processes instructing states on how to provide cross-state support. For example, there are currently no guidelines on how a state that can perform aerial reconnaissance activities could provide these resources to another state upon request. National Guard Bureau officials told us they should have guidelines to facilitate cross-state support. Table 3 provides an overview of National Guard Bureau publications. To help implement policy established by Chief National Guard Bureau instructions, the National Guard Bureau can issue more detailed guidance on the corresponding procedures and processes in the form of a Chief National Guard Bureau Manual. Additionally, Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01A, National Guard Counterdrug Support, assigns the Director of National Guard Domestic Operations and Force Development the responsibility to publish supporting documents to implement the instruction and counterdrug program when required. However, the National Guard Bureau officials acknowledge that they have not issued a manual that provides detailed procedures and processes to implement National Guard counterdrug program policies since the prior operating guidance in the National Guard regulation was rescinded in September 2014. National Guard Bureau officials stated that they intended to publish a Chief National Guard Bureau Manual in September 2014, concurrent with Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01, which would have provided additional operating guidance for administering and operating the counterdrug program. However, according to National Guard officials, issuance of the manual was delayed because of disagreements among National Guard Bureau officials about its content. Specifically, some National Guard Bureau officials stated that the draft manual was too focused on support for Title 10 activities and did not adequately address Title 32 support, which reflects the bulk of the activities conducted by the program. National Guard Bureau officials stated that they intended to re- issue National Guard Regulation 500-2 as interim guidance until they completed the Chief National Guard Bureau Manual; however, they have yet to do so because they have been focused on other efforts. National Guard Bureau officials stated that they have now worked with state counterdrug program officials to more adequately address Title 32 support activities and intend to publish a Chief National Guard Bureau Manual in June 2019. The draft manual is in the beginning of the review process. However, the National Guard Bureau will not have guidance to operate the counterdrug program until at least June 2019. Without interim guidance that provides detailed procedures and processes for the National Guard counterdrug program, such as reissuing National Guard Regulation 500-2, states will continue to be left without clear instructions on how to operate and administer the program, such as how and when to provide support across state lines and to interagency partners. The federal government has operated under a continuing resolution for 36 of the last 40 years. National Guard counterdrug program officials stated that they have experienced program disruptions during these periods. The disruptions described by the officials are similar to the problems that other programs experience during continuing resolutions. For example, National Guard Bureau officials stated that continuing resolutions have created challenges for the National Guard counterdrug program in fully obligating its funds. DOD data show that the program obligated 84 and 82 percent of total budget authority amounts in fiscal year 2011 and 2013 respectively, although the gap between total budget authority amounts and obligations has decreased since then. According to National Guard officials, the differences over the years between the amounts obligated and total budget authority amounts were partly due to the timing and amount of funding received by the program. Specifically, they stated that it is difficult to fully obligate funds when DOD provides them with a significant portion of their funding close to the end of the fiscal year. Remaining unobligated amounts are transferred back to DOD’s Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account. Figure 3 details the counterdrug program’s obligations from fiscal years 2010 through 2017. State counterdrug program officials stated that the timing of DOD’s distribution of funds also creates program execution challenges. For example, state counterdrug program officials stated that prior to fiscal year 2017, they began each year with a minimal number of personnel performing state drug interdiction and counterdrug activities until DOD provided more funding to the program after the enactment of the appropriation for the remainder of the fiscal year. Thereafter, state program officials stated that they increased the number of National Guard personnel supporting National Guard counterdrug program activities. However, state program officials said that after the appropriation expired at the end of each fiscal year, they were once again forced to reduce the number of personnel performing state drug interdiction and counterdrug activities until the enactment of another final appropriation was passed. Figure 4 provides a summary of the number of National Guard personnel performing state drug interdiction and counterdrug activities by month during fiscal years 2012 through 2017. According to state counterdrug program officials, the majority of funds provided after a final appropriation is passed fund temporary personnel and seasonal work, rather than analysis support activities deemed a priority for the National Guard counterdrug program by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats. State counterdrug program officials stated that this is because they cannot hire, train, and integrate personnel on a full-time basis and that law enforcement agencies are looking more for long-term, rather than temporary support. State counterdrug officials told us that as a result of the funding uncertainty they experience significant fluctuations in the number of personnel performing state drug interdiction and counterdrug activities and that they are challenged in obtaining and retaining highly qualified National Guard personnel. Additionally, state counterdrug program officials stated that withdrawing National Guard personnel from partner organizations after appropriations expire can severely affect their operations and diminish trust between counterdrug programs and law enforcement partners. According to National Guard Bureau officials, the National Guard Bureau revised its process for funding the National Guard counterdrug program in fiscal year 2017 to try to mitigate the effects of DOD’s process for providing funds under continuing resolutions on the program. Specifically, the National Guard Bureau worked with the Army and Air National Guard budget execution offices to establish a process to expedite funding made available to the state-level counterdrug programs. Under the revised process, the Army and Air National Guard budget execution offices reprogram available amounts from other programmatic activities, such as funds for annual training, to the counterdrug program earlier in the fiscal year. According to Army and Air National Guard budget execution officials, amounts provided through reprogramming are based on a number of factors, including prior years’ appropriations for the program, execution levels, current-year appropriations and congressional directions, and an assessment of risk to the other activities. The National Guard Bureau and state counterdrug program officials stated that this revised funding process has helped mitigate challenges arising from uncertainty of when and how much funding would be provided to the states. For example, state counterdrug program officials said that in fiscal year 2017, the funding process enabled them to retain more personnel on orders and decrease the amount of funds that went unspent. The total number of personnel assigned to the National Guard counterdrug program at the beginning of fiscal year 2018 was approximately 2,250. Conversely, the program began fiscal year 2016 with approximately 1,350 personnel on orders. In addition, program officials stated that the process to provide funding earlier in the fiscal year helped them to obligate almost 97 percent of the total budget authority in fiscal year 2017, a higher percentage compared to many of the previous fiscal years. National Guard officials stated that while reprogramming amounts from other programmatic activities has helped to address the fiscal challenges of the National Guard counterdrug program, they cannot provide assurance that this funding process will continue from year to year. However, National Guard Bureau officials have assessed the risks and believe this is the best solution available for funding the program during a continuing resolution until the enactment of the final appropriation. DOD has established a process for development and review of the state plans—an annual plan of each state’s counterdrug activities—to ensure that state counterdrug program activities reflect DOD’s counternarcotics strategic priorities. However, since at least 2009 DOD has not met the statutory requirement to examine the adequacy of state plans prior to distributing funding to state counterdrug programs. To develop the state plans, counterdrug coordinators in each state counterdrug program use guidance in annual memorandums issued by DOD. According to the guidance, the plans should identify the state’s counterdrug priorities and how each state counterdrug program intends to obligate its available funds. Counterdrug coordinators then work with their state’s Adjutant General, Attorney General, and Governor, who each review and sign them, before the plans are sent to the National Guard Bureau for further review. Once the National Guard Bureau reviews the plans, they are forwarded to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats. Officials from that office review the plans and make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense to approve or disapprove the plans. Based on these recommendations, the Secretary of Defense reviews the plans for adequacy, and when satisfied, signs a memorandum of agreement approving the plans. Figure 5 provides an outline of the process to approve state plans for their counterdrug activities. However, since at least 2009, DOD has provided funding to the state counterdrug programs prior to the Secretary of Defense approving states’ plans for their counterdrug activities, according to National Guard Bureau officials. This is inconsistent with section 112 of title 32 of the United States Code, which requires that before funds are provided to the Governor of a state for counterdrug activities and before members of the National Guard of that State are ordered to full-time National Guard duty, the Secretary of Defense must examine the adequacy of the plan submitted by the Governor. We found that that the delay in approval of states’ plans for their counterdrug activities has worsened since 2009, and in fiscal year 2018, approval took over 9 months (283 days) after funding was provided at the beginning of the fiscal year. Figure 6 provides information on the number of days between the beginning of the fiscal year, when states received funding, and when all plans were approved in fiscal years 2009 through 2018. Officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats and the National Guard Bureau stated that several factors have contributed to delays in the state plan approval process. First, officials stated that, prior to fiscal year 2016, the National Guard Bureau submitted state plans to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats signed by the Division Chief of the National Guard counterdrug program, a colonel in the Army or the Air Force. However, in fiscal year 2016, officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense found the Counterdrug Program Division Chief’s review and approval of the state plans to be insufficient because the approving official did not have the appropriate rank to approve state plans on behalf of the National Guard Bureau. As a result, officials from the National Guard Bureau elevated the level of approval within the National Guard Bureau to the National Guard Bureau Joint Staff Director of Domestic Operations and Force Development, a Major General in the Army National Guard or Air National Guard. Officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats stated that this resulted in an increase in the number of days that it took the National Guard Bureau to provide reviewed state plans. Officials stated that they are working to develop an updated timeline to address delays created by the approval process. Specifically, officials stated that they are working to submit the plans for review earlier in order to allow enough time to ensure that state plans are approved before funds are provided to state counterdrug programs. Second, officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats stated that their office required state plans to include information, such as narratives detailing states’ planned activities that were not critical to determining plans’ alignment with DOD priorities. In addition, officials stated that, over time, states had expanded the narratives in their plans, which increased the length of each submission. As a result of this required information, officials stated that the department’s review of state plans took longer than had the extra information not been included. Officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats stated they have reviewed the statutory requirements for the plans to identify which components are necessary and streamlined the format of the plans for use in fiscal year 2019. Third, officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats stated that in the past the Office of the Secretary of Defense would not accept state plans from the National Guard Bureau in batches, but instead insisted on receiving and reviewing them altogether, delaying the review process. These officials noted that they have since begun accepting state plans from National Guard Bureau in batches in order to speed up the approval process. On June 7, 2018, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats issued a memorandum to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau that required all states and territories to submit their plans, through National Guard Bureau and the Joint Staff, to his office no later than August 31, 2018. According to officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats, the state plans were to detail fiscal year 2019 National Guard counterdrug program activities and provide the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats additional time to review state plans prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. However, in October 2018, officials from the National Guard Bureau and the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats told us that none of the fiscal year 2019 plans had been approved prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, and that DOD had provided state counterdrug programs with funding for fiscal year 2019. As of mid-November, officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats told us that 39 of the 54 state plans had been approved. DOD has not assessed why the steps it took to improve the state plan review process did not result in timely approval of the state plans. GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government note that management should monitor activities and evaluate the results of programmatic changes. Assessing the revised process for reviewing states’ plans would enable DOD to determine what additional actions are needed to ensure the plans are approved by the Secretary of Defense before funding is provided to state counterdrug programs, as statutorily required by section 112 of title 32. We found that the National Guard Bureau’s funding distribution process does not consider DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities. For example, while DOD’s 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy prioritizes efforts on the southwest and northern borders, the National Guard Bureau’s funding distribution process does not specifically account for this. Rather than taking into account established DOD counternarcotics priorities to inform funding distribution, the National Guard Bureau uses survey results and statistics on drugs from a number of national-level databases to develop a distribution percentage for each state within its threat-based resource model that reflects its relative drug threat. Each state’s threat-based resource model percentage is then applied to the funding transferred to the National Guard Bureau from the Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account and disbursed to the 54 state programs. For example, Arizona’s threat percentage was determined to be 6.25 percent based on existing drug threats; as a result, Arizona received about $11.8 million in funding for state plans in fiscal year 2018. National Guard Bureau officials stated that while the threat-based resource model’s variables and the data that feed the model relate to DOD strategic counternarcotics priorities, they do not adjust the process to reflect these priorities when distributing funding. When we asked National Guard Bureau officials why its funding distribution process does not consider DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities, National Guard Bureau officials stated that they were focused on identifying variables and data sources within the threat-based resource model to reflect relative drug threats and did not consider incorporating DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities as part of the funding distribution process. Our work on results-oriented management states that strategy should inform program activities and resourcing. In addition, the National Guard Bureau reported that the goal of the threat- based resource model is to prioritize the most pressing threats from a national perspective, informed by current national and DOD counternarcotics strategies. Both the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats and National Guard Bureau officials stated that incorporating DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities into the National Guard Bureau’s funding distribution process would help ensure that DOD priorities are resourced. National Guard Bureau officials stated that they are considering how to align the funding distribution process with DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities. They added that the next time they could make changes to their funding distribution process would be for use in fiscal year 2020. Until the National Guard Bureau incorporates DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities into the funding distribution process, the National Guard Bureau risks directing funding toward lower priority counterdrug activities at the expense of higher priority activities. The National Guard counterdrug program was established nearly 30 years ago to assist efforts of the Governors of the 50 states, District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories in addressing illicit drug production, trade, and consumption. The drug threats facing the nation are complex and continue to evolve over time, and efforts to combat those threats will require continued support from DOD, to include the National Guard counterdrug program. DOD lacks current strategy and guidance for the National Guard counterdrug program. Although DOD has a counternarcotics and global threats strategy from 2011, it is outdated and does not reflect current drug threats or changes in national-level strategies, which are critical for informing DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities. Issuing a strategic framework will ensure that DOD’s counterdrug priorities are aligned with the priorities of other agencies involved in counternarcotics efforts, provide direction for DOD’s counternarcotics activities, and ensure that the National Guard counterdrug program addresses current drug threats. Further, the National Guard Bureau guidance to operate and administer the program was rescinded and has not been replaced, leaving state counterdrug programs officials without clear instructions on how to operate and administer program activities. Issuing interim guidance would provide detailed processes and procedures that states could use to operate their counterdrug programs. Without current strategy or guidance for the National Guard counterdrug program, it will be difficult for the program to operate effectively. In addition, it is important to ensure that funding is distributed to the state- level programs in support of DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities. Although the Secretary of Defense is statutorily responsible for reviewing the adequacy of states’ plans prior to providing funds to the states, these reviews have not occurred before state counterdrug programs received funding. Also, the National Guard Bureau has not incorporated DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities into its funding distribution process, which is instead wholly reliant on survey responses and drug data. While these are important factors to consider when distributing funding, incorporating DOD strategic counternarcotics priorities into the National Guard Bureau’s funding distribution process would better inform such decisions. Until DOD’s process to approve state plans and the National Guard Bureau’s process to distribute funding are improved, DOD may not be able to ensure that resources are applied to its strategic counternarcotics priorities. Taken together these actions should improve the Department’s oversight of the National Guard counterdrug program and help ensure that the program uses resources effectively and achieves positive results. We are making five recommendations to DOD. The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats issues its counternarcotics and global threats strategic framework that incorporates relevant national-level strategies and reflects current drug threats, and update it, as appropriate, upon issuance of the new National Drug Control Strategy. (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau issues interim guidance that provides detailed procedures and processes on how to operate and administer the National Guard counterdrug program. (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau take steps to ensure it issues a manual to accompany Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01A, National Guard Counterdrug Support, by June 2019. (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats, in coordination with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, assess the revised process for reviewing states’ plans for their counterdrug activities, and take actions based on the assessment to ensure the plans are approved by the Secretary of Defense before funding is provided to state counterdrug programs, as statutorily required. (Recommendation 4) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau incorporate the strategic counternarcotics priorities, to be outlined in DOD’s counternarcotics and global threats strategic framework, into the National Guard Bureau’s funding distribution process. (Recommendation 5) In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with all five of our recommendations and identified actions it plans to take to improve its oversight of the National Guard counterdrug program. DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix VI. DOD also provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which we incorporated as appropriate. For example, we adjusted the wording of our fifth recommendation, replacing threat-based resource model with funding distribution process, to reflect the department’s technical comment that it is unlikely that the National Guard Bureau would change the threat-based resource model, but rather add strategic priorities to the funding distribution process to meet the intent of our recommendation. We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees, the Acting Secretary of Defense, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2775 or fielde1@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VIII. Department of Defense (DOD) budgets for National Guard counterdrug program activities using 5 projects codes: 7403—State Plans—funds DOD support to U.S. State Governors in accordance with State requests in the form of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities plans submitted in accordance with 32 U.S.C. § 112(c). 7415—Counterdrug Schools—funds five National Guard Counterdrug Schools as authorized by §901 of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006, as amended, and as identified in plans submitted by host State Governors to the Secretary of Defense in accordance with 32 U.S.C. § 112(c). 9301—Counterthreat Finance—funded reserve military pay and associated support costs for National Guard personnel in support of State, Federal, and Combatant Command efforts to identify, target, and disrupt illicit financial systems that enable drug trafficking, and when vital to U.S. national security interests—terrorism and transnational organized crime. 1295—Linguist and Data Analysis—funds DOD support for combatant command and interagency law enforcement efforts to detect and disrupt transnational criminal organizations’ operations using linguistic and analytical skills of National Guard personnel. 9498—Linguist Support—funds language transcription, translation, and data analysis support to the U.S. Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration using Utah National Guard personnel. DOD’s budget request for the National Guard counterdrug program increased steadily from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2012, peaking at just more than $205 million. However, in fiscal year 2013 DOD’s budget request for the program decreased substantially and continued to decline through fiscal year 2017. The decrease in requested funding amounts for the program is primarily in the State Plans and Counterdrug Schools project codes. In fiscal year 2018, the budget request for the program increased slightly and included additional funding amounts within the State Plans and Counterdrug Schools project codes. Table 4 provides a summary of DOD’s budget request for the National Guard counterdrug program, by project code, in fiscal years 2004 through 2018. Since at least 2004, Congress has directed increases above DOD’s budget request level for the activities of the National Guard counterdrug program. Congressionally-directed increases have been directed to the State Plans and Counterdrug Schools project codes. Beginning in fiscal year 2013, congressionally-directed increases have generally made up half or more of the total funding appropriated to the National Guard counterdrug program. Table 5 provides a summary of congressionally- directed increases for the National Guard counterdrug program, by project code, in fiscal years 2004 through 2018. According to DOD’s data, total budget authority for the National Guard counterdrug program varied from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2017. Total budget authority may be above or below congressionally- enacted amounts because DOD can transfer or reprogram amounts into other authorized accounts and activities based on program requirements. Table 6 provides a summary of total budget authority for the National Guard counterdrug program, by project code, in fiscal years 2010 through 2017. According to DOD’s data, obligation amounts for the National Guard counterdrug program varied from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2017. According to National Guard officials, variation was partly due to the timing and amount of allocations received by the program. Funds transferred from the Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account to various other DOD drug interdiction accounts or programs, including the National Guard program, can be transferred back to the account upon a determination that all or part of the funds are not necessary and remain unobligated. Once funds are returned to the Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account, they are available for transfer to other DOD counterdrug programs for obligation. Table 7 details the counterdrug program’s obligations from fiscal years 2010 through 2017. As of fiscal year 2018, National Guard Bureau policy allows state counterdrug programs to perform 15 approved support activities grouped into five broad mission categories. The five mission categories are technical support (including linguist and translator, operational and investigative case and criminal analyst, and counterthreat finance support), general support (including domestic cannabis suppression and eradication operations and transportation support), reconnaissance and observation (including ground and aerial reconnaissance), civil operations and coalition development, and counterdrug training. Of the 15 approved support activities, the investigative case and analyst support activity was the most frequently provided activity; it accounted for 42 percent of all support provided in fiscal years 2011 to 2014. Among all of the supported organizations from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2014, law enforcement agencies received about 38 percent of all support provided by the National Guard counterdrug program. Table 8 lists the fiscal year 2018 approved state plan mission categories and support activities. After Congress appropriates amounts to the Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account, there are multiple steps performed by various organizations before counterdrug funds are provided to each individual state program. To begin the process to distribute funding, the Department of Defense (DOD) Counternarcotics and Global Threats program officials prepare and submit to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) a reprogramming action (DD1415-3), which details the allocation of funds by appropriation or budget activity account for each program they manage. DOD Comptroller officials review and approve the DD1415-3 and forward it to the Office of Management and Budget. Once approved by the Office of Management and Budget, the DOD Comptroller issues a funding authorization document to transfer funds to the military services appropriation accounts (such as military personnel or operation and maintenance). The military services then transfer funds to appropriation accounts managed by Army National Guard and Air National Guard, which, in turn, distribute the funds onto each state National Guard participating in the program. The National Guard Bureau’s Counterdrug Program office coordinates the process involving the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats, the Army and Air National Guard budget and financial management offices, and the individual state counterdrug programs. According to officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats, the process to complete the DD1415-3 takes 3 full weeks and then an additional 8 weeks, on average, for the funding to become available for state counterdrug programs. Figure 7 outlines the process to fund the National Guard counterdrug program. The National Guard Bureau’s threat-based resource model has been used since fiscal year 2012 to help determine funding distribution percentages for the state counterdrug programs. Between fiscal years 2013 and 2015, National Guard Bureau officials stated that they determined planned funding amounts based on a combination of historical funding levels and threat-based resource model threat percentages. According to officials, beginning in fiscal year 2016, funding aligned more closely with threat-based resource model threat percentages. However, National Guard Bureau officials stated that funding distribution percentages from the threat-based resource model were deemed unusable in fiscal year 2017 due to concerns they had with the amount of reporting and the quality of the data that was reported. As a result, officials stated that the fiscal year 2016 threat-based resource model funding percentages were used to distribute fiscal year 2017 funding to state programs while National Guard Bureau officials revised the model for use in fiscal year 2018. Updates to the model included expanding the number of variables to better respond to changes in drug threats, adjusting the model so that it did not treat all drug seizure incidents and amounts equally, and increasing the number of data sources. Table 10 provides threat-based resource model percentages and table 11 funding amounts, by state, for fiscal years 2012 through 2018. In October 2015, GAO issued a report on the National Guard counterdrug program titled Drug Control: Additional Performance Information Is Needed to Oversee the National Guard’s State Counterdrug Program. In that report, we made two recommendations aimed at ensuring that resources are being efficiently applied to meet the National Guard counterdrug program’s objectives. Table 12 provides an update on the status of the recommendations from that report. In addition to the contact named above, Rich Geiger (Assistant Director), Joy Booth, Carol Henn, Jesse T. Jordan, Amie M. Lesser, Shari Nikoo, Tobin J. McMurdie, Carol D. Petersen, Clarice Ransom, Michael D. Silver, Alexandra L. Stewart, and Sarah B. Warmbein, made key contributions to this report.

Summary: Since 1989, DOD has received billions of dollars to fund the National Guard's participation in a counterdrug program focused on domestic drug interdiction activities. DOD received $261 million for this program in fiscal year 2018. This program provides military support to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement organizations with counterdrug activities and operates in 54 states and territories across the United States. Senate Report 115-125 included a provision for GAO to evaluate the National Guard counterdrug program. This report (1) evaluates the extent to which DOD has strategy and implementing guidance for the National Guard counterdrug program, and (2) assesses DOD's processes to approve states' counterdrug plans and distribute funding to the program, among other things. GAO reviewed DOD's counterdrug strategy and guidance; DOD funding and personnel data; and its processes to distribute funding. The Department of Defense (DOD) lacks current strategy and guidance to implement the National Guard counterdrug program. Although a number of key national-level strategies, such as the National Drug Control Strategy, have been updated since 2011 to address changing drug threats, GAO found that DOD's 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy has not been updated to reflect these changes. In addition, the National Guard lacks detailed procedures and processes for the states to implement the National Guard counterdrug program, such as how to conduct cross-state aerial reconnaissance. Without current strategy or guidance, it will be difficult for the National Guard to operate its counterdrug program effectively. DOD's processes to approve state counterdrug plans and distribute funding to the state-level counterdrug programs could be improved. Since at least 2009, DOD has provided funding to the states without first approving state plans for counterdrug activities, as required by statute. GAO found that the delay in approval of state counterdrug plans has worsened since fiscal year 2009; in fiscal year 2018, approval took over 9 months (283 days); see figure below. In 2018, DOD took some steps to address the timely review of state plans, but GAO found that those steps did not rectify the problem. GAO also found that the process used by the National Guard to distribute funding to the states within the program does not incorporate DOD's strategic counternarcotics priorities, such as the U.S. southwest and northern border areas. GAO's work on results-oriented management states that strategy should inform program activities and resourcing. Until National Guard's process to distribute funding to state counterdrug programs is improved, it risks directing funding toward lower priority counterdrug activities at the expense of higher priority activities. GAO is making a total of five recommendations, including, among others, that DOD issue a strategic framework that addresses current drug threats, the National Guard issue guidance with detailed procedures on how states should administer the program, DOD assess the revised process for approving state plans, and the National Guard incorporate DOD's strategic counternarcotics priorities into its funding distribution process. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations.