The countries of the Caribbean are diverse in size, culture, and level of development, and face various interrelated economic and security challenges. According to a recent International Monetary Fund report, Caribbean countries have recently fallen into a pattern of low growth and high debt, and those with tourism-intensive economies are characterized by high rates of unemployment. They have endured frequent natural disasters that reduced economic output and imposed reconstruction costs, as well as deep macroeconomic, financial, and structural challenges that have resulted in lower-than anticipated rates of economic growth, according to the same report. Recent reports emphasize that crime and violence in the Caribbean have inflicted widespread costs, generating a climate of fear for citizens and diminishing economic growth. These reports note that Caribbean countries have some of the highest per-capita murder rates in the world, with assault rates that are significantly above the world average, and high crime rates have stretched the capacity of their criminal justice systems, which are small and largely characterized as weak and ineffective. Because of their location between drug production sources in South America and consumer markets in North America and Europe, Caribbean countries have become a major transit zone for illicit drugs, particularly drugs destined for the United States. With long coastlines that are difficult to comprehensively patrol, and limited air and sea capabilities to support interdictions, the Caribbean countries often struggle to control territorial waters and stem the flow of drugs northwards. Over the years, the United States has created several initiatives to engage with the countries of the Caribbean Basin region to address economic and political issues. In May 2010, the United States, Caribbean Community member states, and the Dominican Republic formally launched CBSI to strengthen regional cooperation on security. At its inception in 2010, CBSI’s aim was to increase citizen safety through provision of U.S. foreign assistance to CBSI partner countries to reduce illicit trafficking, improve public safety and security, and promote social justice; these three “pillars” remain the overall goals of CBSI. There are thirteen CBSI partner countries—Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago (see fig. 1). The U.S. agencies and offices currently funding CBSI activities are State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM), and USAID (see fig. 2). State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) plays a coordinating role for CBSI. To implement CBSI activities, State and USAID partner with nongovernmental and multilateral organizations as well as other government agencies, such as DOD and the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Treasury. From fiscal years 2010 through 2018, U.S. agencies have allocated more than $560 million in funding for CBSI activities. Since fiscal year 2012, annual allocations have remained relatively constant, ranging between $56.6 million and $63.5 million. Of the 13 CBSI partner countries, U.S. agencies have provided the most CBSI funding to the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and the countries covered by the Eastern Caribbean embassy. State and USAID disbursed funds to support activities in partner countries that improve law enforcement and maritime interdiction capabilities, support activities to train and otherwise improve the capabilities of national security institutions, prevent crime and violence, and deter and detect border criminal activity. These activities are generally aligned with the three pillars of CBSI. From fiscal years 2010 through 2018, State and USAID allocated more than $560 million in funding for CBSI activities. Of that amount, U.S. agencies have disbursed or committed approximately $361 million for CBSI activities in the 13 CBSI partner countries and for region-wide activities. Funding for CBSI activities comes from a combination of U.S. foreign assistance accounts—mostly through INCLE, ESF, and FMF, with a small amount of funding provided through NADR and DA (see textbox). U.S. Foreign Assistance Accounts That Have Been Used to Fund Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) Activities International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE): The Department of State (State)’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) manages the INCLE account, which provides assistance to foreign countries and international organizations to develop and implement policies and programs that maintain the rule of law and strengthen institutional law enforcement and judicial capabilities, including countering drug flows and combatting transnational crime. Generally, INCLE funds are available for obligation for 2 fiscal years and must be disbursed within 5 years of the end of the period of availability for new obligations. Economic Support Fund (ESF): State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) share responsibility for managing the ESF account. For CBSI activities, it is primarily USAID who uses ESF funds to assist foreign countries in meeting their political, economic, and security needs. Generally, ESF funds are available for obligation for 2 fiscal years and must be disbursed within 5 years of the end of the period of availability for new obligations. Foreign Military Financing (FMF): State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs manages the FMF account, which provides grants and loans to foreign governments and international organizations for the acquisition of U.S. defense equipment, services, and training. The Department of Defense is the main implementer of this funding. Previous acts appropriating funds for FMF have generally provided that such funds are available for obligation for 1 year, and deem such funds to be obligated upon apportionment. Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR): State manages the NADR account, which funds contributions to organizations supporting nonproliferation and provides assistance to foreign countries for nonproliferation, antiterrorism, demining, export control assistance, and other related activities. Generally, NADR funds are available for obligation for 2 fiscal years and must be disbursed within 5 years of the end of the period of availability for new obligations. Development Assistance (DA): USAID manages the DA account, which responds to long-term challenges to human and economic security by funding activities in areas such as economic growth and education. Generally, DA funds are available for obligation for 2 fiscal years and must be disbursed within 5 years of the end of the period of availability for new obligations. Since 2012, allocations have remained relatively constant each year, ranging between $56.6 million and $63.5 million. Table 1 summarizes the INCLE, ESF, NADR, and DA allocations and disbursements and the FMF allocations and commitments by year of appropriation. Appendix II includes a breakdown of allocated, obligated, and disbursed funds for INCLE, ESF, NADR, and DA accounts; appendix III includes a breakdown of FMF funding that State has allocated and committed to CBSI. Since fiscal year 2010, U.S. agencies have provided the most CBSI funding to the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and the countries covered by the Eastern Caribbean embassy. These countries received approximately 66 percent of total CBSI allocations from fiscal years 2010 through 2018. Approximately 13 percent of total CBSI allocations went to the Bahamas, Guyana, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago, while 21 percent of total CBSI allocations went to regional activities. Table 2 provides a breakdown of allocated funds by country for CBSI activities. State and USAID fund various security activities in partner countries. State uses INCLE and FMF funds to conduct activities in support of CBSI goals at all seven embassies, covering all 13 CBSI countries. State uses several different implementing mechanisms—including contracts, cooperative agreements, and interagency agreements. According to INL officials, INL has an average of 10-50 distinct ongoing activities within any individual country program at any given time, ranging from multi-year, multi-million dollar embedded advisory programs to one-time procurements for equipment or individual trainings. USAID uses ESF funds for activities in three missions—the Dominican Republic, Eastern and Southern Caribbean, and Jamaica. In general, USAID uses similar implementing mechanisms, but typically has fewer projects that cover multiple years. State primarily focuses on funding CBSI activities that fall within the pillar of reducing illicit trafficking, and USAID concentrates on funding activities within the pillar of promoting social justice. Both agencies fund activities in the pillar of improving public safety and security. Reducing illicit trafficking. State uses INCLE and FMF funds, through interagency agreements with DOD and other implementing partners, to increase Caribbean countries’ control over their territorial maritime domain and reduce illicit trafficking, such as narcotics and firearms, as the examples below illustrate. Eastern Caribbean. INL and PM have provided training and equipment to the Regional Security System, a collective defense organization of Eastern Caribbean countries whose responsibilities include regional law enforcement training and narcotics interdiction. For example, U.S. assistance funded the refurbishment of aircraft operated by the Regional Security System to provide equipment for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance related to drug interdiction. Jamaica. INL and PM have provided boats to the government of Jamaica to increase the government’s capacity to conduct counternarcotic operations (see fig. 3). Throughout the Caribbean. INL supports activities providing training, technical assistance, policy guidance, and basic equipment to enhance the capacity of CBSI countries to combat illicit small arms and ammunition trafficking through operational forensic ballistics. Throughout the Caribbean. State uses an interagency agreement to support the Technical Assistance Field Team (TAFT) program. This program, supported by both FMF and INCLE funds, aims to build maritime capacity of partner countries throughout the Caribbean. The team is composed of 15 Coast Guard and DOD engineers, technicians, specialists, and logisticians, based at U.S. Southern Command, who assist Caribbean maritime security forces with maintenance and sustainment issues. The advisors have worked to implement inventory management systems within CBSI countries and conduct regular site visits to CBSI countries to assist in the maintenance and logistics of maritime assets. Promoting social justice. USAID and its implementing partners— multilateral and nongovernmental organizations, for the most part—use ESF funds in an effort to increase economic opportunities for at-risk youth and vulnerable populations, improve community and law enforcement cooperation, improve the juvenile justice sector, and reduce corruption in public and private sectors. Dominican Republic. USAID has provided assistance for community- based activities, such as the Community Justice Houses. These centers are designed to provide services related to the justice sector, such as public defense and mediation efforts for populations in areas of high violence that have limited access to traditional justice institutions. Dominican Republic and Barbados. USAID’s implementing partners work with at-risk youth to provide skills training and education for those individuals in vulnerable populations. Jamaica. USAID’s implementing partners work with youth in the juvenile justice system to provide marketable technical skills, life skills, and individualized psychosocial attention to assist in their reintegration into society. Eastern and Southern Caribbean. USAID partners use a community- based approach to crime prevention to identify the underlying causes of crime and violence by collecting standardized crime data across the region. Increasing public safety and security. State uses INCLE to fund activities to increase the rule of law and reduce transnational crime. USAID uses ESF to support public safety and security activities by funding training and support programs that aim to build institutional capacity for police and judicial systems. Jamaica. INL works to enhance the government of Jamaica’s capacity to disrupt and deter money laundering operations and other financial crimes by providing technical assistance, equipment and training for combating money laundering and financial crime, and for the seizure of criminally-acquired assets. Eastern Caribbean. INL uses training, technical assistance, equipment purchases, and operational support to combat financial crimes and increase asset forfeiture efforts. Dominican Republic. INL has provided funding for the government’s creation of a centralized emergency “911” response system to increase citizen safety and security. Dominican Republic. Both INL and USAID provide assistance to the Dominican National Police, and USAID’s implementing partners work with the judicial sector to improve the skills of prosecutors (see fig. 4). INL provides assistance to the Dominican National Police through funding training to increase police professionalization and supports training on enforcing legislation for prosecutors and judges. USAID funding works to support the reform and modernization of the Dominican National Police by strengthening the management capacity and accountability of the organization. USAID implementing partners also work with prosecutors to strengthen the criminal justice system in the Dominican Republic. The United States and Caribbean countries meet periodically to set strategic goals and to designate high-level priorities for the subsequent year, and U.S. agencies individually plan and report on CBSI activities on a country-specific basis through a variety of reporting mechanisms (see fig. 5). However, State has not created an initiative-wide mechanism for planning and reporting on CBSI activities and the U.S. government cannot assess initiative-wide progress. At the strategic and political level, U.S. government agencies and CBSI partner countries engage on a periodic basis to set strategic goals and to designate high-level priorities for the subsequent year. The process involves various technical working groups meeting throughout the year, culminating in the Caribbean-United States Security Cooperation Dialogue meeting, attended by the Caribbean Community, the Dominican Republic, the United States, and other interested Caribbean states and international partners. At the 2017 meeting, participants set strategic goals by reaffirming the initiative’s three pillars of substantially reducing illicit trafficking, advancing public safety and security, and promoting social justice. Participants also produced a high-level plan of action that aimed to strengthen commitment and accountability of the countries involved and to ensure political support for implementation. Within each goal, the plan identified high-level priorities such as counternarcotics, anti-money laundering, border security, justice reform, and anti- corruption. At the implementation level, State and USAID separately plan and report their CBSI activities, generally on a country-specific basis. Within State, INL develops multi-year country plans that are the basis for making decisions on CBSI activities for each country, according to INL officials. The plans describe objectives within a country for program areas such as law enforcement professionalization, rule of law, and counternarcotics, and include performance indicators related to those program areas. INL developed a country plan for each of the seven embassies in CBSI from fiscal years 2017 through 2021. In addition, a portion of INL’s CBSI funding is devoted to regional activities (i.e., activities that are implemented in more than one CBSI country), and INL developed the CBSI Regional Implementation Plan to describe the objectives and performance indicators for regional activities. The CBSI activities that are funded through FMF are planned and implemented by DOD in coordination with PM. USAID uses its Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCS) as the basis for planning CBSI activities in each country, according to USAID officials. USAID developed a CDCS for each of the three missions that have a USAID presence among the CBSI countries—Eastern and Southern Caribbean, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica. The strategies outline priorities for each mission and typically cover 5 years. In each of the CDCS, USAID outlines three development objectives, including one that is CBSI-related—on crime prevention and reduction— and two that are not CBSI-related—on climate change and health care. According to INL and USAID officials, coordination of CBSI activities between the two agencies primarily occurs at the embassy level through routine meetings. Officials at embassies in the CBSI countries also compile bimonthly reporting cables that contain information on selected CBSI activities. State’s WHA, which plays a coordinating role for CBSI, holds monthly coordination meetings for INL, PM, and USAID officials in Washington, D.C. to discuss high-level issues and upcoming events relevant to the initiative, as well as to prepare for meetings with Caribbean partners, according to officials. While State and USAID set strategic goals and priorities with CBSI partner countries and plan for and report on CBSI activities within each agency or bureau, State has not established a CBSI-wide planning and reporting mechanism that links agencies’ activities to the three overall CBSI goals. State and USAID typically use Integrated Country Strategies (ICS) to strategically plan in a given country, and Performance Plans and Reports (PPR) to assess progress made relative to the foreign assistance priorities in a given country. Each of the U.S. embassies that cover the CBSI countries has both an ICS and PPR. However, the PPRs for the individual CBSI countries are for bi-lateral funds, and the ICSs serve as a whole-of-U.S.-government strategy in a country. According to State officials, since CBSI is a regional initiative, CBSI activities are included in the scope of the relevant regional planning and reporting documents. These regional documents include the WHA Joint Regional Strategy and the WHA PPR. However, these documents represent the entire Western Hemisphere and are not specific to CBSI activities. The Joint Regional Strategy does not serve as a planning mechanism for CBSI-wide activities and does not establish CBSI specific targets or performance indicators. Moreover, while the PPR reports outputs and outcomes, CBSI results are aggregated with other regionally funded activities in the Western Hemisphere, such as the Central America Regional Security Initiative. For example, while the PPR may report the number of judicial personnel trained with U.S. government assistance, that number may include officials in the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Honduras, or any other number of countries within the Western Hemisphere. Therefore, the most recent WHA PPR does not serve as a CBSI reporting mechanism as it is not possible to always know which results are related to CBSI activities, and the CBSI-wide outputs and outcomes can be indiscernible from other regional efforts. In 2012, State created the CBSI Results Framework, recognizing the importance of tracking initiative-wide results. The Framework included the three CBSI pillars—reducing illicit trafficking, improving public safety and security, and promoting social justice—and specified intermediate results, such as reducing drug demand in target areas, improving security at ports of entry, and improving community and law enforcement cooperation. Each of the intermediate results included performance indicators for measuring and reporting CBSI results. According to WHA officials, WHA had envisioned establishing baseline data, obtaining annual reporting from each embassy, and reporting on a subset of the indicators. However, neither State nor USAID currently use the framework to gauge overall progress of CBSI. State officials that we interviewed were not aware of the reason for discontinuing use of the framework and stated that the decision to discontinue using it pre-dated their tenure. According to State officials and our assessment of program documentation, State does not currently use the framework in any official capacity. While USAID officials stated that they continue to use the framework as internal guidance on CBSI’s direction, they stated that they do not use it to track progress. The delivery of U.S. foreign assistance often involves multiple agencies or a whole-of-government approach. We have previously identified key elements for effectively aligning foreign assistance strategies in situations where multiple agencies are working together to deliver foreign assistance, such as CBSI. These elements include, among others, the establishment of interagency coordination mechanisms, integration of strategies with relevant higher- or lower-level strategies, and assessment of progress toward strategic goals through the articulation of desired results, activities to achieve the results, performance indicators, and monitoring and evaluation plans and reports. We found that agencies that establish strategies aligned with partner agencies’ activities, processes, and resources are better positioned to accomplish common goals, objectives, and outcomes. For foreign assistance that involves multiple agencies, strategies that consistently address agencies’ roles and responsibilities and interagency coordination mechanisms can help guide implementation and reduce potential program fragmentation. The absence of a functioning CBSI-wide planning and reporting mechanism leaves open the possibility that State’s and USAID’s existing planning efforts may be inadequate in ensuring that activities are effectively coordinated to reduce fragmentation or overlap. In 2016, USAID contracted for an independent assessment of all of its CBSI activities. Since USAID implements CBSI in conjunction with other U.S. agencies, such as State, one of the objectives within the assessment was to determine the degree to which USAID’s activities were complementary with those of other U.S. agencies and whether there were instances of overlap. The assessment noted that coordination and information exchange between the agencies about individual CBSI activities and their components appeared to be relatively ad hoc and was primarily seen as the mandate of staff in the field, though at that level, information sharing and coordination had been widely variable. It noted that in general, the level and type of communication between USAID and INL tended to be influenced by personalities, and information was not shared systematically. The assessment concluded that there was a potential for overlap between USAID and INL and recommended that USAID and INL take several actions to strengthen information sharing and coordinate and align activities. This coordination is important since overlap or unintended competition between INL’s and USAID’s CBSI activities has been documented on at least one occasion. According to the fiscal year 2017 annual report submitted by an implementing partner for one of USAID’s activities in the Dominican Republic, the partner was directed to suspend several of its activities related to training to strengthen standards for criminal case preparation and training for police and prosecutors, reportedly because State realigned the task to INL. The report cited poor delineation of roles and relationships as an underlying cause. While State and USAID set strategic goals and plan and report on CBSI activities in individual countries, the U.S. government does not have a functioning initiative-wide planning and reporting mechanism that links CBSI activities to overall goals or specifies a means for assessing initiative-wide progress through articulation of desired results, performance indicators, and a monitoring and evaluation plan. Without such a mechanism that establishes consistent performance indicators across agencies, countries, and activities and determines baselines and targets, it is difficult to measure CBSI’s activities across the initiative, making it difficult to assess any progress made toward achieving CBSI’s overall goals. Consequently, the U.S. government has limited ability to evaluate CBSI’s successes and limitations and use such information to better guide future decision-making. USAID and implementing partners have established objectives and performance indicators for selected CBSI activities that we reviewed and have been measuring and reporting on progress for those activities. Within State, INL and implementing partners have established objectives and performance indicators for all of the activities that we reviewed, and INL and PM receive quarterly monitoring reports containing performance information on the TAFT program. In response to identified weaknesses in its program monitoring, INL is taking steps to improve program monitoring for its Western Hemisphere programs, which include CBSI activities. State and USAID policies related to program management—found in the FAM and ADS, respectively—require the establishment of objectives and performance indicators for program monitoring. We found that USAID and its implementing partners established objectives and performance indicators for all 10 of the CBSI activities in our sample and use these indicators to measure activity progress. Table 3 includes examples of the types of indicators established for USAID activities in our sample. In addition to establishing performance indicators, USAID and its implementing partners are using these indicators to measure the progress of CBSI activities. We found that implementing partners for nearly all of the activities in our sample had submitted progress reports to USAID that used the performance indicators to measure progress and identify challenges in achieving the activities’ goals. State and its implementing partners also established objectives and performance indicators for all 15 of the CBSI activities that we reviewed. See table 4 for examples of the types of indicators established for INL activities in our sample. INL cannot ensure the reliability of its CBSI program monitoring data but is taking steps to improve its ability to consistently collect and store such data for its activities in the Western Hemisphere, including CBSI activities. We have previously reported that effective program monitoring of foreign assistance requires quality data for performance reporting. Specifically, leading practices for monitoring of foreign assistance activities include development of objectives and relevant performance indicators, procedures for assuring quality of data on performance indicators, and submission of performance reports. According to INL officials, in the absence of a centrally available data management system, program monitoring data is collected and maintained at each embassy. As a result, compiling and providing program monitoring data is time-consuming. For example, when we requested a list of all completed and ongoing INL-funded CBSI activities from fiscal years 2012 through 2017, INL responded that it would take several months to compile that information. Further, INL officials told us that they cannot ensure the reliability of their program monitoring data because of questions about the comparability of data collected across embassies. During the course of our work, INL officials at headquarters and overseas told us that program monitoring is conducted differently in every embassy, and program monitoring data is not defined or recorded in a standardized manner. These variations can result in discrepancies in how program performance data is defined and collected. For example, INL officials explained that in order to collect drug seizure information that can be analyzed across countries, the data needs to be collected in the same units of measurement and over the same time period in each country, but currently, they are not. According to INL, absent a standardized data collection process, it is difficult to track data trends across programs. INL has expressed concerns about its program monitoring and an inability to centrally collect reliable program monitoring data. In 2015, an independent evaluation of INL’s CBSI activities noted that lack of monitoring information hinders INL’s efforts to link assistance directly to goals, objectives, and results laid out in the CBSI Results Framework. It recommended that INL prioritize improving internal program monitoring capacity. INL’s Functional Bureau Strategy, released in 2018, states that INL’s program monitoring efforts are often constrained by the availability of reliable data. In response to these concerns about program monitoring, the INL office for Western Hemisphere Programs contracted with a private firm in 2017 to improve its program monitoring capabilities by creating new performance indicators meant to standardize data collection across INL’s programs in the Western Hemisphere and better capture the impact of INL’s assistance. The contract also included the creation of a centralized data management system for collecting and storing the program monitoring data associated with the performance indicators. According to INL officials and progress reports submitted by the contractor, some progress has been made. To date, the contractors have been studying the availability of data, reviewing existing performance indicators, and proposing new indicators. The contractors have been considering options for designing and building the centralized data management system. However, INL officials acknowledge that data challenges remain, such as the issue of how to collect standardized data from each of the embassies and how to build a functioning data management system that is compatible with State requirements. As of October 2018, according to INL officials, the characteristics of the centralized data management system had not yet been determined, and consequently, they are uncertain what capabilities the final data management system will have. Therefore, it is unclear whether the system will allow for the consistent collection and storage of reliable program monitoring data for all CBSI activities and the ability to distinguish these data from those of other Western Hemisphere activities. In the absence of centrally-available, reliable data for CBSI activities, INL may continue to struggle with effective program monitoring for these activities. The Caribbean region faces a variety of economic and security challenges that jeopardize the region’s economic growth and development. Because of close societal ties and geographic proximity, these challenges also threaten U.S. security. CBSI was created to respond to these threats—to provide mutually beneficial assistance that would increase citizen security for residents of the Caribbean region and bolster economic opportunities. However, while U.S. agencies have allocated more than $560 million to CBSI since 2010, they cannot attest to the initiative’s success or failure. State’s WHA, which plays the coordinating role for CBSI, has not established an initiative-wide planning and reporting mechanism that ensures CBSI activities are being coordinated to maximize the impact of assistance and prevent overlap, and that provides a means for assessing overall progress. Without such a mechanism, the ability to demonstrate the efficacy of the initiative, and to emphasize positive results that have been achieved, is limited. Although USAID and State have established objectives and performance indicators for the CBSI activities we reviewed, State does not have a process for centrally collecting and storing reliable program monitoring data for the activities it funds through CBSI, particularly those managed by INL. While INL is taking steps to address these challenges by improving program monitoring across its activities in the western hemisphere, without reliable performance data specific to CBSI, State cannot report comprehensively or accurately on its CBSI activities or track data trends across countries. We are making the following two recommendations to State: The Secretary of State should, in consultation with USAID and other stakeholders as appropriate, create an initiative-wide planning and reporting mechanism for CBSI that includes the ability to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of their collaborative efforts (Recommendation 1). The Secretary of State should ensure that INL’s Office of Western Hemisphere Programs develops and implements a data management system for centrally collecting reliable program monitoring data for all INL- funded CBSI activities through its current program monitoring contract or by some other means (Recommendation 2). We provided a draft of this report to State and USAID, DOD, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security for review and comment. In its comments, reproduced in appendix IV, State concurred with our two recommendations. State noted that it plans to develop an updated Results Framework for CBSI that will provide the basis for initiative-wide planning and reporting. State also noted that INL’s Office of Western Hemisphere Programs is working through its existing monitoring and evaluation contract to improve centralized data collection and is developing plans for an enhanced data management system that will facilitate the collection and management of both strategic and implementer-reported data. In addition, State reported that INL is developing complementary bureau-wide monitoring and evaluation guidance and procedures to ensure the consistency and reliability of collected data across INL programs, which include CBSI activities. USAID also provided written comments, which we have reproduced in appendix V. State, USAID, DOD, and the Department of Homeland Security provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. The Department of Justice reviewed the report but did not provide comments. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of State, the Administrator of USAID, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7141 or groverj@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 key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. We were asked to review security assistance to the Caribbean region provided through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI). In this report we (1) provide information on U.S. funding for CBSI activities, (2) examine the extent to which the U.S. Department of State (State) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), in conjunction with other agencies, have implemented a planning and reporting process for CBSI, and (3) examine the extent to which State and USAID have established objectives and performance indicators to measure the progress of their CBSI activities. To provide information on U.S. funding for CBSI, we obtained State and USAID data for fiscal years 2010 through 2018. We analyzed these data to determine allocations, unobligated balances, unliquidated obligations, and disbursements by fiscal year, funding account, and country. We compared the data to those previously reported to identify inconsistencies, and interviewed State and USAID officials. We determined these data were sufficiently reliable for reporting allocations, unobligated balances, unliquidated obligations, and disbursements by fiscal year, funding account, and country. To obtain additional detail on the types of assistance provided by the United States, we reviewed activity documentation; interviewed State and USAID officials in Washington, D.C. and traveled to Barbados, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica to meet with State, USAID, and implementing partner officials. We also observed CBSI activities in these countries. We selected these countries for fieldwork because they were among the countries receiving the largest amount of CBSI funding and the embassies there included CBSI program officials from State and USAID. The findings from these countries are not generalizable to all CBSI countries. To determine the extent to which State and USAID have implemented a planning and reporting mechanism for CBSI, we obtained relevant CBSI planning and reporting documents, including State Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) country and regional implementation plans and documents related to the Caribbean-U.S. Security Cooperation Dialogue; and strategy documents such as Integrated Country Strategies, Country Development Cooperation Strategies, and Functional Bureau Strategies. We also assessed relevant Performance Plans and Reports for Caribbean countries and the Western Hemisphere and interviewed State officials to determine how information on CBSI activities is aggregated and reported on a country level and initiative-wide basis. In addition, we interviewed relevant State and USAID officials in Washington, D.C. and in Barbados, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica, about their planning processes for CBSI activities. We compared the planning and reporting procedures in place to the key elements for effectively aligning foreign assistance strategies in situations where multiple agencies work together to deliver foreign assistance. To determine the extent to which State and USAID have established objectives and performance indicators to measure the progress of CBSI activities, we selected three case study countries—Barbados, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica. We selected these three countries because they receive the greatest amount of CBSI funding and because they have program officials from State and USAID in their embassies. We requested lists of all ongoing and completed CBSI activities from State and USAID for fiscal years 2012 through 2017 and used the lists to select a non-generalizable sample of activities, 15 implemented by State and 10 by USAID. The activities were chosen to provide a range of implementing partners, types of activity, and location. We requested State and USAID documentation related to the activities in our sample, including applications for funding, contracts, agreements, program monitoring and progress reports, financial reports, and evaluations. We reviewed the documentation to assess the performance management practices in place for these activities, as well as country-level and regional-level reporting related to the activities—specifically focusing on the use of program objectives and performance indicators, which are used to set and measure progress toward program goals. The objectives and performance indicators in place for these activities do not represent those in place for all CBSI activities, but offer illustrative examples. We compared the performance management practices in place for the sample activities to State and USAID policies. For the Technical Assistance Field Team (TAFT) program implemented by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the U.S. Coast Guard on behalf of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, we reviewed quarterly reports between fiscal years 2014 and 2018 for performance management information. The TAFT program is designed to provide technical assistance to enhance operational readiness and maintenance of equipment used by CBSI countries. The quarterly reports include articulation of objectives, descriptive information on the support TAFT members provided during each visit, assessments of host country capabilities, and details on where, when, and how funds were expended. While this information is not reported in the same manner as State’s and USAID’s performance data, we determined it appropriate to treat the information provided in the TAFT quarterly reports as comparable to the setting of objectives and performance indicators as generally carried out by State and USAID. We also interviewed State, USAID, DOD, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and other implementing partner officials in Washington, D.C.; Barbados; the Dominican Republic; and Jamaica; and conducted site visits in these countries to determine the types of performance indicators tracked and reported on for each activity. We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to February 2019 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. To demonstrate how funding for Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) activities have been allocated, obligated and disbursed, we are providing a status of CBSI funds as of November 2018. Tables 5-9 below show CBSI funding from the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE); Economic Support Fund (ESF); Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR); and Development Assistance (DA) accounts. These tables illustrate, by year of appropriation, how U.S agencies have allocated, obligated, and disbursed funds for activities in CBSI partner countries. Specifically, the tables include unobligated balances—that is, portions of allocated funds that have not yet been obligated—and unliquidated obligations (i.e. obligated balances)—that is, amounts already incurred for which payment has not yet been made. Table 10 below provides the status of Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds as of November 2018. The presentation of FMF allocations and commitments in this table is different from presentations on allocations, obligations, and disbursements of the other CBSI accounts in tables 5-9 in appendix II because FMF funds are budgeted and tracked in a different way. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) and the Defense Financing and Accounting Service (DFAS) are responsible for the financial systems that account for FMF funds as well as for tracking the implementation and expenditure of those funds. According to DSCA officials, FMF funds are obligated on apportionment. Further, DSCA’s system can track only uncommitted and committed amounts, not unliquidated obligations or disbursements, of FMF funds. DFAS tracks obligations and disbursements using the Defense Integrated Finance System; however, there is no direct link between the DSCA and DFAS systems and the DFAS system does not track funding for specific initiatives, such as CBSI. In addition to the contact named above, Thomas Costa (Assistant Director), Jennifer Young, Martin Wilson, Peter Choi, Debbie Chung, Benjamin Licht, Martin de Alteriis, Neil Doherty, and Mark Dowling made key contributions to this report.
The Caribbean region, which shares geographic proximity and common interests with the United States, faces high rates of crime and violence. In 2010, the United States and Caribbean countries formally launched CBSI, which aims to increase citizen safety. GAO was asked to examine U.S. assistance through CBSI. This report (1) discusses U.S. funding for CBSI activities, (2) examines the extent to which there is a planning and reporting process for CBSI, and (3) examines the extent to which State and USAID have established objectives and performance indicators to measure progress of their CBSI activities. GAO analyzed State and USAID data; assessed government strategies and performance reports; selected a non-generalizable sample of 25 CBSI activities and analyzed State and USAID documentation related to those activities; interviewed relevant officials; and conducted fieldwork in Barbados, Dominican Republic, and Jamaica, which are the countries generally receiving the most CBSI funding. U.S. agencies have allocated more than $560 million for the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) from fiscal years 2010 through 2018 for activities related to the three pillars of CBSI—reduce illicit trafficking (such as in narcotics and firearms), improve public safety and security, and promote social justice. For example, State Department's (State) Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) has ongoing activities such as advisory programs and equipment procurements, while the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has activities aimed at increasing economic opportunities for at-risk youth and improving the skills of prosecutors. The U.S. government has undertaken some planning and reporting of CBSI activities, but State has not created an initiative-wide planning and reporting mechanism. Agencies individually set strategic goals and priorities with CBSI countries and plan and report on their CBSI activities on a country-specific basis. However, State has not created an initiative-wide planning and reporting mechanism that facilitates interagency coordination or establishes consistent performance indicators across agencies, countries, and activities—key elements for effectively aligning foreign assistance strategies. Without such a planning and reporting mechanism, overall progress of the initiative cannot be assessed. State and USAID have established objectives and performance indicators for selected CBSI activities, and INL is taking steps to improve identified weaknesses in its program monitoring. State and USAID had established objectives and performance indicators for the 25 activities in our sample. However, INL cannot ensure the reliability of its program monitoring data because collection and maintenance of this data is conducted differently in each country and there is no centralized data storage system. INL recently contracted to improve and standardize its program monitoring data for Western Hemisphere activities, but according to INL officials, data challenges remain—in particular, how to collect standardized data from each of the embassies and how to build a data management system that is compatible with State requirements. Without reliable data, INL may continue to struggle with program monitoring of CBSI activities. GAO recommends that State (1) create an initiative-wide planning and reporting mechanism for CBSI that includes the ability to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of collaborative efforts, and (2) ensure that INL develops and implements a data management system for centrally collecting reliable CBSI data. State agreed with the recommendations, noting that it plans to develop an updated Results Framework for initiative-wide planning and reporting and to improve centralized data collection through an enhanced data management system.