State Partnership Program Stakeholders Cited Benefits but Program Oversight Is Hindered by Lack of Clear Goals, Objectives, and Progress Measures

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. 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. Complete Information about Activities and Funding Is Unavailable

We cannot provide complete information on the types and frequency of  State Partnership Program activities or the total funding amounts for  these activities for fiscal years 2007 to 2011 because activity data are  incomplete as well as inconsistent and funding data are incomplete. The National  Guard Bureau uses its own system to track State Partnership Program  events that it funds. However,  the terminology used to identify activity types varied both across the  combatant commands and between the combatant commands and the  National Guard Bureau. In addition, although State Partnership Program  activities that are funded by both a combatant command and the National  Guard Bureau should be entered into each entity’s database for its  respective funded amount, four combatant commands and the National  Guard Bureau reported that there is no standard method for all the  combatant commands and the National Guard Bureau to ensure the  separate entries can be easily compiled in order to see all data  maintained on a particular activity, including the total funding amount of  the activity. We found that funding data from the  National Guard Bureau and some of the combatant commands were  incomplete. Challenges in Funding Activities and Incorporating U.S. and Foreign Partner Civilians Require Additional Guidance and Training

State Partnership Program stakeholders that we contacted, including  combatant commands, State Partnership Program Coordinators, and  Bilateral Affairs Officers, cited several types of challenges in funding State  Partnership Program activities and in incorporating U.S. and foreign  partner civilians into events. Although guidance and training exist on  funding for the program, stakeholders expressed confusion in response to  our questions. The most prominent challenge cited by State Partnership Program  stakeholders involved concerns about conducting and funding activities  that include civilian participants. These included activities such as subject matter  expert exchanges with members of the state’s fire department and the  host nation on military support to civil authorities; a familiarization on 911  system operations between U.S. and host country civilians; and a subject  matter expert exchange with U.S. and foreign partner law enforcement  officials on maritime border security issues. National Guard Bureau officials told us that since the issuance  of the Directive Type Memorandum, states have become cautious about  conducting events with civilians, and many have chosen to not conduct  any events with civilians due to a concern about violating DOD guidance. The draft DOD instruction is still undergoing review  and is intended to provide clarifying information on the use of funds  appropriated to DOD prior to the enactment of the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Without further guidance and training in  this area, the National Guard Bureau and the combatant commands may  miss additional opportunities to use the program to fulfill their missions. To enable oversight and improve the completeness and consistency  of data needed to manage the State Partnership Program, direct the  Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Joint Staff, in coordination  with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the combatant  commands, and the embassy country teams, to develop guidance for  all stakeholders that includes agreed-upon definitions for data fields  and rules for maintaining data until the global data system is fully  implemented. To determine the extent to which State Partnership Program activities are  meeting the goals and objectives of the program, we gathered  documentation; interviewed National Guard Bureau officials about the  development of goals, objectives, and performance metrics for the  program; and assessed their efforts based on criteria from our previous  work. To determine the completeness and consistency of activity and funding  data for the program, we collected and analyzed data on State  Partnership Program activities from fiscal years 2007 through 2011— including types of activities, funding sources, and funding amounts— obtained from the National Guard Bureau and the six U.S. geographic  combatant commands.
Why GAO Did This Study

The National Guards State Partnership Program is a DOD security cooperation program that matches state National Guards with foreign countries to conduct joint activitiesincluding visits between senior military leaders and knowledge sharing in areas such as disaster managementthat further U.S. national security goals. The program has partnerships between 52 U.S. state and territory National Guards and 69 countries. In fiscal year 2011, program expenditures were at least $13.2 million. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act directed GAO to study the program. GAO determined (1) the extent to which State Partnership Program activities are meeting program goals and objectives; (2) the types and frequency of activities and funding levels of the program; and (3) any challenges DOD faces in the programs implementation. GAO collected written responses to questions from State Partnership Program Coordinators at the state level, Bilateral Affairs Officers at the U.S. embassies in the partner nations, and officials at the combatant commands, reviewed documents, and interviewed DOD officials.

What GAO Found

Many State Partnership Program stakeholders, including State Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, and combatant command officials, cited benefits to the program, but the program lacks a comprehensive oversight framework that includes clear program goals, objectives, and metrics to measure progress against those goals, which limits the Department of Defenses (DOD) and Congress ability to assess whether the program is an effective and efficient use of resources. The benefits described by all stakeholders focused on the programs contributions to meeting their specific missions, such as building security relationships, providing experience to guardsmen, and supporting combatant commands missions. Goals, objectives, and metrics to measure progress are necessary for management oversight, and National Guard Bureau officials told GAO that they recognize the need to update the programs goals and develop metrics and have initiated efforts in these areas. Officials expect completion of these efforts in summer 2012. Until program goals and metrics are implemented, DOD cannot fully assess or adequately oversee the program.
State Partnership Program activity data are incomplete as well as inconsistent and funding data are incomplete for fiscal years 2007 through 2011; therefore GAO cannot provide complete information on the types and frequency of activities or total funding amounts for those years. GAO found that the multiple data systems used to track program activities and funding are not interoperable and users apply varying methods and definitions to guide data inputs. The terminology used to identify activity types is inconsistent across the combatant commands and the National Guard Bureau. Further, funding data from the National Guard Bureau and the combatant commands were incomplete, and while the National Guard Bureau provided its total spending on the program since 2007, it could not provide information on the cost of individual activities. Although the National Guard Bureau has initiated efforts to improve the accuracy of its own State Partnership Program data, without common agreement with the combatant commands on what types of data need to be tracked and how to define activities, the data cannot be easily reconciled across databases.
The most prominent challenge cited by State Partnership Program stakeholders involved how to fund activities that include U.S. and foreign partner civilian participants. Activities involving civilians, for example, have included subject-matter expert exchanges on military support to civil authorities and maritime border security. Although DOD guidance does not prohibit civilian involvement in activities, many stakeholders have the impression that the U.S. military is not permitted to engage civilians in State Partnership Program activities and some states may have chosen not to conduct any events with civilians due to the perception that it may violate DOD guidance. DOD and the National Guard Bureau are working on developing additional guidance and training in this area. Until these efforts are completed, confusion may continue to exist and hinder the programs full potential to fulfill National Guard and combatant command missions.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD complete its comprehensive oversight framework for the State Partnership Program, develop guidance to achieve reliable data on the program, and issue guidance and conduct additional training on the appropriate use of funding for program activities, including those involving civilians. DOD concurred with all recommendations.