Rule of Law Assistance: Agency Efforts Are Guided by Various Strategies, and Overseas Missions Should Ensure that Programming Is Fully Coordinated

Rule of law strengthens protection of fundamental rights, ensures a robust civil society, and serves as a foundation for democratic governance and economic growth. According to State, countries with a strong rule of law provide a more level playing field for American businesses to engage and compete, and countries with a weak rule of law can potentially export transnational threats and economic insecurity, undermining the interests of the United States.

GAO was asked to review U.S. rule of law assistance around the world. This report examines (1) how State and USAID allocated funds for this assistance in fiscal years 2014 through 2018, (2) how agencies strategically plan and allocate this assistance globally, and (3) what processes agencies have to design, implement, and coordinate this assistance in selected countries.

GAO reviewed State, USAID, and DOJ documents and data for fiscal years 2014 through 2018 and interviewed officials in Colombia, Kosovo, Liberia, the Philippines, and Washington, D.C. GAO chose these countries on the basis of funding amounts and other factors.

The Department of State (State) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allocated more than $2.7 billion for rule of law assistance from fiscal years 2014 through 2018—the latest available data as of GAO's review. Of that, State allocated over $2 billion and USAID allocated over $700 million. State and USAID funded some of these programs through the Department of Justice (DOJ). Rule of law assistance funded a variety of activities including improving justice institutions, legal reform, and promoting a culture of lawfulness. The agencies implemented these programs globally but allocated most funds to the Western Hemisphere and Afghanistan.

After Congress appropriates funding, agencies determine rule of law allocations through the foreign assistance budget process. State and USAID identify rule of law as a goal in agency-wide strategic documents and hold an annual interagency roundtable regarding rule of law assistance to determine those allocations. Rule of law assistance is guided by national and agency-, bureau-, and mission-specific strategies that are linked to the national security goals of the United States. These strategies discuss the agencies' roles and responsibilities in improving the rule of law.

State and USAID guidance highlights the importance of coordination between agencies as they design and implement rule of law assistance, but not all agencies are included in some of the key coordination mechanisms used in four countries GAO selected for review. Agency officials in the selected countries cited the use of some informal and formal coordination practices, such as the use of law enforcement working groups, but State policy does not require all entities that may be involved in rule of law assistance to participate in these working groups. For example, in three of the four selected countries, officials described coordinating rule of law assistance, in part, through these working groups, which may not include critical agencies such as USAID. According to State policy, these working groups are designed to achieve other goals using agencies and offices that are not involved in providing rule of law assistance. Without verifying that interagency coordination includes all relevant entities, missions may not know whether they are fully leveraging interagency resources or ensuring that they do not duplicate or overlap rule of law assistance.

GAO recommends that State require overseas missions where rule of law assistance funds have been allocated to assess whether this assistance is coordinated with all relevant interagency partners. State concurred with our recommendation.

The principle of the rule of law holds that all people are subject to and  equal before a nation’s laws. Promoting rule of law overseas is a critical  component of American foreign and national security policy. Rule of law  strengthens protection of fundamental rights, ensures a robust civil  society and independent media, and serves as a foundation for  democratic governance and economic growth. According to the  Department of State (State), strengthening judicial and legal systems in  certain countries is vital to U.S. national security interests. A justice  system that provides effective, accountable, and inclusive services for all  citizens and respects the rule of law is fundamental to peace and security,  crime and violence prevention, and combating extremism. States with  instability or weak rule of law can potentially export transnational threats  and economic insecurity to neighboring countries and undermine the  foreign policy interests of the United States. According to the U.S. Agency  for International Development (USAID), the rule of law is an important  development outcome in itself, as well as a means to ending poverty,  building resiliency, and supporting stability. Ensuring the capacity of the  justice sector to effectively investigate and prosecute crime, end impunity,  and deliver accountable and responsive services to citizens is critical to  supporting partner countries.

The United States provides country-level funding, training, and technical  assistance to establish or strengthen justice sector institutions and the  rule of law and help countries address political dysfunction, terrorism, and  transnational crime, among other challenges. For the purposes of this  report, State and USAID are the primary U.S. agency funders of rule of  law assistance, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) implements a  number of programs funded by the agencies.

You asked us to review U.S. rule of law assistance around the world. This  report examines (1) how much funding State and USAID allocated for rule  of law assistance in fiscal years 2014 through 2018, (2) how agencies  strategically plan and coordinate the allocation of rule of law assistance  globally, and (3) what processes agencies have to design, implement,  and coordinate rule of law assistance programs in selected countries.  This is the first of two reports that will address this issue.

To determine how much funding State and USAID allocated for rule of  law assistance in fiscal years 2014 through 2018—the latest available as  of our review—we reviewed allocation funding data provided by the State  office that is primarily responsible for tracking foreign assistance, the  Office of Foreign Assistance Resources (F). We used F’s Standard  Program Structure and Definition (SPSD) codes to identify rule of law  allocations by agency and recipient country. We also interviewed officials  in F to discuss the reliability of the allocation funding data. We cross- checked the allocations funding data with other funding data and  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our  reporting objective.

To examine how agencies strategically plan and coordinate the allocation  of rule of law assistance globally, we reviewed strategic plans and  guidance documents for State, USAID, and DOJ. We interviewed officials  in Washington, D.C. to determine how the agencies work together to plan  allocations of rule of law assistance around the world and how they  coordinate that assistance.

To examine the processes U.S. agencies have in place to design,  implement, and coordinate rule of law assistance, we reviewed rule of law  assistance provided to four selected countries: Colombia, Kosovo,  Liberia, and the Philippines. We selected these countries because they  represented various geographic regions and had significant rule of law  assistance allocations, which multiple agencies provided. We conducted  fieldwork in Kosovo, Liberia, and the Philippines, where we interviewed  U.S. agency officials, implementing partner organizations, international  donor organizations, and senior government officials. We held similar  meetings via teleconference with officials in Colombia. We also  conducted fieldwork in Ghana, where we visited the U.S.-funded Regional  Training Center, part of the International Law Enforcement Academy  Program. We reviewed the collaboration mechanisms outlined in the  2018-2022 State-USAID Joint Strategic Plan. A more detailed description  of our scope and methodology is included in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2018 to June 2020,  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.

Promoting the rule of law abroad has been a U.S. government priority for  decades. As early as 1985, rule of law was added to the Foreign  Assistance Act of 1961 as a policy priority. Prior to the 1990s, rule of law  assistance was primarily focused on activities in Latin America and the  Caribbean. With the end of the Cold War and subsequent collapse of the  Soviet Union, the U.S. government invested resources to support rule of  law and justice sector reform in Central and Eastern Europe. Following  the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Afghanistan became a primary  recipient country of U.S. rule of law assistance. The United States  continues to support rule of law activities around the world.

Agencies Involved in Rule of Law Assistance

Department of State’s Standardized  Definition of Rule of Law  Rule of law is a principle of governance under  which all persons, institutions and entities,  public and private, including the State itself,  are accountable to laws that are publicly  promulgated, independently adjudicated,  equally applied and enforced, and consistent  with international treaties and customary law.   Rule of law is demonstrated by adherence to  the principles of publicly accepted legitimacy  of the law, institutions, and process; checks  and balances on structures of power;  supremacy of the law; equality before the law;  accountability to the law; fairness; effective  application of the law; equitable access to  justice; participation in decision-making; legal  certainty; avoidance of arbitrariness; and  procedural and legal transparency.   Activities include support for strengthening of  judicial systems including court administration,  management, and operations; judicial  proceedings; constitutional and legal reform  efforts; judicial independence; access to  justice; and legal education and associations.

Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), also provide assistance that  can be related to improving the rule of law.

At each agency, several offices participate in rule of law assistance. The  Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) is the lead  office for rule of law within State. According to INL, it has three main  objectives related to rule of law assistance: (1) effectiveness, (2)  accountability, and (3) respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. One  principle that also guides INL’s rule of law assistance is effectively  coordinating assistance with other donors, other bureaus and offices  within State, and interagency partners, according to INL.

According to USAID, USAID designs, oversees and manages rule of law  programming primarily through country-level missions, which ensures  programming is tailored to local context. These programs are, in turn,  supported by Washington-based regional and pillar bureaus. As the home  base for USAID’s Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG)  programs, the DRG Center (1) leads USAID efforts to achieve self-reliant,  citizen-responsive, democratic societies that respect human dignity, rights  and the rule of law; (2) provides proactive and responsive technical  support to missions and bureaus on core DRG sectors, including rule of  law; and (3) conducts assessment, design, and evaluation of related DRG  programs around the world to support more effective, systemic, cost- efficient and sustainable development.

DOJ does not directly fund rule of law assistance, but its Office of  Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT)  and the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program  (ICITAP) implement activities funded by agencies such as State, USAID,  and DOD through interagency agreements.

State and USAID Allocated $2.7 Billion for Rule of Law Assistance in Fiscal Years 2014 through 2018, Mostly to Afghanistan and the Western Hemisphere

State and USAID Rule of Law Allocations Increased from Fiscal Years 2014 to 2018

From fiscal years 2014 through 2018, State and USAID allocated $2.7  billion for rule of law assistance, with annual allocations increasing from  $496 million in fiscal year 2014 to $551 million in fiscal year 2018, or 11  percent. Within this time period, allocations fluctuated. Specifically,  allocations increased by 20 percent from fiscal years 2014 through 2016,  and subsequently decreased by 7 percent from fiscal years 2016 through  2018. According to the Congressional Research Service, the fluctuations  in rule of law funding mirrored the fluctuations in foreign operations  appropriations, which also increased by 11 percent from fiscal years 2014  through 2018.

State allocated more than $2 billion from fiscal years 2014 through 2018  in that time period and USAID allocated over $700 million. See figure 1  for annual allocations by State and USAID for rule of law assistance from  fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

In fiscal year 2018, activities promoting justice systems and institutions  received more allocated funding than all other types of rule of law  assistance combined. Justice Systems and Institutions funds were  allocated toward activities such as improving the systems, capacity, and  sustainability of the civil and criminal justice sectors by harmonizing  policies, fostering public / private partnerships, providing training  programs, and strengthening administrative and operational systems.  Recipients of this assistance can include police forces, prosecutors,  judges, public defenders, bar associations, and training institutions. See  figure 2 for rule of law allocations by program element, and appendix II for  more information on how State and USAID track rule of law funding.

DOJ’s ICITAP and OPDAT track funding in obligations, not allocations.  According to DOJ, State and USAID used DOJ to implement certain rule  of law programs, obligating $691 million from fiscal year 2014 through  July 2019. Of this amount, $327.6 million went to ICITAP and $363.5  million went to OPDAT.

Majority of Rule of Law Assistance Funds Were Allocated to Programs in Afghanistan and the Western Hemisphere

From fiscal years 2014 through 2018, State and USAID allocated funds  for rule of law assistance to 20 regional or programmatic operating units  in Washington, D.C., and 72 field-based operating units, primarily  bilaterally to country missions. The top four recipients of rule of law  allocations were State’s Western Hemisphere Region and bilateral  programs in Afghanistan, Mexico, and Colombia. These four recipients  were allocated $1.7 billion of $2.7 billion, or 63 percent of the total rule of  law allocations from fiscal years 2014 through 2018. The top three  bilateral recipients, Afghanistan, Mexico, and Colombia, received 40  percent of rule of law assistance during this time period, which exceeded  the total allocation to all 69 other bilateral recipients combined. Figure 3  shows worldwide distribution of bilateral rule of law assistance allocations  from fiscal years 2014 through 2018. See appendix III for a complete list  of countries and regional programs listed by funds received.

Agencies Determine Allocations through the Annual Foreign Assistance Budget Process and Identify Rule of Law as a Goal in Strategic Documents

State and USAID Determine Rule of Law Assistance Allocations Worldwide through the Existing Annual Foreign Assistance Budget Process

State and USAID participate in an annual foreign assistance budget  process, managed by State’s F bureau, which determines the allocation  of foreign assistance funds for a variety of projects for all recipient  countries and programs worldwide. According to agency officials,  allocations of rule of law assistance are determined during this process.

Agencies develop budget requests on an annual basis, usually starting  this process 2 years before the start of any particular fiscal year.  According to agency officials, the requests begin with the overseas  missions providing annual reports and performance plans to State and  USAID headquarters. They said that, during this process, each mission  determines its need for financial resources related to foreign assistance,  including rule of law assistance. Officials also hold interagency roundtable  discussions regarding various aspects of foreign assistance. According to  State officials, State chairs a roundtable on rule of law assistance that  includes other interagency partners such as DOJ, DOD, MCC, and  others. According to these officials, this roundtable allows the relevant  agencies and bureaus to make decisions related to the amount of rule of  law assistance funding that goes to specific regions and countries and  align the funding with broader foreign assistance goals.

Each agency also compiles and analyzes these annual reports and  performance plans and provides initial budget requests to the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) in September. From September to  November, OMB reviews each agency’s budget request submission and  conducts analysis on how the budget requests align with the overall  federal budget. After OMB conducts its review, it communicates to each  agency the level of funding it can request from Congress. The President  usually submits the overall federal budget request to Congress on the first  Monday in February. As part of this request, each agency, including  State and USAID, provides a more detailed Congressional Budget  Justification that explains the need for specific funding levels to the  relevant congressional subcommittees. Once the House of  Representatives and the Senate agree on the language of the bills,  including the levels of funding, and pass the State and Foreign  Operations appropriations bill, the President can then sign it into law.

Once the President signs the State and Foreign Operations  appropriations bill into law, OMB apportions the amount of funds that  State, USAID, and other agencies may use. Agencies then allocate and  obligate these funds for certain programs. In the case of rule of law  assistance, these obligated funds are often used to engage in partnership  with implementing partners overseas through contracts, grants, or  cooperative agreements, according to agency officials.

State, USAID, and DOJ Have National and Agency-Specific Strategies on Rule of Law Assistance and Determine Roles and Responsibilities for Relevant Bureaus and Offices

Improving the rule of law in partner countries overseas is identified as an  important objective in several strategic documents including the 2017  National Security Strategy, the 2018-2022 State-USAID Joint Strategic  Plan, the 2018-2022 DOJ Strategic Plan, and bureau-specific plans. Each  of these strategic documents is linked to U.S. national security goals and  discuss U.S. agencies’ roles in improving the rule of law in partner  countries. See figure 4.

2017 National Security Strategy. This strategy identifies the rule of law as  a central U.S. governing principle and a part of the foundation of  American alliances overseas. It also states that the United States should  provide assistance to support democracy and rule of law in partner  countries.

2018-2020 State-USAID Joint Strategic Plan. This plan articulates the  importance of improving the rule of law in partner countries overseas and  identifies this as a strategic objective. It also requires coordination  between the two agencies to deliver sustainable assistance that  strengthens their democratic institutions. The plan also calls for State and  USAID to work together at the country level to develop country-specific  strategies that ensure investments are sustainable and that results are  valued by partner countries.

Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM). The FAM includes specific roles and  responsibilities for rule of law assistance and notes that the lead office for  such assistance, INL, is responsible for, among other things, the  “development of assistance programs directed at U.S. Government  objectives abroad on international criminal justice issues.”

Bureau-specific plans and documents. INL and several other State  bureaus also have their own strategic documents with elements that  relate to the provision of rule of law assistance. Specifically:  INL’s Functional Bureau Strategy provides a framework for connecting  its responsibility for providing rule of law assistance with its specific  programs overseas. The strategy also defines how the bureau  matches U.S. foreign policy goals with its foreign assistance portfolio,  including its allocation to rule of law assistance.

State’s other functional bureaus and offices are guided by strategic  documents that relate to rule of law assistance. According to State  officials, programs provided by these bureaus and offices can touch  on rule of law-related efforts such as training on techniques related to  investigating and prosecuting trafficking cases. These bureaus include  the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; the Bureau of  Counterterrorism; and the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in  Persons.

State’s regional bureaus are also guided by strategic documents that  can relate to rule of law assistance. For example, the Joint Regional  Strategy for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs includes a  strategic goal related to protecting core U.S. interests by advancing  democracy and human rights and strengthening civil society.

USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance. This  strategy identifies the strengthening of institutions that enable the rule of  law as part of USAID’s work to foster greater accountability of leaders to  citizens and the law. USAID programs are designed to strengthen the  institutional and decisional independence of judiciaries, develop judicial  self-governance, and introduce best practices in judicial effectiveness.  The strategy also states that USAID will continue to offer timely support  for institutional development of oversight bodies, including legislatures  and auditor general’s offices.  2017 DOJ Strategic Plan. The strategic plan identifies the development of  rule of law as a key responsibility for DOJ. According to DOJ officials,  DOJ has two main offices that provide rule of law assistance. Both of  these offices are within DOJ’s Criminal Division.

ICITAP. This office works with foreign governments to develop  professional and transparent law enforcement institutions that protect  human rights, combat corruption, and reduce the threat of transnational  crime and terrorism. ICITAP focuses on law enforcement, correctional  institutions, and forensics (whereas OPDAT works primarily with  prosecutors and courts). According to DOJ, ICITAP and OPDAT often  coordinate their rule of law assistance efforts and pursue a  comprehensive approach to criminal justice reform in countries with both  a Resident Legal Advisor and an ICITAP advisor. ICITAP programs are  implemented by a combination of federal employees and contractors.

OPDAT. According to DOJ officials, OPDAT builds foreign partners who  can work with the U.S. agencies to enhance cooperation in transnational  cases and to fight crime before it reaches the United States. OPDAT has  Resident Legal Advisors, Intermittent Legal Advisors, and International  Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Advisors posted at U.S.  embassies overseas who provide assistance and case-based mentoring  to foreign counterparts to develop justice systems that can combat  transnational crime, corruption, and terrorism consistent with the rule of  law. According to these officials, OPDAT’s efforts and programming align  with, reinforce, and further U.S. law enforcement and national security  objectives.

In Selected Countries, Missions Developed Interagency Strategies and Two Developed Issue- Specific Strategies to Guide Rule of Law Assistance

Mission-Wide Strategies We Reviewed Address Rule of Law

The Integrated Country Strategy (ICS) outlines goals and objectives for  country-level priorities, such as rule of law assistance. The ICS is  developed jointly by State and USAID in the country mission and  establishes overall goals and objectives of the U.S. government in the  particular country. The ICSs are 4-year strategic plans for whole-of- government priorities in a given country. According to State, the goals  and objectives in the ICS are linked to and informed by the National  Security Strategy, the State/USAID Joint Strategic Plan, and department  regional and functional bureau strategies. ICS documents are organized  around higher-level goals to be achieved by meeting objectives and sub- objectives. For example:  In Kosovo, the ICS lists two objectives that help achieve the goal of  improved rule of law: (1) ensuring that all Kosovo’s citizens have  access to reliable, transparent, and accountable governance and  justice and that it is responsive to citizens’ needs, and (2) improving  delivery of services, implementation of laws and regulations, and  committing to countering corruption.

In Colombia, the goal to advance Colombia’s capacity to strengthen  governance includes the objective of extending the effective presence  of democratic institutions and processes, such as the rule of law.

To further detail USAID’s in-country efforts, USAID develops a Country  Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) to plan agency goals and  objectives, which are achieved by meeting intermediate and sub- intermediate results for its work in a specific country, such as the  provision of rule of law assistance. According to USAID, the CDCS  objectives are integrated into the ICS and inform overall rule of law  assistance goals and strategy. Some examples include the following:  In Liberia, the 2013-2019 CDCS states that the overall goal of  “Strengthened Liberian Institutions” should be reached by achieving,  among others, the development objective of more effective,  accountable, and inclusive governance. This development objective  would in turn be achieved by meeting, among others, the intermediate  result of increased access to justice, according to the CDCS.

In the Philippines, the 2013-2019 CDCS includes the sub-intermediate  result of “judicial efficiency improved” as supporting the intermediate  result of “economic competitiveness enhanced.” This intermediate  result must be reached to achieve the development objective of  broad-based and inclusive growth, which in turn contributes to the  goal of a more stable, prosperous and well-governed Philippines,  according to the CDCS.

The mission-wide strategies for the four selected countries varied in how  they prioritized rule of law assistance. In Kosovo, Liberia, and the  Philippines rule of law was a higher-level priority, such as a goal in the  ICS or development objective in the CDCS. In Colombia, the ICS includes  improving rule of law as an objective, but not a main goal, and the CDCS  lists rule of law as a sub-intermediate result.

Two Missions We Reviewed Developed Strategies Specific to Rule of Law

Depending on the emphasis of rule of law assistance in a particular  country, the in-country mission may develop strategies, in addition to the  ICS and CDCS, to address a specific priority such as rule of law. In two of  the four selected countries, we found that missions had developed  additional strategic documents specific to rule of law assistance.

In Kosovo, the mission developed a specific rule of law strategy  document to guide activities across State, USAID, and DOJ in support  of the rule of law goal in the ICS.

In Colombia, State and USAID developed a mission rule of law  strategy in 2015. In addition, agency officials said they had adapted  strategies to fit changing contexts. For example, when a spate of  violence targeted human rights defenders and social activists in 2018,  the mission in Colombia developed a human rights strategy as a  supplement to the rule of law strategy.

Agencies in Selected Countries Use Similar Processes to Design and Implement Rule of Law Assistance, but the Sufficiency of Interagency Coordination Is Unknown Agencies Use Similar Approaches to Identify Needs, Design Programs, and Execute Activities to Implement Rule of Law Assistance in Selected Countries

State, USAID, and DOJ conduct assessments, consult with host  governments, and use interagency reviews to identify local rule of law  needs. Agency officials noted that local context affects the nature of rule  of law programs, and that needs assessments are critical to  understanding this context. While each country faces unique and specific  rule of law challenges, and agencies have flexibility to conduct foreign  assistance as they deem appropriate, some key interventions are  consistent across several or all of the selected countries. See appendix IV  for more information on key interventions and priority issues in each  selected country.

Assessments. State and USAID officials said that they can identify  needs by conducting assessments of the rule of law in some of the  countries we reviewed. They also sometimes contract with other  organizations to conduct these assessments as part of the broader  contract for a program. DOJ noted that they have used these  assessments as an initial baseline against which to evaluate progress,  identify critical local assistance needs, inform development of mission  strategies such as the ICS and CDCS, and prepare for future  activities. According to U.S. officials, program implementing partners  can also use assessments to prepare for specific projects and  activities according to the terms of grants and contracts with U.S.  government agencies. For example, according to officials:  In Colombia, State concluded a letter of agreement with the Pan  American Development Foundation to conduct an assessment of  the function of the local justice sector. Following this assessment,  INL officials said they funded a project with the foundation to  strengthen the capacity of Colombia’s Attorney General to  address issues related to the original assessment.

Also in Colombia, USAID’s Justice for Sustainable Peace program  conducted a local justice study with civil society organizations and  academic experts in 45 municipalities and also conducted six  regional political economy analyses during the initial phase of the  project, among other analytical tools that shaped the project’s  implementation.

In the Philippines, a USAID assessment of closed cases and  similar studies supported by the World Bank showed that judicial  inefficiency was the most serious concern of litigants.  Subsequently, USAID officials said they designed and funded a  project intended to, among other things, address the two most  significant results of inefficiency: docket congestion and court  delay. They did this through supporting case inventories and  disposition, streamlined litigation procedures, and automated case  management. Late in fiscal year 2018, USAID also funded a  project to improve access to justice by increasing access to legal  information and assistance, and strengthening formal and informal  alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

Host government consultation. U.S. officials said they have also  involved the host government in identifying rule of law needs. For  example:  In Liberia, USAID worked closely with the Liberian government  while preparing the 5-year CDCS to best capture local views on  justice sector needs, according to USAID officials.

In the Philippines, DOJ followed up judicial and prosecutor  trainings with informal conversations to elicit local official views on  rule of law needs and gaps, according to DOJ officials. According  to USAID officials, USAID and the government of the Philippines  convened interagency meetings consisting of justice system  stakeholders to jointly develop the Joint Country Action Plan which  includes rule of law priorities and programmatic activities.

In Colombia, USAID and the Colombian Ombudsman’s Office  jointly identify overlapping areas of interest and develop programs  that fit these priorities, according to USAID officials.

Interagency review. U.S. officials described collaborative efforts  used at missions to identify local rule of law needs. For example:  In the Philippines, officials from State, USAID, and DOJ discuss  local needs and capacity gaps in the Law Enforcement Working  Group and ad-hoc rule of law technical panels. Agency officials  noted that, unlike an independent assessment, these groups  review proposed and ongoing activities to ensure they meet  technical needs identified by all agencies, including potential  projects before solicitations for proposals are made public.

In Kosovo, U.S. officials who participate in the rule of law working  group jointly discuss potential needs and areas of intervention for  local rule of law assistance.

Also in the Philippines, State and USAID officials jointly serve on  technical evaluation committees to ensure that the design  matches local needs and U.S. assistance goals.

In the selected countries, U.S.-supported rule of law assistance is  implemented through country-specific programs, and we identified five  examples, among others, of distinct types of rule of law activities.  1.  Technical assistance to build human and institutional capacity in the  justice system. U.S. agencies provide assistance to improve rule of  law capacity in the form of trainings and exchange programs, and  through the use of embedded advisors in local institutions. In Liberia,  for example, trainings supported by USAID address a variety of  issues. According to officials there, trainings are used in programs to  increase the number of magistrates, supplement legal education,  increase capacity of the Liberian Land Authority, integrate rule of law  and property rights concepts into surveyors’ training, and increase the  capacity and number of pro bono legal aid providers. (See fig. 5.)  Multiple exchange programs provide training to enhance the rule of  law, but local government officials from all four selected countries  received training at International Law Enforcement Academies, which  provide local law enforcement and justice sector officials with rule of  law-related training and technical assistance. (See fig. 6.)  2.  Embedded advisors. Embedded advisors provide onsite advice to  local government officials and may operate in some of the selected  countries as either a supplement or the primary agents of training and  capacity building, according to agency officials. In several of our  selected countries, the U.S. government embeds advisors with local  government agencies or courts. According to U.S. officials, these  advisors simultaneously provide technical assistance to local officials,  but also can report back to the U.S. mission on the opinions and  suggestions of local government. In Colombia, DOJ officials said that  advisors now focus primarily on counter-narcotics issues but  previously worked with host government agencies on human rights  and rule of law-related work. They noted that DOJ advisors trained  thousands of Colombian judges and attorneys prior to this shift in  emphasis. Also in Colombia, USAID supports embedded advisors to  provide technical assistance to the Office of Colombia’s Attorney  General on human rights defender homicides and gender-based  violence and the Inspector General’s Office to support public official  disciplinary actions related to human rights protections. In Kosovo,  OPDAT and ICITAP embedded advisors provide advice and training  to their counterparts in a variety of Kosovo government agencies,  including the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of the Interior, and Kosovo  Corrections.  3.  Legislative and regulatory reform. U.S. agencies and funded  implementers work with local governments and programs to reform  specific laws and administrative procedures. For example, U.S.  programs introduced or expanded the concept of and legal structure  for plea bargaining into Colombia, Kosovo, and the Philippines,  according to U.S. officials in those countries. In the Philippines,  members of the national court system provided data showing how the  expanded use of continuous trial methods and plea bargaining,  supported by U.S.-funded programs, increased courts’ ability to  process cases and begin to reduce the pre-trial detainee population.  4.  Resource and equipment provision. Programs provide resources  directly to government agencies and civil society groups that are  engaged in advocacy around rule of law issues. In the Philippines, for  example, USAID provided funds to install e-courts to improve how  courts record case information, monitor case flow, and provide public  access to the status of cases, according to USAID. They said this  productivity tool automates the tasks and functions of the courts,  improving overall efficiency, transparency and accountability. (See fig.  7.)  5.  Public outreach. Missions conduct interagency public outreach  campaigns to promote the rule of law in the host country, including  greater awareness of legal rights, responsibilities, access, and  resources, according to agency officials. Interagency coordination via  the Rule of Law working group allows the Kosovo mission to conduct  consistently voiced rule of law-themed public communication, for  example. The mission jointly publishes a rule of law tweet to update  the public on relevant issues, supports “anti-corruption week,” and  provides feedback to host government officials to emphasize U.S.  activities and views on specific rule of law issues. (See fig. 8.)

In some situations, agency officials have the flexibility to amend a project  during the lifespan of the project. For example, in Colombia, officials  noted that a sudden rise in violence against social activists and  community leaders led State, USAID, and DOJ to adjust their rule of law  strategy and programming to focus more on the prevention and  prosecution of those crimes.

In Selected Countries, Multiple Agencies Coordinate Rule of Law Assistance in Various Ways, but the Sufficiency of These Efforts Is Unknown

We found that agencies in the four selected countries coordinate rule of  law assistance in various ways that do not consistently include relevant  agencies, and the sufficiency of these coordination efforts is unknown.  Officials in Colombia, Liberia, and the Philippines described their  respective approaches to coordinating rule of law assistance as follows,  citing their Law Enforcement Working Groups as the usual forum for  formal coordination.

In Colombia, INL officials said they operated a rule of law project  coordination group specifically for INL staff, but the group did not  always include other relevant agencies, such as USAID. INL officials  said they sometimes also coordinated rule of law assistance amongst  agencies through a Law Enforcement Working Group—which also did  not always include other relevant agencies—or through the Human  Rights Working Group, which did include State, USAID, and DOJ,  according to INL.

In Liberia, agency officials said that State and USAID sometimes  coordinated rule of law assistance through a Law Enforcement  Working Group, but the mission did not have a rule of law-specific  working group.

In the Philippines, agency officials said they coordinated rule of law  assistance through a Law Enforcement Working Group, which they  said included all relevant members. Although the mission also  operated a Counterterrorism Working Group, agency officials noted  that rule of law was not a common topic at its meetings. The mission  did not have a rule of law-specific working group.

By contrast, agencies at the fourth mission we visited—in Kosovo—used  a rule of law-specific working group, which included all relevant agencies,  to coordinate rule of law activities. Agency officials, including the Chief of  Mission, described the working group as a highly effective means of  ensuring interagency collaboration and coordination, and as having had a  significant positive impact on the effectiveness of rule of law assistance in  Kosovo. Agency officials in Kosovo described the working group as a  more effective means of coordinating rule of law assistance than other  thematic working groups they had utilized in other posts, such as one on  Law Enforcement.

State and USAID guidance and our prior work have highlighted the  importance of coordinating with relevant entities for interagency efforts, such as rule of law assistance, which is provided by multiple U.S.  agencies. The 2018-2022 State-USAID Joint Strategic Plan notes that  State and USAID will work with their interagency partners to coordinate  strategies and programs, including their efforts related to providing rule of  law assistance. In addition, we have reported on the importance of  interagency collaboration when efforts involve multiple agencies, and  have noted that interagency coordination mechanisms or strategies may  reduce potentially duplicative, overlapping, or fragmented efforts.

The Law Enforcement Working Groups were designed for purposes other  than coordinating rule of law activities and are not required to include  agencies that play a key role in providing rule of law assistance. The FAM  notes that the Law Enforcement Working Group is the primary forum  meant to coordinate U.S. law enforcement operations and law  enforcement assistance programs under Chief of Mission authority. State  and USAID categorize law enforcement assistance differently from rule of  law assistance. Specifically, the FAM states that law enforcement  assistance coordinated by the Law Enforcement Working Groups  includes bilateral or multilateral foreign assistance programs where the  host country unit receiving the assistance is authorized to use force. In  addition, the FAM permits but does not require the inclusion of  development agencies, including those that provide rule of law  assistance, such as USAID, in the Law Enforcement Working Groups.

The extent to which interagency rule of law assistance coordination  mechanisms are sufficient is unknown, because officials, led by the Chief  of Mission, at overseas embassies have not assessed the sufficiency of  interagency coordination of foreign assistance at overseas posts or  ensured that such coordination includes all relevant agencies and  bureaus. Given that strategic guidance is largely decentralized, country- level coordination and collaboration efforts are critical to achieving agency  and government-wide objectives. Without assessing the sufficiency of a  mission’s mechanisms for coordinating rule of law assistance, such  mechanisms may not be as effective as they could be, and may also  increase the risk of duplicating efforts or fragmenting limited resources. In  addition, agencies may also be missing opportunities to leverage  interagency resources.

Improving the rule of law in partner countries overseas is a key objective  of America’s foreign and national security policy. Ensuring that State,  USAID, DOJ, and other agencies involved in providing rule of law  assistance coordinate their efforts effectively—including involving all  relevant entities—is key to providing that assistance in an efficient and  accountable way. Overseas missions have the ability to develop whole-of- government strategies that guide their priorities and activities in a given  country. As a result, the quality of strategic planning and coordination at  the mission level is critical.

Agency officials at overseas posts often work in a decentralized manner  to design, implement, and coordinate rule of law assistance. While there  is a range of coordination mechanisms in place, in selected countries, the  extent and nature of interagency coordination varied and the sufficiency  of those efforts is unknown. One of the key mechanisms used in-country  to coordinate rule of law assistance is designed for other purposes, and,  therefore, does not consistently include agencies that play a key role in  providing rule of law assistance. Without assessing the sufficiency of their  coordination methods, agencies could be missing opportunities to fully  leverage limited resources for rule of law assistance, and could also be  duplicating efforts and not providing assistance as effectively and  efficiently as possible.

The Secretary of State should require Chiefs of Mission at overseas  missions that receive allocations for rule of law assistance to assess the  sufficiency of their coordination methods to verify that this assistance is  coordinated with all relevant interagency partners. (Recommendation 1)

We provided a draft of this report to State, USAID, DOJ, and DOD for  their review and comment. State and USAID provided written comments,  which are reproduced in their entirety in appendices V and VI,  respectively. State, USAID, DOJ, and DOD provided technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate.

In its written comments, State accepted our recommendation and agreed  that an assessment of coordination mechanisms would improve the  overall provision of rule of law assistance. State also said that, on behalf  of the Secretary of State, INL will provide guidance to require posts to  perform an assessment on their coordination of rule of law assistance and  come to a determination if coordination sufficiently involves all relevant  agency partners.

In its written comments, USAID noted that it prioritizes rule of law as a  fundamental development outcome, and that it works with State and DOJ  in its pursuit of this and other related objectives. USAID also noted a  preference for formal rule of law-specific coordination groups to align  efforts and reduce duplication.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and to the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Acting  Administrator of USAID, the Attorney General, 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 any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2964 or gurkinc@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 major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix VII.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) how much funding the Department of State  (State) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allocated  for rule of law assistance in fiscal years 2014 through 2018; (2) how  agencies strategically plan and coordinate the allocation of rule of law  assistance; and (3) what processes agencies have to design, implement,  and coordinate rule of law assistance programs in selected countries.  This is the first of two reports that will address this issue.

To identify which agencies were relevant for a review of global rule of law  assistance, we spoke with officials from State, USAID, the Department of  Justice (DOJ), the Department of Defense (DOD), and representatives  from nongovernmental organizations (NGO) involved in the rule of law  sector. On the basis of these interviews and our previous work, we  selected State, USAID, and DOJ to review.

To address our first objective, we analyzed funding data from State and  USAID, and obligation data from DOJ. We primarily relied on allocation  data provided by State’s Office of Foreign Assistance Resources (F) for  fiscal years 2014 through 2018—the most recent data available at the  time of our review. F’s data included allocation data disaggregated by  specific recipient country or regional program. Allocation data also was  reviewable by the relevant rule of law program area and program  elements as listed in State’s and USAID’s Standardized Program  Structure and Definitions (SPSD). Rule of law is listed as a program area  under the Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DR) category  within the SPSD as “DR 1” and is composed of five program elements— DR 1.1 through DR 1.5. According to F officials, in fiscal year 2018, F  changed its policy to allow operating units to designate activities with  other SPSD codes to also count toward rule of law through the “cross- attribution” process.

We assessed the reliability of State’s allocation data and determined the  data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of reporting allocation  totals and allocations disaggregated by program element and recipient  country. F gathered this information from its FACTSInfo data system,  which itself draws from data reported in annual Operational Plans  prepared by relevant operating units, according to F officials. We verified  the allocation data for the four countries we selected for our review by  reviewing the allocated funds listed in the annual Operational Plans for  each respective country. The data in the Operational Plans matched the  allocation data from FACTSInfo.

In addition to the allocation data provided by F, we collected limited  obligation data from State’s Bureau for International Narcotics and Law  Enforcement (INL) and DOJ. Since DOJ functions primarily as a rule of  law assistance program implementer, it reported all of its funding as  obligations from State via interagency agreements. DOJ reported  obligated funds separately for its two rule of law-focused bodies, the  International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP)  and the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and  Training (OPDAT). DOJ’s data described all obligated funding for rule of  law assistance globally from fiscal years 2014 through July 2019. To  evaluate the reliability of DOJ’s data, we asked INL to confirm that DOJ’s  obligation totals for the four selected countries matched INL’s. Ultimately,  we found the data reported by INL and DOJ to be consistent and  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objective.

To address our second objective, we reviewed documents and  interviewed officials in Washington, D.C. We compared strategies and  guidance described for the whole of government, specific departments  and agencies, and bureaus and offices within those departments. We  also reviewed the annual foreign assistance budget process to describe  how agencies at headquarters collaborate to determine foreign  assistance allocations generally and for rule of law assistance in  particular. We reviewed the Integrated Country Strategy documents for  each selected country, as well as USAID’s Country Development  Cooperation Strategy. We reviewed these documents to identify rule of  law thematic priorities and any guidance regarding roles and  responsibilities, program implementation, and intra- or interagency  coordination.

To address our third objective, we selected a non-generalizable sample of  four countries: Colombia, Kosovo, Liberia, and the Philippines for site  visits or in-depth analysis. We also reviewed one international program— the Regional Training Center, based in Accra, Ghana, part of the  International Law Enforcement Academy Program. In selecting these  countries, we considered, among other things, (1) countries in which at  least two of the three focus agencies had allocated or obligated rule of  law assistance funds during fiscal years 2014 through 2018; (2) countries  that were among the top half of recipients of rule of law assistance  allocations from State and USAID during the same period, as reported in  publically available information; (3) geographic dispersal of selected  countries, to ensure that no more than one country was selected in each  of State’s designated regions; and (4) suggestions from State, USAID,  DOJ, and NGO officials with experience in the rule of law sector.

We traveled to the Philippines in August 2019 and to Ghana, Liberia, and  Kosovo in September 2019. We met with and interviewed officials from  State, USAID, and DOJ, and from NGOs that had implemented U.S.- funded rule of law assistance projects, as well as local government  officials who had participated in U.S.-funded rule of law assistance  activities. We did not travel to Colombia, but conducted interviews with  State, USAID, DOJ, NGO, and local government officials in Colombia by  phone. We also interviewed officials in Washington, D.C., in person.

To examine the processes used by State, USAID, and DOJ to design,  implement and coordinate rule of law assistance in selected countries, we  reviewed documents and interviewed agency and local government  officials and implementing organization staff. We interviewed U.S. and  local officials in Washington, D.C.; Colombia; Ghana; Liberia; Kosovo;  and the Philippines on methods of identification of local needs, the  process of program / activity design, and means of coordinating  implementation among multiple agencies, among other topics. We also  visited projects in the Philippines, Liberia, and Kosovo, where we were  able to observe activities and speak with project implementers, partners,  and beneficiaries. We compared the collaboration mechanisms used at  these three missions to the collaboration requirements in the 2018-2022  State-USAID Joint Strategic Plan.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2018 to June 2020,  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.

Appendix II: Standardized Program Structure and Definitions of Rule of Law

Fiscal Year 2018 Funding Allocations for Rule of Law SPSD Program Areas

The Department of State (State) and U.S. Agency for International  Development (USAID) categorize and track their foreign assistance  according to the Standardized Program Structure and Definitions (SPSD).  State and USAID use the SPSD to define overall foreign assistance  themes, and to code foreign assistance funds in order to track how U.S.  agencies allocate their resources. The SPSD divides foreign assistance  into category, program area, and program element. The SPSD comprises  seven categories, including Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance,  within which rule of law is a specific program area. Rule of law is  composed of five program elements: (1) Constitutions, Laws and Legal  Systems, (2) Culture of Lawfulness, (3) Checks and Balances with  Judicial Independence and Supremacy of Law, (4) Justice Systems and  Institutions, and (5) Fairness and Access to Justice. According to State  officials, allocated funds are linked to specific SPSD codes in the annual  Operational Plans, which are developed by either country-specific or  regional operating units. Operating units also determine which program  area and program element is the appropriate code for a specific activity.  While the SPSD provides definitions of each program element, the  definitions may overlap and operating units have some leeway to apply  the SPSD codes based on their judgement. Table 1 shows funding  associated with each rule of law program element and provides examples  of rule of activities that were allocated funds in the selected countries.

Beginning in fiscal year 2018, State’s Office of Foreign Assistance  Resources (F) began to track allocated funds that were not coded as part  of the rule of law program area, but were also planned to be used for rule  of law themes, according to F officials. This process is referred to as  “cross-attribution.” Cross-attributed funds are designated by operating  units in their annual Operational Plan. State officials provided an example  from fiscal year 2018, explaining that funding classified under two  program elements from the Peace and Security program area were cross- attributed to rule of law. Table 2 shows the cross-attributed allocated  funds in fiscal year 2018.

Rule of Law Program Area and Component Program Elements

Program Element DR.1.1: Constitutions, Laws, and Legal Systems

Definition: Support the development of constitutions, laws, and legal  systems that are procedurally and substantively fair, derived through  participatory democratic processes, and consistent with international  human rights standards. Both the substance of the law and the process  by which it is developed must be legitimate and should be transparent.  Includes analysis and dissemination of jurisprudence, innovations, and  best practices in constitutional and law-making processes. Includes  programs that assist in strengthening systems and processes for  developing and enacting laws. Supports efforts to end impunity and  enable peaceful transitions to democracy. Customary or religious dispute  resolution mechanisms are included as laws, and legal systems do not  have to be written or formal to be legitimate.

Program Element DR.1.2: Culture of Lawfulness

Definition: Foster and maintain a culture that is generally law-abiding,  including through legal literacy, public awareness, constituency building,  and citizen engagement in legal processes. Ensure that the public is  educated about laws and regulations, perceives laws as legitimate and  worthy of adherence, and respects the authority of law and legal  institutions. Develop citizen demand for an effective and accountable  justice system, and develop associations to advocate for all citizens. This  includes programs that spur a culture of lawfulness by changing beliefs  and attitudes by socializing people into a rule of law culture and changing  norms so that people abide by the law. This also includes rule of law  programs or civil society programs with a very specific focus on rule of  law-related citizen awareness and education—i.e., supporting civil society  organizations to participate in public hearings as part of a larger effort to  strengthen the parliament or working with a civil society organization to  provide legal representation of indigent populations as part of an overall  judicial strengthening strategy.

Program Element DR.1.3: Checks and Balances with Judicial Independence and Supremacy of Law

Definition: Strengthen judicial independence as a means to maintain  separation of powers and check excessive power in any branch or level of  government. Strengthening judicial independence includes reducing  improper influences on the judiciary through: open and participatory  processes for judicial selection and appointment; security of tenure;  satisfactory budget allocations to ensure adequate infrastructure, training,  and working conditions; judicial self-governance including management of  administrative, budgetary, ethics, and disciplinary processes and reform;  and transparent court operations and judicial processes. Enhance the  judiciary’s ability to check abuses of power by any branch or level of  government through creating and strengthening constitutional or judicial  review. This element also helps ensure that government is bound by law,  and government decision-making is in accordance with the law. Work to  create an independent and impartial justice system through institutional  and behavioral change, and also to promote public respect for the justice  system and judicial decision-making.

Program Element DR.1.4: Justice Systems and Institutions

Definition: Improve the systems, capacity, and sustainability of civil and  criminal justice sector and institutions, improve the ability and skills of  justice sector actors, and enhance coordination amongst them where  appropriate (includes harmonization of policies, procedures, and systems,  and public / private partnerships relating to both criminal and civil law).  Justice sector actors and institutions include: police, border security,  prosecutors, forensics experts, judges, court personnel, public defenders,  mediators, arbitrators, conciliators, corrections personnel, private bar, law  schools, legal professional associations, and training institutions for each  of them. Support educational and training programs for all justice system  actors, to include reform of pedagogy and curricula, continuing and in- service training, and support of accreditation and legal professional  associations to promote professionalism; and encourage public service.  Improve administrative and operational systems, including strategic  planning, budget, procurement, and personnel.

Program Element DR.1.5: Fairness and Access to Justice

Definition: Work toward an equitable justice system by ensuring fairness  in law and process. Fairness programs include non-discrimination law fair  trial standards, effective administrative law systems to guard against  arbitrary government action, and observance by all justice system actors  and institutions of international treaties and customary law. Support  monitoring and advocacy by justice sector NGOs, including strategic  lawyering, trial monitoring, and policy dialogue. Improve equitable access  to justice through increasing the quality and quantity of state and non- state justice services, with a particular focus on women, youth, the poor,  LGBT persons, and other marginalized or vulnerable groups. This  includes access to state and non-state dispute-resolution fora; court  redistribution; mobile courts; the removal of language, gender, cultural,  sexual orientation, gender identity and physical barriers; circulation of  laws and legal decisions; alternative dispute resolution systems; and  expanding access to legal services (e.g., public defenders’ offices, legal  aid and legal services, labor law services, justice or legal resources  centers). This also includes programs to educate the citizenry about their  rights, how to access services, and how to encourage change. Programs  primarily focused on trafficking in persons should be captured under  Peace and Security (PS) PS.5 and programs focused on alien smuggling  under PS.4.

Peace and Security Program Area and Cross- Attributed Component Program Elements

Program Element PS.9.2: Civilian Police Reform / Community-Oriented Policing

Definition: Develop modern police forces through capacity-building  (training and education both in the classroom and in the field) with focus  on creating police institutions that can effectively fight crime and serve the  public. Activities include, but are not limited to, police academy reform,  organizational restructuring, professionalization, developing internal  affairs, civil service reform (pay and rank reform), management and  leadership, equipment and infrastructure support, aviation support,  gender sensitivity, community-oriented policing, and public affairs.  Assistance can also support the establishment and sustainment of  effective, professional, and accountable law enforcement services  (civilian police, stability / formed police units, and specialized units trained  and equipped for specific issues such as port and maritime security,  border security, gangs, or kidnapping). As the foundation for such a  service is fundamentally rooted in the rule of law and respect for human  rights, activities conducted in support of this element should be  coordinated with programs under the Rule of Law elements in the  Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DR) category.

Program Element PS.9.4: Corrections Assistance

Definition: Provide consultation on facilities, system, and process design;  increase the capabilities and professionalization of corrections personnel  at all levels through training, with the goal of developing sustainable  operations and infrastructure in compliance with international guidelines,  especially with respect to human rights. Implement an objective  classification system to separate inmates by risk and status (felony /  misdemeanor / pretrial); reduce pretrial detentions and other causes of  overcrowding; eliminate factors that lead to violent uprisings and  intergang violence; provide specialized equipment and vehicles to ensure  secure operations; and develop a path toward independent international  accreditation of facilities and operations to ensure effective, transparent,  and accountable corrections systems. Activities conducted herein are in  support of long-term development of effective, transparent, and  accountable penal systems (described under the Democracy, Human  Rights, and Governance (DR) Category).

Appendix III: Global Rule of Law Assistance Allocations

For this review, we collected and analyzed foreign rule of law assistance  allocation data from the Department of State’s (State) Office of Foreign  Assistance Resources (F). F tracks funding allocations by operating unit,  which may be either one particular country, such as Afghanistan or  Colombia, or a regional or programmatic unit, such as “State Western  Hemisphere Regional” or “Near East Regional Democracy.” Allocations to  regional and programmatic operating units shown in table 3 below are not  inclusive of the allocations to individual countries on this list. For example,  the funding allocated to State’s Western Hemisphere Regional operating  unit does not include the funding allocated for the Colombia operating  unit. While the regional operating units may conduct activities within  particular countries, because the funds are managed from the regional  perspective, they are considered different streams of funding. Both  regional and country-specific operating units include funds for both State  and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

This appendix provides a review of rule of law-related issues in selected  countries in four different geographic regions. We selected a non- generalizable sample of four countries—Colombia, Kosovo, Liberia, the  Philippines—to review specific rule of law programs and the ways  agencies coordinate their rule of law assistance in-country. The following  pages include some key facts and background information about those  countries, key challenges to the rule of law, and U.S. rule of law  assistance activities.

In 2016 the government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of  Colombia (FARC) signed a final peace accord calling for demobilization of armed  insurgents, the establishment of new transitional justice institutions, and the  introduction of the FARC as a non-violent actor in the Colombian political community,  according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook. The World Factbook  also reports that conflict resulted in many lives lost, more than seven million internally  displaced persons, and tens of thousands of “disappeared” victims. While the FARC  has laid down its arms, challenges posed by remaining insurgent groups and narco  traffickers remain. According to U.S. officials, in the absence of a full establishment of  rule of law and equal access to justice for all populations, the country risks sliding  back into conflict.   Key Challenges to the Rule of Law  In recent years, according to officials from the Department of State’s (State) Bureau  for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL), the presence of illegal armed  groups and narcotics trafficking organizations—which have led to an increase in  violence against human rights defenders and social activists—has challenged the  government of Colombia’s ability to project the rule of law into rural and former  conflict zones. In addition, the Integrated Country Strategy for Colombia notes that  much of the gold production in Colombia is carried out by organized criminal actors  and armed groups, which robs the government of tax revenue, harms human health  and the environment, and prevents licit producers from entering the market.

• Civil law system, influenced by Spanish and French civil codes

Professional /  technical  capacity  Need for  enhanced skills for  targeting  complicated  criminal acts  (narcotics  trafficking, money  laundering, and  dismantling  organized crime)

Corruption  Corruption related  to narcotics  trafficking risks  overwhelming the  government  U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Activities  Colombia is one of the largest recipients of U.S. rule of law assistance in the world,  and programs have sought to address an array of interrelated issues, according to  U.S. officials. These officials said that State and the U.S. Agency for International  Development (USAID) have collaborated on responding to violence against human  rights defenders. INL works with the Department of Justice to improve the capacity of  local prosecutors and law enforcement. USAID officials said that they support  programs to increase access to justice, including strengthening indigenous justice,  instituting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and collaborating with the  Colombian Public Defender’s Office to expand legal representation for indigent and  at-risk communities. They also said that they strengthen the investigation and  prosecution of gender-based violence and social leader cases, investigation of public  officials failing to protect social leaders, and justice and reparations for victims of  armed conflict.

Following violent internal conflict from 1998 through 1999, Kosovo remained  under the stewardship of the United Nations (UN) until it declared independence  in 2008, according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook.  According to Department of State (State) officials, the 2013 Brussels Agreement  resulted in Kosovo and Serbia further partially normalizing relations; however,  Kosovo is not universally recognized as a state and is not currently permitted to  join the UN, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or European Union (EU), among  others. With U.S. support, the government of Kosovo has sought to reform its  legal institutions with the aim of joining the EU. The United States is committed to  helping the government of Kosovo reach this goal.

10,887 square kilometers in area  (slightly larger than Delaware )

In 2018, administration of the legal system transferred from foreign oversight to  full Kosovo government control, according to State officials. Consequently, local  officials said they had to staff courts, translate casefiles kept in other languages,  set new rules and regulations, and accomplish a range of other administrative  functions in addition to day-to-day court operations. In addition, Kosovo’s legal  system had to integrate the previously parallel Serbia-run legal system into  Kosovo’s legal and judicial institutions, according to State officials.

Albanian 92.9%, Bosniak 1.6%, Serb  1.5%, Turk 1.1%, Ashkali 0.9%,  Egyptian 0.7%, Gorani 0.6%, Romani  0.5%, other / unspecified 0.2% (2011  est.). These estimates may exclude  northern Kosovo because of census  boycotts by Serb and Romani  communities.

Professional /  technical capacity  Need for enhanced  basic and advanced  skills to address  complicated criminal  acts (money laundering,  cybercrimes, trafficking  in persons)

Corruption  Nepotism and  cronyism are  persistent  features of the  civil service  and political  culture $10,900 GDP per capita (2017 est.)

U.S. agencies have provided assistance to the government of Kosovo through a  variety of means. The Department of Justice embeds advisors in multiple offices  of the government of Kosovo, including the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of the  Interior, Kosovo Corrections, and police inspectorate, according to agency  officials. These officials also said that the advisors provide traditional classroom- based technical training to Kosovo government officials, as well as real-time  advice on particular cases and guidance for the development of new regulations.  Officials also said that several U.S.-funded small-grant and educational  exchange programs have enhanced the capability of local officials and civil  society representatives to manage and advocate for an improved justice sector.  To ensure an inclusive and transparent judicial process, officials from the U.S.  Agency for International Development said they train local government officials in  areas such as transparent procurement processes, and local and central  government officials on drafting policies and legislation. Agencies at the U.S.  Embassy in Kosovo also collaboratively operated a public affairs campaign to  engage with Kosovo citizens on rule of law issues, according to U.S. officials.

Liberia, which the World Bank categorizes as a low income country, has a history  that includes a 14-year civil war as well as the West African Ebola epidemic of 2014  and 2015. When the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Liberia completed its  nearly 14-year deployment, the withdrawal of the several thousand peacekeeping  personnel caused a significant economic recession, according to U.S. officials. The  recession was exacerbated by drops in commodity prices, which left the  government of Liberia unable to pay salaries to officials for months at a time,  according to U.S. and Liberian officials. Within this context, the U.S. government  has identified rule of law assistance as a priority for Liberia. U.S. officials stated  that, by improving local rule of law, the United States can simultaneously address  weaknesses in multiple sectors of Liberia’s government and social services,  including land management, health, and justice.

Key Challenges to the Rule of Law  According to U.S. officials in Liberia, enhancing Liberia’s land-management system  is key to helping establish rule of law throughout Liberia. Land disputes were one  underlying cause of the civil war and remain a threat to stability, according to U.S.  officials. These officials explained that disputes are complicated by the destruction  of the national property registry during the war, a critical shortage of qualified  arbiters and surveyors, and some judicial officials’ poor understanding of property  laws. Further, the officials said that persistent and slow-to-resolve land disputes  highlight gaps in the administrative capacity of courts, local officials’ lack of  technical skills necessary to resolve such disputes, and the ease with which  corruption may subvert the rules-based order.

• Kpelle, 20.3%; Bassa, 13.4%; Grebo, 10%; Gio, 8%; Mano, 7.9%; Kru, 6%; Lorma, 5.1%; Kissi, 4.8%; Gola, 4.4%; Krahn, 4%; Vai, 4%; Mandingo, 3.2%; Gbandi, 3%; Mende, 1.3%; Sapo, 1.3%; other Liberian, 1.7%; other African, 1.4%; non-African, 0.1% (2008 est.)

Corruption  Allegations of  corruption threaten  the government’s  authority but present  an opportunity for  empowering local  anti-corruption actors  U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Activities  Both the Department of State (State) and U.S. Agency for International  Development (USAID) have embedded trainers within Liberian government  ministries, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Liberia Land Authority. USAID  funded an integrated rule of law and property dispute program to address multiple  areas of weakness. State adapted a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- sponsored rapid response program to identify and resolve potentially destabilizing  conflicts. USAID also supported wider access to justice by funding a new legal aid  network and providing fellowships for law students to work in rural communities.

The government of the Philippines’ expansion of the anti-drug campaign has  counteracted progress made in reducing congestion in the Philippine courts and  trial duration, according to U.S. officials. One local official we interviewed noted  that violations of drug laws make up more than 70 percent of the criminal docket  and that large numbers of arrests have led to a highly congested court system. A  high volume of arrests and slow processing of cases has also resulted in a  dramatic increase in the number of pretrial detainees, according to U.S. officials.

Court docket  congestion  Anti-drug campaign  has overwhelmed  an already burdened  case management  system $8,400 GDP per capita (2017 est.)

• Mixed legal system of civil, common, Islamic (sharia), and customary law

U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Activities  Department of State (State) U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)  and Department of Justice (DOJ) programs are designed to respond to the shift  in the government of the Philippines’ priorities, according to U.S. officials. State  provided training to Philippine law students, judges, and law enforcement officials  that emphasized improved collection and interpretation of evidence. State also  funded the establishment of legal aid clinics to improve community access to  representation. USAID funded the introduction of “e-courts” and other information  technologies in the judicial sector to improve the efficiency and transparency of  court proceedings. USAID also funded programs to introduce new legal  mechanisms, such as plea bargaining and continuous trial, to reduce the pre-trial  detainee population and speed the administration of justice. DOJ has programs  to increase prosecutor-police cooperation and to build capacity to combat  specific threats, including trafficking in persons, cybercrime, terrorism, and  financial crime.

Appendix V: Comments from the State Department

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Joe Carney (Assistant Director),  Brian Hackney (Analyst in Charge), Benjamin Legow, Carolina Morgan,  Afsana Oreen, Abena Serwaa, Parul Aggarwal, Debbie Chung, Justin  Fisher, Jenny Grover, Chris Keblitis, and Alex Welsh made key  contributions to this report.

The principle of rule of law holds that all are subject to and equal before a nation’s laws. It serves as a foundation for democratic governance and economic growth, and helps combat crime and extremism.

The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development allocated more than $2.7 billion for rule of law assistance in FY 2014-2018. Afghanistan, Colombia, and Mexico got 40%. Money went to constitutional reform, building judicial institutions, and more.

U.S. agencies are to coordinate their rule of law efforts. We recommended that State assess whether all relevant agencies are doing so.