The departments are also required to notify Congress of their intent to  transfer funds and initiate activities for GSCF projects before starting  project execution, and DOD is required to seek approval to retransfer  funds. State and DOD Guidance Describes Process for GSCF Project Development

State and DOD officials developed a guidance document that was issued  in March 2014 as a State cable titled Utilizing the Global Security  Contingency Fund, which describes how State and DOD are to identify,  develop, and execute GSCF projects. 1. State Guidance Describes the GSCF Congressional Notification and Funding Transfer Process

State issued a separate document in March 2014, titled Global Security  Contingency Fund Program Execution Guidance, which describes a  process for congressional notification and internal State procedures for  transferring and managing funds in the joint GSCF account.guidance states that State and DOD should complete all congressional  notification requirements to secure approval to transfer funds. 2. As of September 2014, State and  DOD have not met the execution target dates contained in the  congressional notifications for the five fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects by  an average of about 8 months, assuming the projects meet the currently  planned execution dates. In July 2014, State and DOD sent congressional notifications for two  additional projects. State and DOD’s Five Fiscal Year 2012 GSCF Projects Did Not Meet Originally Planned Execution Target Dates

The five State and DOD fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects have not met the  execution target dates contained in the congressional notifications due to  a variety of factors, including partner nation security concerns and the  time it took to obtain congressional approval. Figure 7 describes each project, total funds  transferred, and the original and currently planned dates of execution for  initiation of training activities and equipment delivery, as of September  2014. State and DOD officials stated  that the target dates were not met due to partner nation security concerns  as well as additional details and supporting documentation needed by  Congress to obtain congressional approval. State and DOD Have Not Defined Time Frames to Guide and Track GSCF Projects

State’s March 2014 GSCF cable states that the GSCF program is to  address near- to mid-term security concerns driven by emergent  challenges or opportunities, but it does not clearly define what time  frames constitute near- or mid-term. Moreover, State and DOD do not  routinely track GSCF projects against established time frames. Key management practices call for developing control activities to ensure  management’s directives are being met, such as clearly defining the time  frame associated with projects and tracking whether the projects are  meeting their goals. State officials said that GSCF is intended to address emergent challenges  that fall outside of the normal budgeting and planning process; however,  while this approach allows for flexibility, it does not clarify how long near-  to mid-term GSCF projects should take. Without clearly  defining a range of time for near- to mid-term GSCF projects,  stakeholders, including those proposing and approving GSCF projects,  will not know the criteria for how long a project should take. Recommendations for Executive Action

To enhance the definition of the GSCF program and assist stakeholders  in assessing whether GSCF is meeting its goals, we recommend that the  Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense take the following two  actions:
Provide a range of time to clarify the time frames associated with  near- to mid-term GSCF projects, and  track GSCF projects against established time frames. In the written comments, State did not agree  and DOD partially agreed with the first recommendation, and both  departments agreed with the second recommendation. This report (1) describes the  processes State and DOD have developed to manage the program, (2)  describes the status of GSCF projects, and (3) assesses the extent to  which State and DOD have clearly defined time frames for GSCF  projects. To assess the extent to which State and DOD have clearly defined time  frames for GSCF projects, we obtained and analyzed State and DOD’s  congressional notification packages for GSCF projects, GSCF project  updates to Congress, and State’s GSCF guidance documents. We  compared this information to criteria in the Standards for Internal Control  in the Federal Government.
Why GAO Did This Study

As instability abroad threatens U.S. and foreign partners' interests, the United States has emphasized the importance of building partner capacity to address emerging threats. Congress established GSCF in fiscal year 2012, and this pilot authority allows State and DOD to pool funds and expertise to address near- to mid-term needs for training, equipping, and enhancing foreign security forces. State and DOD jointly administer GSCF and are required to notify Congress of their intent to transfer funds and initiate GSCF activities before starting project execution. GAO was mandated to review State and DOD's procedures for managing GSCF.
This report (1) describes processes State and DOD have developed to manage the program, (2) describes the status of GSCF projects, and (3) assesses the extent to which State and DOD have clearly defined time frames for GSCF projects. GAO analyzed State and DOD guidance and GSCF documents, and compared GSCF guidance to internal control standards. GAO also interviewed State and DOD officials about GSCF.

What GAO Found

The Department of State (State) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have developed processes to manage the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) program. In March 2014, State and DOD officials used lessons learned from developing the initial GSCF projects to document a 14-step process to identify, develop, and execute GSCF projects. Additionally, State issued a separate document describing the process for congressional notification and internal State procedures for how to transfer and manage funds in the joint GSCF account.
State and DOD have submitted congressional notification packages for seven GSCF projects since fiscal year 2012. As of September 2014, State and DOD had not met the original dates contained in the congressional notifications for the initial five GSCF projects for beginning training and equipment delivery by an average of about 8 months. State and DOD officials stated that the dates were not met due to security concerns as well as additional details and supporting documentation required by Congress to obtain congressional approval. In July 2014, State and DOD also sent congressional notifications for two additional projects that have not begun execution. The figure below shows GAO's analysis of the identification, and original and currently planned or actual execution dates, of the initiation of training activities for the five initial GSCF projects.
State's March 2014 cable states that GSCF projects are to address near- to mid-term security concerns, but the cable does not clearly define what time frame constitutes near- or mid-term, and State and DOD do not track GSCF projects against established time frames. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government call for developing control activities to ensure management's directives are being met, such as defining a range of time for projects and tracking whether projects are meeting their goals. State officials said that GSCF is intended to address challenges outside of the normal budgeting and planning process; however, this approach does not define how long near- to mid-term GSCF projects should take. Without a range of time for GSCF projects, it is not clear how long projects should take, and State and DOD do not have time frames to track whether GSCF projects are addressing near- to mid-term needs.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that State and DOD (1) provide an overall range of time for near- to mid-term GSCF projects and (2) track projects against this time frame. State disagreed and DOD partially agreed with the first recommendation, citing the need for flexibility. GAO agreed and modified the recommendation to clarify its intent, as discussed in the report. Both departments agreed with the second recommendation to track GSCF projects.