We provided a draft of this report to State, DOD, and USAID for review. None of the agencies provided formal comments. However, State provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretaries of State and Defense, and to the USAID Administrator. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8980 or courtsm@gao.gov, or the individual(s) listed at the end of each enclosure. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff members who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII. Background The Department of State’s (State) Bureau of Diplomatic Security (Diplomatic Security) manages much of the security-related funding within State’s Diplomatic and Consular Programs budget, the largest category of which comes from the Worldwide Security Protection account. Salaries for Diplomatic Security personnel are managed separately by State’s Bureau of Budget and Planning. Issue Total funding for Diplomatic Security operations was almost $4.8 billion in fiscal year 2016. Total funding for Diplomatic Security includes its bureau managed funds as well as other funding—such as personnel salaries— managed by other bureaus and offices but necessary for Diplomatic Security operations. Diplomatic Security’s bureau managed funds ($3.3 billion in fiscal year 2016) are composed of funds received through annual appropriations, fees collected through visa processing, reimbursements from other agencies, and appropriated funds carried over from prior fiscal years. These funds support regular, ongoing operations and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) for temporary, war-related operations. State directed an additional $1.5 billion to Diplomatic Security and its employees in 2016, through other bureaus and offices. Key Findings In fiscal year 2016, Diplomatic Security’s bureau managed funds totaled approximately $3.3 billion. Bureau managed funds have increased in response to multiple security incidents since the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. (Fig. 1 shows that Diplomatic Security’s bureau managed funds had tremendous growth from 1998 through 2016 in both real and nominal dollars.) F Figure 1: Historical Trend in Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security Managed Funds, 1998-2016 From 1995 to 1998, Diplomatic Security’s bureau managed funds averaged about $173 million annually. After the 1998 bombings in Africa, bureau managed funds grew to $784 million in 1999 as Congress provided Diplomatic Security with emergency supplemental funding to address security vulnerabilities at posts worldwide. By fiscal year 2009, bureau managed funds had grown to about $2.0 billion, largely due to new security procedures put in place after 1998 as well as the need to provide security for diplomats in the conflict zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bureau managed funds increased in 2010 to $2.7 billion and in 2012 to $3.3 billion, as the U.S. military began to withdraw from Iraq and Diplomatic Security assumed many of the protective and security functions previously provided by the U.S. military in that country. Congress appropriated less funding in 2013 to the Worldwide Security Protection account because, according to Diplomatic Security, appropriated funds were carried over from prior years. The subsequent increases in funding for that account in 2014 through 2016 followed the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya. Since 2012, OCO supplemental funding has made up 34-62 percent of Diplomatic Security’s bureau managed funds. For example, in fiscal year 2016, OCO funding totaled over $2.0 billion—or 62 percent—of bureau managed funds for that year. According to a bureau official, State’s OCO funding was intended to be temporary funding to support operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan but continues to exist, given the security situation in those countries, and has expanded beyond those three countries. Some State officials are concerned that if OCO is discontinued, State would not have sufficient funding to provide necessary security services. For fiscal year 2018, the administration is requesting less OCO funding than the final appropriated amount for fiscal year 2017. Funding for Diplomatic Security operations totaled almost $4.8 billion in fiscal year 2016. This amount includes both bureau managed funds— which were almost $3.3 billion—and other funding directed to Diplomatic Security and its employees but managed by other bureaus and offices within State (personnel salaries, Antiterrorism Assistance funding, guard services funding, and fraud prevention and detection fees), which totaled almost $1.5 billion. For example, State’s Bureau of Budget and Planning manages the salaries of Diplomatic Security personnel. Funding for Diplomatic Security personnel increased from $12 million in 2000 to $419 million in 2016. In addition, State allocates funding to its Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations for security construction at overseas facilities. Point of Contact For more information, contact: Michael J. Courts, (202) 512- 8980, courtsm@gao.gov 1. What impact has Diplomatic Security’s increased funding had on its ability to carry out its mission? Are current funding levels sufficient? 2. What are State’s plans for utilizing future Diplomatic Security funding? Will there be additional carryover funds in future years, as in 2013? Background The Department of State’s (State) Bureau of Diplomatic Security (Diplomatic Security), which is responsible for the protection of State’s people, property, and information, relies on a broad workforce to carry out its mission and activities. Its workforce includes direct-hire personnel, military support, and contractors. Posts also engage locally employed staff. Issue Over the last 2 decades, Diplomatic Security’s mission and activities have expanded in response to a number of security incidents, which has led to a dramatic increase in the size of its workforce. The growth in its responsibilities overseas began with the 1998 attacks in Africa and continued with the U.S. policy of maintaining a diplomatic presence in war zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq and other increasingly hostile environments. In addition, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks underscored the importance of enhancing domestic security, including Diplomatic Security’s investigative capacity, technical programs, and counterintelligence work. This sustained and at times rapid growth has taxed Diplomatic Security’s ability to staff positions with the appropriate level of experience and skills. Key Findings Diplomatic Security’s workforce—numbering over 51,000 direct-hire, other U.S. government, and contract personnel as of May 2017—has experienced continued growth in almost all staffing categories. We previously reported in 2009 that Diplomatic Security’s direct-hire work force doubled from 1998 to 2008. Since then, it has increased by another 36 percent to 3,488 personnel in 2017. If State’s current hiring freeze is lifted, Diplomatic Security officials told us that they plan to hire an additional 384 special agents in 2017 through 2018. The number of other U.S. government personnel reporting to Diplomatic Security increased by 60 percent, driven largely by the expansion of the Marine Security Guard program after the 2012 Benghazi attacks. Diplomatic Security increased its contracted and support staff by 22 percent. (Table 1 provides information on the increases in Diplomatic Security staff from 2008 through 2017; see app. IV for further staffing details.) In response to a Benghazi Accountability Review Board recommendation, State established a panel to reexamine Diplomatic Security’s organization and management. In 2013, the panel reported that, in part, Diplomatic Security had become more focused on its law enforcement and personnel protection functions. This was not surprising, according to the panel, given that Diplomatic Security provided security in two war zones and numerous other high-threat posts. Simultaneously, Diplomatic Security had experienced an increased demand on its domestic criminal investigative and dignitary protection programs. Nonetheless, the panel noted that Diplomatic Security’s primary mission is “to provide a secure environment for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy” and stated that Diplomatic Security should reflect this priority in its allocation of manpower and other resources. For example, the panel recommended that Diplomatic Security review personnel allocations both domestically and abroad. As of June 2017, Diplomatic Security had completed an initial classified review of its staffing and begun a follow- on study to (1) determine how Diplomatic Security has distributed its staff relative to its priorities; and (2) develop a methodology to assess the quantity, mix, and distribution of Diplomatic Security staff worldwide. According to Diplomatic Security, the second study is expected to result in two tools that Diplomatic Security can use for evaluating its staffing levels: one for domestic staffing and one for overseas staffing. In fiscal year 2010, we reported that 34 percent of Diplomatic Security’s positions were filled with officers below the position’s grade. In 2013, the organization and management panel noted that many Diplomatic Security regional director positions were filled by officers holding ranks below the levels established for that position (not including agents posted to Baghdad, Iraq). The panel recommended that Diplomatic Security prioritize filling these positions with at-grade personnel. While State concurred, as of June 2017, it had not identified any new, concrete actions for implementing this recommendation. Instead, State noted that it “will continue to make every effort to place at-grade, experienced, and highly qualified individuals into these positions.” As of December 2016, Diplomatic Security had 422 staffed language- designated positions (LDP), of which 304—or 72 percent—were filled with special agents who met the language requirement.