Former Soviet Union: U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Has Had Limited 
Impact (17-APR-01, GAO-01-354). 				 
								 
For fiscal years 1992 through 2000, the U.S. government has	 
provided assistance to help the 12 new independent states of the 
former Soviet Union develop the sustainable institutions,	 
traditions, and legal foundations for establishing a strong rule 
of law. This report (1) assesses the extent to which the program 
has had an impact on the development of the rule of law and	 
whether the program results are sustainable and (2) analyzes the 
factors that may have affected the program's impact and 	 
sustainability.  GAO found that the U.S. government's rule of law
assistance program has had limited impact so far, and results may
not be sustainable in many cases. The impact and sustainability  
of the U.S. rule of law assistance programs have been constrained
by several factors, including limited political consensus on	 
reforms, a shortage of domestic resources for many of the more	 
expensive innovations, and weaknesses in the design and 	 
management of assistance programs by U.S. agencies.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-354 					        
    ACCNO:   A00843						        
  TITLE:     Former Soviet Union: U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Has Had 
             Limited Impact                                                   
     DATE:   04/17/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Federal aid to foreign countries			 
	     Foreign governments				 
	     Foreign policies					 
	     Federal aid for criminal justice			 
	     Judicial reform					 
	     International cooperation				 
	     Law enforcement					 
	     Rule of Law Program				 
	     Soviet Union					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-354
     
Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

April 2001 FORMER SOVIET UNION

U. S. Rule of Law Assistance Has Had Limited Impact

GAO- 01- 354

Page i GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union Letter 1

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 43

Appendix II Comments From the Department of State 46

Appendix III Comments From the Department of Justice 50

Appendix IV Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development 56

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 69

Tables

Table 1: U. S. Funding of Rule of Law Assistance Programs in the New
Independent States, Fiscal Years 1992- 2000 7 Table 2: Rule of Law Ratings
for the New Independent States,

1997- 2000 32

Figures

Figure 1: Map of the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union 6
Figure 2: Percentage of Rule of Law Funding by Four Key U. S.

Agencies, Fiscal Years 1992- 2000 9 Figure 3: Key Elements of U. S. Rule of
Law Assistance Program 10 Figure 4: Legal Foundation of U. S. Rule of Law
Assistance Program 13 Figure 5: Judicial Pillar of U. S. Rule of Law
Assistance Program 16 Figure 6: Legal Education Pillar of U. S. Rule of Law
Assistance

Program 21 Figure 7: Law Enforcement Pillar of U. S. Rule of Law Assistance

Program 25 Figure 8: Civil Society Pillar of U. S. Rule of Law Assistance

Program 29 Contents

Page ii GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union Abbreviation

USAID U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 1 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

April 17, 2001 The Honorable Christopher Shays Chairman The Honorable Dennis
Kucinich Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on National Security,

Veterans Affairs, and International Relations Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

The Honorable Rod Blagojevich House of Representatives

Since 1991, the 12 new independent states that emerged from the breakup of
the Soviet Union 1 have been struggling to overcome a long tradition of
totalitarian rule, marked by an arbitrary system of justice and state
suppression of human rights. The U. S. government?s efforts to support their
transition to an enduring system of democracy and open markets include the
promotion of the ?rule of law? in these countries. According to the U. S.
Agency for International Development (USAID), the rule of law embodies the
basic principles of equal treatment of all people before the law and is
founded on a predictable and transparent legal system with fair and
effective judicial and law enforcement institutions to protect citizens
against the arbitrary use of state authority and lawless acts.

For fiscal years 1992 through 2000, the U. S. government has provided about
$216 million in assistance to help the new independent states of the former
Soviet Union develop the sustainable institutions, traditions, and legal
foundations for establishing a strong rule of law. The United States has
aimed its assistance at helping these countries (1) establish a modern legal
basis for the administration of justice, (2) create a strong and independent
judiciary, (3) strengthen legal education for legal professionals operating
within the system, (4) improve law enforcement practices, and (5) broaden
access and participation of civil society 2 in the legal system. For the
purposes of this report, we refer to this array of

1 These nations are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and
Uzbekistan. 2 Civil society includes the general population and
nongovernmental organizations, such as associations, trade unions, and
interest groups.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

projects and assistance activities in the new independent states as the

?U. S. rule of law assistance program.? These activities were largely
implemented by the U. S. Agency for International Development and the
Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury, and were funded primarily
by annual appropriations authorized under the Freedom Support Act of 1992. 3
This program is one component of the overall assistance package, totaling
more than $6.3 billion from fiscal years 1993 through 2000, for the new
independent states of the former Soviet Union.

To determine whether the U. S. government?s rule of law assistance program
in the new independent states has been effective, you asked us to (1) assess
the extent to which the program has had an impact on the development of the
rule of law and whether the program results are sustainable 4 and (2)
analyze the factors that may have affected the program?s impact and
sustainability.

To meet these objectives, we reviewed rule of law project documentation and
interviewed knowledgeable officials from the key U. S. agencies providing
this assistance. This report focuses primarily on Armenia, Georgia, Russia,
and Ukraine, countries where the U. S. Agency for International Development
has defined the development of the rule of law as a strategic objective. 5
We conducted fieldwork in Russia and Ukraine, which have received at least
half of the total U. S. rule of law assistance in this region, and
interviewed U. S. government officials and senior hostcountry officials as
well as representatives of many nongovernmental organizations and other
project beneficiaries. To assess the impact and sustainability of specific
projects, we reviewed the projects funded in Russia and Ukraine during
fiscal years 1995 through 1998. For those countries in which we did not
conduct fieldwork, we relied primarily on interviews with U. S. officials
and documentation available in Washington, D. C., which addressed the
results of the U. S. assistance efforts. A detailed

3 ?Freedom? in the name of this act stands for the Freedom for Russia and
Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets (P. L. 102- 511). Throughout
this report, we refer to the act as the ?Freedom Support Act.?

4 ?Sustainability? is the extent to which the benefits of a program extend
beyond the program?s life span. 5 According to USAID, a strategic objective
is the most ambitious result that a USAID operating unit, such as a country
mission, can materially affect, and for which it is willing to be held
accountable.

Page 3 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

description of our scope and methodology is included in appendix I of this
report.

Overall, the U. S. government?s rule of law assistance efforts in the new
independent states of the former Soviet Union have had limited impact so
far, and results may not be sustainable in many cases. Establishing the rule
of law is a complex and long- term undertaking in these countries, where
laws and institutions were designed largely to further the power of the
state. U. S. agencies have helped support a variety of legal system reforms
in this region and have introduced some innovative legal concepts and
practices in the areas of legislative and judicial reform, legal education,
law enforcement, and civil society, which may contribute to a stronger rule
of law in the future. For example, the United States helped establish legal
education clinics in Russian and Ukrainian law schools. These clinics
provide practical training for future lawyers as well as greater access by
the poor to legal remedies for their problems. However, it is not clear
whether U. S.- supported reforms and innovations are likely to be sustained.
In some cases, countries have not clearly adopted on a wide scale the new
concepts and practices that the United States has advocated. In other cases,
continuation or expansion of the innovations depends on further funding from
the U. S. government or other foreign donors. Despite the accomplishments of
the program, progress toward establishing the rule of law has been slow in
the new independent states, and in several countries, including Russia and
Ukraine, the situation appears to have deteriorated in recent years,
according to data monitored by U. S. agencies and a host of U. S. government
and foreign officials we interviewed.

The impact and sustainability of U. S. rule of law assistance programs have
been constrained by a number of factors, including limited political
consensus on reforms, a shortage of domestic resources for many of the more
expensive innovations, and weaknesses in the design and management of
assistance programs by U. S. agencies. The first two factors have created a
very difficult environment in which to foster rule of law development. As a
result of limited political consensus by lawmakers and leaders in the new
independent states of the former Soviet Union, many important legislative
and institutional components of the rule of law have not been established.
These components include the passage of some postSoviet- era criminal and
civil codes and procedures. In addition, with the poor economic performance
of most of these countries, limited domestic funds have been available from
public and private sources to sustain and expand the legal system reforms
and efforts supported by the United States, such as jury trials and
continuing legal education. Finally, U. S. Results in Brief

Page 4 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

agencies and organizations conducting these aid projects have not always
designed and implemented them with an emphasis on achieving and monitoring
impact and sustainability. The Departments of State, Justice, and the
Treasury have not developed specific strategies for achieving longterm
objectives, or desired ?outcomes,? of their assistance projects, such as
reforming national law enforcement practices. Instead, efforts have often
been focused on achieving limited, short- term ?outputs,? such as training a
finite number of people or supplying them with certain equipment or
educational materials. Further, none of the U. S. agencies, including the U.
S. Agency for International Development, have effective monitoring and
evaluation systems in place to assess fully the longer- term results and
sustainability of their efforts and reorient their projects based on a
thorough understanding of the lessons learned. Recently, U. S. agencies have
begun to pay increased attention to improving project planning and
evaluation and are in the process of making program reforms. However, a
significant amount of the State Department?s current funding for this
program- about $30 million- has been budgeted, but not yet spent, for
projects that were designed prior to the establishment of these program
reforms.

In this report we make recommendations to the Secretary of State, the
Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Administrator of
the U. S. Agency for International Development, who together administer
nearly all of the funding for this program, to improve program management.
Specifically, we recommended that they implement requirements for projects
to include (1) specific strategies for achieving impact and sustainable
results and (2) monitoring and evaluation of outcomes. In written comments
on a draft of this report, State, Justice, and the U. S. Agency for
International Development generally agreed that the program management
improvements we recommended are needed. 6 However, the agencies felt that we
measured program success by too high a standard given the complex and long-
term task of establishing the rule of law; that we did not adequately
acknowledge some significant program accomplishments and evaluation efforts;
and that we understated the significance of weak political will as a factor
limiting program impact and sustainability. We have modified the report and
included some additional information, where appropriate, to address the
agencies? comments. However, our overall conclusions remain essentially
unchanged.

6 Treasury did not comment on the report draft.

Page 5 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

In December 1991, after more than 70 years of Communist rule, the Soviet
Union came to an abrupt end, and the 12 new independent states emerging from
the breakup started their transition to market- based democracies (see fig.
1 for a map of the 12 states). According to a 1993 study prepared for the U.
S. Agency for International Development, and legal experts, these countries
inherited legal systems that were, in many respects, the antitheses of the
rule of law. 7 According to this study, under the Soviet Union, law was
created by an elite without general participation and was designed to
further the power of the state, not to limit it. In addition, the law was
applied on an ad hoc basis to achieve political goals. Private economic
activity was discouraged, and the Soviet Union lacked the basic legal
framework needed to facilitate and regulate private enterprise. All the
actors in the legal system were, to one degree or another, under the control
of the Communist party and at the service of the state. The state procuracy
(prosecutor) oversaw criminal investigations and prosecutions in a heavy-
handed manner, affording defendants few, if any, rights. Law enforcement
agencies were inexperienced in addressing many types of crimes that would
come to plague the region and threaten other countries, such as organized
crime and drug trafficking. The government and the Communist party
controlled both access to legal education and the licensing of lawyers. With
its tradition of unpublished and secret administrative regulation, the state
also limited public access to the legal system and legal information; as a
result, citizens regarded the legal system with suspicion and questioned its
legitimacy, according to the USAID- sponsored study. According to legal
experts, courts in the Soviet Union were weak, lacked independence, and
enjoyed little public respect. 8 Administration of justice was poorly
funded, facilities were not well maintained, and judges were poorly paid and
received very little, if any, training.

7 An Assessment of Prospects for U. S. Assistance to Support the Rule of Law
in Russia (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, 1993). 8 P. Solomon and T.
Fogelsong, Courts and Transition in Russia: the Challenge of Judicial Reform
(Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000). Background

Page 6 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 1: Map of the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union

Source: GAO.

For fiscal years 1992 through 2000, the United States has obligated at least
$216 million in assistance to help establish the rule of law in the new
independent states of the former Soviet Union. For fiscal years 1998 through
2000, U. S. assistance under this program has averaged about $29 million per
year. Table 1 illustrates the estimated distribution of this funding among
these countries. Over half of the funding has been devoted

Russia Russia Russia Russia

Belarus Belarus Ukraine Ukraine

?

Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Armenia Armenia

Georgia Georgia Moldova Moldova

Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Turkmenistan Turkmenistan Azerbaijan Azerbaijan
Tajikistan Tajikistan

Uzbekistan Uzbekistan

Page 7 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

to four countries where USAID has designated rule of law development as a
strategic objective: 9 Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia. While the
remaining countries have received some rule of law assistance, USAID has not
made rule of law development a strategic objective in these countries.
According to USAID and State, the U. S. rule of law assistance program,
along with other programs of U. S. assistance to Central and Eastern Europe
and the new independent states, was envisioned by the U. S. government to be
a short- term program to jump- start the countries of this strategically
critical region on their way to political and economic transition.

Table 1: U. S. Funding of Rule of Law Assistance Programs in the New
Independent States, Fiscal Years 1992- 2000

Dollars in millions Country Amount Percent

Russia $77 35 Ukraine 25 12 Georgia 8 4 Armenia 6 3 All others a 36 16
Multiple countries b 64 30

Total $216 100

Note: Data on U. S. rule of law funding are estimates provided by USAID and
the Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury. a ?All others? includes
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. b Assistance in this category was provided to
two or more countries within the region and could not

readily be broken out by recipient countries. Source: GAO analysis of U. S.
agencies? rule of law funding data.

Many other foreign and U. S.- based donors have provided rule of law
assistance to the new independent states. For example, the World Bank has a
program to lend Russia $58 million for legal system reform. Many Western
European countries, the European Union, and private international donors,
such as the Ford Foundation and the Soros Foundation, have also financed
projects similar to those funded by the United States. Funding data for
these activities were not readily available,

9 According to USAID, a strategic objective is the most ambitious result
that a USAID operating unit, such as a country mission, can materially
affect, and for which it is willing to be held accountable.

Page 8 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

and we did not attempt to determine the value of all of this assistance,
given the difficulty involved in identifying the many different efforts and
their costs.

Fostering sustainable results through U. S. assistance projects is critical
to the impact and ultimate success of this program. According to USAID?s
strategic plan, 10 promoting sustainable development among developing and
transitional countries contributes to U. S. national interests and is a
necessary and critical component of America?s role as a world leader.
Strengthening the rule of law is a key component of USAID?s strategic goal
of building sustainable democracies. The right conditions for development
can only be created by the people and governments of developing and
transitional countries, according to USAID. In the right settings, however,
American resources, including its ideas and values, can be powerful
catalysts enabling sustainable development. Achieving sustainable project
results is especially important in areas where development is likely to be a
difficult and long- term process, such as establishing the rule of law in
this region.

Almost all U. S. funding for rule of law assistance in the new independent
states of the former Soviet Union, authorized under the Freedom Support Act
of 1992, is appropriated to USAID and the Department of State. However, a
significant amount of assistance has been allocated to the Departments of
Justice and Treasury through interagency fund transfers from USAID and
State. As shown in figure 2, from fiscal years 1992 through 2000, USAID has
administered about 49 percent of program funding for rule of law activities
in this region, while the Departments of Justice, State, and the Treasury
have administered about 51 percent.

10 See ?USAID Strategic Plan,? available on the World Wide Web at www.
usaid. gov. Four Key U. S. Agencies

Implement the Rule of Law Assistance Program

Page 9 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 2: Percentage of Rule of Law Funding by Four Key U. S. Agencies,
Fiscal Years 1992- 2000

Note: State funding information includes activities initially implemented by
the U. S. Information Agency and later by its successor, State?s Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs. Other agencies implementing smaller
projects with interagency fund transfers from State include the Department
of Energy, the U. S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
the U. S. Office of Government Ethics. The total cost of these projects
represents less than 1 percent of total program funds.

Source: GAO analysis of rule of law funding data provided by agencies.

These agencies provide assistance under this program through a variety of
means, primarily in the form of goods and services to governmental and
nongovernmental organizations and individuals. For some projects, such as
law enforcement training, U. S. government agencies provide the assistance
directly. For other projects, such as institutional development projects,
the agencies distribute aid to beneficiaries through contracts, cooperative
agreements, and grants to nongovernmental organizations, private voluntary
organizations, and firms located in the United States or overseas.
Assistance is generally not provided directly to foreign governments through
cash disbursements.

Justice State Treasury USAID Other

25% 22% 49%

State USAID Other

Justice

<1%

Treasury 4%

Page 10 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

The United States has taken a broad approach to providing rule of law
assistance. The assistance approach generally incorporates five elements:
(1) developing a legal foundation for reform, (2) strengthening the
judiciary, (3) modernizing legal education, (4) improving law enforcement
practices, and (5) increasing civil society?s access to justice. (See fig. 3
for an illustration of these elements.)

Figure 3: Key Elements of U. S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

Source: GAO.

Developing a legal foundation for reform: Projects under this element have
focused on assisting governments in passing legislation that would provide
the legal basis for a transparent and predictable administration of justice
system, including a post- communist constitution, a law establishing an
independent judiciary, and post- Soviet- era civil and criminal codes and
procedures. This element also includes efforts to strengthen the legislative
process. Five Elements of the U. S.

Rule of Law Assistance Program

Page 11 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Strengthening the judiciary: Projects under this element involve
strengthening the independence of the judiciary and the efficiency and
effectiveness of the courts, including increasing the expertise and status
of judges and supporting the development of judicial institutions.

Modernizing legal education: Projects under this component have concentrated
on improving legal education available to both students and practitioners of
the law, including modernizing law school curricula, establishing legal
clinics for law students, and developing indigenous continuing legal
education opportunities for practicing lawyers and other legal
professionals.

Improving law enforcement practices: Projects under this component have been
aimed at improving law enforcement practices by training procurators and
other law enforcement personnel in modern techniques of criminal
investigation and prosecution that are effective yet respectful of citizens?
civil rights.

Increasing civil society?s access to justice: Projects under this component
have targeted the participation of nongovernmental organizations and the
general population in the judicial sector to make legal information and
access to justice affordable and realizable.

In general, USAID implements assistance projects primarily aimed at
development of the judiciary, legislative reform, legal education, and civil
society. The Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury provide
assistance for criminal law reform and law enforcement projects.

Though the program has generally included these elements throughout its
existence, it has evolved over the years in response to lessons learned
about effectiveness and to adapt to emerging constraints. For example, in
the earlier years of the program, the United States emphasized promotion of
western methods and models for reform. As it became clear that host country
officials often did not consider these to be appropriate to their local
contexts, USAID projects began to foster the development of more

?home- grown? reforms. Also, in Russia, the United States has placed
increasing emphasis on regional projects outside of Moscow instead of
projects aimed at the central government, as regional officials were often
more receptive to reform.

Page 12 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Establishing the rule of law in the new independent states of the former
Soviet Union has proven to be an extremely complex and challenging task that
is likely to take many years to accomplish. U. S. assistance has had limited
results, and the sustainability of those results is uncertain. In each of
the five elements of the rule of law assistance program, the United States
has succeeded in exposing these countries to innovative legal concepts and
practices that could lead to a stronger rule of law in the future. However,
we could not find evidence that many of these concepts and practices have
been widely adopted. At this point, many of the U. S. assisted reforms are
dependent on continued donor funding in order to be sustained. Despite some
positive developments, the reform movement has proceeded slowly overall, and
the establishment of the rule of law in the new independent states remains
elusive.

A key focus of the U. S. rule of law assistance programs has been the
development of a legal foundation for reform of the justice system in the
new independent states. (See fig. 4 for activities involving the legislative
foundation of the rule of law assistance program.) The United States has
helped several of these countries adopt new constitutions and pass
legislation establishing independent judiciaries and post- communist civil
and criminal codes and procedures, as well as other legislation that
supports democratic and market- oriented reform. Despite considerable
progress in a few countries, major gaps persist in the legal foundation for
reform, particularly in such countries as Ukraine, a major beneficiary of U.
S. rule of law assistance, according to U. S. and foreign government
officials we interviewed. U. S. Assistance Has

Had Limited Results; Project Sustainability in Question

Legal Foundation: Some Key Reform Laws Have Been Passed, but Others Remain
Unfinished

Page 13 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 4: Legal Foundation of U. S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

Source: GAO.

U. S. projects in legislative assistance have been fruitful in Russia,
Georgia, and Armenia, according to several evaluations of this assistance,
which point to progress in passing key new laws. For example, according to a
1996 independent evaluation of the legal reform assistance program, major
advances in Russian legal reform occurred in areas that USAID programs

Page 14 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

had targeted for support, including the passage of a new civil code and a
series of commercial laws. 11 This legislation included the 1996 Russian
Federation Constitutional Law on the Judicial System and the 1998 Law on the
Judicial Department, creating a more independent judicial branch within the
Russian government. The Department of Justice provided technical assistance
and advice to lawmakers in the passage of Russia?s new criminal code as
well, which, according to Justice, formally eliminated the Soviet laws
against private economic activity, free speech, and political dissent.
Georgia has also passed many key pieces of legislation with U. S. assistance
in the areas of improving the judiciary, the procuracy (the prosecutor), the
media, and the criminal justice process, according to another evaluation we
reviewed. 12 In Armenia, as well, according to a 2000 USAID- sponsored
evaluation, important legislation was adopted as a result of U. S.
government assistance, including a new civil code, criminal procedure code,
Law on the Judiciary, Law on the Status of Judges, Law on the Execution of
Court Judgments, Law on Advocates, and a universal electoral code. 13 The
results of assistance in this area are not easy to discern in all cases. For
example, a 1999 USAIDsponsored evaluation of a portion of the legislative
assistance and policy advice provided to Russia in the mid- to late 1990s
indicates that the impact of this aid could not be independently verified.
14

U. S. projects to help countries achieve passage of critical legal reform
legislation have not always been successful, and key legislation is lacking
in several new independent states. Despite providing assistance to reform
legislation, Ukraine has not yet passed any new laws on the judiciary or new
criminal, civil, administrative, or procedure codes since a new constitution
was passed in 1996. In Russia, a revised criminal procedure code, a key
component of the overall judicial reform effort, has still not been adopted
by the government, despite extensive assistance from the Department of
Justice in developing legislative proposals.

11 USAID Programs Supporting Commercial Law and Other Legal Reform in the
Russian Federation (Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University, Sept. 1996).
12 The American Bar Association/ Central and Eastern European Law Initiative
Evaluation, Georgia Country Report (Washington, D. C.: Management Systems
International, Jan. 1999). 13 USAID/ Armenia Rule of Law Assessment
(Washington, D. C.: Management Systems International, May 2000). 14 The
American Bar Association/ Central and Eastern European Law Initiative
Evaluation, Russia Country Report (Washington, D. C.: Management Systems
International, Jan. 1999).

Page 15 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Furthermore, a major project in Ukraine to establish sustainable mechanisms
for developing reform- oriented legislation in the future has not yet been
successful. One component of the USAID assistance program in Ukraine has
been advancing parliamentary expertise and institutions to provide public
policy analysis that will result in a more active, informed, and transparent
parliament. However, according to U. S., foreign government, and private
sector officials we interviewed, parliamentary committees are still weak,
and parliamentary procedures for conducting hearings and related oversight
activities have not been institutionalized. The vast majority of reforms
still stem from the executive, which holds a disproportionate share of power
and influence over the judicial and legislative branches of government.

The second key element in the U. S. government?s rule of law program has
been to foster an independent judiciary with strong judicial institutions
and well- trained judges and court officers who administer decisions fairly
and efficiently. (See fig. 5 for activities under the judicial pillar of the
rule of law assistance program.) The United States has contributed to
greater independence and integrity of the judiciary by supporting key new
judicial institutions and innovations in the administration of justice and
by helping to train or retrain many judges and court officials. However, U.
S. efforts we reviewed to help retool the judiciary have had limited impact
so far. Judicial training programs have not yet been developed by the
governments with adequate capacity to reach the huge numbers of judges and
court officials who operate the judiciaries in these nations, and courts
still lack full independence, efficiency, and effectiveness. Judiciary:
Greater

Independence Achieved in Some Respects, but Continued Reform and Retraining
Needed

Page 16 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 5: Judicial Pillar of U. S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

Source: GAO.

The United States has provided technical support and equipment to help
establish and strengthen a variety of national judicial institutions. Though
we could not verify the impact of this assistance on the effectiveness of
their operations, representatives of the following institutions in Russia
credit U. S. support for helping them enhance the independence and integrity
of the judiciary.

Page 17 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

 A Supreme Qualifying Collegium in Russia: With the help of training,
information, and equipment provided by USAID, this institution, comprised
solely of judges, is better equipped to oversee the qualification and
discipline of judges, providing greater independence from political
influence in court affairs.

 Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in Russia: USAID provided
training, educational materials, and other technical assistance to
strengthen this new independent institution, created in 1998 to assume the
administrative and financial responsibility for court management previously
held by the Ministry of Justice.

The United States has also helped support the following innovations in the
administration of the judiciary that appear to help increase the judiciary?s
integrity and independence.

 Qualifying examinations in Georgia: With extensive U. S. assistance by
USAID contractors, an objective judicial qualifying examination system was
introduced in 1998. This step has resulted in the replacement of some poorly
qualified judges with certified ones. Georgia has repeated the exam several
times with decreasing amounts of technical assistance from the United
States.

 Jury trials in Russia: With training and educational material on trial
advocacy, judges are now presiding over jury trials in 9 of Russia?s 89
regions for the first time since 1917. Although the jury trial system has
not expanded beyond a pilot phase, administration of criminal justice has
been transformed in these regions- acquittals, unheard of during the Soviet
era, are increasing under this system (up to 16.5 percent of all jury trials
by the most recent count).

At a broader level, the United States has attempted to strengthen the
integrity of the judiciary by supporting a variety of educational projects
for legal professionals within the court system. In particular, USAID has
sponsored training and conferences and has provided educational materials
for judges, bailiffs, and administrators, raising their understanding of new
and existing laws and improving their knowledge and skills in operating
efficient and effective court systems. According to a major aid contractor,
training on the bail law in Ukraine sponsored by the Department of Justice
has increased awareness among courts of the alternatives to lengthy pretrial
detention for criminal defendants. The United States has also helped develop
manuals that provide practical information for judges and bailiffs on how to
conduct their jobs. Historically, few books like these have been widely
available, which has

Page 18 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

seriously limited the development of professionalism in these legal careers.
New teaching methods were introduced through U. S.- sponsored conferences.
For example, according to training officials in the Russian Commercial
Court, whereas conferences for their judges had traditionally been based
mostly on lectures, U. S.- sponsored conferences stimulated discussions and
were more interactive, included more probing questioning of the concepts
presented, and provided a greater exchange of ideas. By all accounts, the
information that the United States has provided on modern legal concepts and
practices has been highly valued by its recipients.

However, efforts to foster sustainable new methods for training judges have
had limited results, and the long- term viability of U. S.- sponsored
improvements is questionable. In Ukraine, projects aimed at establishing
modern judicial training centers have had very limited success. The two
centers we visited that had been established with USAID assistance were
functioning at far below capacity. One was only used for official judicial
training for half a year and later for training classes financed by
international donors. The other center had been dismantled, and the training
equipment provided by USAID was dispersed to regional courts. In Russia,
although training facilities have been in place for some time, their
capacity for training judges is extremely limited. For example, with its
current facilities, the Russian Court of General Jurisdiction can train each
of its 15,000 judges only about once every 10 years. Plans for the
development of a major new judicial training academy have not yet been
implemented. Where training centers were already in place, some innovative
training techniques introduced through U. S. assistance have not been
institutionalized. For example, the training organizations we visited in
Russia praised the new practical manuals developed with U. S. assistance,
but they did not plan to print subsequent editions. Also, although
videotape- based training had been piloted with U. S. assistance for the
Russian Commercial Court to train judges in far- flung regions, no further
videotaped courses have been produced by the court.

Despite progress in recent years, fully independent, efficient, and
effective judiciaries have not yet been established. For example, according
to a senior U. S. official responsible for Department of Justice programs in
Russia, much of the former structure that enabled the Soviet government to
control judges? decisions still exists, and Russians remain suspicious of
the judiciary. Furthermore, according to the State Department?s 1999 Human
Rights Report, the courts are still subject to undue influence from the
central and local governments and are burdened by large case backlogs and
trial delays. Also, according to a 2000 USAID program

Page 19 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

document, serious problems with the court system in Russia continue to
include the lack of adequate funding, poor enforcement of court judgments,
and negative public attitudes toward the judiciary.

In Ukraine, according to Freedom House, a U. S. research organization that
tracks political developments around the world, and U. S. and Ukrainian
officials and experts we interviewed, relatively little judicial reform has
taken place, other than the adoption of a new constitution in 1996 and the
establishment of a Constitutional Court for its interpretation. To a large
extent, the ethos and practices of the Soviet political/ legal system remain
in the Ukrainian legal community, according to a 1999 USAID- sponsored
assessment. 15 The justice system, in which an estimated 70 percent of
sitting judges in Ukraine were appointed during the Soviet era, continues to
be marked by corruption and inefficiency and limited protection of criminal
defendants? rights. Freedom House recently reported that the judiciary is
not yet operating as an independent branch of government. Furthermore,
according to Freedom House, local judges are subject to influence and
requests for particular rulings from government officials who financially
support court operations. According to the USAIDsponsored assessment, courts
suffer from poor administrative procedures, which nurture corruption,
inappropriate influence of judges, a lack of transparency, and waste.
Moreover, the courts are unable to enforce their decisions, particularly in
civil cases. This is a key constraint to the development of the rule of law
in Ukraine, as it results in a loss of public confidence in the courts,
according to the assessment report. Human rights advocates told us that
legislated mandates for timely trials and set standards for prison
conditions are often violated and result in extended detentions under poor
conditions.

USAID documents we reviewed indicate that significant judicial reform is
still needed in other countries as well. In Georgia, where the judicial
reform process is perceived by USAID as being more advanced, most criminal
trials continue to follow the Soviet model and, in many cases, prosecutors
continue to wield disproportionate influence over outcomes, according to the
State Department?s Human Rights Report. Also, local human rights observers
report widespread judicial incompetence and corruption, according to the
report. In Armenia, State reports that although the judiciary is nominally
independent, in practice courts are

15 Ukraine Rule of Law Assessment and Strategy Recommendations (Washington
D. C. : Management Systems International, 1999).

Page 20 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

subject to pressure from the executive branch and to corruption, and
prosecutors still greatly overshadow defense lawyers and judges during
trials. According to USAID, a 1999 opinion poll showed that in Armenia only
20 percent of the population believe that court decisions are rendered
fairly and in keeping with the law.

The third element of the U. S. assistance program has been to modernize the
system of legal education in the new independent states to make it more
practical and relevant. (See fig. 6 for activities under the legal education
pillar of the rule of law assistance program.) The United States has
sponsored a variety of special efforts to introduce new legal educational
methods and topics for both law students and existing lawyers. However, the
impact and sustainability of these initiatives are in doubt, as indigenous
institutions have not yet demonstrated the ability or inclination to support
the efforts after U. S. and other donor funding has ceased. Legal Education:
More

Practical Methods Introduced but Not Widely Practiced

Page 21 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 6: Legal Education Pillar of U. S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

Sources: GAO, and moot court photograph from St. Petersburg Institute of
Law.

The United States has provided some opportunities for law students and
practicing lawyers to obtain useful new types of training. For instance, in
an effort to supplement the traditionally theoretical approach to legal
education in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union,

Page 22 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

USAID has introduced legal clinics into several law schools throughout
Russia and Ukraine. These clinics allow law students to get practical
training in helping clients exercise their legal rights. They also provide a
service to the community by facilitating access to the legal system by the
poor and disadvantaged. With the training, encouragement, and financing
provided by USAID, there are about 30 legal clinics in law schools in Russia
and about 20 in Ukraine. USAID has also provided a great deal of continuing
education for legal professionals, particularly in the emerging field of
commercial law. This training was highly regarded by the participants,
according to a 1999 USAID- sponsored evaluation of this project in Russia.
16 Traditionally, little of this type of training was available to lawyers
in the former Soviet Union.

USAID has included some design features in its projects intended to make
them sustainable. Indigenous experts are increasingly used to provide the
training as a way of making it more applicable in the local context and thus
more sustainable, as trainers would remain in the country. Also,
sustainability is enhanced by USAID?s approach of training other trainers to
perpetuate the teaching of trial advocacy skills and commercial law.
According to the 1999 USAID- sponsored evaluation 17 and an aid contractor
we spoke to, materials on trial advocacy developed with U. S. assistance
continue to be used in indigenous educational programs in Russia.

The United States, through long- term exchanges and partnership activities
administered initially by the U. S. Information Agency and then by the
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the State Department, also
brought young students, professionals, and faculty members to the United
States to study U. S. law and legal education in depth. University
partnerships also paired law schools in the United States and the new
independent states to promote curriculum development and reform. We have
observed some results from exchanges such as these: for example, the dean of
the St. Petersburg State University Law School told us that his U. S.-
funded visit to the United States inspired him to undertake major reforms at
his institution, including the introduction of more practical teaching
methods.

16 The American Bar Association/ Central and Eastern European Law Initiative
Evaluation, Russia Country Report. 17 The American Bar Association/ Central
and Eastern European Law Initiative Evaluation, Russia Country Report.

Page 23 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Despite the introduction of some positive innovations, however, U. S.
assistance in this area has fallen far short of reforming legal education in
the new independent states on a large scale. According to USAIDsponsored
evaluations and project officials we spoke to, U. S. assistance has not been
successful in stimulating reform in formerly Soviet law schools. Most law
schools have not adopted the new, practice- oriented curricula that USAID
has advocated and instead continue the traditional emphasis on legal theory.
For example, in Ukraine, the emphasis in law school curricula continues to
be on public rather than private law, and law students are taught little on
subjects such as enterprises, contracts, real and personal property,
consumer law, intellectual property, banking law, or commercial law. Also
ignored are subjects relating to government regulation of businesses. As a
result, students are not taught many skills important to the practice of
law, including advocacy, interviewing, case investigation, negotiation
techniques, and legal writing. In the area of using legal clinics to provide
practical education, the impact of USAID assistance has been minor and
sustainability is not yet secure. Due to the small number of faculty
advisers willing to supervise the students? work, these clinics can only
provide practical experience to a fraction of the law student population.
While clinics appear to be increasing in popularity, not all universities
routinely fund them or give course credit to participating students. In
Ukraine, the United States has helped fund the establishment of a Ukrainian
Law School Association to press for reforms in the Ukrainian legal education
system, but this organization has remained relatively inactive, according to
a major USAID contractor involved in this program. Also, a 2000 USAID-
sponsored evaluation of rule of law projects in Armenia concluded that the
considerable investment in that country?s largest law school has not
resulted in the intended upgrading and modernizing of curricula and teaching
methodology. 18

In the area of continuing legal education as well, it is unclear whether the
new learning opportunities that the United States has been providing to
legal professionals are sustainable over the long term. We could identify
few organizations that routinely sponsor the types of training and
conferences and print the published materials that the United States had
initially provided. In Russia, a major aid contractor we met with involved
in developing legal texts and manuals for USAID in Russia could not identify
any organizations that were engaged in reprinting these publications without
U. S. or other donor financing. The private Ukrainian

18 USAID/ Armenia Rule of Law Assessment.

Page 24 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

organization that has provided most of Ukraine?s continuing legal education
is dependent primarily on U. S. funding to operate. The United States has
largely been unsuccessful at fostering the development of legal
associations, such as bar associations, national judges associations, and
law school associations, to carry on this educational work. U. S. officials
had viewed the development of such associations as key to institutionalizing
modern legal principles and practices and professional standards on a
national scale as well as serving as conduits for continuing legal education
for their members. But they have not become the active, influential
institutions that the United States had hoped. In Armenia, according to a
2000 USAID- sponsored study, 19 none of the nongovernmental organizations
that had been supported by USAID were financially viable in carrying out
their continuing legal education goals. Sustainability is ?not in the
picture for the immediate future,? as the organizations were dependent on
international donor assistance, according to the study.

The fourth component of the U. S. government?s rule of law program involves
introducing modern criminal justice techniques to local law enforcement
organizations. (See fig. 7 for activities under the law enforcement pillar
of rule of law assistance programs.) As part of this effort, the United
States has provided many training courses to law enforcement officials
throughout the new independent states of the former Soviet Union, shared
professional experiences through international exchanges and study tours,
implemented several model law enforcement projects, and funded scholarly
research into organized crime. These programs have fostered international
cooperation among law enforcement officials, according to the Department of
Justice. However, we found little evidence that the new information
disseminated through these activities has been routinely applied in the
practice of law enforcement in the new independent states. Thus the impact
and sustainability of these projects are unclear.

19 USAID/ Armenia Rule of Law Assessment. Law Enforcement:

Training, Models, and Research Provided, but Routine Application Is Not
Evident

Page 25 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 7: Law Enforcement Pillar of U. S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

Sources: GAO, and photographs from St. Petersburg Procuracy Institute.

U. S. law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the U. S. Customs Service, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, have
sent dozens of teams of experts to train their

Page 26 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

counterparts in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union on
techniques for combating a wide variety of domestic and international
crimes. The United States has also sponsored the attendance of their
counterparts at U. S. training academies and the International Law
Enforcement Academy in Budapest, Hungary. According to State and Justice,
this training is intended not only to strengthen the law enforcement
capabilities and, hence, the rule of law in these countries, but also to
increase cooperation between law enforcement agencies in the United States
and the new independent states in investigating and prosecuting
transnational crimes.

U. S. law enforcement officials we spoke to have reported that, as a result
of these training courses, there is a greater appreciation among Russians
and Ukrainians of criminal legal issues for international crimes of great
concern in the United States, such as organized crime, money laundering, and
narcotics and human trafficking. They have also reported a greater
willingness of law enforcement officials to work with their U. S. and other
foreign counterparts on solving international crimes. According to a senior
researcher conducting a State Department- funded study on the effects of law
enforcement training, students participating in international police
training funded in part by the U. S. government are significantly more
willing to share information on criminal investigations with U. S. or other
national law enforcement agencies than law enforcement officials that have
not participated. Furthermore, according to Justice, there has been an
increasing number of requests from the new independent states for bilateral
law enforcement cooperation with the United States and a number of joint
investigations of organized crime, kidnapping, and baby adoption scams.

However, the impact and sustainability of this training in building the law
enforcement capabilities of the new independent states are unclear. We found
little evidence in our discussions with senior law enforcement officials in
Russia and Ukraine that U. S. techniques taught in these training courses
were being routinely applied by their organizations. In some cases, training
officials cited the use of U. S.- provided training materials by some
instructors or as reference materials in their libraries, yet none
identified a full- scale effort to replicate or adapt the training for
routine application in their training institutions. Furthermore, we
identified only two studies providing data on the application of U. S. law
enforcement training, neither of which conclusively demonstrates that U. S.
techniques have been widely embraced by training participants. According to
a researcher we interviewed who has been evaluating U. S.- sponsored
training programs under a grant from State, techniques taught at the

Page 27 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

International Law Enforcement Academy, which is partially funded by State,
have had limited application in day- to- day policing activities of
participants. About 20 percent of training participants surveyed reported
that they frequently use the techniques they learned in academy training
courses in their work, according to his research. 20 According to an
evaluation of U. S. law enforcement training conducted by the Russian
Ministry of Internal Affairs, about 14 percent of Russian law enforcement
officials surveyed indicated they have used the American experience
introduced in this training in their practical work. 21 According to
Justice, this level of application of U. S. techniques suggests significant
impact from U. S. training, and application and impact are likely to grow in
time as the merit of these techniques become evident with use. However, due
to limitations in the data available from these studies we were unable to
validate or dispute Justice?s assertions about the efficacy of this
training. 22

The United States has funded several model law enforcement projects in
Russia and Ukraine to help communities and law enforcement authorities
establish community policing programs and to address the problems of
domestic violence and human trafficking more effectively. Some of these
projects appear to have had some impact in the local communities where they
have been implemented. For example, according to the State Department, in
one Russian city, the number of arrests for domestic violence has more than
doubled in one year as a result of a U. S.- funded model project. However,
such projects are still in the early stages of implementation, and we could
not find evidence that the new practices introduced by the United States
have yet been adopted on a wider scale in Russia or Ukraine.

Research on organized crime in Russia and Ukraine, sponsored by USAID and
Justice, has provided some information that may potentially serve as a
foundation for developing new methods for fighting this type of crime.

20 Training participants surveyed in this research include law enforcement
officials from Central and Eastern European countries, including Croatia,
Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania as well as the new independent states
of Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan.

21 On the Results of Cooperation between the Russian [Ministry of Internal
Affairs] MVD and the Law Enforcement Agencies of the United States of
America in 1994- 1999 (Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs: Moscow, Russia,
1999). 22 The State- sponsored study covered only a small portion of the U.
S. law enforcement training conducted for the new independent states, and
detailed survey response information, which would be necessary for more
extensive analysis of the survey results, was not available for either study
at the time of our review.

Page 28 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Officials at U. S.- funded research centers told us that their researchers
helped develop a methodology for investigating and prosecuting corruption
and organized crime that has been incorporated into some law school
curricula. However, although project officials we spoke to asserted that the
knowledge and analysis produced by the centers were being used, they could
not determine how this research had actually been applied by law enforcement
organizations in the new independent states. To date we found no evidence
that these programs have led to sustainable and meaningful innovations in
fighting organized crime in Russia and Ukraine.

The fifth element of rule of law assistance program is the expansion of
access by the general population to the system of justice. (See fig. 8 for
activities conducted under the civil society pillar of the rule of law
assistance program.) In both Russia and Ukraine, the United States has
fostered the development of a number of nongovernmental organizations that
have been active in promoting the interests of groups, increasing citizens?
awareness of their legal rights, and helping poor and traditionally
disadvantaged people gain access to the courts to resolve their problems.
While these projects have contributed to a greater demand for justice, for
the foreseeable future many will continue to rely on donor support, since
they face difficulties in obtaining adequate funds domestically to continue
operations. Civil Society: Awareness

and Involvement Have Increased, but Many Nongovernmental Organizations?
Activities Depend on Continued International Donor Support

Page 29 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Figure 8: Civil Society Pillar of U. S. Rule of Law Assistance Program

Source: GAO.

U. S. projects have led to greater access by citizens to the courts. The
United States has supported a variety of organizations devoted to protecting
the legal rights of many different segments of society, including

Page 30 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

small business owners, the handicapped, victims of domestic violence, labor
unions and individual workers, poor and displaced people, and homeowners and
tenants. In Russia, the proliferation of such groups may have contributed,
at least in small part, to the significant increase in the use of the
courts- the number of civil cases in Russian courts increased by about 112
percent between 1993 and 1997, according to the statistics of the Russian
Supreme Court. For example, in Russia, USAID has sponsored a project that
has helped improve access to the legal system for trade unions and their
members. According to the project manager, Russian lawyers supported by this
project brought litigation in the Russian Constitutional and Supreme Courts
on behalf of workers, which has led to changes to three national laws,
bolstering the legal rights of millions of workers.

In addition, in Ukraine, private citizens are increasingly taking their
disputes on environmental matters to the courts and prevailing in their
causes with the help of USAID- funded organizations. At least three active
environmental advocacy organizations have emerged with the sponsorship of
USAID and other donors to provide legal advice and representation. Some of
these organizations have brought important lawsuits on behalf of citizens,
resulting in legal decisions with far- reaching legal implications. For
example, a group of more than 100 residents in one local community obtained
a judgment against the Ukrainian government for violating zoning laws on the
location of a city dump and won demands that the dump be constructed at a
different location in accordance with zoning laws, according to USAID.

Despite their high level of activity in recent years, these organizations
still face questionable long- term viability. Most nongovernmental
organizations we visited were dependent upon foreign donor contributions to
operate. While some continued to function even after U. S. funding ceased,
they often operated at a significantly reduced level of service. Some
organizations received office space from the government, collected
membership fees, and relied on the work of volunteers, but very few
indicated that they received a large portion of their funding from domestic
sources. Thus, sustainability of even some of the most accomplished
organizations, such as the Ukrainian environmental advocacy organizations,
remains to be seen. These organizations had been largely supported by USAID
for several years and have only recently been forced to operate more
independently. In Armenia, according to a 2000 USAIDsponsored evaluation,
none of the nongovernmental organizations that had been supported by USAID
were financially viable in carrying out their public awareness goals. The
evaluation found that these organizations?

Page 31 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

activities were not sustainable in the long term since they were dependent
on international donor assistance. 23

Despite nearly a decade of work to reform the systems of justice in the new
independent states of the former Soviet Union, progress in establishing the
rule of law in the region has been slow overall, and serious obstacles
remain. As shown in table 2, according to Freedom House, the new independent
states score poorly in the development of the rule of law, and, as a whole,
are growing worse over time. 24 These data, among others, have been used by
USAID and the State Department to measure the results of U. S. development
assistance in this region.

23 USAID/ Armenia Rule of Law Assessment. 24 These data are developed based
on experts? answers to the following sets of questions or similar questions:
(1) Is there a post- Communist constitution? (2) Does the constitutional
framework provide for human rights, including business and property rights?
(3) Has there been basic reform of the criminal code/ criminal law? (4) Do
most judges rule fairly and impartially? How many remain from the Communist
era? (5) Are the courts free of political control and influence? Are the
courts linked directly to the Ministry of Justice or any other executive
body? (6) What proportion of lawyers are in private practice? (7) Does the
state provide public defenders? (8) Has there been a comprehensive reform of
antibias/ discrimination laws, including protection of ethnic minorities?
Rule of Law Remains

Elusive in the New Independent States

Page 32 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Table 2: Rule of Law Ratings for the New Independent States, 1997- 2000
Country 1997 1998 1999- 2000 Trend

Armenia 4. 75 5. 00 5. 00 Worse Azerbaijan 5. 50 5. 50 5. 50 No change
Belarus 6. 00 6. 25 6. 50 Worse Georgia 5. 00 4. 75 4. 00 Better Kazakhstan
5.00 5.25 5.50 Worse Kyrgyzstan 4.50 4.50 5.00 Worse Moldova 4. 25 4. 00 4.
00 Better Russia 4. 00 4. 25 4. 25 Worse Tajikistan 6.25 6.00 5.75 Better
Turkmenistan 6.75 6.75 6.75 No change Ukraine 3. 75 4. 00 4. 50 Worse
Uzbekistan 6. 50 6. 50 6. 50 No change Average for new independent states
5.19 5.23 5.27 Worse Average for other postCommunist states 3.04 3.39 3.28
Worse

Note: Ratings are based on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 as the best rating.
Source: Freedom House, Nations in Transit (Washington, D. C.: Freedom House,
1997, 1998, 1999- 2000).

In the two new independent states where the United States has devoted the
largest amount of rule of law funding- Russia and Ukraine- the rule of law
is slightly better than average for the region, according to Freedom House
scores. However, the scores show that the reform process remains slow and
the rule of law, as defined by these indicators, has deteriorated in recent
years. The scores have improved in only one of the four countries (Georgia)
in which USAID has made the development of the rule of law one of its
strategic objectives and the United States has devoted a large portion of
its rule of law assistance funding.

Three factors have constrained the impact and sustainability of U. S. rule
of law assistance: (1) a limited political consensus on the need to reform
law and institutions, (2) a shortage of domestic resources to finance many
of the reforms on a large scale, and (3) a number of shortcomings in U. S.
program management. The first two factors, in particular, have created a
very challenging climate for U. S. programs to have major, long- term impact
in these states, but have also underscored the importance of effective
management of U. S. programs. Limits on Impact and

Sustainability Stem From Political, Economic, and Program Management Issues

Page 33 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

In key areas in need of legal reform, U. S. advocates have met some steep
political resistance to change. In Ukraine and Russia, lawmakers have not
been able to agree to pass critical legal codes upon which reform of the
judiciary must be based. In particular, Ukrainian government officials are
deadlocked on legislation reforming the judiciary, despite a provision in
the country?s constitution to do so by June 2001. Numerous versions of this
legislation have been drafted by parties in the parliament, the executive
branch, and the judiciary with various political and other agendas. Lack of
progress for this legislation has stymied reforms throughout the justice
system. In Russia?s Duma (parliament), where the civil and the criminal
codes were passed in the mid- 1990s, the criminal procedure code remains in
draft form. According to a senior Justice official, Russia is still using
the autocratic 1963 version of the procedure code that violates fundamental
human rights. This official told us that the Russian prosecutor?s office is
reluctant to support major reforms, since many would require that
institution to relinquish a significant amount of the power it has had in
the operation of the criminal justice system. While U. S. officials help
Russian groups to lobby for legislative reforms in various ways, adoption of
such reforms remain in the sovereign domain of the host country.

In the legal education system as well, resistance to institutional reform
has thwarted U. S. assistance efforts. While some legal education officials
we spoke with advocate more modern and practical teaching methods, legal
education remains rigidly theoretical and outmoded by western standards.
USAID officials in Russia told us that Russian law professors and other
university officials are often the most conservative in the legal community
and the slowest to reform. A USAID- sponsored assessment of legal education
in Ukraine found that there was little likelihood for reform in the short
term due to entrenched interests among the school administration and faculty
who were resisting change. 25 Georgia also suffers from deeply seated
barriers to legal education reform, such as systemic corruption in
admissions and grading, according to the 1999 USAID- sponsored evaluation.
26

Furthermore, little consensus could be reached among legal professionals to
overcome cultural, regional, and professional barriers to form effective

25 Ukraine Rule of Law Assessment and Strategy Recommendations. 26 The
American Bar Association/ Central and Eastern European Law Initiative
Evaluation, Georgia Country Report. Political Consensus on

Reform Slow in Forming

Page 34 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

national associations, according to U. S. officials and contractors we spoke
with. For example, according to one law school dean we interviewed, efforts
to establish a national law school association in Russia were met with
resistance from state legal educational institutions in Moscow, which
insisted on forming an alternative local association.

Policymakers have not reached political consensus on how or whether to
address the legal impediments to the development of sustainable
nongovernmental organizations. This would include passing laws that would
make it easier for these organizations to raise domestic funds and thus gain
independence from foreign donors. For example, in Ukraine, according to a
1999 USAID report 27 and Ukrainian officials we interviewed, the most
important issues for nongovernmental organization development that need to
be addressed by new legislation are granting nongovernmental organizations
special tax status to enable them to raise funds for their activities and to
provide tax incentives for private organizations or individuals to donate
funds. Moreover, administrative acts by government agencies in Ukraine allow
the government to decrease the scope of nongovernmental organizations, and
some nongovernmental organizations, particularly those involved in citizen
advocacy efforts, face numerous obstacles from tax authorities and other
administrative agencies. In Russia, according to the USAID report, taxes are
collected without distinguishing between nonprofit and profit- making
enterprises, and legislation that promotes significant tax incentives is
unlikely to be passed in the near future because of the government?s
critical need to raise revenues.

Historically slow economic growth in the new independent states has meant
limited government budgets and low wages for legal professionals and thus
limited resources available to fund new initiatives. While Russia has
enjoyed a recent improvement in its public finances stemming largely from
increases in the prices of energy exports, public funds in the new
independent states have been constrained. Continuation or expansion of legal
programs initially financed by the United States and other donors has not
been provided for in government budgets, as illustrated by the following
examples.

27 The 1999 NGO [nongovernmental organization] Sustainability Index
(Washington, D. C.: USAID, Jan. 2000). Weak Economic

Conditions Make Funding Reforms Difficult

Page 35 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

In Ukraine, according to officials of the Supreme Court, the government
could only afford to fund operations of the court?s judicial training center
for 6 months in the year 2000.

In the Russian Commercial Court, administrators explained to us that
although the donated computer network funded by USAID was very helpful, the
court did not have the funds to extend it to judges outside of the court?s
headquarters building in Moscow.

The system of jury trials in Russia could not be broadened beyond 9 initial
regions, according to a senior judiciary official, because it was considered
too expensive to administer in the other 89 regions.

According to a senior police official we spoke to in Ukraine, police forces
often lack funds for equipment, such as vehicles, computers, and
communications equipment, needed to implement some of the law enforcement
techniques that were presented in the U. S.- sponsored training.

In addition, government ability or commitment to funding innovative new
training and other improvements for the judiciary also appeared weak in
Georgia, where the government has not been able to pay judges their promised
salaries in a timely manner.

Nongovernmental organizations we visited said that it was difficult to raise
funds from domestic sources to continue the advocacy, educational, and legal
services programs that had initially been financed by the United States and
other donors. For example, they indicated that while lawyers and other legal
professionals valued the educational materials and opportunities offered
through U. S. assistance, they generally could not afford to pay for the
courses and materials privately.

U. S. agencies implementing the rule of law assistance program have not
always managed their projects with an explicit focus on achieving
sustainable results. Our review of project documentation and our discussions
with senior U. S. government officials indicate limited efforts were made to
(1) develop and implement strategies to achieve sustainable results and (2)
monitor projects results over time to ensure that sustainable impact was
being achieved. These are important steps in Program Management

Weaknesses Affect Impact and Sustainability of Aid

Page 36 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

designing and implementing development assistance projects, according to
guidance developed by USAID. 28

According to USAID guidance for planning assistance projects, project
descriptions should define the strategies and processes necessary to achieve
specific results, both in terms of immediate outputs and longerterm
outcomes. We found that, in general, USAID projects were designed with
strategies for achieving sustainability, including assistance activities
intended to develop new and existing indigenous institutions to adopt the
concepts and practices USAID was promoting. However, at the Departments of
State, Justice, and the Treasury, rule of law projects we reviewed often did
not establish specific strategies for achieving sustainable development
results. In particular, the law enforcementrelated training efforts we
reviewed were generally focused on achieving short- term objectives, such as
conducting training courses or providing equipment and educational
materials; they did not include an explicit approach for meeting longer-
term objectives, such as promoting sustainable institutional changes and
reform of national law enforcement practices. According to senior U. S.
embassy officials in Russia and Ukraine, these projects rarely included
follow- up activities to help ensure that the concepts taught were being
institutionalized or otherwise having long- term impact. For example,
according to the U. S. Resident Legal Advisor in Russia, U. S. agencies?
training efforts were intended to introduce new law enforcement techniques,
but no effort was made to reform the law enforcement training curriculum so
that the techniques would continue to be taught after the U. S. trainers
left the country. Federal Bureau of Investigation officials we spoke to
indicated that their training courses in the new independent states rarely
took a ?train the trainer? approach aimed at providing training that is
likely to be replicated by indigenous law enforcement staff. One senior
Justice official described the training as ?lobbying? to convince key law
enforcement officers of the importance or utility of the techniques being
taught in hopes that they would someday be adopted.

USAID guidance also calls for establishing a system for monitoring and
evaluating performance and for reporting and using performance

28 For more information, see ?Results- Oriented Assistance: a USAID
Sourcebook,? available on the World Wide Web at www. usaid. gov. Although
this guidance has not been formally adopted by other government agencies, it
reflects the expertise of the U. S. government?s most experienced
development agency and is instructive to all agencies involved in
development assistance.

Page 37 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

information. Developing and monitoring performance indicators is important
for making programmatic decisions and learning from past experience,
according to USAID. However, we did not find clear evidence that U. S.
agencies systematically monitor and evaluate the impact and sustainability
of the projects they implemented under the rule of law assistance program.

We found that the Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury have not
routinely assessed the results of their rule of law projects. In particular,
according to U. S. agency and embassy officials we spoke to, there was
usually little monitoring or evaluation of the law enforcement training
courses after they were conducted to determine their impact. U. S. law
enforcement agencies that have implemented training programs report to State
on each training course but do not assess the extent to which the techniques
and concepts they taught have had a broader impact on law enforcement in the
countries where they conduct training. To date, State has funded only one
independent evaluation of the law enforcement training activities. According
to Justice, it evaluates the course curriculum at the International Law
Enforcement Academy on a regular basis to help ensure that it is relevant to
its participants and of high quality. In addition, Justice conducts some
indirect measurement of long- term effectiveness by discussing the
usefulness of training with selected participants months or years after they
have completed the course. However, these evaluations do not systematically
assess the longer- term impact and sustainability of the training and do not
cover a large portion of the training that Justice conducts.

Although USAID has a more extensive process for assessing its programs, we
found that the results of its rule of law projects in the new independent
states of the former Soviet Union were not always apparent. The results of
most USAID projects we reviewed were reported in terms of project outputs
instead of impact and sustainability. For 6 of the 11 major projects we
reviewed in Russia and Ukraine, available project documentation indicated
that project implementers reported project results almost exclusively in
terms of outputs. These outputs include the number of USAID- sponsored
conferences or training courses held, the number and types of publications
produced with project funding, or the amount of computer and other equipment
provided to courts. Short- term measures and indicators alone do not enable
USAID to monitor and evaluate the sustainability and overall impact of the
projects. Project documentation we reviewed, including work plans, progress
reports, and post- completion reports, rarely addressed the longer- term
impact of the assistance achieved or expected or indicated how impact could
be measured into the

Page 38 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

future. Other measures or indicators that capture the productivity of U. S.
assisted organizations or the extent to which U. S.- sponsored innovations
are adopted in the country shed more light on the long- term impact and
sustainability. Examples of such measures would be the percentage of judges
or bailiffs that a government itself has trained annually using new methods
introduced by U. S.- assistance or the percentage of law schools that
sponsor legal clinics or include new practical courses in their curriculum.
Although USAID has reported broad, national- level indicators for its rule
of law programs, without indicators or measures of the results of its
individual projects, it is difficult to draw connections between the outputs
produced and the national- level outcomes reported. Furthermore, only 2 of
the 11 USAID projects we reviewed in Russia and Ukraine have been
independently evaluated to assess their impact and sustainability.

State has recently recognized the shortcomings of its training- oriented
approach to law enforcement reforms. As a result, it has mandated a new
approach for implementing agencies to focus more on sustainable projects.
Instead of administering discrete training courses, for example, agencies
and embassies will be expected to develop longer- term projects. Justice has
also developed new guidelines for the planning and evaluation of some of its
projects to better ensure that these projects are aimed at achieving
concrete and sustainable results. 29 These reform initiatives are still in
very early stages of implementation. It remains to be seen whether projects
in the future will be more explicitly designed and carried out to achieve
verifiably sustainable results. One factor that may delay the implementation
of these new approaches is a significant backlog in training courses that
State has already approved under this program. As of February 2001, about
$30 million in funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2000 has been obligated
for law enforcement training that has not yet been conducted. 30 U. S. law
enforcement agencies, principally the Departments of Justice and the
Treasury, plan to continue to use these funds for a number of years to pay
for their training activities, even though many of these activities have the
same management weaknesses as the earlier ones we reviewed. Unless these
funds are reprogrammed for other purposes or

29 These guidelines govern projects implemented by Justice?s Criminal
Division and do not extend to other agencies within the Department that
implement law enforcement training, such as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.

30 The precise amount of funding is unclear, as State program officials
believe that the implementing agencies may have actually conducted some
unknown amount of this training but not yet submitted necessary
documentation to State for reimbursement.

Page 39 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

the projects are redesigned to reflect the program reforms that State and
Justice are putting in place, their results may have limited impact and
sustainability.

The U. S. government?s rule of law assistance program is a key element of
the U. S. foreign policy objectives of fostering democratic and open market
systems in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union. However,
establishing the rule of law is a complex and long- term undertaking. After
nearly a decade of effort and more than $200 million worth of assistance,
the program has had difficulty fostering the sustainable institutions and
traditions necessary to establish the rule of law in this region.
Consequently, many of the elements of the Soviet- style legal system are
still in place in the new independent states. Though this program was
originally envisioned by the U. S. government as a short- term effort,
achieving more significant progress is likely to take many more years.
Progress is likely to remain elusive unless the new independent states make
legal system reform a higher public policy and funding priority and U. S.
agencies address the program management weaknesses we have identified in
developing strategies for achieving impact and sustainability and conducting
performance monitoring and evaluation. Although the United States has very
limited influence over the political will and domestic resources of these
countries, it could better design and implement its assistance projects,
both those currently funded and those that it may fund in the future, with a
greater emphasis on measuring impact and achieving sustainability.

To help improve the impact and sustainability of the U. S. rule of law
assistance program in the new independent states of the former Soviet Union,
we recommend that the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the
Secretary of the Treasury, and the USAID Administrator, who together control
almost all of the program?s funding, require that each new project funded
under this program be designed with (1) specific strategies for achieving
defined long- term outcomes that are sustainable beyond U. S. funding; and
(2) a provision for monitoring and evaluating the project results, using
verifiable outcome indicators and measures, to determine whether the desired
outcomes have been achieved and are likely to be sustainable. Furthermore,
to improve the likelihood that project funds currently budgeted but not yet
spent achieve sustainable results, the Secretary of State, the Attorney
General, and the Secretary of the Treasury should jointly review the
pipeline of projects and develop a plan for Conclusions

Recommendations for Executive Action

Page 40 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

ensuring that all projects meet the above criteria, including reprogramming
of unspent assistance funds, as necessary.

We received written comments on a draft of this report from USAID and the
Departments of State and Justice, which are reprinted in appendixes IIIV.
The Department of the Treasury had no comment on the report.

State, Justice, and USAID generally agreed with us that the program
management improvements we recommended are needed. State indicated that it
had already begun to undertake management actions consistent with these
recommendations. State also suggested that we encourage the U. S. law
enforcement agencies to cooperate in its ongoing efforts to reprogram or
reschedule assistance funds that have been budgeted but not yet spent.
Justice agreed that improved planning and evaluation of its assistance
activities are needed. USAID agreed that improvement is needed in measuring
project results and that greater emphasis could be given to reviewing long-
term sustainability issues. We have modified our recommendation to emphasize
the importance of cooperation among the agencies in resolving management
weaknesses we identified.

USAID and State expressed concern that our assessment set too high a
standard for program success. These agencies noted that we did not
adequately recognize the complex and long- term nature of this development
process. They also noted that the funding for rule of law development has
been relatively meager compared to the total amount of assistance provided
to the new independent states and considering the magnitude of the
challenge. Furthermore, the agencies stated that achievement of a fully
functioning rule of law system could not have been expected in the 8 years
that the program has been in existence. We agree that establishing the rule
of law in the new independent states is a complex and long- term
undertaking, and we have made this observation more prominent in the report.
We did not use the full development of a rule of law system as the benchmark
of success for this program, however. Instead we looked for sustainable
progress in each of the key elements of the U. S. assistance program as well
as in the overall development of the rule of law. We found limited
sustainable impact from U. S.- funded projects in the various elements of
the program that we reviewed. Furthermore, we found that by the one measure,
the Freedom House rule of law score, which USAID and State used to measure
overall rule of law development, the situation in the new independent states
is relatively poor and has actually been deteriorating in some states. We do
not agree that the Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

Page 41 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

program funding levels were necessarily a significant factor limiting the
impact and sustainability of the program; rather, we believe that better
results could have been achieved with a more conducive political and
economic environment and with better planning and monitoring efforts.

The agencies also indicated that we did not adequately recognize some
significant program activities and achievements. These include the
development of a more independent judiciary in Russia and adoption of a
number of reforms in the criminal justice system. USAID also stated that its
encouragement and support of legal system reforms have been a valuable
accomplishment, though not always resulting in the creation of a sustainable
entity to promote reforms into the future. In addition, Justice stated that
its training courses have been more successful than we have given them
credit for, both by helping to establish valuable working relationships
between law enforcement agencies in the United States and the new
independent states and by fostering the application of modern law
enforcement techniques. Hence, Justice indicated that our assessment was
overly pessimistic about the prospects for achieving sustainable results
from its programs. State indicated that we failed to acknowledge a major
educational exchange component of the program. Where appropriate, we
included additional information or amplified existing information on program
results and activities. In most cases, however, our analysis showed that
there was insufficient evidence to draw a link between the outcomes the
agencies cited and U. S. assistance efforts.

USAID and Justice indicated that we did not adequately acknowledge the
monitoring and evaluation systems that they currently employ in this
program. USAID indicated that while it agrees that a better project- level
results measurement is needed, it currently employs a system of program
monitoring that allows it to manage the program effectively. Justice pointed
to training curriculum evaluation that it undertakes to help ensure that its
training programs are relevant and useful. We reviewed the information that
both provided and have included additional information about them in our
report. However, we believe that none of the agencies employed a monitoring
and evaluation process to systematically assess the direct impact of its
rule of law projects in the new independent states of the former Soviet
Union and measure progress toward the projects? longterm objectives and
desired outcomes.

State and USAID expressed concern that we did not rank the three factors
that have limited the impact and sustainability of the program in order of
importance. They believe that program management weaknesses are the least
important factor and the lack of political consensus is the most

Page 42 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

important. Furthermore, USAID stated that any limitations in the
effectiveness of the rule of law assistance program should not be attributed
to its monitoring and evaluation shortcomings. We agree that the political
and economic conditions in this region have created a difficult environment
for U. S. assistance efforts and have revised the report to emphasize this
point. However, we believe that improved management practices could enhance
the impact and sustainability of the program, and we discuss program
management weaknesses in detail in the report because the U. S. government
has more control over this factor than the other two. Furthermore, insofar
as project results are not routinely monitored and evaluated, the agencies?
ability to manage for results is impaired.

As arranged with your office, we plan no further distribution of this report
for 30 days from the date of the report unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier. At that time, we will send copies to interested
congressional Committees and to the Honorable Colin Powell, Secretary of
State; the Honorable Paul O?Neill, Secretary of the Treasury; the Honorable
John Ashcroft, Attorney General; the Honorable Donald Pressley, Acting
Administrator, U. S. Agency for International Development; and other
interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
on (202) 512- 4128. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed
in appendix V.

Jess T. Ford, Director International Affairs and Trade

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 43 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

To (1) assess the impact and sustainability of the U. S. government?s rule
of law program and to (2) identify factors that constrained impact and
sustainability, we analyzed project documentation, interviewed knowledgeable
officials, and reviewed assistance activities in the field. We obtained and
analyzed information on the results of the U. S. rule of law assistance
efforts funded between 1992 and 2000 in the new independent states of the
former Soviet Union. However, we focused our review on four specific
countries- Armenia, Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine. We selected these
countries because they received the bulk of U. S. assistance, because the U.
S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had designated rule of law
development as a strategic objective in these countries, and because
significantly more relevant information was readily available about the
assistance activities in these countries than the other eight new
independent states. Furthermore, based on our discussions with USAID and
State staff and our review of relevant documentation, we concluded that the
U. S. rule of law assistance efforts in these countries were typical of the
assistance provided throughout the region. Thus, we believe that our report
findings about the impact and sustainability of the U. S. assistance program
are applicable to the entire region.

To obtain detailed information on the impact and sustainability of specific
rule of law assistance efforts, we examined projects funded in Russia and
Ukraine since 1995, including 11 major USAID- managed projects and a variety
of assistance activities managed by State. We selected these countries based
on congressional interest and because they have received at least about half
of the assistance provided under this program. We selected these projects
because they were the most likely to have been substantially completed and
thus have a track record that would allow us to assess whether they have
begun to achieve significant results. We did not include projects initiated
in 1999 or thereafter.

Specifically, we conducted the following work. In Washington, D. C., we
interviewed headquarters officials at the departments and agencies
implementing rule of law projects in these new independent states, including
the Departments of State, Justice, and the Treasury, and the U. S. Agency
for International Development. We also met with individuals with expertise
in criminal justice system reforms. For Russia and Ukraine, we reviewed
Mission Performance Plans; USAID country planning documents; Department of
Justice country work plans; and other reporting documents, funding
agreements, contracts, and project evaluations. We obtained program funding
information for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 from USAID and the Departments of
State, Justice, Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 44 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

and the Treasury, which we combined and analyzed with similar information we
had obtained for earlier fiscal years in the course of previous work.

We conducted fieldwork in Russia and Ukraine in August and October 2000. In
each of these countries, we met with the Deputy Chief of Mission, senior U.
S. officials representing agencies with rule of law programs in each
country; and numerous program staff, including contractors responsible for
implementing the projects. We interviewed host country officials at the
supreme, constitutional, general jurisdiction, and commercial courts;
justice and interior ministries; law enforcement organizations; and the
Judicial Department in Russia. We visited training schools for judges and
prosecutors, law schools, and several demonstration projects. We also met
with numerous representatives from nongovernmental organizations and other
groups representing a broad spectrum of civil society in Moscow, St.
Petersburg, Petrozavodsk, and Yekaterinburg in Russia; and in Kiev, Lviv,
and Kharkiv in Ukraine.

Though we did not travel to the 10 other new independent states of the
former Soviet Union or review specific projects in these states in depth, we
obtained and reviewed all available evaluations of these projects to
determine whether they have met their major objectives and to identify the
factors affecting their success or failure. We also reviewed our prior
reports on rule of law assistance, and reports on foreign assistance to
Russia and Ukraine. 31

31 See Foreign Assistance: International Efforts to Aid Russia?s Transition
Have Had Mixed Results (GAO- 01- 8, Nov. 1, 2000); Foreign Assistance: U. S.
Rule of Law Assistance to Five Latin American Countries (GAO/ NSIAD- 99-
195, Aug. 4, 1999); Foreign Assistance: Rule of Law Funding Worldwide for
Fiscal Years 1993- 1998 (GAO/ NSIAD- 99- 158, June 30, 1999); Foreign
Assistance: Harvard Institute for International Development?s Work in Russia
and Ukraine (GAO/ NSAID- 97- 27, Nov. 27, 1996); and Promoting Democracy:
Progress Report on U. S. Democratic Development Assistance to Russia (GAO/
NSIAD- 96- 40, Feb. 29, 1996).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 45 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Rule of law is a component of democracy building, and although a close
relationship exists between activities, we did not evaluate other projects
under the democracy program.

We performed our work from July through December 2000 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of State

Page 46 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of State

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the end
of this appendix.

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of State

Page 47 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of State

Page 48 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

See comment 3. See comment 2.

See comment 1.

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of State

Page 49 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

The following are GAO?s comments on the Department of State?s letter dated
March 16, 2001.

1. State indicated that it is working with law enforcement agencies to
ensure that the pipeline of law enforcement training funds are used to
achieve the maximum impact and sustainability. State suggested that we
recommend that the U. S. law enforcement agencies cooperate with State in
its ongoing efforts to reschedule or reprogram undelivered assistance. Based
on our discussions with State officials, increased and continued attention
and cooperation among the agencies will be needed before this issue is fully
resolved. As suggested by State, we have highlighted the need for this
interagency cooperation in our recommendation to the agencies.

2. State pointed out that our report failed to address the long- term
exchange and partnership activities of the U. S. Information Agency and its
successor, State?s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. We
inadvertently omitted the financial data provided by State on these
exchanges from our initial calculation of program funding, but we did
include the exchanges in the scope of our review, insofar as time and
resources allowed and as results were observable. We have revised the
financial data to include the data on exchanges and also included specific
mention of these exchanges in our discussion of the legal education element
of the Rule of Law Assistance Program.

3. State noted that the community of nongovernmental agencies in the region
was not as dependent on western funding as our report suggested, as
evidenced by the large number of such organizations that receive no U. S.
funding. The observations in our report did not pertain to the development
of nongovernmental organizations overall. We noted questionable
sustainability among those nongovernmental organizations in the rule of law
field that have received a significant amount of U. S. funding under this
program. GAO Comments

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 50 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Justice

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the end
of this appendix.

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 51 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 52 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

See comment. See comment.

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 53 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

See comment. See comment.

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 54 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 55 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

The following is GAO?s comment on the Department of Justice?s letter dated
March 23, 2001.

Justice disagreed with out characterization of the extent to which law
enforcement techniques taught in U. S.- sponsored training courses were
being applied by training recipients. Justice stated that the data we cited
supported the conclusion that its training has had significant impact and
that greater application is likely to ensue as the efficacy of these
techniques is validated through their use. Justice also questioned whether
some additional data were available on the use of training techniques. We
revised the report to include Justice?s interpretation of the available
data, but we also indicated that, due to data limitations, we could not
validate or dispute this interpretation. No further data were available for
us to elaborate on the extent of the application of the U. S.- taught
techniques. GAO Comment

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 56 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the end
of this appendix.

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 57 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 58 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 59 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 60 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 61 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 62 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

See comment 1.

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 63 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

See comment 1.

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 64 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

See comment 3. See comment 3.

See comment 2.

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 65 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

See comment 3.

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 66 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 67 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development

Page 68 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

The following are GAO?s comments on USAID?s letter dated March 23, 2001.

1. USAID disagreed with our analytical approach to assessing sustainability
and the emphasis we placed on sustainability in evaluating program success.
USAID pointed out that certain organizations can have significant impact on
rule of law development even though they may not be sustainable over the
long term. We believe that our approach to assessing sustainability of the
program is sound. In addition to reviewing the sustainability of the
program?s component activities, we also reviewed the overall sustainability
of rule of law development as reflected in the Freedom House scores. Both
approaches raise concerns about sustainability. Furthermore, we assessed
both the impact and sustainability of the projects we reviewed and have
cited examples in the report where organizations supported by USAID have had
some impact regardless of whether they were sustainable. However, given the
long- term nature of rule of law development and the many competing demands
for limited assistance funds, we believe that sustainability of program
results is critical to program success and was an appropriate emphasis for
our analysis.

2. USAID indicated that we did not adequately acknowledge significant
program results in the area of commercial law. In general, as we had
discussed with USAID, due to time and resource constraints, we did not
assess the impact of USAID assistance in the area of commercial law.
However, insofar as available evaluations provided information on
accomplishments in this area, we included this information in our report.

3. USAID criticized the report?s use of references and quotes from
evaluations as inappropriately taken out of context. We reviewed each
reference to an evaluation and do not believe that we have distorted the
meaning of the information cited, as USAID suggested. However, where
appropriate, we have revised the language or used additional or alternative
references in our report to avoid potential misinterpretation. GAO Comments

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 69 GAO- 01- 354 Former Soviet Union

Stephen Lord, (202) 512- 4379 James Michels, (202) 512- 5756

In addition to those named above, E. Jeanette Espinola, Mary E. Moutsos,
Maria Z. Oliver, Rona H. Mendelsohn, and Jeffery Goebel also made key
contributions to this report. Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

(711540)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with ?info? in the body to:

Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

Contact one:

 Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

 E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov

 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***