DOD Personnel
DOD Actions Needed to Strengthen Civilian Human Capital Strategic Planning and Integration with Military Personnel and Sourcing Decisions Gao ID: GAO-03-475 March 28, 2003The Department of Defense's (DOD) civilian employees play key roles in such areas as defense policy, intelligence, finance, acquisitions, and weapon systems maintenance. Although downsized 38 percent between fiscal years 1989 and 2002, this workforce has taken on greater roles as a result of DOD's restructuring and transformation. Responding to congressional concerns about the quality and quantity of, and the strategic planning for the civilian workforce, GAO determined the following for DOD, the military services, and selected defense agencies: (1) the extent of top-level leadership involvement in civilian strategic planning; (2) whether elements in civilian strategic plans are aligned to the overall mission, focused on results, and based on current and future civilian workforce data; and (3) whether civilian and military personnel strategic plans or sourcing initiatives were integrated.
Generally, civilian personnel issues appear to be an emerging priority among top leaders in DOD and the defense components. Although DOD began downsizing its civilian workforce more than a decade ago, it did not take action to strategically address challenges affecting the civilian workforce until it issued its civilian human capital strategic plan in April 2002. Top-level leaders in the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and the Defense Finance Accounting Service have initiated planning efforts and are working in partnership with their civilian human capital professionals to develop and implement civilian strategic plans; such leadership, however, was increasing in the Army and not as evident in the Navy. Also, DOD has not provided guidance on how to integrate the components' plans with the department-level plan. High-level leadership is critical to directing reforms and obtaining resources for successful implementation. The human capital strategic plans GAO reviewed for the most part lacked key elements found in fully developed plans. Most of the civilian human capital goals, objectives, and initiatives were not explicitly aligned with the overarching missions of the organizations. Consequently, DOD and the components cannot be sure that strategic goals are properly focused on mission achievement. Also, none of the plans contained results-oriented performance measures to assess the impact of their civilian human capital initiatives (i.e., programs, policies, and processes). Thus, DOD and the components cannot gauge the extent to which their human capital initiatives contribute to achieving their organizations' mission. Finally, the plans did not contain data on the skills and competencies needed to successfully accomplish future missions; therefore, DOD and the components risk not being able to put the right people, in the right place, and at the right time, which can result in diminished accomplishment of the overall defense mission. Moreover, the civilian strategic plans did not address how the civilian workforce will be integrated with their military counterparts or sourcing initiatives. DOD's three human capital strategic plans--two military and one civilian--were prepared separately and were not integrated to form a seamless and comprehensive strategy and did not address how DOD plans to link its human capital initiatives with its sourcing plans, such as efforts to outsource non-core responsibilities. The components' civilian plans acknowledge a need to integrate planning for civilian and military personnel--taking into consideration contractors--but have not yet done so. Without an integrated strategy, DOD may not effectively and efficiently allocate its scarce resources for optimal readiness.
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-03-475, DOD Personnel: DOD Actions Needed to Strengthen Civilian Human Capital Strategic Planning and Integration with Military Personnel and Sourcing Decisions
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-475
entitled 'DOD Personnel: DOD Actions Needed to Strengthen Civilian
Human Capital Strategic Planning and Integration with Military
Personnel and Sourcing Decisions' which was released on March 28, 2003.
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 Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Readiness,
Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
March 2003:
DOD PERSONNEL:
DOD Actions Needed to Strengthen Civilian Human Capital Strategic
Planning and Integration with Military Personnel and Sourcing
Decisions:
GAO-03-475:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-475, a report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Readiness, House Committee on Armed Services
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Defense‘s (DOD) civilian employees play key roles in
such areas as defense policy, intelligence, finance, acquisitions, and
weapon systems maintenance. Although downsized 38 percent between
fiscal years 1989 and 2002, this workforce has taken on greater roles
as a result of DOD‘s restructuring and transformation. Responding to
congressional concerns about the quality and quantity of, and the
strategic planning for the civilian workforce, GAO determined the
following for DOD, the military services, and selected defense
agencies: (1) the extent of top-level leadership involvement in
civilian strategic planning; (2) whether elements in civilian
strategic plans are aligned to the overall mission, focused on
results, and based on current and future civilian workforce data; and
(3) whether civilian and military personnel strategic plans or
sourcing initiatives were integrated.
What GAO Found:
Generally, civilian personnel issues appear to be an emerging priority
among top leaders in DOD and the defense components. Although DOD
began downsizing its civilian workforce more than a decade ago, it did
not take action to strategically address challenges affecting the
civilian workforce until it issued its civilian human capital
strategic plan in April 2002. Top-level leaders in the Air Force, the
Marine Corps, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and the Defense
Finance Accounting Service have initiated planning efforts and are
working in partnership with their civilian human capital professionals
to develop and implement civilian strategic plans; such leadership,
however, was increasing in the Army and not as evident in the Navy.
Also, DOD has not provided guidance on how to integrate the
components‘ plans with the department-level plan. High-level
leadership is critical to directing reforms and obtaining resources
for successful implementation.
The human capital strategic plans GAO reviewed for the most part
lacked key elements found in fully developed plans. Most of the
civilian human capital goals, objectives, and initiatives were not
explicitly aligned with the overarching missions of the organizations.
Consequently, DOD and the components cannot be sure that strategic
goals are properly focused on mission achievement. Also, none of the
plans contained results-oriented performance measures to assess the
impact of their civilian human capital initiatives (i.e., programs,
policies, and processes). Thus, DOD and the components cannot gauge
the extent to which their human capital initiatives contribute to
achieving their organizations‘ mission. Finally, the plans did not
contain data on the skills and competencies needed to successfully
accomplish future missions; therefore, DOD and the components risk not
being able to put the right people, in the right place, and at the
right time, which can result in diminished accomplishment of the
overall defense mission.
Moreover, the civilian strategic plans did not address how the
civilian workforce will be integrated with their military counterparts
or sourcing initiatives. DOD‘s three human capital strategic plans--
two military and one civilian--were prepared separately and were not
integrated to form a seamless and comprehensive strategy and did not
address how DOD plans to link its human capital initiatives with its
sourcing plans, such as efforts to outsource non-core responsibilities.
The components‘ civilian plans acknowledge a need to integrate
planning for civilian and military personnel”taking into consideration
contractors”but have not yet done so. Without an integrated strategy,
DOD may not effectively and efficiently allocate its scarce resources
for optimal readiness.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends DOD improve the departmentwide plan to be mission
aligned and results-oriented; provide guidance to integrate component-
and department- level human capital strategic plans; develop data on
future civilian workforce needs; and set milestones for integrating
military and civilian workforce plans, taking contractors into
consideration. DOD comments were too late to include in the final
report.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-475.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Derek B. Stewart at
(202) 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Leadership Involvement in Strategic Planning for Civilian Personnel Not
Extensive in the Past, but Is Increasing:
Key Elements of Strategic Plans for DOD Civilian Personnel Not in
Place:
Strategic Plans for Civilian Personnel Not Yet Integrated with Plans
for Military Personnel or Sourcing Initiatives:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Key Events Related to Strategic Planning for DOD Civilian
Personnel:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Civilian Employment by DOD Component as of September 30, 2002
(670,166 Direct Hires):
Figure 2: Relationships among Several Key Elements of a Human Capital
Strategic Plan:
Figure 3. Key Events Related to Strategic Planning for DOD Civilian
Personnel:
Abbreviations:
DCMA: Defense Contract Management Agency:
DFAS: Defense Finance and Accounting Service:
DOD: Department of Defense:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
QDR: Quadrennial Defense Review:
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce
copyrighted materials separately from GAO‘s product.
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 28, 2003:
The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Readiness
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Ortiz:
With almost 700,000 civilian employees on its payroll, the Department
of Defense (DOD) is the second largest federal employer of civilians in
the nation. Defense civilian personnel, among other things, develop
policy, provide intelligence, manage finances, and acquire and maintain
weapon systems. Given the global war on terrorism, the role of DOD‘s
civilian workforce is expanding, such as participation in combat
support functions that free military personnel to focus on warfighting
duties for which they are uniquely qualified. Civilian personnel are
also key to maintaining DOD‘s institutional knowledge because of
frequent military personnel rotations. However, since the end of the
cold war, the civilian workforce has undergone substantial change, due
primarily to downsizing, base realignments and closures, competitive
sourcing initiatives, and changing missions. For example, between
fiscal years 1989 and 2002, DOD reduced its civilian workforce by about
38 percent, with an additional reduction of about 55,000 personnel
proposed through fiscal year 2007. Some DOD officials have expressed
concern about a possible shortfall of critical skills because
downsizing has resulted in a significant imbalance in the shape,
skills, and experience of its civilian workforce and more than 50
percent of the civilian workforce becoming eligible to retire in the
next 5 years. As a result, the orderly transfer of DOD‘s institutional
knowledge is at risk.
These factors, coupled with the Secretary of Defense‘s significant
transformation initiatives, make it imperative for DOD to strategically
manage its civilian workforce within a total force perspective, which
includes civilian personnel as well as active duty and reserve military
personnel and contractor personnel. This strategic management approach
will enable DOD to accomplish its mission by putting the right people,
in the right place, at the right time and at a reasonable cost.
In April 2002, DOD published a strategic plan for civilian
personnel.[Footnote 1] In response to your request, we reviewed
strategic planning efforts for civilian personnel at DOD and selected
defense components, including the four military services and two
defense agencies (the Defense Contract Management Agency and the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service).[Footnote 2] Specifically, we
determined (1) the extent to which top-level leadership is involved in
strategic planning for civilian personnel and (2) whether strategic
plans for civilian personnel are aligned with the overall mission,
results oriented, and based on data about the future civilian
workforce. In addition, we determined whether the strategic plans for
civilian personnel are integrated with plans for military personnel or
sourcing initiatives.[Footnote 3] (See app. I for a description of our
scope and methodology.):
Results in Brief:
Until recently, top-level leadership[Footnote 4] at the department and
the component levels has not been extensively involved in strategic
planning for civilian personnel; however, civilian personnel issues
appear to be a higher priority for top-level leaders today than in the
past. Although DOD began downsizing its civilian workforce more than a
decade ago, top-level leadership has not, until recently, developed and
directed reforms to improve planning for civilian personnel. With the
exception of the Army and the Air Force, neither the department nor the
components in our review had developed strategic plans to address
challenges affecting the civilian workforce until 2001or 2002, which is
indicative of civilian personnel issues being an emerging priority. In
addition, top-level leaders in the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the
Defense Contract Management Agency, and the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service have been or are working in partnership with their
civilian human capital professionals to develop and implement civilian
strategic plans; such partnership is increasing in the Army and not as
evident in the Navy. Moreover, DOD‘s issuance of its departmentwide
civilian human capital plan[Footnote 5] begins to lay a foundation for
strategically addressing civilian human capital issues; however, DOD
has not provided guidance on aligning the component-level plans with
the department-level plan to obtain a coordinated focus to carry out
the Secretary of Defense‘s transformation initiatives in an effective
manner. High-level leadership attention is critical to developing and
directing reforms because, without the overarching perspective of such
leaders, reforms may not be sufficiently focused on mission
accomplishment, and without their support, reforms may not receive the
resources needed for successful implementation.
The human capital strategic plans we reviewed for the most part were
not fully aligned with the overall mission of the department or
respective components, results oriented, or based on data about the
future civilian workforce. For example, the goals and objectives
contained in strategic plans for civilian personnel were not explicitly
aligned with the overarching missions of the organizations.
Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether DOD‘s and the
components‘ strategic goals are properly focused on mission
achievement. In addition, none of the plans contained results-oriented
performance measures that could provide meaningful data critical to
measuring the results of their civilian human capital initiatives
(i.e., programs, policies, and processes). Thus, DOD and the components
cannot gauge the extent to which their human capital initiatives
contribute to achieving their organizations‘ mission. Also, for the
most part, the civilian human capital plans in our review did not
contain detailed information on the skills and competencies needed to
successfully accomplish future missions. Without information about what
is needed in the future workforce, it is unclear if DOD and its
components are designing and funding initiatives that are efficient and
effective in accomplishing the mission, and ultimately contributing to
force readiness.
Lastly, the civilian strategic plans we reviewed did not address how
the civilian workforce will be integrated with their military
counterparts or with sourcing initiatives. At the department level, the
strategic plan for civilian personnel was prepared separately from
corresponding plans for military personnel and not integrated to form a
seamless and comprehensive strategy and did not address how DOD plans
to link its human capital initiatives with its sourcing plans, such as
efforts to outsource non-core responsibilities. For the most part, at
the component level, plans set goals to integrate planning for the
total workforce, to include civilian, military, and contractor
personnel. The Air Force and the Army, in particular, have begun to
integrate their strategic planning efforts for civilian and military
personnel, taking contractor responsibilities into consideration.
Without integrated planning, goals for shaping and deploying civilian,
military, and contractor personnel may not be consistent with and
support each other. Consequently, DOD and its components may not have
the workforce with the skills and competencies needed to accomplish
tasks critical to readiness and mission success.
We are making recommendations to the Secretary of Defense to strengthen
civilian human capital planning, including integration with military
personnel and sourcing initiatives. We received comments from the
Department of Defense too late to include them in the final report.
Background:
DOD‘s civilian workforce has undergone a sizeable reduction but remains
critical to DOD‘s mission success. Strategic human capital management
provides a framework for maximizing the value added by the civilian
workforce through aligning its civilian human capital initiatives to
support DOD‘s overarching mission.
Current Size, Distribution, and Changing Roles of DOD‘s Civilian
Workforce:
Since the end of the cold war, DOD has undergone sizable reductions in
its civilian workforce. Between fiscal years 1989 and 2002, DOD‘s
civilian workforce shrank from 1,075,437 to 670,166-about a 38 percent
reduction.[Footnote 6] DOD accomplished this downsizing without
proactively shaping the civilian workforce to have the skills and
competencies needed to accomplish future DOD missions. As a result,
today‘s workforce is older and more experienced, but 58 percent will be
eligible for early or regular retirement in the next 3 years. Moreover,
the President‘s fiscal year 2003 budget request projects that DOD‘s
civilian workforce will be further reduced by about 55,000 through
fiscal year 2007. As shown in figure 1, at the end of fiscal year 2002,
the military departments employed 85 percent of DOD‘s civilians; 15
percent were employed by the other defense organizations.
Figure 1: Civilian Employment by DOD Component as of September 30, 2002
(670,166 Direct Hires):
[See PDF for image]
Note: GAO‘s analysis of DOD data.
[A] Other defense organizations include defense agencies, DOD field
activities, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Office of the Inspector General,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
[B] Department of the Navy includes Navy and Marine Corps personnel.
[End of figure]
Furthermore, the 2000 Defense Science Board Task Force report[Footnote
7] observed that the rapid downsizing during the 1990s led to major
changes in the roles of and balance between DOD‘s civilian and military
personnel and contractor personnel. The roles of the civilians and
private-sector workforce are expanding, including participation in
combat functions--as a virtual presence on the battlefield--and in
support duties on both the domestic and international scenes. These
changing roles call for greater attention to shaping an effective
civilian workforce to meet future demands within a total force
perspective. This perspective includes a clear understanding of the
roles and characteristics of DOD‘s civilian and military personnel and
the most appropriate source of
capabilities--military, civilian, or contractor.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness is the
principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary of Defense for total force management as it relates to
readiness, personnel requirements and management, and other matters.
The Under Secretary‘s office develops policies, plans, and programs for
recruitment, training, equal opportunity, compensation, recognition,
discipline, and separation of all DOD personnel, including active,
reserve, and retired military and civilian personnel. This office also
analyzes the total force structure as it relates to quantitative and
qualitative military and civilian personnel requirements. Within this
office is the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Civilian Personnel Policy, which formulates plans, policies, and
programs to manage the DOD civilian workforce. Policy leadership and
human resource programs and systems are provided through the Civilian
Personnel Management Service.
Strategic Human Capital Management:
Strategic human capital management involves long-term planning that is
fact based, focused on program results and mission accomplishment, and
incorporates merit principles. Studies by several organizations,
including GAO, have shown that highly successful performance
organizations in both the public and private sectors employ effective
strategic management approaches as a means to prepare their workforce
to meet present and future mission requirements as well as achieve
organizational success. In our 2001 High-Risk Series and Performance
and Accountability Series and again in 2003, we designated strategic
human capital as a high-risk area and stated that serious human capital
shortfalls are threatening the ability of many federal agencies to
economically, efficiently, and effectively perform their
missions.[Footnote 8] We noted that federal agencies, including DOD and
its components, needed to continue to improve the development of
integrated human capital strategies that support the organization‘s
strategic and programmatic goals.
In March 2002, we issued an exposure draft of our model of strategic
human capital management to help federal agency leaders effectively
lead and manage their people.[Footnote 9] The model is designed to help
agency leaders effectively use their people and determine how well they
integrate human capital considerations into daily decision making and
planning for the program results they seek to achieve. Similarly, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) have developed tools that are being used to assess
human capital management efforts. In October 2001, OMB developed
standards for success for strategic human capital management--one of
five governmentwide reform initiatives in the President‘s Management
Agenda. In December 2001, OPM released a human capital scorecard to
assist agencies in responding to the OMB standards for success; later,
in October 2002, OMB and OPM developed--in collaboration with GAO--
revised standards for success. To assist agencies in responding to the
revised standards, OPM released the Human Capital Assessment and
Accountability Framework. In April 2002, the final report of the
Commercial Activities Panel,[Footnote 10] mandated by Congress and
chaired by the Comptroller General, sought to elevate attention to
human capital considerations in making sourcing decisions. Federal
organizations are increasingly concerned with sourcing issues because
they are being held accountable for addressing another President‘s
Management Agenda initiative that calls for determining their core
competencies and deciding how to build internal capacity or contract
out for services.
Leadership Involvement in Strategic Planning for Civilian Personnel Not
Extensive in the Past, but Is Increasing:
Until recently, top-level leadership at the department and component
levels has not been extensively involved in strategic planning for
civilian personnel; however, it is of higher priority to top-level
leadership today than it has been in the past. With the exception of
the Air Force, leadership at the component level has not been
proactive, but is becoming more involved in responding to the need for
strategic planning, providing guidance, or supporting and working in
partnership with civilian human capital professionals.
We have previously emphasized that high-performing organizations need
senior leaders who are drivers of continuous improvement and also
stimulate and support efforts to integrate human capital approaches
with organizational goals. There is no substitute for the committed
involvement of top leadership.[Footnote 11]
Department-level Leadership Involvement in Strategic Planning for
Civilian Personnel Has Increased in Recent Years:
Strategic planning for the Department of Defense civilian workforce is
becoming a higher priority among DOD‘s senior leadership, as evidenced
by direction given in 2001 in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and
the Defense Planning Guidance and by the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to develop a civilian and military human
resources strategic plan. We previously reported that a demonstrated
commitment to change by agency leaders is perhaps the most important
element of successful management reform and that leaders demonstrate
this commitment by developing and directing reform.[Footnote 12] OMB
and OPM have similarly advocated the need for top leadership to fully
commit to strategic human capital planning. The Defense Science Board
reported in 2000 that senior DOD civilian and military leaders have
devoted ’far less“ attention to civilian personnel challenges than the
challenges of maintaining an effective military force.[Footnote 13]
In 1992, during the initial stages of downsizing, DOD officials voiced
concerns about what they perceived to be a lack of attention to
identifying and maintaining a balanced basic level of skills needed to
maintain
in-house capabilities as part of the defense industrial base. In our
2000 testimony, Strategic Approach Should Guide DOD Civilian Workforce
Management,[Footnote 14] we testified that DOD‘s approach to civilian
force reductions was less oriented toward shaping the makeup of the
workforce than was the approach it used to manage its military
downsizing. In its approach to civilian workforce downsizing, the
department focused on mitigating adverse effects (such as nonvoluntary
reductions-in-force) through retirements, attrition, hiring freezes,
and base closures. (See
app. II for a time line of key events related to DOD‘s civilian
workforce downsizing.):
DOD initiated a more strategic approach when it published its first
strategic plan for civilian personnel (Civilian Human Resources
Strategic Plan, 2002-2008) in April 2002. In developing the
departmentwide plan, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness made efforts to work in conjunction with
defense components‘ civilian human capital communities by inviting
their leaders to contribute to working groups and special meetings and
reviewing the services‘ civilian human capital strategic plans.
However, DOD has yet to provide guidance on how to integrate component-
level civilian human capital strategic plans with its departmentwide
civilian strategic plan. DOD officials said that full integration would
be difficult because of the wide array of human capital services and
mission support provided at the component level. However, one of the
lessons learned in our previous work on strategic planning in the
defense acquisition workforce was the need for leadership to provide
guidance for planning efforts.[Footnote 15] Without guidance, defense
components may not be able to effectively function together in support
of the departmentwide plan. For example, DOD‘s goal to provide
management systems and departmentwide force planning tools may not be
fully or efficiently achieved without a coordinated effort among all
defense components. The component-level plans we reviewed included
goals, objectives, or initiatives to improve analysis or forecasting of
workforce requirements, but they did not indicate coordination with the
departmentwide effort or with one another.
Civilian human capital planning has emerged as an issue in another
DOD-related forum for top leaders. In November 2002, the Human
Resources Subcommittee of the Defense Business Practice Implementation
Board released its report to DOD‘s Senior Executive Council
recommending, among other things, the establishment of a ’Human Capital
Transformation Team“ to help implement agreed upon changes to transform
human capital management in DOD‘s civilian workforce.[Footnote 16]
Component-level Leadership Involvement in Strategic Planning for
Civilian Personnel Varies:
Leadership participation in strategic planning varies among the defense
components we reviewed. High-level leaders in the Air Force, the Marine
Corps, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) have provided the impetus for
strategic planning and are partnering with civilian human capital
professionals to develop and implement their strategic plans. Such
partnership is increasing in the Army and not as evident in the
Department of the Navy.
Air Force Leadership Increasingly Proactive on Strategic Planning for
Civilian Personnel:
Since the mid-1990s, Air Force leadership has been relatively active in
strategic planning for civilian human capital. In 1999, high-level Air
Force leadership recognized the need for strategic human capital
planning to deal with the significant downsizing that had occurred over
the last several years. For the civilian workforce, this recognition
culminated in the publication in 2000 of the Civilian Personnel
Management Improvement Strategy White Paper; the Air Force produced an
update of this document in 2002.[Footnote 17] Air Force leadership also
has recognized that it must further enhance its efforts with greater
attention to integrated, total force planning. Air Force leadership has
demonstrated this commitment by incorporating civilian human capital
leaders into broader Air Force strategic planning and resource
allocation processes. Air Force leaders created a human resources board
(the Air Force Personnel Board of Directors) composed of 24 senior
civilian and military leaders. The board convenes semi-annually to
address military and civilian human capital issues in an integrated,
total force context. It is fostering integrated planning with the
intent of developing an overarching strategy--holistic, total force
strategy--designed to meet Air Force workforce demands for the present
and the future and intended to encompass the needs of active, reserve,
civilian, and contractor personnel by 2004. Furthermore, the Air Force
began to allocate resources for civilian human capital initiatives in
fiscal year 2002 due to the strong support from Air Force leaders.
Strategic Planning for Civilian Personnel Is an Emerging Priority in
the Marine Corps, DCMA, DFAS, and the Army:
In recent years, strategic human capital planning has generally
received increasing top-level leadership support in the Marine Corps,
DCMA, DFAS, and the Army. A Marine Corps official told us that the
Commandant of the Marine Corps and other top Marine Corps leaders
became involved with civilian human capital strategic planning in 2001.
The Commandant, in October 2002, endorsed the civilian human capital
strategic plan, which outlines the Corps‘ vision, intent, core values,
expected outcomes, and strategic goals for civilian human capital.
Officials are currently developing an implementation plan, which is
expected to contain specific objectives, milestones, points of
accountability, resource requirements, and performance measures. DCMA
began strategic human capital planning in 2000 in response to guidance
from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, and issued its first human capital strategic
plan in 2002. DCMA officials told us that their human resources
director is a member of DCMA‘s broader executive management board and
that human capital--civilian and military--is a standing agenda issue
at the board‘s monthly meetings. DFAS officials told us their director
includes human capital professionals in DFAS‘s management decision-
making processes. Further, human capital is a key element in the DFAS
agencywide strategic plan. DFAS initiated its human capital strategic
planning efforts in 2002, but it has not yet published its plan.
Within the Army, top-level leadership involvement in strategic planning
efforts for civilian human capital has been limited but increasing. The
bulk of such efforts has instead originated in the Army‘s civilian
human capital community. The Army‘s civilian human capital community
recognized the need for strategic civilian human capital planning in
the mid-1990s and developed strategic plans. The Army‘s civilian human
capital community also initiated, in 2000, an assessment of the
civilian workforce situation and developed new concepts for human
resource systems and workforce planning.[Footnote 18] Since 2002, Army
top-level leadership has become more explicitly involved in their
civilian human capital community‘s initiatives. For example, in January
2003, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army formally endorsed the Army‘s
human capital strategic plan. Also, in January 2003, Army top leaders
endorsed the recommendations of a study to improve the development and
training of the Army‘s civilian workforce, which followed three
companion studies with similar objectives for military personnel.
Additionally, as of March 2003, Army top leaders accepted the rationale
and validated the requirement for another initiative to centrally
manage senior civilian leaders by basing selection and retention
decisions on long-term Army needs rather than on the short-term needs
of local commanders. The Army plans to establish a management office to
begin this effort in fiscal year 2004. Army officials told us that all
of these efforts have not yet been fully funded. Without the commitment
and support of Army top leaders, the Army‘s civilian human capital
community has limited authority to carry out reforms on its own and
limited ability to ensure that its reforms are appropriately focused on
mission accomplishment.
In addition, Army civilian human capital officials‘ contributions to
broader strategic planning efforts have been increasing. Specifically,
officials told us that while the Army‘s civilian human capital
community has a voice in the Army‘s resource allocation deliberations,
getting civilian personnel issues included in top-level Army planning
and budgeting documents is sometimes challenging. Within the past year,
however, civilian human resource issues have been included in the Army-
wide strategic readiness system (a balanced scorecard) and an Army
well-being initiative (balancing the demands and expectations of the
Army and its people).
Navy Leadership Involvement in Strategic Planning for Civilian
Personnel Is Limited:
Within the Department of the Navy, top-level leadership involvement in
strategic planning efforts for civilian human capital has been limited.
Department of the Navy leadership invested in studies related to
strategic planning for its civilian workforce, but it has been slow to
develop a strategic plan for its civilian human capital. Two documents
published in August 2000 and May 2001 reported the results of work
sponsored by a personnel task force established by the Secretary of the
Navy to examine facets of the Department of the Navy‘s human resources
management. One, a study conducted and published by the National
Academy of Public Administration‘s Center for Human Resources
Management, focused on Department of the Navy civilian personnel
issues; the other reported on the rest of the findings of the task
force.[Footnote 19] Department of the Navy human capital officials told
us that they have not implemented the recommendations of those studies
because (1) many require new legislation and (2) the studies were
future oriented, looking as far ahead as 2020, and it will take time to
implement the recommendations. These officials said that although the
Department of the Navy had not yet developed a strategic plan for its
civilian human capital, the Navy major commands (referred to as
claimants) did their own human capital strategic planning as necessary,
adding that they believed these efforts were sufficient. More recently,
however, these officials told us that they are developing (on their own
initiative) a strategic plan for the Department of the Navy‘s civilian
workforce.
In addition, the Navy has very recently undertaken other strategic
planning efforts. In July 2002, the Navy established a new organization
to develop a consolidated approach to civilian workforce management
that centers on 21 core competency functional areas. Navy officials
view this recent initiative, which involves senior military and
civilian leaders, as the first step in developing a total force concept
(civilian, active and reserve military, and contract employees). In
March 2003, the Department of the Navy established (1) a new position
that will provide a liaison for the Navy and Marine Corps strategic
planning processes and (2) a Force Management Oversight Counsel, co-
chaired by top Navy and Marine Corps officials, which will develop an
overarching framework for Navy and Marine Corps strategic planning.
With the looming uncertainty of continued downsizing, anticipated
retirements, and increased competitive sourcing of non-core functions,
strategic planning for the civilian workforce will grow in importance.
If high-level leaders do not provide the committed and inspired
attention to address civilian human capital issues (that is, establish
it as an organizational priority and empower and partner with their
human capital professionals in developing strategic plans for civilian
human capital), then future decisions about the civilian workforce may
not have a sound basis.
Key Elements of Strategic Plans for DOD Civilian Personnel Not in
Place:
For the most part, the strategic plans we reviewed lacked such key
elements as mission alignment, results-oriented performance measures,
and data-driven workforce planning.[Footnote 20] Mission alignment is
demonstrated by clearly showing how the civilian workforce contributes
to accomplishing an organization‘s overarching mission. It is also
evident in descriptions of how the achievement of human capital
initiatives will improve an organization‘s performance in meeting its
overarching mission, goals, and objectives. Results-oriented
performance measures enable an organization to determine the effect of
human capital programs and policies on mission accomplishment. Finally,
data on the needed knowledge, skills, competencies, size, and
deployment of the workforce to pursue an organization‘s missions allow
it to put the right people, in the right place, at the right time. The
interrelationships of these three key elements are shown in figure 2.
Without adequate alignment, performance measures, and workforce data,
DOD and its components cannot be certain their human capital efforts
are properly focused on mission accomplishment.
Figure 2: Relationships among Several Key Elements of a Human Capital
Strategic Plan:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Previously, we emphasized that high-performing organizations align
their human capital initiatives with mission and goal accomplishment.
Organizations‘ strategic human capital planning must also be results
oriented and data driven, including, for example, information on the
appropriate number and location of personnel needed and their key
competencies and skills. High-performing organizations also stay alert
to emerging mission demands and human capital challenges and reevaluate
their human capital initiatives through the use of valid, reliable, and
current data.[Footnote 21]
Strategic Plans for Civilian Personnel Are Not
Mission Aligned and Results Oriented:
The human capital goals and objectives contained in strategic plans for
civilian personnel were not, for the most part, explicitly aligned with
the overarching missions of the organizations we reviewed. Moreover,
none of the plans fully reflected a results-oriented approach to
assessing progress toward mission achievement. Human capital strategic
plans should be aligned with (i.e., consistent with and supportive of)
an organization‘s overarching mission. Alignment between ’published and
approved human capital planning documents“ and an organization‘s
overarching mission is advised in OPM‘s Human Capital Assessment and
Accountability Framework. With regard to assessing progress, programs
can be more effectively measured if their goals and objectives are
outcome-oriented (i.e., focused on results or impact) rather than
output-oriented (i.e., focused on activities and processes), in keeping
with the principles of the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA). Congress anticipated that GPRA would be institutionalized and
practiced throughout the federal government; federal agencies are
expected to develop performance plans that are consistent with the
act‘s approach.
Based on the above criteria, we analyzed the human capital strategic
plans that five of the seven organizations in our review have
published[Footnote 22] for the following:
* Human capital goals and objectives that explicitly describe how the
civilian workforce helps achieve the overarching mission, goals, and
objectives.
* Results-oriented measures that track the success of the human capital
initiatives in contributing to mission achievement.
All of the civilian human capital plans we reviewed referred to their
respective organizations‘ mission; however, the human capital goals,
objectives, and initiatives did not explicitly link or describe how the
civilian workforce efforts would contribute to the organizations‘
overarching mission achievement, and more importantly how the extent of
contribution to mission achievement would be measured. Aspects of
DCMA‘s plan, however, demonstrate alignment by including a general
explanation of the overarching mission inclusive of human capital
goals, objectives, and initiatives that further define how its civilian
workforce contributes to achieving the overarching mission. For
example:
* DCMA‘s overarching mission is to ’Provide customer-focused
acquisition support and contract management services to ensure
warfighter readiness, 24/7, worldwide.“ DCMA‘s human capital plan
demonstrates the alignment of the agency‘s workforce by stating that
the agency will accomplish its overarching mission by ’Partner[ing], or
strategically team[ing] with customers to develop better solutions, and
ensur[ing] warfighter success on all missions“ and ’Providing expertise
and knowledge throughout the acquisition life cycle, from cradle to
grave; from factory to foxhole and beyond“.[Footnote 23]
* DCMA‘s plan contains one human capital goal, among other agency-wide
goals, directed at aligning workforce efforts with mission
accomplishment. The goal is to enable DCMA people to excel by building
and maintaining a work environment that (1) attracts,
(2) develops, and (3) sustains a quality workforce.
* Several objectives and initiatives in DCMA‘s plan demonstrate a link
to this human capital goal and to the overarching mission. Examples of
these initiatives include determining ways to (1) making DCMA
employment attractive, (2) establishing a professional development
framework that is integrated and competency-based as well as developing
an advanced leadership program, and (3) sustaining a quality workforce
by ensuring recognition and awards to
high-performing personnel. This alignment of DCMA‘s workforce,
initiatives, and goals to the overarching mission helps DCMA ensure
that its civilian workforce has the necessary expertise and knowledge
to provide customer-focused acquisition support and contract management
services.
The other plans in our review generally did not demonstrate this degree
of alignment. For example, in the Army civilian human capital strategic
plan, four of the six human resource goals are more narrowly directed
toward the role played by the human resource community and only
indirectly tie the civilian workforce to the achievement of the Army‘s
overall mission. However, two goals--“systematic planning that
forecasts and achieves the civilian work force necessary to support the
Army‘s mission“ and ’diversity through opportunity“[Footnote 24] --link
more explicitly to the Army‘s overarching mission. Also, DOD‘s
departmentwide civilian human capital plan refers to the overarching
mission by including broad references to DOD‘s overarching strategic
plan. However, the plan is silent about what role DOD‘s civilian
workforce is expected to play in achievement of the mission. The plan
recognizes the need for aligning the civilian workforce with the
overarching mission by proposing to develop a human resource management
accountability system to guarantee the effective use of human resources
in achieving DOD‘s overarching mission.
Moreover, none of the plans in our review contained results-oriented
goals and measures. For example, DOD‘s strategic goal to ’promote
focused, well-funded recruiting to hire the best talent available“ is
not expressed in measurable terms (i.e., it does not define ’focused,
well-funded, and best talent available“), and the measures for this
goal are process oriented
(i.e., developing or publishing a policy or strategy; reviewing
programs) rather than results oriented. DOD‘s plan, however, indicates
that mission achievement measures are being developed. At the component
level, the Army, in particular, has developed metrics related to its
personnel transaction processes; although these measures are important,
they are not focused on measuring outcomes related to mission
accomplishment. Army officials recognize the importance of relating
outcomes to mission accomplishment and are presently working to develop
such measures. Without results-oriented measures, it is difficult for
an organization to assess the effectiveness of its human capital
initiatives in supporting its overarching mission, goals, and
objectives.
Officials at DOD and the defense components in our review told us they
recognize the importance of alignment and results-oriented measures in
strategic human capital planning. In fact, the Air Force has recently
undertaken an initiative to develop a planning framework aligning
strategy, vision, execution, measurement, and process transformation.
Many human capital officials we spoke with noted they have only
recently begun to transition from their past role of functional
experts--focused primarily on personnel transactions--to partners with
top leadership in strategically planning for their civilian workforce.
In their new role, they expect to make improvements in strategically
managing civilian personnel, including identifying results-oriented
performance measures in future iterations of their plans. Until such
elements are in place, it is difficult to determine if the human
capital programs DOD and its components are funding are consistent with
overarching missions or if they are effectively leading to mission
accomplishment.
Strategic Plans for Civilian Personnel Generally Lack Data on Workforce
Needs:
The civilian human capital strategic plans for DOD and its components
include goals focused on improving their human capital initiatives, but
only two components include workforce data that supported the need for
those particular initiatives. GAO and others[Footnote 25] have reported
that it is important to analyze future workforce needs to (1) assist
organizations in tailoring initiatives for recruiting, developing, and
retaining personnel to meet its future needs and (2) provide the
rationale and justification for obtaining resources and, if necessary,
additional authority to carry out those initiatives. We also stated
that to build the right workforce to achieve strategic goals, it is
essential that organizations determine the critical skills and
competencies needed to successfully implement the programs and
processes associated with those goals. To do so, three types of data
are needed: (1) what is available--both the current workforce
characteristics[Footnote 26] and future availability, (2) what is
needed--the critical workforce characteristics needed in the future,
and (3) what is the difference between what will be available and what
will be needed--the gap. Without this information, DOD cannot structure
its future workforce to support the Secretary of Defense‘s initiatives
or mitigate the risk of shortfalls in critical personnel when pending
civilian retirements occur.
Of the five organizations in our review that had civilian human capital
strategic plans,[Footnote 27] two--the Air Force and DCMA--included
some information about the future workforce and indicated the gaps to
be addressed by its civilian human capital initiatives. The Air Force‘s
plan includes a chart that illustrates, in terms of years of federal
service, the current workforce compared to a 1989 baseline (prior to
the downsizing of its civilian workforce) and a target workforce for
fiscal year 2005. This information was generally based on data that
were readily available but considered to be a less-than-adequate
indicator for level of experience, and it is not clear how the target
workforce data were derived. According to the Air Force, its analysis
illustrated the shortfall in the number of civilians with less than 10
years of service when compared to the Air Force‘s long-term
requirements. Using this and other analyses, the Air Force initially
developed workforce-shaping activities in four
areas--accession planning, force development, retention/separation
management, and enabling activities, which included 27 separate
initiatives.
DCMA‘s plan describes the agency‘s workforce planning methodology,
which focuses on identifying gaps between its current and future
workforce. DCMA‘s strategic workforce planning team analyzes
quantitative data on the current workforce and employs an interview
protocol to gather and analyze information from DCMA managers and
subject matter experts pertaining to future work and workforce
requirements.[Footnote 28] According to DCMA, this methodology allows
it to link the desired distribution of positions, occupational series,
and skills to organizational outcomes, processes, and customer
requirements and to DOD‘s transformation guidance, goals, and
initiatives. Although DCMA has not completely identified or quantified
its future workforce requirements, it identified the following:
requirements for new technical skills, especially software acquisition
and integration; upgrading general skills and maintaining the existing
skill base; correcting imbalances in geographic locations; requirements
for hiring about 990 employees per year through 2009; and obtaining
additional positions to support anticipated increasing procurements.
In contrast to the Air Force and DCMA plans, the DOD, Army, and Marine
Corps plans lack information about future workforce needs. For example,
DOD‘s civilian human capital plan contains data on those civilians
eligible for retirement by grade level and by job category. However,
the plan does not address key characteristics such as skills and
competencies that will be needed in the future workforce to support
changes being undertaken by DOD.[Footnote 29] Without this information
and a methodology to analyze and identify the gaps that exist between
what will be available and what will be needed, it is not clear that
the human capital initiatives in DOD‘s plan will result in the desired
future workforce.
All of the plans we reviewed acknowledge strategic workforce planning
shortfalls by setting goals or initiatives to improve in this area. For
example, DOD‘s plan includes a goal to obtain management systems and
tools that support total force planning and informed decision making.
DOD has begun adopting the Army‘s Civilian Forecasting System and the
Workforce Analysis Support System for departmentwide use, which will
enable it to project the future workforce by occupational series and
grade structure. However, the systems (which are based on a regression
analysis of historical data) are not capable of determining the size
and skill competencies of the civilian workforce needed in the future.
Also, DOD has not yet determined specifically how this new analytic
capability will be integrated into programmatic decision-making
processes. DOD officials stated that its first step was to purchase the
equipment and software, which was accomplished in 2002. DOD is now
analyzing users‘ needs. As of December 2002, DOD officials were testing
the systems, but they expressed concerns that the Army systems may not
serve the needs of a complex and diverse organization such as DOD.
Strategic Plans for Civilian Personnel Not Yet Integrated with Plans
for Military Personnel or Sourcing Initiatives:
The civilian human capital strategic plans we reviewed did not address
how the civilian workforce would be integrated with their military
counterparts or sourcing initiatives to accomplish DOD‘s mission. The
2001 QDR states that future operations will not only be joint but also
depend upon the total force--including civilian personnel as well as
active duty and reserve personnel. The QDR also emphasizes that DOD
will focus its ’owned“ resources in areas that contribute directly to
warfighting and that it would continue to take steps to outsource and
shed its non-core responsibilities. The 2000 Defense Science Board Task
Force report states that DOD needs to undertake deliberate and
integrated force shaping of the civilian and military forces, address
human capital challenges from a total force perspective, and base
decisions to convert functions from military to civilian or to
outsource functions to contractors on an integrated human resource
plan.[Footnote 30] In addition, the National Academy of Public
Administration, in its report on the Navy civilian workforce 2020,
notes that as more work is privatized and more traditionally military
tasks require support of civilian or contractor personnel, a more
unified approach to force planning and management will be necessary;
serious shortfalls in any one of the force elements will damage mission
accomplishment.[Footnote 31] The Academy‘s report also states that the
trend towards greater reliance on contractors necessitates a critical
mass of civilian personnel expertise to protect the government‘s
interest and ensure effective oversight of contractors‘ work. Further,
the 2002 Commercial Activities Panel final report indicates that
sourcing and human capital policies should be inextricably linked
together, and it calls for federal sourcing policies to be ’consistent
with human capital practices designed to attract motivate, retain, and
reward a high performing workforce.“[Footnote 32]
DOD‘s overall human capital strategy, however, consists of three
separate plans: one for civilians, one for military personnel, and one
for quality of life issues for servicemembers and their families. DOD
has not integrated the contractor workforce into these plans. Although
DOD officials maintain that these plans are intended to complement each
other, the plans are not integrated to form a seamless and
comprehensive strategy. The civilian plan was prepared separately from
the other two military plans with little direct involvement of key
stakeholders, such as representatives from military personnel and
manpower requirements communities.
Although not reflected in its departmentwide civilian human capital
strategic plan, DOD acknowledged--in its response to the President‘s
Management Agenda to accomplish workforce restructuring,
reorganizations, delayering, outsourcing, and reengineered and
streamlined processes--that these efforts could only be accomplished
through coordinating and integrating civilian and military components.
The departmentwide civilian plan includes a longer-term objective to
assess the need for and the capabilities of automated information
management tools to primarily integrate civilian and military personnel
and transaction data. We believe these tools can also provide
information for planning and analysis, but they may not provide DOD
with the information needed to proactively shape the total DOD
workforce in response to current changes (i.e., the Secretary‘s
transformation of the department, increasing joint operations, and
competitive sourcing initiatives) because (1) contractor data are not
included and (2) the projected date for accomplishing this objective,
September 2008, may be too late to effect near-term decisions. In
addition, officials in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness recognize that integration of the military and
civilian plans is important and are developing an umbrella document
that will encompass all three components of the human capital strategy,
but it has not established a time frame for completion.
Furthermore, DOD‘s civilian human capital strategic plan does not
address the role of civilian vis-à-vis contractor personnel or how DOD
plans to link its human capital initiatives with its sourcing plans,
such as efforts to outsource non-core responsibilities. The plan notes
that contractors are part of the unique mix of DOD resources, but none
of the goals and objectives discusses how DOD will shape its future
workforce in a total force (civilian, military, and contractor)
context.[Footnote 33] We believe that effective civilian workforce
planning cannot be accomplished in isolation from planning for military
personnel or sourcing initiatives. As the Commercial Activities Panel
report notes, it is particularly important that sourcing strategies
support, not inhibit, the government organization‘s efforts to recruit
and retain a high-performing in-house workforce.[Footnote 34] We also
noted in our High Risk report that careful and thoughtful workforce
planning efforts are critical to making intelligent competitive
sourcing decisions.[Footnote 35]
At the service level, the Air Force‘s strategic plans for civilian
personnel were not initially developed in a total force context, but
the current plans acknowledge the need to integrate strategic planning
for civilians with their military counterparts, as well as taking into
account contractors. For example, the Air Force has set a goal and
taken steps to integrate planning for active, reserve, civilian, and
contractor personnel by 2004.[Footnote 36] Air Force officials stated
concerns about the significant budgetary consequences when planning
does not take place in a total force context. For example, when
civilian or contractor personnel perform functions previously conducted
by military personnel, the defense component involved must obtain
additional funds because payment for civilians and contractors cannot
come from military personnel funds.[Footnote 37] The Air Force
estimates that these costs could be $10 billion to $15 billion over the
next 5 years.
Although a proposed time frame is not provided, the Marine Corps‘
civilian plan states the need to forecast military and civilian levels
and workforce requirements based on strategic mission drivers,
stratified workload demand, and business process changes; the
requirements for its civilian marines will take into account the
appropriate redistribution of work among the military, civilian, and
contractor communities.[Footnote 38] The Army‘s civilian human capital
plan states that it will have to acquire, train, and retain its total
force in an operational environment that will place different demands
on human capital management. The Army‘s human capital community has an
objective to support the Army-wide ’Third Wave“ initiative, which
focuses on privatization of non-core functions to better allocate
scarce resources to core functions.[Footnote 39] (The Department of the
Navy does not yet have a civilian human capital strategic plan.):
The defense agencies we reviewed, which have relatively few military
personnel compared to the military services, are taking or plan to take
an integrated approach to strategic planning for their civilian and
military workforces, but they do not indicate how they will integrate
these efforts with their sourcing initiatives. DCMA‘s human capital
strategic plan includes both civilian and military personnel. For
example, the plan includes a goal to address the underassignment of
military personnel,[Footnote 40] because their absence further
compounds the difficulties caused by the downsizing of civilian
positions and the increasing workload. DFAS is planning to include both
civilian and military personnel in the human capital strategic plan
that it is developing. Like DCMA, military personnel are a small but
important part of the overall DFAS workforce, but they are projected to
be less available in the future. For example, the Air Force has
announced that it is reducing its military personnel presence at DFAS
over the next several years.
Without integrated planning, goals for shaping and deploying military,
civilian, and contractor personnel may not be consistent with and
support each other. Consequently, DOD may not have the workforce it
needs to accomplish tasks critical to readiness and mission success.
Conclusions:
DOD has made progress in establishing a foundation for strategically
addressing civilian human capital issues by developing its
departmentwide civilian human capital strategic plan. However, the
alignment of human capital goals with the overarching mission is
unclear in DOD‘s and the components‘ strategic plans for civilian human
capital, and results-oriented performance measures linked to mission
accomplishment are lacking. Without these key elements, DOD and its
components may miss opportunities to more effectively and efficiently
increase workforce productivity. Also, without greater commitment from
and the support of top leaders, civilian human capital professionals in
DOD and the defense components may design strategic planning efforts
that are not appropriately focused on mission accomplishment and that
do not have adequate support to carry out.
Moreover, DOD top leadership has not provided its components with
guidance on how to align component-level strategic plans with the
departmentwide plan. Without this alignment, DOD‘s and its components‘
planning may lack the focus and coordination needed (1) to carry out
the Secretary of Defense‘s transformation initiatives in an effective
manner and (2) to mitigate risks of not having human capital ready to
respond to national security events at home and abroad.
Although DOD and component officials recognize the critical need for
ensuring that the future workforce be efficiently deployed across their
organizations and have the right skills and competencies needed to
accomplish their missions, their strategic plans lack the information
needed to identify gaps in skills and competencies. As a result, DOD
and its components may not have a sound basis for funding decisions
related to human capital initiatives and may not be able to put the
right people in the right place at the right time to achieve the
mission.
Furthermore, as personnel reductions continue and DOD carries out its
transformation initiatives, integrating planning in a total force
context--as mentioned in the QDR--becomes imperative to ensure that
scarce resources are most effectively used. However, military and
civilian human capital strategic plans--both DOD‘s and the components‘-
-have yet to be integrated with each other. Furthermore, the civilian
plans do not address how human capital policies will complement, not
conflict with, the department-level or component-level sourcing plans,
such as competitive sourcing efforts.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve human capital strategic planning for the DOD civilian
workforce, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to undertake the
following:
* Improve future revisions and updates to the DOD departmentwide
strategic human capital plan by more explicitly aligning with DOD‘s
overarching mission, including results-oriented performance measures,
and focusing on future workforce needs. To accomplish this, the
revisions and updates should be developed in collaboration with top DOD
and component officials and civilian and military human capital
leaders.
* Direct the military services and the defense agencies to align their
strategic human capital plans with the mission, goals, objectives, and
measures included in the departmentwide strategic human capital plan
and provide guidance to these components on this alignment.
* Define the future civilian workforce, identifying the characteristics
(i.e., the skills and competencies, number, deployment, etc.) of
personnel needed in the context of the total force and determine the
workforce gaps that need to be addressed through human capital
initiatives.
* Assign a high priority to and set a target date for developing a
departmentwide human capital strategic plan that integrates both
military and civilian workforces and takes into account contractor
roles and sourcing initiatives.
Agency Comments:
We requested comments from the Department of Defense, but none were
provided.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Air Force,
Army, and Navy; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Directors
of DCMA and DFAS. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-5559 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report. Key contributors are listed in
appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Derek B. Stewart
Director, Defense Capabilities
and Management:
Signed by Derek B. Stewart:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
As requested by the Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on
Armed Services, Subcommittee on Readiness, we reviewed civilian human
capital strategic planning in the Department of Defense (DOD).
Specifically, the objectives of this report were to assess (1) the
extent to which top-level leadership is involved in strategic planning
for civilian personnel and (2) whether strategic plans for civilian
personnel are aligned with the overall mission, results oriented, and
based on data about the future civilian workforce. We also determined
whether the strategic plans for civilian personnel are integrated with
plans for military personnel or sourcing initiatives. We focused
primarily on civilian human capital strategic planning undertaken since
1988, when DOD began downsizing its civilian workforce. Our analyses
were based on the documents that each organization identified as its
civilian human capital strategic planning documents. Several documents
had been published or updated either just prior to or during the time
of our review (May 2002 to March 2003). Also, DOD and component
strategic planning for civilian personnel is a continuous process and
involves ongoing efforts. We did not review the implementation of the
human capital strategic plans because most plans were too recent for
this action to be completed.
The scope of our review included examining the civilian human capital
strategic planning efforts undertaken by DOD, its four military
services, and two of its other defense organizations--the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and the Defense Contract
Management Agency (DCMA). We selected the military services since they
account for about 85 percent of the civilian personnel in DOD. To
understand how civilian human capital strategic planning is being
undertaken by other defense organizations, which account for the other
15 percent of the DOD civilian workforce, we determined the status of
the human capital strategic planning efforts of 21 other defense
organizations through a telephone survey. We judgmentally selected two
defense agencies, DFAS and DCMA, because of their large size and
because they perform different functions; therefore, they could offer
different perspectives on strategic planning for civilians. DFAS and
DCMA account for about 26 percent of the civilian personnel in other
defense organizations. DFAS has about 15,274 civilian employees and
more than 1,000 military personnel, performs finance and accounting
activities, and does not have a civilian human capital strategic plan,
although it does have an overall agency strategic plan that includes
human capital as a key element. DCMA has about 11,770 civilian
employees and about 480 military personnel, performs acquisition
functions, and has a civilian human capital strategic plan.
To assess the extent to which top-level leadership is involved in
strategic planning for civilian personnel, we reviewed the civilian
human capital strategic plans for discussions of the methodology used
in developing them that indicated leadership involvement. Further, we
compared the civilian human capital strategic plans publication dates
to key events, such as the issuance of the President‘s Management
Agenda, which advocates strategic human capital planning. We discussed
top leadership involvement in the development of human capital
strategic plans with the applicable civilian human capital planning
officials. These officials included representatives from the following
offices:
* Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, including Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian
Personnel Policy and Director, Civilian Personnel Management Service.
* Department of Air Force: Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for
Personnel Headquarters; Director of Strategic Plans and Future Systems,
and Director, Air Force Personnel Operations Agency, Deputy Chief of
Staff for Personnel; and Directorate of Personnel, Air Force Materiel
Command.
* Department of the Army: Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.
* Department of the Navy: Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Civilian Personnel Policy and Equal Employment Opportunity; Deputy
Chief of Naval Operations for Manpower and Personnel; and Deputy
Commandant of the Marine Corps for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
* Defense Contract Management Agency: Executive Director, Human
Resources; and Director, Strategic Planning, Programming, and Analysis.
* Defense Finance and Accounting Service: Human Resources Directorate
and Resource Management Directorate.
To assess whether strategic plans for civilian personnel are aligned
with the overall mission, results oriented, and contained data about
the future civilian workforce, we compared each plan with the concepts
articulated in our model for strategically managing human capital and
similar guidance provided by the Office of Budget and Management and
the Office of Personnel Management (which are discussed in greater
detail in the Background section of this report). Among the numerous
sources we reviewed, we used the criteria described in our reports on
Exposure Draft: A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management; Human
Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders; High-Risk
Series: An Update; and Performance and Accountability Series - Major
Management Challenges and Program Risks.[Footnote 41] Specifically, we
looked for (1) the alignment of human capital approaches to meet
organizational goals, (2) the presence of results-oriented performance
measures, and
(3) the references to use of workforce planning data to justify human
capital initiatives (i.e., policies and programs). To ensure
consistency with our application of the criteria in other GAO
engagements, we also reviewed approximately 100 of our reports that
addressed their application within DOD and other federal agencies.
Also, to better understand the existing human capital framework and its
relationship to the strategic planning efforts, we gathered information
about policies, programs, and procedures. Finally, we validated the
results of our analyses of the plans with appropriate agency officials.
To assess whether the strategic plans for civilian personnel are
integrated with plans for military personnel or sourcing initiatives,
we analyzed the civilian human capital strategic plans for (1)
references to military personnel or a total force perspective and (2)
discussions about competitive and strategic sourcing efforts being
undertaken in a total force context. We also collaborated with other
GAO staff who reviewed
(1) DOD‘s strategic plans for military personnel and quality of life
issues for servicemembers and their families,[Footnote 42] (2) sourcing
initiatives,[Footnote 43] and
(3) DOD‘s acquisition workforce.[Footnote 44] In addition, we discussed
integration between civilian and military personnel plans with the
applicable civilian human capital planning officials previously
mentioned.
We conducted our review from May 2002 to March 2003 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Key Events Related to Strategic Planning for DOD Civilian
Personnel:
Figure 3 provides a time line of several key events and dates that
affected DOD‘s civilian workforce between 1988 and 2002. It also shows
when DOD and its components published their human capital strategic
plans.
Figure 3: Figure 3. Key Events Related to Strategic Planning for DOD
Civilian Personnel:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC); Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA); National Defense Panel (NDP); Defense Science Board
(DSB); Department of Defense (DOD); President‘s Management Agenda
(PMA); Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Office and Personnel
Management (OPM); Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Derek B. Stewart (202) 512-5559
Christine Fossett (202) 512-2956:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the name above, Daniel Chen, Joel Christenson, Barbara
Joyce, Janet Keller, Shvetal Khanna, Dan Omahen, Gerald Winterlin, Dale
Wineholt, and Susan Woodward made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Civilian Human Resources Strategic Plan 2002-2008. At this time,
DOD also published two strategic plans for military personnel (one
addressing military personnel priorities and one addressing quality of
life issues for servicemembers and their families). In a December 2002
report (Military Personnel: Oversight Process Needed to Help Maintain
Momentum of DOD‘s Strategic Human Capital Planning, GAO-03-237), we
addressed aspects of the two plans concerning benefits for active duty
military personnel, noting that the plans were incomplete and that DOD
needed a process to oversee the plans‘ implementation.
[2] Throughout this report, the term ’component“ refers to all services
and agencies in DOD. The term ’service“ refers to the Air Force, the
Army, the Marine Corps, and the Navy. The term ’agency“ refers to the
Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service.
[3] Sourcing initiatives, which are undertaken to achieve greater
operating efficiencies, include such efforts as public-private
competitions under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76
for commercial activities and functions; direct conversions (converting
positions from one sector to another without public-private
competition); public-private partnerships; and privatization,
divestiture, and reengineering.
[4] Top-level leaders include the Secretary of Defense, under or deputy
secretaries, service secretaries, chiefs of staff of the services, and
other DOD senior executive service personnel.
[5] DOD and its components use the term human resources whereas we use
the term human capital.
[6] These numbers do not include indirect hire employees, for example,
persons rendering service to the federal government under agreements or
contracts with a foreign government.
[7] The Defense Science Board Task Force on Human Resources Strategy,
February 2000. The Defense Science Board is a federal advisory
committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of
Defense.
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: An Update,
GAO-01-263 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2001); Performance and
Accountability Series--Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A
Governmentwide Perspective, GAO-01-241 (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 2001); and Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A
Governmentwide Perspective, GAO-03-95 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003).
[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Exposure Draft: A Model of
Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 15, 2002).
[10] Commercial Activities Panel, Improving the Sourcing Decisions of
the Government: Final Report (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2002).
[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: Strategic Human
Capital Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003).
[12] GAO-02-373SP.
[13] The Defense Science Board Task Force on Human Resources Strategy.
The report also stated that DOD must give greater priority to the
management of its civilian workforce in order to create the proper
civilian force structure for the future.
[14] GAO/T-GGD/NSIAD-00-120 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2000).
[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, Acquisition Workforce: Status of
Agency Efforts to Address Future Needs, GAO-03-55 (Washington, D.C.:
Dec. 18, 2002).
[16] Defense Business Practice Implementation Board, Report to the
Senior Executive Council, Department of Defense: Human Resources Task
Group Report FY02-1, November 15, 2002.
[17] Air Force officials told us that this document and the Vision
Implementation Plan together represent the Air Force‘s civilian human
capital strategic plan.
[18] The Army refers to this effort as the Civilian Personnel
Management System XXI (CPMS XXI). See The Wexford Group International,
Army CPMS XXI Transforming Civilian Workforce Management White Paper
(Vienna, Va., revised May 11, 2001).
[19] The 2000 National Academy of Public Administration, Civilian
Workforce 2020: Strategies for Modernizing Human Resources Management
in the Department of the Navy (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 18, 2000), and
the 2001 Department of the Navy: A Strategic Human Resource Management
System for the 21st Century, Vols. I and II (Washington, D.C.: May
2001).
[20] This review primarily focused on aspects of leadership and
strategic human capital planning--two of four cornerstones in our model
for strategically managing human capital (GAO-02-373SP). We did not
focus on aspects of the other two important cornerstones--
(1) acquire, develop, retain, and deploy the best talent and elicit the
best performance for mission accomplishment and (2) results-oriented
organizational cultures that promote high performance and
accountability (such as individual performance management that is fully
integrated with the organization‘s mission and is used as the basis for
managing the organization) and empower and include employees in setting
and accomplishing programmatic goals.
[21] GAO-03-120.
[22] DOD, Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and DCMA have published
civilian human capital strategic plans. DFAS and Department of the Navy
are in the process of developing such plans.
[23] DCMA Human Capital Strategic Plan.
[24] The Army‘s goal for diversity through opportunity states: ’A
civilian force that is as richly diverse as America itself, and a work
environment that promotes individual respect and encourages
collaboration through sharing of different views and perspectives to
improve effectiveness and quality.“
[25] GAO-02-373 SP; National Academy of Public Administration, Building
Successful Organizations: A Guide to Strategic Workforce Planning
(Washington, D.C.: May 2000); International Personnel Management
Association, Workforce Planning Resource Guide for Public Sector Human
Resource Professionals (Summer 2002); and RAND, An Operational Process
for Workforce Planning (Forthcoming).
[26] Workforce characteristics are concrete and measurable aspects of a
group of workers that are critical for organizational success and can
be influenced by policy decisions. Examples include occupation; grade
level; experience; academic degree or discipline; certification;
leadership; multifunctional skills; deployment; or military, civilian,
and contractor mix.
[27] The Department of the Navy and DFAS do not yet have plans.
[28] DCMA developed this qualitative approach because it does not have
(1) workforce modeling or projection tools that can be used as a basis
to establish the number of future positions and types of future
competencies required and (2) data on current workforce competencies to
establish the baseline needed to assess future competency gaps.
[29] Changes include such initiatives as DOD‘s transformation to a
capabilities-based organization and competitive sourcing under OMB
Circular A-76.
[30] The Defense Science Board Task Force on Human Resources Strategy.
[31] Civilian Workforce 2020: Strategies for Modernizing Human
Resources Management in the Department of the Navy.
[32] Improving the Sourcing Decisions of the Government: Final Report.
[33] Officials in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness described a parallel effort to define civilian
and contractor roles as part of identifying activities that are not
inherently governmental as required by the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform Act (P.L. 105-270).
[34] Improving the Sourcing Decisions of the Government: Final Report.
[35] GAO-03-120.
[36] Air Force Personnel Vision Implementation Plan 2002.
[37] U.S. General Accounting Office, DOD Competitive Sourcing: Some
Progress, but Continuing Challenges Remain in Meeting Program Goals,
GAO/NSIAD-00-106 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 2000).
[38] U.S. Marine Corps Civilian Workforce Campaign Plan 2003.
[39] The Department of the Army‘s Fiscal Year 02-07 Civilian Human
Resources Strategic Plan and FY03 Army Civilian Human Resources
Operational Plan.
[40] In 2002, DCMA was authorized 630 military positions, but it filled
480. This chronic problem occurs because the services lack military
personnel trained in the acquisition career fields and, therefore, do
not have enough qualified military personnel to fill the DCMA
positions. Currently, this shortage affects the Administrative
Contracting and Acquisition Manager functions.
[41] U.S. General Accounting Office, Exposure Draft: A Model of
Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 2002); Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency
Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2000, Version 1);
High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-01-263 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2001);
and Performance and Accountability Series--Major Management Challenges
and Program Risks: Department of Defense, GAO-03-98 (Washington, D.C.:
Jan 2003).
[42] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Personnel Oversight
Process Needed to Help Maintain Momentum of DOD‘s Strategic Human
Capital Planning, GAO-03-237 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2002).
[43] Commercial Activities Panel, Improving the Sourcing Decisions of
the Government: Final Report (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2002).
[44] U.S. General Accounting Office, Acquisition Workforce: Department
of Defense‘s Plans to Address Workforce Size and Structure Challenges,
GAO-02-630 (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 30, 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:
