Detailed Information on the
Military Assistance to New NATO and NATO Aspirant Nations Assessment

Program Code 10000386
Program Title Military Assistance to New NATO and NATO Aspirant Nations
Department Name Department of State
Agency/Bureau Name Department of State, activities
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2002
Assessment Rating Moderately Effective
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 100%
Strategic Planning 72%
Program Management 86%
Program Results/Accountability 75%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $98
FY2008 $73
FY2009 $92

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Coordinating annual budgets between the State and Defense Departments, including European Command (EUCOM), to develop more specific long-term goals with timeframes.

Action taken, but not completed Beginning with the FY 2010 budget request submission, State is working with Defense to develop concrete timelines and security assistance objectives, and align them with foreign policy priorities for the 10 new NATO Allies and 3 NATO aspirant nations.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

The budget proposes a funding level that will allow the program to achieve its goals.


Continued development of an e-government management tool will assist managers in determining program deficiencies.


State and Defense will press nations that are lagging in their reform efforts.


Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Long-term Output

Measure: The proportion of new allied nations and NATO aspirants that spend at least 2% of GDP on military budget


Year Target Actual
2002 n/a 20%
2004 40% 38%
2005 50% 15%
2006 60% 23%
2007 70% 15%
2008 70% 31%
2009 80%
2010 80%
2011 90%
2012 90%
Annual Efficiency

Measure: As new NATO military reforms continue, percentage of aspirants making progress achieving NATO-defined and measured, country-specific Membership Action Plans


Year Target Actual
2002 n/a 60%
2004 100% 100%
2005 100% 100%
2006 100% 100%
2007 100% 100%
2008 100% 100%
2009 100%
2010 100%
Annual Outcome

Measure: Percentage of countries that contribute military capabilities (e.g., equipment, units, and forces) or infrastructure (e.g., airfields) for contingencies when requested by the U.S.


Year Target Actual
2002 n/a 90%
2004 90% 100%
2005 100% 100%
2006 100% 100%
2007 100% 100%
2008 100% 100%
2009 100%
2010 100%

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Program purpose is clear, to promote U.S. national security by promoting regional stability; strengthening democratic governments and thus, reducing conflict and the likelihood of war. Funds enable key allies and friends to improve legitimate defense capabilities.

Evidence: Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as Amended),FY 2003 Budget Justification Materials, State Department Performance Plans.

YES 20%

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

Explanation: Provides resources to meet highest priority gaps or deficiencies in recipient military and defense capabilities promoting effectiveness and professionalism of miiltary forces, rationalization, standardization and interoperability of the defense forces of the new NATO and aspirant countries with the U.S. Armed Forces, particularly enhancing the ability of partner forces to operate with NATO; and develop as strong candidates for NATO membership.

Evidence: FY 2003 Budget Justification Materials and 2002 Congressional testimony of State Department's Assist. Secretary for European Affairs and that of the Commander in Chief US Forces Europe (EUCOM). These address specific US foregin policy interests and objectives.

YES 20%

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The program funds projects, programs and activities in all three new NATO countries (Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic) as well as in the nations aspiring to NATO membership (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Albania). This funding addresses weaknesses and gaps in the countries' defense capabilities that are identified and prioritized by NATO and USEUCOM.

Evidence: FY 2003 Budget Justification Materials; Report to Congress on Partnership for Peace through July 15, 2002; Annual Report to Congress on US Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Eurasia. For example, the newly operational NATO-compatible air sovereignty operations (ASOC), which have been procured by several aspirants and NATO members. Communications equipment for new NATO members and aspirants' armed forces.

YES 20%

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: The program plays a key role in assisting participants with their military, security and defense reforms and is not duplicative of other Federal, state, local or private efforts. While US funding may displace some recipient country funding,US resources can be used to augment recipient country spending or actions. These programs also achieve US foreign or security policy goals. For example, International Military Education and Training ensures a cadre of English speaking personnel and officers familiar with western military doctrine, which facilitates inter-operability and peacekeeping missions.

Evidence: FY 2003 Budget Justification Materials; GAO Report to Congress. "NATO United States' Assistance to the Partnership for Peace"; annual Congressional testimony of State and Defense Department officials.

YES 20%

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The program's objective is to assist countries reform their militaries by funding programs to fill gaps in military capabilities defined by NATO and US military requirements. Programs proposed by Defense officials at the Embassy level [often the security assistance officer (SAO), who commands the Office of Defense Cooperation , or ODC and/or DAO in the Embassy] are coordinated with political objectives at the Embassy, State Bureau and Departmental levels as well as the Presidential (NSC staff and OMB) level.

Evidence: The ability of the US to call upon the new NATO and NATO aspirant nations and obtain military units and other support for Operation Enduring Freedom and peacekeeping operations in the Balkans helps confirm the soundness of the program's design.

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 100%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program's key long-term goals are identified for each recipient country and include military reform (force modernization), building a recipient's military, defense and security capabilities in specific areas. These are areas where long-term performance can be measured not by inputs such as the numbers of items procured and the equipment acquired to support specific units. U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and IMET funding assistance is allocated to those countries and performance goals of highest priority consistent with our foreign policy interests. FMF/IMET funding levels annually build on prior year activities and efforts to ensure continual progress toward outcome goals for each country.

Evidence: Examples of country-specific, long-term outcome goals include: (1) English language proficiency; (2) equipment interoperability (i.e., communication equipment); (3) improvement of infrastructure (e.g., Bulgaria airfield upgraded to better accommodate receipt of NATO aircraft). SEEBRIG and BALTBRIG. Country forces and capabilities for these are presented in the MAP for each aspirant country; the MAP identifies the capabilities the country lacks that are most important for NATO and USEUCOM. See President's Report to Congress on NATO Expansion, July, 2002.

YES 14%

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: Discrete, quantifiable, and measurable performance goals for each country are established in US Embassies' annual Mission Performance Plans, NATO Membership Action Plans, and in consultations between U.S. and individual aspirant countries through NATO.

Evidence: These specific goals include, for example, the number of personnel trained;and the numbers and types of equipment to be acquired for support of specific units needed to develop an identified capability, or performance goal.U.S. FMF/IMET funding is allocated to those countries and performance goals of highest priority consistent with our foreign policy interests. FMF/IMET needs to annually build on prior year activities and efforts to ensure continual progress toward long-term goals for each country. For example, the FY 2003 budget for Bulgaria will provide training and special equipment for special operations forces; this is critical to facilitate communication with US and NATO units during missions and exercises.

YES 14%

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The State Department process for developing the FMF and IMET annual country program plans to meet shared long-term goals is the following: The Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC) works with the host nation MOD/armed forces to determine goals and objectives, to develop the Five Year Defense Plan and aspirant MAPs. Planning is directly related to PfP goals: strenthening cooperation between NTO and PfP countries; enhancing interoperability; facilitating compatibility with NATO practices. In parallel, ODC works with the US Embassy team to develop and establish security assistance data for the annual Mission Performance Plan including recommendations for FMF/IMET resources and objectives.This input is integrated into the interagency decision making process to address competing priorities and broader FMF objectives.The Defense Department has a separate process to look at solely military goals, which is not scheduled to coincide with and input to the State Department's process.

Evidence: Not all partner countries adequately support the planning for improving capabilities and increasing support to NATO. Because State and Defense have separate processes for determining and prioritizing the needs of recipient nations, at times ad hoc coordination between the two processes is necessary to harmonize varying views.

NO 0%

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: State coordinates security assistance programs with program managers, SAOs, country desks at the country level with programs such as border security, justice, and democracy building in the aspirant countries. Programs also include Joint Combined Exercise and Training (JCET), DoD funded Warsaw Initiative Exercises.


YES 14%

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: This has been delegated to DOD as the implementing agency. The FMF program and processes are evaluated and reported annually to Congress. While there are no regular, independent evaluations due to the lack of funding for this specific purpose, OSD and EUCOM conduct comprehensive defense assessments based on an "as needed basis." Programs are modified as necessary based on emergent requirements, e.g. Sept. 11.

Evidence: Congressional Reports on Assistance; Foreign Military Financing; Annual Report to Congress on US Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Eurasia. No independent review of use of the material provided is regularly accomplished.

NO 0%

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: DOD has incorporated itemized budgets in the planning process, and budgets reflect priorities of the US interagency as well as the recipient. The MAP, PARP, TEP and the ODCs Five Year Defense Plans are fed into the FMF/IMET budget formulation and submission web tool (developed by DSCA in conjunction with State-PM to support the military assistance budget process) and used to identify and prioritize goals and objectives. Note: the FMF/IMET web tool contains information on national security priorities of individual countries and, therefore, is not publicly available. Yes, annual performance goals are set before budgets are developed.

Evidence: NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP), Planning and Review Process (PARP), Theater Engagement Plan (TEP), Five Year Plans, Mission Performance Plan (MPP); Bureau Performance Plan (BPP); Congressional Budget Justification; Testimony etc.

YES 14%

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

Explanation: In FY02 , the State Department, in conjunction with the Department of Defense, established a web tool/database that allows the USG to identify goals and objectives in priority order as well as reflect performance indicators and progress. In future years, the web tool will also be used to report results against the prior years' goals and objectives. The web tool requires ODCs to list specific objectives and justify each. Programs and schedules will be adjusted or extended as necessary to reflect actual funding and attainment of annual performance goals.

Evidence: The tool's web site includes a document addressing web tool development. The web tool is instrumental in enabling programs and time lines to be adjusted/extended as necessary to reflect actual funding/performance. Political pressure is being used to get countries to comply with obligations and commitments.

YES 14%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 72%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Annually, program contracts are monitored and managed by the ODCs, EUCOM, DSCA. Formal annual reporting and review occurs through a variety of mechanisms, including Training Program and Management Review, Mission Program Plan (MPP), Theater Engagement Plan (TEP) and the annual budget. The web tool will require Embassies to report performance results against each years' objectives. 2002 is the first year for which these results will be reported, so use of this information in future years planning has not yet been documented.

Evidence: MPPs, BPPs, annual budget justifications. In addition, the web tool allows the ODCs to report performance results against each years' FMF and IMET objectives. 2002 is the first year for which these results will be reported. IMET program is reivewed annually , mid-fiscal year to review goals of current fiscal year IMET and establish priorities for upcoming fiscal year.

YES 14%

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: NATO aspirants and new NATO members are to meet specific NATO and MAP goal objectives within timelines associated with NATO enlargement and NATO coalition operations. FMF assistance is targeted at specific equipment/ training needs consistent with US foreign policy objectives.

Evidence: Annual MPP and BPP reviews in the State Department. OMB examiner reviews of program budget requests; examiner trip to EUCOM and Hungary. The USG program managers also participate in annual management reviews with host nations at the acquisition level. As U.S. acquistion community is acquiring special equipment, it is held accountable by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation to ensure that cost, schedule and performance goals for the acquisition program are met.

YES 14%

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

Explanation: FMF funds are obligated upon apportionment allowing for immediate implementation of programs or are obligated and expended (IMET) in the fiscal year appropriated. Once obligated, scheduling difficulties may be encountered committing the funds given country-by-country differences in budgeting cycles and the inability to guarantee specific funding in subsequent years. In certain instances, countries will carry over previous year FMF funds and combine them with current year FMF funds in order to procure more expensive projects, i.e. Poland for its frigate and helicopter program.

Evidence: Financial performance is reported quarterly on the SF-133 report. State, Defense, and OMB staffs review results during the budge process. OMB staff also review results through field trips.

YES 14%

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Primary incentive is political as FMF plays a significant role in bilateral military and security relationships; However, procedures used are consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulations and other contracting processes and procedures required to ensure efficient and effective use of funds.

Evidence: Military services are obliged by Defense Federal Acquistion regulation to ensure that weapon system acquisitions are made by the most economic and efficient means possible. IMET is made as economic as possible by using U.S. military and DoD schools to train personnel of recipient countries.

NO 0%

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: Estimates and budgets developed include the full annual costs for operating the program, however, as events occur in the execution year, it is often difficult to anticipate budget/funding needs. As funding levels increase or decrease (as witnessed this past year - shifted), performance expectations likewise will increase or decrease accordingly.

Evidence: There is a specific line within the FMF/IMET budget for general administrative costs and expenses.

YES 14%

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: FMF and IMET programs are implemented and subsequently managed by DOD, which follow specific administrative financial guidelines in acquisition of articles or services in accordance with Defense Federal Acquistion Regulation.

Evidence: Federal Acquistion Regualation (FAR); Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) Reports; Letters of Agreement (LOAs).

YES 14%

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

Explanation: Database reviews, yearly Security Assistance Conferences held at the CINC headquarters and bilateral working groups with host nations help identify those areas that require improvement. Strategic use of the Web based budget too surfaced during a review.

Evidence: Input from posts can now be placed on the Security Assistance Office (SAO) tool found on the web. EUCOM Security and Defense Cooperation and Armament Conferences address management improvement. Bilateral working groups, tri-service and program management reviews (during execution phase) also review management practices and implement changes as identified.

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 86%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: FMF reflects adequate progress in achieiving long-term goals, although this is a dynamic not static process/program which is not easily measured. Progress is assessed in reviews for budget development in DOS Strategic Plan, MPPs, BPPs or Senior Review documentation.

Evidence: Presence of new NATO and aspirants in operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan; intelligence and logistical cooperation with those operations and the GWOT. Annual testimony of the CINCEUR. Annual Report to Congress on US Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Eurasia.


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

Explanation: U.S. defense articles and services are provided annually to assist recepients with their military reforms. The annual goals (eg., equipment deliveries and IMET programs) contribute to achieving the long-term goals.

Evidence: Annual Report to Congress on US Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Eurasia. Annual testimony of the CINCEUR. MPP development and review. Air Soereignty Operations Center (ASOC) in Baltics now allows sustained performance goald of maintianing air surveillance capability over the Baltic region.


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

Explanation: Efficiencies and cost effectiveness can be seen in progression made by aspirants in interoperability and standardization with NATO forces. This is evidenced by partner countries participating effectively in NATO-led peace operations in the Balkans.

Evidence: GAO Report to Congress. "NATO United States' Assistance to the Partnership for Peace"(July 2001). Other examples include OEF participation.

YES 25%

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no other programs like this to compare to.

Evidence: Annual Report to Congress on US Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with Eurasia;

NA 0%

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

Explanation: GAO review concludes that PfP programs have enhanced the capabilities of partner countries and have improved their ability to operate with NATO, thus making them better candidates for membership in the alliance.

Evidence: GAO Report to Congress. "NATO United States' Assistance to the Partnership for Peace" . However, such evaluations are not performed on a regular basis.

Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 75%

Last updated: 09062008.2002SPR