Military Personnel
Oversight Process Needed to Help Maintain Momentum of DOD's Strategic Human Capital Planning Gao ID: GAO-03-237 December 5, 2002The Department of Defense (DOD) has, in the past, lacked a strategic approach to human capital management. In April 2002, DOD issued two human capital strategic plans for military personnel. One plan addresses military personnel management and policies; the second addresses quality of life issues affecting service members and their families. As a follow-on to its recent work on benefits for military personnel, GAO reviewed the extent that these two plans, in addressing military benefits, promote (1) the integration and alignment of human capital approaches to meet organizational goals and (2) the use of reliable data to make human capital decisions--two critical success factors for human capital planning. GAO also reviewed DOD's plans for overseeing the progress and implementation of its human capital plans.
DOD's human capital plans addressing military personnel and quality of life represent a positive step forward in fostering a more strategic approach to human capital management. The two plans lay some of the groundwork needed to incorporate benefits into the strategic management of human capital. The plans, for example, recognize that benefits are important elements to meeting recruiting and retention goals and to alleviating some of the hardships of military life. However, the two plans do not satisfy the two critical success factors GAO has identified for human capital planning. The plans do not specifically address how DOD will integrate and align benefits with other human capital approaches to meet organizational goals. DOD's plans identify a number of initiatives, but the plans do not describe how individual initiatives, many of which are studies, will work in conjunction with one another to meet DOD's goals and objectives. For example, one of DOD's initiatives is to study alternatives to the military retirement system, and another initiative is to study variable career lengths for officers. However, the human capital plans do not explain how these two initiatives may be integrated and aligned with each other to achieve desired outcomes. The military personnel strategic plan also does not identify outcome-oriented performance measures or discuss, at a strategic level, military workforce needs or gaps in meeting these needs--the kinds of data used by high-performing organizations to manage their human capital. DOD lacks a process for overseeing the progress and implementation of its human capital plans from a strategic vantage point. Without such a process, DOD may have difficulty integrating and aligning benefits and other human capital approaches to meet organizational goals and promoting a data-driven, performance-oriented approach to human capital management. Moreover, an oversight process could help DOD officials maintain the momentum of their strategic human capital planning efforts. DOD is considering establishing a Defense Human Resources Board to maintain the viability of its strategic human capital planning, but DOD officials have not determined the roles and responsibilities of the board.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-237, Military Personnel: Oversight Process Needed to Help Maintain Momentum of DOD's Strategic Human Capital Planning
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-237
entitled 'Military Personnel: Oversight Process Needed to Help Maintain
Momentum of DOD's Strategic Human Capital Planning' which was released
on December 05, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to the Secretary of Defense:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
December 2002:
Military Personnel:
Oversight Process Needed to Help Maintain Momentum of DOD‘s Strategic
Human Capital Planning:
GAO-03-237:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-237, a report to the Secretary of Defense:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Defense (DOD) has, in the past, lacked a strategic
approach to human capital management. In April 2002, DOD issued two
human capital strategic plans for military personnel. One plan
addresses military personnel management and policies; the second
addresses quality of life issues affecting service members and their
families.
As a follow-on to its recent work on benefits for military personnel,
GAO reviewed the extent that these two plans, in addressing military
benefits, promote (1) the integration and alignment of human capital
approaches to meet organizational goals and (2) the use of reliable
data to make human capital decisions”two critical success factors for
human capital planning. GAO also reviewed DOD‘s plans for overseeing
the progress and implementation of its human capital plans.
What GAO Found:
DOD‘s human capital plans addressing military personnel and quality of
life represent a positive step forward in fostering a more strategic
approach to human capital management. The two plans lay some of the
groundwork needed to incorporate benefits into the strategic management
of human capital. The plans, for example, recognize that benefits are
important elements to meeting recruiting and retention goals and to
alleviating some of the hardships of military life. However, the two
plans do not satisfy the two critical success factors GAO has
identified
for human capital planning.
* The plans do not specifically address how DOD will integrate and
align
benefits with other human capital approaches to meet organizational
goals.
DOD‘s plans identify a number of initiatives, but the plans do not
describe
how individual initiatives, many of which are studies, will work in
conjunction with one another to meet DOD‘s goals and objectives. For
example,
one of DOD‘s initiatives is to study alternatives to the military
retirement
system, and another initiative is to study variable career lengths for
officers.
However, the human capital plans do not explain how these two
initiatives may
be integrated and aligned with each other to achieve desired outcomes.
* The military personnel strategic plan also does not identify
outcome-oriented performance measures or discuss, at a strategic level,
military workforce needs or gaps in meeting these needs”the kinds of
data
used by high-performing organizations to manage their human capital.
DOD lacks a process for overseeing the progress and implementation of
its
human capital plans from a strategic vantage point. Without such a
process,
DOD may have difficulty integrating and aligning benefits and other
human
capital approaches to meet organizational goals and promoting a data-
driven,
performance-oriented approach to human capital management. Moreover,
an
oversight process could help DOD officials maintain the momentum of
their
strategic human capital planning efforts. DOD is considering
establishing a
Defense Human Resources Board to maintain the viability of its
strategic human
capital planning, but DOD officials have not determined the roles and
responsibilities of the board.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOD establish an oversight process by which senior
DOD
officials may integrate and align benefits and other human capital
approaches
and promote a fact-based, performance-oriented approach to human
capital
management. As one option, DOD may wish to consider incorporating this
oversight responsibility into the mission of the planned Defense Human
Resources
Board. DOD agreed with the recommendation.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-237.
To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Derek B. Stewart at (202) 512-5140 .
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Human Capital Plans Are a Step Forward but Not Fully Developed:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Scope and Methodology:
Appendix:
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Table:
Table 1: Compensation-Related Studies and Milestones in DOD‘s Military
Personnel Strategic Plan:
December 5, 2002:
The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld
The Secretary of Defense:
Dear Mr. Secretary:
People are at the heart of an organization‘s ability to perform its
mission, yet a key challenge for many federal agencies, including the
Department of Defense (DOD), is to strategically manage their human
capital.[Footnote 1] Along with Congress and the administration, we
have been focusing increased attention on the need for improved human
capital management across the government. In March 2002, we published a
model to assist federal agencies in their human capital
management.[Footnote 2] Under our model, one of the four cornerstones
of strategic human capital management is strategic human capital
planning.[Footnote 3] The two critical success factors to strategic
human capital planning that we identified in our model are (1)
integration and alignment of human capital approaches and (2) human
capital decisionmaking that is data-driven. Since 1997, a number of DOD
studies have recommended that DOD adopt a strategic approach to
managing its human capital. We too have encouraged DOD to improve its
human capital management by taking a more strategic approach. For
instance, we testified in March 2001 that DOD must step up its efforts
to identify current and future workforce needs, assess where it is
relative to those needs, and develop strategies for addressing any
related gaps.[Footnote 4] More recently, in our work on benefits for
active duty military personnel, we noted that DOD lacked a human
capital strategy that would align all elements of DOD‘s human capital
management, including pay and benefits, with its broader organizational
objectives.[Footnote 5]
As a follow-on to our work on active duty military benefits, we
reviewed two human capital strategic plans that DOD published in April
2002. One of these plans addresses military personnel priorities. The
other plan addresses quality of life issues affecting service members
and their families. According to DOD officials, the plans are intended
to complement one another and, together with a third human capital plan
addressing civilian personnel, constitute DOD‘s overall human capital
strategy. We have undertaken a separate review of DOD‘s civilian human
capital strategic management. For this report, our specific objectives
were to review the extent that these two plans, in addressing active
duty military benefits, promote (1) the integration and alignment of
human capital approaches to meet organizational goals and (2) the use
of reliable data to make human capital decisions--the two critical
success factors identified in our model. We also reviewed DOD‘s plans
for overseeing the progress and implementation of its human capital
plans. In conducting our work, we recognized that federal agencies
employ a wide variety of approaches to manage human capital. These
human capital approaches may include policies and practices for
recruitment, compensation (which includes pay as well as benefits),
promotion, career development, and retention. Benefits are one of the
important human capital tools an agency has at its disposal for shaping
its workforce and meeting organizational goals. As such, they may
provide a useful lens for examining the current state of DOD‘s
strategic human capital planning as represented by the two human
capital plans we reviewed.
Results in Brief:
DOD‘s human capital plans addressing military personnel and quality of
life represent a positive step forward in fostering a more strategic
approach to human capital management within DOD. The two plans lay some
of the groundwork needed to incorporate benefits into the strategic
management of human capital, but they do not satisfy the two critical
success factors identified in our strategic human capital management
model. The plans recognize that benefits are an important element to
meeting recruiting and retention goals and to alleviating some of the
hardships of military life; establish long-term goals for a number of
benefits, including health care, housing, and family support; and call
for studies of other benefits, including the military retirement system
and sabbaticals. The plans, however, do not specifically address how
DOD will integrate and align benefits with other human capital
approaches to meet organizational goals. For example, one of DOD‘s
initiatives is to study alternatives to the military retirement system,
and another initiative is to study variable career lengths for
officers. However, the plans do not explain how these two initiatives
may be integrated and aligned with each other to achieve desired
outcomes.
The human capital plans do not identify outcome-oriented performance
measures. High-performing organizations use relevant and reliable data
to determine key performance objectives and goals that enable them to
evaluate the success of their human capital approaches. Neither plan
discusses, at a strategic level, military workforce needs or gaps in
meeting these needs--the kinds of data used by high-performing
organizations to manage their human capital.
Moreover, DOD lacks a process for overseeing the progress and
implementation of its human capital plans from a strategic vantage
point. Without such a process, DOD may have difficulty integrating and
aligning benefits and other human capital approaches to meet
organizational goals and promoting a data-driven, performance-oriented
approach to human capital management. An oversight process also could
help DOD officials maintain the momentum of their strategic human
capital planning efforts. The military personnel strategic plan calls
for the establishment of a Defense Human Resources Board by March 2003.
However, DOD officials have not decided on the roles and
responsibilities of the board, the composition of the board, or how the
board would work with existing processes.
We are recommending that DOD establish an improved oversight process.
One option is to incorporate this oversight responsibility into the
mission of the planned Defense Human Resources Board. In commenting on
a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our recommendation.
Background:
Recognizing the human capital challenges facing federal agencies,
Congress, the administration, and others are focusing increased
attention on strategic human capital management. Congress has
underscored the consequences of human capital weaknesses in federal
agencies and pinpointed solutions through the oversight process and a
wide range of hearings held over the last few years. The President, in
August 2001, placed human capital at the top of his management agenda.
The Office of Management and Budget is assessing agencies‘ progress in
addressing their individual human capital challenges.
In January 2001, we designated strategic human capital management as a
governmentwide high-risk area and stated that one of the pervasive
human capital challenges facing the federal government was a lack of
strategic human capital planning and organizational
alignment.[Footnote 6] In March 2002, we issued our model of strategic
human capital management, stating that federal agencies needed to adopt
a consistent strategic approach to marshaling, managing, and
maintaining the human capital needed to maximize government performance
and ensure accountability.[Footnote 7]
Several DOD studies have identified the need for a more strategic
approach to human capital planning. The 8th Quadrennial Review of
Military Compensation, completed in 1997, strongly advocated that DOD
adopt a strategic human capital planning approach. The review found
that DOD lacked an institutionwide process for systematically examining
human capital needs or translating needs into a coherent strategy.
Subsequent DOD and service studies, including those by the Defense
Science Board Task Force on Human Resources Strategy (2000), the Naval
Personnel Task Force (2000-2001), and the DOD Study on Morale and
Quality of Life (2001), endorsed the concept of human capital strategic
planning. For example, the Defense Science Board Task Force found there
was ’no overarching framework within which the future DOD workforce is
being planned aside from planning conducted within the military
services and ad hoc fora in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. An
overarching strategic vision is needed that identifies the kind of
capabilities that DOD will need in the future, the best way to provide
those capabilities, and the changes in human resources planning and
programs that will be required.“:
In view of these studies, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
published the Military Personnel Human Resource Strategic Plan
(referred to in this report as the military personnel strategic plan)
in April 2002 to establish military personnel priorities for the next
several years. DOD, in the military personnel strategic plan, states
that the plan is intended to be a dynamic document that will be
assessed and refined. In April 2002, DOD also published A New Social
Compact: A Reciprocal Partnership Between the Department of Defense,
Service Members and Families (or Social Compact) to review measures for
improving the quality of life for military personnel and their
families. These two plans were developed separately within the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and they
differ in their methodological approach and structure. Nevertheless,
DOD officials said the plans should be considered in conjunction as
part of DOD‘s overall strategic human capital strategy.
Human Capital Plans Are a Step Forward but Not Fully Developed:
DOD, in its military personnel strategic plan and Social Compact,
recognizes that benefits are an important component to human capital
management and deserve attention. In this regard, the two plans
constitute a positive step forward in DOD‘s strategic management of the
military workforce. The Social Compact indicates that benefits are
important to alleviating some of the hardships of military life and
emphasizes that providing consistent, high-quality benefits that meet
the needs of service members and their families can yield a committed
and long-term workforce. The Social Compact also outlines DOD‘s vision
and goals for a number of benefit areas, including child and youth
services, parent support, commissaries and exchanges, financial
literacy, health, housing, spouse employment, fitness and recreation,
and tuition assistance. The military personnel strategic plan indicates
that DOD considers benefits important elements in its efforts to
develop, sustain, and retain the force and to transition members from
active duty. The plan lists a number of planned studies (see table 1)
that ultimately could lead to changes in pay and benefits.
Table 1: Compensation-Related Studies and Milestones in DOD‘s Military
Personnel Strategic Plan:
Study: Sabbatical programs that could be implemented in DOD; Milestone:
Final report due October/November 2002.
Study: Nonmonetary incentives that support retention; Milestone: Final
report due December 2002.
Study: Programs designed to improve retention by informing military
members of career opportunities and military benefits available to
them; Milestone: Action plan due December 2002.
Study: Alternatives to the military retirement system; Milestone:
Report due January 2003.
Study: Proposals of the 9th Quadrennial Review of Military
Compensation; Milestone: Staff recommendations due March 2003.
Study: Programs designed to inform members of their transition benefits
when leaving active duty service; Milestone: Final report due March
2003.
Study: Military pay levels compared to pay levels of civilians by age,
education, and occupation; Milestone: Final report due December 2003.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of military personnel strategic plan.
[End of table]
While progress has been made, DOD‘s human capital plans do not yet
satisfy the two factors we identified in our model as critical to the
success of strategic human capital planning (one of the four
cornerstones of sound strategic human capital management). First, the
plans do not specifically address how DOD will integrate and align
benefits and other human capital approaches to meet its overall
organizational goals. According to our model, effective organizations
integrate human capital approaches as key strategic elements for
accomplishing their mission and programmatic goals and results. These
organizations consider further human capital initiatives or refinements
in light of both changing organizational needs and the demonstrated
successes or shortcomings of their human capital efforts. DOD‘s
military personnel strategic plan identifies more than 30 discrete
initiatives. It is unclear from the plan how these initiatives are
integrated and aligned with each other, except that they are grouped
under five broadly stated human capital goals such as recruit the right
number and quality of people.[Footnote 8] It is also unclear how the
initiatives, many of which are studies, will work in conjunction with
one another to meet DOD‘s goals. For example, one of the initiatives is
to study alternatives to the military retirement system. The plan does
not explain how retirement reform may be integrated and aligned with
other initiatives such as DOD‘s study of variable career lengths for
officers. In addition, the retirement study is listed under the human
capital goal of transitioning members from active status but does not
explain why a new approach to retirement may be needed to meet this
goal. It is also unclear why the initiative was not listed under the
human capital goal of developing, sustaining, and retaining the force,
even though an organization‘s retirement system is considered an
important retention tool. Further, the military personnel strategic
plan and the Social Compact, which were developed separately, address
different sets of human capital issues, and there are no explicit
linkages between the two plans. For example, while the Social Compact
addresses such benefit areas as housing, health care, and family
support, the military personnel strategic plan is silent on these
topics. Thus, DOD lacks an overarching framework integrating its human
capital plans for military personnel. DOD officials said they are
working to improve the integration of the human capital plans by
developing an ’umbrella“ plan.
Secondly, the plans do not satisfy the critical success factor of using
data in human capital decisions. We state in our model that a fact-
based, performance-oriented approach to human capital management is
crucial for maximizing the value of human capital as well as managing
related risks. High-performing organizations use relevant and reliable
data to determine key performance objectives and goals that enable them
to evaluate the success of their human capital approaches. These
organizations also identify current and future human capital needs,
including the appropriate number of employees, the key competencies and
skills mix for mission accomplishment, and the appropriate deployment
of staff across the organization and then create strategies for
identifying and filling gaps. The military personnel strategic plan
provides measures of effectiveness for each initiative; however, these
measures are not adequate to assess the success of DOD‘s human capital
approaches because they (1) do not describe the significance of
outcomes
in terms of programmatic goals and results, (2) are not always specific
or stated as measurements, and (3) are activity-based rather than
outcome-
oriented. For example, one initiative calls for a study of sabbatical
programs. However, the measure of effectiveness for this initiative is
to implement guidance for a sabbatical-type program. The relationship
between sabbatical programs and the human capital goal of improving
retention is not described. In addition, DOD‘s plans do not discuss, at
a strategic level, military workforce needs or gaps. Furthermore, they
do not address how the military workforce may change in its total end
strength, distribution among the services, grade level, geographic
deployment, or force mix. For example, DOD has faced challenges in
providing benefits to service members that respond to their changing
needs. A major demographic change has been the growing proportion of
service members who are women. In 2000, women comprised about 15
percent of the active duty force, compared with 4 percent in 1974. Up
to
10 percent of women in the military become pregnant each year. If these
trends continue, DOD may need to take into account the benefits that
this
population values to better retain these trained, experienced service
members. For example, we have recommended that DOD assess the
feasibility,
costs, and benefits of offering extended time off to parents of newborn
or
adopted children.[Footnote 9]
Moreover, DOD lacks a process for enabling senior DOD officials to
oversee the progress and implementation of its human capital plans from
a strategic vantage point. Our model of strategic human capital
management identifies the sustained and active commitment of senior
leaders as a critical success factor for effective strategic human
capital management. Top leaders need to stimulate and support efforts
to integrate human capital approaches with organizational goals and
direct that approaches be evaluated by the standard of how well they
support the agency‘s efforts to achieve program results. A senior DOD
official told us that implementing the plan will be a long-term
endeavor. One of the human capital goals in the military personnel
strategic plan is to sustain the strategic management process and
maintain its viability. According to the plan, DOD needs to establish a
process and forum to regularly review the progress of its human capital
strategy in order that its strategy will remain viable and relevant.
The plan calls for the establishment of a Defense Human Resources Board
by March 2003. However, DOD officials have not decided on the roles and
responsibilities of the board, the composition of the board, or how the
board would work with existing processes.
Conclusions:
DOD, in developing its human capital plans addressing military
personnel and quality of life, has made progress in adopting a more
strategic approach to human capital management. Since the military
personnel strategic plan is intended to be a dynamic document that
periodically will be assessed and refined, DOD will have opportunities
to incorporate additional elements of human capital strategic planning
in future iterations of the plan. A positive step toward such
improvements would be the establishment of an oversight process
enabling senior DOD officials to oversee the progress and
implementation of the human capital plans. Such a process could assist
in the integration and alignment of benefits and other human capital
approaches to meet organizational goals and in promoting a fact-based,
performance-oriented approach to human capital management.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To improve DOD‘s strategic human capital management, we recommend that
you direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
to establish an oversight process by which senior DOD officials may
integrate and align benefits and other human capital approaches and
promote a fact-based, performance-oriented approach to human capital
management. As one option, you may wish to consider incorporating this
oversight responsibility into the mission of the planned Defense Human
Resources Board.
Agency Comments:
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our
recommendation. DOD stated that it will establish a senior leader
oversight process to ensure integration and alignment of benefits and
other human capital approaches and to continue a fact-based,
performance-oriented approach.
DOD‘s comments are reprinted in appendix I.
Scope and Methodology:
To critique DOD‘s human capital plans for military personnel, we drew
primarily from our model of strategic human capital management. The
model highlights some of the steps agencies can take to make progress
in managing human capital strategically. The model identifies eight
critical success factors, which are organized in pairs to correspond
with four cornerstones of effective strategic human capital management.
We focused on the two critical success factors that correspond to
strategic human capital planning, namely (1) the integration and
alignment of human capital approaches to meet organizational goals and
(2) the use of data to make human capital decisions. We reviewed DOD‘s
human capital plans to determine the extent they satisfied these two
critical success factors with respect to active duty military benefits.
In analyzing DOD‘s plans, we reviewed our prior work on military
personnel issues and DOD studies of human capital management. We
discussed the human capital plans with officials in the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
We conducted our review from June to September 2002 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
This report contains recommendations to you. Under 31 U.S.C. 720, the
head of a federal agency is required to submit a written statement of
the actions taken on our recommendations to the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform not
later than 60 days after the date of the report. A written statement
also must be sent to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
with the agency‘s first request for appropriations made more than 60
days after the date of the report.
We are sending copies to appropriate congressional committees and the
Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies
available to other interested parties on request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge at the GAO Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions regarding this report, please
call me at (202) 512-5140. Brenda S. Farrell, Thomas W. Gosling, and
Stefano Petrucci made significant contributions to this report.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by Derek B. Stewart:
Derek B. Stewart
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense:
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-4000:
PERSONNEL AND READINESS:
Mr. Derek B. Stewart
Director, Defense Management Issues
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stewart:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General
Accounting Office (GAO) Draft Report GAO-03-237, ’MILITARY PERSONNEL:
Oversight Process Needed to Help Maintain Momentum of DoD‘s Strategic
Human Capital Planning,“ dated October 30, 2002 (GAO Code 350217).
The initial research phases of The DoD Military Personnel Human
Resources Strategic Plan and The Social Compact were designed to
identify optimal benefits and human capital approaches for shaping the
future force. Grounding our strategy in fact based research was prudent
since the Department faces significant human resources and quality of
life challenges--military capabilities transformation, market
competition for technological skills, and changing expectations of the
work force. Once optimal approaches for DoD are identified, performance
measures will be implemented to monitor organizational impact and goal
attainment. To that end, outcomes of The Social Compact research, as
well as the recommendations from The Military Personnel Human Resources
Strategic Plan, were aligned with, and incorporated into, the DoD Risk
Management Balanced Scorecard, which will also serve as the basis for
DoD‘s Annual Defense Report.
The Department concurs with the recommendation of the report and will
establish a senior leader oversight process to ensure integration and
alignment of benefits and other human capital approaches and to
continue a fact-based, performance-oriented approach.
Sincerely,
David S. C. Chu:
David S. C. Chu:
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Throughout this report, we use the term ’human capital“ to refer to
an organization‘s workforce or human resources.
[2] See U.S. General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human
Capital Management, Exposure Draft, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 2002).
[3] The other three cornerstones are leadership; acquiring, developing,
and retaining talent; and results-oriented organizational cultures.
[4] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Major Human
Capital Challenges at the Departments of Defense and State, GAO-01-565T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2001).
[5] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Personnel: Active Duty
Benefits Reflect Changing Demographics, but Continued Focus Is Needed,
GAO-02-557T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2002).
[6] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Department of Defense, GAO-01-244 (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 2001).
[7] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Building
on the Momentum for Strategic Human Capital Reform, GAO-02-528T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 2002).
[8] The four other human capital goals are (1) develop, sustain, and
retain the force;
(2) increase the willingness of the American public to recommend
military service to youth;
(3) transition members from active status; and (4) sustain the process
and maintain its viability.
[9] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Personnel: Active Duty
Benefits Reflect Changing Demographics, but Opportunities Exist to
Improve, GAO-02-935 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18, 2002).
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
