This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-606 
entitled 'Building Partner Capacity: Actions Needed to Strengthen DOD 
Efforts to Assess the Performance of the Regional Centers for Security 
Studies' which was released on June 28, 2013. 

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: 

June 2013: 

Building Partner Capacity: 

Actions Needed to Strengthen DOD Efforts to Assess the Performance of 
the Regional Centers for Security Studies: 

GAO-13-606: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-606, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

DOD has emphasized innovative and low-cost approaches to build the 
defense capacity of foreign partners, and it uses its five Regional 
Centers to administer programs to foster partnerships and deepen 
foreign officials’ understanding of U.S. objectives. The conference 
report accompanying the fiscal year 2013 National Defense 
Authorization Act (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 112-705) mandated GAO to 
conduct a study of the Regional Centers. GAO’s report (1) describes 
how the Regional Centers’ activities compare with those of other DOD 
training and education organizations, and (2) evaluates the extent to 
which DOD has developed and implemented an approach to oversee and 
assess the Regional Centers’ progress in achieving DOD priorities. 
This report also provides information on the process used to approve 
Regional Center requests to waive reimbursement of the costs for 
nongovernmental and international organizations that participate in 
the Regional Centers’ activities. GAO reviewed public law and 
departmental directives and conducted an analysis comparing aspects of 
the Regional Centers with other selected DOD training and education 
institutions. 

What GAO Found: 

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) five Regional Centers for Security 
Studies (Regional Centers) share similarities and differences with 
other DOD institutions that provide training and education, including 
professional military education, advanced degree-conferring, and 
professional development institutions, in terms of curriculum topics, 
targeted audience, and program format. GAO found that they all offer 
training and educational programs and activities to help participants 
understand security and military matters and to enhance their 
knowledge, skills, and experiences in these matters. However, there 
are notable differences in that the Regional Centers generally focus 
on helping foreign participants understand and respond to regional 
security issues; generally target a foreign civilian and military 
personnel audience; and offer shorter and typically less formal 
courses of study. The Regional Centers support DOD policy objectives 
with curricula designed to enhance security and foster partnerships 
through education and exchanges. By contrast, other DOD training and 
education organizations focus their curricula on military operations 
and leadership. While the Regional Centers’ target audience is foreign 
civilian and military officials, the other DOD educational 
organizations typically aim their programs and activities at U.S. 
servicemembers at all career levels. Regional Center participants 
generally do not earn credit toward a degree, and the offered courses, 
conferences, and workshops are of shorter duration ranging from days 
to weeks. DOD’s professional military education and advanced degree-
conferring institutions are accredited and generally offer longer, 
more formal courses that provide participants the opportunity to earn 
advanced degrees. 

DOD has taken some steps to enhance its oversight of the Regional 
Centers’ plans and activities, but its ability to determine whether 
the Regional Centers are achieving departmental priorities remains 
limited because it has not developed an approach for assessing 
progress. DOD has defined roles and responsibilities, issued relevant 
guidance that reflects departmental objectives, and established a 
governance body and planning process to facilitate information sharing 
and to achieve more integrated decision making. However, DOD has not 
developed an approach that includes measurable goals and objectives, 
metrics for assessing performance, or a methodology to assess the 
Regional Centers’ progress in achieving DOD priorities, to include 
clarifying how it will use performance data provided by the Regional 
Centers. GAO’s prior work has found that achieving results in 
government requires a comprehensive oversight framework that includes 
clear goals, measurable objectives, and metrics for assessing 
progress, consistent with the framework established in the Government 
Performance and Results Act. The Regional Centers report various types 
of performance data, such as summaries of past activities. While DOD 
has established a governance body to assist in monitoring the Regional 
Centers’ plans and activities, the body has not identified how it will 
use performance information to assess the Regional Centers’ progress 
toward achieving department priorities. Conducting routine assessments 
using measurable goals and objectives, with metrics to evaluate 
progress, and a methodology for using performance information to 
include defining the role of the governance body would provide DOD a 
sounder basis for assessing the Regional Centers’ progress in 
achieving results, and for better determining the allocation of 
resources. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DOD develop measurable goals linked to key 
programming priorities for the Regional Centers, metrics for assessing 
performance against these goals, and a methodology to assess the 
Regional Centers’ progress in achieving DOD priorities. DOD generally 
agreed with the recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-606]. For more 
information, contact Sharon Pickup at (202) 512-9619 or 
pickups@gao.gov or Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. at (202) 512-7331 or 
johnsoncm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Regional Centers' Programs and Activities Share Some Similarities with 
Those Offered by Other DOD Organizations, but There Are Notable 
Differences: 

DOD Has Taken Steps to Enhance Oversight of the Regional Centers Plans 
and Activities but Its Ability to Assess Their Progress Remains 
Limited: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: The Department of Defense's (DOD) Regional Centers for 
Security Studies: 

Appendix III: Reimbursement Waivers: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Overview of DOD's Regional Centers for Security Studies: 

Table 2: Comparison of DOD Programs and Activities by Curriculum 
Topic, Target Audience, and Program Format: 

Table 3: 10 U.S.C. Authorities: 

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2011 - 2013 Priorities for Waiver Consideration, 
in Order of Importance: 

Table 5: Use of Authorities by Regional Centers to Waive NGO/IO 
Reimbursements, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: The Regional Centers' Primary Geographic Areas of Focus: 

Figure 2: Overview and Timeline of OUSD Policy's 16-month Planning 
Process for the Regional Centers for Security Studies (Regional 
Centers) (Initiated in 2011): 

Abbreviations: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DSCA: Defense Security Cooperation Agency: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act: 

NGO/IO: Nongovernmental and International Organization: 

OUSD Policy: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy: 

Regional Centers: Regional Centers for Security Studies: 

State: Department of State: 

[End of section] 

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

June 28, 2013: 

The Honorable Carl Levin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable James M. Inhofe: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Adam Smith: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

In recent years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has emphasized 
security cooperation approaches to build the defense capacity of 
foreign partners and advance the U.S. objective of international peace 
and cooperation. For example, strategic guidance issued by the 
Secretary of Defense in January 2012 highlighted the importance of 
enhancing the defense capacity of foreign partners in order to share 
the costs and responsibilities of global leadership.[Footnote 1] 
Termed "building partner capacity," this approach, according to DOD 
officials, represents the way to reduced long-term U.S. presence while 
protecting the territory of other nations. The strategic guidance 
stated that a fiscally constrained environment will require 
innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint activities toward building 
partner capacity. These activities include training, educating, and 
assisting foreign countries' civilian and military personnel in 
becoming more proficient at defense-related decision making, providing 
security to their populations, and protecting their resources and 
territories. 

As part of the department's efforts to build partner capacity, DOD 
relies on its Regional Centers for Security Studies (Regional Centers) 
to coordinate with the geographic combatant commands in developing 
training and educational programs around the globe to enhance 
security, deepen foreign officials' understanding of the United 
States, and foster bilateral and multilateral partnerships. In 
addition to the Regional Centers, DOD and the Department of State 
(State) offer other programs and activities to provide training and 
education to foreign military and civilian personnel. These include, 
among other programs and activities, officer exchange programs, 
educational opportunities at U.S. professional military schools, and 
programs designed to assist foreign nations with building more 
effective defense institutions. In fiscal year 2012, the Regional 
Centers obligated approximately $101.4 million. Subject to certain 
requirements, the Regional Centers are permitted to use a portion of 
these funds to waive the reimbursement of the costs for foreign 
officials and other personnel, such as representatives of 
nongovernmental and international organizations, to participate in the 
Regional Centers' programs and activities. 

In our prior work we have identified challenges that DOD faces in 
managing its initiatives to build the defense capacity of foreign 
partners, as well as key practices that could provide opportunities 
for DOD to more effectively manage these efforts. Specifically, we 
have found instances in which DOD had not consistently defined 
measures to evaluate progress, and in which reporting on the progress 
and effectiveness of some defense capacity-building activities had 
been limited. For example, in 2012 we reported that because the 
National Guard's State Partnership Program did not have agreed-upon 
goals or metrics, DOD could not assess progress toward achieving 
program goals.[Footnote 2] Our work has emphasized how, among other 
things, setting clear goals can help stakeholders understand what 
defense capacity-building programs seek to accomplish, and how 
establishing mechanisms to evaluate progress can help ensure that 
programs have long-term impact.[Footnote 3] A list of our related work 
that identifies challenges DOD has faced in its efforts to build the 
defense capacity of partners can be found at the end of the report. 

The conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. No. 112-239) mandated us to conduct 
a study of DOD's Regional Centers.[Footnote 4] In this report, we (1) 
describe how the Regional Centers' activities compare with those of 
other DOD training and education organizations, and (2) evaluate the 
extent to which DOD has developed and implemented an approach to 
oversee and assess the Regional Centers' progress in achieving DOD 
priorities. In addition, we are providing information about the 
process used by DOD and State for approving and monitoring Regional 
Center requests to waive reimbursement of the costs for 
nongovernmental and international organizations that participate in 
the Regional Centers' activities. 

To address these objectives, we interviewed officials from the Office 
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD Policy), the 
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), and each of the five 
Regional Centers: the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, the Asia-
Pacific Center for Security Studies, the William J. Perry Center for 
Hemispheric Defense Studies, the George C. Marshall European Center 
for Security Studies, and the Near East South Asia Center for 
Strategic Studies. We also interviewed officials from the six 
geographic combatant commands and State's Bureau of Political-Military 
Affairs. To determine how the Regional Centers' activities compare 
with those of other DOD training and educational programs and 
activities, we identified three areas to use in comparing program 
features--curriculum topics, target audience, and program format. We 
reviewed the Joint DOD-State Foreign Military Training Report, 
[Footnote 5] the Interagency Working Group International Exchanges and 
Training Report,[Footnote 6] and other DOD documents, and we 
identified 17 DOD organizations that implement programs identified in 
these documents for our analysis, and compared characteristics of 
these organizations' programs and activities with those of the 
Regional Centers. The results of our analysis are not generalizable to 
DOD training and education programs and activities outside of those 
included in the scope of our work. 

To determine the extent to which DOD has developed and implemented an 
approach to oversee the Regional Centers' progress and assess their 
progress in achieving DOD priorities we examined DOD guidance[Footnote 
7] as well as DOD annual reports, Regional Center program and budget 
plans, and other documentation, and we referred to the Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) as amended by the GPRA 
Modernization Act of 2010[Footnote 8] and our prior work that 
identifies elements that constitute a comprehensive oversight 
framework.[Footnote 9] We also interviewed officials from OUSD Policy, 
from DSCA, and from the Regional Centers to obtain their perspectives 
on the processes used to oversee the Regional Centers' programs and 
activities and to assess their performance in achieving DOD priorities. 

To identify the process used by DOD and State to approve and monitor 
Regional Center requests to waive reimbursement of costs for 
nongovernmental and international organizations that participate in 
the Regional Centers' activities, we reviewed DSCA guidance 
identifying the procedures for submitting requests and the criteria 
applied to consideration of waivers for nongovernmental and 
international organizations. We discussed the process with DSCA and 
State officials and obtained information on the waivers requested, as 
well as the amounts waived, between fiscal years 2009 and 2012. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to June 2013 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. A more 
detailed description of our scope and methodology is included in 
appendix I. 

Background: 

DOD's Emphasis on Initiatives to Build the Defense Capacity of Partner 
Nations: 

According to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, a component 
of DOD's strategy to prevent and deter conflict is to help build the 
capacity of partners to maintain and promote stability, and such an 
approach requires working closely with U.S. allies and partner nations 
to leverage existing alliances and create conditions to advance common 
interests. Such "building partner capacity initiatives" comprise a 
broad range of security cooperation and security assistance activities. 

Security cooperation is the broad term used by DOD for those 
activities taken to build relationships that promote specified U.S. 
interests, build partner nation capabilities for self-defense and 
coalition operations, and provide U.S. forces with access both in 
peacetime and during contingencies. These activities are carried out 
under various statutory authorities. For example, DOD may conduct 
activities with partner nations, such as sending out military liaison 
teams, exchanging military personnel between units, or conducting 
seminars and conferences in theaters of operations under Title 10 U.S. 
Code.[Footnote 10] DOD also conducts security cooperation activities 
through security assistance programs authorized by Title 22 U.S. Code. 
[Footnote 11] These Title 22 programs are a part of U.S. efforts to 
provide foreign assistance through military assistance and sales. 

DOD Regional Centers' Mission: 

The five Regional Centers for Security Studies (Regional Centers) 
support DOD's objective to build the defense capacity of partner 
nations. The Regional Centers' activities include education, 
exchanges, research, and information sharing. The Regional Centers 
conduct in-residence courses, in-country seminars, and conferences, 
among other activities, that address global and regional security 
challenges such as terrorism and maritime security. DOD policy states 
that a core Regional Center mission is to assist military and civilian 
leaders in the region in developing strong defense establishments and 
strengthening civil-military relations in a democratic 
society.[Footnote 12] In doing so, the Regional Centers are expected 
to coordinate with the department's geographic combatant commands in 
developing and implementing activities for their region. Table 1 lists 
the five Regional Centers, the year in which each was established, 
their locations, and their corresponding geographic combatant commands. 

Table 1: Overview of DOD's Regional Centers for Security Studies: 

Regional Center: George C. Marshall European Center for Security 
Studies; 
Year established: 1993; 
Location: Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany; 
Primary geographic combatant command: U.S. European Command. 

Regional Center: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies; 
Year established: 1995; 
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii; 
Primary geographic combatant command: U.S. Pacific Command. 

Regional Center: William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense 
Studies; 
Year established: 1997; 
Location: Washington, D.C.; 
Primary geographic combatant command: U.S. Southern Command; U.S. 
Northern 
Command. 

Regional Center: Africa Center for Strategic Studies; 
Year established: 1999; 
Location: Washington, D.C.; 
Primary geographic combatant command: U.S. Africa Command. 

Regional Center: Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies; 
Year established: 2000; 
Location: Washington, D.C.; 
Primary geographic combatant command: U.S. Central Command. 

Note: While each Regional Center supports a primary geographic 
combatant command, the Regional Centers also conduct programs and 
activities to support other geographic combatant commands. 

Source: DOD. 

[End of table] 

Figure 1 depicts each Regional Center's primary geographic area of 
focus, which are generally consistent with each center's corresponding 
geographic combatant command's area of responsibility. 

Figure 1: The Regional Centers' Primary Geographic Areas of Focus: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated world map] 

Africa Center for Strategic Studies; 
Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies; 
William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies; 
George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies; 
Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

In fiscal year 2012, the Regional Centers obligated approximately 
$101.4 million. Appendix II provides an overview of each Regional 
Center including a description of fiscal year 2012 resources. Subject 
to certain requirements, the Regional Centers are permitted to use a 
portion of these funds to waive the reimbursement of the costs for 
foreign officials and other personnel, such as representatives of 
nongovernmental and international organizations, to participate in the 
Regional Centers' programs and activities. Appendix III provides a 
more detailed discussion of DOD's process to waive the reimbursement 
costs for personnel representing nongovernmental and international 
organizations. 

Regional Centers' Programs and Activities Share Some Similarities with 
Those Offered by Other DOD Organizations, but There Are Notable 
Differences: 

DOD provides training and education opportunities to U.S. and foreign 
participants by means of various institutions, among which are the 
five Regional Centers; professional military education and degree-
conferring institutions; and professional development institutions. 
For our review, we analyzed training and educational programs and 
activities administered by 17 selected DOD institutions, and compared 
them with those administered by the Regional Centers for the following 
three attributes: curriculum topics, targeted audience, and program 
format. (See appendix I for a full list of institutions in our 
review.) The main similarities and differences we observed in 
comparing them are described below. 

DOD Organizations Administer Various Types of Training and Educational 
Programs and Activities: 

DOD provides U.S. and foreign participants with a variety of training 
and educational programs and activities through its five Regional 
Centers, its professional military education and advanced degree-
conferring institutions, and its professional development 
institutions. For example, the Regional Centers, in accordance with 
DOD Directive 5200.41, support departmental policy objectives with 
activities designed to enhance security, foster partnerships, improve 
national security decision making, and strengthen civil-military 
relationships through education, exchanges, research, and information 
sharing.[Footnote 13] Professional military education and advanced 
degree-conferring institutions aim to develop U.S. military personnel 
(enlisted and officer) with expertise and knowledge appropriate to 
their grade, branch, and military professional specialty. Examples of 
professional military education and advanced degree-conferring 
institutions include the National Defense University and the Naval 
Postgraduate School, respectively. DOD also administers training and 
educational programs and activities to U.S. and foreign participants 
through various professional development institutions for the purpose 
of providing developmental opportunities and enhancing their mission-
related knowledge, skills, and experience. Examples of DOD's 
professional development institutions include the Defense Acquisition 
University and the Center for Civil-Military Relations. 

Regional Centers' Programs and Activities Share Similarities and 
Differences with Those Offered by Other DOD Institutions: 

Programs and activities administered by the Regional Centers and other 
DOD professional military education and advanced degree-conferring 
institutions as well as professional development institutions have 
similar features in that they all: 

* offer curriculum topics intended to help participants enhance 
knowledge and skills on security and military matters; 

* target members of the military; and: 

* feature program formats that include in-residence courses; seminars, 
conferences, workshops; distance learning; and in-country instruction. 

However, some differences exist among the Regional Centers and the 
other programs administered by DOD organizations. Specifically: 

* Regional Centers focus on bringing participants together for courses 
intended to foster understanding of regional security challenges and 
to strengthen the professional skills needed to develop effective 
strategies. In contrast, professional military education institutions 
generally focus on military operations and leadership; and advanced 
degree-conferring institutions and professional development 
institutions generally focus on professional knowledge, skills, and 
experiences. 

* The Regional Centers' audience is generally civilian and military 
officials from other countries. In contrast, professional military 
education institutions and advanced degree-conferring institutions 
target U.S. military officials. 

* The Regional Centers' program format is generally shorter than an 
academic year, and its completion does not count toward an academic 
degree. In contrast, professional military education institutions and 
advanced degree-conferring institutions offer degree and certificate 
programs that can take over a year to complete. 

Table 2 summarizes a comparison of programs and activities 
administered by DOD's Regional Centers, professional military 
education and advanced degree-conferring institutions, and 
professional development institutions, in terms of curriculum topics, 
targeted audience, and program format. The "checks" in the table 
indicate that we found the attribute is generally descriptive of the 
category, as we found exceptions to the attribute in some cases. 

Table 2: Comparison of DOD Programs and Activities by Curriculum 
Topic, Target Audience, and Program Format: 

Attribute: Curriculum topics; Convening U.S. and other country 
participants to understand regional security challenges and to develop 
cooperative strategies; 
Regional Centers: [Check]; 
Professional military education institutions[A]: [Empty]; 
Advanced degree-conferring institutions[B]: [Empty]; 
Professional development institutions[C]: [Empty]. 

Attribute: Curriculum topics; Military operations and leadership in 
support of the U.S. national security strategy; 
Regional Centers: [Empty]; 
Professional military education institutions[A]: [Check]; 
Advanced degree-conferring institutions[B]: [Empty]; 
Professional development institutions[C]: [Empty]. 

Attribute: Curriculum topics; Knowledge, skills, and experience 
related to security professions; 
Regional Centers: [Empty]; 
Professional military education institutions[A]: [Empty]; 
Advanced degree-conferring institutions[B]: [Check]; 
Professional development institutions[C]: [Check]. 

Attribute: Target audience: U.S. civilian; 
Regional Centers: [Empty]; 
Professional military education institutions[A]: [Empty]; 
Advanced degree-conferring institutions[B]: [Empty]; 
Professional development institutions[C]: [Check]. 

Attribute: Target audience: U.S. military; 
Regional Centers: [Empty]; 
Professional military education institutions[A]: [Check]; 
Advanced degree-conferring institutions[B]: [Check]; 
Professional development institutions[C]: [Check]. 

Attribute: Target audience: Foreign civilian; 
Regional Centers: [Check]; 
Professional military education institutions[A]: [Empty]; 
Advanced degree-conferring institutions[B]: [Empty]; 
Professional development institutions[C]: [Check]. 

Attribute: Target audience: Foreign military; 
Regional Centers: [Check]; 
Professional military education institutions[A]: [Empty]; 
Advanced degree-conferring institutions[B]: [Empty]; 
Professional development institutions[C]: [Check]. 

Attribute: Program format: Accredited degree program; 
Regional Centers: [Empty]; 
Professional military education institutions[A]: [Check]; 
Advanced degree-conferring institutions[B]: [Check]; 
Professional development institutions[C]: [Empty]. 

Attribute: Program format: In-residence courses; 
Regional Centers: [Check]; 
Professional military education institutions[A]: [Check]; 
Advanced degree-conferring institutions[B]: [Check]; 
Professional development institutions[C]: [Check]. 

Attribute: Program format: Seminars, conferences, and workshops; 
Regional Centers: [Check]; 
Professional military education institutions[A]: [Check]; 
Advanced degree-conferring institutions[B]: [Check]; 
Professional development institutions[C]: [Check]. 

Attribute: Program format: Distance learning; 
Regional Centers: [Check]; 
Professional military education institutions[A]: [Check]; 
Advanced degree-conferring institutions[B]: [Check]; 
Professional development institutions[C]: [Check]. 

Attribute: Program format: In-country training and education; 
Regional Centers: [Check]; 
Professional military education institutions[A]: [Check]; 
Advanced degree-conferring institutions[B]: [Check]; 
Professional development institutions[C]: [Check]. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

Legend: [Check] = The attribute described is applicable to one or more 
institutions in the category. 

[A] The professional military education institutions included in our 
review are: the Air University, Army Command and General Staff 
College, Army JFK Special Warfare School, Army War College, Joint 
Special Operations University, Marine Corps War College, National 
Defense University, Naval War College, and Western Hemisphere 
Institute for Security Cooperation. 

[B] The advanced degree-conferring institutions included in our review 
are: the Air Force Institute of Technology and Naval Postgraduate 
School. 

[C] The professional development institutions included in our review 
are: the Center for Civil Military Relations, Defense Acquisition 
University, Defense Institute of International Legal Studies, Defense 
Institute for Medical Operations, Defense Resource Management 
Institute, and NATO School. 

[End of table] 

To further elaborate on the information in table 2, the following 
paragraphs describe similarities and differences for each of the 
attributes we reviewed. 

Curriculum Topics: 

We found that the Regional Centers, professional military education 
and advanced degree-conferring institutions, and professional 
development institutions are similar in that they all offer programs 
and activities to help a participant understand security and military 
matters and to enhance his or her knowledge and skills. 

The Regional Centers focus their programs and activities on addressing 
OUSD Policy and geographic combatant command priorities and bringing 
participants together to understand regional security challenges and 
to develop cooperative strategies to address them. For example, the 
Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies administers a Comprehensive 
Security Responses to Terrorism course designed to broaden knowledge 
and improve skills in assessing terrorism threats in the Asia-Pacific 
region and to develop a community of professionals to collaborate on 
regional and global issues. Another example is the Africa Center's 
African Executive Dialogue, which brings together African and U.S. 
senior officials to discuss how African countries can work together 
and with external stakeholders on Africa's key security challenges. A 
further example is the Marshall Center's Seminar on Trans-Atlantic 
Civil Security, which is designed to improve the homeland defense 
capacity and skills, across the whole of government, needed to prevent 
and respond to natural or man-made disasters or terrorist attacks. 

Moreover, each of the Regional Centers devotes significant 
programmatic effort to establishing, developing, and sustaining alumni 
networks. For example, officials at the Asia-Pacific Center told us 
that they track the progress of and provide support for the 
establishment of alumni chapters in Asia-Pacific countries, as well as 
helping to coordinate alumni events sponsored by these chapters. 
According to its program plan for fiscal year 2013, the Near East 
South Asia Center plans to conduct 10 alumni events in the region to 
promote continual engagement with and among participants who have 
attended the center's core programs and promote collaboration on 
current regional security issues. 

In contrast, professional military education institutions' programs 
and activities focus on instructing U.S. servicemembers in military 
operations and leadership in support of the U.S. national security 
strategy. For example, the National Defense University administers a 
Combating Terrorism Strategies and Policies course in which students 
examine the ongoing challenge to U.S. national security posed by the 
threat of international terrorism and the ways in which the United 
States is attempting to prevent future terror attacks. The advanced 
degree-conferring institutions focus on instructing U.S. military 
professionals on security-related knowledge and skills, such as 
operations research, logistics, and information system management. For 
example, the Naval Postgraduate School administers an Applied 
Mathematics Course in which students learn advanced mathematical 
techniques applicable to game theory and network design. The 
professional development institutions address professional security-
related knowledge, skills, and experiences, such as consequence 
management, law enforcement, and decision making. For example, the 
Defense Acquisition University administers a variety of training 
courses that members of the defense acquisition workforce can use 
toward certification in various acquisition fields, such as systems 
acquisition, cost analysis, and contracting. In another example, the 
Defense Institute for Medical Operations administers an Emergency 
Management Strategies for Senior Leaders course to review and exercise 
executive-level principles for emergency management, disaster 
planning, and corrective action plan implementation. 

Target Audience: 

In terms of target audience, we found that the Regional Centers, 
professional military education and advanced degree-conferring 
institutions, and professional development institutions are similar in 
that all of them include institutions that target programs and 
activities to members of the military. 

We found that the Regional Centers are distinct in that participants 
in their programs and activities are generally from other countries, 
either civilians or members of the military. In 2012, 82 percent of 
the participants at the five Regional Centers were civilians or 
members of the military from other countries. According to officials 
and participants with whom we spoke, the preponderance of foreign 
participants provide U.S. participants with the unique experience of 
being in the minority during the discussion of U.S. security policy 
decisions and their impacts around the world. Further, officials 
stated that the Regional Centers intentionally invite executive-level 
civilian officials as well as representatives from nongovernmental 
organizations, international organizations, and the private sector to 
ensure a broad, whole-of-government audience. Past participants of the 
Africa Center for Strategic Studies have included six current and 
former heads of state. 

By contrast, professional military education and advanced degree-
conferring institutions are primarily attended by members of the U.S. 
military at all career levels. For example, about 85 percent of the 
students enrolled in 2012 at the Air University were U.S. 
servicemembers, while foreign military students made up less than 2 
percent of the student body. Similarly, U.S. servicemembers comprise 
the majority of the student population at other DOD professional 
military education institutions. One notable exception is the Western 
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, which provides 
professional military education to Latin American military officers 
and noncommissioned officers. 

Program Format: 

In terms of program format, the Regional Centers, professional 
military education and advanced degree-conferring institutions, and 
professional development institutions all offer programs and 
activities in the form of in-residence courses; seminars, conferences, 
and workshops; distance learning; and in-country instruction. 

The key distinctions between the Regional Centers and the other 
organizations in program format is that professional military 
education and advanced degree-conferring institutions offer degrees 
and certificates programs that are accredited by an independent 
accrediting institution.[Footnote 14] Professional military education 
or advanced degree-conferring programs generally entail completion of 
academic courses of instruction over a longer period for which a 
participant can earn credit toward a degree or certificate. For 
example, participants at the Army Command and General Staff College 
can earn a Master of Military Art and Science degree. Further, the 
Army Command and General Staff College and the three other services' 
Command and General Staff Colleges are accredited institutions. In 
another example, Naval Postgraduate School certificate, Master's, and 
Ph.D. programs can take up to 4 years to complete. 

In contrast, Regional Centers and some professional development 
institutions' programs and activities are generally not creditable 
toward an academic degree and are generally shorter than an academic 
year, ranging from a few days to a few weeks. For example, a William 
J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies course on homeland 
security entails a 3-week online phase, a 3-week in-residence phase, 
and a 3-week paper-writing phase. 

Although the Regional Centers generally offer shorter-duration courses 
on a range of security topics, some centers provide participants with 
opportunities to obtain credit for their attendance. For example, the 
George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies offers two 
programs that can earn participants credit toward advanced degrees. 
U.S. and foreign officers completing coursework at the center can earn 
credit toward a Master's in International Security Studies from the 
Bundeswehr University in Munich, Germany, and the center also 
administers a Senior Service Fellows program whereby U.S. 
servicemembers can earn credit toward graduate degrees at their 
respective service's war college. In addition, although the Perry 
Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies does not award degrees, some 
Latin American institutions of higher learning, such as the 
Universidad Francisco Marroquin, located in Guatemala City, Guatemala, 
award credit for successful completion of the center's courses. 

The professional development institutions also generally offer shorter-
duration courses. For example, the majority of Defense Institute for 
Medical Operations courses are 4 to 7 days in length, and Defense 
Institute of International Legal Studies courses range from 1 to 4 
weeks. 

DOD Has Taken Steps to Enhance Oversight of the Regional Centers Plans 
and Activities but Its Ability to Assess Their Progress Remains 
Limited: 

DOD has taken some steps to enhance its oversight of the Regional 
Centers' plans and activities, but it does not have a sound basis to 
evaluate their progress in achieving DOD priorities because it has not 
developed an assessment approach that includes measurable goals and 
objectives with metrics or established a methodology for using the 
performance information it collects. Our prior work[Footnote 15]has 
found that achieving results in government requires a comprehensive 
oversight framework that includes clear goals, measurable objectives, 
and metrics for assessing progress, consistent with the framework 
established in the Government Performance and Results Act.[Footnote 16] 

DOD Has Taken Steps to Enhance Oversight of Regional Centers' Plans 
and Activities: 

Since 2005, DOD has taken several specific steps to enhance oversight 
of the Regional Centers, including defining roles and 
responsibilities, issuing guidance, and establishing a governance body 
and planning process. Specifically: 

* Roles and Responsibilities: OUSD Policy, according to DOD Directive 
5200.41, is responsible for providing policy guidance and oversight 
and conducting reviews of the effectiveness of the Regional Centers in 
achieving DOD objectives, including resource allocation, management 
practices, and measures of effectiveness.[Footnote 17] In 2005, DOD 
designated the DSCA director as the executive agent for the Regional 
Centers and assigned it the responsibility for programming, budgeting, 
and management of the resources necessary to support their operation 
and providing them with needed staffing.[Footnote 18] 

* Guidance: OUSD Policy issues guidance to the Regional Centers that 
assigns priorities to them reflecting national security and 
departmental objectives. For example, in January 2013, OUSD Policy 
issued fiscal year 2013 guidance incorporating policy priorities 
identified in DOD's January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance,[Footnote 
19] and instructing the Regional Centers to address those priorities 
as they plan and execute programs.[Footnote 20] DSCA issues planning 
guidance that requires the Regional Centers to develop program plans 
to meet the OUSD Policy priorities within their projected funding 
baseline and existing authorities.[Footnote 21] The fiscal year 2014-
2015 guidance states that each Regional Center's program plan, among 
others requirements, should include a cover letter signed by the 
Regional Center director or program manager, background and concept 
papers for core program and significant events, a completed 2-year 
budget submission, and a list of efficiency initiatives to be 
implemented. Further, DOD Directive 5200.41 states that the Regional 
Centers are required to develop and implement their activities 
according to guidance from the geographic combatant commanders. 
[Footnote 22] 

* Governance body and planning process: In December 2011, DOD 
established a governance body within OUSD Policy, called the Principal 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Board,[Footnote 23] that 
provides guidance for and monitoring of the Regional Centers' 
activities and plans. According to DOD officials, OUSD Policy 
established the board intending to facilitate coordination and 
information sharing among different OUSD Policy offices, and to 
achieve more integrated decision making on policies, plans, programs, 
and budgets. DOD officials told us that before the board's 
establishment, each Regional Center reported to its respective OUSD 
Policy stakeholders, and the opportunity for broader information 
sharing was minimal. The board's activities include, in 2011, 
establishing a 16-month planning process to guide how the board and 
OUSD Policy stakeholders will provide guidance and oversee the 
development of plans and activities of the Regional Centers. As shown 
in figure 2, key steps in the planning cycle include: 

- identifying priorities and providing guidance to the Regional 
Centers; 

- providing a means with which the Regional Center directors can 
update stakeholders on prior-year activities and future-year plans; 

- coordinating proposed Regional Center program plans with OUSD Policy 
offices, the geographic combatant commands, and the board; and: 

- reviewing Regional Centers' budgets and program plans. 

Figure 2: Overview and Timeline of OUSD Policy's 16-month Planning 
Process for the Regional Centers for Security Studies (Regional 
Centers) (Initiated in 2011): 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

May: 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD Policy) 
begins coordination of priorities and guidance. 

August: 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (PDASD) Board meets 
and issues updated guidance and priorities. 

October: 
Regional Centers brief prior year results and outcomes and receive 
guidance from OUSD Policy offices at Regional Center Roundtable. 

January: 
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) issues fiscal guidance and 
criteria for program plan submission. 

February-March: 
Regional Centers finalize and coordinate program plan with geographic 
combatant commands and OUSD Policy offices. 

March-April: 
Regional Centers brief program plans to OUSD Policy offices. 

April: 
Regional Centers Director’s brief program plans to PDASD board. 

May: 
Regional Centers submit program plans to DSCA. 

June-September: 
Regional Centers submit required budget documents to DSCA. 

October: 
Regional Centers execute program plan. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

We found that OUSD Policy largely follows the above planning process 
and has implemented the steps it describes; however, some steps, such 
as the issuance of the Regional Center priority guidance, were 
sometimes delayed. 

DOD Has Not Yet Developed an Approach with Key Elements Needed to 
Assess the Regional Centers Progress in Achieving DOD Priorities: 

Notwithstanding DOD's efforts to enhance its oversight of the Regional 
Centers plans and activities described above, we found that OUSD 
Policy is limited in its ability to review the effectiveness of the 
Regional Centers in achieving DOD objectives because it has not yet 
developed an assessment approach that includes key elements, such as 
identifying measurable goals and objectives linked with performance 
metrics that would provide a means by which to evaluate their progress 
in achieving departmental priorities, or established a methodology for 
how it would use the performance information it collects to assess 
that progress. Our prior work[Footnote 24]has found that achieving 
results in government requires a comprehensive oversight framework 
that includes clear goals, measurable objectives, and metrics for 
assessing progress, consistent with the framework established in the 
Government Performance and Results Act.[Footnote 25] 

DOD Has Not Developed an Assessment Approach That Includes Measurable 
Goals and Objectives: 

DOD has not developed an assessment approach that includes measurable 
goals and objectives for the Regional Centers for use in assessing 
their progress towards meeting DOD's priorities. In February 2011 and 
again in January 2013, OUSD Policy identified strategic goals and a 
number of priority objectives for the Regional Centers.[Footnote 26] 
However, many of the strategic goals were broad and not measurable, 
such as the goal to facilitate engagement with foreign participants to 
promote critical thinking on global security challenges. Additionally, 
although OUSD Policy identified priority objectives specific to each 
Regional Center in the January 2013 guidance, we found the priority 
objectives were still not measurable in many cases. For example, the 
priority objectives listed in the guidance for all of the Regional 
Centers include "contributing to an increased emphasis on security 
cooperation and building partnership capacity efforts in the Asia-
Pacific and Middle East," and ensuring that the United States is a 
security partner of choice for other nations. Additionally, the 
guidance documents list broad priority objectives for each Regional 
Center, such as supporting national security strategy development for 
one Regional Center, and addressing the growing threat of 
transnational organized crimes and illicit trafficking for another 
Regional Center. 

DOD Has Not Established Metrics to Assess Progress: 

According to DOD Directive 5200.41, OUSD Policy is responsible for 
conducting reviews of the effectiveness of the Regional Centers in 
achieving DOD objectives.[Footnote 27] However, DOD has not 
established performance metrics or other indicators to assess the 
Regional Centers' progress in achieving DOD priorities. We have 
previously reported that performance metrics that measure progress are 
necessary for management oversight.[Footnote 28] OUSD Policy officials 
acknowledge difficulties in developing metrics to assess security 
cooperation programs, such as those administered by the Regional 
Centers, observing that it is inherently challenging to link a 
security cooperation activity with desired effects. These officials 
described past and current efforts intended to provide information 
that could be used to help develop metrics. For example: 

* In 2010, OUSD Policy tasked the Regional Centers with developing a 
comprehensive set of measures of effectiveness by which progress 
toward objectives could be assessed. In November 2010 the Regional 
Centers submitted a plan. 

* Thereafter, OUSD Policy contracted with the RAND Corporation to 
review the November 2010 plan.[Footnote 29] In September 2011, RAND 
concluded that the measures of effectiveness identified in the plan 
had some weaknesses.[Footnote 30] RAND recommended that the Regional 
Centers develop a more comprehensive set of metrics and proposed a 
framework for developing them. 

* On the basis of the results, the Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense Board concluded that further study was needed. 
Therefore, in July 2012, OUSD Policy contracted with RAND to conduct a 
study to evaluate the effect of the Regional Centers and to determine 
their contribution toward fulfilling OUSD Policy strategy objectives. 
DOD expects RAND to publish a final report in September 2013. 
According to OUSD Policy officials, they believe the RAND study will 
provide additional insights into the metrics or indicators that could 
be used to evaluate the Regional Centers' performance. 

We recognize and have previously reported that it is difficult to 
establish performance measures for outcomes that are not readily 
observable and that in some cases systematic, in-depth program 
evaluation studies may be needed in addition to performance 
measures.[Footnote 31] Such program evaluation studies are conducted 
periodically and include context in order to examine the extent to 
which a program is meeting its objectives.[Footnote 32] Further, our 
prior work has shown that performance measures should focus on core 
activities that would help managers assess whether they are achieving 
organizational goals.[Footnote 33] 

DOD Has Not Established a Methodology for Assessing Progress: 

OUSD Policy has not established a methodology for assessing the 
Regional Centers' progress in achieving DOD priorities, to include 
clarifying how it will use performance data provided by the Regional 
Centers and clearly identifying the role of its governance board in 
the assessment process. We found that, individually, the Regional 
Centers collect data on their programs and activities, and while their 
efforts vary, they all generally capture output and anecdotal data, 
such as summaries of activities, events, attendee demographics, and 
participant days, as well as the results of program surveys they 
conduct. For example: 

* One Regional Center summarized its assessment efforts as conducting 
after-action reports, class evaluations, before and after program 
surveys, and trip reports. 

* One Regional Center sends surveys to the attendees' supervisors to 
collect data on the attendee's work performance and, if applicable, 
any improvement in job performance subsequent to their attendance at 
Regional Center programs, as well as to elicit the supervisors' 
perspectives on the utility of the courses and its applicability to 
their careers. Additionally, the center has developed an internal, 
searchable database to store useful data and outcomes collected from 
surveys, e-mails, and personal anecdotes. 

* Two Regional Center use a crosswalk that identifies how its programs 
and activities support stakeholder priorities, as well as the effects 
of its activities. 

The Regional Centers provide data to OUSD Policy and DSCA on both 
their expected achievements and their past activities. For example, as 
required by DOD, the Regional Centers include in their program plans 
expected achievements of their specific programs and a discussion of 
how they expect their programs will support OUSD Policy priorities. 
[Footnote 34] Additionally, as discussed earlier in this report, the 
Regional Center directors brief the Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense Board on their past activities. In our review of 
the board presentations in January 2013, we found that the board 
members had the opportunity to ask questions as well as request 
additional information on specific aspects of their activities. 

However, OUSD Policy has not established a methodology or clarified 
how it will use this performance information to assess the Regional 
Centers' performance against expected outcomes or in achieving DOD 
priorities. Furthermore, although DOD established a governance body to 
assist in monitoring the Regional Center's plans and activities, DOD 
officials acknowledge that the role of the governance body in 
assessing the Regional Centers' performance is not clearly defined. 
For example, the governance body has not identified how it will 
consider the performance information provided by the Regional Centers 
in making decisions or demonstrated how the newly established planning 
process will integrate the performance information to assess the 
Regional Centers' progress towards OUSD Policy strategic goals and 
priority objectives. 

Conducting routine assessments using measurable goals and objectives 
with metrics to evaluate progress would provide DOD with a sounder 
basis for determining whether the Regional Centers are achieving 
results, as well as for allocating resources. Until measurable program 
goals and objectives linked with performance metrics are implemented, 
DOD cannot fully assess or adequately oversee the Regional Centers. 
Moreover, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for 
assessing the Regional Centers, oversight mechanisms such as the 
governance body could prove beneficial in evaluating the Regional 
Centers' performance in achieving DOD priorities, as well as the 
performance of other DOD initiatives to build partner nations' 
capacity. 

Conclusions: 

Effective management of efforts to build the defense capacity of 
foreign partners will help DOD steward its resources to achieve its 
strategic priorities and will likely better position the U.S. 
government to respond to changing conditions and future uncertainties 
around the world. As a component of DOD's broader effort, the Regional 
Centers provide an opportunity for the U.S. government to strengthen 
cooperation with foreign countries. While DOD has expressed challenges 
entailed in establishing metrics to capture the effects of a program 
premised on relationship-building and has taken steps to study the 
matter, it has yet to establish an initial set of metrics. We note the 
importance for DOD to have measurable goals and objectives linked with 
performance metrics, which would form the foundation for an oversight 
framework. While DOD has taken positive steps by establishing a new 
governance body and updating DOD guidance applying to the Regional 
Centers for fiscal year 2013, DOD does not yet have a process to 
assess the Regional Centers' progress. Conducting routine assessments 
using measurable goals and objectives, with metrics to evaluate 
progress, and a methodology for using performance information to 
include defining the role of the governance board, would provide DOD a 
sounder basis for assessing the Regional Centers' progress in 
achieving results and better determining the allocation of resources. 
Moreover, DOD's ability to assess the Regional Centers' performance 
would provide Congress with the information it needs as it evaluates 
current and similar programs and considers future funding levels. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To enhance DOD's ability to determine whether the Regional Centers are 
achieving departmental priorities, we recommend that the Secretary of 
Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to: 

* develop an approach to assess the Regional Centers' progress in 
achieving DOD priorities, including identifying measurable goals and 
objectives, metrics, or other indicators of performance, and: 

* develop a methodology for using performance information, to include 
defining the role of the governance board in the process. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD and State for comment. DOD 
provided written comments which are reprinted in appendix IV. In its 
written comments, DOD partially concurred with our first 
recommendation and concurred with our second recommendation. DOD also 
provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into the 
report, as appropriate. State did not provide any comments on the 
draft. 

DOD partially concurred with our first recommendation that the 
Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 
to develop an approach to assess the Regional Centers' progress in 
achieving DOD priorities, including identifying measurable goals and 
objectives, metrics, and other indicators of performance. In its 
comments, DOD noted that our recommendation should take into account 
that a process already exists for Regional Center program development 
and approval, which requires the Regional Centers to identify specific 
program goals that meet policy objectives. DOD further noted that the 
department recognized the need to improve the identification of 
measurable goals and objectives, metrics, or other indicators of 
performance, and is already taking steps to address this issue. DOD 
suggested that we revise our recommendation to state that DOD should 
bolster the current approach to assess the Regional Centers' progress 
in achieving DOD priorities, including identifying measurable goals 
and objectives, metrics, and other indicators of performance that 
appropriately measure the essential aspects of the Regional Centers' 
mission. 

As noted in our report, we recognize that DOD has a process for 
developing and reviewing Regional Center programs and that the 
department has established policy priorities for the Regional Centers. 
The report also notes that the Regional Centers include in their 
program plans expected achievements of their specific programs and a 
discussion of how they expect their programs will support OUSD Policy 
priorities. However, we note that DOD's January 2013 guidance to the 
Regional Centers contained priority objectives that were not 
measurable in many cases. Further, our report describes past and 
current DOD efforts that could be useful toward identifying metrics to 
assess Regional Center progress in achieving DOD priorities. However, 
DOD has not yet established an initial set of metrics. Without those 
key elements, we do not believe that DOD has a sound approach to 
assess the Regional Centers' progress. Therefore we believe our 
recommendation is stated appropriately. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense; 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and the Secretary of State. 
In addition, the report will also be available on our website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact 
Sharon L. Pickup at (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov, or Charles 
Michael Johnson, Jr. at (202) 512-7331. Contact points for our Offices 
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributors to this 
report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Sharon L. Pickup: 
Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 

Signed by: 

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

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To assess how the Regional Centers for Security Studies' (Regional 
Centers) programs and activities compared with those of other DOD 
organizations that provide training and educational programs and 
activities, we completed the following steps. First, we researched 
U.S. government programs, activities, and initiatives providing 
training and education to foreign civilian and military individuals. 
We reviewed two U.S. government reports that provided comprehensive 
information on training and education provided to foreign civilian and 
military professionals: the Interagency Working Group on U.S. 
Government-Sponsored International Exchanges and Training fiscal year 
2011 Annual Report; and the Foreign Military Training Fiscal Years 
2010 and 2011 Joint Report to Congress. The Interagency Working Group 
Annual Reports provide a review of activities over a given fiscal year 
and they include the previous fiscal year's inventory of programs 
detailing the scope of federal international exchanges and training. 
The Foreign Military Training Report is jointly completed by DOD and 
the Department of State (State) and provides information on all 
military training provided to foreign military personnel by DOD and 
State during the previous fiscal year and all such training proposed 
for the current fiscal year. In addition, we reviewed the Defense 
Institute of Security Assistance Management's The Management of 
Security Cooperation (Green Book); the Defense Security Cooperation 
Agency's fiscal year 2013 Budget Request; and Army Regulation 12-15, 
Joint Security Cooperation Education and Training. The Defense 
Institute of Security Assistance Management Green Book is the 
publication employed by the institute for instruction covering the 
full range of security cooperation and security assistance activities. 
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency's fiscal year 2013 Budget 
Request identifies specific security cooperation activities 
administered by the agency. The Joint Security Cooperation Education 
and Training regulation prescribes policies, procedures, and 
responsibilities for training international personnel. By reviewing 
these documents, we identified a comprehensive inventory of U.S. 
security cooperation and security assistance programs that provide 
training and education to foreign nationals. Second, we excluded 
programs that: (1) did not have national security and policy as their 
primary focus, or (2) taught specific skill-or tactical-level 
training, such as language or flight training. We then compared these 
programs against the legislation establishing the Regional Centers and 
the DOD directive governing their activities. On the basis of this 
comparison, we focused our selection on the subset of training and 
education programs and building partner capacity initiatives that, 
like the Regional Centers, support DOD priorities by enhancing 
security, fostering partnerships, and assisting regional leaders to 
develop strong defense establishments. We learned that the programs 
identified in these first two steps of our selection process could be 
classified in two categories: (1) DOD institutions that provide 
training and education and (2) DOD and State programs and authorities 
that provide funds for U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to attend 
these institutions. Because one of the Regional Centers' activities is 
to provide for education and exchanges by conducting in-residence 
courses, in-country seminars, and conferences, among other activities, 
we focused our next selection step on identifying training and 
educational program providers. Third, we completed additional research 
on DOD institutions that provide training and education. We conducted 
a preliminary review of each institution by reading a description of 
it, and we again excluded those that provide tactical-level training 
on skills not addressed by the Regional Centers. The team collected 
additional information about these institutions by completing online 
research, reviewing documentation collected during the engagement, and 
requesting data and information from each institution. On the basis of 
this research and review, we identified and selected 17 organizations 
for this analysis; the organizations are DOD institutions that provide 
training and education, but U.S. citizens and foreign nationals that 
attend these institutions are, in some instances, funded by DOD and 
State programs and authorities. Where applicable, we also analyzed the 
various schools under each institution. 

1. Air Force Institute of Technology (part of Air University): 

2. Air University: 

3. Army Command and General Staff College: 

4. Army JFK Special Warfare School: 

5. Army War College: 

6. Center for Civil Military Relations: 

7. Defense Acquisition University: 

8. Defense Institute for Medical Operations: 

9. Defense Institute of International Legal Studies: 

10. Defense Resource Management Institute: 

11. Joint Special Operations University: 

12. Marine Corps War College: 

13. National Defense University: 

14. NATO School: 

15. Naval Postgraduate School: 

16. Naval War College: 

17. Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation: 

Fourth, we identified which attributes to examine. For this 
engagement, we selected three similar areas for comparison--curriculum 
topics, target audience, and program type and format. In prior work, 
GAO has compared programs by examining various program attributes, 
such as the populations targeted, the types of services provided, or 
the program's geographic focus. As the analysis entailed comparing the 
Regional Centers to the above 17 selected training and educational 
providers, we concluded a review should examine the curriculum offered 
by each provider and that the populations targeted and program format 
attributes were applicable. We determined that these attributes we 
selected were appropriate for comparing training and educational 
providers because they explain the curriculum focus of each 
organization's primary training and educational efforts, who they 
engage in these efforts, and their method of engagement. The results 
of our analysis are not generalizable to DOD training and education 
programs and activities outside of those included in the scope of our 
work. 

To determine the extent to which DOD has developed and implemented an 
approach to oversee the Regional Centers and assess their progress in 
achieving DOD priorities, we evaluated relevant documentation and 
interviewed knowledgeable officials. Specifically, we reviewed the 
legislation establishing the Regional Centers, DOD guidance[Footnote 
35] governing their activities, and the 2010 and 2011 DOD annual 
reports to Congress on Regional Center activities; the Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) Policy fiscal year 2011-2012 and 
2013-2014 policy guidance and DSCA Fiscal Year 2014-2015 program 
planning guidance to the Regional Centers, and the Regional Centers' 
program plans submitted in response; and briefing documents concerning 
the establishment of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense Board. In January 2013 we attended and observed the fourth 
meeting of this board. We also reviewed a prior study conducted by the 
RAND Corporation, contracted by OUSD Policy, to evaluate the Regional 
Centers' measures-of-effectiveness plan, and met with RAND officials. 
In completing site visits to the Regional Centers, we reviewed 
documentation relating to their missions, anticipated outcomes, 
scheduled and proposed activities, program development processes, and 
outreach to alumni. We also observed classes and conferences in 
progress and met with international attendees. Additionally, to 
identify oversight mechanisms for the Regional Centers, we reviewed 
key geographic combatant command documents to include guidance issued 
to Regional Centers and theater planning documents, and we interviewed 
key command officials. We also referred to our prior work that 
identifies elements that constitute a comprehensive oversight 
framework, and to prior work that identifies the relationship between 
performance management and program evaluation.[Footnote 36] 

To provide information about the process used by DOD and State to 
approve and monitor Regional Center requests to waive reimbursement of 
costs for nongovernmental and international organizations that 
participate in the Regional Centers' activities, we reviewed relevant 
legislation and DSCA guidance identifying the procedures for 
submitting requests and the criteria applied to consideration of 
waivers for nongovernmental and international organizations. We 
discussed the process with DSCA and State officials and obtained 
information on the various waivers requested, as well as the amounts 
waived, between fiscal years 2009 and 2012. 

To address all of our objectives, we collected information by 
interviewing or communicating with officials in: 

(1) the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD Policy), 
specifically the following subordinate offices: 

(a) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Partnership 
Strategy and Stability Operations, 

(b) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International 
Security Affairs, 

(c) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense African Affairs, 

(d) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, 
Ukraine & Eurasia, 

(e) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Western 
Hemispheres Affairs, 

(f) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense--Asia Pacific 
Security Affairs, 

(g) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, and: 

(h) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 
Operations & Low-Intensity Conflict; 

(2) the Defense Security Cooperation Agency; 

(3) of the five Regional Centers: 

(a) the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, 

(b) the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, 

(c) the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, 

(d) the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, and: 

(e) the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies; 

(4) each of the six geographic combatant commands: 

(a) U.S. Africa Command, 

(b) U.S. Central Command, 

(c) U.S. European Command, 

(d) U.S. Northern Command, 

(e) U.S. Pacific Command, and: 

(f) U.S. Southern Command; 

(5) the Global Center for Security Cooperation; 

(6) the following State bureaus: 

(a) Bureau of African Affairs, 

(b) Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 

(c) Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, and: 

(d) Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs; 

(7) the U.S. Agency for International Development; and: 

(8) the RAND Corporation. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 through June 2013 
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: The Department of Defense's (DOD) Regional Centers for 
Security Studies: 

Africa Center for Strategic Studies: 

About the Center: 

Location: Washington, D.C. 

Satellite locations: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Dakar, Senegal. 

Founded: 1998. 

Mission: The Africa Center for Strategic Studies supports U.S. foreign
and security policies by strengthening the strategic capacity of 
African states to identify and resolve security challenges in ways 
that promote civil-military cooperation, respect democratic values,
and safeguard human rights. 

Priorities: 
* Counter violent extremism and counterterrorism; 
* Peacekeeping and stability; 
* Promote and preserve partnerships; 
* Security-sector transformation; 
* Transnational security challenges. 

Courses: 
* Next Generation of African Security Leaders; 
* Senior Leaders Seminar; 
* African Executive Dialogue; 
* Managing Security Resources in Africa; 
* African Defense Attaché Seminar; 
* Introduction to African Security Issues; 
* Topical Outreach Program Series; 
* Countering Violent Extremism and Radicalization; 
* Leadership and Accountability in Countering Illicit Trafficking; 
* Maritime Safety and Security; 
* Security Sector Transformation. 

Alumni: 5,193 (as of September 2012). 

Figure: Fiscal Year 2012 Funding: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Operation and maintenance, defense-wide: $15.0 million (92%); 
Operation and maintenance, reimbursable: $1.3 million (8%). 
Total funding: $16.3 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: Fiscal Year 2012 Personnel: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Civilian: 47 (59%); 
Contractors: 28 (35%); 
Military: 4 (5%). 
Total personnel: 79 (as of September 2012); 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

Note: Total may not add due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: Area of Focus: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of Sub-Africa] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

[End of fact sheet] 

Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies: 

About the Center: 

Location: Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Founded: 1995. 

Mission: Building capacities and communities of interest by educating,
connecting, and empowering security practitioners to advance Asia-
Pacific security. 

Priorities: Contribute to regional stability by focusing on:
* Counterterrorism; 
* Defense institution building; 
* Humanitarian assistance and disaster response; 
* Maritime and border security; 
* Promotion of multilateral cooperation/confidence-building; 
* Space policy and cyber-security; 
* Stability and peacekeeping; 
* Transnational security threats. 

Courses:
* Advanced Security Cooperation Course; 
* Comprehensive Crisis Management Course; 
* Comprehensive Security Responses to Terrorism Course; 
* Transnational Security Cooperation Senior Executive Course. 

Alumni: 7,068 (as of January 2013). 

Figure: Fiscal Year 2012 DOD Operation and Maintenance Funding: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Operation and maintenance, defense-wide: $17.2 million (92%); 
Operation and maintenance, reimbursable: $1.5 million (8%). 
Total funding: $18.8 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

Note: Total may not add due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: Fiscal Year 2012 Personnel: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Civilian: 83 (65%); 
Contractors: 12 (9%); 
Military: 32 (25%). 
Total personnel: 127 (as of November 2012); 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

Note: Total may not add due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: Area of Focus: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of Asia Pacific area] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

[End of fact sheet] 

William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies: 

About the Center: 

Location: Washington, D.C. 

Founded: 1997. 

Mission: Conduct educational activities for civilians and the military 
in the Western Hemisphere to enhance partner capacity and foster 
trust, mutual understanding, and regional cooperation. 

Priorities: 

* Encourage whole-of-government coordination and support hemispheric 
coordination mechanisms to enhance information-sharing; 
* Facilitate bilateral and multilateral cooperation to build common
perspectives on regional challenges and greater capacity; 
* Promote a strategic dialogue and communicate U.S. defense priorities
to regional leaders; 
* Promote partner nation defense planning and strategy development
(peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, stability, 
and counterterrorism operations); 
* Support civilian military control, transitions, and oversight. 

Courses:
* Governance, Governability and Security in The Americas: Responses to 
Transnational Organized Crime; 
* Nationlab; 
* Perspectives on Homeland Security and Homeland Defense; 
* Strategy and Defense Policy Course; 
* Washington Security and Defense Seminar. 

Alumni: 5,335 (as of September 2012). 

Figure: Fiscal Year 2012 DOD Operation and Maintenance Funding: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Operation and maintenance, defense-wide: $12.2 million (99%); 
Operation and maintenance, reimbursable: $62,000 (1%). 
Total funding: $12.2 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: Fiscal Year 2012 Personnel: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Civilian: 48 (62%); 
Contractors: 12 (12%); 
Volunteers: 20 (26%). 
Total personnel: 77 (as of September 2012); 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: Area of Focus: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of North and South America] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

[End of fact sheet] 

George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies: 

About the Center: 

Location: Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. 

Founded: 1993. 

Mission: Create a more stable security environment by advancing 
democratic institutions and relationships, especially in the field of 
defense; promoting active, peaceful security cooperation; and 
enhancing enduring partnerships among the nations of North America, 
Europe, and Eurasia. 

Priorities: 

* Address implications for transatlantic security organizations based 
on U.S. strategic rebalancing; 
* Emphasize engagement with U.S. European Command priority countries; 
* Emphasize European and Eurasian regional security issues; 
* Expand engagement with Central Asia on regional security, defense
transformation, defense strategy development, and building partner 
capacity; 
* Sustain trans-regional counterterrorism engagement; 
* Transnational organized crime illicit trafficking. 

Courses: 
* Program in Applied Security Studies—Capacity Building; 
* Program in Security Sector Capacity Building; 
* Program on Terrorism and Security Studies; 
* Seminar on Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction/Terrorism; 
* Seminar on Regional Security; 
* Seminar on Transatlantic Civil Security; 
* Senior Executive Seminar. 

Alumni: 9,451 (as of January 2013). 

Figure: Fiscal Year 2012 DOD Operation and Maintenance Funding: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Operation and maintenance, defense-wide: $31.2 million (85%); 
Operation and maintenance, reimbursable: $5.2 million (14%); 
Outside funding: $487,000 (1%); 
Total funding: $36.9 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: Fiscal Year 2012 Personnel: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Civilian: 143 (69%); 
Contractors: 40 (19%); 
Military: 23 (11%). 
Total personnel: 206 (as of September 2012); 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: Area of Focus: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of Europe, Asia and Greenland] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

[End of fact sheet] 

Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies: 

About the Center: 

Location: Washington, D.C. 

Founded: 2000. 

Mission: To enhance stability in the Near East and South Asia region by
providing a professional academic environment where the key security 
issues facing the region can be addressed, mutual understanding is 
deepened, partnerships are fostered, security related decision making is
improved, and cooperation is strengthened among military and security 
professionals from regional countries and the United States. 

Priorities: 

* Focus on Afghanistan/Pakistan and Middle Eastern region security: 
- Civilian control of the military, 
- Increasing regional countering violent extremist efforts, and, 
- Increasing the involvement of non-defense/Ministry of Foreign
Affairs officials in programs; 
* Professional military ethics; 
* Reform and long-term stability; 
* Support for international standards; 
* Transparency and accountability. 

Courses: 
* U.S. Central Command Senior National Representative Seminar; 
* Combating Transnational Threats Executive Seminars; 
* Combating Transnational Threats Senior Executive Seminar; 
* Executive Seminars; 
* Senior Executive Seminar. 

Alumni: 3,472 (as of June 2012). 

Figure: Fiscal Year 2012 DOD Operation and Maintenance Funding: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Operation and maintenance, defense-wide: $16.2 million (94%); 
Operation and maintenance, reimbursable: $18,000 (less than 1%); 
Outside funding: $1.1 million (6%); 
Total funding: $17.2 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

Note: Total may not add due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: Fiscal Year 2012 Personnel: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Civilian: 24 (33%); 
Contractors: 35 (49%); 
Military: 2 (3%); 
Interns: 10 (14%); 
Other: 1 (1%); 
Total personnel: 72 (as of September 2012); 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: Area of Focus: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of Northern Africa and Middle East] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents. 

[End of figure] 

[End of fact sheet] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Reimbursement Waivers: 

The Secretary of Defense may use any of several specific authorities 
in Title 10 U.S. Code to pay the expenses of representatives from 
various regions around the world to attend Department of Defense (DOD)-
sponsored programs and activities, including those of the Regional 
Centers. These authorities vary on the basis of the type of attendees 
(civilian or military) as well as the region of the world from where 
they originate. The authority contained in 10 U.S.C. § 184note 
specifically applies to nongovernmental and international organization 
(NGO/IO) personnel attending Regional Center programs, for which DOD 
has issued specific guidance to govern approval of reimbursement 
waivers. 

Multiple Authorities Exist: 

In fiscal year 2009, 10 U.S.C. § 184note was enacted to temporarily 
grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to waive reimbursement of 
costs for NGO/IO personnel to attend Regional Center programs. 
[Footnote 37] Approval of waived reimbursement depends on whether the 
NGO/IO's attendance is deemed to be in the U.S. national security 
interest and is subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of State. 
Further, the collective reimbursements being waived may not exceed a 
total of $1 million (according to DOD officials, reimbursement is paid 
from the Regional Centers' Operation and Maintenance budgets) in any 
fiscal year. This temporary waiver authority has been renewed most 
recently through fiscal year 2013. Title 10 also contains permanent 
authorities to pay the expenses of foreign representatives in order to 
foster cooperation with various countries in those regions. 
Specifically, 10 U.S.C. 184(f)(3) allows the Secretary of Defense to 
waive reimbursement of the costs of activities of the Regional Centers 
for foreign military officers and foreign defense and security 
civilian government officials from a developing country if the 
Secretary determines that attendance of such personnel without 
reimbursement is in the national security interest of the United 
States. In addition, 10 U.S.C. § 1050 has been in effect since 1984 
and allows the Secretary of Defense to pay the expenses of officers 
and students from Latin American countries.[Footnote 38] In 2011, 
Congress enacted 10 U.S.C. § 1050a, allowing the Secretary of Defense 
to pay the expenses of officers and students from African countries. 
Under 10 U.S.C. § 113note, the Secretary of Defense has the ability to 
pay the expenses of military officers and civilian officials from 
European countries. The authorities are summarized in table 3. 

Table 3: 10 U.S.C. Authorities: 

Authority: 10 U.S.C. § 1050; 
Applies to: officers and students; 
From: Latin American countries. 

Authority: 10 U.S.C. § 1050a; 
Applies to: officers and students; 
From: African countries. 

Authority: 10 U.S.C. § 113note; 
Applies to: military officers and civilian officials; 
From: European countries. 

Authority: 10 U.S.C. § 184; 
Applies to: military officials and defense and security civilians; 
From: developing countries. 

Authority: 10 U.S.C. § 184note; 
Applies to: personnel; 
From: nongovernmental and international organizations (NGO/IO). 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Reimbursement Waiver Approval Process under 10 U.S.C. § 184: 

DOD has set up specific procedures to direct the use of the authority 
granted under 10 U.S.C. § 184note to waive reimbursement of expenses 
by NGO/IOs. This procedural guidance cites national security interests 
when considering waiver of reimbursement and encourages the Regional 
Centers to request waivers on the basis of each NGO/IO's financial 
need. It also outlines six specific priorities to be used for 
determining waiver consideration, as described in table 4. 

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2011 - 2013 Priorities for Waiver Consideration, 
in Order of Importance: 

Priority: 1; 
Description: NGO/IOs that participate alongside or in the vicinity of 
U.S. forces during postconflict stability and/or disaster-management 
operations, and whose participation has a direct benefit to DOD 
operations. 

Priority: 2; 
Description: NGO/IOs that participate in disaster-management and 
stability operations with partners. 

Priority: 3; 
Description: NGO/IOs that play an important role in countering violent 
extremism. 

Priority: 4; 
Description: NGO/IOs that provide civil society oversight of foreign 
partner security sectors. 

Priority: 5; 
Description: NGO/IOs that engage in "sustainable development and 
stabilization" (also known as Phase Zero) activities, where U.S. or 
foreign partner security forces are actively engaged (e.g., health 
affairs). 

Priority: 6; 
Description: NGO/IOs that broadly influence security policies in their 
countries or international organizations. 

Source: DOD. 

[End of table] 

According to the procedural guidance issued by DOD, as well as 
discussions with DOD and State Department officials, the process 
through which waivers are requested and approved under 10 U.S.C. § 
184note is as follows: 

* The Regional Centers send the Defense Security Cooperation Agency 
(DSCA) their waiver requests identifying each organization, individual 
attendees, and dollar amounts, and providing justifications for their 
requests. 

* DSCA then reviews the requests and transmits them to the Department 
of State's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs for its concurrence 
and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD 
Policy) for approval. 

* The Department of State and OUSD Policy circulate the requests among 
their respective regional and functional bureaus, which perform a 
review of each candidate organization, principally to ensure that the 
organization's participation would not undermine the program's purpose. 

* The Department of State transmits its concurrence to DSCA which, in 
turn, notifies OUSD Policy of the concurrence. OUSD Policy transmits 
its approvals to DSCA. 

* DSCA designates a portion of the $1 million total waiver authority 
to each Regional Center, setting a cap on how much of each center's 
Operation and Maintenance budget may be spent on waiving 
reimbursements by NGO/IOs attending their programs. 

Use of Other Authorities: 

In addition to the legislative authority provided for waiver of 
reimbursement for NGO/IO personnel, OUSD Policy and the Regional 
Centers may use other Title 10 authorities granted to the Secretary of 
Defense. To date, only the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric 
Defense Studies has paid the expenses of NGO/IO personnel with an 
authority other than 10 U.S.C. § 184note. Using the authority under 10 
U.S.C. § 1050, whereby the Secretary of Defense may pay the expenses 
of officers and students from Latin American countries, the William J. 
Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies has paid the expenses of 
NGO/IO personnel. According to DOD, the Regional Centers have not used 
10 U.S.C. § 1050a, whereby the Secretary of Defense may pay the 
expenses of officers and students from African countries; or 10 U.S.C. 
§ 113note, through which the Secretary of Defense has the ability to 
pay the expenses of military officers and civilian officials from 
European countries, to waive reimbursements for participating NGO/IOs. 
Table 5 shows the extent to which the Regional Centers have used Title 
10 authorities each fiscal year since 2009 to cover expenses for 
NGO/IO personnel attending their programs. 

Table 5: Use of Authorities by Regional Centers to Waive NGO/IO 
Reimbursements, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

Current year dollars: 

10 U.S.C. § 184note: 

Africa Center for Strategic Studies; 
Fiscal year: 
2009: 0; 
2010: $33,785; 
2011: $50,900; 
2012: 0. 

Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies; 
Fiscal year: 
2009: $15,797; 
2010: $13,794; 
2011: 0; 
2012: $67,035. 

George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies; 
Fiscal year: 
2009: 0; 
2010: $56,000; 
2011: $10,500; 
2012: $4,648. 

Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies; 
Fiscal year: 
2009: $78,586; 
2010: $33,900; 
2011: $133,300; 
2012: 0. 

10 U.S.C. § 184note total; 
Fiscal year: 
2009: $94,383; 
2010: $137,479; 
2011: $194,700; 
2012: $71,683. 

10 U.S.C. § 1050: 

William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies; 
Fiscal year: 
2009: $573,110; 
2010: $579,800; 
2011: $251,750; 
2012: $333,363. 

Grand total; 
Fiscal year: 
2009: $667,493; 
2010: $717,279; 
2011: $446,450; 
2012: $405,046. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Under Secretary of Defense: 
Policy: 
2000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, D.C. 20301-2000: 

Ms. Sharon Pickup: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Pickup: 

Enclosed is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the May 22, 
2013, GAO Draft Report, GA0-13-606, "Building Partner Capacity: 
Actions Needed to Strengthen DoD Efforts to Assess the Performance of 
the Regional Centers for Security Studies," (GAO Code 351753). 
Detailed comments on the report recommendations are also enclosed. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James N. Miller: 

Enclosure: As stated: 

GAO Draft Report Dated May 22, 2013: 
GAO-13-606 (GAO Code 351753): 

"Building Partner Capacity: Actions Needed to Strengthen DoD Efforts 
to Assess the Performance of the Regional Centers for Security Studies" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendation: 

To enhance DoD's ability to determine whether the Regional Centers are 
achieving departmental priorities, GAO recommends that the Secretary 
of Defense direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Policy to: 

Recommendation 1: Develop an approach to assess the Regional Centers' 
progress in achieving DoD priorities, including identifying measurable 
goals and objectives, metrics, or other indicators of performance. 

DoD Response: Partially concur. The present recommendation should take 
into account that a process already exists for Regional Center program 
development and approval, which requires the Regional Centers to 
identify specific program goals that meet policy objectives. The 
Department recognized the need to improve the identification of 
measurable goals and objectives, metrics, or other indicators of 
performance and is already taking steps to address this issue.
Recommend the GAO revise its recommendation as follows: "Bolster the 
current approach to assess the Regional Centers' progress in achieving 
DOD priorities, including identifying measurable goals and objectives, 
metrics, or other indicators of performance that appropriately measure 
the essential aspects of the Regional Centers' mission." 

Recommendation 2: Develop a methodology for using performance 
information, to include defining the role of the governance board in 
the process. 

DoD Response: Concur. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Sharon L. Pickup, (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov: 

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

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contacts named above, Matthew Ullengren, Assistant 
Director; Judith McCloskey, Assistant Director; David Keefer; Ricardo 
Marquez; Shirley Min; Jamilah Moon; Amie Steele; Michael Silver; 
Sabrina Streagle; and Cheryl Weissman made key contributions to this 
report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

U.S. Assistance to Yemen: Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of 
Emergency Food Aid and Assess Security Assistance. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-310]. Washington, D.C.: March 20, 
2013: 

Security Assistance: Evaluations Needed to Determine Effectiveness of 
U.S. Aid to Lebanon's Security Forces. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-289]. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 
2013: 

Building Partner Capacity: Key Practices to Effectively Manage 
Department of Defense Efforts to Promote Security Cooperation. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-335T]. Washington, 
D.C.: February 14, 2013. 

Security Assistance: DOD's Ongoing Reforms Address Some Challenges, 
but Additional Information Is Needed to Further Enhance Program 
Management. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-84]. 
Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2012. 

State Partnership Program: Improved Oversight, Guidance, and Training 
Needed for National Guard's Efforts with Foreign Partners. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-548]. Washington, D.C.: May 15, 
2012. 

Security Force Assistance: Additional Actions Needed to Guide 
Geographic Combatant Command and Service Efforts. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-556]. Washington, D.C.: May 10, 
2012. 

Humanitarian and Development Assistance: Project Evaluations and 
Better Information Sharing Needed to Manage the Military's Efforts. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-359]. Washington, D.C.: 
February 8, 2012. 

Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP]. Washington, 
D.C.: May 2, 2011. 

Preventing Sexual Harassment: DOD Needs Greater Leadership Commitment 
and an Oversight Framework. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-809]. Washington, D.C.: September 
21, 2011. 

Defense Management: U.S. Southern Command Demonstrates Interagency 
Collaboration, but Its Haiti Disaster Response Revealed Challenges 
Conducting a Large Military Operation. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-801]. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 
2010. 

Defense Management: Improved Planning, Training, and Interagency 
Collaboration Could Strengthen DOD's Efforts in Africa. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-794]. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 
2010. 

Drug Control: DOD Needs to Improve Its Performance Measurement System 
to Better Manage and Oversee Its Counternarcotics Activities. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-835]. Washington, D.C.: 
July 21, 2010. 

Defense Management: DOD Needs to Determine the Future of Its Horn of 
Africa Task Force. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-
504]. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2010. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global leadership: 
Priorities for 21st Century Defense (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 5, 2012). 

[2] GAO, State Partnership Program: Improved Oversight, Guidance, and 
Training Needed for National Guard's Efforts with Foreign Partners, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-548] (Washington, D.C.: 
May 15, 2012). 

[3] GAO, Building Partner Capacity: Key Practices to Effectively 
Manage Department of Defense Efforts to Promote Security Cooperation, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-335T] (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 14, 2013). 

[4] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 112-705, at 838-839 (2012). 

[5] Department of Defense and Department of State, Foreign Military 
Training, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, Joint Report to Congress 
(Washington, D.C.: n.d.). 

[6] Interagency Working Group on U.S. Government-Sponsored 
International Exchanges and Training, Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Report 
(Washington, D.C.: n.d.). 

[7] Department of Defense Directive 5200.41, DOD Centers for Regional 
Security Studies, (July 30, 2004, certified current as of Dec. 5, 
2008). 

[8] Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993); Pub. L. No. 111-352 (2011). 

[9] See, for example, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-548] and Preventing Sexual 
Harassment: DOD Needs Greater Leadership Commitment and an Oversight 
Framework, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-809] 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2011). 

[10] See, for example, 10 U.S.C. §168. 

[11] See, for example, 22 U.S.C. §§ 2311-2322 (Foreign Military 
Assistance) and 22 U.S.C. §§ 2347-2347h (International Military 
Education and Training). 

[12] Department of Defense Directive 5200.41. 

[13] Department of Defense Directive 5200.41. 

[14] The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by 
institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. 
Accrediting agencies, which are private educational associations of 
regional or national scope, develop evaluation criteria and conduct 
peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met. 
Institutions and programs that request an agency's evaluation and that 
meet an agency's criteria are then "accredited" by that agency. 

[15] See, for example, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-548], [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-809], and Military Personnel: DOD 
Needs an Oversight Framework and Standards to Improve Management of 
Its Casualty Assistance Programs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1010] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 
2006). 

[16] The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 
103-62 (1993) was recently amended by the Government Performance and 
Results Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 
(2011). 

[17] Department of Defense Directive 5200.41. 

[18] Deputy Secretary of Defense, DTM-05-002, Executive Agent for DOD 
Regional Centers for Security Studies (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 
2005). 

[19] Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership. 

[20] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), FY 13-14 
Priorities for the Regional Center for Security Studies (Washington, 
D.C.: Jan. 23, 2013). 

[21] Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Fiscal Year 2014-2015 
Program Planning Guidance (Arlington, VA.: January 2013). 

[22] We found that four of the geographic combatant commands provide 
general objectives or tasks for the Regional Centers to support their 
programs and activities, and two commands issue guidance that 
identifies specific programs and tasks to be implemented by their 
respective Regional Centers. 

[23] The board is chaired by the OUSD Policy Chief of Staff, and its 
members include the OUSD Policy regional and functional Principal 
Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense, the Director of DSCA, and the 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Forces. 

[24] See, for example, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-548], [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-809], and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1010]. 

[25] The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 
103-62 (1993) was recently amended by the Government Performance and 
Results Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 
(2011). 

[26] Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), Policy Guidance for the 
Department of Defense Regional Centers (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 
2011); FY 13-14 Priorities for the Regional Center for Security 
Studies. 

[27] Department of Defense Directive, 5200.41. 

[28] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-548]. 

[29] Regional Centers for Security Studies, Regional Center 
Enterprise: Measures of Effectiveness (November 2010). 

[30] The RAND Corporation, National Defense Research Institute, Review 
of the Regional Center Enterprise Measures of Effectiveness Plan, 
(Santa Monica, CA: September 2011). 

[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-548]; and 
Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: May 2011). 

[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-548] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP]. 

[33] GAO, Defense Business Transformation: Improvements Made but 
Additional Steps Needed to Strengthen Strategic Planning and Assess 
Progress, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-267] 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2013). 

[34] Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Fiscal Year 2013-2014 
Program Planning Guidance. 

[35] Department of Defense Directive 5200.41, DOD Centers for Regional 
Security Studies, (July 30, 2004, certified current as of Dec. 5, 
2008). 

[36] See, for example, GAO, State Partnership Program: Improved 
Oversight, Guidance, and Training Needed for National Guard's Efforts 
with Foreign Partners, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-548] (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 
2012); Preventing Sexual Harassment: DOD Needs Greater Leadership 
Commitment and an Oversight Framework, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-809] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 
2011); and Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and 
Relationships, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: May 2011). 

[37] Pub. L. No. 110-417, Div. A, Title IX, § 941(b) (Oct. 14, 2008), 
as amended Pub. L. No. 111-383, Div. A, Title IX, § 941 (Jan. 7, 
2011); Pub. L. No. 112-239, Div. A, Title IX, § 953 (Jan. 2, 2013), 
(10 U.S.C. § 184note). 

[38] Similar provisions had been contained in appropriations dating 
back to 1942. 

[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s 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 GAO’s 
website, [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. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

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

Contact: 
Website: [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: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 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, DC 20548. 

[End of document]