Security Assistance: U.S. Agencies Should Improve Oversight of Human Rights Training for Foreign Security Forces

The U.S. government seeks to advance human rights when it provides security assistance to foreign countries. Such assistance includes DOD– and State–supported human rights and international humanitarian law training for foreign security forces. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017 consolidated multiple capacity building authorities, now codified at 10 U.S.C. § 333. DOD implements most U.S. human rights training for foreign security forces.

Congress included a provision in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 for GAO to review human rights training for foreign security forces. This report, among other objectives, (1) describes the entities through which DOD and State provide such training, (2) assesses the extent to which DOD and State track the provision of and funding for such training, and (3) examines the extent to which DOD and State have evaluated the effectiveness of the training. GAO reviewed laws, regulations, guidance, agency training and funding data, and course catalogs, and interviewed agency officials.

Several entities within the Departments of Defense (DOD) and State (State) are involved in human rights training. DOD's Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) conducts program management for DOD's efforts to build the capacity of foreign security forces. The human rights training required by 10 U.S.C § 333 is provided exclusively by the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS), a DOD entity. DOD operates a number of other educational entities that provide training to foreign security forces, and many include human rights–related material in their curriculum or through operational exercises. (See figure.)

DOD does not systematically track human rights training and, as a result, only limited information is available on the provision of and funding for these activities. Without a process to ensure systematic and accurate tracking of human rights training data, DSCA is limited in its ability to monitor its compliance with the training–related provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017. State relies on DOD to track human rights training for military forces and tracks some training and funding data for police.

DOD and State have not assessed the effectiveness of human rights training for foreign security forces, according to agency officials. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017 required DOD to conduct monitoring and evaluation of its security assistance programs. DOD has taken initial steps to develop monitoring and evaluation policies but officials stated that they have not yet determined when DOD will evaluate human rights training. State officials said they do not know when the agency will begin monitoring and evaluating human rights training provided under the International Military Education and Training program, a large source of funding for such training. Monitoring and evaluation would enable DOD and State to determine the effectiveness of U.S.–provided human rights training for foreign security forces.

GAO is making three recommendations, including that the Secretary of Defense establish a process to systematically track mandated human rights training and develop a timeline for implementing monitoring and evaluation. DOD agreed. GAO also recommends that the Secretary of State develop a plan with a timeline to monitor and evaluate such training. State disagreed. GAO continues to believe the recommendation is valid as discussed in the report.

Congress has articulated the importance of human rights in U.S.  assistance to partner nations’ security forces. Thus, numerous U.S.  government efforts to build the capacity of foreign partners’ security  forces incorporate training on the importance of human rights and  international humanitarian law. The Department of Defense (DOD) and  the Department of State (State) share responsibility for developing,  managing, and implementing this training.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018  includes a provision for us to submit to Congress a report on human  rights training for foreign security forces. This report (1) describes the  entities through which DOD and State provide training for foreign security  forces on human rights and international humanitarian law; (2) assesses  the extent to which DOD and State track the provision of and funding for  such training; (3) examines the extent to which DOD and State have  evaluated the effectiveness of the training; and (4) provides DOD, State,  and outside expert views on human rights training.

To address these objectives, we reviewed laws, guidance, budget  documents, course catalogs, and agency data on human rights training  and funding for fiscal years 2015 through 2017. We also interviewed  agency officials in Washington, D.C., and at DOD geographic combatant  commands. In addition, we conducted site visits at three facilities that  provide human rights training: the Center for Civil–Military Relations  (CCMR) in Monterey, California; the Defense Institute of International  Legal Studies (DIILS) in Newport, Rhode Island; and the Western  Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in Fort  Benning, Georgia. We also interviewed outside experts to obtain  additional perspectives on the effectiveness of human rights training for  foreign security forces. We selected the experts through interviews with  government and nongovernment officials. For more detail on our scope  and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2018 to August 2019  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Promotion of Human Rights Is a U.S. National Security Goal

Promoting respect for human rights is a goal of U.S. foreign policy. The  United States considers the advancement of human rights when providing  security assistance to foreign countries. Providing training on human  rights issues and international humanitarian law to foreign security forces  can further U.S. credibility and interests. For example, such training  could help maintain local populations’ cooperation with U.S. security  efforts by curbing potential abuses by partner country forces. Human  rights abuses by U.S.–backed forces can damage the local population’s  support for the United States’ strategic aims, according to guidance from  the U.S. Army.

Human Rights Training Is Provided through Multiple Authorities

The United States provides military equipment and training, including  human rights training, to partner countries through a variety of security  cooperation and assistance programs authorized by statutes, some of  which are codified within Title 10 and Title 22 of the U.S. Code. Human  rights training is incorporated into broader security cooperation and  assistance efforts. DOD and State share responsibility for developing  policy for, managing, and implementing human rights training. Title 10  programs are generally overseen by DOD. Title 22 programs primarily fall  under State. According to DOD and State officials, most Title 22 human  rights training is implemented by DOD.

DOD integrates human rights concepts into various types of training and  assistance, including “train and equip” programs and defense institution  building. Train and equip programs provide training, equipment, and  small–scale military construction activities intended to build the capacity  of partner nations’ military forces. Defense institution building activities  are security assistance programs intended to empower partner nation  defense institutions to establish or re-orient their policies and structures to  make their defense sector more accountable, effective, and responsive to  civilian control, among other things.

Some of the authorities under which DOD and State provide human rights  training to partner countries require such training when security  assistance is provided. For example, one of the more recent and  significant changes to security assistance legislation was the 2017 NDAA,  which enacted a new chapter in Title 10 of the U.S. Code containing  authorities related to security cooperation. Among other things, the 2017  NDAA replaced multiple capacity building authorities with a new statute  codified at 10 U.S.C. § 333 (Section 333). All Section 333 programs are  required to include elements that promote observance of and respect for  human rights and fundamental freedoms, rule of law, and the law of  armed conflict, as well as respect for civilian control of the military. Prior  to the 2017 NDAA, a similar requirement was mandated for security  assistance delivered under the Global Train and Equip program (then  codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2282), which required that U.S. assistance  pursuant to this authority include “elements to promote observance of and  respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and respect for  legitimate civilian authority.” Section 333 covers a greater range of  security assistance programs—for example, counternarcotics  assistance—than did Section 2282.

Other authorities include human rights considerations in their authorizing  language. For example, in 1976, Congress established the International  Military Education and Training (IMET) program codified within Title 22.  The program provides education and training to foreign military personnel  with the objectives of professionalizing military forces and increasing  respect for democratic values and human rights. In 1990, Congress  expanded the objectives of the IMET program to include fostering greater  understanding of and respect for civilian control of the military,  contributing to responsible defense resource management, and improving  military justice systems and procedures in accordance with internationally  recognized human rights. State and DOD refer to the expanded IMET  objectives as Expanded IMET (E-IMET). Table 1 lists key authorities  through which DOD and State provide human rights training to foreign  security forces.

The United States Undertakes Additional Efforts to Further Human Rights Goals

In addition to human rights training, U.S. agencies consider human rights  records when providing certain assistance. The Foreign Assistance Act of  1961, as amended, prohibits assistance to a unit of a foreign  government’s security forces if the Secretary of State has credible  information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human  rights. DOD–funded training programs are covered by a similar  provision. These requirements are commonly referred to as Leahy laws.

As we have previously reported, these laws and the corresponding  policies developed to enforce and supplement these laws are intended to  leverage U.S. assistance to encourage foreign governments to prevent  their security forces from committing human rights violations and to hold  their forces accountable when violations occur. To address  requirements under both the State and DOD Leahy laws, State has  established a process for vetting potential recipients of U.S. security  assistance training. State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and  Labor (DRL) is responsible for overseeing this vetting process and for  developing human rights vetting policies, among other duties.

Human Rights Training Involves Multiple DOD and State Entities and Is Delivered by a Number of Training Providers

Multiple DOD and State Entities Are Involved with Human Rights Training

DOD incorporates human rights training as part of a wide range of  assistance programs that involve a number of DOD entities in different  capacities. (See table 2).

State incorporates rule of law assistance and human rights training as  part of a wide range of assistance programs that involve a number of  State entities in different capacities. (See table 3).

Numerous Training Providers Deliver Human Rights Training for Foreign Security Forces but a Few Deliver the Majority

DOD operates a number of education facilities that provide training to  foreign security forces and many include human rights–related material in  their curriculum. However, there are a few training providers that deliver  the majority of human rights training through courses explicitly focused on  such topics as well as in courses and residential programs that include  related material. In addition, State provides some human rights training  through the International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEA).

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS): DIILS is  housed under DSCA and is DOD’s lead resource for providing legal  education and rule of law engagement training to foreign military  personnel and civilian defense officials. DIILS delivers its training  primarily through either in-residence courses—for which members of  foreign security forces attend trainings at the DIILS campus—or through  mobile education training that is delivered to foreign military forces  overseas. DIILS provides three types of training: (1) core rule of law  training in the United States and abroad, (2) defense institution building,  and (3) mandated human rights training delivered under Section 333.  DIILS is the only institute to provide the mandated human rights training  delivered under Section 333. DOD officials said there are no plans for  other facilities to be certified to meet these training requirements.

Mandated Human Rights Training Provided by DIILS: In response to  the increased demand for mandated human rights training, DIILS created  a three–tiered training model to deliver mandated human rights training,  according to DIILS officials, who also noted that DIILS is in the early  stages of applying the model. The three–tiered training model categorizes  mandated human rights training according to basic, intermediate, and  advanced trainings. Basic training includes a 2-hour block of scripted  coursework which is dedicated to general topics covering human rights  and is appropriate when providing training to military units who are not  dealing with a combat environment, for example. Military officials without  legal training or nonattorney civilian personnel—including contractors— may conduct this training. Intermediate and advanced training is typically  8 or 16 hours of training, respectively, and instruction is provided by DIILS  staff and other military attorneys. According to DIILS officials, each  intermediate or advanced training is intended to be tailored for the  recipient military unit based on an assessment of its duties and the  lethality of any equipment provided through the security assistance.

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC):  WHINSEC, also operated by DOD, provides professional education and  training, including human rights training, for military and law enforcement  personnel from countries in the Western Hemisphere. The Institute’s  Center for Human Rights and Democracy promotes human rights  education and training through international programs and partnerships.  Curriculum developed by the Center includes topics such as the lawful  use of lethal force, due process under international human rights law, and  violence against women and vulnerable groups.

Examples of WHINSEC’s Human Rights Training: To meet its statutory  requirement to provide human rights training, WHINSEC provides a  mandatory, 10-hour training on human rights for every student. This  training covers five objectives: (1) human rights, (2) the rule of law,  (3) due process (4) civilian control of the military, and (5) the role of the  military in a democratic society. Additionally, WHINSEC students are  required to take an ethics course that builds on the material covered in  the human rights and democracy classes. WHINSEC also includes  human rights–related material in a number of other courses. For example,  the Counter Transnational Threats course focuses on threat interdiction  activities using simulated exercises and scenarios. WHINSEC officials  explained that one such scenario involves students conducting a  simulated raid of a drug lab. (See fig. 1). During the exercise, students  encounter armed and unarmed criminals, along with civilians. The  simulation is intended to create real–world human rights scenarios for  students to assess and apply lessons learned from classroom–based  human rights training.

Center for Civil–Military Relations (CCMR): CCMR is a DOD  organization within the Naval Postgraduate School. CCMR was designed  to support the goals of E-IMET and strengthen civil–military relationships  through a variety of education and training programs. Additionally, CCMR  focuses on defense institution building activities provided under DOD’s  Title 10 authority. Like DIILS, CCMR delivers in-residence programs and  mobile education training.

Examples of CCMR’s Human Rights Training: CCMR officials said that  human rights–related material is included in many CCMR programs,  although it is not always an explicit focus. For example, although the  Maritime Security Program does not explicitly focus on human rights,  CCMR staff said that human rights–related topics are integrated into  various aspects of the program. One of the program’s modules focuses  on how to apply the appropriate use of force when enforcing international  and maritime law. CCMR staff said they use practical scenarios to prompt  discussion among classroom participants on techniques to avoid use of  lethal force. Participants might discuss how to respond if a potential  suicide vessel is approaching a ship, including the use of barriers or other  deterrents to prevent potential terrorist activity without use of lethal force.

Additional DOD Training Providers: A number of other DOD facilities  provide training to eligible foreign security forces that includes human  rights–related material. These facilities include:

Regional Centers: DOD operates five regional centers of strategic  studies, whose main purpose is to engage senior leaders in partner  countries. A common topic taught at Regional Centers includes civil– military relations, which generally contains information related to  human rights.

Judge Advocate General (JAG) schools: JAG schools train  students on the rules of armed conflict and international humanitarian  law; international students may attend these schools, according to  DOD officials.

Service War Colleges: The service war colleges educate  representatives of foreign security forces at a general level about U.S.  laws and policies. Human rights–related material may be included,  although DOD officials acknowledged such material is peripheral to  the main mission.

Defense Institute of Security Cooperation Studies (DISCS):  International partners who are interested in Foreign Military Sales  management participate in human rights training at DISCS. According  to DOD officials, DISCS trains hundreds of foreign partners each year  on military sales.

State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement  Affairs (INL): State INL funds human rights–related training that is  delivered by ILEAs. The ILEAs are a global network of training centers  with a mission to support emerging democracies; help promote U.S.  interests through international cooperation; and promote social, political,  and economic stability by combating crime. According to State, this  mission is met through strengthening the rule of law and stressing respect  for human dignity in law enforcement. ILEAs represent a major  component of training provided to foreign law enforcement entities, but do  not represent all human rights–related law enforcement training  supported by State.

DOD Does Not Systematically Track the Provision of Human Rights Training for Foreign Security Forces, but DOD and State Have Some Data on Funding

DOD Does Not Systematically Track Human Rights Training for Foreign Security Forces

DOD was unable to provide aggregate data on the extent of human rights  training for foreign security forces. According to agency officials, DOD  does not systematically track all human rights training in DOD systems.  As a result, DOD officials noted they were unaware of the full scope of the  agency’s human rights training. DOD officials said it is challenging to  track human rights training because many courses and training activities  might include human rights content. DOD training activities are tracked in  the Security Cooperation Training Management System (SC-TMS).  However, the tracking is focused on the training overall rather than on any  one component of the training conducted, such as human rights. For  example, a course at a Regional Center might include human rights– related topics in a civil–military relations class but DOD is not able to  identify such a course in SC-TMS or elsewhere as one that could be considered human rights training. DOD officials noted that while DOD is  not required to track all human rights training, DSCA and DIILS have  systems in place intended to track the provision of human rights training  mandated by Section 333, as described below.

DSCA uses a case management system to track the mandated human  rights training that DIILS provides under Section 333. However, limitations  in the implementation of this system have led to questions about the  completeness of the data. The case management system is used across  DOD to track and manage a range of security assistance programs, in  addition to DIILS training. The system is designed so that the  implementing entity enters information into the case management system  about the training or other security assistance programming provided.  However, DOD has not designated DIILS as an implementing agency  with authority to enter or edit data in the case management system. As a  result, for many years DIILS has relied on a different entity to enter  human rights training data into the system. DIILS officials said the U.S.  Navy’s agent for international education and training acted as the  implementing agency and entered data in the system for DIILS. Due to  DIILS’ inability to enter data or make changes in the case management  system, DIILS officials told us they have been unable to ensure that data  on DIILS training are properly entered.

In addition, although DSCA is the DOD entity with oversight  responsibilities for ensuring that Section 333 human rights training is  provided as appropriate, DSCA officials acknowledged that they did not  consistently take steps to monitor the accuracy and completeness of data  on the DIILS–provided Section 333 human rights training. DSCA officials  said that most of the DIILS trainings likely were entered into DOD’s data  system because policy and procedures for capturing training records  require it, such as the requirements spelled out in DOD’s Security  Assistance Management Manual. However, DSCA officials said they do  not have assurance that all trainings were entered as a matter of practice  because they lack a process to regularly review whether the training data  were captured as required.

DOD officials said as of fiscal year 2019, DSCA and DIILS are taking  steps to enable DIILS to enter human rights training data directly into the  case management system as an implementing agency, but this is still an  ongoing effort and not yet operational. In addition, as part of broader  changes implemented in 2019 related to how DIILS is funded, the Navy  agent is no longer entering information into the case management system  about training DIILS provides under Section 333. In the meantime,  DIILS continues to track the provision of training using an internal  spreadsheet, according to officials, and plans to enter training data into  the case management system when they get access as an implementing  agency.

Federal standards for internal control state that management should use  quality information and design appropriate types of control activities in the  entity’s information systems to achieve objectives and ensure quality  external reporting. In the case of human rights training, DOD officials  acknowledged that they do not have a process to ensure that information  on mandated human rights training is systematically and accurately  entered into its tracking systems. Without such a process, DOD is limited  in its ability to monitor compliance with the statutory requirement that  Section 333 assistance include a human rights training component.

DOD Has Some Data on Funding for Mandated Human Rights Training

DOD tracks and reports funding for mandated human rights training at a  global level, but not by country and program, although DOD is taking  steps to do so. DSCA has published periodic reports that include global  funding information for Section 333 activities, including the mandated  human rights training. In 2016, Congress required the Director of DSCA  to publish quarterly monitoring reports on the status of funding allocated for Section 333 activities. DSCA published three quarterly monitoring  reports in fiscal year 2018, which identified the amount of unobligated  funds, disbursements, and unliquidated obligations for Section 333  activities. According to the monitoring report from the third quarter of  fiscal year 2018, year-to-date unobligated funds for human rights training  totaled over $2 million dollars, disbursements totaled about $17,000, and  unliquidated obligations totaled about $200,000. The funding data for  human rights training is generally reported globally in these reports, not  by a specific program or country.

DOD could not provide the information we requested on funds obligated  and disbursed for mandated human rights training, by program and  country, for fiscal years 2015 through 2018. DSCA officials said they  could not provide these data because it was challenging to pull this type  of information from their systems in a usable way. Further, DOD officials  noted that their previous accounting system made it challenging to obtain  funding data easily.

DSCA and DIILS transitioned to a new accounting system in 2017 which,  according to DSCA officials, was expected to provide more detailed  information on the status of funding for human rights training. However,  DOD officials said that the transition to the new accounting system  introduced errors in the data and DIILS staff are still working through a  learning curve in adopting the new system. Under the new accounting  system, DIILS is to enter information using a unique program and task- naming convention. DSCA officials said the new accounting system,  when fully implemented, is expected to allow both DSCA and DIILS to  track funds according to the specific recipient country and Section 333  security assistance program, which would better enable DOD and others  to effectively monitor the status of funds dedicated to these efforts.

State Relies on DOD to Track Training for Military Forces and Tracks Some Human Rights Training and Funding Data for Police

State officials said they rely on DOD to track funding and information on  the Title 22 authorities that DOD implements, including IMET, which State  officials said is its most substantial source of human rights–related  training for foreign military forces. DOD provided information on the  funding for certified E-IMET courses in recent years.  However,  according to DOD officials, not all E-IMET courses are related to human  rights.

State INL maintains data on human rights–related training delivered by  ILEAs, which is a major component of training provided to foreign law  enforcement entities. In September 2018, we reported that while INL  collects data for certain types of police training, such as training provided  through the ILEA program, they do not have reliable information readily  available on police trained through INL–funded projects. We  recommended that State develop and implement a process to collect  more reliable data on the number of police trained in El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras, the geographic focus of that review. State  concurred with our recommendation and stated that it is in the process of  developing specific indicators related to police training.

According to our review of State data on human rights–related training  delivered by ILEAs, State supported human rights training for over 5,400  law enforcement personnel from over 100 countries at ILEAs from fiscal  years 2015 through 2017. (See fig. 2.)

State identified 31 trainings provided by ILEAs that included human rights  topics. (See table 4). According to State, the course that received the  most funding—Law Enforcement and Leadership Development—is not  expressly focused on human rights but is a 6-week long course that  includes human rights concepts in different modules.

State provided approximately $34.4 million for such training to foreign law  enforcement entities at ILEAS from fiscal years 2015 through 2017. (See  fig. 3.)

DOD and State Have Not Evaluated the Effectiveness of Human Rights Training

Neither DOD nor State Has Evaluated the Effectiveness of Human Rights Training

Although officials at both agencies identified examples of past monitoring  and evaluation (M&E)–related efforts for security assistance programs,  DOD and State officials acknowledged that they have not assessed the  effectiveness of human rights training for foreign security forces provided  as part of such programs.

DOD. DOD officials cited student surveys and after-action reports—which  are summaries of the training events, training outcomes, challenges  encountered, and further actions to be taken that are prepared by course  facilitators—as examples of M&E–related efforts:

At DIILS, course facilitators use surveys to solicit student feedback on  courses and on the relevance of the course materials. They also use  after-action reports, which, according to officials, provide continuity  and capture lessons learned from human rights training in partner  countries for DIILS facilitators who will be traveling to those countries  in the future.

At CCMR, according to CCMR officials, training facilitators prepare  after-action reports for each course that involves human rights  content. They also solicit input from the security cooperation officers  in the country where the training took place.

At the U.S. Africa Command, officials also said that they prepare  after-action reports on DIILS–provided mandated human rights  training, which they share with DIILS. Officials said these reports often  discuss improvements needed with regard to logistics planning for  human right training that DOD provides in African countries.

State. Examples of related M&E efforts that State has conducted include  a multi-year survey of IMET and evaluations of some security assistance  programs. For example, State and DOD funded a survey of IMET  graduates which DOD entities conducted and covered the period from  2007 through 2014. The multi-year survey measured, among other things,  if graduates reported an improved understanding of internationally  recognized human rights.

DOD Is Developing an Approach for Monitoring and Evaluating Security Assistance Programs, but Has Not Established a Timeline for Assessing Human Rights Training

According to DOD officials, DOD is beginning to develop a new M&E  approach for DOD’s security assistance programs. However, DOD has  not established a timeline for evaluating the effectiveness of human rights  training for foreign security forces that is often included as part of such  assistance.

The 2017 NDAA, enacted in December 2016, requires DOD to conduct  assessment, monitoring, and evaluation of its security assistance  programs and activities. The steps DOD is taking to implement the 2017  NDAA M&E requirements include:

Policy guidance: DOD issued Instruction 5132.14: Assessment,  Monitoring, and Evaluation Policy for the Security Cooperation  Enterprise in January 2017. The instruction states that M&E will foster  accurate and transparent reporting to key stakeholders on the  outcomes and sustainability of security cooperation and improve  returns on DOD security cooperation investments. The new M&E  requirements are intended to include centralized, independent, and  rigorous evaluations of significant security cooperation initiatives to  examine their relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability, among  other things. DOD officials said that they planned to develop  additional guidance to meet the mandated M&E requirements for  security assistance, which includes human rights training.

Security assistance guidelines: Based on new security assistance  guidelines, DOD developed templates for documents that combatant  commands are required to complete when planning security  assistance activities. These templates for initial assessment and  initiative design documents (including for rule of law and human rights  training) incorporate M&E into design and planning of security  assistance programs and activities. Geographic combatant  commands are required to submit these documents to DSCA for  projects that are developed in fiscal year 2019 and will be  implemented beginning in fiscal year 2020.

Draft evaluation agenda: In 2018, DOD prepared a draft evaluation  agenda which outlines notional timeframes for evaluations. However,  DOD officials could not specify when they plan to finalize the agenda,  and as of April 2019 could not tell us when DOD planned to begin  monitoring and evaluating human rights training for foreign security  forces because they have not developed a timeline for doing so.

According to DOD officials, DOD is in the initial phase of developing its  overall approach to monitoring and evaluating security assistance, of  which human rights training is a small part. The 2019 NDAA, enacted in  2018, requires, as a condition for expending 50 percent of DOD  operations and maintenance funds made available for Section 333  assistance, that DOD establish a written plan describing, among other  things, evaluation activities planned for security assistance programs for  fiscal year 2019. In addition, according to the Office of Management and  Budget’s monitoring and evaluation guidelines for the federal government  entities providing foreign assistance, agencies should establish annual  monitoring and evaluation objectives and timetables to plan and manage  the process of monitoring, evaluating, analyzing progress, and applying  learning toward achieving results. Developing a timeline for  implementing its activities to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of  human rights training, which could be done as part of DOD’s monitoring  and evaluation of its broader security assistance efforts, would provide  greater assurance that DOD will complete M&E requirements.

State Does Not Have a Plan with a Timeline for Evaluating Human Rights Training Provided under IMET

According to State officials, they have not established a plan, with a clear  timeline, for evaluating the effectiveness of human rights training provided  as part of IMET. Officials from State’s Bureau of Political–Military Affairs  (PM) acknowledged that State’s responsibilities for IMET include M&E of  the program. According to these officials, PM is in the initial phase of  developing M&E of its security assistance programs, including IMET.  They stated that for this reason PM is not currently planning to evaluate  human rights training provided under IMET. Although DOD implements  IMET, PM has overall responsibility for the program.

According to State’s January 2018 Guidance for the Design, Monitoring  and Evaluation Policy at the Department of State, it is essential that  bureaus and independent offices have comprehensive plans for  monitoring and evaluating all their programs and projects, and the plans  should include, among other things, an implementation schedule. An  M&E plan with a clear timeline for human rights training provided under  IMET will better position State and DOD to determine the effectiveness of  a significant component of U.S. human rights training for foreign militaries  and identify areas for improvement. Additionally, an evaluation of the  effectiveness of the human rights training would provide other important  stakeholders, including Congress, with evidence to better inform  decisions about U.S.–funded human rights training provided under IMET.  Such an evaluation could be done as part of State’s broader effort to  evaluate IMET.

DOD and State Officials and Experts Identified Challenges to Achieving Human Rights Objectives through Training

According to DOD and State officials and outside experts we interviewed,  there are several challenges to achieving human rights objectives—such  as a decrease in human rights violations or promoting greater respect for  human rights—through training alone. Such challenges include tailoring  training to the partner nation, integrating it into operational training, and a  lack of capabilities and accountability systems on the part of partner  nations.

Agency officials and outside experts we spoke with stated that it can be  challenging to tailor human rights training to the partner nation, the unit  receiving assistance, and, when appropriate, the type of equipment being  provided. DIILS has developed a three–tiered training model to meet the  requirements of Section 333, as discussed above, and DIILS officials  stated that they work to tailor trainings to the extent possible, including by  selecting trainers with experience relevant to the equipment that the U.S.  government provides and adding additional training when needed.  However, agency officials and experts stated that DIILS, as a small entity,  has limited capacity to tailor human rights trainings for specific situations,  especially since DIILS must cover certain material to meet the Section  333 requirements.

In addition, DIILS’ ability to tailor training is limited because, according to  agency officials, mandated human rights training—typically a classroom  course—is generally added to a security assistance package for a partner  nation once the planning process has been completed. Since the human  rights training is not integrated when the security assistance is planned, it  is not generally feasible to adjust the training after the fact to address a  specific situation in a given partner country, according to DOD officials.  DSCA officials acknowledged that most human rights training is not  sufficiently tailored to the needs of the recipient countries and that they  have not yet fully incorporated human rights training considerations into  security assistance planning. These officials said more work remains to  be done to ensure that assistance under the Section 333 authority include  comprehensive human rights training designed to meet specific partner  nation needs.

Agency officials and outside experts we interviewed stated that it can be  challenging to achieve human rights objectives through human rights  training as currently delivered because mandated human rights training is  typically delivered as a stand–alone course in a classroom setting, rather  than integrated into operational training. Agency officials stated that  integrated training can be more effective because it would expose  participants to practical skills that could help them comply with human  rights concepts and avoid human rights violations during military or law  enforcement operations. For example, State officials said that operational  training on how to run a checkpoint while respecting human rights  principles is likely to be more effective than training slides that outline  international treaties on human rights.

Agency officials and outside experts also stated that partner nations may  lack capabilities and accountability systems. A military justice system  might not hold responsible soldiers who commit human rights violations.  A partner nation may lack equipment, experienced personnel, and  planning for precision targeting to avoid civilian casualties. Further,  partner nations may lack the political will to focus on human rights, and  poorly–resourced security forces might see human rights as a low priority.  Agency officials and outside experts said that without defense institution  building that would address some of these broader systemic issues,  human rights training may be less likely to have an effect in some  countries. Finally, agency officials noted that in some instances,  competing priorities necessitate prioritizing U.S. national security interests  when providing security assistance, with human rights receiving less  emphasis.

Instilling respect for human rights in our foreign partners is important to  achieving U.S. foreign policy goals. Human rights training that DOD and  State provide is one means to do so, but DOD and State are unable to  provide a comprehensive accounting of the full array of human rights  training they support. With the demand for human rights training  increasing as a result of Section 333, a process to ensure training  information is systematically tracked would provide DOD greater  assurance that it is complying with the statutory requirement to provide  human rights training as a component of Section 333 assistance.  Furthermore, DOD and State are not able to provide stakeholders,  including Congress, with an evaluation of the effectiveness of human  rights training the agencies support. Without monitoring and evaluation,  decision–makers may be unable to identify whether human rights training  provided through Section 333, IMET, and other authorities is achieving  objectives and whether it could be adjusted for greater effectiveness.

We are making a total of three recommendations, including two to DOD  and one to State. Specifically:  The Secretary of Defense should direct the Director of the Defense  Security Cooperation Agency to establish processes to ensure that  information on the provision of Section 333 mandated human rights  training is systematically and accurately entered into its tracking systems.  (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense  for Policy to develop a timeline for implementing its activities to monitor  and evaluate the effectiveness of human rights training for foreign  security forces. (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense,  should develop a plan with a clear timeline for monitoring and evaluating  the effectiveness of human rights training for foreign security forces  provided under IMET. (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DOD and  State. DOD concurred with the two recommendations directed to the  Secretary of Defense and identified actions it plans to take to address  them. Regarding the recommendation to monitor and evaluate human  rights training, DOD stated that it would do so as part of monitoring and  evaluating its broader security assistance efforts. DOD’s written  comments are reproduced in appendix II. State disagreed with the  recommendation directed to the Secretary of State. State’s written  comments are reproduced in appendix III.

In its comments, State acknowledged that human rights training is a vital  element of IMET programs and agreed with the need to monitor and  evaluate the effectiveness of training—including human rights training— delivered through IMET. However, the department stated that it did not  agree to separately conduct monitoring and evaluation of human rights  training for IMET participants. Our recommendation for State to develop a  plan with a timeline to evaluate the effectiveness of human rights training  provided under IMET does not call for a separate evaluation. State could  meet the intent of our recommendation through evaluating the  effectiveness of human rights training as part of its broader efforts to  monitor and evaluate IMET. We added a statement to the report to that  effect.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretaries of Defense and State, and other interested  parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact  Jennifer Grover at 202-512-7141 or groverj@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report (1) describes the entities through which the Department of  Defense (DOD) and the Department of State (State) provide training for  foreign security forces on human rights and international humanitarian  law; (2) assesses the extent to which DOD and State track the provision  of and funding for the training; and (3) examines the extent to which DOD  and State have evaluated the effectiveness of the training; and  (4) provides DOD, State, and outside expert views on human rights  training.

To address these objectives, we reviewed laws, guidance, budget  documents, course catalogs, and agency data. We also interviewed  agency officials in Washington, D.C., and at DOD geographic combatant  commands. In addition, we conducted site visits at three facilities that  provide human rights training: the Center for Civil–Military Relations  (CCMR) in Monterey, California; the Defense Institute of International  Legal Studies (DIILS) in Newport, Rhode Island; and the Western  Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in Fort  Benning, Georgia.

To address the structures through which DOD and State provide training  for foreign security forces on human rights and international humanitarian  law, we also reviewed course catalogs and interviewed DOD officials from  several DOD entities, including the Defense Security Cooperation  Agency; the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; U.S.  Africa Command; U.S. Indo-Pacific Command; and CCMR, DIILS, and  WHINSEC. At State, we interviewed officials from the Bureaus of  Political–Military Affairs; Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; and  International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs; and the Office of  Foreign Assistance Resources.

To address what is known about tracking and funding for the training,  including whether and how DOD comprehensively tracks human rights  training, we reviewed DOD guidance and interviewed DOD officials and  training providers. With the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act  (NDAA) consolidating authorities—codified at 10 U.S.C. § 333—and the  resulting increase in demand for the human rights training DIILS provides  under that authority, we then focused on the ways in which that training  and its funding is tracked in DOD systems. We reviewed agency  documents, including congressional notifications and quarterly monitoring  reports, to review how the training data are reported. We also reviewed  federal internal control standards to determine what responsibilities  agencies have related to information collection and communication.

To assess the extent to which DOD and State have evaluated the  effectiveness of the training, we reviewed monitoring and evaluation  (M&E) policy and guidance documents and other relevant documents. We  interviewed DOD and State officials about their current and planned  actions to monitor and evaluate human rights training as well as  examples of M&E-related efforts for security assistance programs that  include human rights training. We also reviewed legislation, including the  2017 and 2019 NDAAs, which outline M&E requirements for DOD’s  security assistance. In addition, we reviewed State’s January 2018  Guidance for the Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Policy at the  Department of State to determine M&E requirements for State.

To collect information on DOD, State, and outside expert perspectives of  human rights training provided to foreign security forces, we conducted  individual semistructured interviews with selected stakeholders, including  agency officials and outside experts, who consisted of former government  officials and representatives of nongovernmental organizations and think  tanks. To identify outside experts, we asked stakeholders, including  current government officials, to recommend other stakeholders we should  speak with (i.e., snowball sampling). In our interviews, we collected  information on perspectives of factors that could potentially enhance the  effectiveness of human rights training and challenges to achieving human  rights objectives through such training. The information we obtained from  these stakeholders cannot be generalized across all stakeholders.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Jennifer A. Grover, 202-512-7141 or groverj@gao.gov.

In addition to the contacts named above, Juan Gobel, Christina Werth,  Emily Desai, Sada Aksartova, James McCully, David Payne, Neil  Doherty, John Hussey, Mark Dowling, and Rachel Stoiko contributed to  this report.

Promoting respect for human rights is a U.S. foreign policy goal. The United States includes human rights training when training foreign security forces.

A 2017 law required DOD to evaluate its security cooperation programs, including its human rights training. DOD and State have not evaluated the effectiveness of their human rights training.

We made 3 recommendations, including that the agencies establish timelines for evaluating human rights training.