Detailed Information on the
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Programs, Africa/Asia Assessment

Develop a long-term measure for the criminal justice component and an annual measure or measures to track the progress towards that long-term goal.

Reconfiguring the State Department's performance report for crime and drugs to better reflect International Narcotic and Law Enforcement program functions.

Implementation of micro-assistance to continue to meet program needs with decreasing budget

Combine subject-matter expert and in-country contractor representative into one position, thereby streamlining the program management process and saving money

Link annual funding requests for each component of the program to relevant program goals.

Measure: Number of Southeast Asian nations receiving INL assistance that are removed from and kept off the list of Major Drug Producing and Drug Transit Nations

Explanation:This measure refers specifically to Laos and Thailand. INL aims for Laos to be removed from the list by 2010 and to keep Thailand from returning to the list. Thailand was removed in 2004. For a country to be removed from the "Major's List," it must cultivate less than 1,000 hectares of opium poppy for multiple years while reducing its role as a major drug transit center.

Measure: Hectares of Illicit Opium Poppy Cultivated in Laos

Explanation:The number of hectares under cultivation will be reduced to under 1,000.

Measure: Re-establish rule of law in Liberia through civilian police assistance programs while building capacity of local security forces to provide security throughout Liberia.

Explanation:Phase 1: United Nations peacekeepers provide all local security in Liberia; Phase 2: Liberians take increased role in providing local security; UN provides bulk of security; Phase 3: Liberian police forces provide local security; USG and UN in advisory role only.

Measure: Build the capacity of the Liberian civilian police force as measured by the cumulative number of Liberian police officers who complete basic training and six months of field training

Explanation:At present, INCLE Asia/Africa funding supports stabilization operations conducted by the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL). UNMIL provides police training for the Liberian National Police with the aim of assisting the National Transitional Government of Liberia to establish a cadre of 3,500 police officers before transitioning responsibility for local security from UN peacekeeping forces to the Liberian National Police Service.

Measure: INL "Program Development and Support" costs as a Percentage of Total Program Costs

Explanation:The measure tracks improvement in the cost effectiveness of program funds.

Measure: Demonstrated progress and improvement in criminal justice sector development as measured by the Criminal Justice Sector Index.

Explanation:The INL Bureau is currently developing the Criminal Justice Sector Index, which should be be ready for implementation in FY 2006. The Index will evaluate overall capacity improvements in the criminal justice sector of countries receiving foreign assistance from INL.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The primary mission of the Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) is to blunt the impact of international drug traffickers and other crime groups on the United States, American citizens, and U.S. friends and allies. INL addresses its mission by 1) disrupting the overseas production and trafficking of illicit drugs by means of counter-drug, anti-crime assistance to and coordination with foreign nations and international organizations; 2) minimizing the adverse effects transnational crime and illicit financial activities have on the United States and its citizens by means of international cooperation, coordination and foreign assistance; and 3) establishing and facilitating stable criminal justice systems to strengthen international law enforcement and judicial effectiveness, bolster cooperation in legal affairs, and support the rule of law while respecting human rights. INL aims to disrupt the production of illicit drugs in Asia and bolster the rule of law in targeted countries in Africa and Asia.

Evidence: INL's draft FY 2007 Bureau Performance Plan (BPP) is part of the State Department's strategic planning framework and defines the purpose and mission for the bureau's anti-crime and counternarcotics programs in Africa and Asia.

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

Explanation: INL's Africa/Asia program conducts needs assessments in priority countries and designs programs that address the continuing national security threat to the United States and its citizens posed by criminal and terrorist organizations that take advantage of weaknesses in host nation criminal justice systems and benefit from the proceeds of transnational crime and the narcotics trade. Primary focus countries: Laos and Thailand (which in 1997 grew over 12% of the global illicit opium poppy cultivation"); Liberia (which had no national police force following the fall of the Charles Taylor); Nigeria (in which illicit narcotics and money laundered from South America enters into Europe, Africa and Asia); the Philippines (where a criminal justice system with minimal legitimacy resulted in the growth of separatists militias and terrorist networks); and South Africa (in which improvements in policing had the negative effect of creating backlogs in the courts and overcrowding in the prison system).

Evidence: The Department of State's Strategic Plan for FY 2004-2009 identifies specific problems related to narcotics and international crime. The Department's FY 2006 Congressional Justification for Foreign Operations accounts discusses the existing problem and how it relates to the Department's mission. The Foreign Assistance Act includes a Congressional mandate for the Department to combat international narcotics with foreign assistance. The International Crime Threat Assessment published in 2000 highlights the principal threats to the United States posed by the proliferation and increasing sophistication of transnational criminal organizations.

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

Explanation: In African and Asian countries receiving foreign assistance in the areas of law enforcement and counternarcotics, INL takes the lead in planning and coordinating the activities of various USG partner agencies providing such assistance in order to prevent duplication of effort and to ensure that partners maintain their respective mandates. Activities at the individual country level are coordinated primarily through the interagency Mission Performance Plan (MPP) process. In Nigeria, South Africa and the Philippines, INL coordinates with the Department of Justice's International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP), the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT), and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). In South Africa, INL supports the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In Southeast Asia, INL's programs complement the activities of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

Evidence: FAA, Part 1, Chapter 8 gives the Department of State the mandate to provide foreign assistance to combat narcotics. Section 660 of the FAA prohibits the disbursement of law enforcement assistance unless an agency or bureau has directly been granted "notwithstanding authority" by Congress, as INL has. Mission Performance Plans (MPP) include country-specific performance initiatives with partner responsibilities. Interagency Agreements are commitment letters between INL and other U.S. agencies. Bilateral Letters of Agreement are INL's execution documents with host countries.

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

Explanation: INL's counternarcotics, anticrime, and law enforcement capacity building programs are key components of the effort to fight the effects of transnational crime and the narcotics trade at the national and regional levels. At this time, there is no evidence that another approach or mechanism would be more efficient or effective to achieve the intended purpose.

Evidence: FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations accounts outlines Dept. of State funding priorities that are targeted towards maximizing program effectiveness.

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

Explanation: INL targets countries in Africa and Asia that are designated as Major Drug Producing or Drug Transit Nations or Major Money Laundering Countries, as required by Section 489 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. INL conducts needs assessments in priority countries where resources will most effectively address the institutional weaknesses that undermine host country law enforcement efforts and sustain activities that keep transnational criminal and narcotics trafficking organizations from thriving. Through the Program Budget Reviews and the MPP interagency process, INL management evaluates country needs assessments against INL policy priorities to target resources effectively and achieve the program's purpose. Lastly, budgeting reflects INL's bias towards host countries in which it can identify partner agencies that are effective and trustworthy.

Evidence: INL's annual Bureau Performance Plan; INL's annual Congressional Budget Justification; INL's FY 2005 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report.

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 INL Bureau has two specific, outcome-oriented, long-term performance measures for its programs in Asia and Africa and is developing a third measure. These goals are listed in the measures tab and reflect the program's aim to disrupt international drug trafficking and build criminal justice capacity in host countries.

Evidence: Draft FY 2007 Bureau Performance Plan

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

Explanation: INL has ambitious targets and timeframes for two of its three long-term measures. However, the measure related to development of host countries' criminal justice systems is still under development and will require baseline assessments before appropriate targets and timeframes can be set.

Evidence: Draft FY 2007 Bureau Performance Plan

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 INCLE Africa/Asia program has two specific, outcome-oriented annual performance measures that demonstrate progress towards achieving the program's two long-term goals as identified in question 2.1. One measure tracks the hectares of illicit opium poppy cultivated annually in Laos. The second measure tracks INL's goal to establish a Liberian National Police Service of 3,500 officers by 2007 as measured by the cumulative number of Liberian police officers who complete basic training and a six-month field training program. Once INL fully establishes its long-term measure for its criminal justice programs throughout the two regions, the bureau should develop an annual measure or measures to track the progress towards that long-term goal.

Evidence: Draft FY 2007 Bureau Performance Plan; Draft FY 2007 Mission Performance Plans for Laos, Liberia, and Thailand

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

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual performance measures: 1) Reduce cultivation of illicit opium poppy in Laos to less than 1,000 hectares by 2008 while keeping cultivation levels in Thailand and Laos at less than 1,000 hectares through 2010; 2) Train a total of 3,500 civilian police officers in Liberia by the end of 2007.

Evidence: Draft FY 2007 Bureau Performance Plan; Draft FY 2007 Mission Performance Plans for Laos, Liberia and Thailand.

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: Generally speaking, INL's partners are committed to meeting INL's long-term goals as defined in the annual Letters of Agreement (LOA) between INL and each partner nation. Interagency planning and coordination is conducted through the Mission Performance Plan (MPP), the Bureau Performance Plan (BPP) and the State-USAID Joint Management Council (JMC) and Joint Policy Council (JPC). Annual goals and plans are established in Inter-Agency Agreements, such as for ICITAP, OPDAT and DEA, with each organization reporting to INL program officers. In Liberia, for instance, all partners are committed to and work towards the U.S. government's long-term goals as identified in Liberia's Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), with the US Embassy in Monrovia coordinating with the UN on police reform. Similarly, the US government and UNODC have committed to the goal of making Laos "essentially opium free" by getting Laos to less than 1,000 hectares of opium by 2008 and removing Laos from the "major's list" by 2010. It should be noted, however, that the Government of Laos has not agreed to this timeframe.

Evidence: The Department of State's Strategic Plan for FY 2004-2009; Interagency agreements between INL and other USG agencies; Letters of Agreement between the U.S. government and partner nations.

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: INL does not regularly schedule independent evaluations to examine the overall program's success in achieving its mission and long-term goals. However, the Bureau is currently implementing an internal evaluation system for measuring the impact of its programs.

Evidence: INL's internal evaluation efforts include the implementation plan for a proposed Criminal Justice Sector Index.

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: INL's annual budget requests are broken down by country and, within each country, by major program activity area. At the country level, INL relates budget requests to narrative descriptions of conditions in those countries. INL does not clarify, however, what the impact of funding decisions would be on expected performance, either at the country or program-wide level. The annual budget for INL is developed mostly with input from U.S. missions overseas. Mission budget requests follow INL's budget request guidance, which for the FY 2007 budget specifically asked missions to provide a direct link between funding and performance.

Evidence: INL annual Congressional Budget Justification; INL annual budget call; strategic budget allocation table.

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

Explanation: INL has taken several meaningful steps to improve strategic planning and is developing a bureau-level strategic plan that coordinates INL's geographically far-flung operations along a functionally focused strategic framework. INL has also modified its budget planning process and its annual budget call to increase the transparency and the links between budget requests and performance information. The INL strategic planning framework serves as a guide for all future strategic planning documents, including the Mission Performance Plans, the Bureau Performance Plans, Letters of Agreement with partner foreign countries, and the annual budget request documents. Furthermore, INL aims to reconfigure the Department's Performance Goals for International Crime and Drugs to better reflect INL program functions, strategies, and tactics in anticipation of the revised Joint State/USAID Strategic Plan to be developed in FY 2006.

Evidence: INL Strategic Logic Model and FY 2007 Budget Guidance to Missions

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: INL collects program-related information on a frequent and systematic basis. Posts with Narcotics Affairs Sections and Law Enforcement Affairs Sections submit monthly reports to INL program managers and office directors. INL requires quarterly reports for programs implemented by the Department of Justice using INL funding. Performance information also assists INL leadership with resource decisions during the Bureau's and Department's internal budget formulation process. Letters of Agreement with partner nations and interagency agreements with USG agencies present benchmarks for the annual project plans. For example, in Nigeria, concerns about the lack of host country cooperation with police training and ICITAP reports urging mid-year funding adjustments to incorporate newly learned best practices in Nigeria's police-training module resulted in management action to improve program performance.

Evidence: Monthly Narcotics/Law Enforcement Affairs Section Reports; Weekly Narcotics Affairs Section Activity Reports; Quarterly DOJ/OPDAT reports; Annual INL Program Budget Reviews; Annual INL Congressional Budget Justification; INL Decision Memo urging management action on police training in Nigeria; ICITAP report on adjusting skills-based basic recruit training in Nigeria.

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: Letters of Agreement (LOAs) with partner nations articulate program objectives, require periodic performance reviews and, sometimes, set specific performance goals, which may or may not align with those in the respective MPP. U.S. agency partners can be held accountable through periodic reviews, as required in the inter-agency agreements. INL did not identify the managers responsible for INCLE Africa/Asia performance, nor did they show that standards had been established for their performance. The evidence provided does not support a YES.

Evidence: Interagency Agreements between INL and U.S. partner agencies; Letters of Agreement with partner nations

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

Explanation: Although this program is not in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act and there is no evidence of erroneous payments, this question received a "NO," because the evidence provided did not show that the program and partners establish schedules for obligation that properly correspond to the resource needs of the program plan.

Evidence: Financial Management Activity Reports (FMAR) are submitted monthly and track obligations and disbursement of appropriated funds for each country program. Pipeline reports track year-to-date expenditures and disbursements.

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: INL plans to implement a Local Financial Management System (LFMS) that will allow the bureau to integrate financial data with performance information to support day-to-day operations and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution by automating and simplifying the financial and performance reporting process at overseas posts. The LFMS system will be fully implemented during FY 2006. This question received a NO, however, because there is no evidence that the program has regular procedures in place to achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness.

Evidence: Local Financial Management System Instruction Manual; LFMS implementation plan

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: There is extensive, constant and ongoing cooperation and interchange among offices dealing in INL-related programs, generally with the U.S. Embassy's Narcotics Affairs Section (NAS) as the responsible coordinating authority. Coordination is done through formal mechanisms and regular interchanges at all levels. Policy, planning and program implementation in the field is coordinated with all interested USG representatives through the U.S. embassy country team as well as through direct communication. This interagency coordination is reflected in the annual Mission Performance Plan, a joint planning document that assigns responsibilities for each relevant agency. INL officers at the missions base their annual program plans and budget requests on these embassy-wide planning documents. At the headquarters level, INL program officers coordinate effectively with interagency partners and global partners through program and budget planning, reporting, and regular meetings.

Evidence: Mission Performance Plans for Laos, Liberia, Nigeria, the Philippines, South Africa, and Thailand; Interagency Agreements between INL and partner U.S. government agencies; Letters of Agreement between the U.S. government and partner nations.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Although INL is implementing a new financial management system and has made substantial progress towards addressing its financial management weaknesses over the past year, the system is not yet operational and, therefore, cannot yet produce accurate and timely information (e.g., unit or overall costs, burn rates) that would support day-to-day resource allocations or trade-off decisions.

Evidence: INL Financial Management Activity Reports; INL pipeline reports

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

Explanation: INL has undertaken a number of initiatives to address management deficiencies. INL is providing feedback to posts regarding performance goals and resource requests in Mission Performance Plans, incorporating the INL Logic Model/Strategic Framework and country and regional strategic plans into its planning documents, and is updating Letter of Agreement and Interagency Agreement procedures and its Financial Management Activity Report model. INL's Program Assistance and Evaluation Division is tasked with identifying and correcting management deficiencies and is conducting analysis of costs and financial management, developing a resource allocation model and preparing for evaluations of INCLE-funded programs.

Evidence: Mission Performance Plans for Liberia, Laos, Nigeria, the Philippines, South Africa and Thailand; Letters of Agreement; Interagency Agreements; INL Logic Model/Strategic Framework.

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

Explanation: This question received a rating of "Small Extent" because one of its three long-term measures demonstrates positive results, that is, Thailand was removed from the list of Major Drug Producing and Drug Transit Nations in FY 2004. Credit cannot be given for the other two measures, however, because the targets and timeframes for one of them have not yet been developed, and the program in Liberia is too new to have historical data.

Evidence: Draft FY 2007 Bureau Performance Plan

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

Explanation: The INCLE Africa/Asia program is on track to meet its two annual goals: (1) Levels of poppy cultivation in Laos have been reduced from a baseline of 23,230 hectares in 2002 to 10,000 in 2004; (2) INL-supported police training programs in Liberia trained 500 police officers in 2004 and are one track to train an additional 750 officers in 2005 for a total of 1,250 trained officers by the end of the fiscal year.

Evidence: Draft FY 2007 Bureau Performance Plan

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

Explanation: The evidence provided did not demonstrate improved efficiencies over the past year.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: While other similar programs exist (e.g., U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime programs in Burma and U.S. Agency for International Development programs in Africa), INL has not collected data on these programs in order to conduct a comparison. However, the development of INL's Criminal Justice Sector Index could provide an opportunity to compare the impact of INL's programs with those of relevant organizations in the criminal justice and rule of law sectors.

Evidence: FY 2005 International Narcotics Strategy Report

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

Explanation: There are no evaluations of sufficient scope and quality that demonstrate the program's effectiveness. However, an independet evaluation of demand reduction programs in Thailand noted that "over the last 10 years, domestic production of heroin and opium has declined, primarily due to a concerted effort by local and international law enforcement officials to curb opiate production and trafficking in Thailand" and that "the support, resources, and technical assistance provided by United States-led organizations??the most important being the State Department's INL??and the Thai government programs have been instrumental in strengthening the delivery of treatment and prevention services in Thailand."

Evidence: Danya International's report entitled "Promising Practices in Drug Treatment: Findings from Southeast Asia" was published in May 2003.