Detailed Information on the
South Asia Military Assistance Assessment

Incorporate security assistance plans for South Asia countries within the budget justification for military assistance programs.

The Bureau of South and Central Asia will begin tracking these indicators more closely, with biannual communications with the field and relevant Defense bureaus.

The Bureau of South and Central Asia will work with its DoD partners to review these indicators and ensure that they are effective and best reflect the work undertaken by South Asia Military Assistance. We will put in place a mechanism to better track and validate this information.

Measure: Number of South Asian militaries with units or members cited for numerous, serious human rights abuses.

Explanation:As measured by Department of State annual human rights reports, the main tool to achieve this goal is engagement with host countries on pursuing investigations of human rights abuses including human rights awareness and training.

Measure: Ratio of administrative costs to program funding

Explanation:As the ratio of administrative costs to program funding decreases, administrative efficiency increases

Measure: Success rate in achieving execution of International Education and Training (IMET) allocation consistent with training plan.

Explanation:Each post annually prepares a training plan for IMET that targets specific host country military and civilian officials for training in professional military education, technical skills, and support for civilian control of the military and human rights. Identification of individuals including alternates, securing agreement on training, and successful execution of the training plan is an important contributor to achievement of the long-term goals.

Measure: Number of violations by South Asian governments of requirements regulating the use, transfer, and sale of U.S.-origin equipment or technology provided under the authority of the Arms Export and Control Act.

Explanation:U.S. agreements to provide military goods and services under the Arms Export and Control Act are subject to use, transfer, and sale restrictions under Section 3 of the Act. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that non-State actors do not gain access to such military equipment and technology. Enforcement of this requirement is the responsibility of the foreign government and is monitored by U.S. embassy security assistance offices.

Measure: Number of military personnel in leadership positions who are IMET-trained.

Explanation:This measure provides an assessment of the selection process for IMET participants and reflects the value of developing long-term military-to-military relationships as offiicials with an understanding of U.S. military values rise to influential leadership positions in foreign governments.

Measure: Number of times South Asian FMF-recipient countries participate in peacekeeping or coalition operations.

Explanation:As the UN requires more peacekeepers, the amount of South Asian IMET peace operations-trained soldiers that participate in peacekeeping, combined/multilateral, or coalition operations increases.

Measure: Number of Afghan National Army personnel trained.

Explanation:The U.S. goal is to develop an Afghanistan National Army (ANA) that is capable of controlling the Afghan territory, defeating belligerents, and reducing the requirements for international troops. This measure tracks progress toward achievement of the U.S. goal of training and equiping a 70,000 person ANA.

Measure: Review, evaluation and update of security assistance plans performed in all South Asia countries at least once a year to ensure that secuirty assistance expenditures and activities address country/regional security concerns.

Explanation:Each country's security assistance plans support objectives in the Department of State's Mission Performance Plan, DoD's security cooperation guidance, and the security cooperation plan of the regional Combatant Commander. Country plans include an overview of existing and projected security assistance resources, a security assistance strategy for each military assistance program, near and long-term priorities, desired end-states, and measures of effectiveness.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose for Foriegn Military Financing and International Military Education and Training (FMF/IMET) is to promote U.S. national security by preventing and responding to terrorism; enhance regional stability (including by providing for legitimate defense needs); strengthen military to military ties; promote civilian control of the military and respect for human rights; and further peacekeeping interoperability.

Evidence: 1. Section 503, Chapter 2, Part II, of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; 2. Department of State Congressional Budget Justifications; 3. The Arms Export Control Act; 4. Section 541 (IMET) of the FAA and section 23 of the Arms export Control Act (the authorities for grant assistance). BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: CT.03, RS.02. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: Terrorism and regional instability in South Asia are two principal threats to US national security; FMF and IMET, by assisting regional militaries with training and equipment, help them combat and prevent terrorism and further regional stability. The US relies on governments in the region for cooperation on a variety of defense issues, such as coalition support and peacekeeping activities, making interoperability important. FMF and IMET programs target these needs. Individual FMF programs in South Asian countries are developed by the Embassy country team (the ODC is the lead agency) and CENTCOM/PACOM. Early in the process, the Country Security Cooperation Plan is developed, which includes the long-term strategic goals and the key capabilities that need to be put in place to achieve these goals. From these required capabilities (e.g., improving interoperability) outcomes and tasks (e.g., providing specific communications equipment) are developed.

Evidence: 1. MPPs; 2. BPPs (A/S Statement, Goal Papers -CT.03, RS.02) State Department Congressional Budget Justifications; 4. DOD reports (CENTCOM/PACOM Theater Security Cooperation Plans, Country Plans). BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: FMF and IMET are the principal forms of U.S. military assistance. IMET is uniquely designed to provide training opportunities for foreign military officers that will benefit them and enhance their respect for human rights and civilian rule as well as promote the modernization and interoperability of foreign militaries. Such training is preeminently supported by FMF and IMET funding. Other Department of Defense exchange and joint training programs benefit both U.S. and host militaries. Because of the nexus between terrorism, crime, and drugs, South Asia FMF programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan are closely coordinated at posts with programs funded by Department of State Counter-narcots and crime programs and with other counter-terrorism assistance programs. FMF focuses on support to the military; International Narcotics and Law Enforcement programs focus on support to the police and border security agents. FMF programs leverage other forms of security assistance such as Excess Defense Articles (EDA). For example, Sri Lanka recently received a former Coast Guard cutter for use by the Sri Lankan navy to help in antiterror and anti smuggling operation.

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (A/S Statement, Goal Papers CT.03, RS.02) 2. MPPs; 3. State Department Congressional Budget Justifications. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: Budget performance and management of assistance programs and pipelines are incorporated into the budget allocation process. The State Department's South Asia bureau coordinates closely with the Political-Miltary Affairs bureau (PM), and the country teams ccordinate at posts, to ensure a harmonized approach to FMF/IMET programming.

Evidence: 1. Letters of Offer and Acceptance 2. Department of State Congressional Budget Justifications 3. DSCA web based planning tool; 4. FY 2006 SA BPP (A/S Statement, Goal Papers CT.03, RS.02).

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

Explanation: Individual FMF programs in South Asian countries are developed by the Embassy country team (led by the Office of Defense Cooperation) and are reviewed by the regional combatant commands and the Bureaus of Political-Military Affairs (PM) and South Asian Affairs at the Department of State to ensure that resources address the program's purposes. Early in the process, the Country Security Cooperation Plan is developed, which includes the long-term strategic goals and the key capabilities that need to be put in place to achieve these goals. From these required capabilities (e.g., improving interoperability) outcomes and tasks (e.g., providing specific communications equipment) are developed. Resources are expended for South Asian militaries and/or their members; to ensure that unintended recipients do not benefit from the program, recipients (individuals for IMET and units for FMF) are identified in Letters of Offer and Acceptance between the USG and the recipient government. All individuals, as appropriate, are vetted for human rights violations.

Evidence: 1. Agreements between the U.S. and the foreign government on military goods and servicees to be purchased; 2. Country-level security assistance plans; 3. South Asia Bureau Performance Plan; 4. South Asia Mission Performance Plans.

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: At the strategic level, the SA BPP has goal papers and performance indicators for programs supported by FMF and IMET. In addition, CENTCOM/PACOM and SA posts (through the ODCs) maintain specific long-term and annual objectives for FMF supported activities in each country as part of the CSCP and the Mission Performance Plan (MPP). The CSCP includes outcomes and tasks that are supported by a variety of activities of which FMF and IMET are but two. The capabilities, outcomes, and tasks established in the CSCP form the basis of the security objectives of the MPP and FMF requests (which are submitted by posts in the MPP).

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (A/S Statement; Goal Papers: CT.03, RS.02); 2. MPPs; 3. State Department Congressional Budget Justifications; 4. Theater Security Cooperation Evaluations; 5. Long-term outcome measures: Status of respect for human rights among South Asian IMET-recipient militaries; FMF expenditures are integrated into an assistance plan that addresses country/regional security concerns; No US-origin equipment or technology in South Asia is available to non-state actors. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: At the strategic level, ambitious and realistic targets through 2008 are established in the BPP. Long-term targets are also set in other planning documents, such as the MPPs and various DOD documents (in which the timeframes for FMF programs are 5-8 years; for IMET programs, the timeframes are 15-20 years).

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (A/S Statement, Goal Papers: CT.03, RS.02); 2. Congressional testimony; 3. MPPs; 4. DSCA web-based planning tool; 5. Student performance reviews (IMET). 6. CENTCOM/PACOM planning documents, such as the TSCP and CSCP. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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: Annual performance measures for FMF and IMET are in place at the regional (strategic) and country level, and reviews are conducted annually on BPP and MPP measures. The country level objectives and targets (listed in the MPPs and CSCPs) are more detailed. The annual performance measures at the regional level track with performance goals set by the BPP's goal papers. The structure, policies, and legislation governing the IMET program allow for periodic (usually at least semi-annual) reviews of student performance as an indicator of program effectiveness/efficiency. For the annual measures, see Evidence.

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (A/S Statement, Goal Papers: CT.03, RS.02); 2. Congressional testimony; 3. MPPs; 4. DSCA web based planning tool; 5. Student performance reviews; 6. Key annual measures: Ratio of administrative costs to program funding; Amount of IMET allocation expended, compared to training plan; Number of times South Asian FMF-recipient countries participate in peacekeeping or coalition operations, and as the UN requires more peacekeepers, the amount of South Asian IMET peace operations trained soldiers that participate in peacekeeping, combined/multilateral, or coalition operations increases. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: Baselines and target development (as well as program execution) is carried out on a country and program basis in the first instance; this information is used to develop regional baselines and targets (as in the BPP). All targets are ambitious and have baselines; see PART key annual measures, as well as BPPs and MPPs. Pakistan's FMF program, for example, has definitive baselines, goals, and targets in the MPP and in the Political Military Implementation Plan.

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (A/S Statement and Goal Papers: CT.03, RS.02); 2. Congressional testimony; 3. MPPs; 4. DSCA web-based planning tool; 5. Key annual measures: Ratio of administrative costs to program funding; Amount of IMET allocation expended, compared to training plan; Number of times South Asian FMF-recipient countries participate in peacekeeping or coalition operations, and as the UN requires more peacekeepers, the amount of South Asian IMET peace operations trained soldiers that participate in peacekeeping, combined/multilateral, or coalition operations increases. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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: To ensure full host government cooperation, detailed Letters of Offer and Acceptance are negotiated between the USG and the host government. LOAs include the terms of FMF programs (equipment, training, spare parts), and programs are assessed at least annually by DOD and State. The actual implementation of FMF programs occurs at ODCs at our posts. CENTCOM and PACOM, the Bureau of Political/Military Affairs, Tthe Bureau of South Asian Affairs, and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency all participate in program management. In addition, the U.S.-based educational institutions that support IMET programs are full partners in the process. Key to the success of many of these programs is commitment by the host countries. For example, host countries generally select officers who graduate 1st or 2nd from their own staff/war colleges to attend U.S. War College courses; these officers usually become instructors for at least 2 years at their own staff/war colleges upon returning.

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (A/S Statement; Goal Papers: CT.03, RS.02); 2. Congressional testimony; 3. MPPs; 4. DSCA web-based planning tool; 5. CENTCOM and PACOM Requirements Documents; 6. LOAs. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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: Most formal evaluations of the regional FMF programs are conducted by State, DOD, or CENTCOM/PACOM. However, there are some independent informal evaluations of U.S. security assistance. These range from evaluations of U.S. security policy sponsored by the Army War College and the National Defense University to critics of our security policy in the region. Most external assessments of FMF deal with the strategic policy objectives that FMF supports, such as the ability of countries to secure their borders, rather than the the FMF programs that support these objectives. The Theater Security Cooperation Management Information System includes as assessment feature that will assess progress toward each specific task listed in the Country Security Cooperation Plan (but that feature is under development). Information provided by host governments and private companies can be critical to the evaluation of our FMF programs.

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (A/S Statement, Goal Papers: CT.03, RS.02); 2. Congressional testimony; 3. MPPs, 4. DSCA web-based planning tool; 5. CENTCOM/PACOM Theater Security Cooperation Management Information System; 6. Upcoming GAO report on Security Assistance in Afghanistan; 7. NDU reports; 8. U.S. Army War College reports; 9. Various NGO reports (such as the Human Rights Watch Annual Report); and 10. journal articles. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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: At the strategic level, the BPP and the MPP tie resources to our objectives and pefomance measures. The SA BPP identifies the goals and measures for FMF supported programs in its Goal Papers (CT.03, RS.02) and Performance Indicators. At the country level, SA decides, in coordination with posts, PM, and DOD, which requests for funding support the Bureau's strategic goals and other USG foreign policy objectives. We then formulate funding requests based on these decisions, which are reflected in the SA BPP. The Country Security Cooperation Plans include further details concerning the goals and funding of individual FMF programs.

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (A/S Statement, Goal Papers: CT.03, RS.02); 2. Congressional testimony; 3. MPPs; 4. DSCA web-based planning tool; 5. CENTCOM and PACOM Theater Security Cooperation Management Information System. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: The regional stability and counterterror performance goals from the State/AID Strategic Planning Framework are in synch with the long-term and annual goals for FMF. Several State/DOD working groups further coordinate program administration. The ODCs, CENTCOM/PACOM, and DSCA regularly collect and analyze information on program performance, and change training schedules, deployments, and etc. based on their analyses. SA and PM also regularly review performance information and change programs/future budget requests when needed. For example, adjustments are required in the following situations: when resource allocations differ from requested amounts; unexpected student unavailability; and sanctions or legislative holds (such as parking violation fees). Adjustments may be required when a country does not expend its IMET allocation; future FMF allocations may be reduced until prior year funds are expended.

Evidence: 1. SA BPP; 2. MPPs, 3. DSCA web-based planning tool. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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: Federal partners and program managers are held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results. The ODCs, CENTCOM/PACOM, and DSCA regularly collect and analyze information on program performance. In addition, PM and SA also review performance information. Some of these reviews are directly tied to regional objectives and targets while others are tied to specific country program objectives and targets. At the ODC, CENTCOM/PACOM, and DSCA level, the analysis leads to changes in training schedules, deployments, and etc., such as rescheduling an event/course or returning unused funds for reallocation. The results of the reviews conducted by PM and SA are reflected in changes made to the programs in subsequent budget requests. For example, depending upon the situation, adjustments may be required when a country does not expend its IMET allocation; future FMF allocations may be reduced until prior year funds are expended.

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (Goal Papers CT.03, RS.01); 2. MPPs; 3. Congressional testimony; 4. DSCA web based planning tool; 5. DIILS trip reports. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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: The Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) is a government-to-government agreement that defines the terms and conditions in accordance with the law; US grant funds are controlled and managed by USG organizations with USG oversight. Funds for IMET are closely monitored by the learning institutions, posts, Congress, and NGOs. Managers are held accountable through performance appraisals and/or service evaluations.

Evidence: 1. USG financial reports; 2. program/financial management reviews; 3. the AECA and FAA are governing authorities for program implementation.

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

Explanation: LOAs govern the pace of spending and ensure that funds are spent for the intended purpose. ODCs conduct end use monitoring. By law, IMET funds must be spent within 1 year or will be reallocated. IMET funds are in fact spent in a timely manner, even though IMET funds are often not available until well into a given fiscal year. Status of Funds reports are compiled on a monthly basis and are reconciled on a quarterly basis.

Evidence: 1. LOAs; 2. AECA; 3. FAA.

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: For FMF-funded cases and IMET-funded training, the USG uses the same rules for the benificiaries of funding as it does for itself. Web-based tools are increasingly used for program management. On an annual basis, State reallocates funding based on program status; program status information is provided by DSCA and CENTCOM/PACOM.

Evidence: 1. USG (DSCA) Policy guidance; 2. AECA; 3. FAA; 4. Annual appropriations legislation.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Given the direct links between terrorism and transnational crime (especially illegal narcotics tarfficking), there is coordination of programs funded by INCLE and those funded by FMF at the post level, relected in MPP. The Afghanistan Interagency Working Group in D.C. and the Tripartite Commission at post in Afghanistan coordinate programs in Afghanistan at the interagency level; both groups have members from the various agencies that work in Afghanistan, and meet on a regular basis (the AIOG meets several times per week). At the regional level, country team members and SA, PM, and DRL staff coordinate INCLE and FMF counterterror programs to provide equipment and training to police (INCLE) and military (FMF) personnel to ensure minimal duplication of effort. In Afghanistan, ANA training by the U.S. is coordinated with the British and French. Several FMF-funded programs in South Asia are designed to support other military assistance programs such as excess defense articles.

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (Goal papers CT.03, RS.02); 2. MPPs; 3. Congressional testimony; 4. DSCA web-based planning tool; 5. Post reporting. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: LOAs are overseen by DFAS Denver and the DSCA Comptroller as well as the ODC, PM, and CENTCOM/PACOM. Implementation of the program is followed by ODCs, PM, and CENTCOM/PACOM.

Evidence: 1. DFAS reports.

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

Explanation: By allowing partner agencies to simutaneously view and analyze the same data and recommendations, the DSCA web based planning tool has made the management of FMF and IMET programs more efficient and transparent.

Evidence: 1. DSCA web based planning tool.

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

Explanation: The SA BPP and MPP goal papers document results achieved toward long term goals and specific targets. In addition, there is significant cooperation on a broad range of defense issues; a number of SA countries contributed troops for coalition operations and peacekeeping operations; and there has been demonstrable progress in counterterror and counterinsurgency capability in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan adopted export control legislation in September 2004; we have offered to work with the Pakistani government on implementing regulations.

Evidence: 1. Upcoming GAO report on Security Assistance in Afghanistan; 2. NDU reports; 3. Reports from the U.S. Army War College; 4. Congressional Research Service reports; 5. Reports by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (i.e. "In the Balance 2005"; 6. various NGO reports (including the Human Rights Watch Annual Report); 7. Department of State Human Rights Reports; 8. SA BPP (Goal papers CT.03, RS.02); 9. MPPs; 10. Congressional testimony; 11. DSCA web-based planning tool; 12. CENTCOM/PACOM Theater Security Cooperation Management Information System; 13. DIILS trip reports. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: Progress has been demonstrated across the range of annual performance goals in the MPPs and BPP.

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (goal Papers CT.03, RS.02); 2. MPPs; 3. Congressional testimony; 4. DSCA web based planning tool; 5. CENTCOM/PACOM Theater Security Cooperation Management Information System; 6. Reports by CSIS; 7. Department of State Human Rights Reports; 8. NGO reports; 9. DIILS trip reports. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: SA conducts rigorous interagency MPP reviews, leading to improved efficiency in achieving the goals supported by FMF in the various MPPs. Good coordination with DOD and INL enhances efficiency and ensures that funding is not duplicated. The IMET program provides periodic reviews of student performance as an indicator of program effectiveness/efficiency.

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (Goal papers CT.03, RS.02); 2. MPPs; 3. CBJs; 4. PART efficiency measure: Ratio of administrative costs to program funding. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: IMET is among the most effective USG programs, and compares favorably with civilian scholarship programs. FMF is the principal vehicle for providing US security assistance. There are no other comparable USG or private programs.

Evidence: 1. SA BPP (Goal papers CT.03, RS.02); 2. CBJ; 3. Congressional testimony. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: Various evaluations show that SA FMF programs have achieved their intended results.

Evidence: 1. Reports from CSIS; 2. NGO reports(including the Human Rights Watch Annual Report); 3. Reports from the U.S. Army War College; 4. Upcoming GAO report on Security Assistance in Afghanistan; 5. NDU reports; 6. 7. DSCA reports; 8. Congressional Research Service reports.