Defense Space Activities
Management and Guidance Performance Measures Needed to Develop Personnel Gao ID: GAO-05-833 September 21, 2005The Department of Defense (DOD) employs space to support critical military capabilities and funding for space is about 5.4 percent of DOD's budget. In 2001, the Space Commission noted that DOD needs a force composed of educated, motivated, and competent personnel, but DOD was not yet on course to develop the space cadre the nation needs. DOD has a defensewide space human capital strategy and implementation plan and an Executive Agent for Space responsible for space planning, programming, and acquisitions. Congress required two GAO reports assessing DOD's strategy and the military services' efforts to develop their space personnel. GAO's first report was issued in August 2004. In its second report, GAO (1) determined DOD's progress in implementing defensewide space cadre actions, (2) assessed if DOD's space cadre management approach is consistent with a results-oriented management approach, and (3) determined the progress the services have made in planning and completing space cadre initiatives.
Since a January 2001 Space Commission report highlighted the need to develop and maintain a space cadre, DOD has made limited progress on defensewide space cadre actions. DOD has fallen behind its implementation schedule for its February 2004 space human capital strategy. DOD's strategy implementation plan identified tasks on space personnel management, education and training, and critical positions. As of June 2005, DOD had completed three of the nine tasks scheduled for completion by March 2005 and one other task. Space cadre leadership has not always been proactive because the Executive Agent gave the space cadre a low priority due to competing demands and then made it a higher priority in 2004. The Executive Agent's departure in March 2005 also delayed some of the tasks. In addition, delays were caused by the need to build consensus among the services on space cadre actions and to make changes in a large organization. DOD's management approach for the departmentwide space cadre is inconsistent with a results-oriented management approach in two areas. First, DOD has not issued detailed guidance to provide accountability by institutionalizing space cadre authorities and responsibilities. The strategy provides general space cadre responsibilities for the Executive Agent and the services. DOD has not determined specific defensewide space cadre responsibilities that should continue because DOD has not completed its strategy implementation. Without defensewide guidance, progress may not continue and DOD may not develop enough space-qualified professionals. Second, DOD does not have performance measures and an evaluation plan to assess progress. The services provided space cadre information to DOD, but not performance measures linked to goals, such as education levels and promotion rates. Without performance measures and a plan to evaluate progress, the Executive Agent, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress may not be able to monitor the services' progress in meeting their goals. In the absence of continuous proactive defensewide space cadre leadership, the military services' progress in planning and completing space cadre initiatives has varied since GAO's August 2004 report. The services are pursuing separate initiatives to address the unique needs of their particular service and these are in various stages of completion. Without proactive DOD leadership, the Secretary of Defense and Congress will not have assurance that the services are obtaining and developing the space cadre the nation needs. The Air Force, which is DOD's largest acquirer and operator of space systems and has the largest space cadre, has continued to implement its space professional strategy and has a permanent organizational focal point. The Navy published its space cadre strategy and established a permanent organizational focal point. The Army is conducting an analysis to determine its future space cadre actions, which could lead to a space cadre strategy and a permanent organizational focal point. The Marine Corps, which has a space cadre strategy and a permanent organizational focal point, continues to implement the initiatives contained in its strategy.
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-05-833, Defense Space Activities: Management and Guidance Performance Measures Needed to Develop Personnel
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-833
entitled 'Defense Space Activities: Management Guidance and Performance
Measures Needed to Develop Personnel' which was released on September
21, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
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. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2005:
Defense Space Activities:
Management Guidance and Performance Measures Needed to Develop
Personnel:
GAO-05-833:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-833, a report to congressional committees:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Defense (DOD) employs space to support critical
military capabilities and funding for space is about 5.4 percent of
DOD‘s budget. In 2001, the Space Commission noted that DOD needs a
force composed of educated, motivated, and competent personnel, but DOD
was not yet on course to develop the space cadre the nation needs. DOD
has a defensewide space human capital strategy and implementation plan
and an Executive Agent for Space responsible for space planning,
programming, and acquisitions.
Congress required two GAO reports assessing DOD‘s strategy and the
military services‘ efforts to develop their space personnel. GAO‘s
first report was issued in August 2004. In its second report, GAO (1)
determined DOD‘s progress in implementing defensewide space cadre
actions, (2) assessed if DOD‘s space cadre management approach is
consistent with a results-oriented management approach, and
(3) determined the progress the services have made in planning and
completing space cadre initiatives.
What GAO Found:
Since a January 2001 Space Commission report highlighted the need to
develop and maintain a space cadre, DOD has made limited progress on
defensewide space cadre actions. DOD has fallen behind its
implementation schedule for its February 2004 space human capital
strategy. DOD‘s strategy implementation plan identified tasks on space
personnel management, education and training, and critical positions.
As of June 2005, DOD had completed three of the nine tasks scheduled
for completion by March 2005 and one other task. Space cadre leadership
has not always been proactive because the Executive Agent gave the
space cadre a low priority due to competing demands and then made it a
higher priority in 2004. The Executive Agent‘s departure in March 2005
also delayed some of the tasks. In addition, delays were caused by the
need to build consensus among the services on space cadre actions and
to make changes in a large organization.
DOD‘s management approach for the departmentwide space cadre is
inconsistent with a results-oriented management approach in two areas.
First, DOD has not issued detailed guidance to provide accountability
by institutionalizing space cadre authorities and responsibilities. The
strategy provides general space cadre responsibilities for the
Executive Agent and the services. DOD has not determined specific
defensewide space cadre responsibilities that should continue because
DOD has not completed its strategy implementation. Without defensewide
guidance, progress may not continue and DOD may not develop enough
space-qualified professionals. Second, DOD does not have performance
measures and an evaluation plan to assess progress. The services
provided space cadre information to DOD, but not performance measures
linked to goals, such as education levels and promotion rates. Without
performance measures and a plan to evaluate progress, the Executive
Agent, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress may not be able to
monitor the services‘ progress in meeting their goals.
In the absence of continuous proactive defensewide space cadre
leadership, the military services‘ progress in planning and completing
space cadre initiatives has varied since GAO‘s August 2004 report. The
services are pursuing separate initiatives to address the unique needs
of their particular service and these are in various stages of
completion. Without proactive DOD leadership, the Secretary of Defense
and Congress will not have assurance that the services are obtaining
and developing the space cadre the nation needs. The Air Force, which
is DOD‘s largest acquirer and operator of space systems and has the
largest space cadre, has continued to implement its space professional
strategy and has a permanent organizational focal point. The Navy
published its space cadre strategy and established a permanent
organizational focal point. The Army is conducting an analysis to
determine its future space cadre actions, which could lead to a space
cadre strategy and a permanent organizational focal point. The Marine
Corps, which has a space cadre strategy and a permanent organizational
focal point, continues to implement the initiatives contained in its
strategy.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making recommendations designed to institutionalize DOD space
cadre authorities, responsibilities, and structure and to help DOD
measure and evaluate its space cadre actions. In its comments, DOD
agreed with these recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-833.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Davi D'Agostino at (202)
512-5431 or dagostinod@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOD Has Made Limited Progress in Integrating and Developing Its Space
Cadre:
DOD's Space Cadre Management Approach Is Incomplete:
Services' Progress on Space Cadre Development Initiatives Varies:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: DOD Crosscutting Space Budget for Fiscal Year 2006:
Table 2: Status of Selected Tasks in DOD Strategy Implementation Plan:
Table 3: DOD Space Personnel by Service as of March 2005:
Table 4: DOD Space Positions by Service as of March 2005:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of DOD Space Personnel by Military Service:
Figure 2: Timeline of Key Management Milestones Related to Defensewide
Space Cadre Development:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 21, 2005:
The Honorable John W. Warner:
Chairman:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Department of Defense (DOD) employs space assets to support many
critical military capabilities including intelligence collection;
battlefield surveillance and management; global command, control, and
communications; and navigation assistance. Sufficient numbers of space-
qualified personnel are central to DOD's success in space. Due to
concerns about the DOD's organization and management of space
activities, Congress chartered the Commission to Assess United States
National Security Space Management and Organization (Space Commission)
in 1999 to review the organization and management of national security
space activities. In its January 2001 report, the Space Commission
identified some long-standing management challenges, including
developing and maintaining a cadre of space professionals to assume
leadership roles in all aspects of space-related activities. The Space
Commission noted that DOD needs a total force composed of well-
educated, motivated, and competent personnel to assign to military
service, joint, and interagency positions to work on space operations,
requirements, and acquisition, but that DOD was not yet on course to
develop the space cadre the nation needs. The commission stated that
DOD must place a high priority on intensifying investments in space
career development, education, and training to develop and sustain a
highly competent and motivated space cadre. According to the Secretary
of Defense's memo implementing the commission's recommendations, the
military services are responsible for developing and maintaining
sufficient quantities of space-qualified personnel.
DOD issued a directive in June 2003 that established an Executive Agent
for Space. The DOD directive stipulates that the Executive Agent shall
develop, coordinate, and integrate plans and programs for space systems
and the acquisition of space major defense acquisition programs to
provide operational space force capabilities to ensure the United
States has the space power to achieve its national security objectives.
Many DOD components are involved in defense space activities and the
budget request for the space program is about $22.7 billion, or about
5.4 percent of DOD's total budget for fiscal year 2006. The Air Force
is DOD's largest developer, procurer, and operator of space systems;
has the largest space cadre of all the services; and has about 92.6
percent of the fiscal year 2006 space budget request.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002,
Congress mandated that we provide an assessment of the actions taken by
the Secretary of Defense in implementing the Space Commission's
recommendations. In April 2003, we recommended that DOD establish a
departmentwide space human capital strategy to guide its activities to
develop its cadre of space professionals. DOD issued its space human
capital strategy in February 2004. This strategy established direction
for the future and included goals and objectives for developing and
integrating space personnel. The strategy also identified key actions
to meet the objectives, which were to be implemented in three phases.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004,
Congress mandated that we submit two reports assessing DOD's space
human capital strategy and the efforts by the military departments to
develop their space personnel. In our first report of August 2004, we
found that DOD lacked a complete management approach for implementing
its space human capital strategy and that the military services varied
in the extent to which they had identified and implemented initiatives
to develop and manage their space cadres. We noted that DOD had not
implemented the strategy's actions, and we recommended that DOD develop
an implementation plan for its strategy. We also noted that the Air
Force and Marine Corps had space cadre strategies and focal points for
managing their space personnel, but that the Army and Navy did not, and
we recommended that the Army and Navy develop strategies and establish
focal points.
Our objectives for this second report in response to the mandate were
to (1) determine the progress DOD has made in implementing the
defensewide actions contained in its February 2004 space human capital
strategy to integrate and develop its space cadre, (2) assess if DOD's
management approach for the departmentwide space cadre is consistent
with a results-oriented management approach, and (3) determine the
progress the services have made since our August 2004 report in
planning and completing initiatives to develop and manage their space
cadres. To determine the progress DOD has made in implementing the
defensewide actions contained in the strategy, we reviewed and analyzed
the DOD space human capital strategy and its implementation plan and
discussed and documented the status of implementing actions with DOD
and service personnel. To assess DOD's management approach for the
departmentwide space cadre, we compared DOD's management approach with
a results-oriented management approach and reviewed DOD's space cadre
guidance. To determine the progress the services have made in planning
and completing space cadre initiatives since our August 2004 report, we
obtained and reviewed information on the services' initiatives and we
collected and analyzed data on space positions and personnel. We
conducted our review from September 2004 through June 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. More
detailed information on our scope and methodology is provided in
appendix I.
Results in Brief:
Since the January 2001 Space Commission report highlighted DOD's need
to develop and maintain a space cadre, DOD has made limited progress on
departmentwide space cadre actions. DOD has fallen behind its planned
schedule for implementing the February 2004 space human capital
strategy. In December 2004, DOD issued an implementation plan for its
strategy that identified 30 tasks related to space personnel
management, education and training, and critical space positions. Most
of these tasks were scheduled to be completed by November 2005, and
some had completion dates that were not determined. Nine tasks were
scheduled for completion by March 2005. As of June 2005, DOD had
completed only 3 of these 9 tasks, as well as 1 other task that did not
have an estimated completion date. DOD has not completed 6 of the 9
tasks scheduled for completion in March 2005, although it has taken
actions on some of them. Progress on defensewide space cadre actions
has been delayed for two reasons. First, defensewide space cadre
leadership has not always been proactive because the DOD Executive
Agent for Space had varying management priorities and departed in March
2005, which contributed to delays in implementing the space human
capital strategy. Implementation of defensewide space cadre actions was
initially not one of the highest priorities of the Executive Agent, who
concentrated on addressing issues related to major space acquisition
programs; however, in 2004, the Executive Agent made the space cadre a
higher priority. Second, DOD officials attributed delays to challenges,
such as the need to build consensus on defensewide space cadre actions
among the services, which have differing space roles and cultures, and
the difficulties in making timely changes in large organizations.
Although DOD has developed a space human capital strategy and
implementation plan to address space cadre issues, DOD's management
approach for the departmentwide space cadre is inconsistent with a
results-oriented management approach in two areas. First, DOD has not
issued detailed defensewide guidance for providing accountability by
institutionalizing space cadre authorities and responsibilities of the
Executive Agent and the services and by requiring specific human
capital development and management structure and functions. The DOD
directive that created the Executive Agent in June 2003 did not define
the Executive Agent's specific authority and responsibilities related
to the defensewide space cadre. Hence, there is no defensewide
accountability for developing the space cadre that was called for by
the Space Commission. Although the space human capital strategy assigns
general responsibilities to DOD components, DOD has not determined the
specific space cadre management responsibilities and structure that
should continue over time because DOD has not completed implementing
its strategy. Until DOD completes its strategy implementation, it will
not be in the best position to determine the optimal management
structure and processes. Without detailed DOD guidance to determine
space cadre management responsibilities and structure, the progress
made on improvements to the defensewide space cadre may not continue,
and DOD may not develop enough space professionals with the necessary
training, education, and experience to advance the use of space power
and transform military operations. Second, DOD does not have
performance measures and an evaluation plan to indicate results related
to goals that could be used by the Executive Agent to help evaluate
DOD's progress in integrating and developing space personnel over time.
One objective of DOD's human capital strategy is to collect the data
necessary to manage space personnel and the strategy implementation
plan called for an evaluation plan to compare the results to goals. The
Executive Agent has not provided leadership by developing services'
space cadre performance measures in conjunction with the services.
Instead, the Executive Agent has deferred to the services because,
according to DOD officials, the differences among the services' space
activities make uniform performance measures inappropriate. However, we
observe that the Executive Agent and the services could work together
to develop defensewide performance measures. Although some performance
measures could be the same across the services, others may need to be
tailored for service-unique situations. Even though the services have
provided information on their space cadres to the Executive Agent, they
have not provided performance measures linked to goals. Without such
performance measures and a plan to evaluate progress, the Executive
Agent does not have indicators that would show if the services' space
cadre activities are appropriately synchronized. As a result, the
Executive Agent, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress may not be able
to monitor the services' progress in meeting their goals.
In the absence of continuous proactive defensewide space cadre
leadership, the services' progress in planning and completing their
initiatives to develop and manage their own space cadres has varied
since our August 2004 report. The Space Commission identified the need
for DOD to develop space leaders for the future through focused career
development, education, and training because DOD was not yet on course
to develop the space cadre the nation needed. The services are pursuing
their own separate initiatives to address the unique needs of their
particular service and these are in various stages of completion.
Without proactive DOD leadership and oversight with regard to the
services' initiatives, neither the Secretary of Defense nor Congress
will have the assurance that the services are obtaining and developing
the space cadre that was called for by the Space Commission. Each
service continues to identify the members of its space cadre, but the
Air Force is the only one to have formally included enlisted personnel
as space cadre members and has begun to identify civilian space cadre
members. The Air Force, which has a space human capital strategy and
space cadre management focal point, recently issued a space
professional career guide providing guidance to space personnel on
career development and paths, and established space experience codes
for use in assigning personnel to space positions. The Air Force has
also been working on personnel certification to indicate the depth of
space expertise and is planning to issue a policy document to require
continuing management of its space cadre. The Navy issued its space
human capital strategy in January 2005 and established an
organizational focal point for its space cadre in May 2005. The Navy
also budgeted funds for the first time to support space cadre
management, contractor support, and training. The Army has had a
program for its space operations officers since 1999, but it does not
have an approved space cadre strategy or a permanent organizational
focal point for space cadre management. However, the Army is conducting
an analysis of its space personnel, which it expects to complete in
September 2005, that will recommend future courses of action and
alternatives for a space cadre management office. The Marine Corps,
which has a strategy and focal point, continues to implement its
strategy's initiatives, such as developing education and training
requirements for its space cadre and an implementation policy to
delineate space roles and responsibilities.
We are making recommendations designed to provide accountability by
defining and institutionalizing space cadre management responsibilities
and structure and to help DOD better monitor and evaluate the actions
it has taken to integrate and develop its space cadre. In commenting on
a draft of this report, DOD agreed with these recommendations.
Background:
Many DOD components are involved in a variety of space activities. The
U.S. Strategic Command, one of DOD's joint combatant commands, is
responsible for the space and global strike mission, and it establishes
overall operational requirements for space activities. The services
provide support to the U.S. Strategic Command to meet these
requirements. The Air Force Space Command is the principal service
command providing space forces for the U.S. Strategic Command. The Air
Force is DOD's primary procurer and operator of space systems that are
used by others throughout DOD. The Navy operates space systems that
contribute to ultra high frequency communications and is responsible
for acquiring the Mobile User Operations System, the next generation of
ultra high frequency satellite communication systems. The Army controls
a defense satellite communications system and operates ground mobile
terminals. The Army Space and Missile Defense Command conducts space
operations and provides planning, integration, and control and
coordination of Army forces and capabilities. In the case of the Marine
Corps, space capabilities provide the warfighter with intelligence,
communications, and position navigation. The Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Staff, the National Reconnaissance Office, and
various other DOD components also participate in space activities.
Space activities are a significant part of the DOD budget each year. To
capture the funding for DOD's space activities, DOD established a
virtual (or crosscutting) major force program for space in its Future
Years Defense Program. The space program budget request comprises about
5.4 percent of DOD's total funding, or approximately $22.7 billion for
fiscal year 2006. The majority of the space funding program is
allocated to acquisition of space systems, including $11.0 billion for
research, development, test, and evaluation and $7.8 billion for
procurement. Funding for space military personnel is about $1.1
billion, or about 5 percent of the total for the space program. As
table 1 shows, the Air Force receives approximately $20.1 billion,
which is about 92.6 percent of the funding in the space program. The
rest is divided among the Department of the Army, the Department of the
Navy (Navy and Marine Corps), and other defense components.
Table 1: DOD Crosscutting Space Budget for Fiscal Year 2006:
Dollars in millions.
By DOD component:
Air Force: $20,992.
Navy: $916.
Army: $413.
Other defense: $342.
Total: $22,663.
By budget title:
Military Personnel: $1,124.
Operation & Maintenance: $2,684.
Procurement: $7,824.
Research, Development, Test, Evaluation: $10,965.
Military Construction: $66.
Total: $22,663.
Source: DOD's Fiscal Year 2006 Future Years Defense Program, May 2005.
[End of table]
Due to continuing concerns about DOD's management of space activities,
in October 1999 Congress chartered the Commission to Assess United
States National Security Space Management and Organization. In its
January 2001 report, the commission unanimously concluded that the
security and well-being of the United States, its allies, and friends
depend on the nation's ability to operate in space. The commission made
recommendations to DOD to improve coordination, execution, and
oversight of the department's space activities. One issue that the
commission identified was the need to create and maintain a highly
trained and experienced cadre of space professionals who could master
highly complex technology, as well as develop new space operations
concepts. Further, the commission concluded that DOD did not have a
strong military space culture, which included focused career
development, education, and training. In October 2001, the Secretary of
Defense directed the military departments to promulgate guidance for
developing and maintaining a cadre of sufficient numbers of space-
qualified professionals. As shown in figure 1, the services have
identified a total of about 8,200 space personnel with space
experience, education, and training throughout DOD, with the Air Force
having 91 percent of the total or 7,434 space personnel.
Figure 1: Number of DOD Space Personnel by Military Service:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Space Commission also considered several options for the management
and organization of national security space. The commission recommended
the establishment of an Under Secretary of Defense for Space,
Intelligence, and Information, who would provide policy, guidance, and
oversight for space in order to help ensure that space-related issues
are addressed in the department at an appropriately influential level.
Instead of creating an Under Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
Defense chose to address this organizational and leadership issue with
alternative actions. In June 2003, a DOD directive designated the
Secretary of the Air Force as the DOD Executive Agent for Space, with
the Executive Agent responsibilities delegated to the Under Secretary
of the Air Force.
Until recently, the Under Secretary of the Air Force also served as the
Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, which is a DOD
intelligence agency that designs, builds, and operates the nation's
reconnaissance satellites, in addition to serving as the Executive
Agent for Space. The Executive Agent exercises DOD-wide
responsibilities for planning and programming of space activities and
for space major defense acquisitions programs. In performing these
responsibilities, the Executive Agent reports to the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary of Defense and is subject to the authority, direction,
and control of the Secretary of Defense, according to the DOD
directive. However, the directive contains no specific provisions
related to the Executive Agent's role and responsibilities for the
defensewide space cadre. Title 10 of the United States Code provides
the secretaries of the military departments with functions related to
their personnel, including recruiting, organizing, training, and
maintaining. As a result, the Executive Agent works with the services
on developing their space cadres and addresses DOD-wide issues related
to the space cadre, according to an Office of the Secretary of Defense
official. DOD has established a structure of groups to oversee and
conduct defensewide space cadre development activities, including the
Space Professional Oversight Board, which is composed of the Executive
Agent and senior leadership from the services and other DOD components.
DOD Has Made Limited Progress in Integrating and Developing Its Space
Cadre:
Since the January 2001 Space Commission report highlighted DOD's need
to develop and maintain a space cadre, DOD has made limited progress on
departmentwide space cadre actions. DOD has fallen behind its planned
schedule for implementing the February 2004 space human capital
strategy. DOD's space human capital strategy established direction for
the future by including goals and objectives for developing and
integrating space personnel. DOD's plan to implement the strategy
included specific tasks related to departmentwide space personnel
management, education and training, and critical positions. As of June
2005, DOD had completed three of the nine tasks scheduled for
completion by March 2005 and had taken actions on some of the others.
The dates of key management milestones related to the development of
the defensewide space cadre are shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Timeline of Key Management Milestones Related to Defensewide
Space Cadre Development:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Although the Space Commission expressed concerns about DOD's space
cadre in its January 2001 report, DOD did not have a defensewide
strategy to develop and integrate its space cadre. In our April 2003
report, we reported that the services had produced initial guidance on
developing and managing their own space professionals as directed by
the Secretary of Defense, and recommended that a departmentwide space
human capital strategy be established. According to DOD's February 2004
strategy, key actions to address the strategy's objectives were all
scheduled to be completed by December 2004, except for a few that were
to recur each year. As of our August 2004 report, none of these actions
had been completed, although DOD had begun implementing some of them.
Actions that were under way at that time included:
* preparing for an education and training summit;
* evaluating space cadre best practices;
* developing policy on human capital development and use;
* determining the scope, nature, and specialties associated with space
personnel certification; and:
* issuing a call for demonstration projects.
In our August 2004 report, we recommended that DOD develop a detailed
implementation plan for the key actions in its strategy. In December
2004, DOD issued its implementation plan for the space human capital
strategy. A number of the plan's tasks are the same or similar to the
key actions called for in the space human capital strategy. However,
the plan's tasks were more specific than the strategy's actions, and
each task included the offices responsible, estimated completion date,
and whether they were recurring. Many of the tasks were scheduled to be
completed by November 2005, and a few did not have estimated completion
dates. As a result, the implementation of the strategy was extended by
almost 1 year when the implementation plan's tasks replaced the
strategy's actions.
The implementation plan contained 30 tasks that were grouped into three
broad areas: management, education and training, and space critical
positions. Management tasks were intended to develop a DOD-wide
assessment and oversight function that would provide feedback to the
services on their compliance with the strategy. These tasks included
developing an evaluation plan to assess the status of the space cadre
and a DOD instruction on management of the space professional
development program. The tasks for education and training included
recommending actions needed to correct overlaps and gaps in space
education and training across the services, improving space-related
professional military education, and creating educational opportunities
to fulfill requirements. Most of the tasks in the implementation plan
relate to the space critical positions that are outside the military
services, such as in joint, defense agency, or multiservice
organizations. These tasks are directed toward developing an inventory
of space critical positions that would have specific requirements for
the personnel assigned to them. These implementation plan tasks were
designed to lead to a DOD space critical position program to help
manage these positions and the assignment of personnel to them.
DOD has begun to implement the tasks in its implementation plan, but it
has not met the scheduled completion dates for all nine tasks scheduled
to be completed by March 2005. As of June 2005, three of these nine
tasks were completed on schedule and one other task, which did not have
an estimated completion date, was also completed. Table 2 below shows
the status of these implementation plan tasks.
Table 2: Status of Selected Tasks in DOD Strategy Implementation Plan:
Tasks: Management: Services brief the Space Professional Oversight
Board on development efforts and activities;
Status: Completed.
Tasks: Management: Develop an evaluation plan for space professional
development;
Status: Not completed.
Tasks: Education and training: Hold education and training summit[A];
Status: Completed.
Tasks: Education and training: Evaluate current space-related
professional military education and recommend adjustments as needed;
Status: Not completed.
Tasks: Education and training: Determine which educational and training
programs are applicable for communitywide use;
Status: Not completed.
Tasks: Education and training: Identify existing curricula, course
materials, and classes;
Status: Not completed.
Tasks: Critical positions: Create a baseline proposal for space
critical positions;
Status: Completed.
Tasks: Critical positions: Identify where space personnel are at the
DOD-wide level;
Status: Completed.
Tasks: Critical positions: Identify where space personnel should be at
the DOD- wide level;
Status: Not completed.
Tasks: Critical positions: Identify space critical positions;
Status: Not completed.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOD information.
[A] In the DOD strategy implementation plan, this task has a completion
date to be determined. DOD held an education and training summit in
October 2004.
[End of table]
The six uncompleted tasks were not completed as planned for various
reasons. Rather than develop a defensewide evaluation plan, the
Executive Agent deferred the responsibility for space cadre evaluation
to the services. The space-related professional military education task
has been delayed because the Military Education Coordination Council,
which is an advisory body to the Director of the Joint Staff on
education issues, did not select space as a special area of emphasis
for this year. The Executive Agent is still working on the task of
determining which educational and training programs are applicable for
communitywide use and identifying existing curricula, course materials,
and classes. The Executive Agent has not completed the task of
identifying where space personnel should be at the DOD-wide level
because it has not yet issued a tasking to DOD components to provide
this information. The Executive Agent has not completed the
identification of space critical positions because this task depends on
DOD components' providing the information called for in the previous
task.
Defensewide space cadre leadership has not always been proactive, which
has contributed to delays in implementing the space human capital
strategy. Delays were partly caused by the fact that the Executive
Agent gave space cadre development a low priority. In December 2002,
the Executive Agent stated that he needed to devote more attention to
space cadre development because his first priority had been to address
issues related to major space acquisition programs. No defensewide
space cadre actions were taken during this time. In June 2004, the
Executive Agent stated that the space cadre was a higher priority item
for him now due to the importance of space and the growth of the space
cadre. He also stated that he thought that good progress had been made
in developing the DOD space cadre. In 2004, DOD developed the space
human capital strategy and its implementation plan. In addition, the
departure of the Executive Agent in March 2005 caused actions related
to some of the implementation plan's tasks to be delayed, such as
tasking DOD components to provide information on where their space
positions should be at the DOD-wide level.
Delays in implementing the human capital strategy on schedule have also
been due partly to challenges in achieving consensus on defensewide
space cadre actions, according to DOD officials. Specifically, one
challenge is the need for all of the services and other appropriate
organizations within DOD to concur with any defensewide changes related
to space cadre development activities. Reaching consensus can be
difficult because of the differing space roles and cultures of the
services. For example, the Air Force views space as a warfighting
medium and thinks in terms of space power. The Air Force has by far the
most major space programs and is the only service with extensive space
operations, such as space launch, space control, and satellite systems.
The other services tend to view space as a force enhancer because they
are primarily users of space to support their missions. Another
challenge is the difficulty inherent in making timely changes in a
large organization such as DOD.
DOD's Space Cadre Management Approach Is Incomplete:
Although DOD has developed a space human capital strategy and
implementation plan to address space cadre issues, DOD's management
approach for the departmentwide space cadre is inconsistent with a
results-oriented management approach in two areas. First, there is no
detailed DOD guidance for providing accountability by
institutionalizing space cadre responsibilities and establishing a
structure for a board and working groups to ensure that space cadre
development and management functions continue to be performed. Second,
DOD has not developed performance measures and an evaluation plan that
DOD and Congress could use to assess space cadre professional
development. As a result of the lack of a complete management approach,
DOD may not be able to fully address the concern of the Space
Commission that it lacked a strong military space culture that includes
focused career development and education and training.
DOD Has Not Established Accountability by Issuing Guidance to
Institutionalize Space Cadre Authority and Responsibilities:
DOD has not issued detailed guidance to institutionalize DOD's space
cadre authority and responsibilities to ensure accountability for space
cadre development and management functions to be performed on a
continuous basis by the Executive Agent, the services, and other
appropriate DOD components. Such detailed guidance could include
specific authority and responsibilities for the Executive Agent and the
services on space cadre management and oversight, education and
training, and space critical positions, as well as a structure for
multiservice organizational entities to carry out these space cadre
responsibilities.
Executive agent is a term used to indicate a delegation of authority by
the Secretary of Defense to a subordinate to act on the Secretary's
behalf. According to a DOD directive issued in September 2002, the
nature and scope of an executive agent's responsibilities, functions,
and authorities shall be prescribed at the time of assignment and
remain in effect until revoked or superseded.[Footnote 1] The June 2003
DOD directive stipulates that the Executive Agent for Space shall
develop, coordinate, and integrate plans and programs for space systems
and the acquisition of space major defense acquisition programs to
provide operational space force capabilities to ensure the United
States has the space power to achieve its national security objectives.
However, the specific authority and responsibilities of the Executive
Agent for Space related to the defensewide space cadre are not defined
in this directive. Therefore, there is no defensewide accountability
for developing and integrating the space cadre that was called for by
the Space Commission. DOD included in its space human capital strategy
general space cadre responsibilities that were derived from the
directive, including that the Executive Agent has the responsibility to
lead efforts to synchronize the services' space cadre activities and to
integrate the services' space personnel career fields to the maximum
extent practicable.
The Executive Agent established a structure of three groups to address
various activities related to the defensewide space cadre, but there is
no defensewide guidance to require this structure. As called for in the
strategy, the Executive Agent established the Space Professional
Oversight Board, which is the senior officer forum for the discussion
and resolution of matters concerning space professional development
within DOD. The board is chaired by the Executive Agent, with senior
representatives from the services and various other DOD organizations.
As of March 2005, the oversight board had held two meetings that
included briefings and discussions on the space personnel of each
service and of the National Reconnaissance Office, space graduate
education, space critical positions, and space acquisition personnel.
In addition, the Executive Agent has chartered two working groups below
the level of the board. The Human Capital Resources Working Group,
which includes personnel from the services and other DOD components, is
responsible for implementing the strategy by supporting the oversight
board and acting as the primary action working group for the
development of space professionals. The Joint Space Academic Group
includes representatives from the Naval Postgraduate School and the Air
Force Institute of Technology and was chartered to help ensure that the
graduate education needs of military space professionals are met,
particularly at these two schools.
DOD has not developed specific defensewide space cadre guidance because
it has not completed identifying the key space cadre responsibilities
and management structure that should continue over time. DOD could be
better able to develop specific DOD guidance after it makes progress in
completing the tasks to implement its space human capital strategy.
Without detailed DOD guidance to require the continuation of
defensewide development and management functions, the Executive Agent
and the services will not be in the best position to continue to make
improvements to the defensewide space cadre and move toward
establishing a sufficient number of space professionals with the
required training, education, experience, and vision to advance the use
of space power and transform military operations.
DOD Has Not Developed Performance Measures to Assess Space Cadre
Development:
DOD has not developed performance measures and a plan to evaluate those
measures in order to assess space cadre professional development and
management, as provided for in a results-oriented management approach.
Performance indicators and an evaluation plan would help DOD measure
program outcomes and compare results to goals. Sound general management
tenets, embraced by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993,
require agencies to pursue results-oriented management, whereby program
effectiveness is measured in terms of outcomes or impact, rather than
outputs, such as activities and processes.[Footnote 2] Such a
management approach can provide DOD and the military services with a
framework for strategic planning and effectively implementing and
managing programs. One principle of results-oriented management is to
define the program's overall purpose, mission, and intent, such as DOD
has done in its space human capital strategy. Another principle is to
describe detailed implementation actions and DOD has issued an
implementation plan for its strategy that includes implementing tasks.
Critical elements of an implementation plan include performance
indicators, which are mechanisms to measure outcomes of the program,
and an evaluation plan, which serves as a means to compare and report
on program results versus performance goals.
The DOD directive establishing the Executive Agent required the
services to provide the Executive Agent with key indicators reflecting
the status of, or changes to, their cadre of space professionals to
support the Executive Agent's planning, programming, and acquisition
activities. In addition, DOD's space human capital strategy and its
implementation plan provided for the collection of defensewide data on
the services' space cadres and an evaluation plan to assess their
performance. The strategy called for the Executive Agent to collect
data from the services in the first phase of the strategy's
implementation by April 2004. The strategy's implementation plan also
contained the following goal: ensure the services, combatant commands,
and agencies (as necessary) develop space professionals to fulfill
their unique mission needs. According to the implementation plan, this
goal is to be accomplished by oversight in the form of an evaluation
plan. An evaluation plan could include various performance measures,
such as education levels, space positions unfilled, promotion and
retention rates, and personnel availability projections.
DOD has not developed performance measures and an evaluation plan, as
called for in the implementation plan. Instead, the Executive Agent
deferred to the services to develop performance measures because
defense officials believe the services' space cadres are so different
that it is not appropriate to develop uniform defensewide performance
measures. However, we observe that the Executive Agent should not have
deferred to the services and that it is appropriate for the Executive
Agent and the services to develop defensewide performance measures.
Although some performance measures could be uniform across the
services, such as education levels and promotion and retention rates,
other performance measures could be tailored for service-unique
situations. As an example of a service-unique situation, the Air Force
brings in its space officers at the entry level and may want a
performance measure to assess their progress in bringing in entry-level
space personnel. However, the other services do not place officers in
the space cadre at the entry level and would not need a similar
measure. The Executive Agent is relying on the services' briefings to
the oversight board to provide indicators on the status of their space
cadres, such as numbers, skills, and competencies of the services'
space personnel and numbers and locations of space positions. However,
these briefings did not contain detailed performance measures related
to goals for the defensewide space cadre. In addition, the Executive
Agent has not developed a defensewide evaluation plan because it has
deferred to the services to assess the state of their cadres. DOD
officials asserted that the services are taking more initiative to
develop their own space cadres, thus reducing the need for oversight by
the Executive Agent. However, we observe that the services' performance
measures alone, without a defensewide evaluation plan, would not
provide the Executive Agent with an evaluation of progress in
developing the defensewide space cadre.
The services have not reported any performance measures to the
Executive Agent and there is no DOD requirement for the services to
have such performance measures. Without quantifiable, detailed
performance measures and a plan to evaluate progress, each service will
continue to develop and manage a service-unique cadre of space
professionals at its own pace to support its unique mission
requirements. However, the Executive Agent, as well as the Secretary of
Defense and Congress, may not be able to assess actions taken by the
services by comparing their results to goals. In addition, this may
make it more difficult for the Executive Agent to synchronize the space
cadre activities of the DOD, as called for in the space human capital
strategy and its implementation plan.
Services' Progress on Space Cadre Development Initiatives Varies:
In the absence of continuous proactive defensewide space cadre
leadership, the military services have made varying progress in
planning and completing initiatives to develop and manage their space
cadres since our August 2004 report.[Footnote 3] The services have each
taken their own separate actions to consider adding and identifying
additional personnel and positions to their space cadres. In addition,
each service has planned and pursued its own other initiatives to
address the unique needs of its space cadre and these initiatives are
in various stages of completion. Some of these initiatives include
working on policy guidance related to the space cadre, completing space
cadre strategies, developing certification of space professionals,
identifying and increasing space education opportunities, and assigning
codes to personnel based on the nature of their space expertise.
Without proactive DOD leadership and oversight with regard to the
services' initiatives, neither the Secretary of Defense nor Congress
will have the assurance that the services are obtaining and developing
the space cadre that was called for by the Space Commission.
Military Services Continue to Identify Their Space Cadres:
The services have each continued to identify their space cadres, which
includes obtaining information on their personnel, such as their space
education and experience, and on space positions, such as their
locations and requirements. The services have obtained this information
by surveying space personnel and organizations where space personnel
serve and by querying their personnel systems. Each service has
military officers as space cadre members and is considering the
inclusion of others, such as additional officers, enlisted personnel,
and civilian employees. The Air Force is the only service that has
formally included enlisted personnel as space cadre members and it is
currently identifying civilians, which it expects to complete by
January 2006. Furthermore, the Air Force has established and continued
to build a database that captures education and experience information
on each of its space professionals. The Navy is working to formally
identify the enlisted, reserve component, and civilian members of its
space cadre, with the goal of identifying reserve officers and
civilians by the end of November 2005 and the enlisted members shortly
thereafter. The Army is conducting a space personnel force management
analysis that is expected to be completed in September 2005, which
includes considering expanding its space cadre beyond its current space
operations officers. The Marine Corps does not currently have enlisted
or civilian personnel in its space cadre, but it is considering
including additional active and reserve officers. As shown in table 3,
there are a total of 8,211 officer and enlisted space personnel across
DOD.
Table 3: DOD Space Personnel by Service as of March 2005:
Service: Air Force;
Number of space officers: 6,051;
Number of space enlisted: 1,383;
Total number of space personnel: 7,434.
Service: Navy;
Number of space officers: 511;
Number of space enlisted: 0[A];
Total number of space personnel: 511.
Service: Army;
Number of space officers: 156;
Number of space enlisted: 0[B];
Total number of space personnel: 156.
Service: Marine Corps;
Number of space officers: 110;
Number of space enlisted: 0;
Total number of space personnel: 110.
Service: DOD-wide;
Number of space officers: 6,828;
Number of space enlisted: 1,383;
Total number of space personnel: 8,211.
Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by the services.
[A] The Navy is working to formally identify the enlisted members of
its space cadre.
[B] The Army is conducting an analysis to determine if its space cadre
will include enlisted personnel.
[End of table]
In addition to identifying their space personnel, the services have
also identified 7,662 positions for their space personnel throughout
DOD at the service, joint, and interagency levels. DOD has 1,401 DOD
space positions, which is about 18 percent of the total, located in
organizations that are not responsible to the military departments.
Examples of these organizations outside the services include the Joint
Staff, combatant commands, and the National Reconnaissance Office. For
example, the U.S. Strategic Command, a joint combatant command
responsible to the Secretary of Defense, has 275 officer positions, or
23 percent of its total officer positions, which call for expertise in
space. Space positions involve responsibilities that encompass the
entire life cycle of space systems, from research, development, and
acquisition to space launch and operations. As shown in table 4, the
Air Force has by far the largest number of space positions throughout
DOD at 7,195, accounting for approximately 94 percent of the total DOD
positions.
Table 4: DOD Space Positions by Service as of March 2005:
Service: Air Force;
Total number of space positions: 7,195;
Number of space positions outside the service: 1,153;
Percentage of space positions outside the service: 16%.
Service: Navy;
Total number of space positions: 248;
Number of space positions outside the service: 160;
Percentage of space positions outside the service: 65%.
Service: Army;
Total number of space positions: 151;
Number of space positions outside the service: 56;
Percentage of space positions outside the service: 37%.
Service: Marine Corps;
Total number of space positions: 68;
Number of space positions outside the service: 32;
Percentage of space positions outside the service: 47%.
Service: DOD total;
Total number of space positions: 7,662;
Number of space positions outside the service: 1,401;
Percentage of space positions outside the service: 18%.
Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by the military
services.
[End of table]
The Navy and Marine Corps have significantly more space personnel than
space positions because their space personnel generally rotate between
space positions and other positions that are not considered space
positions. However, the Air Force and Army have approximately the same
number of space personnel and space positions. This is because Air
Force and Army space personnel, after they have become part of the
space cadre, tend to remain in space positions throughout their
careers.
Services Are Implementing Their Own Space Cadre Initiatives:
In addition to identifying their space cadres, each service has
continued to implement its own initiatives to address the unique needs
of their space cadres since our August 2004 report, and they are in
various stages of completion. The Air Force has continued to take
actions to implement its space cadre strategy. The Navy has published
its space cadre strategy and established the space cadre advisor as its
permanent organizational focal point. The Army has continued to conduct
an analysis to determine future courses of action for its space cadre,
which could lead to an approved space cadre strategy and a permanent
organizational focal point. The Marine Corps continues to implement the
initiatives contained in its space cadre strategy.
Air Force Continues to Take Actions to Develop Its Space Cadre:
In our August 2004 report, we noted that the Air Force approved a
strategy in July 2003 that provides guidance on developing and
sustaining the Air Force's space cadre and has an implementation plan
for the execution of the strategy's initiatives. The implementation
plan focused on six key initiatives: identification and classification
of space personnel, certification of space personnel, professional
development of space personnel, space positions and requirements,
establishment of a permanent space professional management function,
and education and training of space personnel. We also noted in our
August 2004 report that the Air Force designated the Air Force Space
Command as the focal point for managing career development, education,
and training for the Air Force space cadre.
The Air Force has continued to implement its space human capital
strategy's initiatives since our last report. In order to identify and
classify its space cadre, referred to as space professionals, the Air
Force has identified the unique space expertise that differentiates
space professionals from other Air Force career fields and has sorted
this space expertise into 11 categories, or space experience codes,
such as satellite systems and space control. Space professionals have
been assigned these space experience codes based on the nature of their
space education and experience. To address the certification of space
professionals, the Air Force has established a three-level
certification program to measure progress throughout an individual's
career. Air Force officials reported that they are placing their space
professionals at one of the three certification levels to indicate the
depth of their space expertise. Achieving and maintaining the
certification levels requires continued space education, training, and
experience over the course of a career and is intended to provide the
space professional with a career path. In addition, the Air Force has
issued career planning guidance for all officer, enlisted, and civilian
space professionals to provide general information on career
development and career paths, including information on the three
certification levels. In order to address another of the strategy's key
initiatives, the Air Force is determining the education and experience
requirements for all of its space positions. Moreover, the Air Force
has completed a career opportunities guide, which contains information
on all Air Force space positions, including the locations of and
requirements for these positions. According to Air Force officials, the
purpose of this information is to better identify and track space
professionals and assign them to space positions. To further address
management of its space professionals, the Air Force is planning to
issue an Air Force policy document and an Air Force Space Command
instruction to require continuing management functions for Air Force
space professionals. Air Force officials also related that they have
undertaken significant efforts to brief personnel on the Air Force
space professional development program, briefing a total of 4,950
personnel at 36 DOD locations between August 2004 and April 2005.
In addition, the Air Force Space Command established the National
Security Space Institute, formerly known as the Air Force Space
Operations School, in October 2004 in order to address the Air Force
strategy's initiative to institute stronger, technically oriented space
education and training programs. The vision of the National Security
Space Institute is to be a multiservice organization that provides
integrated military and civilian space power education and training to
senior and intermediate space leaders. The school has grown by 44
percent in recent years, from 629 resident students in fiscal year 2000
to 904 in fiscal year 2004. Although the Air Force made up 79 percent
of the National Security Space Institute's military students in fiscal
year 2004, military and civilian students from throughout DOD have
attended the institute. Among the courses offered by the National
Security Space Institute is Space 200, a 4-week course for midcareer
space professionals with an emphasis on warfighter integration of space
power. The Air Force has made Space 200, which has significant
technical, nuclear, and acquisition content, a requirement for the
intermediate certification level for its space professionals. Space
cadre members from all the services regularly attend this course. For
example, the Army is now sending its new space operations officers to
part of the Space 200 course at the National Security Space Institute,
which has replaced some, but not all, of the Army's own space
operations officer qualification training.
Navy Has Issued a Space Cadre Strategy and Established an
Organizational Focal Point:
In August 2004, we reported that the Navy's actions to develop and
manage its space cadre were limited because it had not developed a
space human capital strategy to provide direction and guidance for Navy
actions or established a permanent management focal point to provide
centralized leadership to develop the strategy and oversee
implementation. However, the Navy had designated an advisor for space
cadre issues.
Since our last report, the Navy approved a space cadre human capital
strategy in January 2005, which incorporates the Navy's long-term goals
and approaches and is consistent with DOD's space human capital
strategy. Among the objectives included in the strategy are the
development and implementation of space professional development
policies and practices and the creation of a human capital management
team to address space professional development issues. In May 2005, the
Navy revised its space policy implementation guidance to delineate Navy
space roles and responsibilities that included designating the Navy
space cadre advisor to act as a manager for the space cadre.[Footnote
4] This action established a permanent organizational focal point by
formalizing the responsibilities of the Navy space cadre advisor. In
addition, in March 2005, the Navy designated the Commander, Naval
Network Warfare Command, as its space cadre functional authority, which
is the senior Navy leader for the development and management oversight
of the Navy space cadre. Finally, the Navy provided funding to manage
the Navy space cadre community for the first time beginning in fiscal
year 2005 and has allocated $851,000 for this purpose for fiscal year
2006, including funding for space cadre advisors, contractor support,
and training.
Army Is Conducting Analysis to Determine Future Space Cadre Actions:
In our August 2004 report, we noted that the Army has had a space cadre
consisting of space operations officers since 1999. The Army issued
career development guidance for its space operations officers and
developed a qualification training course to provide space operations
officers with the essential skills needed to plan and conduct space
operations. We also reported that the Army had been studying if
enlisted personnel should be added to its space cadre. Although the
Army had taken these actions, we reported that it did not have clear
goals and objectives for the future of its space cadre because it had
not developed a space human capital strategy or identified a permanent
organizational focal point to manage its space cadre.
Since our last report, the Army has incorporated its enlisted study
into an overall force management analysis of the Army space cadre,
which is considering officers, enlisted, and civilian personnel for
inclusion in the cadre. This force management analysis has been under
way since June 2004 and consists of four separate phases. The first two
phases centered on developing a potential definition of the Army space
cadre and identifying space cadre roles, missions, organizations,
functions, and skills based on this potential definition. The third
phase involved the development of comprehensive courses of action
related to Army space cadre policies. The Army is currently engaged in
the fourth phase of the force management analysis, which involves a
comprehensive analysis of Army doctrine, organization, training,
materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities and the
development of an Army space cadre strategy. The Army expects to
complete its force management analysis by September 2005 and provide
the results to the Army Vice Chief of Staff for decision. When
approved, the Army plans to use the results of the force management
analysis to establish a future course of action by publishing an Army
space human capital strategy, and to determine new roles and tasks for
an Army space cadre office that would be a permanent organizational
focal point.
Marine Corps Continues to Implement Its Space Cadre Strategy:
In our August 2004 report, we stated that the Marine Corps identified
an organizational focal point to manage its space cadre. We also
reported that the Marine Corps has a space cadre strategy to develop
and manage its space cadre and has an implementation plan to track
initiatives. Among the initiatives included in the Marine Corps'
strategy were: improving space operations professional military
education for all officers, focusing the graduate education of space
operations students, and leveraging interservice space training.
Since our last report, the Marine Corps has continued to implement
initiatives contained in its strategy. For example, in order to improve
space professional military education, the Marine Corps has revised its
Command and Staff College curricula to address space issues. In
addition, the Marine Corps is developing education and training
requirements for its space officers and expects to publish these
requirements, when finalized, in a training and readiness manual. In
order to focus the graduate education of its space operations students
to support service needs, the Marine Corps has identified positions
requiring graduate degrees and is assigning space operations officers
to these positions based on their Naval Postgraduate School coursework.
Additionally, the Marine Corps has made progress on leveraging
interservice space training by working with the Air Force's National
Security Space Institute to ensure Marine Corps' training requirements
for its space operations staff officers are met. Finally, the Marine
Corps is in the process of drafting an implementation policy to
delineate space roles and responsibilities and to describe how the
Marine Corps will engage in national security space activities.
Conclusions:
Recent military operations have demonstrated that space-based
capabilities are critical to mission success. Although DOD has
benefited from a cadre of space professionals who are educated,
motivated, and skilled in space activities, DOD has taken limited
actions to ensure the future success of its space cadre because it has
not established a complete results-oriented management approach.
Without guidance to require accountability for space cadre development
and management functions, DOD's efforts to make improvements to its
space cadre may not continue. Further, without quantifiable, detailed
performance measures for its space cadre, DOD may not be able to
evaluate the progress the services have made by comparing results to
goals. Without proactive DOD leadership and oversight with regard to
the services' initiatives, neither the Secretary of Defense nor
Congress will have the assurance that the services are acquiring and
developing the space cadre that was called for by the Space Commission.
As a result of the lack of a complete management approach, DOD may not
be able to move toward establishing a defensewide cadre of space
professionals with the required training, education, experience, and
vision to advance the use of space power and transform military
operations. DOD also may not be able to fully address the concern of
the Space Commission that it lacked a strong military space culture
that includes focused career development and education and training. In
addition, the Space Commission stated that DOD must place a high
priority on intensifying investments in space career development,
education, and training to develop and sustain a highly competent and
motivated space cadre.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following two
actions:
* Issue defensewide guidance to provide accountability by defining and
institutionalizing space cadre authorities and responsibilities, to
include:
* defining the Executive Agent's specific authority and
responsibilities related to the defensewide space cadre and leadership
role in synchronizing the services' space cadre activities;
* specifying space cadre human capital development and management
functions for the services and other DOD components; and:
* defining the defensewide structure related to developing and managing
the space cadre, such as the Space Professional Oversight Board.
* Direct the DOD Executive Agent for Space, in conjunction with the
military services, to develop appropriate performance measures for each
service and an evaluation plan to indicate results related to goals in
order to help evaluate DOD's progress in integrating and developing its
space personnel over time.
Agency Comments:
In its written comments on this report, DOD agreed with the
recommendations. DOD's comments are reprinted in their entirety in
appendix II. DOD also provided technical comments that we have
incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the DOD Executive Agent for
Space; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and
the Commandant of the Marine Corps. We will also make copies available
to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at
no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at 202-512-5431 or DAgostinoD@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions
to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Davi M. D'Agostino:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the progress the Department of Defense (DOD) has made in
implementing the defensewide actions contained in its strategy to
integrate and develop its space cadre, we reviewed the status of
actions taken on the tasks in DOD's implementation plan for its space
human capital strategy. Specifically, we measured DOD's progress in
completing the tasks contained in the implementation plan by discussing
the implementation with officials in the National Security Space Office
and other organizations. We also obtained and analyzed available
documentation related to the implementation of the plan's tasks, such
as presentations to the Space Professional Oversight Board and minutes
of the board's meetings.
To assess DOD's management approach for the departmentwide space cadre,
we reviewed and analyzed DOD's approach for implementing its strategy
and compared it to a results-oriented management approach. We also
analyzed the DOD directive establishing the Executive Agent for Space
and DOD's space human capital strategy, both of which provide general
responsibilities to DOD components for the space cadre. We discussed
the implementation of a management approach for DOD's space cadre
development efforts with the Executive Agent's staff and analyzed
documentation to assess the actions taken to date to develop
performance measures and require continuous space cadre
responsibilities. We also discussed DOD's management efforts with
officials at the Office of the Secretary of Defense; the Joint Staff;
and the U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.
Finally, we discussed defensewide management efforts with
representatives of the military services, including the following
offices: Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado;
the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans,
Arlington, Virginia; the Army Space Operations Officer Proponency
Office, Arlington, Virginia; the Office of the Navy Space Cadre
Advisor, Arlington, Virginia; and the Office of Plans, Policies, and
Operations, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Arlington, Virginia.
To determine the progress the services have made since our August 2004
report in planning and completing initiatives to develop and manage
their space cadres, we analyzed documentation on strategies,
initiatives, and other implementing actions for each service and
discussed them with service officials. We also collected and analyzed
data on space positions and personnel from all of the services and from
the U.S. Strategic Command and on students, staff, and courses from the
Air Force's National Security Space Institute. We assessed the
reliability of the Air Force's database for its space personnel by (1)
reviewing existing information about the data and the system that
provided them, and (2) interviewing Air Force and contractor officials
knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Offices visited
to accomplish this objective were the Air Force Space Command, Peterson
Air Force Base, Colorado; the National Security Space Institute,
Colorado Springs, Colorado; the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Operations and Plans, Arlington, Virginia; the Army Space
Operations Officer Proponency Office, Arlington, Virginia; Office of
the Navy Space Cadre Advisor, Arlington, Virginia; and the Office of
Plans, Policies, and Operations, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps,
Arlington, Virginia.
We conducted our review from September 2004 through June 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Office of the Under Secretary:
WASHINGTON DC 20330:
2 September 2005:
Ms. Davi M. D'Agostino:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. D'Agostino,
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report, "DEFENSE SPACE ACTIVITIES: Management Guidance and Performance
Measures Needed to Develop Personnel," dated August 5, 2005 (GAO Code
350574/GAO-05-833). The Department of Defense generally concurs with
the report. Technical comments have been forwarded directly to the GAO
staff for consideration.
Signed by:
H D. ROUGE, SES:
Associate Director:
National Security Space Office:
Attachment:
DoD Comments to GAO Recommendations:
GAO DRAFT REPORT - DATED AUGUST 5, 2005 GAO CODE 350574/GAO-05-833:
"DEFENSE SPACE ACTIVITIES: Management Guidance and Performance Measures
Needed to Develop Personnel"
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
issue defense-wide guidance to provide accountability by defining and
institutionalizing space cadre authorities and responsibilities to
include:
* The Executive Agent's specific authority and responsibilities related
to the defense-wide space cadre and leadership role in synchronizing
the services' space cadre activities;
* Specifying space cadre human capital development and management
functions for the services and other DoD components; and:
* Defining the defense-wide structure related to developing and
managing the space cadre, such as the Space Professional Oversight
Board. (pages 31-32/GAO Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Concur:
RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the DoD Executive Agent for Space, in conjunction with the
military services, to develop appropriate performance measures for each
service and an evaluation plan to indicate results related to goals in
order to help evaluate DoD's progress in integrating and developing its
space personnel over time. (page 32/GAO Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Concur.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Davi M. D'Agostino (202) 512-5431:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, the following made key
contributions to this report: Margaret G. Morgan, Assistant Director;
Gabrielle M. Anderson; Alan M. Byroade; Nicole Harms; Renee S.
McElveen; and Monica L. Wolford.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Section 3.1, DOD Directive 5101.1, DOD Executive Agent, Sept. 3,
2002.
[2] Pub. L. 103-62 (1993).
[3] GAO-04-697.
[4] OPNAV Instruction 5400.43, May 20, 2005.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
