The State Partnership Program grew from the former Joint Contact Team Program, a program comprised of active component personnel that sought to establish professional contacts between the U.S. military and the militaries of newly independent nations of the former Soviet Union. The Joint Contact Team Program was intended to promote subordination to civilian leadership, respect for human rights, and a defensively oriented military posture. In 1993, the National Guard Bureau was integrated into the Joint Contact Team Program to initiate the first state partnerships, as it was believed that Russia would find the National Guard less provocative than a U.S. active duty full-time military presence. The program has since expanded to 63 partnerships covering all combatant commands, with nearly all state National Guards participating. Figure 1 illustrates the number of partner country relationships within each combatant command. Both the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report and the 2011 National Military Strategy of the United States of America identify security cooperation and building partner capacity as priorities in multiple regions, including the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. In addition, both documents emphasize the need to strengthen and expand the United States’ network of international partnerships to enhance security, and the National Military Strategy instructs the combatant commands, among others, to partner with other agencies to pursue theater security cooperation. As such, the State Partnership Program acts as a force enabler for the combatant commands, and State Partnership Program activities are part of the combatant commands’ theater security cooperation plans. State Partnership Program activities are to be approved by the combatant commands, as well as the U.S. ambassador in their respective partner nations, before they can be executed. Any nation requesting a state partnership sends its official request to its respective U.S. ambassador. Once the partnership is endorsed, the request is forwarded to the appropriate combatant command. If the combatant command finds that the partnership meets strategic objectives and priorities, the combatant command sends the request to the National Guard Bureau. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau reviews the request to determine the viability of the partnership. If the Chief accepts the request, he or she notifies the combatant command and solicits proposals from the adjutants general of the state Guards. State Guard proposals include a statement of intent; background on the state Guard and its capabilities; proposed areas of military engagement with the partner nation; potential benefits to both the state Guard and partner nation; discussion of historical, cultural, and academic similarities between the state and the partner nation; and any documentation supporting the state Guard’s nomination. The proposals go through three levels of review within DOD, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau forwards a recommended nominee to the combatant command and the partner country’s U.S. embassy for final approval. Figure 2 illustrates the request and approval process. State Partnership Program stakeholders, including State Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, and combatant command officials, cited benefits of the program, but the program lacks clear goals, objectives, and performance metrics. Without a comprehensive oversight framework for defining and measuring progress, DOD cannot fully assess whether the program is an effective and efficient use of resources. State Partnership Program Coordinators provided examples of how the program benefits their states and their National Guard units, including providing experience and training for guardsmen and developing relationships between the state and the partner country. For example, 39 of the 50 State Partnership Program Coordinators who responded to our questions reported that the State Partnership Program provides experience to participating guardsmen. In another instance, one State Partnership Program Coordinator reported that by demonstrating medical techniques to partner country participants, the guardsmen simultaneously gain direct experience performing those techniques. Three State Partnership Program Coordinators specifically noted that the program allows participants to deploy and complete realistic military training outside a warzone. In addition, 17 State Partnership Program Coordinators noted the value of the State Partnership Program in providing a mechanism for developing relationships between the state Guard units and the partner countries. Another State Partnership Program Coordinator noted that establishing such relationships improves long-term international security, and several State Partnership Program Coordinators noted that the relationships fostered by the program were instrumental in the partner countries’ deployments to Afghanistan or Iraq. All six combatant commands and all 23 Bilateral Affairs Officers who responded to our questions reported that the State Partnership Program supports their missions and objectives, including promoting stability and security cooperation and assisting with building partner capacity. For example, one Bilateral Affairs Officer reported that a State Partnership Program activity on women’s leadership in the military met the geographic combatant command’s objective of building partner capacity, as well as U.S. country team objectives to advance human rights, advance public diplomacy, and strengthen regional security capabilities. The activity covered deployment preparations, leadership development, and sexual assault prevention. Three of the six combatant commands specifically noted that the National Guard units are uniquely suited to assist the combatant command in building the capacity of partner countries as a result of their civilian and military experiences. For example, in one combatant command, State Partnership Program activities were used to support combatant command objectives by providing subject matter expertise to Royal Bahamas Police Force Drug Enforcement Unit officers in the field of combat trauma care. Thirteen Bilateral Affairs Officers also cited the benefit of the State Partnership Program’s ability to develop and maintain relationships between the state Guard units and the partner countries. For example, one Bilateral Affairs Officer stated that the relationship between one state Guard unit and its partner country was leveraged to assist the country in making progress toward the country team’s goal of anchoring the country in European and Euro-Atlantic institutions. The partner country was originally reluctant to accept assistance with military personnel management due to cultural sensitivities, but based on the established relationship, the state Guard unit was granted full access and made suggestions that were implemented by the partner country. Table 1 summarizes the key benefits of the program as described by State Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, and officials from the combatant commands. In addition, European Command’s combatant commander testified to Congress in February 2012 that the State Partnership Program develops important strategic relationships that benefit ongoing military activities. The European Command indicated in written responses to our questions that this program helps maintain access to partner countries’ leadership and is vital to defense institution building. Similarly, the National Guard Bureau describes the State Partnership Program as fitting within the building partner capacity portfolio of DOD, and views the program as an integral component of DOD’s global security cooperation strategy that can contribute to enhanced security. Further, it sees the program as integral to the combatant commands’ theater engagement plans and the U.S. Ambassadors’ Mission Strategic Resource Plans. Moreover, the National Guard Bureau told us that it found that the State Partnership Program is valuable to U.S. ambassadors. In October 2010, the National Guard Bureau, in conjunction with the Department of State, surveyed the ambassadors of U.S. embassies with State Partnership Program partnerships as part of an effort to conduct a strategic review of the program. Forty-one of the 62 ambassadors surveyed provided responses, and 40 of the respondents agreed that the State Partnership Program is a valuable tool in advancing their mission goals and objectives. Respondents noted that the activities and relationships developed by the program—fostering activities to support joint military exercises and deployments, providing support for international peacekeeping operations, and embedding training teams—promote overall national security and strategic interests. Thirty-nine ambassadors agreed that there are mechanisms to ensure that activities are properly integrated with U.S. country team priorities. Despite considerable anecdotal evidence from many State Partnership Program stakeholders about the program’s benefits, we were unable to comprehensively assess the State Partnership Program because the National Guard Bureau has not updated its program goals or objectives to match the program’s current operations. The National Guard Bureau developed goals and objectives for the program in 2007, but officials told us that these goals and objectives need to be updated to reflect the program as it currently operates. The previous goals and supporting objectives were broadly stated and reflected the desire to build partner capacity, but did little to clarify the specific goals for the State Partnership Program. We have previously reported that achieving results in government requires a comprehensive oversight framework that includes clear goals, measurable objectives, and metrics for assessing progress.Officials stated that they recognize the need to update program goals and objectives to more accurately reflect the current environment and the focus on military-to-military activities, and reported that they have initiated such efforts and expect the new goals and objectives to be finalized by July 2012. Officials also indicated that the new program goals and objectives will be more closely aligned with the combatant commands’ strategic goals and objectives. National Guard Bureau officials also acknowledged that once they update program goals and objectives, they will need to develop metrics to measure results of the program. However, they indicated that due to the relationship-building nature of the program, it is difficult to establish appropriate metrics that capture the effects of the program. As we have previously reported, performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments, focused on regularly collected data on the level and type of program activities, direct products and services delivered by the program, and the results of those activities. As we have previously reported, it is sometimes difficult to establish performance measures for outcomes that are not readily observable and that in those cases, more in-depth program evaluation may be needed in addition to performance measures. Program evaluations are systematic studies conducted periodically that examine programs in-depth and include context in order to examine the extent to which a program is meeting its objectives. The RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that conducts public policy research, has reported on performance measures that programs like the State Partnership Program, which engage in building partner capacity and other security cooperation activities, can use to demonstrate results. Further, other federal agencies engaged in security cooperation activities use program evaluations in addition to performance measures.