Background National Guard  Counterdrug Program The National Guard counterdrug program is part of DOD’s broader  counterdrug mission, which focuses on supporting local, state, federal,  and foreign government agencies in addressing the illegal drug trade and  narcotics-related terrorism. The program was originally conceived as a  reconnaissance support mission largely focused on marijuana eradication  efforts. In 1977, the Hawaii National Guard became the first state National  Guard to assist law enforcement agencies in counterdrug missions.  Hawaii law enforcement officials sought Hawaii National Guard helicopter  transport to support Operation Green Harvest, a marijuana eradication  mission. By 1984, four additional states’ National Guards were supporting  state law enforcement agencies with counterdrug efforts. That number  grew to 32 states in 1988. However, this assistance was limited in scope  and generally conducted as Guard units performed normal training  activities, and costs associated with this assistance were paid for by the  states. The National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989 tasked DOD  with the mission to ensure the availability of military support to law  enforcement agencies nationwide. This law established DOD as the  single lead agency of the federal government for the detection and  monitoring of aerial and maritime transit of illegal drugs into the United  States, and it amplified the National Guard’s role as a support agency  for state law enforcement in counterdrug support missions under the  Governor of each state, territory, and the District of Columbia. By 1994,  the program was in operation in 54 states and territories across the  United States. As of fiscal year 2018, National Guard Bureau policy allows state  counterdrug programs to perform 15 support activities grouped into five  broad mission categories—(1) technical support (including linguist and  translator, operational and investigative case and criminal analyst, and  counterthreat finance support), (2) general support (including domestic  cannabis suppression and eradication operations and transportation  support), (3) reconnaissance and observation (including ground and  aerial reconnaissance), (4) civil operations and coalition development,  and (5) counterdrug training. Legal Authorities of the  National Guard  Counterdrug Program The National Guard counterdrug program conducts activities under the  authority of two titles in the United States Code—Title 32 and Title 10.  Section 502 of title 32 allows a member of the National Guard to be  ordered to full-time National Guard duty status under regulations  prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or Secretary of the Air Force. In  addition, Section 112 of title 32 authorizes personnel of the National  Guard of a State, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of  Defense, to be ordered to perform full-time National Guard duty under  section 502 for the purposes of carrying out drug interdiction and  counterdrug activities in accordance with state plans. Section 112 also  authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide funds to support the  approved drug interdiction and counter-drug activities plan of state  governors. In addition, Title 10 allows the Secretary of the Army or Air Force to order  a member of the National Guard, under the Secretary’s jurisdiction, to  active duty with the consent of the member and the governor of that  state. Under Section 284 of title 10, DOD provides support to a number  of partners, such as federal agencies, in their counterdrug activities, at  times using National Guard personnel on active duty. Table 1 provides a  summary of the Title 32 and Title 10 authorities. Funding for the National  Guard Counterdrug  Program To fund DOD’s counterdrug mission, Congress appropriates amounts to  DOD’s Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account.  The categories of activities funded by the account include: detection and  monitoring; international support; intelligence, technology, and other;  domestic support, which includes the National Guard counterdrug  program; and drug demand reduction. Of all the activities, the domestic  support activity, which includes the National Guard counterdrug program,  receives the largest amount of funding from DOD’s Drug Interdiction and  Counterdrug Activities account. In fiscal year 2018, Congress  appropriated about $934.8 million to the Drug Interdiction and  Counterdrug Activities, Defense account, of which about $261.4 million,  or 28 percent, was appropriated for the National Guard counterdrug  program. Figure 1 shows the program funding in DOD’s Drug  Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities Account for fiscal year 2018. DOD’s budget request to the President for the National Guard  counterdrug program was generally steady from fiscal year 2004 through  fiscal year 2012, but was reduced significantly in fiscal year 2013. Since  then, congressionally-directed increases have generally accounted for 50  percent or more of the program’s total funding, as shown in figure 2  below. In fiscal year 2018, the Senate Committee on Appropriations expressed  concerns that DOD reduced overall funding for the National Guard  counterdrug program from the fiscal year 2017 enacted levels and failed  to include an individual budget line in its budget request for the National  Guard counterdrug schools program. DOD’s budget request for fiscal  year 2018 was about $116.4 million, while the final appropriation  designated $261.4 million for the program—approximately a 125 percent  increase. Roles and Responsibilities On July 31, 2002, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a  memorandum that, among other things, assigned responsibility for DOD’s  counternarcotics program to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense  for Counternarcotics. The responsibilities include developing and  implementing DOD’s counternarcotics policy, conducting analyses,  making recommendations, and issuing guidance regarding DOD’s  counternarcotics plans and programs. In addition, the office is responsible  for coordinating and monitoring DOD’s counternarcotics plans and  programs to ensure adherence to this policy. Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01A, National Guard  Counterdrug Support, establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for  the National Guard counterdrug program. The instruction assigns the  Director of the National Guard Domestic Operations and Force  Development as the proponent for the program. The Director’s  responsibilities include publishing supporting documents for the  instruction, verifying that the plans outlining each state’s proposed  activities are consistent with annual instructions published by the Office of  the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and  Global Threats and are processed efficiently and on-time, and conducting  periodic evaluations of program operations at the state level. DOD Lacks a Current  Strategy and  Guidance for the  National Guard  Counterdrug Program DOD Counternarcotics  and Global Threats  Strategy Is Outdated DOD’s 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy, the governing  strategy for the National Guard counterdrug program, is outdated and  does not reflect current drug threats outlined in more recent executive  branch strategies. While the 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats  Strategy shares common themes with the updated executive branch  strategies, such as the importance of combatting transnational criminal  organizations involved in drug trafficking, it has not been updated to  reflect changes in the drug threats faced by the United States that are  outlined by the more recent executive branch strategies. Table 2 provides  details on national-level strategies that have been released since 2011. The Office of National Drug Control Policy released a new National Drug  Control Strategy each year between 2011 and 2016. Each update  discussed the threat posed by opioids, which the 2016 update labeled as  the greatest drug threat facing the nation. The 2017 National Security  Strategy also addressed opioids by emphasizing the need to dismantle  transnational criminal organizations that feed the illicit opioid epidemic.  However, DOD’s 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy  does not address the domestic opioid epidemic. In addition, the 2016  National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy states that the  increased role of Mexican heroin manufacturers and traffickers is altering  previously established trafficking patterns. While the 2011  Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy considers the illicit  trafficking of cocaine from the Southwest border, it does not consider  changes in the heroin threat. Further, because DOD’s Counternarcotics  and Global Threats Strategy has not been updated, it does not take into  consideration other strategies that have since been issued, such as the  2015 Caribbean Border Counternarcotics Strategy. According to officials  from the National Guard Bureau, DOD’s 2011 counternarcotics strategy  only addresses the National Guard counterdrug program in a limited  capacity and therefore they are challenged to provide strategic direction  to the state counterdrug programs. DOD’s 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy states that  officials will ensure that the strategy remains consistent with and  integrates key DOD and executive branch strategies, such as National  Drug Control Strategy. It also states that, given the dynamic environment  within which the challenges related to the flow and impact of illegal drugs  exist, the strategy is meant to be a living document, to be modified  regularly. However, officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant  Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats  acknowledged that they have not regularly modified the strategy and that  the security environment has changed. These officials stated that they  have been in the process of developing an updated Counternarcotics and  Global Threats Strategy with revised strategic goals and objectives since  2013, but the document has not been signed and released by the  Secretary of Defense. DOD officials stated that after the 2018 National  Defense Strategy was issued, they delayed the release of an updated  Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy in order to ensure  alignment between the two documents. However, according to DOD  officials, the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which was issued in  January 2018, did not address DOD counternarcotics efforts as they had  anticipated, requiring them to reconsider their approach. Officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Counternarcotics and Global Threats stated that they now plan to issue a  strategic framework, which would allow them to respond to changes in the  security environment more quickly because updates to the framework  would not require Secretary of Defense approval, as is the case with a  DOD strategy. However, they stated that they are now waiting for the  release of a new National Drug Control Strategy before issuing the  framework. Officials with the Office of National Drug Control Policy  stated that, while they have drafted a new National Drug Control Strategy,  they have not committed to an issuance date and are waiting for their new  director to be confirmed by the Senate before proceeding with reviewing  and issuing the draft. However, a substantial amount of time has lapsed  since DOD’s counternarcotics strategy was last issued—over 7 years— and there have been significant developments during that time in the  nature of the drug threats facing the United States. DOD officials  acknowledged that because the process to update its strategic framework  requires less review than a full strategy, DOD could quickly update it, if  necessary, to ensure that it aligns with a new National Drug Control  Strategy once one is released. Without a DOD counternarcotics and  global threats strategic framework that reflects DOD’s current strategic  priorities and drug threats, the National Guard counterdrug program risks  focusing activities and resources in areas that are less imperative to  address than others and that do not counter current drug threats. The National Guard  Bureau Does Not Have  Guidance for Operating  and Administering the  Counterdrug Program The National Guard Bureau had guidance—National Guard Regulation  500-2—that prescribed policies, procedures, and responsibilities for the  National Guard counterdrug program, but it was rescinded in September  2014 by Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01 to conform with  new National Guard publications guidance, according to National Guard  Bureau officials. Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01A,  which replaced Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01 in June  2015, establishes policies and assigns responsibilities for the National  Guard counterdrug program, but it does not provide detailed procedures  and processes that states can use to implement these policies. For  example, National Guard Regulation 500-2 provided information on how  states should operate and administer the National Guard counterdrug  program, including how to perform counterdrug financial management,  acquisition and logistics management, personnel and administration,  records and reports, and operate the counterdrug schools. Chief National  Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01A does not provide these types of  instructions. State counterdrug program officials we interviewed stated  that without the detailed procedures and processes included in National  Guard Regulation 500-2, they have no administrative guidance regarding  hiring, retirement, budgeting, and planning for their counterdrug  programs. Additionally, National Guard Bureau officials stated that they  do not have procedures and processes instructing states on how to  provide cross-state support. For example, there are currently no  guidelines on how a state that can perform aerial reconnaissance  activities could provide these resources to another state upon request.  National Guard Bureau officials told us they should have guidelines to  facilitate cross-state support. Table 3 provides an overview of National  Guard Bureau publications. To help implement policy established by Chief National Guard Bureau  instructions, the National Guard Bureau can issue more detailed guidance  on the corresponding procedures and processes in the form of a Chief  National Guard Bureau Manual. Additionally, Chief National Guard  Bureau Instruction 3100.01A, National Guard Counterdrug Support,  assigns the Director of National Guard Domestic Operations and Force  Development the responsibility to publish supporting documents to  implement the instruction and counterdrug program when required.  However, the National Guard Bureau officials acknowledge that they have  not issued a manual that provides detailed procedures and processes to  implement National Guard counterdrug program policies since the prior  operating guidance in the National Guard regulation was rescinded in  September 2014. National Guard Bureau officials stated that they intended to publish a  Chief National Guard Bureau Manual in September 2014, concurrent with  Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01, which would have  provided additional operating guidance for administering and operating  the counterdrug program. However, according to National Guard officials,  issuance of the manual was delayed because of disagreements among  National Guard Bureau officials about its content. Specifically, some  National Guard Bureau officials stated that the draft manual was too  focused on support for Title 10 activities and did not adequately address  Title 32 support, which reflects the bulk of the activities conducted by the  program. National Guard Bureau officials stated that they intended to re- issue National Guard Regulation 500-2 as interim guidance until they  completed the Chief National Guard Bureau Manual; however, they have  yet to do so because they have been focused on other efforts. National  Guard Bureau officials stated that they have now worked with state  counterdrug program officials to more adequately address Title 32  support activities and intend to publish a Chief National Guard Bureau  Manual in June 2019. The draft manual is in the beginning of the review process. However, the  National Guard Bureau will not have guidance to operate the counterdrug  program until at least June 2019. Without interim guidance that provides  detailed procedures and processes for the National Guard counterdrug  program, such as reissuing National Guard Regulation 500-2, states will  continue to be left without clear instructions on how to operate and  administer the program, such as how and when to provide support across  state lines and to interagency partners. The National Guard  Bureau Has Taken  Steps to Improve the  Availability of Funds  When Operating  under Continuing  Resolutions The federal government has operated under a continuing resolution for 36  of the last 40 years. National Guard counterdrug program officials stated  that they have experienced program disruptions during these periods.  The disruptions described by the officials are similar to the problems that  other programs experience during continuing resolutions. For example,  National Guard Bureau officials stated that continuing resolutions have  created challenges for the National Guard counterdrug program in fully  obligating its funds. DOD data show that the program obligated 84 and 82  percent of total budget authority amounts in fiscal year 2011 and 2013  respectively, although the gap between total budget authority amounts  and obligations has decreased since then. According to National Guard  officials, the differences over the years between the amounts obligated  and total budget authority amounts were partly due to the timing and  amount of funding received by the program. Specifically, they stated that  it is difficult to fully obligate funds when DOD provides them with a  significant portion of their funding close to the end of the fiscal year. Remaining unobligated amounts are transferred back to DOD’s Drug  Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account. Figure 3  details the counterdrug program’s obligations from fiscal years 2010  through 2017. State counterdrug program officials stated that the timing of DOD’s  distribution of funds also creates program execution challenges. For  example, state counterdrug program officials stated that prior to fiscal  year 2017, they began each year with a minimal number of personnel  performing state drug interdiction and counterdrug activities until DOD provided more funding to the program after the enactment of the  appropriation for the remainder of the fiscal year. Thereafter, state  program officials stated that they increased the number of National Guard  personnel supporting National Guard counterdrug program activities.  However, state program officials said that after the appropriation expired  at the end of each fiscal year, they were once again forced to reduce the  number of personnel performing state drug interdiction and counterdrug  activities until the enactment of another final appropriation was passed.  Figure 4 provides a summary of the number of National Guard personnel  performing state drug interdiction and counterdrug activities by month  during fiscal years 2012 through 2017. According to state counterdrug program officials, the majority of funds  provided after a final appropriation is passed fund temporary personnel  and seasonal work, rather than analysis support activities deemed a  priority for the National Guard counterdrug program by the Office of the  Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global  Threats. State counterdrug program officials stated that this is because  they cannot hire, train, and integrate personnel on a full-time basis and  that law enforcement agencies are looking more for long-term, rather than  temporary support. State counterdrug officials told us that as a result of  the funding uncertainty they experience significant fluctuations in the  number of personnel performing state drug interdiction and counterdrug  activities and that they are challenged in obtaining and retaining highly  qualified National Guard personnel. Additionally, state counterdrug  program officials stated that withdrawing National Guard personnel from  partner organizations after appropriations expire can severely affect their  operations and diminish trust between counterdrug programs and law  enforcement partners. According to National Guard Bureau officials, the National Guard Bureau  revised its process for funding the National Guard counterdrug program in  fiscal year 2017 to try to mitigate the effects of DOD’s process for  providing funds under continuing resolutions on the program. Specifically,  the National Guard Bureau worked with the Army and Air National Guard  budget execution offices to establish a process to expedite funding made  available to the state-level counterdrug programs. Under the revised  process, the Army and Air National Guard budget execution offices  reprogram available amounts from other programmatic activities, such as  funds for annual training, to the counterdrug program earlier in the fiscal  year. According to Army and Air National Guard budget execution  officials, amounts provided through reprogramming are based on a  number of factors, including prior years’ appropriations for the program,  execution levels, current-year appropriations and congressional  directions, and an assessment of risk to the other activities. The National Guard Bureau and state counterdrug program officials  stated that this revised funding process has helped mitigate challenges  arising from uncertainty of when and how much funding would be  provided to the states. For example, state counterdrug program officials  said that in fiscal year 2017, the funding process enabled them to retain  more personnel on orders and decrease the amount of funds that went  unspent. The total number of personnel assigned to the National Guard  counterdrug program at the beginning of fiscal year 2018 was  approximately 2,250. Conversely, the program began fiscal year 2016  with approximately 1,350 personnel on orders. In addition, program  officials stated that the process to provide funding earlier in the fiscal year  helped them to obligate almost 97 percent of the total budget authority in  fiscal year 2017, a higher percentage compared to many of the previous  fiscal years. National Guard officials stated that while reprogramming  amounts from other programmatic activities has helped to address the  fiscal challenges of the National Guard counterdrug program, they cannot  provide assurance that this funding process will continue from year to  year. However, National Guard Bureau officials have assessed the risks  and believe this is the best solution available for funding the program  during a continuing resolution until the enactment of the final  appropriation. DOD Could Improve  Its Processes for  Approving and  Distributing Funds to  State Counterdrug  Programs  DOD Has Provided  Funding to State  Counterdrug Programs  without Approved Plans DOD has established a process for development and review of the state  plans—an annual plan of each state’s counterdrug activities—to ensure  that state counterdrug program activities reflect DOD’s counternarcotics  strategic priorities. However, since at least 2009 DOD has not met the  statutory requirement to examine the adequacy of state plans prior to  distributing funding to state counterdrug programs. To develop the state plans, counterdrug coordinators in each state  counterdrug program use guidance in annual memorandums issued by  DOD. According to the guidance, the plans should identify the state’s  counterdrug priorities and how each state counterdrug program intends to  obligate its available funds. Counterdrug coordinators then work with their  state’s Adjutant General, Attorney General, and Governor, who each  review and sign them, before the plans are sent to the National Guard  Bureau for further review. Once the National Guard Bureau reviews the  plans, they are forwarded to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary  of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats. Officials from that  office review the plans and make recommendations to the Secretary of  Defense to approve or disapprove the plans. Based on these  recommendations, the Secretary of Defense reviews the plans for  adequacy, and when satisfied, signs a memorandum of agreement  approving the plans. Figure 5 provides an outline of the process to  approve state plans for their counterdrug activities. However, since at least 2009, DOD has provided funding to the state  counterdrug programs prior to the Secretary of Defense approving states’  plans for their counterdrug activities, according to National Guard Bureau  officials. This is inconsistent with section 112 of title 32 of the United  States Code, which requires that before funds are provided to the  Governor of a state for counterdrug activities and before members of the  National Guard of that State are ordered to full-time National Guard duty,  the Secretary of Defense must examine the adequacy of the plan  submitted by the Governor. We found that that the delay in approval of  states’ plans for their counterdrug activities has worsened since 2009,  and in fiscal year 2018, approval took over 9 months (283 days) after  funding was provided at the beginning of the fiscal year. Figure 6  provides information on the number of days between the beginning of the  fiscal year, when states received funding, and when all plans were  approved in fiscal years 2009 through 2018. Officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Counternarcotics and Global Threats and the National Guard Bureau  stated that several factors have contributed to delays in the state plan  approval process. First, officials stated that, prior to fiscal year 2016, the  National Guard Bureau submitted state plans to the Office of the Deputy  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats  signed by the Division Chief of the National Guard counterdrug program,  a colonel in the Army or the Air Force. However, in fiscal year 2016,  officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense found the  Counterdrug Program Division Chief’s review and approval of the state  plans to be insufficient because the approving official did not have the  appropriate rank to approve state plans on behalf of the National Guard  Bureau. As a result, officials from the National Guard Bureau elevated the  level of approval within the National Guard Bureau to the National Guard  Bureau Joint Staff Director of Domestic Operations and Force  Development, a Major General in the Army National Guard or Air National  Guard. Officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of  Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats stated that this resulted  in an increase in the number of days that it took the National Guard  Bureau to provide reviewed state plans. Officials stated that they are  working to develop an updated timeline to address delays created by the  approval process. Specifically, officials stated that they are working to  submit the plans for review earlier in order to allow enough time to ensure  that state plans are approved before funds are provided to state  counterdrug programs. Second, officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of  Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats stated that their office  required state plans to include information, such as narratives detailing  states’ planned activities that were not critical to determining plans’  alignment with DOD priorities. In addition, officials stated that, over time,  states had expanded the narratives in their plans, which increased the  length of each submission. As a result of this required information,  officials stated that the department’s review of state plans took longer  than had the extra information not been included. Officials from the Office  of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and  Global Threats stated they have reviewed the statutory requirements for  the plans to identify which components are necessary and streamlined  the format of the plans for use in fiscal year 2019. Third, officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of  Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats stated that in the past  the Office of the Secretary of Defense would not accept state plans from  the National Guard Bureau in batches, but instead insisted on receiving  and reviewing them altogether, delaying the review process. These  officials noted that they have since begun accepting state plans from  National Guard Bureau in batches in order to speed up the approval  process. On June 7, 2018, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense  for Counternarcotics and Global Threats issued a memorandum to the  Chief of the National Guard Bureau that required all states and territories  to submit their plans, through National Guard Bureau and the Joint Staff,  to his office no later than August 31, 2018. According to officials from the  Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics  and Global Threats, the state plans were to detail fiscal year 2019  National Guard counterdrug program activities and provide the Office of  the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and  Global Threats additional time to review state plans prior to the beginning  of the fiscal year. However, in October 2018, officials from the National Guard Bureau and  the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Counternarcotics and Global Threats told us that none of the fiscal year  2019 plans had been approved prior to the beginning of the fiscal year,  and that DOD had provided state counterdrug programs with funding for  fiscal year 2019. As of mid-November, officials from the Office of the  Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global  Threats told us that 39 of the 54 state plans had been approved. DOD  has not assessed why the steps it took to improve the state plan review  process did not result in timely approval of the state plans. GAO’s  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government note that  management should monitor activities and evaluate the results of  programmatic changes. Assessing the revised process for reviewing  states’ plans would enable DOD to determine what additional actions are  needed to ensure the plans are approved by the Secretary of Defense  before funding is provided to state counterdrug programs, as statutorily  required by section 112 of title 32. National Guard Bureau’s  Funding Distribution  Process Does Not  Incorporate DOD Strategic  Counternarcotics Priorities We found that the National Guard Bureau’s funding distribution process  does not consider DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities. For  example, while DOD’s 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats  Strategy prioritizes efforts on the southwest and northern borders, the  National Guard Bureau’s funding distribution process does not specifically  account for this. Rather than taking into account established DOD  counternarcotics priorities to inform funding distribution, the National  Guard Bureau uses survey results and statistics on drugs from a number  of national-level databases to develop a distribution percentage for each  state within its threat-based resource model that reflects its relative drug  threat. Each state’s threat-based resource model percentage is then  applied to the funding transferred to the National Guard Bureau from the  Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account and  disbursed to the 54 state programs. For example, Arizona’s threat  percentage was determined to be 6.25 percent based on existing drug  threats; as a result, Arizona received about $11.8 million in funding for  state plans in fiscal year 2018. National Guard Bureau officials stated that while the threat-based  resource model’s variables and the data that feed the model relate to  DOD strategic counternarcotics priorities, they do not adjust the process  to reflect these priorities when distributing funding. When we asked  National Guard Bureau officials why its funding distribution process does  not consider DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities, National Guard  Bureau officials stated that they were focused on identifying variables and  data sources within the threat-based resource model to reflect relative  drug threats and did not consider incorporating DOD’s strategic  counternarcotics priorities as part of the funding distribution process. Our work on results-oriented management states that strategy should  inform program activities and resourcing. In addition, the National Guard  Bureau reported that the goal of the threat- based resource model is to  prioritize the most pressing threats from a national perspective, informed  by current national and DOD counternarcotics strategies. Both the Office  of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and  Global Threats and National Guard Bureau officials stated that  incorporating DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities into the National  Guard Bureau’s funding distribution process would help ensure that DOD  priorities are resourced. National Guard Bureau officials stated that they  are considering how to align the funding distribution process with DOD’s  strategic counternarcotics priorities. They added that the next time they  could make changes to their funding distribution process would be for use  in fiscal year 2020. Until the National Guard Bureau incorporates DOD’s  strategic counternarcotics priorities into the funding distribution process,  the National Guard Bureau risks directing funding toward lower priority  counterdrug activities at the expense of higher priority activities. Conclusions The National Guard counterdrug program was established nearly 30  years ago to assist efforts of the Governors of the 50 states, District of  Columbia, and three U.S. territories in addressing illicit drug production,  trade, and consumption. The drug threats facing the nation are complex  and continue to evolve over time, and efforts to combat those threats will  require continued support from DOD, to include the National Guard  counterdrug program. DOD lacks current strategy and guidance for the National Guard  counterdrug program. Although DOD has a counternarcotics and global  threats strategy from 2011, it is outdated and does not reflect current drug  threats or changes in national-level strategies, which are critical for  informing DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities. Issuing a strategic  framework will ensure that DOD’s counterdrug priorities are aligned with  the priorities of other agencies involved in counternarcotics efforts,  provide direction for DOD’s counternarcotics activities, and ensure that  the National Guard counterdrug program addresses current drug threats.  Further, the National Guard Bureau guidance to operate and administer  the program was rescinded and has not been replaced, leaving state  counterdrug programs officials without clear instructions on how to  operate and administer program activities. Issuing interim guidance would  provide detailed processes and procedures that states could use to  operate their counterdrug programs. Without current strategy or guidance  for the National Guard counterdrug program, it will be difficult for the  program to operate effectively. In addition, it is important to ensure that funding is distributed to the state- level programs in support of DOD’s strategic counternarcotics priorities.  Although the Secretary of Defense is statutorily responsible for reviewing  the adequacy of states’ plans prior to providing funds to the states, these  reviews have not occurred before state counterdrug programs received  funding. Also, the National Guard Bureau has not incorporated DOD’s  strategic counternarcotics priorities into its funding distribution process,  which is instead wholly reliant on survey responses and drug data. While  these are important factors to consider when distributing funding,  incorporating DOD strategic counternarcotics priorities into the National  Guard Bureau’s funding distribution process would better inform such  decisions. Until DOD’s process to approve state plans and the National  Guard Bureau’s process to distribute funding are improved, DOD may not  be able to ensure that resources are applied to its strategic  counternarcotics priorities. Taken together these actions should improve the Department’s oversight  of the National Guard counterdrug program and help ensure that the  program uses resources effectively and achieves positive results. Recommendations for  Executive Action We are making five recommendations to DOD. The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Office of the Deputy  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats  issues its counternarcotics and global threats strategic framework that  incorporates relevant national-level strategies and reflects current drug  threats, and update it, as appropriate, upon issuance of the new National  Drug Control Strategy. (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chief of the National  Guard Bureau issues interim guidance that provides detailed procedures  and processes on how to operate and administer the National Guard  counterdrug program. (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chief of the National  Guard Bureau take steps to ensure it issues a manual to accompany  Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01A, National Guard  Counterdrug Support, by June 2019. (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Office of the Deputy  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats,  in coordination with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, assess the  revised process for reviewing states’ plans for their counterdrug activities,  and take actions based on the assessment to ensure the plans are  approved by the Secretary of Defense before funding is provided to state  counterdrug programs, as statutorily required. (Recommendation 4) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chief of the National  Guard Bureau incorporate the strategic counternarcotics priorities, to be  outlined in DOD’s counternarcotics and global threats strategic  framework, into the National Guard Bureau’s funding distribution process.  (Recommendation 5) Agency Comments  and Our Evaluation In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with all five  of our recommendations and identified actions it plans to take to improve  its oversight of the National Guard counterdrug program. DOD’s  comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix VI. DOD also  provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which we  incorporated as appropriate. For example, we adjusted the wording of our  fifth recommendation, replacing threat-based resource model with funding  distribution process, to reflect the department’s technical comment that it  is unlikely that the National Guard Bureau would change the threat-based  resource model, but rather add strategic priorities to the funding  distribution process to meet the intent of our recommendation. We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees, the Acting Secretary of Defense, the Assistant Secretary of  Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict, and the Chief of  the National Guard Bureau. In addition, the report is available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-2775 or fielde1@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office 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 VIII. Appendix I: National Guard Counterdrug  Program Funding by Project Code Department of Defense (DOD) budgets for National Guard counterdrug  program activities using 5 projects codes:  7403—State Plans—funds DOD support to U.S. State Governors in  accordance with State requests in the form of drug interdiction and  counter-drug activities plans submitted in accordance with 32 U.S.C. §  112(c).  7415—Counterdrug Schools—funds five National Guard Counterdrug  Schools as authorized by §901 of the Office of National Drug Control  Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006, as amended, and as identified in  plans submitted by host State Governors to the Secretary of Defense in  accordance with 32 U.S.C. § 112(c).  9301—Counterthreat Finance—funded reserve military pay and  associated support costs for National Guard personnel in support of  State, Federal, and Combatant Command efforts to identify, target, and  disrupt illicit financial systems that enable drug trafficking, and when vital  to U.S. national security interests—terrorism and transnational organized  crime.  1295—Linguist and Data Analysis—funds DOD support for combatant  command and interagency law enforcement efforts to detect and disrupt  transnational criminal organizations’ operations using linguistic and  analytical skills of National Guard personnel.  9498—Linguist Support—funds language transcription, translation, and  data analysis support to the U.S. Department of Justice and Drug  Enforcement Administration using Utah National Guard personnel. DOD’s budget request for the National Guard counterdrug program  increased steadily from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2012, peaking  at just more than $205 million. However, in fiscal year 2013 DOD’s  budget request for the program decreased substantially and continued to  decline through fiscal year 2017. The decrease in requested funding amounts for the program is primarily in the State Plans and Counterdrug  Schools project codes. In fiscal year 2018, the budget request for the  program increased slightly and included additional funding amounts within  the State Plans and Counterdrug Schools project codes. Table 4 provides  a summary of DOD’s budget request for the National Guard counterdrug  program, by project code, in fiscal years 2004 through 2018. Since at least 2004, Congress has directed increases above DOD’s  budget request level for the activities of the National Guard counterdrug  program. Congressionally-directed increases have been directed to the  State Plans and Counterdrug Schools project codes. Beginning in fiscal  year 2013, congressionally-directed increases have generally made up  half or more of the total funding appropriated to the National Guard  counterdrug program. Table 5 provides a summary of congressionally- directed increases for the National Guard counterdrug program, by  project code, in fiscal years 2004 through 2018. According to DOD’s data, total budget authority for the National Guard  counterdrug program varied from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year  2017. Total budget authority may be above or below congressionally- enacted amounts because DOD can transfer or reprogram amounts into  other authorized accounts and activities based on program requirements.  Table 6 provides a summary of total budget authority for the National  Guard counterdrug program, by project code, in fiscal years 2010 through  2017. According to DOD’s data, obligation amounts for the National Guard  counterdrug program varied from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year  2017. According to National Guard officials, variation was partly due to  the timing and amount of allocations received by the program. Funds  transferred from the Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense  account to various other DOD drug interdiction accounts or programs,  including the National Guard program, can be transferred back to the  account upon a determination that all or part of the funds are not  necessary and remain unobligated. Once funds are returned to the Drug  Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense account, they are  available for transfer to other DOD counterdrug programs for obligation.  Table 7 details the counterdrug program’s obligations from fiscal years  2010 through 2017. Appendix II: Overview of State Counterdrug  Program Planned Support Activities, Fiscal  Year 2018 As of fiscal year 2018, National Guard Bureau policy allows state  counterdrug programs to perform 15 approved support activities grouped  into five broad mission categories. The five mission categories are  technical support (including linguist and translator, operational and  investigative case and criminal analyst, and counterthreat finance  support), general support (including domestic cannabis suppression and  eradication operations and transportation support), reconnaissance and  observation (including ground and aerial reconnaissance), civil operations  and coalition development, and counterdrug training. Of the 15 approved  support activities, the investigative case and analyst support activity was  the most frequently provided activity; it accounted for 42 percent of all  support provided in fiscal years 2011 to 2014. Among all of the supported  organizations from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2014, law enforcement  agencies received about 38 percent of all support provided by the  National Guard counterdrug program. Table 8 lists the fiscal year 2018  approved state plan mission categories and support activities. Appendix III: Process to Fund the National  Guard Counterdrug Program After Congress appropriates amounts to the Drug Interdiction and  Counterdrug Activities, Defense account, there are multiple steps  performed by various organizations before counterdrug funds are  provided to each individual state program. To begin the process to  distribute funding, the Department of Defense (DOD) Counternarcotics  and Global Threats program officials prepare and submit to the Office of  the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) a reprogramming action  (DD1415-3), which details the allocation of funds by appropriation or  budget activity account for each program they manage. DOD  Comptroller officials review and approve the DD1415-3 and forward it to  the Office of Management and Budget. Once approved by the Office of  Management and Budget, the DOD Comptroller issues a funding  authorization document to transfer funds to the military services  appropriation accounts (such as military personnel or operation and  maintenance). The military services then transfer funds to appropriation  accounts managed by Army National Guard and Air National Guard,  which, in turn, distribute the funds onto each state National Guard  participating in the program. The National Guard Bureau’s Counterdrug  Program office coordinates the process involving the Office of the Deputy  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats,  the Army and Air National Guard budget and financial management  offices, and the individual state counterdrug programs. According to  officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Counternarcotics and Global Threats, the process to complete the  DD1415-3 takes 3 full weeks and then an additional 8 weeks, on average,  for the funding to become available for state counterdrug programs.  Figure 7 outlines the process to fund the National Guard counterdrug  program. Appendix IV: Funding Provided by the  Department of Defense under Congressional  Appropriations Appendix V: Threat-Based Resource Model The National Guard Bureau’s threat-based resource model has been  used since fiscal year 2012 to help determine funding distribution  percentages for the state counterdrug programs. Between fiscal years  2013 and 2015, National Guard Bureau officials stated that they  determined planned funding amounts based on a combination of  historical funding levels and threat-based resource model threat  percentages. According to officials, beginning in fiscal year 2016, funding  aligned more closely with threat-based resource model threat  percentages. However, National Guard Bureau officials stated that  funding distribution percentages from the threat-based resource model  were deemed unusable in fiscal year 2017 due to concerns they had with  the amount of reporting and the quality of the data that was reported. As a  result, officials stated that the fiscal year 2016 threat-based resource  model funding percentages were used to distribute fiscal year 2017  funding to state programs while National Guard Bureau officials revised  the model for use in fiscal year 2018. Updates to the model included  expanding the number of variables to better respond to changes in drug  threats, adjusting the model so that it did not treat all drug seizure  incidents and amounts equally, and increasing the number of data  sources. Table 10 provides threat-based resource model percentages  and table 11 funding amounts, by state, for fiscal years 2012 through  2018. Appendix VI: Comments from the  Department of Defense Appendix VII: Status of October 2015  Recommendations on National Guard  Counterdrug Program In October 2015, GAO issued a report on the National Guard counterdrug  program titled Drug Control: Additional Performance Information Is  Needed to Oversee the National Guard’s State Counterdrug Program.  In  that report, we made two recommendations aimed at ensuring that  resources are being efficiently applied to meet the National Guard  counterdrug program’s objectives. Table 12 provides an update on the  status of the recommendations from that report. Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff  Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff  Acknowledgments: In addition to the contact named above, Rich Geiger (Assistant Director),  Joy Booth, Carol Henn, Jesse T. Jordan, Amie M. Lesser, Shari Nikoo,  Tobin J. McMurdie, Carol D. Petersen, Clarice Ransom, Michael D.  Silver, Alexandra L. Stewart, and Sarah B. Warmbein, made key  contributions to this report.
Since 1989, DOD has received billions of dollars to fund the National Guard's participation in a counterdrug program focused on domestic drug interdiction activities. DOD received $261 million for this program in fiscal year 2018. This program provides military support to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement organizations with counterdrug activities and operates in 54 states and territories across the United States. Senate Report 115-125 included a provision for GAO to evaluate the National Guard counterdrug program. This report (1) evaluates the extent to which DOD has strategy and implementing guidance for the National Guard counterdrug program, and (2) assesses DOD's processes to approve states' counterdrug plans and distribute funding to the program, among other things. GAO reviewed DOD's counterdrug strategy and guidance; DOD funding and personnel data; and its processes to distribute funding. The Department of Defense (DOD) lacks current strategy and guidance to implement the National Guard counterdrug program. Although a number of key national-level strategies, such as the National Drug Control Strategy, have been updated since 2011 to address changing drug threats, GAO found that DOD's 2011 Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy has not been updated to reflect these changes. In addition, the National Guard lacks detailed procedures and processes for the states to implement the National Guard counterdrug program, such as how to conduct cross-state aerial reconnaissance. Without current strategy or guidance, it will be difficult for the National Guard to operate its counterdrug program effectively. DOD's processes to approve state counterdrug plans and distribute funding to the state-level counterdrug programs could be improved. Since at least 2009, DOD has provided funding to the states without first approving state plans for counterdrug activities, as required by statute. GAO found that the delay in approval of state counterdrug plans has worsened since fiscal year 2009; in fiscal year 2018, approval took over 9 months (283 days); see figure below. In 2018, DOD took some steps to address the timely review of state plans, but GAO found that those steps did not rectify the problem. GAO also found that the process used by the National Guard to distribute funding to the states within the program does not incorporate DOD's strategic counternarcotics priorities, such as the U.S. southwest and northern border areas. GAO's work on results-oriented management states that strategy should inform program activities and resourcing. Until National Guard's process to distribute funding to state counterdrug programs is improved, it risks directing funding toward lower priority counterdrug activities at the expense of higher priority activities.