This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-680T entitled 'Afghanistan: Oversight and Accountability of U.S. Assistance' which was released on June 10, 2014. 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: Testimony: Before the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives: For Release on Delivery: Expected at 2:00 p.m. ET: Tuesday, June 10, 2014: Afghanistan: Oversight and Accountability of U.S. Assistance: Statement of Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. Director, International Affairs and Trade: GAO-14-680T: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-14-680T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. Why GAO Did This Study: The U.S. government has engaged in multiple efforts in Afghanistan since declaring a global war on terrorism that targeted al Qaeda, its affiliates, and other violent extremists, including certain elements of the Taliban. These efforts have focused on a whole-of-government approach that calls for the use of all elements of U.S. national power to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates and prevent their return to Afghanistan. This approach, in addition to security assistance, provided billions toward governance and development, diplomatic operations, and humanitarian assistance. To assist Congress in its oversight, GAO has issued over 70 products since 2003 including key oversight issues related to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. This testimony summarizes the key findings from those products and discusses: (1) the challenges associated with operating in Afghanistan, (2) key oversight and accountability issues regarding U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, and (3) the need for contingency planning as the U.S. transitions to a civilian-led presence in Afghanistan. What GAO Found: Since 2003, GAO has identified numerous challenges related to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Among the various challenges that GAO and others have identified, are the following: the dangerous security environment, the prevalence of corruption, and the limited capacity of the Afghan government to deliver services and sustain donor-funded projects. As illustrated in the figure below, between fiscal years 2002 and 2013, U.S. agencies allocated nearly $100 billion toward U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Figure: Breakout of U.S. Allocations for Efforts in Afghanistan, Fiscal Years 2002-2013: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Security: $62.8 billion: 65%; Governance and development: $23.1 billion: 24%. Diplomatic operations: $8.0 billion: 8%; Humanitarian: $2.1 billion: 2%. Source: GAO analysis of Departments of Defense, Justice, and State data. GAO-14-680T. Note: This figure does not include funding provided for U.S. military or other operations in Afghanistan. Percentages may not add up to 100 as a result of rounding. [End of figure] The United States, along with the international community, has focused its efforts in areas such as building the capacity of Afghan ministries to govern and deliver services, developing Afghanistan's infrastructure and economy, and developing and sustaining the Afghan National Security Forces. In multiple reviews of these efforts, GAO has identified numerous shortcomings and has made recommendations to the agencies to take corrective actions related to (1) mitigating the risk of providing direct assistance to the Afghan government, (2) oversight and accountability of U.S. development projects, and (3) estimating the future costs of sustaining Afghanistan's security forces which the United States and international community have pledged to support. In February 2013, GAO reported that while the circumstances, combat operations, and diplomatic efforts in Iraq differ from those in Afghanistan, potential lessons could be learned from the transition from a military- to a civilian-led presence to avoid possible missteps and better utilize resources. As GAO has reported, contingency planning is critical to a successful transition and to ensuring that there is sufficient oversight of the U.S. investment in Afghanistan. This is particularly vital given the uncertainties of the U.S.- Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement and the ultimate size of the post-2014 U.S. presence in Afghanistan. What GAO Recommends: While GAO is not making new recommendations it has made numerous recommendations in prior reports aimed at improving U.S. agencies' oversight and accountability of U.S. funds in Afghanistan. U.S. agencies have generally concurred with these recommendations and have taken or plan to take steps to address them. View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-680T]. For more information, contact Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. [End of section] Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member Deutch, and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here to discuss key issues relating to the oversight and accountability of U.S. government efforts in Afghanistan. Since declaring a global war on terrorism, the U.S. government has engaged in multiple efforts in Afghanistan. These efforts have focused on a whole-of-government approach that calls for the use of all elements of U.S. national power to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates, and other extremists, including certain elements of the Taliban, and prevent their return to Afghanistan. In fiscal years 2002 through 2013, U.S. agencies, including the Departments of State (State) and Defense (DOD) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), have allocated close to $100 billion for efforts in Afghanistan. As shown in figure 1, U.S. agencies allocated: * $62.8 billion to support Afghanistan's security in areas such as the development of Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and counternarcotics efforts. * $23.1 billion to support governance and development efforts, such as the construction of roads, schools, and other infrastructure projects. * $8.0 billion for diplomatic operations, such as diplomatic, consular and building operations. * $2.1 billion for humanitarian assistance, including refugee, food, and disaster assistance. Figure 1: Breakout of U.S. Allocations for Efforts in Afghanistan, Fiscal Years 2002-2013: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Security: $62.8 billion: 65%; Governance and development: $23.1 billion: 24%. Diplomatic operations: $8.0 billion: 8%; Humanitarian: $2.1 billion: 2%. Source: GAO analysis of Departments of Defense, Justice, and State data. GAO-14-680T. Note: Figure 1 does not include funding provided for U.S. military or other operations in Afghanistan. Percentages may not add up to 100 as a result of rounding. [End of figure] Since 2003, GAO has issued over 70 products and participated in numerous congressional hearings and briefings on U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. In the course of our work, we have made over 150 recommendations to U.S. agencies on a range of actions that should be taken to improve program planning, implementation, management, and oversight. U.S. agencies have generally concurred and have taken steps to address many of our recommendations. In addition, we have identified several matters and key oversight issues for Congress. Our most recent key issues report prepared for the 113th Congress identified several oversight issues and is the basis for my testimony today.[Footnote 1] Among the key issues we have highlighted related to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan: * challenges faced by U.S. agencies operating in Afghanistan; * the need to ensure oversight and accountability of U.S. efforts invested in Afghanistan; and: * the need to plan for contingencies as the U.S. transitions to a civilian-led presence in Afghanistan. This testimony and our 2013 key issues report summarizes some of the work we have reported on in over 70 issued products since 2003 related to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Detailed information on the scope and methodology for our prior work summarized in this testimony can be found in the reports cited. We conducted the work that this statement is based on in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits 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 provided a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Challenges Associated with Operating in Afghanistan: Our work has identified several challenges related to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Among those we highlighted in our 2013 key issues report are a dangerous security environment, the prevalence of corruption, and the limited capacity of the Afghan government to deliver services and sustain donor funded projects. * Dangerous security environment. Afghanistan's security environment continues to challenge the efforts of the Afghan government and international community. This is a key issue that we noted in 2007 when we reported that deteriorating security was an obstacle to the U.S. government's major areas of focus in Afghanistan.[Footnote 2] In December 2009, the U.S. and coalition partners deployed additional troops to disrupt and defeat extremists in Afghanistan. While the security situation in Afghanistan has improved, as measured by enemy- initiated attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, Afghan security forces, and non-combatants, including Afghan civilians, the number of daily enemy-initiated attacks remains relatively high compared to the number of such attacks before 2009. In 2012, attacks on ANSF surpassed attacks on U.S. and coalition forces (see figure 2). Figure 2: Average Daily Number of Enemy-Initiated Attacks on International Security Force Assistance (ISAF) and Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) Troops, by Month, December 2005--April 2014: [Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] Number of average daily attacks per month: Date: January 2007; Average daily attacks on civilians: 3.55; Average daily attacks on ASF: 2.77; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 5.42; Total Average Daily Attacks: 11.74. Date: February 2007; Average daily attacks on civilians: 2.96; Average daily attacks on ASF: 1.86; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 4.89; Total Average Daily Attacks: 9.71. Date: March 2007; Average daily attacks on civilians: 4; Average daily attacks on ASF: 2.68; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 8.71; Total Average Daily Attacks: 15.39. Date: April 2007; Average daily attacks on civilians: 4.8; Average daily attacks on ASF: 3.23; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 8.87; Total Average Daily Attacks: 16.9. Date: May 2007; Average daily attacks on civilians: 4.1; Average daily attacks on ASF: 3.42; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 11.26; Total Average Daily Attacks: 18.77. Date: June 2007; Average daily attacks on civilians: 4.13; Average daily attacks on ASF: 4.43; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 13.53; Total Average Daily Attacks: 22.1. Date: July 2007; Average daily attacks on civilians: 4.81; Average daily attacks on ASF: 4.35; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 14.03; Total Average Daily Attacks: 23.19. Date: August 2007; Average daily attacks on civilians: 5.13; Average daily attacks on ASF: 4.32; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 17.13; Total Average Daily Attacks: 26.58. Date: September 2007; Average daily attacks on civilians: 4.3; Average daily attacks on ASF: 4.8; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 17.53; Total Average Daily Attacks: 26.63. Date: October 2007; Average daily attacks on civilians: 4.03; Average daily attacks on ASF: 2.9; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 14.81; Total Average Daily Attacks: 21.74. Date: November 2007; Average daily attacks on civilians: 3.7; Average daily attacks on ASF: 2.77; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 13.43; Total Average Daily Attacks: 19.9. Date: December 2007; Average daily attacks on civilians: 3.19; Average daily attacks on ASF: 3.26; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 9.74; Total Average Daily Attacks: 16.19. Date: January 2008; Average daily attacks on civilians: 5.71; Average daily attacks on ASF: 2.74; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 7.65; Total Average Daily Attacks: 16.1. Date: February 2008; Average daily attacks on civilians: 5.69; Average daily attacks on ASF: 2.76; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 7.86; Total Average Daily Attacks: 16.31. Date: March 2008; Average daily attacks on civilians: 6.29; Average daily attacks on ASF: 3.03; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 11.58; Total Average Daily Attacks: 20.9. Date: April 2008; Average daily attacks on civilians: 6.2; Average daily attacks on ASF: 5.13; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 12.67; Total Average Daily Attacks: 24. Date: May 2008; Average daily attacks on civilians: 9.13; Average daily attacks on ASF: 5.48; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 18.13; Total Average Daily Attacks: 32.74. Date: June 2008; Average daily attacks on civilians: 8.63; Average daily attacks on ASF: 6.23; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 19.57; Total Average Daily Attacks: 34.43. Date: July 2008; Average daily attacks on civilians: 12.32; Average daily attacks on ASF: 7.71; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 21.97; Total Average Daily Attacks: 42. Date: August 2008; Average daily attacks on civilians: 11.65; Average daily attacks on ASF: 5.81; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 29.77; Total Average Daily Attacks: 47.23. Date: September 2008; Average daily attacks on civilians: 15.33; Average daily attacks on ASF: 7.2; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 26.67; Total Average Daily Attacks: 49.2. Date: October 2008; Average daily attacks on civilians: 13.32; Average daily attacks on ASF: 7.03; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 23.26; Total Average Daily Attacks: 43.61. Date: November 2008; Average daily attacks on civilians: 14.5; Average daily attacks on ASF: 5.73; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 21.7; Total Average Daily Attacks: 41.93. Date: December 2008; Average daily attacks on civilians: 10.52; Average daily attacks on ASF: 5.68; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 17.32; Total Average Daily Attacks: 33.52. Date: January 2009; Average daily attacks on civilians: 10.06; Average daily attacks on ASF: 3.61; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 15.03; Total Average Daily Attacks: 28.71. Date: February 2009; Average daily attacks on civilians: 10.75; Average daily attacks on ASF: 4.46; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 15.21; Total Average Daily Attacks: 30.43. Date: March 2009; Average daily attacks on civilians: 12.71; Average daily attacks on ASF: 5.19; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 22.52; Total Average Daily Attacks: 40.42. Date: April 2009; Average daily attacks on civilians: 13.6; Average daily attacks on ASF: 4.23; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 20.2; Total Average Daily Attacks: 38.03. Date: May 2009; Average daily attacks on civilians: 15.39; Average daily attacks on ASF: 8.35; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 27.94; Total Average Daily Attacks: 51.68. Date: June 2009; Average daily attacks on civilians: 23.6; Average daily attacks on ASF: 9.37; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 43.03; Total Average Daily Attacks: 76. Date: July 2009; Average daily attacks on civilians: 25.74; Average daily attacks on ASF: 10.45; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 47.48; Total Average Daily Attacks: 83.68. Date: August 2009; Average daily attacks on civilians: 33.65; Average daily attacks on ASF: 13.29; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 60.94; Total Average Daily Attacks: 107.87. Date: September 2009; Average daily attacks on civilians: 26.67; Average daily attacks on ASF: 10.3; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 49; Total Average Daily Attacks: 85.97. Date: October 2009; Average daily attacks on civilians: 22.84; Average daily attacks on ASF: 7.87; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 43.68; Total Average Daily Attacks: 74.39. Date: November 2009; Average daily attacks on civilians: 19.73; Average daily attacks on ASF: 7.37; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 38.57; Total Average Daily Attacks: 65.67. Date: December 2009; Average daily attacks on civilians: 20.48; Average daily attacks on ASF: 5.65; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 33.45; Total Average Daily Attacks: 59.58. Date: January 2010; Average daily attacks on civilians: 23.13; Average daily attacks on ASF: 6.97; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 33.55; Total Average Daily Attacks: 63.65. Date: February 2010; Average daily attacks on civilians: 20.79; Average daily attacks on ASF: 4.54; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 35.57; Total Average Daily Attacks: 60.89. Date: March 2010; Average daily attacks on civilians: 23.29; Average daily attacks on ASF: 6.06; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 43.29; Total Average Daily Attacks: 72.65. Date: April 2010; Average daily attacks on civilians: 24.63; Average daily attacks on ASF: 5.7; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 46.4; Total Average Daily Attacks: 76.73. Date: May 2010; Average daily attacks on civilians: 24.71; Average daily attacks on ASF: 8.52; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 67.68; Total Average Daily Attacks: 100.9. Date: June 2010; Average daily attacks on civilians: 29; Average daily attacks on ASF: 10.13; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 91.6; Total Average Daily Attacks: 130.73. Date: July 2010; Average daily attacks on civilians: 28.77; Average daily attacks on ASF: 10.58; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 100.71; Total Average Daily Attacks: 140.06. Date: August 2010; Average daily attacks on civilians: 31.32; Average daily attacks on ASF: 14.87; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 106.06; Total Average Daily Attacks: 152.26. Date: September 2010; Average daily attacks on civilians: 32.27; Average daily attacks on ASF: 13.57; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 102.5; Total Average Daily Attacks: 148.33. Date: October 2010; Average daily attacks on civilians: 31.74; Average daily attacks on ASF: 9.26; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 77.97; Total Average Daily Attacks: 118.97. Date: November 2010; Average daily attacks on civilians: 33.53; Average daily attacks on ASF: 7; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 72.37; Total Average Daily Attacks: 112.9. Date: December 2010; Average daily attacks on civilians: 28.42; Average daily attacks on ASF: 6.26; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 50.71; Total Average Daily Attacks: 85.39. Date: January 2011; Average daily attacks on civilians: 27.94; Average daily attacks on ASF: 4.77; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 51.58; Total Average Daily Attacks: 84.29. Date: February 2011; Average daily attacks on civilians: 23.82; Average daily attacks on ASF: 5.04; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 42.11; Total Average Daily Attacks: 70.96. Date: March 2011; Average daily attacks on civilians: 27.58; Average daily attacks on ASF: 6.97; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 55.68; Total Average Daily Attacks: 90.23. Date: April 2011; Average daily attacks on civilians: 24.23; Average daily attacks on ASF: 7.87; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 47.73; Total Average Daily Attacks: 79.83. Date: May 2011; Average daily attacks on civilians: 28.35; Average daily attacks on ASF: 11.68; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 58.48; Total Average Daily Attacks: 98.52. Date: June 2011; Average daily attacks on civilians: 40.23; Average daily attacks on ASF: 16.63; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 73.87; Total Average Daily Attacks: 130.73. Date: July 2011; Average daily attacks on civilians: 39.1; Average daily attacks on ASF: 15.94; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 73.71; Total Average Daily Attacks: 128.74. Date: August 2011; Average daily attacks on civilians: 36.94; Average daily attacks on ASF: 13.16; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 77; Total Average Daily Attacks: 127.1. Date: September 2011; Average daily attacks on civilians: 34.07; Average daily attacks on ASF: 15.4; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 65.9; Total Average Daily Attacks: 115.37. Date: October 2011; Average daily attacks on civilians: 31.87; Average daily attacks on ASF: 15.77; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 67.32; Total Average Daily Attacks: 114.97. Date: November 2011; Average daily attacks on civilians: 30.1; Average daily attacks on ASF: 14.23; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 57.37; Total Average Daily Attacks: 101.7. Date: December 2011; Average daily attacks on civilians: 24.35; Average daily attacks on ASF: 12.1; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 36.68; Total Average Daily Attacks: 73.13. Date: January 2012; Average daily attacks on civilians: 24.13; Average daily attacks on ASF: 12.48; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 34.9; Total Average Daily Attacks: 71.52. Date: February 2012; Average daily attacks on civilians: 19.66; Average daily attacks on ASF: 11.14; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 30.86; Total Average Daily Attacks: 61.66. Date: March 2012; Average daily attacks on civilians: 24.71; Average daily attacks on ASF: 17.26; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 38.45; Total Average Daily Attacks: 80.42. Date: April 2012; Average daily attacks on civilians: 28.33; Average daily attacks on ASF: 18.93; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 44.73; Total Average Daily Attacks: 92. Date: May 2012; Average daily attacks on civilians: 33.55; Average daily attacks on ASF: 31.84; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 63.06; Total Average Daily Attacks: 128.45. Date: June 2012; Average daily attacks on civilians: 40.33; Average daily attacks on ASF: 38.43; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 70.73; Total Average Daily Attacks: 149.5. Date: July 2012; Average daily attacks on civilians: 36.52; Average daily attacks on ASF: 34.87; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 59.19; Total Average Daily Attacks: 130.58. Date: August 2012; Average daily attacks on civilians: 30.48; Average daily attacks on ASF: 36.52; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 51.68; Total Average Daily Attacks: 118.68. Date: September 2012; Average daily attacks on civilians: 27.57; Average daily attacks on ASF: 43.83; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 41.4; Total Average Daily Attacks: 112.8. Date: October 2012; Average daily attacks on civilians: 27.77; Average daily attacks on ASF: 35.97; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 34.03; Total Average Daily Attacks: 97.77. Date: November 2012; Average daily attacks on civilians: 25.2; Average daily attacks on ASF: 31.23; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 25.53; Total Average Daily Attacks: 81.97. Date: December 2012; Average daily attacks on civilians: 18.65; Average daily attacks on ASF: 27.61; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 16.68; Total Average Daily Attacks: 62.94. Date: January 2013; Average daily attacks on civilians: 21.84; Average daily attacks on ASF: 30.65; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 15.74; Total Average Daily Attacks: 68.23. Date: February 2013; Average daily attacks on civilians: 23.04; Average daily attacks on ASF: 29.93; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 16.75; Total Average Daily Attacks: 69.71. Date: March 2013; Average daily attacks on civilians: 29.48; Average daily attacks on ASF: 45.84; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 17.58; Total Average Daily Attacks: 92.9. Date: April 2013; Average daily attacks on civilians: 27.93; Average daily attacks on ASF: 49.17; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 17.83; Total Average Daily Attacks: 94.93. Date: May 2013; Average daily attacks on civilians: 33.61; Average daily attacks on ASF: 65.81; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 23.52; Total Average Daily Attacks: 122.94. Date: June 2013; Average daily attacks on civilians: 34.1; Average daily attacks on ASF: 74.9; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 24.43; Total Average Daily Attacks: 133.43. Date: July 2013; Average daily attacks on civilians: 32.68; Average daily attacks on ASF: 68.74; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 23.32; Total Average Daily Attacks: 124.74. Date: August 2013; Average daily attacks on civilians: 25.52; Average daily attacks on ASF: 56.45; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 19.48; Total Average Daily Attacks: 101.45. Date: September 2013; Average daily attacks on civilians: 24.4; Average daily attacks on ASF: 60.13; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 16.8; Total Average Daily Attacks: 101.33. Date: October 2013; Average daily attacks on civilians: 21.1; Average daily attacks on ASF: 56.84; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 11.71; Total Average Daily Attacks: 89.65. Date: November 2013; Average daily attacks on civilians: 19.83; Average daily attacks on ASF: 50.27; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 9.87; Total Average Daily Attacks: 79.97. Date: December 2013; Average daily attacks on civilians: 22.68; Average daily attacks on ASF: 53.26; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 7.94; Total Average Daily Attacks: 83.87. Date: January 2014; Average daily attacks on civilians: 21.84; Average daily attacks on ASF: 42.19; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 9.9; Total Average Daily Attacks: 73.94. Date: February 2014; Average daily attacks on civilians: 20.21; Average daily attacks on ASF: 37.14; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 6.57; Total Average Daily Attacks: 63.93. Date: March 2014; Average daily attacks on civilians: 21.55; Average daily attacks on ASF: 40.52; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 7.71; Total Average Daily Attacks: 69.77. Date: April 2014; Average daily attacks on civilians: 25.37; Average daily attacks on ASF: 47.67; Average daily attacks on ISAF/Coalition: 7.37; Total Average Daily Attacks: 80.4. Source: GAO analysis of Defense Intelligence Agency data. GAO-14-680T. Note: Enemy-initiated attacks do not include insider attacks. Some U.S. special forces in Afghanistan are not under ISAF command. Coalition forces include U.S. and ISAF forces in Afghanistan but exclude ANSF and other Afghan security organizations. [End of figure] * Prevalence of corruption in Afghanistan. Corruption in Afghanistan continues to undermine security and Afghan citizens' belief in their government and has raised concerns about the effective and efficient use of U.S. funds. We noted in 2009 that according to the Afghan National Development Strategy pervasive corruption exacerbated the Afghan government's capacity problems and that the sudden influx of donor money into a system already suffering from poor procurement practices had increased the risk of corruption and waste of resources.[Footnote 3] According to Transparency International's 2013 Corruption Perception Index, Afghanistan is ranked at the bottom of countries worldwide.[Footnote 4] In February 2014, the Afghan President dissolved the Afghan Public Protection Force which was responsible for providing security intended to protect people, infrastructure, facilities, and construction projects. DOD had reported major corruption concerns within the Afghan Public Protection Force. * Limited Afghan capacity. While we have reported that the Afghan government has increased its generation of revenue, it remains heavily reliant on the United States and other international donors to fund its public expenditures and continued reconstruction efforts.[Footnote 5] In 2011, we reported that Afghanistan's domestic revenues funded only about 10 percent of its estimated total public expenditures. [Footnote 6] We have repeatedly raised concerns about Afghanistan's inability to sustain and maintain donor funded projects and programs, putting U.S. investments over the last decade at risk. DOD reported in November 2013 that Afghanistan remains donor dependent.[Footnote 7] These persistent challenges are likely to play an even larger role in U.S. efforts within Afghanistan as combat forces continue to withdraw through the end of 2014. Key Oversight and Accountability Issues Regarding U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan: The United States, along with the international community, has focused its efforts in areas such as building the capacity of Afghan ministries to govern and deliver services, developing Afghanistan's infrastructure and economy, and developing and sustaining ANSF. In multiple reviews of these efforts, we have identified numerous shortcomings and have made recommendations to the agencies to take corrective actions related to (1) mitigating against the risk of providing direct assistance to the Afghan government, (2) oversight and accountability of U.S. development projects, and (3) estimating the future costs of ANSF. Mitigating the Risk of Providing Direct Assistance to the Afghan Government: In 2010, the United States pledged to provide at least 50 percent of its development aid directly through the Afghan government budget within 2 years.[Footnote 8] This direct assistance was intended to help develop the capacity of Afghan government ministries to manage programs and funds. In the first year of the pledge, through bilateral agreements and multilateral trust funds, the United States more than tripled its direct assistance awards to Afghanistan, growing from over $470 million in fiscal year 2009 to over $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2010. For fiscal year 2013 USAID provided about $900 million of its Afghanistan mission funds in direct assistance. In 2011 and 2013, we reported that while USAID had established and generally complied with various financial and other controls in its direct assistance agreements, it had not always assessed the risks in providing direct assistance before awarding funds.[Footnote 9] Although USAID has taken some steps in response to our recommendations to help ensure the accountability of direct assistance funds provided to the Afghan government, we have subsequently learned from a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) report that USAID may have approved direct assistance to some Afghan ministries without mitigating all identified risks.[Footnote 10] Oversight and Accountability of U.S. Development Projects: Since 2002, U.S. agencies have allocated over $23 billion dollars towards governance and development projects in Afghanistan through USAID, DOD, and State. The agencies have undertaken thousands of development activities in Afghanistan through multiple programs and funding accounts. We have previously reported on systemic weaknesses in the monitoring and evaluation of U.S. development projects as well as the need for a comprehensive shared database that would account for all U.S. development efforts in Afghanistan (see table 1).[Footnote 11] Table 1: Major U.S.-Administered Programs or Accounts Used to Fund Governance and Development Related Efforts in Afghanistan, Fiscal Years 2002-2013: Primary agency or agencies responsible; Economic Support Fund: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); Commander's Emergency Response Program: Department of Defense (DOD); Task Force for Business and Stability Operations: DOD; Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund: DOD and Department of State. Fiscal year in which funding for Afghanistan began; Economic Support Fund: 2002; Commander's Emergency Response Program: 2004; Task Force for Business and Stability Operations: 2009; Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund: 2011. Program or account description; Economic Support Fund: Supports Afghan government in its efforts to promote economic growth, establish a democratic and capable state governed by the rule of law, and provide basic services for its people; Commander's Emergency Response Program: Enables U.S. commanders in Afghanistan to carry out small-scale projects designed to meet urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction needs in their areas of responsibility; Task Force for Business and Stability Operations: Supports projects to help reduce violence, enhance stability, and support economic normalcy through strategic business and economic opportunities; Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund: Supports high-priority, large-scale infrastructure projects that support the U.S. civilian-military effort in Afghanistan. Total funding allocated since inception (millions); Economic Support Fund: $16,542; Commander's Emergency Response Program: $2,921; Task Force for Business and Stability Operations: $614; Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund: $1,125. Source: GAO analysis of agency data. GAO-14-680T. Note: These four programs or accounts constitute most of the U.S. assistance for governance and development related efforts in Afghanistan since 2002. Smaller amounts of assistance for development efforts have been provided by other U.S. agencies and through other accounts such as USAID Development Assistance. For the purposes of this report, we refer to the Economic Support Fund and Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund as accounts and to the Commander's Emergency Response Program and the Task Force for Business and Stability Operations as programs. [End of table] With respect to monitoring and evaluation, although USAID collected progress reports from implementing partners for agriculture and water projects, our past work found that it did not always analyze and interpret project performance data to inform future decisions. USAID has undertaken some efforts in response to our recommendations to improve its monitoring and evaluation of the billions of dollars invested toward development projects in Afghanistan. We and other oversight agencies, however, have learned that USAID continued to apply performance management procedures inconsistently, fell short in maintaining institutional knowledge, and still needed to strengthen its oversight of contractors. For example, in February 2014, we reported that USAID identified improvements needed in its oversight and management of contractors in Afghanistan, including increasing the submission of contractor performance evaluations.[Footnote 12] We also found that USAID may have missed opportunities to leverage its institutional knowledge, and have recently recommended that USAID further assess its procedures and practices related to contingency contracting. We have also previously reported on several occasions on the need for a common database to avoid possible duplication and overlap of U.S. funded development efforts in Afghanistan. For example, in a review of U.S. funded road projects in Afghanistan, we reported in July 2008 that despite guidance requiring DOD to provide their project information to a USAID-maintained database, DOD had not done so. As a result, a comprehensive database of all U.S.-funded road projects in Afghanistan did not exist. We recommended that information on DOD's Commander's Emergency Response Program-funded road projects be included in a USAID-maintained database, and DOD concurred.[Footnote 13] Nearly 6 years later, we continue to report on the need for a comprehensive database. Despite the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan designating Afghan Info as the official database for U.S. foreign assistance efforts in Afghanistan, DOD has not taken steps to readily report its projects in Afghan Info or any other shared database. This raises concerns, as we have previously reported, about the potential duplication and overlap of U.S. development projects in Afghanistan. Furthermore, USAID officials have expressed concern about their lack of complete visibility into DOD funded development projects given the DOD's 2014 transition plans. Because of the limited progress made by U.S. agencies in reaching agreement on a comprehensive database of U.S. development projects in Afghanistan in 2012, we suggested that Congress consider requiring U.S. agencies to report information in a shared comprehensive database.[Footnote 14] Estimating Future Costs of Sustaining ANSF: Since 2002, the United States, with assistance from coalition nations, has worked to build, train, and equip ANSF so that the Afghan government could lead the security effort in Afghanistan. U.S. agencies have allocated over $62 billion to support Afghanistan's security, including efforts to build and sustain ANSF, from fiscal years 2002 through 2013. This has been the largest portion of U.S. assistance in Afghanistan. The United States and the international community have pledged to continue to assist in financing the sustainment of ANSF beyond 2014. In April 2012, we reported concerns regarding the need to be transparent in disclosing the long-term cost of sustaining ANSF beyond 2014.[Footnote 15] DOD initially objected to such disclosure noting that ANSF cost estimates depend on a constantly changing operational environment and that it provided annual cost information to Congress through briefings and testimonies. Our analysis of DOD data estimates that the cost of continuing to support ANSF from 2014 through 2017 will be over $18 billion, raising concerns about ANSF's sustainability. Furthermore, we reported that on the basis of projections of U.S. and other donor support for ANSF, that there will be an estimated gap each year of $600 million from 2015 through 2017 between ANSF costs and donor pledges if additional contributions are not made. We previously noted in 2005 and 2008 that DOD should report to Congress about the estimated long-term cost to sustain ANSF.[Footnote 16] In 2008, Congress mandated that DOD take such steps. In 2012, we once again reported that DOD had not provided estimates of the long-term ANSF costs to Congress.[Footnote 17] Subsequently, in a November 2013 report to Congress on its efforts in Afghanistan, DOD included a section on the budget for ANSF and reported the expected size of ANSF to be 230,000 with an estimated annual budget of $4.1 billion. Need for Contingency Planning as the U.S. Transitions to a Civilian- Led Presence in Afghanistan: In February 2013, we reported that while the circumstances in Iraq differ from those in Afghanistan, potential lessons could be learned from the transition from a military to civilian-led presence to avoid possible missteps and better utilize resources. As we have reported, contingency planning is critical to a successful transition and to ensuring that there is sufficient oversight of the U.S. investment in Afghanistan.[Footnote 18] This is particularly vital given the uncertainties of the U.S.-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement and post-2014 presence. Lessons Learned from Iraq: While the circumstances, combat operations, and diplomatic efforts in Iraq differ from those in Afghanistan, potential lessons can be learned from the transition from a military to civilian-led presence in Iraq and applied to Afghanistan to avoid possible missteps and better utilize resources. In Iraq, State and DOD had to revise their plans for the U.S. presence from more than 16,000 personnel at 14 sites down to 11,500 personnel at 11 sites after the transition had begun--in part because the United States did not obtain the Government of Iraq's commitment to the planned U.S. presence. Given these reductions, we found that State was projected to have an unobligated balance of between about $1.7 billion and about $2.3 billion in its Iraq operations budget at the end of fiscal year 2013, which we brought to the attention of Congressional appropriators. As a result, $1.1 billion was rescinded from State's Diplomatic and Consular Programs account. According to DOD officials, U.S. Forces-Iraq planning assumed that a follow-on U.S. military force would be approved by both governments. The decision not to have a follow-on force led to a reassessment of State and DOD's plans and presence. Status of Transition to a Civilian-Led Presence in Afghanistan: In April 2014, we reported that State planned for the U.S. footprint in Afghanistan to consist of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, with additional representation at other locations as security and resources allow.[Footnote 19] In a review still under way, we are examining the status of U.S. civilian agencies' plans for their presence in Afghanistan after the scheduled end of the U.S. combat mission on December 31, 2014, and how changes to the military presence will affect the post-2014 U.S. civilian presence. We have found that State plans to provide some critical support services to U.S. civilian personnel after the transition, but is planning to rely on DOD for certain other services. We plan to report in July 2014 on the anticipated size, locations, and cost of the post-2014 U.S. civilian presence, the planned division of critical support responsibilities between State and DOD, and how pending decisions regarding the post- 2014 U.S. and coalition military presence will affect the U.S. civilian presence. In closing, the President announced in May 2014 that the United States intends to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan through the end of 2016, stationing about 10,000 military personnel in Afghanistan with two narrow missions: to continue supporting ANSF training efforts and to continue supporting counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al Qaeda. Simultaneously, the President announced that the embassy would be reduced to a "normal" presence. At the same time, the United States has made commitments to continue providing billions of dollars to Afghanistan over the next 2 years. These recently announced plans underscore the bottom line of my message today: continued oversight of U.S. agencies is required to ensure the challenges they face are properly mitigated in Afghanistan and that there is oversight and accountability of U.S. taxpayer funds. Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member Deutch, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have at this time. Contacts and Acknowledgments: For further information on this statement, please contact me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony include Hynek Kalkus (Assistant Director), David Dayton, Anne DeCecco, Mark Dowling, Brandon Hunt, Christopher J. Mulkins, Kendal Robinson, and Amie Steele. [End of section] Footnotes: [1] GAO, Afghanistan: Key Oversight Issues, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-218SP] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2013). [2] GAO, Securing, Stabilizing, and Reconstructing Afghanistan: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-801SP] (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007). [3] GAO, Afghanistan: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-473SP] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 2009). [4] Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index 2013. (Berlin, Germany: Dec. 3, 2013). [5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-218SP], Enclosure V. [6] GAO. Afghanistan's Donor Dependence. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-948R] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2011). [7] DOD. Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan. (Washington, D.C.: November 2013). [8] USAID has established a 5-year goal of providing 30 percent of mission funds worldwide for direct assistance by 2015. [9] GAO, Afghanistan: Actions Needed to Improve Accountability of U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan Government, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-710] (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2011); and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-218SP], Enclosure VI. [10] SIGAR, Direct Assistance: USAID Has Taken Positive Action to Assess Afghan Ministries' Ability to Manage Donor Funds, but Concerns Remain, SIGAR-14-32-AR (Arlington, Va: Jan. 30, 2014). [11] GAO, Afghanistan Development: Enhancements to Performance Management and Evaluation Efforts Could Improve USAID's Agriculture Programs, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-368] (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2010); Afghanistan Development: U.S. Efforts to Support Afghan Water Sector Increasing, but Improvements Needed in Planning and Coordination, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-138] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2010); and GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). [12] GAO, Contingency Contracting: State and USAID Made Progress Assessing and Implementing Changes, but Further Actions Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-229] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2014). [13] GAO, Afghanistan Reconstruction: Progress Made in Constructing Roads, but Assessments for Determining Impact and a Sustainable Maintenance Program Are Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-689] (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2008). [14] GAO, Afghanistan Development: Agencies Could Benefit from a Shared and More Comprehensive Database on U.S. Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-34]. (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7, 2012); and "Development Efforts in Afghanistan," GAO's Action Tracker (Washington, D.C.: last updated Mar. 6, 2014), accessed June 5, 2014, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/duplication/action_tracker/Development_Efforts_in_Afg hanistan/action1]. [15] GAO, Afghanistan Security: Estimated Costs to Support Afghan National Security Forces Underscore Concerns about Sustainability, GAO- 12-438SU] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2012). [16] GAO, Afghanistan Security: Efforts to Establish Army and Police Have Made Progress, But Future Plans Need to be Better Defined, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-575] (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005); and Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action May Be Needed to Ensure Completion of a Detailed Plan to Develop and Sustain Capable Afghan National Security Forces, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-661] (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2008). [17] GAO-12-438SU]. [18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-218SP], Enclosure IX. [19] GAO, Afghanistan: Changes to Updated U.S. Civil-Military Strategic Framework Reflect Evolving U.S. Role, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-438R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2014). [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]