Central American Police Training: State and USAID Should Ensure Human Rights Content Is Included as Appropriate, and State Should Improve Data

Several U.S. agencies train police in the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, where corruption and human rights abuses have traditionally plagued civilian police forces. State, the primary agency responsible for foreign police assistance, allocated about $37 million to train police in these countries from appropriations for fiscal years 2014 through 2017. Although it is not a focus of their efforts, DOD and USAID also train police in the Northern Triangle.

Senate Report 115-125 includes a provision for GAO to report on various aspects of U.S. police training efforts in the Northern Triangle. In this report, GAO examines, among other objectives, the extent to which U.S. agencies have (1) established objectives for and delivered training to professionalize police, including promoting respect for human rights, and (2) collected data related to police training indicators. GAO analyzed agency data and project documents, including for 22 State and USAID-funded projects implemented during fiscal years 2014 through 2017 that agencies identified as including assistance for police. GAO also conducted fieldwork in El Salvador and interviewed agency officials in Honduras; Guatemala; and Washington, D.C., who oversee and conduct police training.

Agencies have established objectives and delivered training to professionalize police in Central America's Northern Triangle but have not consistently done so to promote police respect for human rights. U.S. strategies include objectives to professionalize police, and the Departments of State (State) and Defense (DOD) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have delivered related training (see figure). These strategies also highlight the importance of police respect for human rights, but agencies have few objectives or other control mechanisms to ensure police receive related training. For instance, none of the 14 State projects and 2 of the 8 USAID projects that GAO reviewed had such objectives. Officials said this is because objectives were designed to be broader in focus. DOD also does not have objectives but has other control mechanisms to ensure its training includes human rights content. Federal standards for internal control call for managers to establish control mechanisms consistent with priorities. Without them, it may be difficult for State and USAID to ensure that training supports agencies' goals to promote police respect for human rights.

DOD, State, and USAID collect information on police training, but State lacks readily available, reliable data on the number of police trained—a key indicator in the U.S. Strategy for Central America . State's data are not readily available because, according to officials, the process to track training is decentralized and data are not consolidated. Further, GAO found State's fiscal year 2017 police training data to be unreliable because, among other reasons, the data did not include training delivered by some implementers. Officials noted that State did not have sufficient internal control mechanisms and staff in place to collect data as it expanded police training in the Northern Triangle. Without such data, State cannot accurately assess its efforts in Central America.

To improve oversight of police training in the Northern Triangle, State and USAID should design control mechanisms to ensure human rights content is included as appropriate, and State should improve police training data. State and USAID concurred.

The three Central American countries constituting the region’s “Northern  Triangle”—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—face widespread  insecurity and violence, with homicide rates among the highest in the  world. The police forces in these countries are challenged by corruption,  inadequate resources, insufficient training, and a lack of public trust,  according to U.S. Department of State (State) documents. Supporting  the efforts of the Northern Triangle governments to professionalize and  reform police forces is a focus of U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere.  The White House’s U.S. Strategy for Central America aims to improve  governance and security in the region and emphasizes that security  assistance should address corruption, promote governmental  transparency, and protect human rights. In support of this strategy, the  United States has devoted significant resources to train police units in the  Northern Triangle. For example, State’s Bureau of International  Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) and the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID) reported having allocated at least $37  million and $11 million, respectively, to train police in El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras from appropriations for fiscal years 2014  through 2017.

Congress has clearly articulated the importance of respect for human  rights in U.S. assistance to partner nations’ security forces, and in Senate  Report 115-125, accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act  for Fiscal Year 2018, the Committee on Armed Services included a  provision for us to report on various aspects of U.S. police training efforts  in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. In this report, we examine, for  the Northern Triangle, (1) the extent to which U.S. agencies have  established objectives for and delivered training to professionalize police,  including promoting respect for human rights; (2) the extent to which  agencies have collected data related to police training indicators; and (3)  the actions U.S. agencies have planned and undertaken to support the  ability of partner nations to sustain police training.

To address these objectives, we reviewed government-wide and agency  strategies, guidance documents, project work plans, and reports from  State, the Department of Defense (DOD), and USAID. We focused on  State and USAID because officials identified them as the primary funders  of police training in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. While DOD  primarily provides assistance to foreign military entities, we included DOD  in our analysis because some of the training funded by the agency  includes police participants. We included police training implemented by  the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) when  their training efforts were funded by State, DOD, and USAID, but not  separate efforts funded by DOJ and DHS. In addition to reviewing  documents, we conducted fieldwork in El Salvador and interviewed  agency officials in Honduras; Guatemala; and Washington, D.C., who  oversee and conduct police training.

To determine the extent to which U.S. agencies have established  objectives for and delivered training to professionalize police, including  promoting respect for human rights, we reviewed agency documents and  assessed them against federal standards for internal control, which state  that management should set objectives or other control mechanisms to  meet an entity’s mission, strategic plan, and goals. Our analysis included  U.S. global, regional, and country-specific strategic documents such as  government-wide Integrated Country Strategies and DOD country  security assistance plans for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. We  also reviewed documents from State, USAID, and DOD about police  assistance efforts implemented during fiscal years 2014 through 2017  that included assistance for police in El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras. Specifically, we reviewed 22 projects—14 funded by State  and 8 funded by USAID—that the agencies identified as including  assistance for police. For each of these 22 police assistance projects, we  analyzed project documents—work plans or reports—to identify  objectives or other internal control mechanisms related to police  professionalization, including promoting respect for human rights, using  definitions determined through our analysis and discussions with agency  officials. Two analysts independently reviewed the project documents and  discussed and resolved any disagreements in their initial determinations  about the extent to which project documents included relevant objectives  or other internal control mechanisms.

With respect to reporting on the extent to which training incorporated  content to professionalize police, including promoting respect for human  rights, we analyzed documents on police training, such as training  agendas and course catalogs, and discussed training content with  officials at implementing agencies. To analyze the content of training  courses, we defined training to promote respect for human rights as  training specifically addressing “human rights” or elements of human  rights as defined in agency documents, such as the proper use of force  and minority rights, and in the United Nations Universal Declaration of  Human Rights.

To determine the extent to which agencies have collected data on police  training indicators, we analyzed agency documents to identify indicators  related to police training and assessed related data against federal  internal control standards, which call for agencies to have readily  available, reliable data to track progress toward goals. We identified, and  agency officials confirmed, one relevant indicator in the U.S. Strategy for  Central America: the “number and percentage of civilian police trained by  INL.” That strategy assigns State responsibility for tracking that indicator.  We asked State to provide us with information related to the indicator and  compared State’s data with training information from implementing  agencies to determine the extent to which State’s data were reliable and  readily available. We assessed State’s data on how many police were  trained by comparing similar data from different sources; reviewing  agency information regarding underlying data systems; and interviewing  cognizant agency officials. We found that the data on police trained  through INL’s International Law Enforcement Academies program  (hereafter referred to as ILEA) were sufficiently reliable for reporting on  the number of police trained. However, overall, we found that State does  not have readily available, reliable data on the total number of police  trained, which we report as a finding.

To determine the actions U.S. agencies have planned and undertaken to  support the ability of partner nations to sustain police training, we spoke  with agency officials about related activities and analyzed project planning  documents and reporting related to police assistance. Using this  information, we determined the types of actions U.S. agencies had  planned or undertaken and discussed these categories with agency  officials to confirm that the categories accurately reflected agency actions.  For more detail on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to September  2018 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.

According to State and USAID, the Northern Triangle countries of El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (see fig. 1) have a history of police  corruption and gross violations of human rights. For example, State’s  Guatemala 2016 Human Rights Report describes human rights abuses  by the police, including arbitrary and unlawful killings, abuse, and  mistreatment. Agencies also described a number of factors that challenge  police forces in the Northern Triangle, including a culture of impunity and  limited partner nation capacity to address these challenges.

Many U.S. agencies implement assistance to civilian police in El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, with State’s INL being the primary  source of funding. Federal law generally prohibits the use of foreign  assistance funds for police training, but Congress provided several  exceptions including for training in internationally recognized standards of  human rights, the rule of law, anti-corruption, and the promotion of civilian  police roles that support democracy. Accordingly, as part of USAID’s  broader security sector reform assistance efforts, the agency provides  some police training, which often includes training on community policing  practices. DOD generally is not authorized to train civilian police and  focuses on building the capacity of its military and other national security  counterparts. However, under its authority to build the capacity of foreign  security forces for various purposes, DOD has provided a limited amount  of training for civilian police and military units that provide civilian security  in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. For example, several U.S.  agencies, including DOD, have delivered training to the Joint Group  Cuscatlán in El Salvador, an interagency task force that includes police;  and to the Special Response Intelligence and Security Group in Honduras  (commonly called TIGRES, its acronym in Spanish), which, according to  State, is an elite, vetted unit within the Honduran National Police,  specializing in high-risk tactics.

State, USAID, and DOD deliver training in a variety of ways, including  through the agencies’ own subject matter experts, interagency  agreements with other U.S. agencies, and contracts with nongovernment  implementing partners. For example, USAID has contracts and  cooperative agreements with corporations, universities, and  nongovernmental organizations to implement assistance projects that  include training of police in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.  State’s INL uses contracts to procure the services of nongovernment  implementing partners and interagency agreements to partner with  several other U.S. government agencies and components, including DHS  and DOJ, to implement police assistance and training. State’s ILEA  program also funds a network of police training academies, including one  located in San Salvador, El Salvador (see fig. 2).

Agencies Have Established Objectives and Delivered Training to Professionalize Police but Have Not Consistently Done So Related to Respect for Human Rights Agencies Have Established Training Objectives to Professionalize Police and Have Delivered Such Training

Global, regional, and country-specific strategies outlining U.S. policy in El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras all include objectives to  professionalize police. For example, the 2017 National Security Strategy  of the United States of America includes an objective to support local  efforts to professionalize police in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S.  Strategy for Central America—a primary document outlining U.S. policy in  El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—also includes an objective  specifically to “professionalize civilian police.” In addition, government- wide Integrated Country Strategies outlining U.S. goals for fiscal year  2014 through 2017 efforts in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras  include police professionalization objectives. For example, the  Integrated Country Strategy for Guatemala for fiscal years 2016 and 2017  includes an objective to strengthen professionalism through training for  law enforcement.

Consistent with these objectives, DOD, State, and USAID have planned  and delivered training aimed at professionalizing police in El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras. First, while DOD’s primary responsibility is to  train its military counterparts, DOD country campaign plans for each of  the three Northern Triangle countries include tasks related to  professionalizing security forces, which would pertain to police they may  train. For example, the plan for Guatemala for fiscal years 2016 and 2017  includes conducting professional development courses to improve skills  to enhance partner nation security forces. During fiscal years 2014  through 2017, DOD delivered training to security forces, including a  limited number of police participants, and officials told us that all DOD  training delivered to security forces was intended to professionalize those  forces.

Second, our analysis of project documents associated with 22 State and  USAID police assistance efforts in El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras implemented during fiscal years 2014 through 2017 found that  21 of the projects included objectives to professionalize police. For  example, agreements between the DHS’s U.S. Customs and Border  Protection and State’s INL for each of the three Northern Triangle  countries have an objective to assist in the development of professional  border security through police training. Similarly, USAID officials noted  the police training incorporated in their broader assistance efforts  consistently includes elements to professionalize those forces, and we  found examples of such training incorporated in documents for each of  the 8 USAID projects we reviewed.

In line with these objectives, State and USAID implementing partners  delivered training to professionalize police from all three Northern  Triangle countries. For example, DOJ’s Drug Enforcement Administration  delivered tactical training on the use of firearms to police in El Salvador  (see fig. 3).

Agencies Have Established Few Police Training Objectives to Promote Respect for Human Rights and Vary in the Extent to Which They Have Delivered Such Training

Agencies have established few objectives to provide human rights  training to police in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras either in  government-wide strategies for the countries or in police assistance  project work plans. Federal standards for internal control state that  management should set objectives or other internal control mechanisms  to meet an entity’s mission, strategic plan, and goals. In the case of  police training, global, regional, and country-specific strategies note the  importance of a professional police force that respects human rights, and  some cite risks associated with police forces lacking these attributes. For  example, U.S. national security strategies associated with fiscal years  2014 through 2017 state that respect for human rights is an important  aspect of U.S. national security strategy. At the regional level, the U.S.  Strategy for Central America states that all security cooperation will  emphasize respect for human rights. Further, the government-wide  Integrated Country Strategies for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras  for fiscal years 2014 through 2017 emphasize the importance of  promoting respect for human rights. Despite the consistent, government- wide emphasis on the importance of promoting respect for human rights,  government-wide strategies and police assistance project documents  include few objectives specifically to provide human rights training to  police in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

First, government-wide country strategies contain few objectives to  provide human rights training to police. Of the three current government- wide Integrated Country Strategies for El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras, only the document for El Salvador contains an objective to  provide human rights training to police (see table 1).

Officials from INL, the State bureau responsible for achieving the human  rights police training objective for El Salvador, noted that efforts related to  this objective have focused on institutionalizing human rights training  through the country’s police academy. State officials did not know why the  strategy for Honduras for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 lacked such an  objective while the strategy for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 included  one. Similarly, officials did not know if the officials who drafted the  Integrated Country Strategy for Guatemala for fiscal years 2016 and 2017  had considered including an objective to train police in human rights.

Second, police assistance project documents also vary in the extent to  which they include objectives or other internal control mechanisms to  ensure human rights content is incorporated in police training. Further,  agencies also vary in the extent to which they included respect for human  rights in police training delivered during fiscal years 2014 through 2017.

DOD has not established specific objectives to train police on human  rights, but internal control mechanisms, such as written policies, have  helped ensure that training DOD delivers to police consistently  incorporates content on respect for human rights, according to agency  officials. As mentioned previously, DOD primarily provides training for  partner nation militaries and national security forces and does not have  strategic objectives specific to training civilian police. Nonetheless, the  U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)—whose area of responsibility  includes El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—uses a written policy to  require that all SOUTHCOM-sponsored operational and intelligence  training provided to security forces contain a human rights component.

Further, in fiscal year 2017, DOD’s Global Train and Equip Program  consolidated some types of assistance DOD had previously used to  provide training for foreign security forces in El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras. The legal authority for this program requires that projects  executed under the authority include elements that promote observance  of and respect for the law of armed conflict, human rights and  fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, and civilian control of the  military.

DOD officials explained that based on these requirements, human rights  training was either imbedded in or provided as a component of all DOD  training delivered to security forces, which they stated generally focused  on operational or tactical topics. We reviewed agendas for training that  DOD officials identified as having included police participants, and found  such content. For example, the agenda for a 4.5-day training on the legal  aspects of combatting terrorism delivered by DOD’s Defense Institute of  International Legal Studies to Salvadoran security force participants,  among whom were 12 civilian police, included at least 5 hours of training  on human rights topics such as international law and the proper use of  force.

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

While USAID has established few specific objectives or other internal  control mechanisms to include human rights content in police training,  according to USAID officials, training delivered to police in El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras during fiscal years 2014 through 2017  included content on respect for human rights. Our analysis of project  documents related to the eight USAID projects that officials identified as  including police assistance in fiscal years 2014 through 2017 found that  two projects included objectives to provide police training specifically on  human rights. For example, the USAID-funded Rights and Dignity Project  for El Salvador included an objective to provide human rights training to  several security sector entities, including the country’s national police. For  a third project, USAID used an internal control mechanism to ensure  human rights related content was included in police training. In this  instance, the terms and conditions of USAID’s cooperative agreement  included technical direction to the implementer that substantive instruction  should address issues of gender-based violence, a human rights concern  pertinent in the recipient countries. The remaining five USAID projects  included no objectives or other internal control mechanisms to ensure that  human rights content was incorporated. USAID officials explained that  project documents did not include specific objectives to provide police  training on respect for human rights because USAID projects generally  have broader goals that are not specific to training police.

Despite having few specific objectives or other internal control  mechanisms intended to ensure that police training includes human rights  content, USAID officials told us that USAID-funded police training  delivered in fiscal years 2014 through 2017 consistently included such  content. For example, according to these officials, training on community  policing constituted a significant portion of police-related assistance in El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and USAID’s civilian policing policy  guidance identifies respect for human rights as a core component of its  community policing curriculum. Further, USAID officials posted in El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, noted that police training delivered  in each country incorporated human rights precepts. For example, in  Honduras, USAID officials said the agency’s efforts included training  police on human rights issues specifically to improve police engagement  with vulnerable populations such as women and members of the lesbian,  gay, bisexual, and transgender community.

In addition to the information provided by USAID officials we spoke with,  we reviewed reports from USAID’s implementing partners that contained  information about police training delivered in fiscal years 2014 through  2017, some of which noted content related to human rights. For example,  one implementing partner reported on providing training that included  content on human rights, ethics, and the proper use of force. USAID  officials told us that the decision to include training on respect for human  rights is based on a series of factors, including USAID staff discretion,  and noted that an internal control mechanism would help ensure that  officials consistently consider the extent to which content related to  respect for human rights would be appropriate to include in police  training.

State has not established specific objectives or other internal control  mechanisms to ensure police training incorporates content promoting  respect for human rights. We reviewed documents related to 14 INL- funded projects for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that officials  identified as including assistance for police and that were implemented in  fiscal years 2014 through 2017. None of the project documents we  reviewed for the 14 INL-funded projects included police training objectives  or other internal control mechanisms related to human rights. Officials  explained that they do not have specific objectives to provide training on  respect for human rights because they have designed objectives with a  broader focus, such as to reduce insecurity and corruption. However, they  agreed that establishing internal control mechanisms specific to human  rights could help ensure training includes such content as appropriate.

Although State has not established objectives or other internal control  mechanisms to ensure that human rights content is included in police  training, State officials told us that some INL-funded police training  includes such content. For example, the ILEA program offers training that  includes human rights content, such as its Human Rights course.  However, ILEA and other INL-funded training implementers also offer  training of a technical nature, such as first responder training and crime  scene management, which may not warrant inclusion of human rights  content. Officials also explained that because training content is  developed and maintained by INL’s implementing partners, INL could not  readily provide detailed information on the content of the training  delivered to police. These officials said that the implementing partners,  such as ILEA and other U.S. agencies, could provide more specific  information on the content of INL-funded training.

Our analysis of ILEA training delivered to police from El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras during fiscal years 2015 through 2017 found  that 84 of 189 courses (or 44 percent) focused on or included content  related to human rights. For example, the ILEA Human Rights course  included content on fundamental human rights and relevant issues and  challenges in participants’ countries. The ILEA Human Trafficking and  Child Exploitation course included human rights content related to  minority rights and vulnerable populations. Officials explained that some  training, such as courses on crime scene management and other courses  on topics of a technical nature, may not warrant the inclusion of content  related to human rights.

Absent objectives from State to deliver training to promote respect for  human rights, officials from 10 key DHS and DOJ offices that implement  INL-funded police training noted various extents to which respect for  human rights is included in police training they deliver. For example,  officials from DOJ’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and  Explosives noted that they have delivered training on topics such as post- blast investigations and the eTrace firearms tracing system that does not  warrant the inclusion of content related to respect for human rights.  Officials from DHS’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection noted that  police training they deliver, such as on conducting highway checkpoints,  does not specifically address respect for human rights but contains best  practices grounded in respect for human rights. Officials from 1 of the 10  offices we contacted—DOJ’s International Criminal Investigative Training  Assistance Program—noted that all INL-funded police training that it  delivered included a human rights component.

While there is no requirement that all State- and USAID-funded police  training include human rights content, these agencies consistently  emphasize the importance of building police and other security forces that  respect human rights. By establishing specific objectives in government- wide strategies or project-specific work plans or other internal control  mechanisms, such as written policies, State and USAID could help  ensure that police training incorporates human rights content, or  continues to do so, as appropriate. Further, without such objectives or  internal control mechanisms, it may be difficult for these agencies to  account for the extent to which implementing partners include human  rights content or to assess progress being made with respect to partner  nation police forces’ respect for human rights—a key goal of U.S. strategy  in Central America.

Agencies Collect Some Information on the Number of Police Trained, but State Lacks Readily Available, Reliable Data on This Indicator

DOD and USAID Have Collected Some Information on the Number of Police Trained

While DOD and USAID training for recipients in the Northern Triangle  may include police participants, police training is not a primary element of  DOD and USAID assistance in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.  Neither agency collects data in relation to a specific indicator on police  training. Nonetheless, both agencies gather some information regarding  civilian police they have trained.

DOD’s primary security assistance objectives in El Salvador, Guatemala,  and Honduras pertain to partner nation militaries; thus the agency does  not collect data in relation to specific police training indicators.  Nevertheless, information on training participants from civilian institutions  such as police forces is available, according to DOD officials. For  example, DOD officials identified civilian police participants from El  Salvador and Guatemala who participated in DOD’s Defense Institute of  International Legal Studies training events during fiscal year 2013.  Further, the Foreign Military Training report tracks DOD training and  includes participants’ units, which can be used to identify police and other  civilian trainees. For instance, the report for fiscal years 2014 and 2015  identifies a 3-month counterdrug course delivered in fiscal year 2014 to  200 members of the elite Honduran police unit, the TIGRES. DOD also  included police participants in courses primarily attended by military  officials. For example, the report for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 indicated  3 members of the Salvadoran National Police attended a fiscal year 2016  course titled “Countering Transnational Threats in the Americas,” along  with at least 20 military officials.

USAID’s assistance in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras consists of  broader security sector reform efforts that include, but do not focus on,  police training. Hence, USAID does not have indicators to specifically  track police training. Consequently, officials explained that the level of  detail that implementing partners reported on police training would vary  project by project and would most likely be found in project-level reporting  submitted by implementing partners. We reviewed quarterly and annual  reports for USAID projects we included in our analysis and found  examples of various levels of detail regarding the number of police  trained. For example:  In reporting on efforts to improve security in Honduras by increasing  the capacity of community members and police, the implementing  partner of USAID’s Convive! project noted that they had delivered  training on community policing to 447 officers from April 2016 to June  2017.

The implementing partner of USAID’s Security and Justice Sector  Reform project in Guatemala reported holding workshops to build  investigators’ capacity to gather information, write reports, and plan  operations in a way that respects human rights, but the implementing  partners’ reports did not specify the number of participants in those  workshops.

USAID’s implementing partner for its Justice Sector Strengthening  project in El Salvador submitted a report on activities during October  through December 2017 noting that they had (1) trained 150 officers  in the fundamentals of community policing and (2) supported  workshops on human rights, ethics, and the proper use of force for  113 officers.

State Lacks Readily Available, Reliable Data on the Total Number of Police Trained

State is responsible for tracking progress toward a key indicator related to  training police in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Objective 3.1 of  the U.S. Strategy for Central America is to “Professionalize Civilian  Police,” and a related indicator is the “number and percentage of civilian  police trained by INL.” However, INL officials in Washington, D.C., told us  that while they collect data for certain types of police training, such as  training provided through the ILEA program, they do not have reliable  information readily available on the total number of police trained through  INL-funded projects.

INL collects some information on the number of police trained through  efforts that it funds. For instance, officials from INL’s ILEA program were  readily able to provide us with data showing that the program had  provided 252 training courses to more than 1,600 police participants from  El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras during fiscal years 2014 through  2017 (see table 2).

In response to our request for information about INL’s fiscal year 2014  through 2017 police training efforts delivered through implementing  partners other than ILEA, INL officials told us that they did not have  readily available data on the number of police trained in El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras. They noted that they could ask INL staff at the  U.S. embassies in those countries to manually compile data related to  fiscal year 2017 training events, but that it would take officials months to  produce similar data for prior fiscal years.

After we narrowed our data request to fiscal year 2017 training events  only, data we received in April 2018 from the embassies indicated that  about 8,400 police—about 3,000 from El Salvador, 4,600 from  Guatemala, and 800 from Honduras—received training from ILEA, the  Colombian National Police Training program, U.S. agency trainers, and  other INL-funded implementing partners. However, our analysis found  that the data State provided were unreliable in that they did not include  training delivered by some implementing partners or align with other  training data provided to us by implementing partners. For example:

First, fiscal year 2017 data from INL in El Salvador included INL- funded training delivered by Colombian police and two  nongovernment implementing partners but no training delivered by  U.S. government implementing partners. However, State and DOJ  officials in Washington, D.C., told us that DOJ’s Drug Enforcement  Administration and Federal Bureau of Investigation had delivered  INL-funded courses to Salvadoran police during fiscal year 2017.

Second, INL officials at the U.S. embassy in Guatemala told us  that the training data they provided excluded training delivered by  DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Miami-Dade Police  Department. These officials assured us that more complete data  associated with additional police training activities did exist, but  they stated that they did not include these data because doing so  would have required them to collect and compile data from several  different sources—a difficult and time-consuming effort.

Third, data from INL officials at the U.S. embassy in Honduras  were similarly unreliable in that they did not align with training data  we collected from implementing partners. For example, embassy  data indicated there were 6 police participants of a training  provided by DOJ’s Drug Enforcement Administration in Honduras,  but DOJ reported that 34 Honduran police participated in the  same training.

Fourth, data from all three embassies included information about  ILEA training that did not align with the data we received directly  from the ILEA program. Officials from the U.S. embassy in  Guatemala acknowledged that the ILEA data they had provided to  us were likely unreliable. Officials from the ILEA program noted  that they provide data on the number of police trained directly to  headquarters INL officials who may have a need for such  information.

INL officials at the U.S. embassies in the Northern Triangle agreed the  fiscal year 2017 data they provided to us may be unreliable in that the  data are incomplete and may be inconsistent with data available from  implementing partners. Despite acknowledging the information they  provided had problems with reliability, INL officials told us that they would  use a similar process to compile data for reporting progress related to the  U.S. Strategy for Central America indicator on the number and  percentage of civilian police trained by INL.

In May 2018, State and USAID issued the first report to Congress on  results of that strategy, which included data on the number of civilian  police from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that INL trained  during fiscal year 2017. Although INL officials told us that they used the  same process to provide data to us in April 2018 and to compile data for  the May 2018 report, we found the two sets of data differed. INL officials  explained that these discrepancies were because State included training  delivered to additional types of police and by more training implementers  in its May 2018 report than they included in the data provided to us in  April 2018. Despite identifying reasons for these discrepancies, INL  officials acknowledged their data collection process is decentralized and  agreed that improvements could be made in the availability and reliability  of the data on the number of police trained. Moreover, INL noted  challenges collecting these data. Specifically:  INL officials from U.S. embassies in the Northern Triangle  responsible for collecting police training data noted that a large  number of implementing partners deliver training, which makes  collecting data more difficult. These officials told us they are  beginning to use a smaller number of institutions, such as local  police academies, where implementing partners deliver INL- funded training. Officials believe this change has helped improve  the reliability of their data on police training because a greater  portion of the training is delivered through a small number of  institutions, making it easier for implementing partners to track  participation. However, the officials also noted that processes  such as reviewing travel orders to find U.S. trainers who had  visited the country and requesting data from individual  implementing partners are still routinely employed to compile  training data when such data are requested.

INL officials in Washington, D.C., where police training data are  aggregated for reporting purposes, told us that it is difficult to  compile reliable information in a timely manner. This is because  embassies use unique processes and systems to collect  information on police training events and the data collected are  not systematically consolidated within the individual embassies or  centrally at INL headquarters. Further, they explained that  following the establishment of the U.S. Strategy for Central  America State received increased funding for police training  efforts, particularly in fiscal year 2016. Although they used some  of these funds to provide more training, they told us that INL was  not fully prepared to implement proper internal control  mechanisms to help ensure the collection of reliable data.  According to these officials, this shortcoming was exacerbated by  a worldwide hiring freeze for State that precluded INL from  employing additional staff at the affected embassies to assist with  data collection and analysis.

INL officials stated that they recognize that effective data collection is a  necessary element of high quality monitoring and evaluation. For that  reason, in September 2017, the INL office for Western Hemisphere  Programs contracted a private firm to conduct data collection and develop  a data management system for INL efforts throughout the hemisphere,  including those related to police training. INL officials told us they intend  to extend the contract for the optional second year and are considering  the potential need to procure additional contractor services to continue  the effort after that. INL officials said that the contractors have made  some progress toward the goals set forth in the contract but  acknowledged that it is early in the process and that data reliability  challenges remain. For example, according to agency officials, in June  2018, contractors were still developing a broad set of indicators related to  INL efforts in the Western Hemisphere and had begun the process of  collecting data related to some of them in June 2018. Further, the  contractors reported that as of March 2018 they had yet to build a data  management system or produce training materials and reporting  templates for data collection.

Readily available and reliable data allow managers to make informed  decisions and evaluate an entity’s performance. Without such information,  INL cannot accurately assess the number of police trained in the Northern  Triangle—a key indicator in the U.S. Strategy for Central America.  Further, it may be difficult to fully assess the extent to which training is  having the desired effect.

Agencies Have Planned and Undertaken Various Actions to Support the Ability of Partner Nations to Sustain Police Training, Including for Human Rights

State, USAID, and DOD have established plans and taken action to  support the ability of partner nations to sustain police training, including  training on promoting respect for human rights. INL’s Sustainability Guide  defines sustainability as the ability of host-country partners and  beneficiaries to take complete responsibility for the foreign assistance  programming, and maintain or improve program outcomes and impacts  beyond the life of the program and U.S. government funding.

Government-wide and funding agency guidance discusses the  importance of sustainability for police assistance. According to  Presidential Policy Directive 23 on Security Sector Assistance, a principal  goal is to help partner nations build sustainable capacity to address  common security challenges. Guidance from agencies that fund police  training—including State, USAID, and DOD—also stresses the  importance of sustainability in assistance for police. For example, State’s  INL Guide to Police Assistance notes that police assistance projects  should emphasize sustainable, institutional capacity building to achieve  maximum effect. In line with such guidance, country-level and agency  strategic and project documents have established objectives related to  sustaining police training. For example, the Integrated Country Strategy  for Guatemala for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 has an objective to  assist the government in establishing, training, and maintaining anti-gang  investigative units. Agency police training project documents also address  sustainability. For example, the interagency agreement between INL and  DHS’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection to enhance border security  and build capacity in Honduras aims to create a trained law enforcement  unit that is sustained by local resources.

To enhance the sustainability of police training programs, agency officials  identified various activities they undertake, including the following:

Training-the-trainer. State’s INL Guide to Police Assistance  states that train-the-trainer models can create a sustainable  training program, and officials from multiple agencies told us that  they use train-the-trainer programs to sustain police training. For  example, the INL-funded Gang Resistance Education and  Training program is a regional training program that trains police  officers to teach children and young adults to resist the pressures  to join gangs or engage in other risky behaviors. According to INL,  this police training program has certified over 1,171 regional police  officers as teachers and taught more than 211,000 at-risk youth in  Central America.

Developing policy or guidance. Officials from USAID stated that  helping partner nations develop policy or guidance for law  enforcement can help strengthen institutions and make police  training more sustainable. For example, a USAID project in El  Salvador supported the development of a new use-of-force policy  that was adopted by the national police. Further, USAID supported  the dissemination of the new policy by distributing 10,000 copies,  training police instructors who subsequently taught the policy to  other officers, and holding workshops on human rights, ethics, and  the proper use of force.

Supporting police academies. The ability of partner nations to  incorporate and institutionalize training in their own police  academies is among the most significant determinants of  sustainability, according to U.S. officials from several agencies.  For example, State officials said they try to incorporate curriculum  from U.S. training into the law enforcement academies’ training  curriculum in partner nations. They said doing so has a more  lasting effect than individual training events and leads to the host  government paying for the training going forward. In El Salvador,  USAID developed community policing training in conjunction with  the civilian national police that, according to officials, is now  administered to every new police officer in the country at the  country’s National Academy of Public Security (see fig. 4). At the  same institution, INL supported the development of online training  that includes a human rights component. According to INL  officials, the Salvadoran police were planning to make the online  training a yearly continuing education requirement for the entire  police force.

Continuing engagement. Officials from various agencies told us  that continuing engagement with participants helps sustain police  training, whether through additional training, on-the-job  mentorship, or service requirements for receiving training. For  example, the ILEA academy in San Salvador provides a list of  alumni to the U.S. Embassy San Salvador and encourages  implementing partners to follow up with these alumni, according to  officials. The San Salvador academy also plans to develop an  online alumni portal for engaging with past participants in order to  sustain training.

Building relationships. Building relationships—both within and  across countries—between partners’ law enforcement agencies  and rule of law institutions can help sustain police training,  according to officials from multiple agencies. For example, in  2013, DOD’s Defense Institute of International Legal Studies  conducted border security training in El Salvador that included  military, police, and civilian officials. The training focused on  improving El Salvador’s interagency cooperation and enhancing  respect for human rights. To build and sustain relationships across  countries, DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation holds an annual  training conference that brings together vetted police units from  various partner nations, according to officials.

Developing civil society. Officials from both State and USAID  told us that police reform efforts are more sustainable if there are  parallel civil society organizations that can advocate for  accountability from police and other law enforcement institutions.  USAID works with civil society and community organizations to  track police abuses, including human rights violations. Officials  said that external monitoring can promote the transparency,  accountability, and effectiveness of the police. For example,  USAID’s Justice, Human Rights, and Security Strengthening  project in Honduras seeks to build the capacity of civil society  organizations to advocate for vulnerable groups and victims of  human rights abuses.

Civilian police forces that protect human rights are essential to functioning  democracies, and U.S. agencies recognize that it is important to include  respect for human rights in training provided to partner nation security  forces, including police. The need to bolster respect for human rights  among security forces is specifically emphasized in assistance strategies  for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—three countries with notable  histories of human rights violations by security forces, according to State  and USAID. However, unlike DOD, which has written policies requiring  the inclusion of human rights content in its training, State and USAID  have few such formal mechanisms to ensure human rights content is  appropriately included. Creating internal control mechanisms, such as  objectives or directives to training implementing partners, would help  ensure that State- and USAID-funded police training is consistent with  U.S. government and agency priorities in including content related to  respect for human rights as appropriate. Such control mechanisms would  also enable the agencies to better account for implementing partners’  related activities. In addition, State lacks a standardized process to  readily compile reliable data on the total number of police trained through  INL-funded programs in the Northern Triangle countries. Without such  data, State cannot reliably report on progress toward the U.S. Strategy for  Central America and thus cannot accurately assess the efficacy of such  training. Addressing these two gaps—establishing internal control  mechanisms related to human rights training content and improving police  training data—would better position State to assess the outcomes of such  training, the results of which could inform future funding and sustainment  decisions.

We are making a total of three recommendations, including two to State  and one to USAID:  The Secretary of State should ensure that the Bureau of International  Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) designs internal control  mechanisms to ensure human rights content is included in INL-funded  police training for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras as appropriate.  (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of State should ensure that the Bureau of International  Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) develops and implements a  process to collect more reliable data on the number of police trained  through INL-funded efforts in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.  (Recommendation 2)

The Administrator of USAID should design internal control mechanisms to  ensure human rights content continues to be included in USAID-funded  police training for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras as appropriate.  (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this product, which included three  recommendations, to DHS, DOD, DOJ, State, and USAID for comment.  State provided written comments, which we have reprinted in appendix II,  concurring with our two recommendations to the agency. In response to  the first recommendation, State noted that INL intends to amend  templates for relevant implementing documents to address human rights  as appropriate. In response to the second recommendation, State  commented that, partly in response to our report, INL is developing  specific indicators related to INL-funded police training. USAID also  provided written comments, which we have reprinted in appendix III,  concurring with our recommendation, and detailed two related policy  revisions it intends to implement in response. State, DHS, and DOD  provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOJ  reviewed the report but did not provide comments.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and  State; and the USAID Administrator. 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) 512-7141 or GroverJ@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix IV.

Senate Report 115-125 accompanying the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 includes a provision for us to report  on various aspects of U.S. police training efforts in El Salvador,  Honduras, and Guatemala. In this report, we examine, for the Northern  Triangle, (1) the extent to which U.S. agencies have established  objectives for and delivered training to professionalize police, including  promoting respect for human rights; (2) the extent to which agencies have  collected data related to police training indicators; and (3) the actions U.S.  agencies have planned and undertaken to support the ability of partner  nations to sustain police training.

To address these objectives, we reviewed government-wide and agency  strategies, guidance documents, project documents such as work plans,  and reports from the U.S. Departments of State (State) and Defense  (DOD), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). We  focused on State and USAID because officials identified them as the  primary funders of police training in El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras. While DOD primarily provides assistance to military and other  national security entities, we included DOD in our analysis because some  of the training funded by the agency includes police participants. We  included police training implemented by the Departments of Justice (DOJ)  and Homeland Security (DHS) when their training efforts were funded by  State, DOD, and USAID, but not separate efforts funded by DOJ and  DHS. In addition to reviewing documents, we conducted fieldwork in El  Salvador and interviewed agency officials in Honduras; Guatemala; and  Washington, D.C., who oversee and conduct police training.

To determine the extent to which U.S. agencies have established  objectives for and delivered training to professionalize police, including  promoting respect for human rights, we reviewed agency documents and  assessed them against federal standards for internal control, which state  that management should set objectives or other control mechanisms to  meet an entity’s mission, strategic plan, and goals. Our analysis included  U.S. global, regional, and country-specific strategies such as government- wide Integrated Country Strategies and DOD country security assistance  plans for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Officials from DOD,  State, and USAID told us that all agency-funded classroom training  delivered to police in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras is done to  professionalize those forces, of which training to promote respect for  human rights may be one element. We also reviewed documents from  DOD, USAID, and State about police assistance efforts implemented  during fiscal years 2014 through 2017 that agencies identified as projects  that included assistance for police in El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras. Specifically, we reviewed 22 projects—14 funded by State and  8 funded by USAID—that the agencies identified as including assistance  for police. The projects and documents we identified for each agency are  as follows:

We reviewed DOD strategic plans covering assistance for El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras during fiscal years 2014  through 2017 and found that they did not contain objectives to  specifically train police. DOD officials confirmed that security  assistance they provide is focused on military recipients and that  they had no projects to specifically provide assistance to civilian  police. Thus, we determined that no DOD projects would be  included in our review of project documents to identify objectives  related to training to professionalize police.

USAID provided a list of USAID-funded efforts in El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras implemented during fiscal years 2014  through 2017. Among the projects were eight with funds used for  police training, which we included in our review. USAID provided  work plans for six of the eight projects. For the remaining two  projects, USAID did not identify similar project work plans, so we  identified alternative documents to use for our analysis. For one of  them, we used a progress report submitted to USAID by the  contractor that included a project work plan specifically for fiscal  year 2016. For the other, we used a final evaluation report that  included the objectives of the project.

State identified efforts funded by its Bureau of International  Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) in El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras implemented during fiscal years 2014  through 2017. Because INL assistance generally includes police  among target recipients of assistance, we requested project  documents for all of the efforts State identified. We worked with  State officials to identify project documents that included work  plans or other summaries that identified objectives for these State- funded efforts. Ultimately, State provided documents for 19  projects. Based on our review of those documents, we determined  5 of the projects should not be included in our review for one or  more of the following reasons: They (a) were not implemented  during fiscal years 2014 through 2017, (b) did not provide  assistance to police, or (c) did not have sufficient documentation  provided by State to conduct our analysis. Among State efforts  excluded from our scope due to insufficient documentation is  State-funded training provided through the Colombian National  Police. For the 14 projects that we included in our scope, we used  documents such as work plans for our analysis of objectives.

For each of the 22 USAID and State police assistance projects we  reviewed, we analyzed related project documents, such as work plans or  reports, to identify objectives or other internal control mechanisms related  to police professionalization, including promoting respect for human  rights. To do so, we assessed these documents using definitions we  developed based on our analysis and discussions with agency officials,  as follows:

We defined “police” as civilian—not military—police, as well as other  civilian law, customs, and maritime forces.

We defined “training” as classroom-style training and workshops, not  including mentoring or technical assistance.

We defined “objective” as any statement containing the words goal,  objective, aim, intent, we will, or other statements with actionable  items aimed at reaching an end state.

We defined “professionalize” in line with agency officials’ descriptions  of the term, using related words such as professionalism, professional  competence, or capacity building.

We defined “promotion of respect for human rights” to specifically  include the phrase human rights or elements of human rights as  defined in agency documents, such as the proper use of force and  minority rights, and the United Nations Universal Declaration of  Human Rights.

The project documents for the 22 projects in our scope were  independently reviewed by two analysts. The analysts discussed and  resolved any disagreements in their initial determinations about the extent  to which project documents included relevant objectives or other internal  control mechanisms.

With respect to our reporting on the extent to which training incorporated  content to professionalize police, agencies lack a formal definition of what  types of training constitute police professionalism. To better understand  what types of training we should consider to be training to professionalize  police, we interviewed officials at U.S. agencies that fund and execute  police training in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Officials at  agencies that fund and implement such training consistently described all  training delivered to police to be training intended to professionalize  recipients. Thus, for the purpose of this report, we defined training to  professionalize police as all training provided to police and determined  that all three agencies had delivered such training.

With respect to reporting on the extent to which training incorporated  content related to human rights, we spoke with implementing partner  officials and analyzed documents on police training, such as training  agendas and course catalogs. To determine the extent to which training  delivered by State’s International Law Enforcement Academies program  (hereafter referred to as ILEA) incorporated content related to human  rights, we requested data from the program on the courses it provided to  participants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras during fiscal  years 2014 through 2017. We then analyzed the descriptions in fiscal  years 2015, 2016, and 2017 course catalogs and embassy cables related  to 189 training courses the ILEA program reported to have delivered to  participants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras during fiscal  years 2015 through 2017. For our analysis, we defined training to  promote respect for human rights as training specifically addressing  human rights or elements of human rights as defined in agency  documents, such as the proper use of force and minority rights, and the  United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If such human  rights content was specified in the title or description of the course, we  determined that the course included content related to human rights.

To determine the extent to which agencies have collected data on police  training indicators, we analyzed agency documents to identify indicators  related to police training and assessed related data against federal  internal control standards, which call for agencies to have readily  available, reliable data to track progress toward goals. Specifically, we  analyzed regional and country-specific strategies and the project  documents described above to identify indicators directly related to  objectives to provide police training. We identified, and agency officials  confirmed, one key indicator in the U.S. Strategy for Central America for  which State is responsible for collecting police training data. Specifically,  objective 3.1 of the strategy is to “Professionalize Civilian Police,” and a  related indicator is the “number and percentage of civilian police trained  by INL.” That national strategy assigns State responsibility for tracking  that indicator. We asked State to provide us with fiscal year 2014 through  2017 information related to the indicator.

To assess the reliability of the data on participants of ILEA training  events, we reviewed documents and interviewed cognizant officials about  the ILEA Global Network, the program’s online system used to record all  courses and participants receiving training provided by ILEA. For  example, we determined that the ILEA program has (1) established and  documented a process—described with clear steps in a user guide—to  input accurate data and (2) periodically reviews the quality of that data.  We determined that the data on ILEA training participation are sufficiently  reliable for reporting on the number of police trained.

Beyond the ILEA data, INL initially responded to our data request by  explaining the difficulties in providing the requested information and  suggesting they could provide a more limited set of data. We modified our  request to include only fiscal year 2017 data, which were compiled  separately for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras by the responsible  INL staff at the U.S. embassy in each country. We then interviewed  cognizant officials and compared the data State provided in April 2018  with information that (a) we received from implementing partners,  including U.S. agencies, and (b) was reported in State’s May 2018  progress report on results of the U.S. Strategy for Central America. We  determined that State does not have readily available, reliable data on the  total number of police trained, which we report as a finding.

To determine actions U.S. agencies have planned and undertaken to  support the ability of partner nations to sustain police training, including  training to promote respect for human rights, we spoke with agency  officials about related activities and analyzed project planning documents  and reporting related to police assistance. Using this information, we  determined the types of actions U.S. agencies had planned or undertaken  and discussed these categories with agency officials to confirm that the  categories accurately reflected agency actions.

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of State

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

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Jennifer Grover, (202) 512-7141 or GroverJ@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Biza Repko (Assistant Director),  Drew Lindsey (Assistant Director), Kathryn Bolduc (Analyst-in-Charge),  Ashley Alley, David Dayton, Martin de Alteriis, Gretta Goodwin, Dawn  Locke, Stevenson Ramsey, James Reynolds, Cary Russell, and Brian  Wanlass made key contributions to this report. Neil Doherty also provided  technical assistance.

The Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Department of Defense train police forces in some Central American countries where corruption and human rights abuses have traditionally plagued civilian police forces.

We found that the agencies' training programs are intended to professionalize police and highlight the importance of police respect for human rights. However, State and USAID have few controls in place to ensure that the delivered training includes human rights information.

We made recommendations to address this and other issues we found in our review of Central American police training.