Detailed Information on the
State/PKO Global Peace Operations Initiative Assessment

Ref question 2.6 and 4.5, external audit by GAO conducted October 2007-March 2008.

Implement GAO recommendations into program, planning and guidance documents

Measure: The number of GPOI Partner military and/or stability police individuals, facilitated by GPOI support (training, equipment, deployment support), that deploy to United Nations or other peace operations.

Explanation:Partner deployment is a critical reflection of GPOI's progress in increasing the availability of personnel to deploy to peace operations. The measure focuses on the direct relationship between GPOI assistance and deployment. Realistic and ambitious targets are based on direct training projections, which is the primary driving factor influencing deployment. However, deployment is a national sovereign decision and many factors outside the influence of the GPOI program affect deployment.The Department of State revised this measure's targets based on the initiative's projected 2005-2009 funding life-cycle, updated historical data and conservative forecast modeling; renewal efforts are underway for continued funding in FY 2010-2014 thus justifying the long-term categorization.

Measure: The number of military personnel that successfully master 80% of training objectives in U.S.-funded peacekeeping training.

Explanation:Of the seven GPOI objectives, the top priority is to "train and, as appropriate, equip at least 75,000 peacekeepers worldwide, with an emphasis on Africa, from 2005-2010, to increase global capacity to participate in peace operations." The GPOI Strategy calls for external evaluation of all training. To the extent possible, an independent evaluator should be identified to assess the effectiveness of each training activity and ensure the program of instruction complies with defined GPOI training principles and standards. The annual targets reflect an emphasis on training battalions, principally in Africa in the early years. The Department of State revised this measure's targets based on the initiative's projected 2005-2009 funding life-cycle, updated historical data and conservative forecast modeling.

Measure: The number of stability police trainers trained at the Italy-run Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units (COESPU).

Explanation:The mandate of the Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units is to increase the number of international stability police trained and able to participate in peace operations through a train-the-trainer concept. The Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units has stated its goal is to directly train approximately 3,000 students by 2010. This output goal directly relates to the long-term outcome goal to deploy increasing numbers of peacekeepers (military and special police); as COESPU trained trainers return to partner country police institutions to train and subsequently deploy formed or special police units.

Measure: The cost of training per military personnel decreases over time.

Explanation:With adjustments for inflation, GPOI monies expended on training in Africa in a specific fiscal year divided by the number of personnel trained decreases over time. The measure focuses on establishing targets for mature training efforts in Africa, whereas GPOI training outside Africa is still starting up. Training costs per individual may vary significantly for capstone events and/or new Partner startup. GPOI monies will likely include a combination of fiscal year monies expended during the same period.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: GPOI is a five-year Presidential Initiative designed to address major gaps in international support for peace operations: a shortage of capable peacekeepers; limited national capabilities for training peacekeeping skills and knowledge for sustaining such peacekeeping proficiencies; a lack of mechanisms to help countries deploy to international peace operations and to provide logistics support for their troops in the field; and a shortage of stability police units, which help fill the "security gap" between the military and traditional police in peace operations.

Evidence: GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; G8 Action Plan: Expanding Global Capability for Peace Support Operations.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: An increasing number of complex peace support operations, especially in Africa, are straining the global community's ability to respond quickly and adequately. Many countries in Africa, Central and South America, East Asia Pacific, Near East, South and Central Asia, and Europe are willing to participate in international peace support operations, but lack the capacity to do so effectively. These forces require training and equipment to increase peace support operations capabilities, in particular for combat support, combat service support, and enhanced headquarters operations and planning.

Evidence: GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; G8 Action Plan: Expanding Global Capability for Peace Support Operations.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: GPOI is designed so that it fills an important gap in capacity-building programs and is not redundant of other efforts. To obtain program status and/or updates, Program Managers regularly communicate and de-conflict program activities with key stakeholders including the Department of State and Department of Defense regional bureaus and offices, the Joint Staff, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Regional Combatant Commands, the National Security Council, NATO Training and Education in Peace Support Operations (TEPSO), G8 countries' programs, and the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Additionally, regularly scheduled conferences with relevant players in peace operations are held to update the peace operations community as a whole concerning events/activities/training being held globally; this coordination allows GPOI to stay informed of upcoming non-GPOI funded programs. Multi-nationally, through the GPOI global clearinghouse process, GPOI stakeholders de-conflict activities with other G8 donor countries to minimize unnecessary replication for peacekeeping operations training or equipment activities.

Evidence: Global Clearinghouse Conferences Agendas and Reports; Defense Security Cooperation Agency case management report; GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; GPOI World-Wide Conference Agendas and Outstanding Actions; Planning and Program Proposal Guidance??GPOI (dated June 30, 2006); G8 Progress Report.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program is meeting its objectives and performance goals. GPOI is a Presidential Initiative that is part of a greater G8 effort to support increasing global peacekeeping operations. The Initiative receives funding through the Department of State's Peacekeeping Operations Account, which allows flexibility to implement a capacity-building program. However, current law restricts PKO assistance for constabulary forces. This could be improved thorugh legislation or by requesting assistance in another account for this activity. GPOI has an overarching strategy document that provides policy guidance and program direction to implementers that guides program planning and assessment. This, along with semi-annual interagency conferences to make policy adjustments, program glidepaths augmented with annual regional program planning documents to outline specific program targets, and a full-time dedicated evaluation team that monitors established performance indicators and metrics, provides a holistic approach to effective program performance.

Evidence: GPOI Coordinating Committee Meeting Summary and Agenda; GPOI World-Wide Conference Agendas and Outstanding Actions; GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; Fiscal Years 2005-2007 GPOI Program Allocations.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: GPOI's resources are effectively targeted to reach the intended beneficiaries and achieve the program's purpose. GPOI uses interagency regional and functional input, based on program planning documents like the Planning and Program Proposal Guidance??GPOI, to ensure resources address the Initiative's objectives and glidepath targets. In particular, the Planning and Program Proposal Guidance outlines seven rigorous principles to ensure the program surgically targets peacekeeping forces only, such as infantry battalions or niche organizations/individuals with training and/or equipment programs in partner countries that demonstrate a likelihood to deploy to peace operations. For example, in Central America Headquarters United States Southern Command planners in concert with their respective State Department regional bureau coordinated with four partner countries to create and sustain a consolidated training capability at the infantry battalion task force level. Through GPOI, facilities upgrades are fully underway, unit and individual equipment has been delivered and training is now underway. Company level deployments to MINUSTAH in Haiti and MONUC in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are scheduled for the summer of 2007 with a battalion slated for deployment to Haiti in early 2008. Guided initially by G8 principles, where the focus would be in Africa, GPOI Program Managers commit the largest share of the resource dollars to Africa-oriented programs. Upon conclusion of GPOI-funded activities, implementers provide data reports to PM-PPA for official archiving in the GPOI Database. Assessment and analysis of the data, along with recurring indicator reports to the stakeholder community complete the cycle that ensures resources reached the intended beneficiaries and with the intended results. The GPOI Coordinating Committee, based on stakeholder input, directs all resources against the objectives outlined in the GPOI Strategy, further refined by the Department of State and Department of Defense regional bureaus and offices, as well as the Joint Staff and Department of Defense Regional Combatant Commands. Program stakeholders can meet on an ad-hoc basis as well, to ensure the Initiative is responsive and flexible to address critical Initiative objectives; such as the funding to support Indonesian deployment to the United Nations mission in Lebanon or to equip Ugandan peacekeepers deploying to Somalia. See question 3.5.

Evidence: Congressional notification and obligation documents by fiscal year; Acquisition Management contracts; GPOI Database; GPOI Indicator Report; GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; Planning and Program Proposal Guidance??GPOI (dated June 30, 2006); Fiscal Years 2005-2007 Program Allocations.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Department of State focuses on deployment of peacekeepers, facilitated by GPOI support, as a primary outcome indicator. The Department of State also tracks outputs of the program, such as U.S. military training, which are directly related to facilitating deployments and building peacekeeping capacity. For example, the Department of State in coordination with US Pacific Command closely tracks the training, equipment and facility enhancement support provided to the Mongolian Armed Forces, and in turn received information about Mongolian forces deployed to peace operations who have benefited directly or indirectly through the GPOI program. More generally, the Department of State has worked closely with stakeholders to define and vet a comprehensive suite of metrics and performance indicators to capture the long-term impact of the program. The metrics and indicators are carefully derived from the GPOI Strategy and related program and planning guidance. GPOI-supported activities, in turn, are integrated into strategic planning processes and documents of State Department regional bureaus, regional offices of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Regional Combatant Commands, and Posts.

Evidence: GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; GPOI Indicator Report; Planning and Program Proposal Guidance??GPOI (dated June 30, 2006).

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: At the strategic level, ambitious and realistic targets through 2010 are established in the GPOI Strategy and related planning guidance. For example, the articulated glidepath for direct U.S. military training sets a baseline and ambitious target of training 75,000 peacekeepers over the course of the five-year program. The Department of State views this goal as a floor rather than a ceiling. The Fiscal Year 2005 - Fiscal Year 2009 glidepath is achievable based on estimated budget allocations, but these allocations may change and cause commensurate changes to the glidepath. Program Managers will use, inter alia, the GPOI Coordinating Committee, semi-annual GPOI stakeholders' meetings, and annual fiscal year allocations, to administer "course corrections" which will enable the U.S. Government to reach the goal of 75,000 peacekeeping troops trained.

Evidence: GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; Planning and Program Proposal Guidance??GPOI (dated June 30, 2006); GPOI Indicator Report.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The Department of State had defined two annual output measures to monitor progress towards achieving the program's long-term goals. As outlined in the GPOI Strategy, the top priority of the seven GPOI strategic objectives is to train and, as appropriate, equip at least 75,000 peacekeepers worldwide, with an emphasis on Africa, from 2005-2010, to increase global capacity to participate in peace operations. This long-term goal is subdivided into annual glidepath targets to achieve this long-term trajectory. The second annual measure applies to the number of stability police trainers trained at the Italy-run Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units (COESPU). The overall long-term goal is train 3,000 trainers, which is also sub-divided into annual targets. More generally, in the GPOI Strategy, a section entitled, "Glidepaths and Benchmarks for Achieving Objectives," outlines anticipated trajectories for reaching certain goals and projected milestones in less quantifiable areas. The glidepaths and benchmarks are articulated for each of GPOI's seven objectives.

Evidence: GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; GPOI Indicator Report.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Baselines and targets are defined for all measures. Ambitious and achievable targets assure that the program seeks continued improvement. For example, as discussed in the response to 2.3, the top priority annual measure is the number of military personnel trained through U.S.-funded peacekeeping training. The long-term goal is subdivided into annual glidepath targets to achieve this long-term trajectory, such as 12,042 troops trained using Fiscal Year 2005 funding through direct U.S. Government support. This glidepath target then increases to 19,229 using Fiscal Year 2006 funding before commencing a gradual decrease each subsequent year in training targets. In this way, the training targets remain ambitious and achievable, reflecting an emphasis on training battalions in the early years, while increasing the number of niche units (which are generally company size) trained in later years. Later years also have an increased focus on sustainment activities.

Evidence: GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; GPOI Indicator Report.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: GPOI program success depends upon close coordination within the Department of State, across the interagency, with embassies, and with host governments. The Department of State's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs works closely with its GPOI counterparts in the Department of Defense to coordinate policy, allocate resources, and prioritize implementation. In addition, the Department of State works in tandem with these offices to coordinate with the Defense Security Cooperation Agency and Regional Combatant Commands to implement the programs with the various partner countries and organizations. GPOI goals are reflected in Department of Defense's strategic planning guidance documents. Moreover, to ensure full host government cooperation and commitment to GPOI goals, detailed Letters of Request and Acceptance are coordinated between the U.S. Government and the host government. In order to receive GPOI assistance, countries and organizations must meet specific qualifying criteria, which is outlined in the GPOI Strategy. Finally, to provide strategic oversight, the GPOI Coordinating Committee meets regularly to coordinate GPOI programs, events, and activities. The GPOI Coordinating Committee is comprised of representatives from the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs of the Department of State (Co-Chair), the Office of Partnership Strategy of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Co-Chair), the Joint Staff, and, when appropriate, representatives from the Department of State and/or the Department of Defense regional bureaus and offices, and the National Security Council.

Evidence: GPOI Coordinating Committee Meeting Summary and Agenda; GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; Planning and Program Proposal Guidance - GPOI (dated June 30, 2006); Sample GPOI Letter of Request; Sample GPOI Letter of Offer and Acceptance; GPOI Reference Manual for Program Implementers.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: GPOI is a relatively new program and has not yet received thorough third-party reviews. Currently the Department of State's GPOI Evaluation Team provides assessment tools to the stakeholder community (principally the Department of State policy team, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, the Department of Defense Regional Combatant Commands, Embassy Country Team representatives) and program implementers to conduct routine data collection and assessment of GPOI performance. The evaluation team also receives field reports from U.S. military observers and U.S. military security assistance groups on the second and third order effects of GPOI - specifically, the United Nations/other peacekeeping operations deployment results and capacity-building successes of GPOI Partners. Thus far, reporting data has confirmed that the program is having an impact in terms of peacekeeping and stability police trainers trained and units participating and performing effectively in actual peace operations.

Evidence: GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; GPOI Plan of Action and Milestones and accompanying Evaluation Plan; GPOI Indicator Report; GPOI Evaluation Team Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: GPOI resource requests are driven by the long-range performance goals and objectives outlined in the GPOI Strategy. Multi-year refinements occur annually during the GPOI World-Wide Conference working groups led by Department of State regional bureaus and attended by interagency stakeholders to ensure strategic glide paths and performance objectives are being met by implementing agencies. Finally, the GPOI Coordinating Committee meets to determine regional and functional budget allocations upon finalization of the fiscal year budget for peacekeeping operations-GPOI. Department of State's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs then tracks the obligation and expenditure status of each activity while the GPOI evaluation team records and analyzes the results of each activity.

Evidence: GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; Planning and Program Proposal Guidance??GPOI (dated June 30, 2006); GPOI Fiscal Year Obligation and Expenditure document; GPOI Database; GPOI Indicator Report.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department of State makes in-progress program corrections as required, using the recurring semi-annual World-Wide Conferences, continuous feedback from stakeholders, primarily the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff representatives, and through the continuous evaluation process. Improvements for program management, specifically outreach to the Hill, resulted in a revised diplomatic strategy. Evaluation feedback on equipment procurement in fiscal year 2005 for the Western Hemisphere and Americas resulted in a streamlined and more efficient use of resources in fiscal year 2006 by changing the procurement from direct contracts with industry, Defense Logistics Agency, General Services Administration and Defense Security Cooperation Agency to the Department of State Regional Procurement Support Office. Site visits and program analysis determined that a third U.S.-based depot for cached equipment was unnecessary.

Evidence: GPOI World-Wide Conference Agendas and Outstanding Actions; Trip reports written by Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Plans, Policy and Analysis.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Through the GPOI evaluation process, the GPOI evaluation team has institutionalized systems to routinely collect input, output and outcome data from implementers and program managers and in turn reports GPOI performance information to PM-PPA/GPOI policy leads. In addition to regularly scheduled conferences, Program Managers have an open dialogue and frequent communication with implementers and receive reports on program implementation and performance after events occur; this information is used to manage the programs and GPOI funding associated with them. For example, GPOI support to one country was suspended because it did not show a record of deploying peacekeepers. The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs is in weekly, if not daily, contact with the implementers in the field to ensure efficient implementation of the program. In addition, the GPOI evaluation team, in coordination with Implementers and stakeholders, collects and archives data about GPOI activities and assistance.

Evidence: GPOI World-Wide Conference Agendas and Outstanding Actions; U.S. European Command daily reports to Africa Bureau; Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units work plans; GPOI Database; GPOI Evaluation Team Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report; GPOI Indicator Report.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: U.S. funds are controlled and managed by U.S. Government organizations with U.S. Government oversight. GPOI funds are closely monitored by Program Managers, Posts, and Congress. Managers are held accountable through performance appraisals and/or service evaluations. Additionally, each program provided GPOI resources is subject to efficiency/performance assessment by a network of stakeholders and evaluators.

Evidence: GPOI Fiscal Year Obligation and Expenditure document; Trip Reports written by the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Plans, Policy and Analysis; Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units work plans; GPOI Evaluation Team Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report; GPOI Database.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Funds are always obligated within the fiscal year or other statutory deadline following the time resources are received. The details of how activities will be implemented can be found in a variety of legally binding documents: Interagency Agreements, grants, contracts and work-plans; these documents outline the exact amount of resources to be used and the specific purpose for which the resources may be spent. Each program's status (including current state and progress) is consistently updated and reviewed by using both qualitative and quantitative data from key players. Equipment lists, for example, are provided for every item purchased with GPOI resources.

Evidence: Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units work plans; Interagency Agreements; Acquisition Management contracts; Expenditure reports from Implementers; GPOI Fiscal Year Obligation and Expenditure document.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program has developed an efficieny measure but is not yet able to project improved efficiencies or demonstrate with this measure that the program has been made more efficient. However, all new contracts require a rigorous competitive bidding process, and the Department of State Program Managers are both extremely involved with this process and empowered to ensure that the appropriate decisions are made. On an as-needed basis, the Department of State reprograms funds based on program status.

Evidence: Acquisition Management contracts; Defense Security Cooperation Agency case management report.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Two GPOI foundational documents-- GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009 and Planning and Program Proposal Guidance??GPOI (dated June 30, 2006) - each explicitly address the importance of this type of collaboration and coordination. GPOI, as a peacekeeping operations capacity-building program, is inherently tied to related programs. At the strategic level, the Department of Defense's Defense Security Cooperation Agency serves as an integrator to maximize efficiencies for operational activities. Such was the case with Defense Security Cooperation Agency working closely with Headquarters, U.S. Pacific Command to train and equip a Mongolian peacekeeping operations battalion, as well as enhance their Five Hills Peace Operations Training Center. From a programming and budgeting perspective, GPOI programs and funding streams are integrated with the State Department's Director of Foreign Assistance process that include program performance indicators, by-country activity integration and regional bureau program planning. Operationally, Regional Combatant Commands working closely with their Military Security Assistance Groups integrate a variety of funding streams to build peacekeeping operations capacity in their area of responsibility. For example, Headquarters, U.S. Southern Command's planned use of exercise funds for PKO NORTH and PKO SOUTH, combined with GPOI train and equip funds, further enhances Southern Cone countries' expertise with Central America's nascent peacekeeping operations capability. Multi-nationally, through the GPOI global clearinghouse process, GPOI stakeholders de-conflict activities with other G8+ donor countries to minimize unnecessary replication for peacekeeping operations training or equipment activities. GPOI is but one tool Department of State regional bureaus or Office of the Secretary of Defense regional offices use to build a particular capability or capacity.

Evidence: GPOI Strategy for Fiscal Years 2005-2009; Planning and Program Proposal Guidance??GPOI (dated June 30, 2006); Defense Security Cooperation Agency case management report.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The programs implemented by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency have procedures to ensure that payments are made properly for the intended purposes. Similar controls are in place on the Department of State side through the contracting, certifying and disbursing process. For example, Acquisition Management closely monitors GPOI grant assistance to the Italy-run Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units. When a case is eligible for an extension, all accounts are reviewed. This review involves participants from all bureaus and agencies involved in the management of these programs to include the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Africa Bureau, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Joint Staff.

Evidence: GPOI Fiscal Year Obligation and Expenditure document; Defense Security Cooperation Agency case management report.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: GPOI has transitioned from concept to a full-fledged program, well resourced with a strategic multi-year plan, established planning processes, published measures of effectiveness, a centralized database to archive program achievements, and dedicated management personnel. GPOI features a four-person management team led by an experienced Foreign Service Officer; former Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, Dr. John Hillen, recognized the entire GPOI Policy Team with a meritorious honor award in 2006 for GPOI implementation. In addition, the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance program portion of the program is led by a dedicated Program Manager. The Regional Combatant Commands also feature GPOI program managers ranging in size from one to four personnel. These efforts are supported by additional program management and evaluation contractor teams. One particular deficiency during the start-up of the program concerned the delayed availability of peacekeeping operations resources and requirements to obligate the funds. Program Managers mitigated this deficiency through more proactive communication and planning between relevant stakeholders and engagement with appropriators in Congress.

Evidence: GPOI Program and Proposal Guidance; GPOI World-Wide Conferences Agenda and Outstanding Actions; Defense Security Cooperation Agency case management report; GPOI Database User's Manual; Planning and Program Proposal Guidance - GPOI (dated June 30, 2006).

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The programs shows progress toward achieving its long-term performance goals, particularly peacekeepers trained and peacekeepers deployed. For example, the top priority of the seven GPOI strategic objectives is to train and, as appropriate, equip at least 75,000 peacekeepers worldwide, with an emphasis on Africa, from 2005-2010, to increase global capacity to participate in peace operations. Based on program glidepaths, the program will reach its goal of 75,000 peacekeepers by having trained 15,336 troops from 33 countries and regional organizations. Furthermore, currently in Africa, the Initiative's focus, over 70% of the individuals trained actually deploy on United Nations or other peacekeeping operations.

Evidence: GPOI Indicator Report; GPOI Evaluation Team Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Progress has been demonstrated across the range of annual performance goals. In particular, U.S. direct training targets are being met. For example, the GPOI Strategy outlined annual targets through U.S.-funded training to train 12,042 troops using Fiscal Year 2005 funding and 19,229 troops using Fiscal Year 2006. Using a combination of Fiscal Year 2005 and 2006 funding, the program trained 15,336 troops by the end of Fiscal Year 2006 and appears well on its way to achieve a similar result by the end of Fiscal Year 2007.

Evidence: GPOI Indicator Report; GPOI Evaluation Team Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program has developed an efficieny measure with an ambitions cost reduction targets (five percent annually) for persons trained by GPOI funds in Africa. The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs conducts rigorous interagency program reviews, through the semi-annual meeting of the GPOI Coordinating Committee, leading to improved efficiency in achieving GPOI objectives. Close coordination with the Department of Defense enhances efficiency and ensures that funding is not duplicated.

Evidence: GPOI Indicator Report.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: A direct comparison is not possible, as GPOI is a unique U.S. train and equip and a capacity-building program for peacekeepers and stability police units. While other U.S. Government programs provide training and equipment to produce a capability, GPOI's ultimate impact is capacity-building. Even similar international peacekeeping programs, albeit complementary, provide periodic training and equipment that is responsive to crises, whereas GPOI is proactive in terms of building capacity before a crisis occurs. GPOI also reflects a relatively new approach to facilitating deployments of stability police. While many countries indigenously train constabulary-like forces, GPOI support to the Italy-run COESPU fills a unique gap in building long-term capacity for Partners to prepare and deploy stability police units to missions external to national requirements.

Evidence: See question 4.5 regarding U.S. government evaluations.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Currently the Department of State's GPOI Evaluation Team provides assessment tools to the stakeholder community (principally the Department of State policy team, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, the Department of Defense Regional Combatant Commands, Embassy Country Team representatives) and program implementers to conduct routine data collection and assessment of GPOI performance. The evaluation team also receives field reports from U.S. military observers and U.S. military security assistance groups on the second and third order effects of GPOI - specifically, the United Nations/other peacekeeping operations deployment results and capacity-building successes of GPOI Partners. Thus far, reporting data has confirmed that the program is having an impact in terms of peacekeeping and stability police trainers trained and units participating and performing effectively in actual peace operations.

Evidence: GPOI Evaluation Team Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report; Trip Reports written by the Political-Military Bureau, Office of Plans, Policy and Analysis; GPOI Database; GPOI Indicator Report.