	Background

DOD’s efforts to build partner capacity include a broad range of security  cooperation activities designed to build the defense capacity of foreign  partners and allies. I would like to now discuss the key practices we have identified that can  aid DOD in more effectively managing its building partner capacity  activities. Setting Clear Goals and Defining Terminology

Setting clear goals and defining terminology can help stakeholders  understand what partnership capacity programs seek to accomplish and  how they fit in with broad national security interests. In our reviews, we  found that DOD’s efforts to align goals with broader strategies and clarify  terminology have varied. In 2010, we reported that the Section 1206  activities have generally been in alignment with U.S. counterterrorism  priorities while also addressing the partner countries’ security interests. In its instruction, DOD defined  security force assistance as “DOD activities that contribute to unified  action by the U.S. government to support the development of the capacity  and capability of foreign security forces and their supporting  institutions.” Seeking to clarify this definition, DOD has further stated  that security force assistance encompasses all DOD activities conducted  under various programs to “organize, train, equip, rebuild/build and advise  foreign security forces and their supporting institutions from the tactical to  ministerial levels.” Notwithstanding DOD’s efforts to clarify its  terminology, we found that the commands continue to lack a common  understanding of the term and therefore some were unclear as to what  additional actions were needed to meet DOD’s intent. Coordinating Activities and Sharing Information

National strategies have emphasized the importance of building partner  capacity using an interagency and whole of government approach, but  mechanisms for coordinating activities and sharing information within  DOD and across agencies have not been consistently implemented. Given these organizational differences,  coordination mechanisms that can facilitate interagency collaboration are  needed to achieve integrated approaches to building partner capacity  efforts. For instance, we found that the multiple  data systems used to track National Guard State Partnership Program  activities and funding are not interoperable and users apply varying  methods and definitions to guide data inputs. Therefore, we recommended and the department agreed that  DOD, in coordination with the National Guard Bureau, the combatant  commands, and the embassy country teams, develop guidance for all  stakeholders that includes agreed-upon definitions for data fields and  rules for maintaining data until the program’s global data system is fully  implemented. DOD’s Security  Cooperation Organizations in foreign countries reported persistent  difficulties obtaining information from the Defense Security Cooperation  Agency and the implementing agencies of the military departments—the  Army, Navy, and Air Force—on the status of security assistance  equipment acquisitions and deliveries because information systems are  difficult for them to access and contain limited information. Sustaining Efforts and Evaluating Progress

Developing plans to sustain DOD’s building partner capacity activities and  establishing mechanisms to monitor programs and evaluate results can  help ensure that these programs have long-term impact. Our work has  shown that some building partner capacity activities may not endure  because planning for sustainment has been a systemic challenge. In 2010, we reported that the long-term  impact of some Section 1206 projects could be limited because U.S.  agencies have not fully addressed how to sustain these projects. However, we found that only 26 percent  of the 135 proposals we reviewed for fiscal years 2007-2009 projects  explicitly addressed the recipient country’s ability or willingness to bear  sustainment costs. In addition, our work on counternarcotics efforts has found challenges  with the reliability of performance data. For example, our 2012 review of  the Andean countries found that although DOD is working to improve its  counternarcotics performance measurement system, the department’s  Inspector General has been unable to attest to the reliability of the  performance data from 2007 through 2011, as required by the Office of  National Drug Control Policy. As a result, we recommended that the department submit its  performance summary report along with the Inspector General’s  attestations of the reliability of the information reported to the National  Drug Control Policy office. By setting clear goals and defining terminology,  coordinating activities and sharing information, and sustaining efforts and  evaluating progress, DOD can avoid confusion about the activities and  help to assess their long-term impact. Defense Management: Improved Planning, Training, and Interagency  Collaboration Could Strengthen DOD’s Efforts in Africa.
Why GAO Did This Study

DOD has increasingly focused on security cooperation activities designed to build the defense capacity of foreign partners and allies, furthering the U.S. objective of securing international peace and cooperation. Both the 2011 National Military Strategy of the United States of America and the 2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism identify building partner capacity as a worldwide priority. As DOD continues to emphasize building partner capacity, the need for efficient and effective coordination with foreign partners and within the U.S. government has become more important, in part due to fiscal challenges, which can be exacerbated by overlapping or ineffective efforts. This testimony highlights opportunities to strengthen DOD's management of its building partner capacity efforts by focusing on three key practices: (1) setting clear goals and defining terminology, (2) coordinating activities and sharing information, and (3) sustaining efforts and evaluating progress. It is based on GAO's body of work on building partner capacity from April 2010 through November 2012.

What GAO Found

GAO's recent work has identified key practices that would enhance the Department of Defense's (DOD) management of building partner capacity efforts. Such efforts include a range of security cooperation activities such as military exercises with partner nations and counternarcotics activities. In GAO's reviews of these activities, GAO found that DOD has demonstrated some of these key practices, but opportunities for improvement remain.
Setting clear goals and defining terminology. Setting clear goals and defining terminology can help stakeholders understand what partnership capacity programs seek to accomplish and how they fit in with broad national security interests. GAO has reported that DOD activities to build the capacity of foreign military forces though the Global Train and Equip program have generally been in alignment with U.S. counterterrorism priorities while also addressing partner countries' security interests. However, in a 2012 review of security force assistance, GAO found that the lack of a common understanding of this term within DOD resulted in different interpretations of what types of activities are included and presented challenges in planning activities and forecasting needs for force capabilities. GAO recommended DOD take steps to clarify its intent and then determine what additional actions are required to plan for and conduct security force assistance.
Coordinating activities and sharing information. Coordination mechanisms that facilitate communication within DOD and across agencies are needed to achieve integrated approaches to building partner capacity efforts. In 2012, GAO found that stakeholders had difficulties in obtaining status information on security assistance acquisitions and deliveries because information systems are difficult to access and contain limited information. The department is developing a new information system to address this gap but it will not be fully implemented until 2020. Further, GAO's review of the National Guard State Partnership Program in 2012 found that data systems used by the combatant commands and the National Guard Bureau were not interoperable and users applied varying methods and definitions to track the program's activities and funding. As a result, the data on types and frequency of activities were incomplete and inconsistent. GAO recommended that DOD develop guidance including agreed-upon definitions for data fields.
Sustaining efforts and evaluating progress. Developing plans to sustain projects and establishing mechanisms to evaluate them can help ensure that programs have long-term impact. In 2010, GAO reported that the long-term impact of some projects to train and equip foreign militaries could be limited because U.S. agencies have not fully addressed their sustainment. Specifically, only 26 percent of the 135 proposals for fiscal years 2007-2009 projects explicitly addressed the recipient country's ability or willingness to bear sustainment costs. In a review on counternarcotics efforts in 2012, GAO found that DOD is working to improve its counternarcotics performance measurement system, but the department has been unable to attest to the reliability of the performance data for several countries from 2007 through 2011. GAO recommended that DOD submit its performance summary report with the reliability attestation to the National Drug Control Policy office.

What GAO Recommends

GAO has made numerous recommendations to align goals with broader strategies and to clarify terminology; develop mechanisms to better coordinate activities and share information; and develop and implement plans and metrics to sustain and evaluate progress. DOD has generally concurred with GAO's recommendations and has taken some actions, but work remains to fully implement GAO's recommendations.