PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
1
3D Planning Guide
Diplomacy, Development, Defense
31 July 2012
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 4
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 8
2. PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................... 8
3. 3D PLANNING FUNDAMENTALS ........................................................................................... 9
3.1 TYPES OF PLANNING ..................................................................................................................................... 9
4. 3D PLANS, PLANNING PROCESSES, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
SYNCHRONIZATION ............................................................................................................................................. 11
4.1 DEPARTMENT OF STATE .............................................................................................................................. 11
4.1.1 The State/USAID Joint Strategic Plan ................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2 Joint Regional Strategy (JRS) ................................................................................................................ 13
4.1.3 Integrated Country Strategy (ICS) ............................................................................................................ 17
4.2 U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 19
4.2.1 USAID Program Cycle .......................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.2 Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) ........................................................................... 22
4.2.3 Operational Plans (Joint State / USAID) ............................................................................................... 27
4.2.4 USAID Project Design ........................................................................................................................... 27
4.3 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ......................................................................................................................... 30
4.3.1 Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF)...................................................................................... 32
4.3.3 Campaign Plans ..................................................................................................................................... 33
4.3.4 Country Plans ........................................................................................................................................ 35
4.3.5 Theater Posture Plans ........................................................................................................................... 36
4.3.6 Contingency Plans and War Plans ........................................................................................................ 36
4.3.7 Opportunities for 3D Cooperation ......................................................................................................... 37
5. 3D INTEGRATIVE PLANNING OPPORTUNITIES AND TOOLS .................................... 37
5.1 CRISIS RESPONSE, STABILIZATION, AND CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION ...................................................... 37
5.2 PROMOTE COOPERATION ............................................................................................................................ 39
5.3 THREE-D PLANNING GROUP (3DPG) .......................................................................................................... 40
5.4 COUNTRY TEAM: LOCUS FOR INTERAGENCY PLANNING ............................................................................ 40
6. KEY CHALLENGES IN 3D PLANNING ................................................................................ 41
7. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 44
APPENDIX 1: 3D PLANNING GROUP POINTS OF CONTACT ................................................................. 46
APPENDIX 2: KEY TERMS / ACRONYMS .................................................................................................... 47
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
3
APPENDIX 3: TYPES OF PLANNING ............................................................................................................. 56
APPENDIX 4: PRESIDENTIAL INITIATIVES ............................................................................................... 57
APPENDIX 5: CSO PLANNING FRAMEWORK & EXAMPLES ................................................................ 59
APPENDIX 6: ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS / MAPS ................................................................................. 62
APPENDIX 7: USAID PROJECT DESIGN ...................................................................................................... 67
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
4
3D PLANNING GUIDE
Executive Summary
Diplomacy, Development, and Defense (3Ds) – as represented by the Department of
State (State), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the
Department of Defense (DoD or Defense) – are the three pillars that provide the foundation for
promoting and protecting U.S. national security interests abroad.
1
The 3D Planning Group
(3DPG) was chartered to develop products and processes to improve collaboration in planning
among these three organizations. This updated 3D Planning Guide (Guide), is a reference tool
designed to help planners understand the purpose of each agency’s plans, the processes that
generate them, and, most importantly, to help identify opportunities for coordination among the
three. It is part of a larger effort to build understanding and synchronize plans to improve
collaboration, coordination, and unity of effort.
Although sharing the highest-level strategic guidance document – the National Security
Strategy (NSS) – State, USAID, and DoD face significant hurdles to ensure their plans are based
on shared assessments of conditions, are appropriately aligned, and account for each other’s
priorities and plans. While all three organizations seek to promote U.S. national security, their
planning perspectives and approaches are derived from their distinct missions, roles, legal
authorities, and congressional interests and earmarks with their attendant responsibilities. As a
result, each of them has created distinct frameworks, processes, terminology, and planning
cultures.
To begin bridging the gaps between the three planning communities, this Guide
summarizes each of the 3Ds’ approach to planning and suggests potential directions for
collaboration. It presents the different kinds of planning purposes, approaches, and processes
currently in use, and describes the next steps in 3D planning.
In a 3D context, plans (the products) reflect decisions undertaken during planning (the
process) and communicate purpose and intended actions to stakeholders and implementers.
Some processes are designed to produce plans that communicate strategic policy and broad
objectives (policy and strategy-oriented planning), while others generate plans that also contain
detailed resource data which becomes the basis of agency budgets (resource-oriented planning).
These two types of planning processes focus on different periods of time: policy-oriented
planning captures a mid-term and long-term perspective; resource-oriented planning tends to
occur and reflect the near-term perspectives of an agency.
1
USAID is an independent agency that receives general direction, overall foreign policy guidance, and cabinet representation from
the Secretary of State.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
5
Department of State planning is based on top-down strategic direction from the NSS
and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), as well as bottom-up
information from the field. This process defines priorities and focuses limited resources on their
achievement. At the Department level, the State/USAID Joint Strategic Plan (JSP) outlines the
highest-level foreign policy goals of State and USAID.
2
Section 4.1
A transition is underway at the regional
and country levels. At the regional level, Bureau Strategic and Resource Plans (BSRPs) are
being replaced by Joint Regional Strategies (JRSs) – three-year documents jointly developed by
State and USAID regional bureaus, which identify U.S. foreign policy and development
priorities for a given region. In each country, Mission Strategic and Resource Plans (MSRPs)
are being replaced by Integrated Country Strategies (ICSs) – three-year documents developed by
an embassy’s Country Team, which identify U.S. foreign policy and development priorities for
that country. Details concerning the transition in planning processes can be found below in
.
USAID planning depends on its country-level USAID Missions and forward-deployed
American and local staff for assessment, planning, and implementation for the majority of its
programs. Because development programming is tailored to the needs and challenges faced in
each country, USAID Missions are empowered to develop strategic plans called Country
Developments Cooperation Strategies (CDCS). Importantly, these strategies are reflective of the
development agenda of the host nation itself and work to align U.S. efforts with host nation,
international, and other bilateral donor programs working in the country. The CDCS, along with
other inputs such as Congressional spending parameters, Presidential Initiatives, and foreign
policy considerations, informs USAID’s annual budget formulation process.
The CDCS is the country-owned cornerstone of USAID’s Program Cycle. The Program
Cycle starts with Agency policies; these set parameters for country planning and USAID
partnerships with host country governments and others. Together with the Department of State
and the Country Team, USAID Missions in-country develop a CDCS. Once approved, USAID
Missions implement the CDCS through foreign assistance projects. These are rigorously
monitored and evaluated, refining and producing evidence upon which Agency policies and
country plans can be iteratively improved, driving an evidence-based approach to policy
development, assistance investment selectivity, and project design and implementation. While
USAID seeks to use the CDCS as its primary strategy document, USAID and State Operating
Units that implement foreign assistance activities must also prepare Operational Plans (OPs) on
an annual basis. An OP is an Operating Unit’s programmatic proposal for the use of new foreign
assistance resources available to them for a given fiscal year, and its purpose is to provide a
2
Currently, the QDDR 2011-2016 Strategic Plan Addendum articulates the Strategic Goal Framework to address key U.S. foreign
policy and national security priorities and serves as the new State-USAID JSP.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
6
comprehensive picture for one year of how State and USAID foreign assistance resources will be
used to support United States foreign assistance objectives.
The Department of Defense engages in different types of planning for different
purposes, from budgeting and resource allocation to military contingencies around the world.
This Guide focuses on how DoD generates plans at the global level, the regional level via its
Theater Campaign Plans (TCPs), and at the country level via its Country Plans (CPs). These
plans are part of a series of strategies and plans that cover differing functions, levels, and degrees
of detail. Planning throughout the DoD is based on top-down strategic direction, starting with
the highest-level strategic guidance: the National Security Strategy (NSS), National Defense
Strategy (NDS), Guidance for the Employment of the Force (GEF), and the Joint Strategic
Capabilities Plan (JSCP). While DoD planning is focused on the strategic and regional levels,
the art and discipline of planning is part of a complex process that DoD uses to allocate and
manage resources across the Military Departments, Defense Agencies, and other DoD
Components.
The TCPs “operationalize” a Functional or Geographical Combatant Command’s (GCC)
strategy. Campaign plans are developed within the context of existing U.S. national security and
foreign policies and are the primary vehicle for designing, organizing, integrating, and executing
security cooperation activities and routine military operations; integrating their posture and
contingency plans; and synchronizing these DoD plans and activities with U.S. development and
diplomatic efforts. Each plan also reflects the Combatant Commander’s overarching strategy.
Unlike contingency plans, which are prepared in anticipation of potential combat operations and
are implemented only upon high-level execution orders, GCCs execute their campaign plans
continuously through their numerous security cooperation and other military activities.
Country-level plans establish the concepts, activities and resources required to achieve
the GCC’s objectives for that country. The plans integrate many security assistance and security
cooperation authorities, activities and funding streams. The structure, contents, and review of
DoD country plans are at the discretion of each GCC, and are usually developed by the GCC’s
in-country representative (usually the Office of Defense Cooperation or its equivalent, in
conjunction with the country desk officers at GCC headquarters). Like the TCPs, country plans
are in the process of maturing to meet the needs of each GCC theater strategy, but the country
plans should establish the concepts by which GCC objectives for each country are to be achieved
and to the extent that there are common objectives, complement the activities of State and
USAID.
Collaborating in planning provides abundant opportunities for building trust and
sharing information and knowledge. There are several mechanisms already available to foster
greater transparency and understanding among 3D planners. Several of them, like the planning
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
7
efforts of the Department of State and the Joint Staff’s Promote Cooperation (PC) process, are
described in this Guide and provide additional opportunities to further collaboration and
coordination.
The 3D Planning Guide is part of a larger framework of building understanding and
aligning plans among State, USAID, and DoD. The 3DPG will continue its outreach program,
which targets conferences, professional development programs, and other appropriate venues for
promulgating 3D planning concepts, training, and educational materials. Over the longer term,
the 3DPG will continue to pursue new ideas and initiatives to improve collaboration,
coordination, and unity of effort among the 3Ds in order to achieve the coherence needed to
preserve and advance U.S. national interests.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
8
1. Introduction
Diplomacy, Development, and Defense (3Ds) represent the pillars of U.S. national
security. Although other departments and agencies of the U.S. government certainly contribute to
the nation’s security, these “3Ds,” represented by the Department of State (State), the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID), and Department of Defense (DoD or
Defense), provide the foundation for promoting and protecting U.S. interests abroad. Each
represents a critical component of national security with unique roles and responsibilities. The
functions performed by each of the 3Ds provide greatest value to the nation when they are
complementary and mutually reinforcing. Although cooperation and coordination in planning
continues to improve between the 3Ds, that improvement has relied in large part on hard work
done on an ad hoc basis by individuals within each organization. There is no single reference
that provides clarity on how each organization’s planning processes work in practice or the touch
points within these processes that 3D professionals can access to conduct planning across
organizations in practical ways at the national, regional, or field level in specific countries.
Understanding how each organization conducts planning to achieve its mission is
essential to greater mutual understanding and collaboration, and to achieving shared purpose and
greater unity of effort. For example, strategic planning for the promotion and execution of
ongoing U.S. diplomatic activities is quite different than military contingency planning for
combat action against hostile nations. Planning, of course, is a complex subject with different
forms and meanings at various levels in the three organizations, as will be discussed in detail
throughout this guide.
2. Purpose
This reference guide is designed to help
those professionals involved in planning for
their respective organizations to better
understand the different plans and planning
processes of State, USAID, and Defense. It
underscores opportunities for ongoing interface
between planners as they support their parent
organizations and serve as equal stakeholders
in U.S. national security. This guide is designed to help planners understand the purpose of
plans produced by each organization, the process to generate those plans and, most importantly,
the opportunities to coordinate the planning efforts of the 3D organizations.
Purpose:
Support collaboration between State,
USAID, and Defense for more
informed and effective planning
coordination.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
9
3. 3D Planning Fundamentals
In order to help the 3D planning community, this Guide outlines the similarities and
differences of planning documents among the 3D organizations, and where possible, new areas
of commonality and potential directions for future planning. The sections that follow present the
different planning processes currently in use, the plans that result from those processes,
integrative planning approaches that include information on country planning (some of the most
challenging aspects of planning among 3D organizations), and concludes with a section that
describes the next steps in 3D planning.
It is important to acknowledge that the term “planning” connotes something different to
each stakeholder. Planning is conducted differently for distinct purposes, and therefore means
something different to each agency. The various perspectives and understanding of planning
held by individuals in each agency add a dimension of complexity that complicates our ability to
hold a common understanding of planning. This Guide seeks to clarify the differences and
distinctions in each agency to fill gaps in understanding at a very basic level.
3.1 Types of Planning
Planning is a process. In a 3D context, the results of any planning process, documented
in a plan,
3
reflect decisions undertaken during the process and communicates unity of purpose
and intended actions to stakeholders and implementers. Some processes are designed to produce
plans that communicate policy, priorities, and action to stakeholders (policy and strategy-
oriented planning). Other processes generate plans that also contain detailed resource data
which become the basis of agency budgets (resource-oriented planning). Note that these
different types of planning processes focus on different periods of time; resource-oriented
planning tends to occur and reflect the near-term perspectives of an agency (within a 1-4 year
time period), while policy-oriented planning captures a mid-term and long-term perspective
4
Figure 3.1 represents one way to categorize the planning processes that have
commonality across the 3Ds.
.
5
Both policy and strategy-oriented planning and resource-oriented
planning establish goals, objectives, end states, and priorities as core components. Both
processes are deliberate, meaning they are cyclical, proactive, and are not used to react to a
situation.
3
Plan is used generically to describe the output of a planning process. Some organizations refer to these outputs as “strategies” or “budgets” or
“operational plans.”
4
In DoD, the midterm is 5-7 years and the long-term is 7-20 year period (source 2010 QDR, p.43). While USAID shares a similar perspective, at
State the midterm is 3-5 years.
5
A third category, “response planning” is equally important but not addressed in this first version of the Guide.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
10
Figure 3.1: 3D Planning and Guidance
The most significant difference between the two types of processes is their
relationship to the U.S. government (USG) budget process. Resource-oriented planning
Policy and Strategy-Oriented
Planning/Guidance
Resource-Oriented Planning/Guidance
Characteristics
-Group of processes that generate plans that
communicate unity of purpose and intended actions
of stakeholders
-Deliberate, cyclical, proactive
-Core components: Goals, Objectives, Endstates,
Priorities
-Contains policy direction
-Does not contain resource requirements
-Group of processes that generate plans that
communicate unity of purpose and intended actions of
stakeholders AND contains budget data
-Deliberate, cyclical, proactive
-Core components: Goals, Objectives, Priorities,
Performance Targets, Resource Requirements
-Contains policy direction
Global / Functional /
Capstone
Geographic Geographic Functional
State
-Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review
-State/USAID Joint Strategic Plan
-Joint Regional Strategies
-Functional Bureau Strategies
-Integrated Country Strategies
-Bureau Resource Requests
-Mission Resource Requests
-Operational Plans
-Performance Plans and Reports
USAID
-Agency Policy
Framework
-Agency Policies and
Strategies
Country Development
Cooperation Strategies
-Operational Plans
-Performance Plans and
Reports
-Presidential Initiative
Plans
-Performance Plans and
Reports
DoD
-Guidance for
Employment of the
Force
-Joint Strategic
Capabilities Plan
-Theater Campaign Plans
-Theater Posture Plans
-Country Plans
-Contingency Plans
-Global Campaign Plans
-Campaign Support Plans
-Defense Planning Guidance
-Global Force Management Implementation Guidance
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
11
produces plans with the resource requirements identified to implement the plan. Those
requirements feed the agency’s budget development process. Plans that result from
policy and strategy-oriented processes do not contain resource requirements, but often
help guide a separate budget planning and alignment process.
6
Dividing the planning processes functionally and geographically by agency, and
adding the resultant plans, begins to illustrate the relationship between the most common
plans among the 3Ds. Identifying these relationships is an important first step to help the
3D planning community understand the type and purpose of the various plans they may
encounter. The plans listed in Figure 3.1 are not all-inclusive, but represent plans
addressed specifically in this guide. For other types of plans that planners may
encounter, see
Appendix 3.
4. 3D Plans, Planning Processes, and Opportunities for
Synchronization
4.1 Department of State
7
The 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) set forth a
series recommendations to elevate and improve strategic planning at the Department of
State. Their aim was to ensure budgets support strategic priorities; improve monitoring
and evaluation systems; and streamline and rationalize planning, budgeting, and
performance management processes.
In 2011, the Department began putting into effect the QDDR’s recommendations
by redesigning its process for planning and budgeting. Under the new design, strategic
planning and budget formulation are now separate but closely connected and mutually
reinforcing processes. Multi-year State/USAID regional strategies will inform multi-year
interagency country ones (top-down). In turn, annual country-level budget requests
(informed by the multi-year strategies) will inform yearly bureau-level ones (bottom-up).
The first phase of implementation of these changes, which began late in 2011 in
two regional bureaus each at the Department and USAID, is ongoing in several functional
bureaus at the Department, and will begin in selected Missions later in 2012. Over the
6
DoD’s PPBES process requires a view of defense resources of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). The FYDP is the program and
financial plan for the Department of Defense as approved by the Secretary of Defense. The FYDP arrays cost data, manpower, and force
structure over a 6-year period (force structure for an additional 3 years), portraying this data by major force program for DoD internal review
for the program and budget review submission. It is also provided to the Congress in conjunction with the President’s budget. (Source: DoD
Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R)
7
Throughout this Guide, the terms Post, Mission, Embassy, and Country Team are used interchangeably to denote U.S. establishments abroad
conducting diplomatic relations; they are also referred to as “the field.” A Post is any Foreign Service establishment maintained by the United
States abroad and designated as a
Mission, a Consular Office, or given a special designation for particular purposes. A Mission is any Post
designated as an
Embassy or a Legation and maintained to conduct normal continuing diplomatic relations. The Country Team serves as an
Ambassador’s “cabinet” and consists of the senior representative from each State section and each agency represented at Post. (Source:
Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, 2 FAM 111.2).
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
12
next two years, two more phases will follow to transition the remaining Department
Bureaus and Missions to the new processes. In the interim, Bureaus and Missions
awaiting implementation will rely on the annual Mission and Bureau Resource Request
process to update their objectives as needed. What follows is an overview of the
Department’s new strategic planning processes.
Figure 4.1: The Department of State’s New Strategic Planning Process
4.1.1 The State/USAID Joint Strategic Plan
Purpose: The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization
Act, P.L. 111-352, requires federal agencies to produce comprehensive strategic plans
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
13
every quadrennium that look forward no less than four years. Since 2004, State and
USAID have produced a joint strategic plan. The State/USAID Joint Strategic Plan (JSP)
is the highest-level strategic framework for State and USAID and guides all planning and
budgeting throughout both organizations. Currently, the 2011-2016 Strategic Plan
Addendum to the 2010 QDDR serves as the new State/USAID JSP. It is available at
http://www.state.gov/s/dmr/qddr/185613.htm.
Content: The key components of the current JSP are:
• The Mission Statement;
• The Pillars of Foreign Policy; and
• Joint Strategic Goals
The Pillars of Foreign Policy lay out the foundations of the Secretary’s foreign
policy vision by describing the ways in which the Department shall pursue it. The Joint
Strategic Goals identify the most important aims the Department and USAID will pursue
in response to key U.S. foreign policy and national security priorities.
Inputs: The JSP is developed through careful analysis and assessment of
national-level strategic guidance – as articulated in documents such as the National
Security Strategy and the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development – by key
leadership at the Department and USAID together with input from OMB and other
interagency partners and stakeholders.
Outcome: A multi-year, joint State/USAID plan setting out the highest-level
strategic framework to guide priority setting and resource allocation in both organizations
during the next four years.
Responsible Office: The JSP is the result of close collaboration between the
Department’s Policy Planning Staff, Office of Budget and Planning, and Office of U.S.
Foreign Assistance Resources, working together with USAID’s Office of Management
Policy, Budget and Performance.
4.1.2 Joint Regional Strategy (JRS)
Purpose: The JRS is a three-year regional strategy developed jointly by the
regional bureaus of the Department and USAID for a particular region. It identifies the
priorities, goals, and areas of strategic focus within a region. The JRS provides a
forward-looking and flexible framework within which bureaus and missions prioritize
desired end states, supporting resources, and respond to unanticipated events. The JRS
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
14
process is co-led by the regional Department and USAID bureaus for a given region with
participation and input from relevant functional bureaus from both organizations.
Missions are consulted during JRS development, as the JRS sets the general parameters
that guide subsequent planning at the country level. Regional bureaus develop the JRS in
the fall so that it can guide Mission-level strategic planning and resource requests during
the winter-spring. Bureaus develop a new JRS every three years, but have the ability to
adjust it in interim years as circumstances require.
Content: The key components of the JRS are:
• Assistant Secretary/Administrator Executive Statement. The A/S and AA
Executive Statement provides a brief overview of the regional context,
identifies key U.S. interests in the region, and describes the relevant policy
issues to address. It also provides a policy vision for the region by
summarizing the ideal conditions the U.S. desires to achieve.
• Regional Context. The Regional Context provides a picture of the regional
environment and the situation the U.S. faces. It describes key factors, trends,
and forces affecting U.S. priorities and choices in the region. It also identifies
the root causes of the situation or problems in the environment. The Regional
Context consists of the following subsections:
o Key Issues and Considerations;
o Assumptions;
o Challenges and Opportunities; and
o Past Performance.
• Regional Goals. The Regional Goals describe how, given the regional
context, the U.S. will prioritize its activities to achieve the desired long-term
regional policy end states and vision. They are ambitious statements of the
most important long-term (i.e. more than five years) outcomes the U.S. desires
to achieve in the region, generally expressed as changes or improvements in
the key regional context variables (political, economic, social, informational,
environmental, military.) Limited in number and not ranked in relation to
each other, the Regional Goals represent the most important U.S. priorities in
any given region. Each Regional Goal consists of the following subsections:
o Description of Goal and Linkage to Higher-Level Policy Priorities;
o Rationale;
o Key Partners and Stakeholders;
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
15
o Trade-offs;
o Measures of Success; and
o Strategic Focuses.
8
• Management and Operational Considerations. A brief description of any
major management considerations for the region that could negatively or
positively impact the realization of the vision or goals for the region as a
whole, such as important changes to staff or pending reorganizations,
interagency communications, operational procedures, management controls,
the unveiling or retirement of key information technology systems, or others.
• Resources. The Resources section provides a description of planned regional
trends in funding over the three year period and potential shifts in funding
given the desired regional policy end states and Regional Goals. It also
provides guidance to Missions about regional resource priorities to inform
their decision making during their development of country-level strategies and
annual budget requests.
• References. Provides a short, informal bibliography of the most significant
policy documents alluded to in the plan.
• Evaluation. Provides guidance to target and time evaluations to assess the
strategy and help inform future planning.
• Optional Sections:
o Subregional/Country Guidance. Provides focused guidance for
specific subregions and/or countries; and
o Bureau/Functional/Sector Guidance. Provides function/sector-specific
strategic policy guidance.
Inputs: Key national policies, strategies, presidential directives, or other significant
articulations of policy direction (e.g. key leader speeches, statements, etc.) setting the parameters
for U.S. work in the region.
8
One or more near-term (i.e. up to three years) schema describing concrete sets of changes that will directly or indirectly contribute
to achieving the Goal and akin to objectives.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
16
Outcomes: A three-year, joint State/USAID regional plan setting out the highest-level
strategic framework to guide priority setting and resource allocation in the region in both
organizations during the next three years.
Responsible Office(s): Regional Department and USAID bureaus are responsible for
developing a JRS for their region ever three years with updates in the interim years as needed.
The regional bureaus collaborate with key functional bureaus and stakeholders in the
development of the JRS.
Opportunities for 3D Cooperation on JRS: As the JRS process is fully implemented at
the Department and USAID, interested stakeholders may be able to provide input for its
development.
Figure 4.2: Timeline for the Department of State Strategic Planning Cycle
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
17
4.1.3 Integrated Country Strategy (ICS)
Purpose: The ICS is a three-year country strategy developed by a Country Team for a
particular country. It articulates the U.S. priorities in a given country by setting Mission Goals
and Objectives through a coordinated and collaborative planning effort among State, USAID,
and any other United States Government (USG) agencies under Chief of Mission (COM)
authority. The Chief of Mission leads the ICS process and has final approving authority.
Specifically, the ICS:
• Articulates a common set of USG priority goals and objectives in the country;
• Provides the basis for the development of the annual Mission Resource Requests
(MRR); and
• Provides a tool to coordinate activities throughout the Mission.
Content: The key components of the ICS are:
• Chief of Mission Priorities. The Chief of Mission Priorities provides an overview
that communicates USG priorities to a broad audience. It identifies the key U.S.
interests in the country flowing from any relevant U.S. national strategies and
Presidential Directives, agency strategies and policies, the Joint Regional Strategy,
and the country team’s own assessment. It also describes the conditions the United
States wants the country to achieve over the long term as well as provide a concise
overview of the Mission’s Goals and Objectives.
• Country Context. The Country Context provides a picture of the geopolitical
environment the Mission will face in the coming years. In a bulleted list, it identifies
key planning assumptions, challenges, opportunities, and risks for the U.S. over the
planning horizon. The Country Context focuses only on those aspects that are likely
to have an impact on the Mission’s choice of Objectives or its success in achieving
them. It consists of the following subsections:
o Assumptions;
o Challenges;
o New Opportunities; and
o Risks.
• Mission Goals. Two to five long-term broad goals that the U.S. desires to achieve in
country. Goals may be based on, or taken directly from, the applicable JRS, USAID
Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), or other higher level
strategy documents.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
18
• Mission Objectives. Concrete, realistic statements of desired outcome that a Mission
can significantly influence in the mid-term. They reflect the specific priorities
identified by the Country and serve as a guide for Mission activities in the coming
three fiscal years. The Mission Objectives address areas such as consular
engagement, public diplomacy, security, rule of law, development, economic
statecraft, donor coordination, and other aspects important to the Mission. Mission
Objectives can be cross-cutting or can focus on a single sector or type of activity,
such as security. Countries with an approved USAID Country Development
Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) must include the CDCS Development Objectives as
Mission Objectives in the ICS. Mission Objectives are the building blocks for
resource requests, performance reporting and communicating Mission priorities to all
organizations under COM authority. They consist of the following subsections:
o Justification;
o Primary Link to Joint Regional Strategy;
o Measures of Success;
o Mission Objective Team; and
o Action Plan.
Comprised of the critical activities needed to achieve the Mission Objective, the
Action Plan is the opportunity for the Mission to develop an interagency approach to
cross-cutting issues in the Mission Objective and introduce new and innovative ideas
for how the Mission wants to bring about positive change.
• Enabling Objectives and Management Platform Considerations. Enabling objectives
are critical internal management priorities. This section also provides a brief
description of major management considerations for the Mission that could positively
or negatively impact the realization of Mission Objectives.
Inputs: U.S. national strategies and Presidential Directives, agency strategies and
policies, the Joint Regional Strategy, and the country team’s own assessment.
Outcomes: A three-year, USG country plan identifying the most significant U.S.
national interests in a given country and describing the USG’s plan to attain them.
Responsible Office(s): The Chief of Mission leads the development of the ICS. The
COM involves the entire Country Team in the effort and outside stakeholders and partners as
necessary.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
19
Opportunities for 3D Coordination: The ICS is by definition a 3D document as it
involves in its development Department of State, USAID, and DoD representatives in a
particular country.
4.2 U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America's
foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of
the citizens of the developing world. USAID has been at the forefront of this effort for five
decades, with a history that goes back to the Marshall Plan reconstruction of Europe after World
War II and the Truman Administration's Point Four Program. In 1961, the Foreign Assistance
Act was signed into law and USAID was created by executive order.
Since that time, USAID has been the principal U.S. agency to extend assistance to
developing nations and those countries recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and
engaging in democratic reforms. USAID’s work advances U.S. foreign policy objectives by
supporting:
• economic growth, agriculture and trade;
• global health; and
• democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance.
USAID maintains Missions in five regions of the world:
• Sub-Saharan Africa;
• Asia;
• Latin America and the Caribbean;
• Europe and Eurasia; and
• Middle East.
It is important to note that USAID “regions” neither align exactly with those of the
individual Geographic Combatant Commands of DoD, nor exactly with State regions. See
Appendix 6 for a clear delineation of regions among the 3D organizations.
With headquarters in Washington, D.C., USAID's strength lies within its field offices
around the world. USAID depends on its country-level Missions and forward-deployed
American and local staff for assessment, planning, and implementation of the majority of its
programs. Because development programming is tailored to the needs and challenges faced in
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
20
each country, Missions are empowered to develop strategic plans called Country Development
Cooperation Strategies (CDCS). Importantly, these strategies are reflective of the development
agenda of the host nation itself and work to align U.S., host nation, and international and bilateral
donor programs also working in the country.
USAID uses a “Results Framework” for its country-level strategic planning and project
design activities that builds from an established goal and development hypothesis. A
development hypothesis identifies causal linkages between USAID actions and the intended
Development Objectives. Project Goals are linked to Development Objectives as are lower level
strategic and design elements.
Figure 4.3: Development Assistance Planning
Documents
Purpose
Frequency and
Period Covered
State-USAID Joint Strategic
Plan
(Joint State-USAID)
Defines the primary aims of U.S. foreign policy
and development assistance as well as our
strategic priorities within each of those goals.
Every 4 years
Period Covered: not less
than 4 years
USAID Policy Framework:
2011-2015
Provide core development priorities, operational
principles.
Every 5 years
Period Covered: 5 years
Agency Policies and Strategies
(USAID) / Joint Regional
Strategies (State/USAID, as
applicable)
Terminology:
Strategic goals, priorities,
themes, regional approaches.
Presents corporate approaches and priorities for
USAID’s regional bureaus and technical focus
areas (e.g., education, violent extremism and
insurgency, health, and more).
As needed
Period Covered: Generally
5 years (3 years for Joint
Regional Strategy)
Country Development
Cooperation Strategies (CDCS)
Terminology:
Development Objectives,
Results Framework,
Intermediate Results,
Performance Management Plan
Sets longer term country-specific development
assistance priorities and expected results.
Developed by the field; final approval in
Washington.
Every 4-6 years
Period Covered: 4-6 years
Operational Plan
(Joint USG)
Terminology:
Functional Objectives,
Program Areas, Elements,
Sub-Elements
Proposes 1) budget allocation below the
Program Area level and 2) means of
implementation.
Budget, higher level narratives and key issue
funding reviewed/approved in Washington.
Annual
Period Covered: 1 year for
budget and performance; 2
out-years for performance
targets
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
21
4.2.1 USAID Program Cycle
USAID is undertaking a remarkable set of reforms to
implement the Presidential Policy Directive on
Global Development (PPD-6) and the Quadrennial
Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), as
embodied in USAID’s Policy Framework for 2011-
2015 (USAID’s Policy Framework) and USAID
Forward. The USAID Program Cycle embodies
these guiding principles and reform efforts. It
represents USAID’s efforts to link policy
development, strategic planning, project design and
implementation, monitoring, evaluation and learning
into a cohesive process that builds in evidence-based
decision-making at every stage. (USAID’s Program Cycle is described, and related tools made
available to field managers, through the new and evolving web site http://programnet.usaid.gov/)
Program Cycle Components include:
• Agency Policies and Strategies. Agency Policies and Strategies, which implement
broader USG and State/USAID strategies, guide and inform the Program Cycle. The
President’s Policy Directive on Global Development (PPD-6), approved in September
2010, recognizes that development is vital to U.S. national security and is a strategic,
economic, and moral imperative for the United States. The USAID Policy Framework
2011-2015 operationalizes the policy guidance presented in the PPD and QDDR, clarifies
our core development priorities, explains how we will apply operational principles across
our Agency’s portfolio, and presents our agenda for institutional reform, known as
USAID Forward.
• Country Development Cooperation Strategies. USAID’s Country Development
Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) is a multi-year, country-specific planning tool designed to
make strategic choices based on evidence and analysis while encouraging innovative
approaches to achieving development results.
• Project Design and Implementation. As part of the USAID Forward reform effort, the
Agency is changing the way it approaches project design. The project design process is
based on evidence and supported by analytic rigor. It raises management attention to the
project level rather than post focus at the individual activity so that multiple activities
work together to achieve higher-level results. The process also ensures that projects
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
22
define a clear logic and purpose, are based on evidence of what works, and develops
detailed plans for evaluation, monitoring, and learning.
• Evaluation Monitoring and Learning. With the release of USAID Evaluation Policy in
2011, USAID made an ambitious commitment as directed in USAID Forward for quality
program evaluation - the systematic collection and analysis of information and evidence
about program performance and impact. USAID uses these program evaluation findings
to inform decisions, improve program effectiveness, be accountable to stakeholders, and
support organizational learning.
4.2.2 Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS)
Purpose: USAID’s primary
country-level multi-year strategic plan is
the CDCS. A CDCS is a five-year
strategy (although it may be shorter for
countries in transition) that focuses on
USAID-implemented assistance,
including non-emergency humanitarian
and transition assistance, and related
USG non-assistance tools. All bilateral
missions and regional platforms are
required to develop a CDCS by the end
of FY 2013. Each USAID Mission, in
consultation with the Chief of Mission
(Ambassador), the host country
government, other donors (such as the
UN and other nations), and local civil
society stakeholders submits a draft
CDCS to Washington for review,
discussion, possible revision, and
approval. Once approved by the USAID
regional Assistant Administrator
(organizationally equivalent to an
Assistant Secretary), the CDCS, along
with other inputs such as Congressional
spending parameters, Presidential
Initiatives, and foreign policy
considerations, informs USAID’s
assistance planning, budgeting, and
Country Development Cooperation Strategy
Core Principles
Supports U.S. foreign policy priorities
Defines a Goal, Development Objectives,
Intermediate Results, and Performance Indicators
through a Results Framework and supporting narrative
based on evidence and analysis
Advances USAID’s Policy Framework for 2011-2015,
Agency-level policies and strategies, Presidential
Initiatives, and USAID Forward
Ensures strategic alignment with host country
development priorities and promotes mutual
accountability
Takes into account the needs, rights, and interests of
the country’s citizens
Focuses on achieving prioritized development results
that have clear and measurable impacts
Communicates Mission needs, constraints, and
opportunities
Defines associated human, budget, and physical
resource priorities
Serves as the basis for the annual Mission Resource
Request, Congressional Budget Justification, and
other assistance planning, budgeting, and reporting
processes
Represents the first step in USAID’s Program Cycle,
providing the strategic basis for project design and
implementation, monitoring and evaluation, learning,
and resource allocations
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
23
resource allocation process. Budget levels for individual countries and the sectors that that
country works in (health, agriculture) are set in Washington. Those budget levels are then
subdivided by Washington and the USAID Mission in-country into various specific projects
(grants or contracts with various NGOs and others).
Content: The CDCS is designed to synthesize the basic development challenges that the specific
country faces (poverty, corruption, HIV etc.). Then, within the context of those development
challenges, it presents U.S. and host government priorities, and the roles and activities of various
other donors. The CDCS then lays out the USG objectives and approaches for achieving those
objectives. Specific projects are then designed by USAID staff and subsequently implemented
by American, international, and local partner organizations, contractor firms, or grantees.
• Development Context, Challenges, and Opportunities: The CDCS describes
the basic development context and challenges, and outlines the strategic rationale
for how the challenges and opportunities will be addressed, reflecting relevance to
U.S. national interests and priorities; relationship to country-led plans and
priorities; local capacity for achieving development results; the efforts and impact
of other development actors; and any regional or transnational dimensions.
• Development Objectives (DOs): Based on an over-arching Goal Statement that
articulates the long-term development vision for the country, the CDCS prioritizes
two to three high-level development objectives (defined as the most ambitious
development result that the USG can materially affect, along with its partners, and
for which it is willing to be held accountable) that present an integrated, multi-
sector development approach. Supporting each DO should be a limited number of
priority program areas, usually implemented through projects. For focus-
initiative countries, the CDCS should incorporate initiative goals as part of the
development objectives. The DOs should specifically address how USG
diplomatic efforts and involvement from other USG organizations or donors
support achievement of the DO.
• Results Framework: The CDCS provides a Results Framework for each DO that
is evidence-based and includes a clear statement of the desired outcomes. The
Results Framework is based on an understanding of the nature and determinants
of the social and economic conditions of interest (e.g., rural poverty, poor
maternal and child health) and the ways in which USG activities can affect those
conditions. The Results Framework includes projected intermediate results and
illustrative indicators and targets linked to achieving outcomes and impacts.
• Presidential Initiatives (Global Health Initiative, Feed the Future, and Global
Climate Change): A significant force in USAID’s strategic prioritization is a
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
24
wide variety of Presidential Initiatives that the Agency is tasked to implement.
The CDCS integrates individual country-based Presidential Initiative plans and
strategies to ensure that these investments promote sustainable development
outcomes. The largest of these is the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR), which has injected billions of dollars into Africa and other parts of the
world where HIV is a significant threat. These are detailed later in Appendix 4 of
this document, but are intrinsic to the planning process.
• Monitoring and Evaluation: The CDCS results framework lays out a structure
for monitoring and evaluation that informs the implementation, management, and
achievement of the DOs. This includes functions to review changes to the
country and regional context that will affect achievement of the DO, monitor
outputs and outcomes to measure program progress, and identify evaluation
questions, including attention to assessing whether the critical assumptions were
realized and if the development hypothesis was valid.
Figure 4.4: USAID Country-Level Strategic Planning - An Example of a USAID
Results Framework as a Part of a CDCS
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
25
• Resources and Priorities: The CDCS includes, for the overall strategy and for
each DO, a description of the resources required to implement successfully the
proposed strategy. This description includes anticipated overall operating
expense funding requirements; program-funded operational costs requirements;
and anticipated staffing requirements over the life of the CDCS.
In addition to USAID-implemented assistance, the CDCS refers to other USG resources
that target development programs and activities as determined by the Chief of Mission. The
CDCS also includes assumptions about non-USG resources (e.g., other donors, multilateral
development organizations, private foundations, and local contributions) and describes how
efforts will be coordinated and contribute to an efficient division of labor.
Inputs: Current CDCS guidance calls for a three-phase development:
• Phase 1 – Initial Consultations (estimated 2-3 weeks). Marking the start of the
CDCS process, Phase 1 includes a dialogue between Washington and the Mission
to identify and discuss policy, strategy, and resource parameters and the types of
analyses that will help Missions produce a strong CDCS grounded in realistic
planning assumptions. During the Initial Consultations Phase, Missions determine
what research, assessments, and evaluations are needed to inform the CDCS
process and what support is needed from Washington to complete this step.
• Phase 2 – Results Framework
Development (estimated 2-3
months). Phase 2 involves the
Mission drafting a RF Paper
based on its consultations with a
full range of stakeholders and
the best available evidence and
analysis.
• Phase 3 - CDCS Preparation, Review and Approval. The USAID regional bureau
planning office leads the CDCS review and approval process. The USAID
regional Assistant Administrator (equivalent to an Assistant Secretary) ultimately
approves the CDCS
The relevant USAID regional bureau distributes the draft CDCS to other USAID bureaus
and concerned offices, to the State Office of Foreign Assistance (F) and the State regional
bureau, to OMB, and to other relevant USG organizations for review and comment. Based on
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
26
comments received, the regional bureau develops an issues paper for the Mission and engages
with Mission staff to discuss and resolve any issues.
The Mission Director then updates the CDCS where appropriate and submits a final
strategy for the Assistant Administrator’s approval. Once approved, the Regional Bureau
prepares and transmits a cable that summarizes the approved CDCS as well as key issues
resolved during the CDCS process for USAID staff and the Interagency and a public version of
the CDCS is posted on USAID’s website: http://www.usaid.gov/results-and-
data/planning/country-strategies-cdcs.
Outcomes: Within each USAID Mission, there are a series of technical offices (Health,
Agriculture, Democracy & Governance, etc.) responsible for the implementation of elements of
the overall plan. Based upon the DOs in the CDCS, the USAID Mission undertakes a process of
project design in order to implement the strategy. By developing a series of projects which are
then implemented through grants, contracts or other assistance mechanisms, the Mission
transfers resources to international or national non-governmental organizations (NGOs), for-
profit concerns, or universities through which USAID manages implementation.
Responsible Office(s): Each USAID Field Mission is responsible for developing a
CDCS in coordination with the Chief of Mission and other USG and host nation governmental
and non-governmental entities.
Planning Process: The CDCS is developed at the country level as a five-year strategy
document. If there is a significant shift in country priorities from the USG or a change in
country dynamics due to unforeseen circumstances (example: Haiti earthquake), the document
may be revised. All bilateral missions and regional platforms are required to develop a CDCS by
the end of FY 2013, with the exception of those that are: (1) implementing a single sector
program, such as health; (2) phasing-down or closing the Mission by FY 2014; and (3) special-
purpose Missions such as those in non-presence countries.
Opportunities for 3D Coordination: The CDCS, as the primary strategic planning tool
for development assistance, is flexible and can be used to incorporate assistance programming at
the country level from other sources. Indeed, a component of the design process is analysis of
other inputs across the development sector. As a result, it is an ideal source document for
helping to inform other USG programming efforts involving development. As a result, DoD
development-like activities should be designed at the country level taking the CDCS into account
as a source document for guidance.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
27
4.2.3 Operational Plans (Joint State / USAID)
Purpose: While USAID seeks to use the CDCS as its primary strategy document,
USAID and State Operating Units that implement foreign assistance activities must also prepare
Operational Plans (OPs) on an annual basis. An OP is an Operating Unit’s programmatic
proposal for the use of new foreign assistance resources available to that Operating Unit for a
given fiscal year. The purpose of the Operational Plan is to provide a comprehensive picture for
one year of how State and USAID foreign assistance resources received by a Mission will be
used to support United States’ foreign assistance objectives. OPs describe the tactics that an
Operating Unit will employ to maximize the effectiveness of USG foreign assistance resources
and documents the goals and objectives for the operating unit. These are entered in a database
which rolls-up common indicators across country programs and Washington-based
implementing offices for reporting to Congress.
4.2.4 USAID Project Design
USAID uses project design and execution as its primary mechanism for achieving its
strategic objectives at the country, and at times, the regional or global level. It is important for
DoD and other interagency partners to recognize that the project design/development process is a
critical extension of strategic planning process embodied in the CDCS. Rigorous analysis and
design is vital to USAID field staff to ensure that plans are effectively implemented and in order
to ensure mutually reinforcing activities in the field.
A project is a structured undertaking of limited duration. It may consist of many
activities and contributes substantively to the achievement of a DO. While projects are usually
focused on individual technical areas or “sectors” (e.g., a health or democracy and governance
project), multi-sectoral programs that combine efforts across a number of sectors to leverage
synergies are also common.
There are multiple mandated steps in the development of a project. While guidance is
currently being updated, the process is laid out in the USAID Automated Directives System
(ADS) 200 series which is available online at http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/agency-policy.
Some of the main design components include the following:
• Conduct Project-Level Analyses (as needed). A variety of situational analyses
may be needed as a part of the development and approval of individual projects or
activities. DO Teams conduct those analyses that they conclude are needed to
plan detailed and rigorous activities to achieve the intended results. It should be
noted that these analyses are available to other USG organizations, or may even
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
28
be conducted by an interagency team, and can contribute to improved alignment
of activities.
o Stakeholder Analysis. Stakeholders are those who are influenced by, and
exert an influence on, those things that take place in a project, directly or
indirectly. They can be individuals or organizations, and they can be either
for or against a change. A survey of the project’s stakeholders and their
relationship to the project is an important part of the project planning process,
because the different stakeholders’ combined knowledge about the situation is
a key to the identification of appropriate solutions.
o Economic Analysis. Economic analysis helps determine whether a particular
development program or activity is a worthwhile investment for the country.
o Conflict Analysis. The systematic study of conflict in general and of
individual or group conflicts in particular. Conflict analysis provides a
structured inquiry into the causes and potential trajectory of a conflict so that
processes of resolution can be better understood. For specific conflicts, the
terms ‘conflict assessment’ or ‘conflict mapping’ are sometimes used to
describe the process of identifying the stakeholders, their interests and
positions, and the possibility for conflict management.
o Financial Analysis. Financial analysis helps determine the adequacy of
funding and helps ascertain whether monetary benefits are larger than activity
costs. This analysis can be used to judge whether activity results will be
produced at the lowest practicable costs, and whether potential activities are
financially sustainable.
o Gender Analysis. All projects and activities must address gender issues in a
manner consistent with the findings of any analytical work performed during
development of the Mission’s CDCS or for project design. Findings from
gender analyses, such as any recommendations to overcome potential
obstacles to achieving targeted results, can help to determine how gender can
be addressed in the project or activity.
o Environmental Analysis. Drawing upon the environmental analysis used
previously during strategic planning and the information from the pre-
obligation requirement for environmental impact, DO Teams must incorporate
the environmental recommendations into project planning.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
29
• Specify the Role of Partners. To promote improved aid effectiveness, the DO
Team should ensure that it is not duplicating outputs financed by others, and that
there are no critical gaps in outputs that might compromise achievement of
results. In most contexts, USAID is one of several entities contributing to the
achievement of development results. Host country governments, other donors,
and private parties play central roles. To clarify the results being achieved and
who is responsible for which results, DO Teams should acknowledge in their
Results Frameworks any auxiliary or contributing results to be achieved by other
donors or host country institutions, even when these are not financed by USAID.
To the extent that USAID success is linked to that of other development partners,
it is vital to consider whether their planned results are likely to be achieved and
how results complement those of USAID.
• Develop Logical Framework. The Logical Framework (or “logframe”) is a key
project design tool that complements the Results Framework developed through
the CDCS. Its methodology is based on rigorous analysis, and its end product is a
measurable and monitorable design: the objectives are stated, the project
hypothesis explicitly described, and indicators (or measures) of performance at
each level of the project hierarchy established. When a DO Team properly uses
the logframe, the logical discipline imposed by the methodology helps yield a
quality project design.
o The causal logic embodied in the logframe indicates that if the lower level is
produced, then the level above will be achieved. The logframe extends the
causal relationships to the level of inputs and outputs as follows:
o Inputs are the resources the project is expected to consume in order to
produce outputs—for example, supplies, equipment, office space, or technical
assistance. As in the case of outputs, all the inputs that are necessary and
sufficient to achieve the outputs should be identified. A complete
identification of inputs is essential to preparing the budget estimate required
prior to project approval.
o Outputs are “a tangible, immediate, and intended product or consequence of
an activity within USAID’s control”—for example, people able to exercise a
specific skill, buildings built, or better technologies developed and
implemented. All outputs that are necessary to achieve the purpose should be
identified. Because project outputs are often among the standard indicators
for reporting in the Performance Report, these indicators should be used
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
30
whenever they are meaningful so that data collection is built into project
design.
o The project purpose is the key result to be achieved by the project. It
generally corresponds to one of the intermediate results of the Results
Framework. It should be stated as simply and clearly as possible, as it is the
focal point towards which a project team strives.
o The goal is usually related to the highest level result or desired outcome of a
Results Framework, which is the DO, but may be narrowed to indicate more
precisely which aspects of that outcome are targeted.
Care must be taken to remember that DOs generally require more than simply a string of
USAID-funded activities. The Development Hypothesis and its Results Framework present all
results, including those achieved by others (such as the host government, civil society, other
donors); while the activities defined by logframes help to achieve important necessary outputs,
these are often not sufficient to achieve the DO. For this reason, the Results Framework and the
logframe should be seen to be synergistic tools.
4.3 Department of Defense
The Department of Defense (DoD) has institutionalized complex processes and support
mechanisms that enable it to prepare, plan for, and conduct military operations on behalf of the
nation. DoD engages in different types of planning for different purposes -- from budgeting and
resource allocation to military missions. This guide focuses on how DoD generates plans at the
regional level via its Theater Campaign Plans, and at country level by Country Plans. These
plans are part of a series of strategies and plans that cover differing functions, levels, and degrees
of detail. Planning throughout DoD is based on top-down strategic direction, starting with the
highest-level authoritative documents: the National Security Strategy (NSS), National Defense
Strategy (NDS), Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF), and the Joint Strategic
Capabilities Plan (JSCP). While much of the strategic guidance contained in these documents is
classified, DoD’s strategic approach is detailed in the NDS, and U.S. defense priorities are also
provided every four years in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
(http://www.defense.gov/qdr) report to Congress.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
31
Figure 4.5: DoD Strategic Planning Guidance
Consolidation of Strategic Planning Guidance
National Military Strategy (NMS)
National Defense Strategy (NDS)
National Security Strategy (NSS)
Employ
the Force
Manage
the Force
Develop
the Force
Defense Planning Guidance (DPG)
Joint Strategic Capabilities
Plan (JSCP)
Guidance for Employment
of the Force (GEF)
Contingency
Plan ning
Guidance
Security
Cooperation
Guidance
Global
Posture
Guidance
Nuclear
Weapons
Planning
Guidance
Science &
Technology
Guidance
Analytic
Agenda
Guidance
Joint
Concepts &
Experiment.
Guidance
Global
Force Mgmt
Guidance
Strategic
Planning
Guidance
Transfor-
mation
Planning
Guidance
Global
Posture
Guidance
Human
Capital
Strategy
Global Force Management Implementation Guidance (GFMIG)
Unified Command Plan
Red = Presidential guidance
Blue = SECDEF guidance
Purple= Joint Staff guidance
12 documents consolidated into 3
– the GEF, JSCP and DPG
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
The implementation of the 2010 QDR can be seen in the defense budget beginning in the
FY 2010 budget cycle, which initiated the changes in various dimensions of planning, budgeting,
and management in order to help DoD translate its priorities into prudent activities in an
increasingly constrained budget environment. DoD’s efforts to reform and rebalance continue
through the out-year budget plan and bring renewed focus to preventing and deterring conflict by
working with and through allies and partners, including other U.S. government organizations and
other organizations.
In its most simplistic form, DoD’s approach to planning is guided by the direction of the
President and Secretary of Defense. Planning in DoD starts with the National Security Strategy
(NSS) issued by the White House and expanded upon in overarching DoD guidance documents.
The NDS influences the GEF, which provides the parameters for Combatant Commands
(CCMDs) to develop their Theater Campaign Plans (TCPs). The TCPs and country-level plans
generally do not contain specific personnel or other resource requirements.
While DoD planning is focused on the strategic and regional levels, the discipline of
planning is a part of a complex process that DoD uses to allocate and manage resources across
the Military Departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force), the Defense Agencies (Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, etc.) and
other DoD Components. DoD has separate processes for each stage of the Planning,
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
32
Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES)
9
, which is largely run from the
Pentagon. Planning is a cornerstone in a dynamic mechanism that supports DoD’s activities
worldwide and includes input from multiple stakeholders within the DoD—including but not
limited to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Joint Staff, Combatant Commands,
the Services, and Military Departments.
4.3.1 Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF)
The GEF provides two-year direction to combatant commands for operational planning
(including campaign and contingency plans), force management, security cooperation, and
posture planning. OSD uses the GEF to render NSS and NDS strategic priorities into
implementable direction for operational activities. It also consolidates and integrates DoD
planning guidance related to operations and other military activities into a single, overarching
guidance document. The President of the United States approves the GEF-contained
contingency planning guidance pursuant to his role as Commander in Chief. The GEF is an
essential document for combatant command planners as it provides the strategic end states for
the development of campaign and contingency planning efforts. It directs the level of planning
detail required, the assumptions that must be considered, and ultimately answers the question of
“how should we plan to employ our forces?” The GEF is a classified document, and while
developed with input from State and USAID, it distribution is limited both during development
and once approved. Like other major documents produced by a high-level headquarters, the
GEF reflects efforts to shape the content and insert its priorities into the document. The various
objectives, end states, and priorities are a product of the dynamic staffing process within OSD,
the Joint Staff, the Military Departments, combatant commands, and other Defense Agencies,
with contributions from other USG organizations. For DoD stakeholders, this process highlights
key issues and is their first opportunity to synchronize perspectives and goals with 3D
counterparts.
4.3.2 Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP)
The JSCP provides military strategic and operational direction to combatant commanders
(CCDRs) and Service Chiefs for preparation of operation plans (OPLANs), contingency plans,
and theater campaign plans (TCPs) based on existing military capabilities. It is the primary
vehicle through which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) exercises responsibility
to provide for the preparation of joint operation plans. Based on policy guidance and
9
PPBES responsibilities are detailed in DoD Directive 7045.14, http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/704514p.pdf
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
33
assignments in the GEF, the JSCP provides the link between OSD guidance and the joint
operation planning activities as it details the “who” and “how” for defense planning activities.
4.3.3 Campaign Plans
Global and theater campaign plans "operationalize" combatant commands’ theater or
functional strategies. Campaign plans focus on the command's steady-state activities, which
include ongoing operations, security cooperation, and other shaping or preventive activities.
Campaign plans provide the vehicle for linking steady-state shaping activities to the attainment
of strategic end states.
Function: Campaign plans are developed within the context of existing U.S. national
security and foreign policies, and are the primary vehicle for designing, organizing, integrating,
and executing security cooperation activities and routine military operations, integrating their
posture and contingency plans, and synchronizing these DoD plans and activities with U.S.
diplomatic and development efforts. Theater campaign plans also reflect each Combatant
Commander’s overarching theater strategy.
Structure: While each combatant command commander and staff organize the campaign
plan differently to provide critical guidance to subordinate commands and supporting
organizations in order to meet the specific needs associated with their area of responsibility, each
campaign plan contains certain common elements such as:
• Strategic End States;
• Strategic Assumptions;
• Campaign Plan Priorities;
• Theater Posture; and
• Intermediate Military Objectives (IMOs).
End States: The 2010 NSS and NDS provide the foundation for the prioritized Global
Strategic End States (commonly termed “end states”) delineated in the 2010 GEF. These end
states are perhaps better characterized as long-term strategic goals that are of an enduring nature,
operationalized, and require a sustained integration of U.S. power (e.g., Allies, friends, and
partners are assured of U.S. extended deterrence commitments and capabilities).
Combatant commands pursue these end states as they develop over-arching theater or
functional strategies, which they translate into an integrated set of steady state activities by
means of campaign plans. This requires that Commanders prioritize their efforts across their
Areas of Responsibility (AORs) or functional responsibilities. Campaign plans (which DoD is
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
34
trying to develop in collaboration with non-DoD organizations) link military engagement and
security cooperation activities to current operations and contingency plans as well as broader
foreign policy goals. Campaign plans also serve to integrate multiple and varied military
activities as a means to improve our ability to execute CCMD contingency plans, if required,
while concurrently supporting the command’s broader security cooperation activities.
Unlike contingency plans, which are prepared in anticipation of conditions that call for
potential combat operations and are implemented only upon high-level execution orders,
combatant commands are executing their campaign plans continuously through their numerous
security cooperation and other military activities focused on the global strategic end states. Thus,
they are most effective when synchronized with other organizations’ efforts. A recognized
civilian-military challenge, however, is combatant command-U.S. country team (or regional
versus country-level) planning and coordination.
Assumptions: In DoD, plans contain a specific section that outlines assumptions
approved for the development of that plan. Assumptions are presuppositions on the future
course of events, assumed to be true in the absence of positive proof, and necessary to enable the
process of planning. The development of a set of assumptions is a critical component of
planning and one that must be continually monitored and re-evaluated, as any change in the
actual conditions associated with the assumptions may cause major changes in the plan.
Development and Review: As part of the development process, top priority plans and
Theater Campaign Plans, are reviewed by the Secretary of Defense or the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, who have Title 10 responsibility to do so. In-Progress Reviews (IPRs) occur
at key stages of the plan development process. IPRs are intended to stimulate a disciplined and
iterative dialogue between senior civilian and military leaders that will shape the plan, identify
and understand risks, and refine or revise the plan as internal or external conditions dictate.
There are four IPRs in the planning cycle: IPR-A, IPR-C, IPR-F, and IPR-R. IPRs A through F
apply to a new plan or a significantly new approach to a potential contingency. IPR-Rs facilitate
periodic top-level reviews to ensure the plan continues to comport with strategic guidance, and
that it remains feasible, acceptable and suitable. At any point in the planning process, the
combatant command may reach out to the State Department and other federal agencies to
coordinate authorities, activities or resources across the government. This outreach is important
to ensuring the DoD considers all aspects of national power in its strategic-level planning
documents. Additionally, commands may identify specific items in which they need assistance
from another organization.
DoD has sought to incorporate an interagency dialogue into the plan development and
IPR process. To date, the most frequently used vehicle for this interaction has been the Promote
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
35
Cooperation (PC) series of conferences and discussions (discussed in more detail later) which
seek interagency comment – not concurrence or agreement – early in the development of
selected plans. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), specifically the Office of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Plans (ODASD(Plans)), and the Joint Staff’s Joint
Operational War Plans Division (JOWPD), are the primary conduits for interagency engagement
with DoD planning.
Assessments: Campaign plan assessments provide the SecDef and the CJCS with the
combatant command’s evaluations of how past activities have contributed to progress in theater
or functional end states. The GEF provides guidelines to the combatant commands for assessing
progress toward end states and intermediate military objectives (IMOs), as well as assessment of
the changes in the strategic or operational environment that will affect future implementation of
the TCP.
4.3.4 Country Plans
The structure, contents, and review of DoD country plans are at the discretion of each
combatant command, and are usually developed by the combatant command in-country
representative (usually the Office of Defense Cooperation or its equivalent in conjunction with
the country desk officers at combatant command headquarters). Like the TCPs, country plans
are in the process of maturing to meet the needs of each combatant command theater strategy.
The country plans should establish the concepts by which CCMD objectives for each country are
to be achieved through integration of the many security assistance and security cooperation
authorities and their associated funding streams. In reality, there is a good deal of work that
remains to bring country plans to a more integrated level (i.e. the maturity of integration is
theater dependent and inconsistent). Efforts are often planned and executed in isolation from one
another, as well as other activities such as exercises and ongoing operations. A number of
security assistance programs – including Foreign Military Sales (FMS), Foreign Military
Financing (FMF), International Military Education and Training (IMET), and Excess Defense
Articles (EDA) – are funded and managed by State, but are administered by DoD. Other related
activities that may be incorporated into the country plan include the National Guard State
Partnership Program (a Title 32 activity) and Global Train and Equip (Section 1206) Program, a
DoD Title 10 authority executed in coordination with State. An updated and thorough list of
security cooperation and assistance programs is contained in The Management of Security
Cooperation published by the Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management. This
document is available electronically online via http://www.disam.dsca.mil/DR/greenbook.asp.
While much has been done to help de-conflict these authorities and lines of effort, there remains
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
36
a need to improve the collaborative mechanism(s) that will help leverage all elements of national
power in support of U.S. interests.
4.3.5 Theater Posture Plans
The Department of Defense views posture from the global perspective, not solely a
regional or country perspective. The aim of DoD’s global defense posture is to meet the
operational requirements of the combatant commands, while ensuring consistency in the
application of defense strategies. The development and execution of Theater Posture Plans
(TPPs), as a component of the TCPs, is relatively new in DoD. The purpose of the TPP is to
provide a status of current existing posture, the posture demand and how current posture meets
demand, identification of gaps between demand and current posture, and potential posture
initiatives to address critical gaps. DoD maintains a global defense posture forum to oversee
posture process, facilitate senior DoD leadership decision-making, and manage DoD
implementation.
4.3.6 Contingency Plans and War Plans
The GEF guides planning within the Department, in particular the development of
contingency plans. Contingency plans allow the Department to quickly respond to specific
plausible scenarios, whether major theater conflict or a humanitarian disaster. They address
significant changes to the assumed status quo – instances in which our steady-state activities are
insufficient given an evolving incident or security situation. As such, contingency plans are
considered branches to the theater and global campaign plans. War plans are developed to guide
military operations in response to major theater conflict with foreign powers or other military
activities as directed by the President or Secretary of Defense. These plans are continuously
reviewed to ensure assumptions are adequate to meet desired USG end states. Contingency
plans are classified and not shared beyond those with a “need to know” whether in DoD or other
USG organizations.
The act of contingency planning can be as valuable as having an approved plan on the
shelf. The ultimate goal of planning is to develop options for POTUS in advance of crisis. The
planning process establishes expectations for senior leader decision making early in crisis, allows
deep "what if" analysis of potential conflict scenarios, informs interagency coordination and
policy making, and identifies capabilities, authorities, and resources required for execution. DoD
has initiated a core interagency planning team construct consisting of regional and functional
experts which can be established to support a particular contingency planning effort. The
purpose of this “Core Group” is to ensure the same knowledgeable, empowered experts are
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
37
available throughout the course of the planning process for dialogue and collaboration in pursuit
of resolving coordination and policy issues at the action officer level.
4.3.7 Opportunities for 3D Cooperation
There are a number of areas where 3D collaboration can be enhanced in DoD processes.
An area where collaboration has increased is interagency participation at the Deputy Assistant
Secretary-level in Promote Cooperation events. Future improvement in 3D integrated planning
may need to address how assumptions are developed among the organizations and what actions
will be taken should the assumptions become no longer valid, or assessments of starting
conditions differ significantly.
Additionally, assessing the progress being made toward achievement of long-term or
strategic objectives is a particularly difficult problem for which there is no easy solution, let
alone a solution that is widely accepted. Ultimately, progress at the country, regional, and
theater level -- whether it be diplomatic, development or defense-focused -- must be linked to the
overarching national security and foreign policy strategies. Beyond that important linkage, there
should be a mechanism, perhaps different in each of the 3Ds, but understood by each, that
provides feedback that has utility and value to senior leaders. Within the loop of assessing,
planning, and implementing (variations on this exist within each of the organizations), the lack of
common assessment frameworks presents a problem: as each agency uses a different set of tools
and lenses to assess problems, there is a potential to plan based upon differing assumptions. This
can result in unsynchronized activity and divergent goals at the country level. This lack of
synchronization can seriously dilute the overall effectiveness of the U.S. Government effort.
5. 3D Integrative Planning Opportunities and Tools
In addition to the earlier-identified opportunities for collaboration on specific planning
documents, there are several mechanisms available for improving transparency and promoting
greater understanding between planners and their plans. The following examples illustrate the
trust, knowledge, and improved results gained from side-by-side activities around the globe.
5.1 Crisis Response, Stabilization, and Conflict Transformation
The Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) within State has been given unique
responsibilities for integrated planning for crisis response, stabilization, and conflict
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
38
transformation.
10
Integrated interagency planning is intended to create unity of purpose and
effort in part by providing unified decision-making and execution processes to better combine a
whole of government approach for conflict transformation efforts. This approach is based on
three key concepts:
• Unity of effort, based upon four principles:
o A common understanding of the situation;
o A common vision or goals for the mission;
o Coordination of efforts to ensure continued coherency; and
o Common measures of progress and ability to change course if necessary;
• Integrated interagency decision-making; and
• Engaging with the host nation and international partners.
CSO applies these principles specifically to conflict transformation planning with
interagency partners in support of integrated USG efforts or integrated approaches, normally at
the request of a Chief of Mission or State Department bureau. Conflict transformation focuses
on countries or regions at risk for violent conflict and has included both conflict response and
prevention. The integrated planning process may produce recommendations that can be
integrated into existing USG planning processes, such as the State Department’s Integrated
Country Strategies (ICSs), USAID’s Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCS), and
the Defense Department’s Combatant Theater Campaign Plans (TCPs). CSO planning also
includes interagency contingency/scenario-based planning, such as the Libya Arab Spring
planning efforts, which allowed the USG to examine likely challenges and solutions in crisis
response efforts. This improves response effectiveness and identifies key factors to be addressed
and capabilities required if the potential conflict were to occur in the future.
CSO developed an interagency process to conduct conflict transformation planning that
ultimately resulted in the Principles of the USG Planning Framework. This framework aides
senior policymakers by laying out the key principles, decision points, and processes for planning
conflict and stabilization activities. The framework attempts to ensure that:
• The USG is working toward a common strategic objective;
• Whole of Government resources are applied to lines of effort that provide synergy and
support desired outcomes;
• Organizations do not duplicate efforts;
10
Formerly the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS).
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
39
• Gaps in planning are identified and closed;
• USG efforts are coordinated with the host-nation government, non-governmental
organizations and international organizations; and
• Lessons learned are applied, especially in ensuring that assistance is targeted to mitigate
drivers of conflict and to build local institutional capacity.
For more information on CSO’s planning efforts, including examples, see Appendix 5.
5.2 Promote
Cooperation
One established forum
for interagency collaboration
on DoD campaign and
contingency plans is Promote
Cooperation (PC). The PC
events, in existence since
2000, are sanctioned by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff.
Promote Cooperation
events bring together the
Department of Defense with
other USG departments and
agencies to influence the Joint
Strategic Capabilities Plan
(JSCP) directed plan
development. This is achieved
with focused interagency
engagement through
simulations, workshops,
and/or facilitated events which
results in closer coordination
that advances broader
collaborative USG plan
development and eventual plan
integration. The PC events
tend to be most productive
The Impact of PC Events [State/PM – PC Successes]
PC events provide CCMD representatives with direct interaction with
their 3D counterparts, thereby fostering a common understanding of
military plans and the shared equities in those plans – particularly
within the realm of steady-state operations. The utility of PCs has
been demonstrated through the following outcomes:
• A PACOM PC event that focused on Noncombatant
Evacuation Operations (NEOs) highlighted State’s activities to track
the internal situation within a country, inform and alert U.S. citizens
of potential crisis, and to affect a “drawdown” of citizens and State
representatives from a country prior to the need for a NEO to be
conducted by the U.S. military. Military planners determined that
there was a need to track, integrate with, and support these efforts in
order to preclude the need for a NEO executed by the military.
• A CENTCOM Promote Cooperation event on the Iraq
Country Plan (ICP) brought to light significant assumptions on the
part of CENTCOM concerning the requirements for follow-on
military forces post-2014 and the handover of responsibility to State
Department civilian control. These assumptions were contrary to
both OSD and State planning efforts and timelines.
Validating/invalidating the combatant command’s planning
assumptions has been a key benefit derived from the PC events.
• A EUCOM Promote Cooperation focused on a regional
campaign plan identified the need to conduct a separate meeting for a
high profile contingency plan which the combatant command, OSD,
and State all saw as potentially affecting not only the region being
discussed but also other regions within EUCOM and potentially
other combatant commands. The difference between State and DoD
in their geographic alignment of responsibilities was compensated for
by having the regional bureaus and the military combatant command
in the same room, discussing common challenges.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
40
early in the planning cycle as CCMDs begin to develop activities that correspond to GEF-
directed end states.
The events are hosted by Joint Staff/J-5 in close coordination with the Office of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Plans. In order to maintain consistency, support the
chain of command internal to DoD, and so as not to overwhelm non-military organizations, the
Joint Staff plans PC events on an annual basis, ensuring they are evenly distributed. The events
are requested by CCMD planners and are generally held at the action officer level, with the
option of holding a Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS)-level outbrief at the conclusion of the
event. Beyond networking, PC events provide an important opportunity for collaboration on
planning.
5.3 Three-D Planning Group (3DPG)
State, USAID, and DoD have established a policy forum committed to strengthening and
expanding comprehensive planning efforts. This body has both a standing working group and a
standing steering committee of senior officials from each agency. Its charter was ratified by the
principal representatives from State, USAID and DoD in February 2011. The 3DPG is focused
on educating stakeholders on 3D planning, promoting dialogue among 3D planners, and
improving the quality of planning processes among the 3Ds to create the conditions for
collaborative 3D planning. As the foremost forum for the 3D planning community, the 3DPG
will work to reduce the seams among its elements.
5.4 Country Team: Locus for Interagency Planning
At the country level, the Chief of Mission (COM) is the President’s direct representative
and has oversight of all U.S. Government organizations active in the country through Chief of
Mission Authority. In certain circumstances, some U.S. personnel may operate in a country
under Combatant Command authority, normally involving active conflict or other special
considerations. Combatant Command authority is exercised in coordination with the COM. The
COM relies on a “country team” made up of the senior representative from each of the U.S.
Government organizations present in the country, as well as senior diplomatic and security staff
from within the embassy itself. Dependent upon the size and characteristics of the U.S. presence
in country, the country team will vary in size and composition. However, it is normal for
USAID and DoD senior representatives in country to play a prominent role on this team.
The basic function of the country team is to advise the ambassador on bilateral relations,
activities, and diplomatic priorities at the country level. In addition, coordination of the various
organizations and oversight of activities is a natural function of this group. As a starting point
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
41
for 3D planning at the country level, the country team facilitates routine communication and
interaction between the senior leadership of the 3Ds. At the ambassador’s behest, this may be a
starting point for more robust interagency planning.
For State and USAID, planning is ordinarily coordinated at the country team level; this is
the level at which a substantial portion of their agency functions are performed. However, for
DoD, the bulk of activities at the Department are focused on organizing, training, equipping, and
supporting military forces and other defense-related entities in the execution of their assigned
missions or in preparation for future combat and noncombat missions. DoD planning at the
country level is constrained by a variety of challenges:
• Much of the country level planning is heavily influenced by CCMD-level
considerations, as well as resource allocation decisions made by the military
departments and other defense organizations that weigh priorities across all
CCMDs;
• DoD country- level representation varies significantly from a single
representative, such as a Defense Attaché, to a large Security Cooperation Office,
e.g., Office of the Defense Representative – Pakistan (ODR-P), Military Groups
(“Milgroups”) in U.S. Southern Command, and the U.S. Military Training
Mission (USMTM) in Saudi Arabia; and
• DoD representatives in country need to balance a number of tasks whose
objectives may not necessarily be congruent, including security assistance,
preparation of host nation forces to support US-led contingency operations,
coordination of National Guard-sponsored State Partnership Program activities,
and other DoD reporting requirements.
As a result, the development of DoD country plans and alignment of DoD country-level planning
into an overall USG country plan can be difficult and quite different from one country to another.
6. Key Challenges in 3D Planning
In an ideal world, various USG organizations concerned with national security in the
international arena would operate from an overarching joint strategic plan at the global, regional,
and country-level to ensure alignment of the various USG efforts to support our national
interests. The reality is that State, USAID, and DoD face significant hurdles to ensuring that
their individual plans are based on shared assessments of conditions and appropriately aligned to
account for each other’s priorities and plans. There are a variety of practical factors that make
aligned planning an ongoing challenge. These challenges range from differences in
organizational culture and resources, to issues of communication, to incompatible timelines, to
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
42
variations in personalities. While each agency shares a common interest in promoting U.S.
national security, the planning perspectives and approaches of each of the 3D organizations are
derived from their distinct missions, roles, legal authorities, congressional interests and
oversight, and associated responsibilities. Since the
organizations have differing histories and
organizational missions, the manner in which each
agency exercises its responsibilities has created
unique frameworks, processes, and terminology
through which career professionals work to meet
the demands of their respective agency.
Much of what planners do has significant
consequences at the country, regional, and theater
level. Those consequences, whether positive or
negative, can be affected in part by the success of
individual planners in communicating across
agency boundaries in an informed, diplomatic
manner. Successful coordination in planning results
in the goals of each agency becoming mutually
reinforcing – to the extent appropriate and
practicable. At the very least, planners from all
organizations would be well served to understand
how their plans affect other organizations’ plans
and activities.
Within each organization, differences in organizational priorities result in critical
differences in planning. These organizational differences can pose challenges to ensuring the
alignment of the various plans.
• Geographic focus: While DoD emphasizes regional plans through the Theater
Campaign Plans, USAID and State place a much greater emphasis on country-
level planning. This can result in frustration as GCC planners have difficulty
identifying State and USAID regional priorities while, conversely, State and
USAID have difficulty understanding DoD’s activities at the country level. The
success of Integrated Country Strategies (ICSs), which are now being phased in,
will depend on the robust input from all members of the Country Team.
• Organizational understanding: A lack of understanding by counterparts of how
each of the 3Ds is structured and approaches its responsibilities can result in
Assessment, Monitoring &
Evaluation
All 3D organizations recognize the critical
role that analysis plays throughout a planning
and plan implementation/execution cycle.
Some level of analysis takes place at the
beginning of the planning process as well as
during and after plan implementation. State
and USAID refer to each of these points in
time as “assessment,” “monitoring,” and
“evaluation,” respectively. DoD refers to
each simply as “assessment.”
This particular bit of lexicon divergence is
important to highlight because the need for
analysis throughout a plan’s development and
implementation is undisputed. But the
methods and labels currently in place vary,
and all planning professionals must
understand these differences to be effective.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
43
misunderstandings and communication failures.
• Resources: Whether human, financial, or physical, the resource disparities
between the 3Ds are substantial. State and USAID have far fewer people than
DoD, and they are in many cases deployed at the country level. These resource
disparities in quantity and location can pose challenges in communication and
coordination.
• Interagency framework: The U.S. Government lacks a comprehensive, multi-
level, institutionalized interagency framework under the authority of the National
Security Council and mandated across all departments and agencies for
interagency communication and collaboration in planning. For the 3Ds, this
means that interagency communication and coordination may have an uneven
character from one situation to another. Success may rely on a variety of
exogenous factors such as personality of key players, or the size and seniority of
the team at the country level.
• Timelines: Alignment of various planning processes relies, to a degree, on plans
being developed in concert. In many circumstances, planning cycles of different
organizations may not align or the plans themselves may have differing
periodicity. Some are tied closely to the annual federal budget cycle, while others
are essentially independent of it (e.g., strategic end states can span over a decade
or more to achieve).
• Terminology: Among the 3Ds, there are frequently important differences in the
way that basic planning terms are used. For example, one agency’s “strategy” is
another agency’s “plan,” or one agency’s “goal” is another agency’s
“intermediate objective.” Appendix 2 is a limited glossary of key terms to assist
the 3D planning community in understanding and using various terms.
• Communication: There are two dimensions of communication that present
challenges--one is human and the other technical.
o Each of the 3D organizations communicates in different ways and with
different audiences (within its organization, with other USG departments and
agencies, with Congress, with its counterpart organizations in allied and
friendly nations, and with other audiences, including the populace of the
nations in which they are operating). 3D counterparts must be aware of the
different messages that are developed and broadcast by their partner
organizations as part of the programs, activities, and operations being planned.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
44
This human factor cannot be ignored; consistency and clarity are key to
successful engagement with interagency and international partners.
o Another basic difficulty faced by individuals attempting to work across the
3Ds is the lack of interoperability between the basic technical communication
systems. Each of the 3D organizations handle classified documents in
different organizational environments. While State and USAID personnel are
able to access ClassNet (which can communicate with DoD’s SIPR) for
classified communications, much more of their work is accomplished on
unclassified systems. While there has been increased openness and
inclusiveness in DoD planning activities, many DoD plans remain closely
held and classified to ensure potential and future military operations are not
compromised. Alternatively, State and USAID plans are usually unclassified
or “Sensitive but Unclassified” (SBU) and are more broadly available. Thus,
at times, the differing systems can complicate interagency communications.
Because planning is essentially a “people process,” the ability of people to successfully interact
across agency boundaries is critical to the success of the process. Individual and organizational
personalities, communications skills, training and education, and diplomatic abilities can play a
significant role in our ability to work together. Individuals naturally reflect their own
organizational bias and culture, particularly as each of the 3Ds attempt to promote and advance
those programs and plans they believe to be of greatest value to their respective organization and
the nation. It is incumbent on planners in each of the 3Ds to come to know and understand their
counterparts and how their organizations work.
7. Conclusion
While awareness of efforts among the 3D organizations has improved over the past five years,
much remains to be done to ensure that collaboration is institutionalized and coordination occurs
well before difficulties arise at the country team or disconnects become apparent in the field.
This Guide is just one step in an ongoing effort to bridge the gaps in the planning community –
both between interagency counterparts at headquarters and their components – to the extent
possible in accordance with the responsibilities and authorities of each agency.
This reference guide seeks to summarize and rationalize the complex planning
environment as it currently exists in the 3D organizations. There is still much work to do in
building understanding and integrating plans to improve collaboration, coordination, and unity of
effort. Through the 3D Planning Group, planners will work to collaborate on integrated,
country-level products that can better inform each organization’s planning. Key to this effort
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
45
will be expanding the work already accomplished by the individual organizations. The 3DPG
will remain focused on educating stakeholders, promoting dialogue, and improving the quality of
planning processes to create the conditions for collaborative 3D planning.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
46
Appendix 1: 3D Planning Group Points of Contact
Department of State
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Plans, Policy, and Analysis
Office line 202 647-7775
Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations
Office line 703 875-4191
U.S. Agency for International Development
Bureau of Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Bureau (DCHA), Office of
Civilian-Military Cooperation
Office line 202 712-0332
Department of Defense
OUSD(P), Office of the DASD for Plans
Office line 703 697 5235
Joint Staff, J5
Office line 703 614-3071
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
47
Appendix 2: Key Terms / Acronyms
This section offers definitions, in some cases showing the variance between organizations for
key terms like Planning and Assessment. It is not meant to be a comprehensive list, instead
highlighting certain concepts and definitions that warrant further explanation.
Assessment:
1. (DoD): 1. A continuous process that measures the overall effectiveness of employing
joint force capability during military operations. 2. Determination of the progress toward
accomplishing a task, creating an effect, or achieving an objective. (JP 1-02)
2. (USAID): The analysis and critical evaluation of pre-existing environmental, political,
sociological, cultural or other conditions or situations which would have an effect upon or
influence the success of a program or achievement of a Development Objective.
Assumption: (DoD): A supposition on the current situation or a presupposition on the future
course of events, either or both assumed to be true in the absence of positive proof, necessary to
enable the commander in the process of planning to complete an estimate of the situation and
make a decision on the course of action. (JP 1-02)
Critical Planning Assumption: (State): A supposition or perception about the conditions
within the country, behavior of other regional and international actors, resources or
causality that, should it prove false, would dramatically change the overall strategy or
impede progress towards the desired outcome. (CSO
11
)
Building Partnership Capacity (BPC): (DoD): Targeted effort to improve the collective
capabilities and performance of the Department of Defense and its partners. Partnership capacity
includes the capability to defeat terrorist networks, defend the U.S. homeland in depth, shape the
choices of countries at strategic crossroads, prevent hostile states and non-state actors from
acquiring or using WMD, conduct irregular warfare (IW) and stabilization, security, transition
and reconstruction (SSTR) operations, conduct "military diplomacy", enable host countries to
provide good governance and enable the success of integrated foreign assistance.
Capacity Building: (Common Usage): Enabling people, organizations, and societies to develop,
strengthen, and expand their abilities to meet their goals or fulfill their mandates. Capacity is
strengthened through the transfer of knowledge and skills that enhance individual and collective
abilities to deliver services and carry out programs that address challenges in a sustainable way.
It is a long-term and continuous process that focuses on developing human resources,
11
Whole of Government Planning and Execution Process for Reconstruction and Stabilization (1
st
Edition), the basis for the Level I Planner’s
Course.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
48
organizational strength, and legal structures, and it involves all stakeholders including civil
society. Related terms include capacity development and capacity strengthening. The latter term
emphasizes the need to build upon existing capacity as much as possible. (USIP)
Civilian-Military (Civ-Mil): (Common Usage): Describes a relationship between U.S.
uniformed military forces and U.S. governmental and nongovernmental civilian organizations
and authorities, and the government and civilian populace of a foreign nation; most often applied
at the tactical/country level and used frequently at the operational/regional level.
Civil-Military Cooperation: (Common Usage): A broad term that covers a variety of
collaborative relationships between civilian and military actors in a conflict environment.
Civilian actors may include government officials, staff from international organizations, and
representatives of nongovernmental organizations. Civ-mil cooperation ranges from occasional
informational meetings to comprehensive programs where civilian and military partners share
planning and implementation. Cooperation can be controversial, as the military may see civilians
as unduly complicating their mission, and civilians—especially in the humanitarian field—may
think that any association with the military will compromise their impartiality and threaten their
personal safety. However, most experts see civ-mil cooperation as necessary to provide the
security, knowledge, and skills needed to help transform a conflict into an enduring peace.
(USIP)
Civil-Military Operations (CMO): (DoD): The activities of a commander that establish,
maintain, influence, or exploit relations between military forces, governmental and
nongovernmental civilian organizations and authorities, and the civilian populace in a friendly,
neutral, or hostile operational area in order to facilitate military operations, to consolidate and
achieve operational U.S.objectives. Civil-military operations may include performance by
military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of the local, regional, or
national government. These activities may occur prior to, during, or subsequent to other military
actions. They may also occur, if directed, in the absence of other military operations. Civil-
military operations may be performed by designated civil affairs, by other military forces, or by a
combination of civil affairs and other forces. (JP 1-02)
Conflict Prevention: (State/USAID): Civilian conflict prevention efforts identify and focus on a
community, tribe, population, or country’s underlying grievances and seek to address the root
causes of conflict. The goal of Conflict Prevention is the promotion of sustainable, responsible,
and effective security and governance in fragile states. Based on the QDDR, the mission of State
and USAID with regard to crisis and conflict in fragile states is to reduce or eliminate short,
medium, and long-term threats to American security and to help create opportunities for
governments and their citizens to address domestic challenges themselves. (QDDR)
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
49
Conflict Response: (State/USAID): USG response to an imminent (within six months) or
existing conflict in a country with stabilization and/or conflict transformation implications. The
goal of Conflict Response is fostering security and reconstruction in the aftermath of conflict as a
central national security objective. Based on the QDDR, the State Department has the lead on
conflict response in political and security crises, with USAID leading humanitarian crises.
(QDDR)
Conflict Transformation: (State): The two-pronged approach of seeking to diminish the factors
that cause violent conflict and instability while building the capacity of local institutions so they
can take the lead role in national governance, economic development, and enforcing the rule of
law. The goal of this process is to shift the responsibility for providing peace and stability from
the international community to local actors, who can sustain their roles with minimal support
from external actors. Moreover, this process seeks to build capacity to move from humanitarian
assistance through a transitional period to a steady state and long-term development. (CSO)
Evaluation: (USAID): Answers the “why” or “why not” of performance, as well as the “what
else” question. It is used on a periodic basis to identify the reasons for success or lack of it, to
assess effects and impacts, or to indicate which, among a range of program or project/activity
alternatives, is the most efficient and effective. It may also be used to draw lessons for future
interventions.
Foreign Disaster Relief: (DoD): Prompt aid that can be used to alleviate the suffering of foreign
disaster victims. Normally it includes humanitarian services and transportation; the provision of
food, clothing, medicine, beds, and bedding; temporary shelter and housing; the furnishing of
medical materiel and medical and technical personnel; and making repairs to essential services.
(JP 1-02)
Foreign Humanitarian Assistance (FHA): (DoD): Department of Defense activities, normally
in support of the United States Agency for International Development or Department of State,
conducted outside the United States, its territories, and possessions to relieve or reduce human
suffering, disease, hunger, or privation. (JP 1-02)
Foreign Military Sales: (DoD): A government-to-government program managed by State’s
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM) through which the U.S. Government sells conventional
military weapons, equipment, and services to allied and friendly nations to assist them in meeting
their legitimate defense requirements. Although the Department of Defense, through the Defense
Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), is responsible for implementing individual FMS cases,
the Department of State must first review and approve them. DSCA forwards all FMS cases to
PM, which is responsible for ensuring that they are properly reviewed within the Department for
consistency with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
50
Humanitarian Assistance:
1. (USAID): Assistance rendered to a country or population in an emergency or crisis
context. This could include natural or manmade disaster response or complex
humanitarian emergency.
2. (DoD): Programs conducted to relieve or reduce the results of natural or manmade
disasters or other endemic conditions such as human pain, disease, hunger, or privation
that might present a serious threat to life or that can result in great damage to or loss of
property. Humanitarian assistance provided by U.S.forces is limited in scope and
duration. The assistance provided is designed to supplement or complement the efforts of
the host nation civil authorities or organizations that may have the primary responsibility
for providing humanitarian assistance. (JP 1-02)
Humanitarian and Civic Assistance (HCA): (DoD): Assistance to the local populace provided
by predominantly U.S.forces in conjunction with military operations and exercises. This
assistance is specifically authorized by Title 10, United States Code, Section 401, and funded
under separate authorities. (JP 1-02)
Indicator: (USAID): A particular characteristic or dimension used to measure intended changes
defined by a Results Framework.
Instruments of National Power: (DoD): All of the means available to the government in its
pursuit of national objectives. They are expressed as diplomatic, economic, informational, and
military. (JP 1-02)
Interagency Coordination: (DoD): Within the context of DoD involvement, the coordination
that occurs between elements of DoD, and engaged USG organizations for the purpose of
achieving an objective. (JP 1-02)
Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA): (DoD): U.S. Department of Defense letter by which
the U.S. Government offers to sell to a foreign government or international organization U.S.
defense articles, defense services, and training pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, as
amended. The LOA lists the items and/or services, estimated costs, and the terms and conditions
of sale; it also provides for the signature of an appropriate foreign government official to indicate
acceptance.
Letter of Request (LOR): (DoD): The term used to identify a request from an eligible FMS
participant country for the purchase of U.S. defense articles, services, and training. The request
may be submitted in a variety of formats.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
51
Military Departments (MILDEPS): (DoD): The departments within the Department of
Defense created by the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. The Military Departments
are: the Department of the Air Force, the Department of the Army, and the Department of the
Navy.
Monitoring: (USAID): Reveals whether desired results are occurring and whether Development
Objective (DO) outcomes are on track. It addresses the “what” of performance. Performance
monitoring uses preselected indicators to measure progress toward planned results at every level
of the Results Framework continuously throughout the life of an AO.
Nongovernmental Organization (NGO): (Common Usage): A private, self-governing,
nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing an objective or objectives such as alleviating
human suffering; promoting education, health care, economic development, environmental
protection, human rights, and conflict resolution; and encouraging the establishment of
democratic institutions and civil society. Some people use the term international
nongovernmental organization (INGO) to differentiate those organizations that transcend
national boundaries from local NGOs. Also known as private voluntary organizations, civic
associations, nonprofits, and charitable organizations. (USIP)
Objective: (Common Usage): Something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or
accomplish; purpose; goal.
Development Objective: (USAID): The most ambitious result that a USAID operating
unit, along with its partners, can materially affect, and for which it is willing to be held
accountable. A DO is a results statement, in other words, it is a problem solved.
Intermediate Military Objective (IMO): (DoD): The measurable objectives that
directly contribute to the achievement of theater or functional end states. They reflect
objectives achievable by the command within the 5 year timeframe of a campaign plan.
(GEF 2010)
Phase Zero: (DoD): Encompasses all activities prior to the beginning of Phase I (deter/engage)
of a military campaign—that is, everything that can be done to prevent conflicts from developing
in the first place. Executed properly, Phase Zero consists of shaping operations that are
continuous and adaptive. Its ultimate goal is to promote stability and peace by building capacity
in partner nations that enables them to be cooperative, trained, and prepared to help prevent or
limit conflicts. For the United States, this approach is typically non-kinetic and places heavy
emphasis on interagency support and coordination. In many instances, Phase Zero involves
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
52
execution of a broad national strategy where the Department of Defense (DOD) is not the lead
agency and its programs are only one part of the larger U.S. Government effort.
12
Planning: (Common Usage): The process to identify appropriate results, develop approaches to
reach them, assign needed resources, organize to achieve results, and identify the means to
measure progress.
Integrated Planning
13
Whole-of-Government Planning:
: (State): A systematic, iterative process for understanding a
situation, identifying goals and objectives, developing courses of action, allocating
resources, integrating activities in space and time, and evaluating progress towards goals.
Effective planning requires assessment, coordination among stakeholders, and evaluation
and adjustments during the implementation process.
1. (State): WOG planning is an ongoing and iterative process to support decision
makers in coordinating and unifying the actions of disparate actors in a given
situation from the policy level down through implementation. (CSO)
14
2. (DoD): Whole-of-government planning refers to NSC/HSC-sponsored processes
by which multiple USG departments and agencies come together to develop plans
that address critical challenges to U.S.national interests. The Department
supports and is helping to develop the USG’s whole-of-government planning
capabilities. (GEF 2010)
15
Political-Military (Pol-Mil): (Common Usage): Refers to the broad discipline of integrating
diplomacy with military power to foster a stable and secure international environment; generally
applied at the strategic/global level.
Public Diplomacy: (State): Programs, policies, and actions supporting the achievement of U.S.
foreign policy goals and objectives, advancing national interests, and enhancing national security
by informing and influencing foreign publics and by expanding and strengthening the
relationship between the people and government of the United States and citizens of the rest of
the world. (see also Strategic Communications)
12
Quoted from General Charles F. Wald, USAF, (then) Deputy Commander, U.S.European Command, “New Thinking at EUCOM: The Phase
Zero Campaign,” Joint Forces Quarterly, 4
th
Quarter, 2006.
13
Source: Civilian Response Corps Functional Essential Task list, an interagency-approved document, approved December 2010 by the sub-
Interagency Policy Committee for Training, Education, Exercises and Experiments (TE3 sub-IPC).
14
Source: CSO Level I Planner’s Guidebook (2
nd
Edition, draft for training purposes only), used as a discussion material in a whole-of-
government planning course.
15
(U) Whole-of-government planning is distinct from the contributions of USG departments and agencies to DOD planning, which remains a
Departmental responsibility.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
53
Results Framework: (USAID): A planning, communications, and management tool, which
conveys the development hypothesis implicit in the DO, illustrating the cause-and-effect linkages
between outputs, Intermediate Results (IR), and the DO (the final result or outcome) to be
achieved with the assistance provided. A Results Framework includes the IRs necessary to
achieve the outcome, whether funded by USAID or its partners. It includes any critical
assumptions that must hold for the development hypothesis to lead to the relevant outcome.
Typically, it is laid out in graphic form supplemented by narrative.
Risk: (DoD): Probability and severity of loss linked to hazards. (JP 1-02)
Security Assistance: A group of programs authorized by [Title 22], as amended, or other
related statutes by which the United States provides defense articles, military training, and other
defense-related services by grant, loan, credit, cash sales, or lease, in furtherance of national
policies and objectives. State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM) develops military
assistance policy and manages security assistance funding for Foreign Military Financing (FMF),
International Military Education and Training (IMET), and Peacekeeping Operations (PKO).
Those
security assistance programs that are administered by DoD are a subset of security cooperation.
Security Cooperation: (DoD): Activities undertaken by DoD to encourage and enable
international partners to work with the United States to achieve strategic objectives. It includes
all DoD interactions with foreign defense and security establishments, including all DoD-
administered security assistance programs, that: build defense and security relationships that
promote specific U.S. security interests, including all international armaments cooperation
activities and security assistance activities; develop allied and friendly military capabilities for
self-defense and multinational operations; and provide U.S. forces with peacetime and
contingency access to host nations. (DoDD 5132.03, 24 Oct 2008)
Security Force Assistance (SFA): (DoD): The DOD activities that contribute to unified action
by the U.S.Government to support the development of the capacity and capability of foreign
security forces and their supporting institutions. (JP 1-02)
Security Sector Assistance (SSA): (Common Usage): The set of policies, programs and
activities the U.S. uses to engage with partners and help shape their policies and actions; help
partners build and sustain capacity for security, safety and justice; and enable partners to help
address common security challenges.
Security Sector Reform: (Common Usage): The set of policies, plans, programs, and activities
that a government undertakes to improve the way it provides safety, security, and justice. The
overall objective is to provide these services in a way that promotes an effective and legitimate
public service that is transparent, accountable to civilian authority, and responsive to the needs of
the public. From a donor perspective, SSR is an umbrella term that might include integrated
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
54
activities in support of: defense and armed forces reform; civilian management and oversight;
justice; police; corrections; intelligence reform; national security planning and strategy support;
border management; disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR); and/or reduction of
armed violence.
Stabilization: (Common Usage): The process of bringing about stability; or the process by
which underlying tensions that might lead to resurgence in violence and a break-down in law and
order are managed and reduced, while efforts are made to support preconditions for successful
longer-term development.
Steady State Activities:
1. (DoD): Foundational activities, which include ongoing operations, security cooperation
and other shaping or preventive activities. (GEF 2010)
2. (Common Usage): Those day-to-day activities executed overseas by United States
Government entities to create conditions favorable to the United States exclusive of
combat activities.
Strategic Communication: (DoD): The focused USG efforts to understand and engage key
audiences to create, strengthen, and preserve conditions for the advancement of USG interests,
policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and
products synchronized with the actions of all instruments of national power. (JP 5-0; see also
Public Diplomacy)
Strategic End States: (DoD): Broadly expressed conditions designed to guide the Department’s
employment of the force in pursuit of National Security Strategy and Defense Strategy aims.
Strategic end states assist planners in determining how to apply resources (forces, time, funding
and level of effort). In most cases, strategic end states reflect long term goals that cannot be
achieved during the life of the 2010 GEF or a single campaign plan. Additionally, most end
states exceed a command’s capability to achieve alone and can only be achieved through
integrated USG effort. (GEF 2010)
Strategy:
1. (DoD): A prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in
a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational
objectives. (JP 1-02)
2. Views of where strategy ends and tactics begin differ between organizations. USAID
views its basic strategic planning unit to be at the country level through the CDCS.
Unity of Command:
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
55
1. (DoD): The vesting of a single commander with the requisite authority to direct and
coordinate the actions of all forces employed toward a common objective. Unity of
command obtains the unity of effort that is essential to the decisive application of all
available combat power. Subordinates are then focused on attaining the overall
objectives as communicated from a single commander. In turn, this fosters freedom of
action, decentralized control, and initiative. (MCWP 3-1)
16
2. (Common Usage):
Hierarchical organization principle that no subordinate
should report to more than one boss.
17
Unity of Effort:
1. (DoD): 1. Coordination and cooperation toward common objectives, even if the
participants are not necessarily part of the same command or organization - the product of
successful unified action. (JP 1-02)
2. (State): A cooperative concept, which refers to coordination and communication among
USG organizations toward the same common goals for success; in order to achieve unity
of effort, it is not necessary for all organizations to be controlled under the same
command structure, but it is necessary for each agency’s efforts to be in harmony with
the short- and long-term goals of the mission. (CSO)
18
1. Common understanding of the situation
Unity of effort is based on four
principles:
2. Common vision or goals for the R&S mission
3. Coordination of efforts to ensure continued coherency
4. Common measures of progress and ability to change course if necessary (CSO)
19
Unity of Purpose: (Common Usage): 1. Coordination and cooperation among civilian and
military actors from one or more nations toward mutually agreed, common objectives or
outcomes. 2. Authorities, institutions, processes, and other means that can be used to direct all
elements of national power in pursuit of a common understanding of the situation and common
vision or goals for the mission.
16
MCWP 3-1: Ground Combat Operations.
17
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/unity-of-command.html
18
Whole of Government Planning and Execution Process for Reconstruction and Stabilization (1
st
Edition).
19
Whole of Government Planning and Execution Process for Reconstruction and Stabilization (1
st
Edition).
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
56
APPENDIX 3: Types of Planning
Other Types of Planning
Type of Plan Description of Output Examples Approval Level
Functional/Topical
Plans
Major strategic guidance documents
that define U.S.national interests in a
specific functional or topical area,
describe roles and responsibilities of
agencies and organizations, and
prioritize global and regional
objectives
Counterterrorism,
homeland security,
maritime security,
pandemic prevention/
containment
Cabinet
Secretary
National
Strategic
Geographic Plans
Plans that define
departmental/agency goals and
objectives in a region or country,
provide a concept for how activities
and programs will be used to
achieve those goals and objectives,
and prioritize the application of
resources to support those activities
and programs
CCMD Theater
Campaign Plans and
Country Plans,
State/USAID Joint
Regional Strategies,
Integrated Country
Strategies, USAID
Country Development
Cooperation Strategies
Cabinet
Secretary,
Senior
Regional
Official
Regional
and
Country
Conflict
Prevention and
Stabilization Plans
Plans for conflict prevention and
stabilization in political and security
crises. Plans define USG goals and
objectives in a region or country,
provide a concept for activities and
programs to achieve those goals and
objectives, and prioritize the
resources to support the activities
and programs
National Strategic
Plans, Civil-Military
Plans, Country
Stabilization Plans
(e.g., Bangladesh,
Democratic Republic
of Congo, Haiti,
Afghanistan, etc.)
NSC,
Principals
Committee
(PC), Deputies
Committee
(DC), Chief of
Mission
(COM) in
country
National
Strategic,
Regional
and
Country
Crisis
Management and
Response Plan
Plans developed on short- or no-
notice to deal with emergency
situations, such as natural disasters,
humanitarian crises, regime collapse,
and unforeseen conflicts, of high
priority to USG leadership
Coup d’états, Indian
Ocean tsunami,
Hurricane Katrina,
Haiti earthquake
Lead USG
agency chief
Regional
and
Country
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
57
APPENDIX 4: Presidential Initiatives
A variety of presidential initiatives, across administrations, have had significant influence
on development assistance. Many Executive branch organizations share responsibility for
implementation at the field level. For example, in the case of the President’s Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program, State, USAID and DoD have all been involved in joint
planning and programming these funds.
Feed the Future (FTF): A global food security initiative, FTF calls for increased
investment in agriculture and rural development as a proven lever for combating food insecurity
and as an engine for broader economic growth, prosperity, and stability.
Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI): GCCI and other climate-related USG
programs will integrate climate change considerations into foreign assistance to foster low-
carbon growth, promote sustainable and resilient societies, and reduce emissions from
deforestation and land degradation. The Administration is working to make climate financing
efficient, effective, and innovative, based on country-owned plans, and focused on achieving
measurable results.
Global Health Initiative (GHI): Through the Global Health Initiative (GHI) the United
States will invest to help partner countries improve health outcomes through strengthened health
systems, with a particular focus on improving the health of women, newborns and children
through programs including infectious disease, nutrition, maternal and child health, and safe
water. The GHI aims to maximize the sustainable health impact the United States achieves for
every dollar invested. The GHI will deliver on that commitment through a business model based
on: implementing a woman- and girl-centered approach; increasing impact and efficiency
through strategic coordination and integration; strengthening and leveraging key partnerships,
multilateral organizations, and private contributions; encouraging country ownership and
investing in country-led plans; improving metrics, monitoring and evaluation; and promoting
research and innovation. GHI incorporates the activities of several previously independent
presidential initiatives including:
President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR): PEPFAR has been a
major driver of health programming for USAID, State, DoD and the Centers for Disease
Control for the past eight years. As a source of significant funding for a specifically-
identified set of high HIV burden countries (particularly in Africa) the joint efforts of the
3Ds has been a major focus of joint, in-country programming.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
58
President’s Malaria Initiative: Launched in 2005, the President's Malaria
Initiative (PMI) is a five-year expansion of U.S. Government resources to reduce the
intolerable burden of malaria and help relieve poverty on the African continent. The goal
of PMI is to reduce malaria-related deaths by 50 percent in 15 focus countries with a high
burden of malaria by expanding coverage of four highly effective malaria prevention and
treatment measures to the most vulnerable populations: pregnant women and children
under five years of age.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
59
APPENDIX 5: CSO Planning Framework & Examples
In 2005-2006, CSO (then S/CRS) developed a four-step Planning and Execution Process
designed to reduce agency stove piping and support integrated interagency decision-making.
This process was tested in civilian and civ-mil exercise and crisis responses between 2007 and
2008. CSO sponsors a Level I Planning Course to train civilian planners on this framework.
This Planning & Execution Process presents planners with a common method and terminology to
work together with their partners in different USG departments, agencies, and State bureaus to
support conflict transformation efforts.
• Initial Guidance & Parameter Setting – frames the problem, understands that
planning task and organizes the planning effort.
• Situation Analysis & Assessment – develops a common understanding of the
environment in-country that serves as the unifying starting point for further
planning and execution, and continues to maintain and update that analysis and
assessment during execution of conflict transformation efforts.
• Strategy & Operational Plan Design – develops the strategy to address the
problem, defines the overarching concept for what the USG is seeking to achieve,
and provides the necessary guidance and direction to execute that concept.
• Execution – the process of coordinating and monitoring implementation of the
plan.
Since its inception in 2004, CSO has adapted and applied this process to meet the needs of
multiple Missions across the globe. Two examples of successful applications of CSO’s
interagency processes aimed at an integrated approach in conflict transformation planning are
Bangladesh (2008-2011), a steady-state, permissive environment, and Afghanistan (2007-2012),
an environment with active violent conflict. Both instances have benefited from strong, ongoing
support and engagement from senior leadership, who empowered CSO members and motivated
their already on-site personnel to take advantage of expeditionary and planning capabilities.
CSO planning can be conducted along the spectrum of conflict, before, during, and after.
These can involve conflict prevention planning before a potential outbreak of violence occurs, an
example of which is CSO’s work on the Central African Republic. CSO can support contingency
planning and/or crisis response before and during a conflict. CSO conducted these sorts of
planning in the cases of Libya and in response to the Haiti earthquake. Then during and after a
conflict, CSO can provide stabilization planning, such as in Afghanistan or Sudan. These CSO
plans are predicated on a strong, locally driven analysis of the drivers and mitigators of violent
conflict.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
60
CSO has conducted additional integrated planning engagements at Secretary of State, State
bureau or Chief of Mission (CoM) request for the following countries: Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Haiti, Georgia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
Timor Leste, Uganda, Yemen, and others.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
61
Conflict Response Planning:
USG Integrated Civilian-Military Campaign Plan
for Support to Afghanistan
On February 7, 2011, Ambassador Eikenberry and General Petraeus signed the first annual revision to the
Integrated Civ-Mil Campaign Plan (ICMCP) for Afghanistan and a second revision is underway.
Building on the original August 2009 ICMCP, the revised plan provides strategic direction from the U.S.
Chief of Mission and the Commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A) to American personnel in
Afghanistan, integrating joint and interagency priorities and strategies towards a common mission. The
ICMCP also informs and provides strategic guidance to other mainstream Embassy and USAID mission
planning processes, such as Embassy Kabul MSRP, Afghanistan CDCS and the USAID/State Afghanistan
Operational Plan.
Strategic planning at Embassy Kabul, including the ICMCP, is led by the Civilian-Military Plans and
Assessments sub-section (CMPASS) of the Political-Military section of the Embassy. CSO planners lead
and staff the CMPASS team as well as support implementation of the ICMCP both in Kabul and in the
field. In the Interagency Provincial Affairs (IPA) office, CSO planners focus on operational planning to
synchronize the interagency civilian uplift with operational priorities of ISAF Joint Command (IJC) and
USAID stabilization programming. In the field, CSO planners fill permanent civ-mil planner positions at
three regional platforms: RC-East, RC-South, and RC-Southwest. Afghanistan remains the longest and
largest CSO engagement; since 2007, CSO has deployed over 100 personnel from six different agencies in
support of over 20 missions, as requested by Embassy Kabul and the International Security Assistance
Force.
Conflict Prevention Planning:
Interagency Three-Year Strategic Plan for Bangladesh
In January 2009, the U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh requested CSO support in facilitating an interagency
strategic planning process during a critical time when the country
faced risks of instability surrounding
the transition from a military-supported caretaker government to a democratically-elected administration.
CSO deployed a team to facilitate a strategic planning and assessment process with all the
agencies/departments at the embassy (including DoS, DoJ, DoD and USAID). The process resulted in an
integrated Three-Year Strategic Plan for Bangladesh, which aimed to create a whole of government
approach to support long-term stability and advance other U.S. foreign policy objectives. The Plan
informed and continues to inform the Embassy’s MSRPs.
In late 2009 and again in 2010, Embassy Dhaka requested that CSO return to lead a reassessment of the
Strategic Plan and assist in making any necessary adjustments. During this process, CSO worked with the
Embassy’s interagency working groups responsible for carrying out the Plan’s strategic objectives. These
working groups meet on a regular basis, periodically assessing changes in the environment and critically
evaluating strategic-level progress. The Bangladesh case is an example where an effective CSO-led
assessment and planning process has been fully-adopted by the embassy, resulting in enhanced
interagency coordination and a more proactive approach to conflict prevention.
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
62
Appendix 6: Organizational Charts / Maps
• Department of State
• U.S. Agency for International Development
• Department of Defense
• CCMDs’ and Regional Bureaus’ Geographic Areas of Responsibility
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
63
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
64
United States Agency for International Development
Administrator
------
Deputy
Administrator
----
Chief of Staff/COO
----
Counselors
Chief
Information
Officer
Chief Financial
Officer
Office of the
Inspector
General
OIG Field Offices
Overseas
Office of Civil
Rights and
Diversity
Office of
Human
Resources
Office of Small &
Disadvantaged
Business
Utilization
Office of
Security
Bureau for
Policy,
Planning, and
Learning
Office of the
General
Counsel
Office of
Budget and
Resource
Management
Bureau for
Legislative and
Public Affairs
Bureau for
Foreign
Assistance
Bureau for
Global Health
Bureau for
Economic
Growth,
Agriculture,
and Trade
Bureau for
Management
Bureau for
Europe and
Eurasia
Bureau of
Africa
Bureau for
Asia
Bureau for
Middle East
Bureau for
Latin America
and the
Caribbean
Office of
Development
Partners
Bureau for
Democracy,
Conflict, and
Humanitarian
Assistance
Office of
Afghanistan
and Pakistan
Affairs
Executive
Secretariat
USAID Organization Chart
F i e l d O f f i c e s O v e r s e a s
As of 10/13/2010
Bureau for
Food Security
(Being
Established)
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
65
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
66
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
67
Appendix 7: USAID Project Design
• Standard Project Design Process
• Logical Framework for Project Design
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
68
STANDARD PROJECT DESIGN PROCESS (IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROGRAM CYCLE)
**Conduct annual review and validation of critical aspects of the CDCS Results Framework development hypotheses linked to the IR/project in question, as well as
the underlying country conditions which could affect achievement of DO to which the project contributes.
Strategy Development
Develop WOG/USAID Country
Development Cooperation Strategy
(CDCS) (including full RF) as basis
for implementation priorities**
Conduct USAID and WOG
country/ sector analysis as
necessary
Project Design
Develop
logframe and
prepare
concept paper
Conduct design
synthesis and
develop detailed
project design
document (incl.
implementation plan
& preliminary PMP)
Conduct
required
problem
analysis
Conduct
strategic
partner
analysis &
identify likely
impl. modality
Conduct initial
collection of
Final
Review and
Approval of
Project
Design
Consult approved
Results Framework
to determine req’d.
project designs;
identify project
Review &
approve concept
paper
Conduct
knowledge
mgmt review
Implementing
agreement issued
Develop
implementation plan
Conduct
monitoring &
portfolio review
Revisit design and
adjust on an
Project Implementation
Conduct
evaluation
Feed information into current (formative) &
future (summative) projects
Ensure lessons get captured in knowledge
management system – and available for
Project Evaluation
PRE-DECISIONAL WORKING DRAFT
69
Logical Framework for Project Design
Project Title: _________________________________________________________ Date: _______________________________
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable
Indicators
Means of
Verification
Important
Assumptions
Development Hypothesis
If purpose,
then goal
Goal:
The highest-order
objective to which this
project contributes
Measures of goal
achievement (from the
RF/PMP)
Project Purpose:
Central result to be
produced by and
attributable to the
project
Conditions that will
indicate that the
purpose has been
achieved (from the
RF/PMP)
Affecting purpose to
goal link
If outputs,
then purpose
Manageable Interest
Outputs: The project’s
tangible achievements
Performance standards
for the outputs
necessary and sufficient
to achieve the purpose
Affecting output to
purpose link
If inputs,
then outputs
Inputs:
Activities and
types of resources
Level of
effort/expenditure for
each activity/resource
Affecting input to
output link
