DOD has used the Global Train and Equip program (“the program”), originally authorized under Section 1206 of the fiscal year 2006 NDAA and amended several times thereafter, to build the capacity of foreign military forces to conduct counterterrorism operations through the provision of training, equipment, and small-scale military construction activities. The fiscal year 2015 NDAA permanently authorized the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to conduct programs to (1) build the capacity of a foreign country’s national military forces to conduct counterterrorism operations or participate in or support ongoing allied or coalition military or stability operations that benefit the national security interests of the United States, (2) build the capacity of a foreign country’s national maritime or border security forces to conduct counterterrorism operations, and (3) build the capacity of a foreign country’s national-level security forces that have among their functional responsibilities a counterterrorism mission in order for such forces to conduct counterterrorism operations. Presidential Policy Directive 23 on Security Sector Assistance, published in April 2013, was developed to strengthen the ability of the United States to help allied and partner nations build their own security capacity. The document identified principal goals of and guidelines for security sector assistance that highlight the importance of including the following elements in project design and execution: identifying objectives that address partner nation needs; considering partner nation absorptive capacity; integrating assessment, monitoring, and evaluation to provide policymakers, program managers, and implementers with information and evidence necessary to make effective decisions and maximize program outcomes; and anticipating sustainment needs. DOD’s interagency process for developing and reviewing project proposals, described in figure 1 below, incorporates these key elements. DOD’s Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC) is responsible for providing policy guidance and oversight of the Global Train and Equip program. During the reporting period covered by this review, SO/LIC coordinated with State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and other stakeholders in an interagency process to solicit project proposals annually, in accordance with guidelines and project proposal instructions that DOD revises each year to reflect lessons learned, congressional concerns, and other considerations. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework of this process, which included developing, reviewing, and selecting project proposals; notifying Congress; implementing and delivering assistance; and assessing project results. In practice, different elements of the proposal development, review, selection, and notification process occurred simultaneously as proposal submission and review occurred on a rolling basis and agency-approved projects were notified to Congress in multiple groups throughout each fiscal year. DOD and State officials reviewed proposals—approved by the geographic combatant command and ambassador or chief of mission—and selected projects to recommend to the Secretaries of Defense and State. Following approval by the Secretary of Defense, with concurrence from the Secretary of State, DOD prepared and submitted congressional notifications for each project it intended to fund through the program. These notifications summarized project information such as objectives, the absorptive capacity of the recipient unit, baseline capabilities of the recipient unit, and arrangements for the project’s sustainment. Congressional notifications were submitted for each project to the appropriate congressional committees at least 15 days before initiation of activities. According to DOD, project implementation did not begin immediately following the 15-day notification period if additional time was needed to provide congressional briefings and ensure that the congressional committees agreed with proposed activities. Following congressional notification, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency assumed responsibility for overseeing the obligation of funds for training and equipment procurement before the end of the relevant fiscal year, while security assistance officers at U.S. embassies were responsible for coordinating in-country project implementation. Finally, DOD planned to conduct assessments of selected projects 6 to 18 months after the delivery of major project components, to evaluate the extent to which U.S. assistance had contributed to building recipient unit capabilities. Allocations for activities to be implemented under the Global Train and Equip authority increased from an average of about $275 million in fiscal years 2009 through 2014 to $675 million in fiscal year 2015, as shown in figure 2. Allocations for fiscal year 2015 significantly increased with the creation of two funding transfer accounts: the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF) and European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), both of which were authorized to fund Global Train and Equip projects. The CTPF is authorized to provide assistance to foreign security forces to conduct, support, or facilitate counterterrorism and crisis response activities, and to improve the capacity of the U.S. military to provide enabling support to counterterrorism and crisis response activities undertaken by foreign security forces. Congress appropriated $1.3 billion and $1.1 billion for the CTPF in fiscal years 2015 and 2016, respectively. ERI funds were appropriated, in part, to provide training, equipment, logistical supplies, and other services to Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Funds were transferred from both the CTPF and ERI accounts to be obligated for fiscal year 2015 projects. As seen in figure 3, $272 million of the $675 million, or 40 percent, of funding for fiscal year 2015 was allocated to projects for partner nations in Africa. For more information regarding the distribution of fiscal year 2015 Global Train and Equip assistance, see appendix II. As of the end of fiscal year 2015, DOD had no unobligated balances for fiscal year 2009 through 2015 funds and had disbursed the majority of funds obligated in fiscal years 2009 through 2012, as detailed in table 1. DOD has disbursed 10 percent of the funds obligated in fiscal year 2015 and has until the end of fiscal year 2020 to complete disbursement of those funds. DOD and State considered four key project planning elements called for by Presidential Policy Directive 23 on Security Sector Assistance (PPD 23) for fiscal year 2015 Global Train and Equip projects, but did not consistently document the consideration of those elements in proposal packages. PPD 23 states that U.S. agencies should target security sector assistance where it can be effective. To accomplish this goal, it identified key project planning elements to consider, including (1) project objectives that address partner nation needs, (2) partner nation absorptive capacity, (3) project assessments, and (4) project sustainment. While officials indicated that they considered each element, DOD consistently documented consideration for only one of those elements: project objectives. As seen in figure 4, documentation was incomplete for absorptive capacity, project baseline assessments, and project sustainment, despite officials’ indications that such factors were consistently considered during proposal development. According to agency officials, DOD and State consistently considered four key security assistance elements for all fiscal year 2015 project proposals we reviewed. PPD 23 identified key project planning elements for the United States to consider, including project objectives, absorptive capacity, baseline assessments, and sustainment plans. SO/LIC officials said that all four elements were discussed by program stakeholders, including global combatant command and State officials, during the proposal review process, prior to project approval by the Secretary of Defense with concurrence from the Secretary of State. For example, SO/LIC officials told us that absorptive capacity is consistently discussed among stakeholders during the proposal review process. Specifically, they noted that combatant command officials reported on the absorptive capacity of the recipient units during the project review process but noted that the SO/LIC policy oversight office lacked the resources to independently confirm the information. Combatant command officials confirmed that they consider elements such as absorptive capacity in developing project proposal packages. For example, officials from the U.S. European Command explained that absorptive capacity is one topic that they address in planning discussions with host nation officials. Officials from the U.S. Pacific Command noted that they have a well- established understanding of potential recipient unit absorptive capacity based on the persistent relationship between partner nation officials and U.S. officials imbedded with those units. Further, U.S. embassy officials who help draft project proposals also noted they can inform the consideration of potential recipient unit absorptive capacity, in part by considering the historic ability of potential recipient units to absorb previous assistance. DOD officials also told us that they consistently considered sustainment for fiscal year 2015 projects and State officials noted that they discuss project sustainment during proposal review and sometimes identify additional potential sources of sustainment funds for proposed projects. In addition, as a standard part of its proposal development process, DOD includes 2 years of spare parts to enable short-term sustainment, such as equipment maintenance, associated with program assistance. For example, in April 2015, we reported that project proposal templates since fiscal year 2011 indicated that each project should contain spare parts for 2 years of maintenance, and that proposal packages for fiscal year 2011 through 2014 projects for Yemen consistently included such spare parts. In addition, officials from SO/LIC, State, and DOD’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency told us that each project includes such short-term maintenance support. Congressional notifications for agency-approved fiscal year 2015 projects, prepared subsequent to approval by the Secretary of Defense and concurrence by the Secretary of State, included information related to the four elements, as required, implying that those elements had been considered. The fiscal year 2015 NDAA requires congressional notifications for each project to include, among other requirements, information about project objectives; absorptive capacity; a framework to be used for project assessment; and arrangements, if any, for project sustainment. Congressional notifications for 41 agency-approved fiscal year 2015 projects were prepared following the passage of the fiscal year 2015 NDAA.