This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-123 
entitled 'International Military Education and Training: Agencies 
Should Emphasize Human Rights Training and Improve Evaluations' which 
was released on October 27, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

October 2011: 

International Military Education and Training: 

Agencies Should Emphasize Human Rights Training and Improve 
Evaluations: 

International Military Training: 

GAO-12-123: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-123, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Since 1976, the International Military Education and Training (IMET) 
program has provided education and training to foreign military 
personnel. The programís objectives include professionalizing military 
forces and increasing respect for democratic values and human rights. 
In 2010, Congress appropriated $108 million in IMET funding for more 
than 120 countries. The Department of State (State) and the Department 
of Defense (DOD) share responsibility for IMET. In response to a 
mandate in the conference report accompanying the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2010, this report assesses (1) changes in the 
program from fiscal years 2000 to 2010, by funding levels, students 
trained, and recipient countries; (2) the programís provision of and 
emphasis on human rights training for its students; and (3) the extent 
to which State and DOD monitor IMET graduates and evaluate program 
effectiveness. GAO reviewed and analyzed agency funding, planning, and 
performance management documents, and interviewed U.S. officials in 
Washington, D.C., and overseas. 

What GAO Found: 

Although IMET funding has increased by more than 70 percent since 
fiscal year 2000, the number of students trained has decreased by 
nearly 14 percent. Over the last 10 years, countries in the Europe and 
Eurasia region have continued to receive the largest portion of IMET 
funding, receiving $30 million in 2010. However, all regions have 
received increased IMET funding since fiscal year 2000, with the levels 
of funding to the Near East and South and Central Asia regions more 
than doubling from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2010. Professional 
military education represents the largest single use of IMET fundsó
nearly 50 percent in fiscal year 2010. Other major types of training 
funded by IMET include English language training and technical 
training, which represented 13 and 11 percent, respectively, of fiscal 
year 2010 IMET program costs. 

Training to build respect for internationally recognized human rights 
standards is provided to IMET students through various in-class and 
field-based courses, but human rights training was generally not 
identified as a priority in the IMET country training plans GAO 
reviewed. IMET students primarily receive human rights training through 
human rights courses that focus on promoting democratic values, and 
through a voluntary program that sends them on visits to democratically 
oriented institutions. However, human rights and related concepts were 
identified as key objectives in only 11 of the 29 country training 
plans GAO reviewed for IMET participant countries that received low 
rankings for political and civil freedoms by Freedom House, an 
independent nongovernmental organization. Furthermore, 7 of the 12 
training managers GAO interviewed from countries that received low to 
moderate rankings for political and civil freedoms said that human 
rights was not a priority compared to other IMET objectives. 

State and DODís ability to assess IMETís effectiveness is limited by 
several weaknesses in program monitoring and evaluation. First, State 
and DOD have not established a performance plan for IMET that explains 
how the program is expected to achieve its goals and how progress can 
be assessed through performance measures and targets. Second, State and 
DOD have limited information on most IMET graduates, due to weaknesses 
in efforts to monitor these graduatesí careers after training. DOD has 
collected updated career information on only 1 percent of IMET 
graduates. Training managers identified limited resources and lack of 
host country cooperation as among the key challenges to monitoring IMET 
graduates. Third, the agenciesí current evaluation efforts include few 
of the evaluation elements commonly accepted as appropriate for 
measuring progress of training programs, and do not objectively measure 
how IMET contributes to long-term, desired program outcomes. The 
agencies could incorporate existing evaluation practices, including 
those of other State and DOD entities, or suggestions from training 
managers overseas to improve IMET monitoring and evaluation efforts. 
IMET training managers have offered suggestions for improving 
monitoring efforts, such as by clarifying DODís monitoring guidance and 
strengthening DODís IMET data systems. Training managers also offered 
ideas to improve program evaluations, such as surveying U.S. military 
groups to assess participant nationsí proficiency in key areas, 
assessing career progress of IMET graduates against non-IMET graduates 
in specific countries, and testing students before and after training 
to measure changes in knowledge or attitudes. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretaries of State and Defense (1) ensure 
human rights training is a priority in IMET recipient countries with 
known human rights concerns, and (2) take initial steps to begin 
developing a system to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMET program, 
including adopting existing evaluation practices used by other State 
and DOD agencies and soliciting IMET training managers for suggestions 
on improving monitoring and evaluation efforts. State and DOD both 
concurred with our recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao/gov/products/GAO-12-123. For more 
information, contact Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. at (202) 512-7331 or 
johnsoncm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

IMET Funding Appropriated and the Number of Students Trained Have 
Changed over the Past 10 Fiscal Years: 

IMET Offers Human Rights Training but Does not Emphasize it in Many 
Countries of Concern: 

Program Monitoring and Evaluation Weaknesses Limit Agencies' Efforts to 
Assess IMET Effectiveness: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Freedom House Rankings for Fiscal Year 2010 IMET Recipient 
Countries: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Types of Human Rights-Related Objectives Identified as 
Priorities for 29 Countries Ranked as Not Free: 

Table 2: IMET Recipient Countries by Fiscal Year 2010 Funding Level and 
2011 Freedom House Ranking: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Number of Students Trained Compared to IMET Funding 
Appropriated, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2010: 

Figure 2: IMET Funding Appropriated, by Region, for Fiscal Years 2000 
and 2010: 

Figure 3: Top 15 Funded IMET Recipient Countries, Fiscal Year 2010: 

Figure 4: IMET Training Breakdown by Program Cost, Fiscal Year 2010: 

Figure 5: Survey Responses on Challenges to Monitoring IMET Graduates: 

Figure 6: Extent to Which State and DOD Collect Performance Data at 
Evaluation Levels: 

Abbreviations: 

BSRP: Bureau Strategic Resource Plan: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DSCA: Defense Security Cooperation Agency: 

E-IMET: Expanded-IMET: 

IMET: International Military Education and Training: 

PME: professional military education: 

SCO: Security Cooperation Office: 

State: Department of State: 

[End of section] 

October 27, 2011: 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Lindsey Graham: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and 
Related Programs: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Kay Granger: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Nita Lowey: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

Since 1976, the International Military Education and Training (IMET) 
program has provided education and training to foreign military 
personnel.[Footnote 1] The program's objectives include strengthening 
recipient nations' defense capabilities, professionalizing military 
forces, and increasing foreign militaries' respect for democratic 
values and human rights. In 2010, Congress appropriated $108 million in 
IMET funding for more than 120 countries. The Department of State 
(State) and the Department of Defense (DOD) share responsibility for 
IMET program policy making and management. In 1990, we found that the 
agencies had no system for evaluating IMET program impact or guidelines 
for monitoring the use of IMET graduates. We recommended that State and 
DOD jointly develop a system to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMET 
program.[Footnote 2] 

The conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
of 2010 directed us to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMET program 
in building professionalism and respect for human rights within foreign 
military forces.[Footnote 3] This report assesses (1) changes in the 
program from fiscal years 2000 to 2010, by funding levels, number of 
students trained, and recipient countries, by region; (2) the program's 
provision of and emphasis on human rights training for its students; 
and (3) the extent to which State and DOD monitor IMET graduates and 
evaluate program effectiveness. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed U.S. laws related to the IMET 
program. We interviewed officials from multiple State bureaus and DOD 
entities, including the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), 
geographic combatant commands, and several military departments and 
U.S. military schools. To address the first objective, we analyzed 
State and DSCA documents related to IMET funding allocations and number 
of students trained by training type and geographic region. We used 
fiscal year 2000 as our starting point because, according to DSCA, 
their data were unreliable prior to that year. To address the second 
objective, we analyzed selected training plans from IMET participant 
countries and curriculum documents from several DOD schools. To address 
the third objective, we assessed State and DOD IMET performance 
management documents; reviewed our prior reports on recommended 
training evaluation practices; interviewed IMET training managers from 
20 countries, choosing a selection of higher-funded countries with a 
range of host country political rights and civil liberties conditions; 
and surveyed all 123 IMET training managers worldwide, receiving 70 
completed survey responses.[Footnote 4] 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through October 2011 
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. (See app. I for a complete 
discussion of our scope and methodology.) 

Background: 

The IMET program was established in 1976 to provide military education 
and training to foreign security forces. The purpose of the program is 
to: 

* encourage effective and mutually beneficial relations and increased 
understanding between the United States and foreign countries in 
furtherance of the goals of international peace and security; 

* improve the ability of participating foreign countries to utilize 
their resources, including defense articles and defense services 
obtained by them from the United States, with maximum effectiveness, 
thereby contributing to greater self-reliance; and: 

* increase the awareness of foreign nationals participating in such 
activities of basic issues involving internationally recognized human 
rights.[Footnote 5] 

In 1990, Congress expanded the objectives of the IMET program to focus 
on fostering greater understanding of and respect for civilian control 
of the military, contributing to responsible defense resource 
management, and improving military justice systems and procedures in 
accordance with internationally recognized human rights. Congress also 
authorized civilians working in nondefense ministries, legislators, and 
nongovernmental groups to participate in courses that were developed to 
address the expanded IMET program objectives. State and DOD refer to 
the expanded IMET objectives as Expanded-IMET (E-IMET). 

State and DOD share responsibility for IMET. State, in addition to 
determining each country's eligibility for security assistance programs 
as well as the scope of security assistance and funding level for each 
country, also identifies the annual IMET goals and objectives for each 
country through the Congressional Budget Justification. DOD, through 
DSCA, is responsible for developing the administrative policy and 
administering program guidance and direction to the military 
departments and their training field activities.[Footnote 6] The IMET 
program trains participants at more than 180 U.S. military schools and 
overseas, according to DSCA. IMET-funded training courses can range 
from approximately 5 weeks to more than 10 months.[Footnote 7] 

Training managers in U.S. Security Cooperation Offices (SCO) overseas 
implement IMET, with support and oversight from DOD's geographic 
combatant commands. SCOs help IMET recipient countries identify, plan, 
and program training that meets U.S. and host nation objectives. SCO 
training managers work with host nation counterparts to identify 
qualified training candidates and monitor IMET participants after 
graduation.[Footnote 8] 

IMET Funding Appropriated and the Number of Students Trained Have 
Changed over the Past 10 Fiscal Years: 

While IMET funding appropriated has increased by more than 70 percent 
since fiscal year 2000, the number of students trained has declined by 
nearly 14 percent. Countries in the Europe and Eurasia region received 
the largest portion of IMET funding in fiscal years 2000 and 2010, 
though all regions have received increased IMET funding since fiscal 
year 2000. Professional military education represented the largest 
single use of IMET funds in fiscal year 2010. 

Despite Increase in IMET Funding, Number of Students Trained Has 
Declined: 

From fiscal years 2000 to 2010, funding appropriated for the IMET 
program rose from approximately $62 million[Footnote 9] to $108 
million. While IMET funding has generally increased in that 10-year 
period, the number of students trained declined from approximately 
8,200 to nearly 7,100 (see fig. 1). Moreover, this total dropped by 40 
percent between fiscal years 2004 and 2010. Furthermore, between fiscal 
years 2000 and 2010, administrative costs for the IMET program 
increased from $765,000 to more than $5 million. The IMET funding per 
student rose from nearly $6,100 per student in fiscal year 2000 to 
approximately $15,000 per student in fiscal year 2010. 

Figure 1: Number of Students Trained Compared to IMET Funding 
Appropriated, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Fiscal Year: 2000; 
Appropriations [A]: 62.31; 
Students trained: 8216. 

Fiscal Year: 2001; 
Appropriations [A]: 70.58; 
Students trained: 8386. 

Fiscal Year: 2002; 
Appropriations [A]: 84.17; 
10417. 

Fiscal Year: 2003; 
Appropriations [A]: 93.61; 
Students trained: 10736. 

Fiscal Year: 2004; 
Appropriations [A]: 104.68; 
Students trained: 11832. 

Fiscal Year: 2005; 
Appropriations [A]: 98.99; 
Students trained: 8622. 

Fiscal Year: 2006; 
Appropriations [A]: 92.35; 
Students trained: 7998. 

Fiscal Year: 2007; 
Appropriations [A]: 89.64; 
Students trained: 6845. 

Fiscal Year: 2008; 
Appropriations [A]: 86.92; 
Students trained: 6015. 

Fiscal Year: 2009; 
Appropriations [A]: 93.65; 
Students trained: 6321. 

Fiscal Year: 2010; 
Appropriations [A]: 108; 
Students trained: 7086. 

Source: State Congressional Budget Justifications. 

[A] The appropriations shown in this figure have been converted to 2010 
dollars. 

[End of figure] 

DOD officials attributed the decline in the number of students trained 
to several factors. For example, according to a DOD official, after 
2004, per diem costs for foreign military students were adjusted to 
match the per diems of U.S. students, resulting in higher overall per 
student training costs. In addition, a DOD official said international 
student housing has become costlier due in part to reduced availability 
of low-cost military base housing. A DOD official also noted another 
cause of the higher overall per student training cost was increased 
tuition rates because of increased instructor cost. This official 
stated this was primarily because military instructors are in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, and therefore more resident DOD courses are 
taught by government civilians or contractors. 

Europe and Eurasia Continue to Receive the Largest Share of IMET 
Funding: 

Countries in the Europe and Eurasia region received the largest portion 
of IMET funding in fiscal years 2000 and 2010, receiving approximately 
$22 million[Footnote 10] in fiscal year 2000 and more than $30 million 
in 2010 (see fig. 2). However, all regions have received increased IMET 
funding since 2000, with the levels of funding to the Near East and 
South and Central Asia regions more than doubling from fiscal year 2000 
to fiscal year 2010. 

Figure 2: IMET Funding Appropriated, by Region, for Fiscal Years 2000 
and 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: bar graph] 

Europe and Eurasia; 
Fiscal Year 2000: 22.08; 
Fiscal Year 2010: 30.2. 

Western Hemisphere; 
Fiscal Year 2000: 12.37; 
Fiscal Year 2010: 16.4. 

Africa; 
Fiscal Year 2000: 9.44; 
Fiscal Year 2010: 15.2. 

Near East; 
Fiscal Year 2000: 7.21; 
Fiscal Year 2010: 18.593. 

East Asia|and Pacific; 
Fiscal Year 2000: 6.2; 
Fiscal Year 2010: 8.93. 

South and|Central Asia; 
Fiscal Year 2000: 4.05; 
Fiscal Year 2010: 13.48. 

Source: GAO analysis of State Congressional Budget Justification. 

Note: Fiscal year 2000 appropriations are shown in 2010 dollars for 
comparison over time. This figure does not include administrative 
costs, which were $765,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $5.2 million in 
fiscal year 2010. 

[End of figure] 

In fiscal year 2000, total IMET funding provided to 109 countries 
ranged from nearly $28,000 to nearly $2.2 million,[Footnote 11] while 
in fiscal year 2010 it ranged from $7,000 to $5 million for 125 
countries. The top 15 IMET countries by funding level for fiscal year 
2010 accounted for almost 35 percent of the total program allocation 
(see fig. 3). Appendix II includes a list of funding levels for all 
IMET recipient countries in fiscal year 2010. 

Figure 3: Top 15 Funded IMET Recipient Countries, Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: world map and data] 

Top 15 IMET countries, by funding, FY 2010. 

IMET recipient countries, FY 2010. 

Dollars in millions. 

East Asia and Pacific: 
Philippines: $1.85; 
Indonesia: $1.82. 

Europe and Eurasia: 
Turkey: $5.00; 
Poland: $2.20; 
Czech Republic: $1.90; 
Ukraine: $1.90; 
Georgia: $1.81; 
Romania $1.76. 

Near East: 
Jordan: $3.80; 
Lebanon: $2.50; 
Iraq: $2.00; 
Tunisia: $1.95; 
Egypt: $1.90; 
Morocco: $1.80. 

South and Central Asia: 
Pakistan: $5.00.

Source: GAO analysis of State Congressional Budget Justifications, Map 
Resources (map). 

[End of figure] 

Professional Military Education Accounts for Nearly Half of IMET 
Funding: 

Professional military education (PME) accounted for nearly $50 million 
of IMET program costs in fiscal year 2010 (see fig. 4). PME includes 
basic and advanced levels of training--in areas such as finance, 
intelligence, and logistics--intended to prepare military officers for 
leadership. According to DSCA, PME is generally longer and costlier 
than other IMET training types; despite representing nearly half of 
program costs, it accounted for about a quarter of IMET students (1,895 
students) in fiscal year 2010. 

Figure 4: IMET Training Breakdown by Program Cost, Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie graph] 

Professional military education: 49%: $48,845,543; 
Management-related training: 10%: $9,639,687; 
Postgraduate/degree training: 4%: $4,161,477; 
English language training: 13% $12,811,188; 
Technical training: 11%: $10,586,877; 
General support: 1%: $933,688; 
Mobile training: 5%: $5,333,412; 
Other: 7% $7,038,180. 

Source: GAO analysis of State and DOD data. 

[End of figure] 

In fiscal year 2010, English language training comprised nearly $13 
million, or 13 percent, of program costs, and was attended by 453 IMET 
students. This training is for students who must gain English language 
proficiency in order to attend other IMET-funded courses. Technical 
training--in areas such as maintenance and operations--comprised nearly 
$11 million, or 11 percent, and 830 students attended this training. 
Other types of IMET-funded training for fiscal year 2010 include: 

* management-related training for officers and enlisted technicians and 
supervisors in management of defense organizations and defense-related 
areas such as information technology, logistics, engineering, and 
others (357 students); 

* postgraduate/degree training to obtain master's degrees at the Naval 
Postgraduate School or the Air Force Institute of Technology (53 
students); and: 

* mobile training courses taught by DOD military, civilian, and 
contractor personnel in the recipient country that can address subjects 
such as military justice, peacekeeping operations, and rules of 
engagement and the use of force (5,586 students).[Footnote 12] 

IMET-funded training varies by region and nation to meet the country's 
needs as determined by State, DOD, and recipient nations. For example, 
in fiscal year 2010, 29 percent of Iraq's IMET funding supported 
language training and 13 percent supported PME. Comparable percentages 
for Pakistan in 2010 were 1 percent and 32 percent, respectively. In 
another example, mobile training courses constituted 52 percent of IMET 
funding for Angola in fiscal year 2010, but only 4 percent for 
Montenegro. These countries had comparable funding levels in 2010. 

IMET Offers Human Rights Training but Does not Emphasize It in Many 
Countries of Concern: 

IMET students can receive human rights training through several venues, 
including human-rights focused courses and field visits to democratic 
institutions. However, only about a quarter of IMET country training 
plans we reviewed for participant countries with poor records of 
political and civil freedoms cited human rights as a U.S. program 
objective. 

IMET Provides Some Human Rights Training through Classroom and Field 
Courses: 

Some IMET students attend E-IMET-certified courses with an explicit 
focus on human rights and related concepts.[Footnote 13] As of February 
2010, 141 E-IMET certified courses were offered. Seven focused on human 
rights, rule of law, or international military law. These included 
courses on establishing civil-military relations and international law 
of military operations. A total of 79 IMET students took human rights 
courses in fiscal year 2010 at the Defense Institute of International 
Legal Studies, which, along with the Naval Postgraduate School, 
provides E-IMET courses on human rights. The Defense Institute of 
International Legal Studies offers courses including the law of armed 
conflict and human rights, and rule of law, and an additional 798 IMET 
students took mobile training related to human rights in fiscal year 
2010. All IMET students in the master's degree program at the Naval 
Postgraduate School are required to take a seminar on American life and 
institutions that includes one class on human rights. While a Naval 
Postgraduate School official was unable to provide an exact number, he 
said approximately a quarter of the 99 students who took the seminar in 
2010 were IMET students. 

In addition, the Field Studies Program increases awareness of human 
rights and American values through visits to institutions that promote 
democratic concepts such as media outlets and universities. According 
to DOD guidance,[Footnote 14] the Field Studies Program should include 
discussion with the students about topics such as the U.S. government 
structure, judicial system, and political party system, and the way in 
which all of these elements reflect the U.S. commitment to the basic 
principles of internationally recognized human rights. As part of the 
Field Studies Program, IMET students have visited state and local 
government offices, a local police department, academic institutions, 
major defense contractors, the United Nations, and the Statue of 
Liberty. 

In addition, students may receive PME-related human rights training. We 
interviewed officials and reviewed curricula from several military 
schools that provide PME training. These officials told us that human 
rights content was integrated broadly into the DOD PME curriculum, and 
not as a standalone course. One exception among schools that offer PME 
training is the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. 
The institute provides human rights training as part of its democracy 
and human rights curriculum through five legislatively mandated 
subjects, including human rights, rule of law, and civilian control of 
the military. A total of 464 IMET students received human rights 
training at the institute in fiscal year 2010. 

Country Training Plans Cited Human Rights to a Limited Extent: 

We reviewed training plans for the 29 IMET participant nations ranked 
as "not free" by an independent nongovernmental organization called 
Freedom House, and found that only 8 of those plans cited human rights 
as a program objective (see table 1).[Footnote 15] For example, the 
training plan for Turkmenistan--which Freedom House included among the 
nine countries that received the lowest possible rating for both 
political freedom and civil liberties--did not cite human rights among 
program objectives that included building naval force capacity, 
exposing military leaders to U.S. society, and increasing English 
language capability. The training plan for Chad highlighted 
counterterrorism and the role of the military in a democracy. It did 
not cite human rights, though State has documented various human rights 
abuses in the country, including extrajudicial killings and security 
force impunity. Even when including related terms, such as rule of law 
and civil-military relations, only 11 out of the 29 plans we reviewed 
could be reasonably interpreted as mentioning either human rights or 
these other human rights-related concepts. For example, the country 
training plan for Cameroon did not explicitly note the importance of 
human rights but noted an objective to reinforce responsible civil-
military relationships. 

Table 1: Types of Human Rights-Related Objectives Identified as 
Priorities for 29 Countries Ranked as Not Free: 

Country: Africa: Angola; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Africa: Cameroon; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Africa: Chad; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: Check. 

Country: Africa: Djibouti; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Africa: Ethiopia; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Africa: Gabon; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Africa: Mauritania; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Africa: Republic of the Congo; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Africa: Rwanda; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Africa: Sudan; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Africa: Swaziland; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: East Asia and the Pacific: Cambodia; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: East Asia and the Pacific: Laos; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: East Asia and the Pacific:  Vietnam; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Europe and Eurasia:  Azerbaijan; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Near East[A]: Algeria; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Near East[A]: Bahrain; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Near East[A]: Egypt; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Near East[A]: Iraq; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Near East[A]: Jordan; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Near East[A]: Oman; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Near East[A]: Tunisia; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: Check; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: Near East[A]: Yemen; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: South and Central Asia: Afghanistan; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: South and Central Asia: Kazakhstan; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: South and Central Asia: Tajikistan; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: South and Central Asia: Turkmenistan; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Country: South and Central Asia: Uzbekistan; 
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty]; 
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and Freedom House data. 

[A] Though Libya received IMET funds in fiscal year 2010, it was 
excluded from this analysis because program money was withdrawn for 
fiscal year 2011 and no current training plan exists. Based on 
information from a State official, Saudi Arabia also was excluded from 
this analysis because of the limited size and scope of its IMET 
program. 

[End of table] 

We also interviewed 20 SCO training managers from IMET recipient 
countries representing a mix of Freedom House rankings, including 12 
countries ranked as "partly free" or "not free." Seven of the 12 
training managers said human rights was not a consideration or priority 
compared to other IMET objectives. One training manager said that 
development of human rights was an objective of IMET but not for the 
country program he managed, and another said the country program 
emphasizes professional education and leadership. Only 3 of the 12 
training managers interviewed acknowledged that human rights was a 
country-level priority. One training manager said that human rights is 
a key objective reinforced by U.S. officials at post in partnership 
with the host nation. The remaining two training managers interviewed 
did not provide clear answers on how human rights was prioritized. 

Of the six DOD combatant commands with geographic responsibilities, 
Southern Command--which has an area of responsibility that includes all 
of Latin America except for Mexico--placed particular importance on 
human rights with a policy dedicated to the issue. Although it does not 
mention IMET specifically, Southern Command's human rights policy and 
procedures include language reinforcing the need for promoting and 
protecting human rights, and creating opportunities for better human 
rights understanding. 

Program Monitoring and Evaluation Weaknesses Limit Agencies' Efforts to 
Assess IMET Effectiveness: 

State and DOD's ability to assess IMET's effectiveness is limited by 
several weaknesses in program monitoring and evaluation. First, State 
and DOD have not established a performance plan that includes IMET 
goals, objectives, and measures. Second, the agencies have limited 
information on most IMET graduates resulting from weaknesses in DOD's 
efforts to monitor and share information on these graduates after 
training. Third, the agencies' evaluation efforts include few of the 
elements commonly accepted as appropriate for measuring training 
programs, and do not measure how IMET contributes to long-term program 
outcomes. Finally, the agencies have not incorporated into their 
evaluation efforts existing practices--including those of State and DOD 
entities--and the input of IMET training managers. 

State and DOD Have Not Established a Performance Plan for IMET: 

State's May 2011 program evaluation policy requires its bureaus to 
submit evaluation plans for all programs. However, State has not 
established a performance plan for the IMET program. According to State 
officials, IMET is referenced in State's fiscal year 2013 Bureau 
Strategic Resource Plans (BSRP), which are to contain the evaluation 
plans called for in this policy. Our review of 2013 State 
BSRPs[Footnote 16] found little or no mention of IMET overall. However, 
the Political-Military Affairs BSRP notes that the bureau is to begin 
implementing a system for monitoring and evaluating security assistance 
programs, including IMET, which will continue over the next several 
years. According to State officials, this effort will begin in 2012, 
and the plan notes it will include a full-time position to coordinate 
the effort. Our prior work has noted the importance of developing 
program evaluation plans that include clear goals and performance 
measures, as well as intermediate measures to demonstrate performance 
linkages for programs, such as IMET, where outcomes may not be apparent 
for years. State officials stated the bureaus were developing more 
detailed evaluation plans, but the bureaus had not completed these 
plans during the course of our review. 

DOD also lacks a performance plan for IMET. DSCA's Strategic Plan 2009-
2014, Campaign Support Plan 2010, and directorate-level performance 
plan do not include IMET performance measures or plans for evaluating 
the program.[Footnote 17] A DSCA official stated that IMET is grouped 
together with all international education and training programs, and is 
not specified for performance planning purposes. A DSCA official stated 
IMET is not emphasized in current performance plans because it is an 
efficient and effective program, and is less of a priority for 
evaluation than newer programs. The Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy has established an office to conduct performance 
monitoring and evaluation. However, according to officials from the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, this monitoring 
and evaluation office will not address IMET. 

DOD Monitors IMET Graduates to a Limited Extent: 

DSCA Collects Career Information on Only a Few IMET Graduates: 

DSCA's database of IMET trainees provides limited information on these 
graduates' career progress or current position. We have identified 
program monitoring as a key element of agency internal control and 
quality control systems. Agencies should use such monitoring to assess 
program quality and performance over time. A key facet of IMET program 
monitoring is tracking basic career information to understand how IMET 
graduates are being utilized following training. U.S. law requires the 
Secretary of Defense to develop and maintain a database containing 
records on each IMET trainee, including the type of instruction 
received and whether it was successfully completed, and, to the extent 
practicable, a record of the trainee's subsequent military or defense 
ministry career and current position and location.[Footnote 18] DSCA 
maintains IMET records in the Defense Security Assistance Management 
System, which includes names of IMET trainees and other biographical 
information.[Footnote 19] The database is updated with career 
information on IMET graduates who have attained a prominent rank or 
position within their host country military or civilian government--
referred to as a position of prominence.[Footnote 20] As of June 2011, 
DSCA data indicate that only 1 percent of the nearly 88,000 IMET 
trainees in the database--978 IMET graduates--had attained a position 
of prominence. Career information--such as on the extent to which IMET 
graduates are assigned to positions relevant to their training, remain 
employed by the host nation following training, and progress within 
their host nation military and civilian rank structure--is not 
systematically updated for the remaining IMET graduates who have not 
attained a position of prominence. A DSCA official acknowledged 
weaknesses exist in current efforts to monitor IMET graduates. 

IMET Monitoring Efforts Vary Across Posts, but Could Provide Valuable 
Information: 

Survey responses from DOD training managers indicate that posts monitor 
IMET graduates to varying degrees.[Footnote 21] For example, 35 of 59 
training managers who responded to our survey indicated they maintain 
some career information on all or most IMET graduates, while 23 of 59 
who responded said they do so for some, a few, or no graduates. 
Furthermore, though DOD guidance states SCOs must obtain appropriate 
assurances that IMET trainees are employed in the skill for which 
trained for a period of time to warrant the expense to the United 
States, 15 of 58 training managers who responded to our survey 
indicated they did not typically track whether IMET graduates are 
assigned to a position relevant to their IMET training. 

The survey responses also indicate in many cases training managers 
obtain valuable monitoring information that State and DOD are not fully 
utilizing. For example, of those 35 training managers who indicated 
that they maintain some career information on all or most IMET 
graduates, 24 said they do so for 3 years or longer following training, 
and 17 of these 24 said they do for 6 years or longer. However, despite 
its potential value as part of a broader IMET evaluation effort, 
training managers do not systematically share this information with 
State and DOD, and are only required to share information on the small 
percentage of IMET graduates who have attained a position of 
prominence. 

In addition to our survey, we also interviewed 20 training managers, 
and found monitoring weaknesses. In particular, 18 of the 20 training 
managers we interviewed monitored a limited number of IMET graduates. 
Six of these managers said they sought career information on graduates 
only when circumstances warranted, while a few stated that they were 
unable to conduct any monitoring of graduates. One training manager 
said that after a student returns from training, "I am done with him," 
while another said, "we lose track of graduates as soon as they return" 
to their home country following training. 

Our survey and interview results indicate that training managers 
generally place greater monitoring focus on graduates with more 
critical and higher level skills, in accordance with DOD guidance. For 
example, 35 of the 49 training managers who responded to our survey 
said that they collected and updated at least some career information 
for all or most IMET PME graduates. Further, 14 of the 20 training 
managers we interviewed said that they generally focused monitoring on 
graduates who attained a position of prominence or graduates of PME 
training. While this emphasis on higher-level graduates is consistent 
with DOD guidance, these graduates represent a limited portion of IMET 
trainees--in fiscal year 2010, PME students represented nearly 27 
percent of all IMET participants. 

Training Managers Identified Challenges to Monitoring IMET Graduates 
but Provided Suggestions for Improvement: 

Training managers we surveyed and interviewed identified several 
challenges to their ability to monitor IMET graduates. As figure 5 
shows, survey respondents--ranging from nearly one half to more than 
three-quarters of the respondents--indicated that their ability to 
collect and update career information on IMET graduates was somewhat or 
greatly hindered by resource limitations relating to personnel and 
time, issues with host country willingness and ability to provide 
information on graduates, and unclear guidance on the extent to which 
training managers should monitor IMET graduates. 

Figure 5: Survey Responses on Challenges to Monitoring IMET Graduates: 

[Refer to PDF for image: bar graph] 

Resources limitations (personnel and time); 
Greatly limit: 19; 
Somewhat limit: 28; 
Does not limit or not applicable: 13. 

Issues with host country cooperation and willingness to 
provide information; 
Greatly limit: 13; 
Somewhat limit: 16; 
Does not limit or not applicable: 30. 

Limitations with host country information systems; 
Greatly limit: 15; 
Somewhat limit: 23; 
Does not limit or not applicable: 20. 

Unclear monitoring guidance; 
Greatly limit: 5; 
Somewhat limit: 22; 
Does not limit or not applicable: 33. 

Source: GAO survey of training managers. 

Note: We do not include missing responses in this figure. 

[End of figure] 

These challenges were also highlighted during our interviews with 20 
training managers. In particular, more than half of the 20 managers 
said they did not have enough time or personnel to monitor IMET 
graduates. In addition, more than half of the training managers stated 
that the host nation did not fully cooperate in providing information 
on IMET graduates. Several training managers said that requesting 
information from the host nation on IMET graduates would likely be 
perceived as a U.S. intelligence gathering effort or an effort to 
unduly influence trainees. Finally, a few training managers explained 
that they were unable to obtain information on IMET graduates in a 
timely manner due to various factors, including slow response times 
from host nation officials and inefficient host nation information 
management systems. 

Training managers also offered suggestions for improving IMET 
monitoring, such as: 

* clarify guidance to specify what information training managers should 
collect on IMET graduates, the desired outcomes, and best practices for 
doing so; 


* improve data systems so training managers and IMET graduates can 
enter updated career information more easily; 

* require recipient nations to provide updated information on IMET 
graduates as a precondition of IMET assistance; and: 

* increase information sharing between military schools and SCOs 
regarding IMET graduates. 

Multiple training managers also noted that developing strong working 
relationships with host nation counterparts and meeting with IMET 
graduates before and after training were important in helping their 
current efforts to monitor IMET graduates. For example, one training 
manager explained that her host nation counterparts provided timely 
information about the career changes of IMET graduates, and also hosted 
an annual reception for past years' IMET graduates to reinforce 
relationships established by the program. 

State and DOD Evaluation Efforts Provide Limited Information on Program 
Effectiveness: 

State and DOD's current evaluation efforts include some of the elements 
for measuring progress of training programs, but do not objectively 
measure how IMET contributes to long-term, desired program outcomes. We 
have developed guidance to evaluate how training efforts contribute to 
the accomplishment of program goals and objectives.[Footnote 22] This 
guidance notes that one commonly accepted approach to evaluating the 
impact of training over time consists of five levels of evaluation: 
reaction (level I), learning (level II), behavior (level III), results 
(level IV), and return on investment (level V) (see fig.6). 

Figure 6: Extent to Which State and DOD Collect Performance Data at 
Evaluation Levels: 

[Refer PDF for image: illustration] 

Pyramid: 

Level I: reaction; 
How does the learner feel about the training? 
Extent to Which State and DOD Collect PerformanceData at Various Evaluation
Levels: Data collected to some extent. 

Level II: learning; 
What facts or knowledge did the learner gain? 
Extent to Which State and DOD Collect PerformanceData at Various Evaluation
Levels: Data collected to some extent. 

Level III: behaviors; 
What skills did the learner develop? What new information is the 
learner using on the job? 
Extent to Which State and DOD Collect PerformanceData at Various Evaluation
Levels: Data not collected. 

Level IV: results or effectiveness; 
Did the learner apply the new skills to the 
necessary tasks in the organization? If so, what results were achieved? 
Extent to Which State and DOD Collect PerformanceData at Various Evaluation
Levels: Data not collected. 

Level V: return on investment; 
How does the monetary value of results of the 
program compare with the related costs? 
Extent to Which State and DOD Collect PerformanceData at Various Evaluation
Levels: Data not collected. 

Source: GAO analysis of State and DOD data, and GAO (presentation). 

Note: Our presentation is based on information from Donald L. 
Kirkpatrick, Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (San 
Francisco, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1998), and Jack J. 
Phillips, ed., Implementing Evaluation Systems and Processes 
(Alexandria, Va., American Society for Training and Development, 1998.) 

[End of figure] 

The lower levels of evaluation--levels I and II--focus on more 
immediate training outputs, such as whether participants liked the 
training or how much they learned. The higher levels--levels III, IV, 
and V--measure longer-term program results by assessing how training is 
applied on the job and contributes to the accomplishment of program 
goals and objectives. As figure 6 illustrates, current State and DOD 
IMET evaluation efforts only partially address these five levels of 
evaluation. We recognize conducting higher levels of evaluation can be 
challenging and resource intensive. Agencies can consider feasibility, 
cost-effectiveness, and other factors when determining the appropriate 
extent to which to use the various evaluation levels to assess 
programs. 

State and DOD have three main sources of IMET performance information: 
a survey of some IMET graduates, a report on IMET graduates who have 
attained prominent ranks or positions, and country-level narrative 
performance information. While the survey collects some level I and 
level II performance evaluation information, none of these three 
sources captures higher-level performance information for the program 
worldwide, such as the extent to which IMET graduates apply program 
skills or knowledge on the job (level III) or contribute to 
organizational changes or results through the application of these 
skills or knowledge (level IV). For example: 

* State and DOD's survey of IMET students[Footnote 23] collects some 
information on student's reaction to and knowledge gained from IMET 
training, but little insight on how IMET affects trainees' future 
behavior or program results. The survey includes questions that gauge 
students' reaction to the training, such as whether it met expectations 
or was valuable. It also has questions on the extent to which students 
think they gained understanding of certain issues. However, the survey 
is administered only once, immediately after training, and is not 
accompanied by a pretest to compare knowledge levels before and after 
training. The survey also does not include a follow-up component to 
assess how students--a year later for instance--apply skills learned 
through IMET training on the job. 

* DSCA's annual report of IMET graduates who have attained "positions 
of prominence" reflects a small fraction of the overall IMET graduate 
population and does not assess graduates' job performance relative to 
program objectives. This report identifies the placement of foreign 
officials with a U.S. military training background. For example, two 
heads of state and two deputy heads of state are among the IMET 
graduates who attained a position of prominence. However, as noted 
earlier, graduates who have attained a position of prominence represent 
only 1 percent of all IMET trainees in DSCA's database. Therefore, this 
report does not address IMET's impact on the overall student 
population. Further, though the report provides information on IMET 
graduates' title and training background, it does not include 
evaluative information, such as the extent to which these graduates 
apply IMET learning on the job. 

* DOD collects narrative performance information in annual country 
training plans, but does not systematically analyze this information. 
Each year SCOs must include in their annual training plans--known as 
Combined Education and Training Program Plans--narrative performance 
information on country-level successes or failures related to the use 
of training efforts. For example, plans include narrative information 
on how effectively the host country uses the skills and training of 
returning graduates and how training has enhanced the professionalism 
or capabilities of the host nation. State and DOD could potentially 
analyze some of the narrative information to inform assessments of 
program impact, such as the extent to which graduates are applying IMET 
skills to shape organizational changes or results. 

Other State and DOD Evaluation Practices Could be Applied to IMET: 

State's Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs engages youth, 
students, educators, artists, athletes, and rising leaders in many 
fields in the United States and more than 160 countries through 
academic, cultural, sports, and professional exchanges. The bureau 
conducts several types of evaluation efforts that could be applied to 
IMET, including surveying program participants prior to, immediately 
after, and a year after programs. According to the bureau, these 
surveys enable the bureau to collect baseline and end-of-program data, 
as well as follow-up information on how program participants apply 
their program experience to work behaviors and organizational 
processes. The bureau's Chief of Evaluation suggested that such a multi-
phase survey approach could have applicability for evaluating IMET. 

In addition, several of DOD's regional centers for security studies 
have begun efforts to evaluate long-term program outcomes.[Footnote 24] 
In particular, the Africa Center for Strategic Studies and the Center 
for Hemispheric Defense Studies have developed performance indicators 
intended to measure program impact over time. Using these indicators, 
the centers can attempt to track the extent to which program alumni are 
engaging in certain activities that align with key program objectives. 
Examples of specific indicators the centers have developed include the 
number of program alumni who have contributed to regional center 
publications or host nation strategy documents, lectured on U.S. policy 
or security issues, or developed a new law or policy change within 
their host nation government. 

In addition, SCO training managers suggested several performance 
indicators and activities that State and DOD could adopt to strengthen 
IMET evaluation efforts. These suggestions include: 

* surveying U.S. military officials to determine if IMET has improved 
access and working relationships with the host nation, or proficiency 
in certain areas; 

* assessing the career progression of IMET graduates compared to non-
IMET graduates within specific countries; 

* analyzing the proportion of positions of prominence held by IMET 
graduates, compared to non-IMET graduates; 

* reviewing the extent to which IMET graduates are serving in positions 
that utilize training; 

* conducting pre-and post-IMET tests to measure changes in attitudes 
before and after training; and: 

* assessing select countries' participation in joint operations. 

The training managers we interviewed did not indicate they had tried to 
employ any of these suggestions to evaluate IMET. 

Conclusions: 

Many IMET recipient countries could benefit from increased exposure to 
human rights standards and training, with nearly two-thirds of IMET 
recipients in fiscal year 2010 identified as "not free" or "partly 
free" by Freedom House. Though building respect for human rights is a 
program objective, IMET training managers and country training plans 
indicate a limited emphasis on human rights for those countries with 
known human rights and related concerns. For example, for those 29 IMET 
recipient countries ranked "not free," only 11 training plans 
identified human rights or human rights-related concepts as a program 
objective. State and DOD could take steps to better target the 
provision of human rights training among such IMET recipient countries 
of concern. 

Furthermore, State and DOD continue to have weaknesses in monitoring 
IMET graduates and assessing IMET program effectiveness.[Footnote 25] 
Their current evaluation efforts do not measure how IMET training 
contributes to long-term program outcomes--such as the extent to which 
IMET graduates apply training skills or knowledge on the job, or 
contribute to organizational changes or results through the use of 
these skills. Moreover, current efforts to monitor the use and careers 
of IMET graduates address only a limited number of trainees, while the 
nature and extent of these efforts can vary across posts depending on 
host-country cooperation, available resources, and other factors. While 
we acknowledge it can be challenging to evaluate long-term training 
programs, State and DOD should take initial steps toward a long-term 
commitment to strengthen IMET evaluation efforts. To do so, the 
agencies could follow the established evaluation framework outlined in 
this report, which offers a roadmap for undertaking such efforts; adopt 
applicable evaluation practices used by other agencies; and draw on the 
institutional knowledge of their own staff to determine best approaches 
for improving monitoring and evaluation. To address concerns about 
resources, the agencies may consider monitoring graduates and 
evaluating program effectiveness for selected training types or in 
selected countries. Until the agencies develop a more comprehensive 
IMET program evaluation and monitoring system, they will be unable to 
objectively demonstrate the program's effectiveness in building 
professionalism and respect for human rights within foreign military 
forces. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretaries of State and Defense take several 
steps to emphasize human rights training and improve evaluations for 
the IMET program. 

Specifically, we recommend that the Secretaries of State and Defense 
take steps to ensure that human rights training is identified as a 
priority for those IMET recipient countries with known records of human 
rights concerns. These steps may include highlighting human rights and 
related concepts in country training plans. 

We also recommend that they take initial steps toward developing a 
system for evaluating the effectiveness of the IMET program. These 
steps should build on current efforts toward a more systematic 
collection of performance information--at multiple points in time, over 
several years, and for a set of objective performance measures--and 
should include: 

* adopting existing evaluation practices used by other State and DOD 
agencies, such as periodically surveying program participants to assess 
changes in knowledge or attitudes, and: 

* soliciting ideas from training managers and applying their 
suggestions on improving program monitoring practices and evaluations, 
including for the development of objective performance measures that 
could assess program impact over time. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to State and DOD for their review 
and comment. State provided written comments, which are reprinted in 
appendix III. State generally concurred with our recommendations and 
said it would work with DOD to address them. In particular, State 
stated it will work with DOD to ensure human rights training is 
identified as a priority in IMET recipient countries with known human 
rights concerns. State also stated it will work with DOD to determine 
steps that could be feasibly taken in order to better evaluate the 
effectiveness of the IMET program over time, starting with discussions 
with other State and DOD offices using relevant evaluation practices, 
but also by soliciting ideas from training managers. 

DOD provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix IV. DOD 
concurred with both of our recommendations. DOD stated it will work 
with State to inform training managers in those countries that State 
believes should have human rights specifically listed as an important 
objective in the country's annual training plan. DOD stated the 
inclusion of human rights objectives in country training plans will 
ensure a better policy focus on appropriate education and training 
courses for human rights. DOD acknowledged that it and State have 
weaknesses in their ability to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness 
of the IMET program. DOD stated it will work with State to review 
metrics and evaluation processes within other DOD and State agencies 
and identify best practices to more systematically collect IMET 
performance data. In addition, DOD stated it would solicit ideas from 
the IMET training managers and consider their suggestions on improving 
program monitoring practices and evaluation, to include identifying 
performance measures that could assess the IMET program's impact over 
time. DOD also provided technical comments, which we have included 
throughout this report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees and the Secretaries of State and Defense. This report will 
also be available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Key contributors to 
this report are listed in appendix IV. Contact points for our Offices 
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. 

Signed by: 

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.: 
Director International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To review changes in the International Military Education and Training 
(IMET) program from fiscal years 2000 to 2010, we analyzed Department 
of State and Defense (DOD) documents and data systems related to IMET 
funding allocations by country and region and number of students 
trained by training type. These included Department of State's (State) 
Congressional Budget Justifications, the annual Congressional Report on 
Military International Training, and the Defense Security Cooperation 
Agency's (DSCA) Defense Security Assistance Management System. We used 
fiscal year 2000 as our starting point because, according to DSCA, 
their data were unreliable prior to that year. We discussed and 
clarified the reliability of data included in the system with DSCA 
officials responsible for managing its data and we determined these 
data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. 

To review the provision and prioritization of human rights training for 
IMET students, we obtained curriculum documents, course descriptions, 
and student enrollment information from select DOD training facilities. 
In addition, we analyzed Combined Education and Training Program Plans, 
which outline training priorities and objectives, for IMET recipient 
nations ranked as "not free" by Freedom House in its report titled 
Freedom in the World 2011. We used the Freedom House index as a proxy 
for human rights rankings. State has used Freedom House rankings as an 
indicator to measure progress toward the agency's strategic goal: 
"Governing Justly and Democratically." This goal includes advancing 
respect for human rights. We assessed the emphasis on human rights in 
these training plans using human rights related terminology from the 
Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management's handbook, The 
Management of Security Assistance. Two analysts separately reviewed the 
training plans for human rights and related terminology, and then met 
and reconciled their results. 

To review the extent to which State and DOD have monitored and 
evaluated the IMET program, we reviewed U.S. laws related to the IMET 
program. We also reviewed our prior reports addressing the evaluation 
of training programs, State and DOD-funded evaluations of IMET, and 
other IMET studies. We met with State and DOD staff to discuss their 
performance planning, monitoring, and evaluation efforts. These staff 
included officials from multiple State bureaus and DOD entities, 
including the DSCA; geographic combatant commands; and several military 
departments and U.S. military schools. To understand the extent to 
which State and DOD had developed performance plans for IMET, we 
reviewed State's program evaluation policy; State's Bureau Strategic 
Resource Plans for the African Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 
Europe and Eurasian Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs, and 
Political-Military Affairs bureaus; and DSCA's Strategic Plan 2009-2014 
and Campaign Support Plan 2010. To understand the extent to which DOD 
monitors IMET graduates, we met with DSCA staff to discuss and review 
their centralized student data system. To review the extent to which 
State and DOD evaluate the effectiveness of the IMET program, we 
determined the primary methods by which the agencies provide IMET 
performance information. We then compared these existing IMET 
evaluation efforts against preexisting models for evaluating training 
programs, which we have identified as commonly accepted. Finally, we 
met with staff from State's Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs 
and staff from several DOD regional centers to assess the extent to 
which their program evaluation approaches could have applicability for 
IMET. 

In addition, to obtain information on the provision and prioritization 
of human rights training for IMET students and the extent to which 
State and DOD monitor IMET graduates and evaluate program 
effectiveness, we conducted structured interviews with Security 
Cooperation Office (SCO) training managers in 20 IMET countries. We 
selected these 20 countries using a methodology that prioritized those 
countries with higher funding levels, and included a range of host 
country conditions as ranked by Freedom House's Freedom in the World 
Index 2010. We conducted interviews both in person, during our 
attendance at the Security Cooperation Education and Training Working 
Group conferences for the U.S. European Command and the U.S. Africa 
Command, as well as by phone. Our structured interview included 
questions on managers' specific monitoring activities, the types and 
levels of IMET graduates they monitor, their IMET evaluation 
activities, and their offices' human rights policies and activities. We 
developed the structured interview over multiple iterations in which we 
assessed questions methodologically for coherence, completeness, and 
balance, and reviewed our questions with two training managers not 
included in our selection of 20 for structured interviews and refined 
our questions based on their input. 

To analyze the open-ended responses to our structured interview 
questions, we first developed a set of summary statements to be used 
for reporting purposes. These summary statements were based on an 
inductive exercise involving an in-depth reading and comparison of 
responses. Second, we tested these statements on an initial set of 
three interviews. This test involved two analysts separately coding the 
summary statements for each of the three interviews. Most statements 
were coded in one of four ways: (1) positive response--the interview 
data corresponded to the statement; (2) negative response--the 
interview data contradicted the statement; (3) mixed response--the 
interview data partially corresponded to the statement; and (4) 
nonresponse--no reference to the statement was contained in the 
interview data. The two analysts met and reconciled their responses; 
this effort also resulted in modifications to the summary statements. 
Third, a primary analyst used the revised statements to separately code 
each of the remaining 17 interviews and then a secondary analyst 
reviewed that coding; any differences in coding were reconciled between 
the two analysts. Final tallies of the analysis were obtained by 
counting, for each statement, the number of positive, negative, and 
nonresponses. 

To obtain further information on how and to what degree SCOs monitor 
IMET training graduates we conducted a short e-mail survey of the lead 
training manager in 123 IMET countries in July and August 2011, 
receiving 70 responses. Due to our response rate of 57 percent, in this 
report we provide counts of the numbers of officers responding to 
particular survey questions and do not generalize the survey results to 
the entire population of officers as we do not know how the other 43 
percent of officers would have responded to our questions. In addition, 
the actual number of respondents to particular questions is typically 
less than 70, due to item nonresponse or do not know responses. We 
pretested our survey with IMET training officers in three countries. In 
collecting and analyzing the survey data, we took steps to minimize 
errors that might occur during these stages. To assess the likelihood 
of bias resulting from differences in respondents and non-respondents, 
we analyzed the variation in the percentages of respondents and non-
respondents by region and funding level, which are two key attributes 
of SCOs. We found that there was not a large variation between the 
percentages of non-respondents and respondents by these two variables, 
supporting our conclusion regarding the usability of the data. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through October 2011 
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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Freedom House Rankings for Fiscal Year 2010 IMET Recipient 
Countries: 

This appendix provides information on fiscal year 2010 IMET funding and 
Freedom House rankings for the 125 IMET recipient countries. As shown 
in table 2, 46 were ranked by Freedom House as "free," 48 as "partly 
free," and 31 as "not free." Freedom House defines these terms as 
follows: 

* A "free" country is one where there is open political competition, a 
climate of respect for civil liberties, significant independent civic 
life, and independent media. 

* A "partly free" country is one where there is limited respect for 
political rights and civil liberties. "Partly free" states frequently 
suffer from an environment of corruption, weak rule of law, ethnic and 
religious strife, and a political landscape in which a single party 
enjoys dominance despite a certain degree of pluralism. 

* A "not free" country is one where basic political rights are absent, 
and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied. 

Table 2: IMET Recipient Countries by Fiscal Year 2010 Funding Level and 
2011 Freedom House Ranking: 

Region or country: Africa; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $15,130,000. 

Region or country: Angola; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 373,000. 

Region or country: Benin; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 316,000. 

Region or country: Botswana; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 688,000. 

Region or country: Burkina Faso; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 261,000. 

Region or country: Burundi; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 345,000. 

Region or country: Cameroon; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 267,000. 

Region or country: Cape Verde; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 124,000. 

Region or country: Central African Republic; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 60,000. 

Region or country: Chad; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 375,000. 

Region or country: Comoros; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 111,000. 

Region or country: Democratic Republic of the Congo; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 500,000. 

Region or country: Djibouti; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 379,000. 

Region or country: Ethiopia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 336,000. 

Region or country: Gabon; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 200,000. 

Region or country: Ghana; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 794,000. 

Region or country: Kenya; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 959,000. 

Region or country: Lesotho; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $177,000. 

Region or country: Liberia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 488,000. 

Region or country: Malawi; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 300,000. 

Region or country: Mali; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 411,000. 

Region or country: Mauritania; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 147,000. 

Region or country: Mauritius; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 150,000. 

Region or country: Mozambique; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 385,000. 

Region or country: Namibia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 140,000. 

Region or country: Nigeria; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,016,000. 

Region or country: Republic of the Congo; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 132,000. 

Region or country: Rwanda; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 512,000. 

Region or country: Sao Tome and Principe; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 171,000. 

Region or country: Senegal; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 991,000. 

Region or country: Seychelles; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 118,000. 

Region or country: Sierra Leone; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 403,000. 

Region or country: South Africa; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 845,000. 

Region or country: Sudan; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 793,000. 

Region or country: Swaziland; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 167,000. 

Region or country: Tanzania; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 397,000. 

Region or country: The Gambia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 118,000. 

Region or country: Togo; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 224,000. 

Region or country: Uganda; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 591,000. 

Region or country: Zambia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 366,000. 

Region or country: East Asia and Pacific; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 8,878,000. 

Region or country: Cambodia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 99,000. 

Region or country: East Asia and Pacific Regional; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: n/a; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 739,000. 

Region or country: Indonesia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,819,000. 

Region or country: Laos; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 71,000. 

Region or country: Malaysia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 950,000. 

Region or country: Marshall Islands; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 34,000. 

Region or country: Mongolia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,006,000. 

Region or country: Philippines; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,850,000. 

Region or country: Samoa; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 36,000. 

Region or country: Thailand; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,571,000. 

Region or country: Timor-Leste; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 303,000. 

Region or country: Vietnam; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 400,000. 

Region or country: Europe and Eurasia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $30,532,000. 

Region or country: Albania; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 962,000. 

Region or country: Armenia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 449,000. 

Region or country: Azerbaijan; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 886,000. 

Region or country: Bosnia and Herzegovina; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 990,000. 

Region or country: Bulgaria; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,719,000. 

Region or country: Croatia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 864,000. 

Region or country: Czech Republic; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,892,000. 

Region or country: Estonia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,156,000. 

Region or country: Georgia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,806,000. 

Region or country: Greece; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 105,000. 

Region or country: Hungary; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,060,000. 

Region or country: Kosovo; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 700,000. 

Region or country: Latvia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,100,000. 

Region or country: Lithuania; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,100,000. 

Region or country: Macedonia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 955,000. 

Region or country: Malta; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 149,000. 

Region or country: Moldova; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 731,000. 

Region or country: Montenegro; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 398,000. 

Region or country: Poland; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 2,198,000. 

Region or country: Portugal; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 95,000. 

Region or country: Romania; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,760,000. 

Region or country: Serbia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 903,000. 

Region or country: Slovakia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 964,000. 

Region or country: Slovenia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 694,000. 

Region or country: Turkey; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 4,992,000. 

Region or country: Ukraine; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,904,000. 

Region or country: Near East; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: ; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 18,520,000. 

Region or country: Algeria; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 950,000. 

Region or country: Bahrain; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 671,000. 

Region or country: Egypt; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,900,000. 

Region or country: Iraq; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,989,000. 

Region or country: Jordan; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 3,772,000. 

Region or country: Lebanon; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 2,500,000. 

Region or country: Libya; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 319,000. 

Region or country: Morocco; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,789,000. 

Region or country: Oman; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $1,525,000. 

Region or country: Saudi Arabia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 7,000. 

Region or country: Tunisia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,945,000. 

Region or country: Yemen; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,153,000. 

Region or country: South and Central Asia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 13,404,000. 

Region or country: Afghanistan; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,756,000. 

Region or country: Bangladesh; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,009,000. 

Region or country: India; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,269,000. 

Region or country: Kazakhstan; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 779,000. 

Region or country: Kyrgyz Republic; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 843,000. 

Region or country: Maldives; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 203,000. 

Region or country: Nepal; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 896,000. 

Region or country: Pakistan; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 5,000,000. 

Region or country: Sri Lanka; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 731,000. 

Region or country: Tajikistan; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 456,000. 

Region or country: Turkmenistan; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 262,000. 

Region or country: Uzbekistan; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 200,000. 

Region or country: Western Hemisphere; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: ; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 16,315,000. 

Region or country: Argentina; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 900,000. 

Region or country: Bahamas; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 200,000. 

Region or country: Belize; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 258,000. 

Region or country: Bolivia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 366,000. 

Region or country: Brazil; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 610,000. 

Region or country: Chile; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 899,000. 

Region or country: Colombia; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,694,000. 

Region or country: Costa Rica; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 366,000. 

Region or country: Dominican Republic; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 844,000. 

Region or country: Eastern Caribbean and Barbados; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $783,000. 

Region or country: Ecuador; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 375,000. 

Region or country: El Salvador; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,708,000. 

Region or country: Guatemala; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 797,000. 

Region or country: Guyana; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 300,000. 

Region or country: Haiti; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 92,000. 

Region or country: Honduras; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 777,000. 

Region or country: Jamaica; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 752,000. 

Region or country: Mexico; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 989,000. 

Region or country: Nicaragua; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $894,000. 

Region or country: Panama; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 750,000. 

Region or country: Paraguay; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 394,000. 

Region or country: Peru; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 627,000. 

Region or country: Suriname; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 250,000. 

Region or country: Trinidad and Tobago; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 167,000. 

Region or country: Uruguay; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 523,000. 

Region or country: Administrative costs; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 5,221,000. 

Region or country: Total; 
Freedom House 2011 ranking: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $108,000,000. 

Sources: GAO analysis of State funding data and Freedom House, Freedom 
in the World 2011. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Chief Financial Officer: 
Washington, D.C.: 

October 18, 2001: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 

441 G Street, N.W.: 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, 
"International Military Education And Training: Agencies Should 
Emphasize Human Rights Training and Improve Evaluations," GAO Job Code 
320776. The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. If 
you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Brendan 
Garvin, Program Analyst, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at (202) 
647-7769. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

James L. Millette: 

cc: GAO -Charles M. Johnson, Jr.: 
PM -Andrew J. Shapiro: 
State/OIG -Evelyn Klemstine: 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report International Military 
Education And Training: Agencies Should Emphasize Human Rights Training 
and Improve Evaluations (GAO-12-123, GAO Code 320776): 

The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on this 
report, as well as Congress' continued interest in the International 
Military Education and Training (IMET) Program and GAO efforts to 
review the program to ensure that it is meeting congressional intent. 

As the GAO identifies, the IMET program serves several important goals 
including encouraging effective and mutually beneficial relations and 
increased understanding between the United States and foreign countries 
in furtherance of the goals of international peace and security; 
improving the ability of participating foreign countries to utilize 
their resources, including defense articles and defense services 
obtained from the United States with maximum effectiveness, thereby 
contributing to greater self-reliance; and increasing the awareness of 
foreign nationals participating in such activities of basic issues 
involving internationally recognized human rights. 

The Department of State is committed to ensuring that the program 
continues to meet all of these important goals. 

In terms of instruction in human rights, the Department of State must 
balance between E-IMET type courses (which focus more exclusively on 
human rights, civil-military relations, and military justice) and 
defense resource management and professional military education (PME) 
courses (which generally include elements of these topics along with 
the standard education that would be received by any U.S. attendee at a 
given military institution). This calculation must take into account 
that in PME courses, which are often the same courses U.S. personnel 
are taking, foreign students are more likely to be exposed to a diverse 
group of U.S. attendees than they would be in a course focused 
specifically on E-IMET topics. Courses focused on E-IMET topics and PME 
courses both play a critical role in inculcating our most important 
values over the long run. There may be cases where the Department of 
State would choose to limit a country to E-IMET courses because of 
policy concerns. 

It is for this reason that much of the funding in the IMET program is 
focused on PME, which, in addition to classroom instruction in E-IMET 
topics, also includes interactions with organizations in the United 
States like our local governments, educational institutions, and civic 
organizations. The Department of State must also ensure that the IMET 
program for a given country is appropriately scoped so that the courses 
in a given program will garner high quality candidates from foreign 
nations and our investment in these students will not be squandered. 
Highly sought-after PME courses are key in ensuring that we can attract 
qualified individuals destined for future leadership positions and are 
a critical piece of imparting our values. 

The Department of State appreciates the GAO's recommendations for 
improving the IMET program and generally concurs with the 
recommendations suggested. 

We will work with the Department of Defense to ensure that human rights 
training is identified as a priority in IMET recipient countries with 
known human rights concerns. This training will include courses focused 
primarily on E-IMET topics, as well as longer-term PME courses that 
include instruction on E-IMET topics. 

We will also work with the Department of Defense to determine steps 
that could be feasibly taken in order to better evaluate the 
effectiveness of the IMET program over time, starting with discussions 
with other of State and Department of Defense offices currently using 
relevant evaluation practices, but also by soliciting ideas from 
training managers. Follow-on steps taken in this areas will depend on a 
cost/benefit analysis of the options and will have to be scoped based 
on the availability of resources to implement new procedures and 
evaluation measures. 
 
The Department of State is committed to working with the Department of 
Defense and Congress to ensure that the IMET program remains strong, 
and continues to build long-term relationships and impart American 
values, endeavors sometimes difficult to quantify, but critical to 
undertake. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency: 
201 12th Street South, Ste 203: 
Arlington, Va 22202-5408: 

October 20, 2011: 

Mr. Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Johnson, Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide 
comments on the GAO Draft Report, GA0-12-123, "International Military 
Education And Training: Agencies Should Emphasize Human Rights Training 
and Improve Evaluations," dated September 26, 2011 (GAO Code 320776)." 
The Department of Defense (DoD) response is attached. 

I trust your assessment and recommendations will help DoD and DoS work 
closely with the COCOMs to ensure that human rights training is 
identified as a priority for those IMET recipient countries with known 
records of human rights concerns and also helps improve the assessment 
processes and evaluation standards for the IMET program. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jeanne L. Farmer: 
Principal Director for Programs: 

Attachments:
As stated: 

GAO Draft Report Dated September 26, 2011 Gao-12-123 (Gao Code 320776): 

"International Military Education And Training: Agencies Should 
Emphasize Human Rights Training And Improve Evaluations": 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense take 
steps to ensure that human rights training is identified as a priority 
for those International Military Education and Training recipient 
countries with known records of human rights concerns. These steps may 
include highlighting human rights and related concepts in country 
training plans. 

DoD Response: DoD concurs. 

DoD agrees with DoS that there must be a balance between Expanded IMET 
( E-IMET) type courses that would focus more exclusively on human 
rights, and with professional military education courses which more 
broadly include elements of those topics, along with the standard 
education that would be received by any U.S military or DoD civilian 
attendee at a DoD school as is noted on page 13 of the GAO report. 
Currently many of the senior professional military education (PME) 
courses at the war colleges and staff colleges provide at least a three 
week orientation for the international students where the E-IMET 
objectives of Human Rights, Civilian Control and the Role of the 
Military in a Democracy, Military Justice and the Laws of War are 
addressed. DoDs policies are also currently guided largely by an effort 
to embed human rights training in the Field Studies Program, which is 
available to all students attending courses in the US. The DoS survey, 
given to a large majority of IMET student who attend DoD courses in the 
U.S., reflects that students develop a greater understanding of human 
rights at the end of their courses in the U.S. To build upon the 
success of the current methods, DoD will work with DoS to inform the 
U.S. country teams and the Combatant Command Training Managers of those 
countries, where State believes that Human Rights should be 
specifically listed as an important objective in the country's Combined 
Education and Training Program Plan (CETPP). The inclusion of human 
rights objectives in the country's CETPP will ensure a better policy 
focus on appropriate education and training courses for human rights. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense take 
the first steps toward developing a system for evaluating the 
effectiveness of the International Military Education and Training 
program. These steps should build on current efforts toward a more 
systemic collection of performance information and should include: 
adopting existing evaluation practices used by other agencies, such as 
periodically surveying program participants to assess changes in 
knowledge or attitudes; and soliciting ideas from training managers and 
applying their suggestions on improving program monitoring practices 
and evaluations, including for the development of objective performance 
measures that could assess program impact over time. 

DoD Response: DoD concurs. As the GAO identified in their report, DoS 
and DOD do have weaknesses in their ability to monitor and evaluate the 
effectiveness of the International Military Education and Training 
(IMET) program. While DoD does have policies and a data collection 
system in place, DSCA will work with DoS to look at metrics and 
evaluation processes within other DoD and DoS agencies and identify 
best practices to enhance the current system and enforce a more 
systematic way to collect performance data for the IMET program. We 
will also solicit ideas from the IMET program country training managers 
and consider their suggestions on improving program monitoring 
practices and evaluation, to include identifying performance measures 
that could assess the IMET programs' impact over time. 

The GAO also identified that a large majority of the IMET funding over 
the last ten years has been allocated to Europe and the Eurasia region. 
DSCA and DoS believe that the IMET program has been instrumentally 
effective as a catalyst for a large majority of those European and 
Eurasia countries to participate and supporting the U.S. in 
Afghanistan, Iraq and in other Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Assistance 
efforts all over the world. DoD is committed to ensuring that the IMET 
program remains a key program in exposing international military 
students from allied and partner nations to American culture and values.

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Joe Christoff, Director; Judith 
McCloskey, Assistant Director; Jennifer Bryant; Joe Carney; Debbie 
Chung; David Dornisch; Tim Fairbanks; Farhanaz Kermalli; Mary Moutsos; 
and Jena Sinkfield made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Congress established the IMET program in the International Security 
Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (Pub. L. No. 94-329, 
June 30, 1976), which amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Pub. 
L. No. 87-195, Sept. 4, 1961). 

[2] GAO, Security Assistance: Observations on the International 
Military Education and Training Program, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-90-215BR] (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 
1990). 

[3] See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 111-366 Accompanying the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-117, Dec. 16, 2009). 

[4] Our response rate for this survey was 57 percent. As a result, we 
do not generalize the survey results to the entire population of IMET 
training managers. 

[5] 22 USC ß 2347. 

[6] These include the Army Training and Doctrine Command, Security 
Assistance Training Field Activity; the Air Force Security Assistance 
Training Squadron; the Naval Education and Training Security Assistance 
Field Activity; the Marine Corps Security Cooperation Education and 
Training Center; and the Coast Guard International Affairs and Foreign 
Policy. 

[7] According to DSCA, to be more cost-effective, DOD courses less than 
5 weeks in total duration require DSCA and Combatant Command policy 
waivers before being programmed, unless the country agrees to pay for 
transportation. E-IMET and other short duration courses that are listed 
in the Security Assistance Management Manual are exceptions to the 
waiver requirement. 

[8] According to the Defense Institute of Security Assistance 
Management's The Management of Security Assistance, students are 
selected to participate in the IMET program based on such 
considerations as their leadership potential and likelihood of being 
assigned, subsequent to IMET participation, to a job relevant to their 
training for a period of time to warrant the training expense. 

[9] This figure represents inflation-adjusted dollars. The nominal 
value of fiscal year 2000 IMET appropriations was nearly $50 million. 
This amount reflects a 0.38 percent across the board rescission for 
fiscal year 2000. 

[10] This figure represents inflation-adjusted dollars. The nominal 
value would be nearly $18 million in 2010 dollars. 

[11] These figures represent inflation-adjusted dollars. The nominal 
values would be $22,000 and more than $1.7 million. 

[12] The sum total of students we report as having attended PME, 
English language, technical, management, postgraduate/degree, and 
mobile training is greater than the total number of IMET students 
trained in fiscal year 2010. According to DSCA, this is due to a 
certain number of individual students who attended more than one 
training type in fiscal year 2010, such as students who attended 
English language training prior to attending another IMET-funded 
course. 

[13] A certain percentage of a country's IMET program must be selected 
from a list of courses designated, by DSCA, as E-IMET-certified. These 
courses are certified as such if DSCA determines that at least 51 
percent of their content addresses E-IMET's stated objectives, 
including responsible defense resource management, respect for and 
understanding of the principle of civilian control of the military, 
military justice systems, and procedures in accordance with 
internationally recognized human rights. 

[14] See DOD 5105.38-M, Security Assistance Management Manual, C10.11. 

[15] Freedom House conducts an annual survey of the state of global 
freedom as experienced by individuals. The survey is intended to 
measure freedom--defined as the opportunity to act spontaneously in a 
variety of fields outside the control of the government and other 
centers of potential domination--according to two broad categories: 
political rights and civil liberties. We utilized Freedom House 
assessments on freedom as a proxy for human rights rankings. State has 
used Freedom House rankings as an indicator to measure progress toward 
the agency's strategic goal: "Governing Justly and Democratically." 
This goal includes advancing respect for human rights. Of IMET 
recipient countries for fiscal year 2010, Freedom House ranked 46 
countries as "free," 48 as "partly free," and 31 as "not free" (see 
app. II for a full listing of IMET participant countries and their 
Freedom House rankings). See Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2011 
(Jan. 13, 2011). 

[16] We reviewed the plans for the following bureaus, which had been 
identified by State officials as citing the IMET program: African 
Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Europe and Eurasian Affairs, 
South and Central Asian Affairs, and Political-Military Affairs. 
According to State officials, the Near East Affairs and Western 
Hemisphere Affairs bureau plans did not include IMET. 

[17] IMET falls under DSCA's Building Partnership Capacity Division, 
which, in addition to IMET, executes many of DOD's security cooperation 
programs. 

[18] Sec 22 USC 2347g. 

[19] Database information includes first and last name, sex, service or 
organization type, student code (e.g., officer, enlisted, or civilian), 
organization or unit, place of birth city and country, and date of 
birth. 

[20] Each year SCOs are required to provide DSCA with a list of IMET 
graduates who have attained a position of prominence. The definition of 
position of prominence is to include general and flag rank officers and 
lesser ranks such as chief of a military service, senior cabinet aide, 
senior position on the joint or general staff, or commander of a 
training installation. Civilian graduates achieving positions of 
prominence are to include heads of state, cabinet and deputy cabinet 
ministers, ambassadors, members of parliament, chiefs of leading 
business enterprises, and other civilian leaders. 

[21] We sent surveys to all 123 training managers worldwide and 
received 70 completed surveys, for a response rate of 57 percent. In 
this report we provide results from the officers responding to our 
survey questions and do not generalize the survey results to the entire 
population. The actual number of respondents for particular questions 
was typically less than 70, due to nonresponses or "do not know" 
responses. 

[22] See, GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Strategic Management of 
Training Important for Successful Transformation, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-888] (Washington, D.C.: Sep. 23, 
2005), and Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and 
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C. March 2004). 
There are four components to the training and development process: 
planning and front-level analysis, design and development, 
implementation, and evaluation. Our review of the IMET program focuses 
on the final component, evaluation, which enables agencies to 
demonstrate how training efforts contribute to improved performance and 
results. 

[23] The survey was developed in 2006, and in 2010 State and DOD 
published results. See, Defense Institute of Security Assistance 
Management and the Air Force Institute of Technology, State Department 
and Defense Department Study on the Effectiveness of the IMET Program: 
2007-2009 (Mar. 31, 2010). According to DSCA, officials from the 
Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management will provide a 
briefing on the results of surveys covering 2010-2011 in the fall of 
2011. 

[24] The regional centers provide resident courses, seminars, and 
conferences to military and civilian personnel from allied and partner 
nations. The centers include The George C. Marshall Center European 
Center for Security Studies, the Asian Pacific Center for Security 
Studies, the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, the Africa Center 
for Strategic Studies, and the Near East South Asia Center for 
Strategic Studies. 

[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-90-215BR]. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAOís actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAOís Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: