LEADER 03752oam 2200565zu 450 001 9910220075803321 005 20220831230932.0 010 $a0-8330-9332-0 035 $a(CKB)3710000000595184 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001622570 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)16359263 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001622570 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)14919262 035 $a(PQKB)10626309 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000595184 100 $a20160829d2015 uh 0 101 0 $aeng 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aWhat works best when building partner capacity in challenging contexts /$fChristopher Paul 210 31$aSanta Monica, CA :$cRand Corporation$d2015 215 $a1 online resource (xix, 58 pages) $cblack and white illustration, black and white chart 225 0 $aResearch report (Rand Corporation) 300 $aBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph 300 $a"Prepared for the Joint Staff J5, the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy"-- 311 1 $a0-8330-8871-8 330 3 $a"For both diplomatic and national security reasons, security cooperation continues to be important for the United States. The needs and existing capabilities of various nations differ, however, as will results. In previous research, RAND identified a series of factors that correlate with the success of building partner capacity (BPC) efforts. Some of these are under U.S. control, and some are inherent in the partner nation or under its control. Strategic imperatives sometimes compel the United States to work with PNs that lack favorable characteristics but with which the United States needs to conduct BPC anyway. This report explores what the United States can do, when conducting BPC in challenging contexts, to maximize prospects for success. The authors address this question using the logic model outlined in a companion report and examining a series of case studies, looking explicitly at the challenges that can interfere with BPC. Some of the challenges stemmed from U.S. shortcomings, such as policy or funding issues; others from the partner's side, including issues with practices, personalities, baseline capacity, and lack of willingness; still others from disagreements among various stakeholders over objectives and approaches. Among the factors correlated with success in overcoming these challenges were consistency of funding and implementation, shared security interests, and matching objectives with the partner nation's ability to absorb and sustain capabilities."--Back cover. 606 $aMilitary assistance, American$xInternational cooperation 606 $aMilitary education$xInternational cooperation$xTraining of 606 $aSoldiers$xInternational cooperation 606 $aNational security$xInternational cooperation 606 $aArmies$2HILCC 606 $aMilitary & Naval Science$2HILCC 606 $aLaw, Politics & Government$2HILCC 615 0$aMilitary assistance, American$xInternational cooperation 615 0$aMilitary education$xInternational cooperation$xTraining of 615 0$aSoldiers$xInternational cooperation 615 0$aNational security$xInternational cooperation. 615 7$aArmies 615 7$aMilitary & Naval Science 615 7$aLaw, Politics & Government 676 $a355/.03273 700 $aPaul$b Christopher$f1971-$0904747 712 02$aNational Defense Research Institute (U.S.) 801 0$bPQKB 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910220075803321 996 $aWhat works best when building partner capacity in challenging contexts$92907993 997 $aUNINA