Human Capital
Corps of Engineers Needs to Update Its Workforce Planning Process to More Effectively Address Its Current and Future Workforce Needs Gao ID: GAO-08-596 May 7, 2008With a workforce of about 35,000, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) provides engineering services for civil works and military programs in the United States and overseas. Recently, the Corps' focus has shifted to also support contingency operations, such as responding to natural disasters. To meet its mission and emerging priorities, the Corps must have effective human capital planning processes to ensure that it can maintain its workforce. In this context, GAO was asked to examine the (1) extent to which the Corps has aligned its human capital plan with its strategic plan, (2) extent to which the Corps has the information necessary to identify and meet current and future workforce needs, and (3) challenges the Corps faces in meeting its workforce needs. To address these issues, GAO reviewed agency human capital and strategic planning documents, conducted structured interviews with eight Corps divisions and a purposeful sample of 14 of its districts, and interviewed other Corps officials.
The Corps' strategic human capital plan is outdated; is not aligned with the agency's most recent strategic plan, which was developed in 2005; and is inconsistently used across the agency. Specifically, the human capital plan has not been revised since it was developed in 2002, and it is therefore not aligned with the Corps' current strategic plan. Headquarters officials told GAO they "abandoned" the use of the plan and replaced it with the human capital updates required under a presidential initiative. While these updates list the Corps' human capital activities and milestones for completing them, they do not contain key components of an effective human capital plan, such as goals, strategies, and a system for measuring performance. Moreover, the outdated human capital plan is being used inconsistently across the agency. Some divisions and districts are still using the 2002 plan to guide their human capital efforts, while others are relying on guidance from headquarters or the Office of Personnel Management or developing their own guidance. Without a current, consistently implemented human capital plan that is aligned with its strategic plan, the Corps' ability to effectively manage its workforce is limited. The Corps lacks the necessary agencywide information on critical skills to identify and assess current and future workforce needs and therefore cannot effectively perform its workforce planning activities. Effective workforce planning depends on consistent agencywide data on the critical skills needed to achieve the agency's mission. However, the Corps does not have a process for collecting consistent agencywide data, and headquarters has not provided guidance to the divisions and districts on how to gather this information systematically. Without guidance, some divisions and districts have collected this information independently, using varying methods, leaving the Corps with inconsistent and incomplete data with which to assess the agency's overall workforce needs. As a result, the Corps' ability to determine effective approaches to recruiting, developing, and retaining personnel is limited. Realizing the need for consistent information on critical skills, the Corps recently began an effort to systematically collect these data. However, it is too early to assess the Corps' progress on this effort. The Corps faces several challenges to its workforce planning efforts, such as competition from the private sector and others to hire qualified staff. To address these challenges, the Corps uses human capital tools such as recruitment and retention incentives. However, the Corps' use of some tools has sharply decreased recently. For example, in fiscal year 2002 the Corps awarded $750,000 in recruitment bonuses, but in 2006 this dropped to $24,000. One official told GAO he has had to hire less qualified staff because he has been unable to offer sufficient incentives. Moreover, the Corps lacks a process for assessing the effectiveness of the tools it uses. Consequently, the Corps can neither determine the overall costs and benefits of using these tools nor decide whether additional methods are needed to recruit, develop, and retain its current and future workforce.
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-08-596, Human Capital: Corps of Engineers Needs to Update Its Workforce Planning Process to More Effectively Address Its Current and Future Workforce Needs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-596
entitled 'Human Capital: Corps of Engineers Needs to Update Its
Workforce Planning Process to More Effectively Address Its Current and
Future Workforce Needs' which was released on May 7, 2008.
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 Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2008:
Human Capital:
Corps of Engineers Needs to Update Its Workforce Planning Process to
More Effectively Address Its Current and Future Workforce Needs:
Corps of Engineers:
GAO-08-596:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-596, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
With a workforce of about 35,000, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the
Corps) provides engineering services for civil works and military
programs in the United States and overseas. Recently, the Corps‘ focus
has shifted to also support contingency operations, such as responding
to natural disasters. To meet its mission and emerging priorities, the
Corps must have effective human capital planning processes to ensure
that it can maintain its workforce. In this context, GAO was asked to
examine the (1) extent to which the Corps has aligned its human capital
plan with its strategic plan, (2) extent to which the Corps has the
information necessary to identify and meet current and future workforce
needs, and (3) challenges the Corps faces in meeting its workforce
needs. To address these issues, GAO reviewed agency human capital and
strategic planning documents, conducted structured interviews with
eight Corps divisions and a purposeful sample of 14 of its districts,
and interviewed other Corps officials.
What GAO Found:
The Corps‘ strategic human capital plan is outdated; is not aligned
with the agency‘s most recent strategic plan, which was developed in
2005; and is inconsistently used across the agency. Specifically, the
human capital plan has not been revised since it was developed in 2002,
and it is therefore not aligned with the Corps‘ current strategic plan.
Headquarters officials told GAO they ’abandoned“ the use of the plan
and replaced it with the human capital updates required under a
presidential initiative. While these updates list the Corps‘ human
capital activities and milestones for completing them, they do not
contain key components of an effective human capital plan, such as
goals, strategies, and a system for measuring performance. Moreover,
the outdated human capital plan is being used inconsistently across the
agency. Some divisions and districts are still using the 2002 plan to
guide their human capital efforts, while others are relying on guidance
from headquarters or the Office of Personnel Management or developing
their own guidance. Without a current, consistently implemented human
capital plan that is aligned with its strategic plan, the Corps‘
ability to effectively manage its workforce is limited.
The Corps lacks the necessary agencywide information on critical skills
to identify and assess current and future workforce needs and therefore
cannot effectively perform its workforce planning activities. Effective
workforce planning depends on consistent agencywide data on the
critical skills needed to achieve the agency‘s mission. However, the
Corps does not have a process for collecting consistent agencywide
data, and headquarters has not provided guidance to the divisions and
districts on how to gather this information systematically. Without
guidance, some divisions and districts have collected this information
independently, using varying methods, leaving the Corps with
inconsistent and incomplete data with which to assess the agency‘s
overall workforce needs. As a result, the Corps‘ ability to determine
effective approaches to recruiting, developing, and retaining personnel
is limited. Realizing the need for consistent information on critical
skills, the Corps recently began an effort to systematically collect
these data. However, it is too early to assess the Corps‘ progress on
this effort.
The Corps faces several challenges to its workforce planning efforts,
such as competition from the private sector and others to hire
qualified staff. To address these challenges, the Corps uses human
capital tools such as recruitment and retention incentives. However,
the Corps‘ use of some tools has sharply decreased recently. For
example, in fiscal year 2002 the Corps awarded $750,000 in recruitment
bonuses, but in 2006 this dropped to $24,000. One official told GAO he
has had to hire less qualified staff because he has been unable to
offer sufficient incentives. Moreover, the Corps lacks a process for
assessing the effectiveness of the tools it uses. Consequently, the
Corps can neither determine the overall costs and benefits of using
these tools nor decide whether additional methods are needed to
recruit, develop, and retain its current and future workforce.
What GAO Recommends:
To help the Corps better manage its workforce planning efforts, GAO
recommends that it (1) draft a human capital plan that is directly
linked to its strategic plan and (2) develop and implement a process
for evaluating the effectiveness of its human capital tools. In
commenting on a draft of the report, the Department of Defense
generally agreed with our recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-596]. For more
information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Corps Lacks a Current Human Capital Plan to Guide Its Workforce
Planning Efforts:
The Corps Lacks the Necessary Agencywide Data on Critical Skills to
Identify and Assess Its Workforce Needs:
The Corps Faces Several Challenges in Carrying Out Its Workforce
Planning Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Corps of Engineers:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Reports:
Tables:
Table 1: Examples of Human Capital Flexibilities Available to the
Corps:
Table 2: The Corps' Use of Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention
Incentives, by Domestic Divisions and Districts, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2006:
Figures:
Figure 1: The Corps' Civil Work Program's Division and District
Boundaries:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
OMBL: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
Corps: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 7, 2008:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Chuck Grassley:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) within the Department of
Defense (DOD) is the world's largest public engineering, design, and
construction management agency. The Corps' mission is to provide vital
engineering services and capabilities to support a wide range of
federal civil works and military programs throughout the United States
and to support U.S. efforts overseas.[Footnote 1] The civil works
program includes activities related to, among other things, flood
damage reduction, environmental stewardship, and ecosystem restoration,
while the military program includes military construction, real estate
management, and international and interagency services. In addition to
its headquarters office in Washington, D.C., the Corps has 8 division
offices and 41 district offices. In fiscal year 2007, the Corps' annual
appropriation was about $33.6 billion (about $10.3 billion and $23.3
billion for the civil works and military programs, respectively). To
accomplish its work, the Corps relies on a workforce of over 35,000,
which includes biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural
resource managers, and other professionals.
In addition to its historical mission, since the 1990s, the Corps'
priorities have shifted to include an increased focus on supporting
contingency operations, such as addressing terrorism and responding to
natural disasters. This shift in priorities is placing new demands on
the agency's workforce and is reflected in the Corps' most recent
strategic plan--the 2005 Campaign Plan. This plan outlines the agency's
strategic vision for the next 3 to 4 years.[Footnote 2] For example,
the 2005 Campaign Plan identifies the following as the Corps key areas
of focus: supporting stability, reconstruction, and homeland security
operations; developing sound water resources solutions; and improving
the reliability of water resources infrastructure using a risk-based
asset management strategy.
Strategic human capital planning--the method by which an agency designs
a coherent framework of human capital policies, programs, and practices
to achieve the vision outlined in its strategic plan--is an important
component of an agency's overall planning effort because it helps
ensure that an agency's workforce is adequate to meet its current and
future needs. The development and implementation of a human capital
plan is a key step in an agency's progress toward building a highly
effective, performance-based organization that can recruit, hire,
motivate, and reward a high-performing, top-quality workforce. Although
the structure, content, and format of human capital plans vary by
agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) cites certain common
elements that an agency's human capital plan should include (1) a
clearly understood strategic direction; (2) human capital goals; (3)
strategies/objectives for accomplishing the goals; (4) an
implementation plan; (5) a communication/change management plan, if
needed, and (6) a system for measuring how successfully the strategies/
objectives have been implemented.[Footnote 3] Additionally, our
previous work suggests that regardless of an agency's mission, its
human capital management approach should include:
* involving top management, employees, and other stakeholders in
developing, communicating, and implementing a human capital plan;
* determining the critical skills that will be needed to achieve future
programmatic results;
* developing strategies that are tailored to address gaps in critical
skills that need attention;
* building the capability needed to address administrative,
educational, and other requirements important to support workforce
strategies; and:
* monitoring and evaluating the agency's progress toward its human
capital goals and the contribution that human capital results have made
toward achieving programmatic goals.[Footnote 4]
In this context, you requested that we examine the (1) extent to which
the Corps has aligned its human capital plan with its strategic plan,
(2) extent to which the Corps has the information necessary to identify
and meet its current and future workforce needs, and (3) challenges the
Corps faces in meeting its workforce needs. This report is the third in
a series of reports that you have requested on human capital challenges
facing those key federal agencies that primarily rely on a scientific,
technical, and engineering workforce. (See related GAO products at the
end of this report.)
To examine the alignment of the Corps' human capital plan with its
strategic plan, we reviewed the Corps' human capital plan, strategic
plans, and related policy and planning documents from its headquarters
and division offices. We also reviewed prior GAO reports, Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) reports, and information from Corps
strategic boards and committees. In addition, we interviewed human
resources and program managers at the Corps' headquarters and
divisions. To examine the extent to which the Corps has the information
necessary to identify and meet current and future workforce needs, we
reviewed human capital planning guidance from Corps headquarters,
divisions, and districts. We also reviewed the Corps' human capital
planning process and compared it with four key principles of effective
human capital planning identified by GAO. In addition, we visited two
Corps divisions and three Corps districts and interviewed agency
officials at these locations to obtain information on their strategic
human capital planning and initiatives. We used the information
obtained from our visits to develop a structured interview administered
to all of the Corps' eight divisions and to a purposeful sample of 14
districts that perform domestic civil works functions for the
agency.[Footnote 5] The structured interview covered, among other
things, questions relating to the Corps' human capital initiatives,
performance measures, critical skills, and challenges in meeting
workforce needs. In addition, we reviewed documents obtained from the
Corps' divisions and districts to corroborate information obtained
during the structured interviews. We also analyzed the Corps'
demographic and workforce data as well as data on its use of human
capital incentives, such as recruitment and retention incentives. To
determine the challenges the Corps faces in meeting its workforce
needs, we interviewed human resources and program managers at Corps
headquarters, the eight divisions, and the selected sample of 14
districts. Appendix I contains a more detailed description of the scope
and methodology for our review. We conducted this performance audit
from March 2007 to April 2008 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
The Corps' strategic human capital plan is out of date and not aligned
with the agency's most recent strategic plan. Although the human
capital plan was aligned with the agency's strategic plan when both
plans were developed in 2002, the human capital plan has not been
revised since then to reflect the agency's current strategic plan,
which changed significantly when it was redrafted in 2005. Corps
headquarters officials told us that although they have not informed the
rest of the agency, they have "abandoned" the use of the existing human
capital plan. These officials told us that they have replaced the plan
with annual and quarterly updates of human capital activities required
by OPM under a recent presidential initiative. However, we found that
these updates do not provide an adequate substitute for the agency's
human capital plan because they do not contain any of the components of
an effective plan, such as goals, strategies, and a system for
measuring how successfully the strategies have been implemented.
Moreover, the lack of a current human capital plan has resulted in
human capital activities being managed inconsistently across the
agency. For example, some division and district officials told us they
are still using the 2002 human capital plan as a guide, and others said
that because they receive limited guidance from headquarters, they are
independently seeking information on recruitment and retention
incentives from OPM or other sources. To help the Corps more
effectively manage its human capital activities, we are recommending
that it redraft its human capital plan so that the plan is linked to
the agency's strategic plan and contains all the key components
outlined by OPM. Moreover, we are recommending that once the plan is
revised, the Corps distribute the revised plan and direct the divisions
and districts to use the new plan to guide their human capital
activities.
The Corps lacks the necessary agencywide information on critical skills
to identify and assess current and future workforce needs and therefore
cannot effectively perform its workforce planning activities. Effective
workforce planning requires consistent agencywide data on the critical
skills needed to achieve current and future programmatic results.
However, the Corps does not have a process for collecting comprehensive
and consistent agencywide data, and headquarters has not provided
guidance to the divisions and districts on how to gather this
information systematically. In the absence of such guidance, some
divisions and districts have independently gathered some of this
information. However, we found that the data collection methods they
used varied, leaving the Corps without the complete, reliable, and
comparable data that it needs to assess the agency's overall workforce
needs. Without this information, we believe that the Corps' ability to
effectively identify and assess areas where it needs to enhance or
modify its workforce recruitment, development, and retention strategies
is significantly constrained. The Corps has recently recognized the
need for a coordinated effort to collect information on the critical
skills needed agencywide. In October 2007, it established a team to,
among other things, identify (1) the future roles of the Corps, (2) the
critical skills needed to support these roles, and (3) any critical
skills gaps. The team plans to review various division and district
efforts to collect critical skills data and determine how these efforts
can be applied to develop a consistent agencywide data collection
process. However, it is too early to evaluate the team's progress on
this effort.
The Corps' ability to maintain a workforce sufficient to accomplish its
mission is being affected by three key challenges. According to
division and district officials, these challenges include (1) intense
competition from the private sector and other entities to hire the best
talent; (2) the loss of staff to various contingency operations, such
as Iraq and Afghanistan; and (3) the large number of employees who are
eligible to retire. To help offset these challenges, Corps officials
told us they are using various human capital tools, such as recruitment
and retention bonuses, to recruit, develop, and retain employees, and
are also relying on contractors to carry out the Corps' workload.
However, we found that the Corps' use of some human capital tools,
including recruitment bonuses, sharply declined from fiscal years 2002
to 2006. For example, in 2002 the Corps awarded about $750,000 in
recruitment bonuses, but this number fell to about $24,000 in fiscal
year 2006. Some district officials with whom we spoke generally felt
that the Corps should be more aggressive in its use of human capital
authorities and flexibilities to address its human capital challenges.
For example, one district official said that although his district
tries to provide incentives to recruit experienced staff, it is often
unable to because incentives first have to be approved by the
district's Corporate Board. If the Corporate Board does not approve the
use of the incentives requested, the district will have to hire less
experienced staff instead of experienced scientists and engineers.
Moreover, it is unclear whether the human capital tools that the Corps
has used have been effective in meeting the agency's overall workforce
needs. We found that while the Corps collects data on the extent to
which various tools have been used by the divisions and districts, it
has not developed a process to evaluate the effectiveness of the tools.
For example, the Corps could not provide us with any information to
demonstrate whether the use of recruitment bonuses has been effective
in hiring and retaining staff in its divisions and districts. We
believe that without such a process, the Corps cannot determine the
overall costs and benefits of using various methods to recruit and
retain employees, nor can it determine whether additional approaches
are needed to develop and maintain its workforce for the future. To
help the Corps better manage its workforce planning efforts, we are
recommending that it develop and implement a process for evaluating the
effectiveness of its human capital tools so that it can adjust their
use, as necessary, to meet workforce needs.
In its written comments on a draft of our report (reprinted in app.
II), the Department of Defense generally agreed with our
recommendations and agreed to update the Corps' human capital plan by
January 2009.
Background:
The Corps is an agency in the DOD that has military and civilian
responsibilities. The military program provides engineering,
construction, and environmental management services to DOD agencies.
Under its civil works program, at the direction of the Congress, the
Corps plans, constructs, operates, and maintains a wide range of water
resources projects. A military Chief of Engineers oversees the Corps'
civil and military operations and reports on civil works matters to an
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Corps operates as
a military organization with a largely civilian workforce (34,600
civilian and 650 military personnel). The Corps is organized
geographically into its headquarters, located in Washington, D.C; eight
divisions across the country; and 41 subordinate districts throughout
the United States, Asia, and Europe (see fig. 1).[Footnote 6] Corps
headquarters creates policy and plans the future direction for the
organization. The eight divisions coordinate the work carried out by
the 41 districts, and individual projects are largely planned and
implemented at the district level after they have been approved at the
division and headquarters level.
Figure 1: The Corps' Civil Work Program's Division and District
Boundaries:
This figure is a map of the Corps' Civil Work Program's division and
district boundaries.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Corps of Engineers.
[End of figure]
To assist in its human capital planning efforts, in September 2002, the
Corps issued a human capital planning document entitled The Strategic
Management of Human Capital in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
human capital plan was focused on recruiting and retaining a world-
class workforce, and in order for this to happen the Corps recognized
that it needed to become a learning organization and develop leaders at
all levels. The plan also documented the human capital challenges the
Corps faced as well as past, current, and future responses to those
challenges. The plan incorporated and was driven by, among other
things, the agency's 2002 strategic plan, called the Campaign Plan, and
its accompanying vision statement. In developing the human capital
plan, the Corps incorporated the three strategic goals contained in the
Campaign Plan: (1) people--being recognized for the technical and
professional excellence of its world class workforce, functioning as
teams delivering projects and services; (2) process--using the project
management business process to operate as one Corps, regionally
delivering quality goods and services; and (3) communication--
communicating effectively to build synergistic relationships that serve
the nation.
Each new incoming Commander of the Corps has the opportunity to redraft
the strategic plan for the agency, which last occurred in June 2005.
Specifically, the 2005 strategic plan incorporated the Corps' increased
responsibilities for various contingency operations, such as Iraq and
Afghanistan, and responding to natural disasters like Hurricane
Katrina. The strategic plan also outlines the agency's responsibilities
as outlined in the 2004 National Response Plan--responding to the
Department of Homeland Security domestically, and to the U.S. Agency
for International Development globally, for non-DOD contingency
operations. Additionally, the 2005 strategic plan contained three new
strategic goals not contained in the agency's 2002 strategic plan: (1)
support stability, reconstruction, and homeland security operations;
(2) develop sound water resources solutions; and (3) improve the
reliability of water resources infrastructure using a risk-based asset
management strategy. Because a new Commander for the Corps was
appointed in 2007, the agency is in the process of redrafting its
Campaign Plan to reflect the new Commander's strategic vision and
priorities for the next 3 to 4 years.
Finally, in 2004 the Corps began a new organization plan, called USACE
2012, intended to streamline the agency's organizational structure and
reduce redundancy among districts. USACE 2012 focuses on implementing
the following four goals, called key concepts, to achieve
organizational and cultural change: (1) establishing regional business
centers, which foster divisions and districts working together as a
regional unit; (2) creating regional integration teams, focused on the
execution of the civil works and military programs mission; (3)
establishing communities of practice, consisting of individuals who
practice and share an interest in a major functional area or business
line, for the purpose of developing and sharing best practices and
fostering cross-functional and cross-divisional collaboration; and (4)
developing national and regional support models designed to provide
support services that effectively separate divisions' responsibilities
from headquarters'. Before 2004, the eight divisions served largely as
a conduit between headquarters and the district offices, and the 41
districts, in turn, were each responsible for managing their own
workforce to complete their projects. Under the new organizational
structure, the eight divisions have greater responsibility for managing
the workforce and workload of all of their component districts on a
regional basis. According to Corps officials, USACE 2012 is part of a
continuous improvement process to better meet its customers' and
national needs.
The Corps Lacks a Current Human Capital Plan to Guide Its Workforce
Planning Efforts:
The Corps' 2002 strategic human capital plan is out of date and not
aligned with the agency's most recent strategic plan, developed in
2005. Because the Corps lacks a current human capital plan, human
capital activities are being managed inconsistently by division and
district officials across the agency. In 2002, the Corps' human capital
plan was designed to, among other things, improve the agency's ability
to attract and retain a world class workforce and provide more accurate
and objective ways to measure success.[Footnote 7] Also consistent with
OPM's guidance on effective human capital planning, the 2002 human
capital plan was aligned with the agency's 2002 strategic plan and its
accompanying vision statement. For example, the 2002 strategic plan
included "people" as one of its three strategic goals--that is, the
Corps wanted to "be recognized for the technical and professional
excellence of our world class workforce, functioning as teams
delivering projects and services."[Footnote 8] The people goal
contained three major objectives--attract and retain a world-class
workforce, create a learning organization, and develop leaders at all
levels--and strategies for each of them. Each objective and strategy,
along with an implementation plan, was addressed in the agency's human
capital plan.
However, the human capital plan has not been revised since 2002 to
reflect the Corps' new strategic direction as outlined in the agency's
most current strategic plan, developed in June 2005, and other recent
events.[Footnote 9] For example, the 2005 strategic plan does not
contain a strategic goal related to people. It does, however, contain
three additional strategic goals that are not reflected in the 2002
human capital plan: (1) support stability, reconstruction, and homeland
security operations; (2) develop sound water resources solutions; and
(3) improve the reliability of water resources infrastructure using a
risk-based asset management strategy. Moreover, because the human
capital plan has not been revised, it does not reflect events that have
taken place since 2002 that have had a significant impact on the
agency's human capital needs, such as the agency's increased focus on
supporting contingency operations and its new responsibilities outlined
in the 2004 National Response Plan.[Footnote 10] For example, since the
1990s, the Corps has been called upon more frequently to take part in
contingency operations at home and abroad--such as responding to
natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. Similarly, under the National
Response Plan, the Corps provides support as both a primary agency and
a coordinating agency for emergency and support functions outlined in
the plan. We found that the relevance of the Corps' outdated human
capital plan will become further diminished in the near future because
the agency is beginning the process of updating its 2005 strategic plan
to reflect the new strategic direction of the incoming Commander of the
Corps.
According to Corps officials, although this has not been communicated
agencywide, headquarters has "abandoned" the use of the outdated 2002
human capital plan, replacing it with annual and quarterly updates of
human capital activities required by OPM under the President's 2002
Management Agenda. Officials in the Corps' Office of Human Resources
told us that the Corps does not have the staff and resources to both
update its human capital plan and provide the updates to OPM. The
President's Management Agenda established governmentwide initiatives
designed to improve the management and performance of the federal
government in five areas, including strategic management of human
capital. OPM was designated the lead agency for overseeing the human
capital initiative, and federal agencies were to identify human capital
activities they planned to undertake and to provide quarterly and
annual updates on these activities to OPM. For example, to fulfill its
annual reporting requirements to OPM, the Corps provides a list of
completed human capital activities, such as "Community of Practice
Conference Workshop held," and activities to be undertaken, such as
"Identify Fiscal Year 2008 Intern Requirements." However, we found that
these updates are not an adequate substitute for the Corps' human
capital plan because they do not represent a coherent framework of the
agency's human capital policies, programs, and practices, and they do
not include any of the components of an effective human capital plan,
such as goals, strategies, and a system for measuring how successfully
the strategies have been implemented.
The lack of a current human capital plan has also led to inconsistent
approaches in how divisions and districts are managing human capital
activities for the agency. For example, some division and district
officials told us that they are still using the 2002 human capital plan
to guide their activities; others said they relied instead on guidance
they receive from headquarters. Still others said that because they
receive limited guidance from headquarters on developing human capital
goals and objectives, they have to independently develop strategies as
best they can. For example, one district told us that it had developed
its own informal succession plan in 2004 that it updates continually.
The plan assesses all of the district's ongoing missions as well as the
strategies for recruiting, developing, and retaining the technical
skills needed to carry out the district's mission. Finally, some
districts said they relied on information they receive from the
divisions, and others told us that they rely on information on human
capital flexibilities obtained from an OPM handbook to assist with
human capital planning.[Footnote 11]
The Corps Lacks the Necessary Agencywide Data on Critical Skills to
Identify and Assess Its Workforce Needs:
The Corps does not have comprehensive agencywide data on critical
skills to identify and assess current and future workforce needs. As a
result, the Corps cannot effectively identify gaps in its workforce
needs and determine how to modify its workforce planning approaches to
fill these gaps. Effective workforce planning requires consistent
agencywide data on the critical skills needed to achieve current and
future programmatic results. However, the Corps does not have a process
for collecting comprehensive and consistent agencywide data, and
headquarters has not provided guidance to its divisions and districts
on how to collect this information. More specifically, according to
Corps officials, while the agency collects critical skills data on its
current workforce needs through the Army's Workforce Analysis Support
System database, this database does not allow the Corps to capture
information on the agency's future workforce needs. In the absence of
such a process, some Corps divisions and districts have independently
collected their own data on workforce needs; however, we found that
those divisions and districts that have collected data on critical
skills have used various methods to do so. For example, some division
and district officials told us that they assessed their current
workforce at the division level to determine their critical skills.
Others stated that they conducted a gap analysis to identify critical
skills needs. Because these data on both the agency's current and
future workforce needs have not been systematically collected, a
meaningful comparison of the data across divisions to assess the
agency's overall needs is not possible. Consequently, we believe that
the lack of this information hampers the Corps' ability to develop
effective approaches to recruiting, developing, and retaining
personnel.
Obtaining comprehensive and consistent agencywide data on critical
skills needs has become even more important since the Corps began to
restructure its organization in 2004. One of the primary goals of the
restructuring is to streamline the organization to more effectively
share Corps resources. Under the previous organizational structure,
headquarters generally sets policy, divisions communicated policy to
the districts, and the districts were responsible for managing their
workforce and workload. Districts' workforce management activities
included hiring staff and contracting work out. In addition, according
to Corps officials, while some districts interacted to share resources,
others did not. Under the new structure, which continues to evolve, the
workforce and workload management functions have shifted to the
divisions. Under the new structure the Corps would like to enable the
divisions, with input from their districts, to more efficiently meet
the workforce needs across the division by sharing human capital
resources, such as biologists and engineers, among the districts.
According to the Corps, this approach should also foster information
and resource sharing among the eight divisions. For example, officials
in one district told us that when their work dries up, under the new
organizational concept the district can get work from other districts,
or staff can be reassigned or shared with other districts or divisions.
However, it is unclear to us how the goals of this new structure can be
realized if the Corps' divisions and districts do not have consistent
agencywide data to enable them to identify the units that have the
critical skills that other organizational units are seeking.
The Corps has recently recognized the need to establish a process for
collecting comprehensive and consistent agencywide information on
critical skills. In June 2007, the Corps initiated a National Technical
Competency Strategy to, among other things, identify (1) the future
roles of the Corps, (2) the critical skills needed to support these
roles, and (3) any critical skills gaps. In October 2007, the Corps
established a National Technical Competency Team to implement the
strategy through coordination with Corps senior leadership. The team is
charged with reviewing prior and current division and district
initiatives to collect data on the agency's technical skill needs and
capabilities and identifying ways to unify and integrate these
initiatives to minimize redundancy. However, it is too early to
evaluate the Corps' overall progress on this effort.
The Corps Faces Several Challenges in Carrying Out Its Workforce
Planning Efforts:
A number of human capital challenges, including strong competition from
other employers to hire the most talented potential employees, are
affecting the Corps' ability to attract and retain a qualified
workforce, according to Corps officials. Although various human capital
tools to help attract and retain a high-quality workforce are available
to the Corps under federal personnel law, the agency's use of several
financial incentives has sharply declined in the last 5 years.
Moreover, the Corps does not have a process in place to evaluate the
effectiveness of the human capital tools it has used, so while the
agency can provide information on the extent to which it has used
various tools, it cannot assess their effectiveness in meeting
workforce needs.
Officials Cited Several Factors Affecting the Corps' Ability to
Maintain a Qualified Workforce:
According to Corps headquarters, division, and district officials, a
number of human capital challenges are undermining their efforts to
balance the Corps' workforce with its workload. These challenges
include (1) competition from the private sector and other entities, (2)
the loss of staff to various contingency operations, and (3) the large
number of retirement-eligible employees. First, Corps officials told us
that competition from the private sector and other entities, such as
state and local governments, greatly affects their ability to recruit
and retain a qualified workforce. For example, in certain locations,
such as Los Angeles, it can be difficult to fill engineering positions
because the cost of living is high and the Corps has to compete with
private firms, the city, and the county, which can pay more than the
agency for qualified personnel. Similarly, officials told us that in
one of the states where the Corps operates, the state government
recently increased the salaries of engineers to a level that is
difficult for the Corps to match, thereby making it harder for the
Corps to effectively recruit and retain engineers in that labor market.
In addition, Corps officials told us that the overall state of the
economy also affects the agency's ability to compete with others for
qualified individuals. They told us that when the economy is doing well
it is harder for the Corps to compete with other employers.
Second, the Corps is also challenged by the vacancies created by
employee deployments for contingency operations, such as war and
natural disasters, which since the 1990s have increasingly become a
focus for the Corps. For example, Corps officials told us that since
March 2004 about 4,000 employees have been deployed to support Iraq and
Afghanistan operations, and since August 2005 an additional 9,000 have
been deployed to help with efforts to address the effects of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. Corps officials in one division told us that they are
running out of volunteers to support the Gulf Regions--with some
employees having served up to three tours in these areas. In some
cases, the Corps calls upon its remaining employees to perform dual
roles, a situation that stresses the workforce and could put the Corps
at risk of not being able to perform its mission. In addition, Corps
officials told us the agency uses contractors to fill some of the gaps
caused by these staff losses. The Corps also relies heavily upon its
reemployed annuitant cadre to fill vacancies created by such
deployments. At the same time, Corps officials stated that while
vacancies created by deployments and volunteer assignments are a
challenge, they also offer opportunities--that is, the employees who
take over the deployed employees' responsibilities gain experience in
new areas. Moreover, deployed employees learn from their experiences,
adding value to the Corps.
Finally, Corps officials told us that the increasing number of
retirement-eligible employees is a challenge to planning for its future
workforce. As we have previously reported, the federal government is
confronting a retirement wave and with it the loss of leadership and
institutional knowledge at all levels.[Footnote 12] If large numbers of
employees retire over a relatively short period and agencies are not
effective in replacing them with the appropriate number of employees
possessing the needed skills, the resulting loss of institutional
knowledge and expertise could adversely affect mission
achievement.[Footnote 13] According to the Corps, in fiscal year 2006,
approximately 23 percent of the agency's workforce was eligible to
retire, although on average, Corps employees retire 5.75 years after
they are eligible. Corps officials told us that the agency works with
retirement-eligible employees to provide them with interesting work to
delay their departure. For example, the Corps allows retirement-
eligible employees to work on projects in which they have a special
interest, or if the employees are willing, the Corps may deploy them to
other locations, such as Iraq, for more interesting work in the hope
that this will persuade them to stay on with the agency.
The Corps Uses Some Tools to Offset Its Human Capital Challenges but
Lacks a Process for Evaluating Their Effectiveness:
The Corps uses various hiring authorities and human capital
flexibilities to offset its human capital challenges.[Footnote 14] Some
examples of the hiring authorities used by the agency include:
* The Federal Career Intern Program--under this hiring authority the
Corps hired 621 interns from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2006.
Most interns are hired for 18 to 24 months, typically entering the
program at entry-level salaries. At the end of the program, interns are
guaranteed a full-time position if they agree to sign a mobility
agreement.[Footnote 15] Corps officials told us that interns are a
major component of the Corps' recruiting efforts because the agency can
easily convert interns to full-time employees. They also told us that
they primarily concentrate their intern recruitment efforts in the
engineering and scientific specialties, which constitute approximately
90 percent of their intern hiring efforts. Further, according to these
officials, interns typically realize the benefits of working for the
Corps during their internships and tend to stay with the agency.
* Reemployed Annuitant Office Cadre Program--under this authority the
Corps rehires former federal employees to supplement its workforce, as
needed. The Corps established this program in response to its declining
workforce, increased responsibilities for various contingency
operations, and the high number of retirement-eligible employees. Among
other things, the Corps uses these employees to fill positions needing
specialized skills or to supplement staff to complete specific projects
in a timely manner.
* Student Career Experience Program and the Student Temporary
Employment Program--under these authorities the Corps can hire
applicants currently enrolled in high school, college, a university, or
a technical or vocational school. Students hired through the Student
Career Experience Program must be enrolled in a specific educational
discipline that meets the requirements for the position and are
eligible for conversion to permanent employees. Students hired through
the Student Temporary Program are not required to be in educational
disciplines that match the work the student is performing, and their
appointments are limited to 1 year that can be extended until the
completion of their educational requirements.
* The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998--under this
authority the Corps can hire applicants that have preference
eligibility or substantially completed 3 or more years of active
service, in addition to having received an honorable or general
military discharge or were released under honorable conditions shortly
before completing a 3-year tour of duty.
One district also told us that it has an affirmative employment plan
that includes outreach to various colleges and universities to attract
qualified applicants from diverse backgrounds. Under the plan, the
district participates in various conferences, such as the Hispanic
Engineer National Achievement Awards Conference and the Black
Engineering Conference. As a result of its affirmative employment plan,
according to district officials, the district has increased the quality
and diversity of its workforce.
The Corps also uses a variety of human capital flexibilities to
maintain its workforce as shown in table 1. According to Corps
officials, some of these flexibilities are helpful to their recruiting
efforts in areas where the cost of living is high, such as San
Francisco. In such locations, the Corps uses such tools as recruitment
and retention bonuses as an incentive for employees to work there.
Corps officials also cited other tools they use to attract and retain a
qualified staff, including paying for employees to obtain advanced
degrees; providing long-term training; and providing a family-friendly
workplace that allows flex-time, telecommuting, or alternative work
schedules.
Table 1: Examples of Human Capital Flexibilities Available to the
Corps:
Category: Hiring and retention incentives;
Human capital flexibilities: * Recruitment bonuses;
* Relocation bonuses;
* Retention allowances;
* Student loan repayments.
Category: Other compensation;
Human capital flexibilities: * Flexible spending accounts that allow
employees to set aside funds for expenses related to health care and
care for dependents;
* Professional credential reimbursement program;
* Transit and parking subsidy programs.
Category: Enhanced work environment;
Human capital flexibilities: * Business casual dress policy;
* Alternative work schedules: flexible work schedules and compressed
schedules;
* Telework;
* On-site child care and fitness centers.
Source: GAO analysis of Corps documents.
[End of table]
While the Corps has a number of flexibilities available to help in its
recruiting and retention efforts, we found that the use of these
flexibilities has sharply declined in recent years. For example,
although the Corps awarded approximately $2.5 million in recruitment,
relocation, and retention bonuses during fiscal years 2002 through
2006, the amount it devoted annually to recruitment bonuses decreased
almost 97 percent during that time--from about $750,000 in fiscal year
2002 to about $24,000 in fiscal year 2006. Moreover, the total amount
the Corps spent annually on recruitment, relocation, and retention
decreased 75 percent from fiscal year 2002 to 2006--from about $800,000
to about $198,000. (See table 2.) This trend is inconsistent with the
concerns Corps officials have cited about the growing impact of human
capital challenges on the Corps' workforce over the past 6 years.
Moreover, district officials with whom we spoke generally felt that the
Corps should be more aggressive in its use of human capital authorities
and flexibilities to address its human capital challenges. More
specifically, some officials said that increasing the agency's use of
recruitment, relocation, and retention bonuses would increase the
agency's ability to attract and retain a qualified workforce. For
example, according to one district official, although his district
tries to provide incentives to recruit qualified staff, the incentives
have to first be approved by the district's Corporate Board.[Footnote
16] Oftentimes if this approval is not received, he has had trouble
hiring experienced scientists and engineers and has had to hire less
experienced staff instead. In addition, some officials told us that
increasing the use of the various student intern and career experience
programs would also help recruit qualified people in a shrinking labor
pool. Further, these officials suggested establishing or increasing
early outreach to students and schools, in addition to the Corps'
college recruiting initiatives, as a way to increase students' interest
in careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--as
well as a career with the Corps.
Table 2: The Corps' Use of Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention
Incentives, by Domestic Divisions and Districts, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2006:
Incentive: Recruitment;
2002: $754,679;
2003: $458,993;
2004: $291,238;
2005: $79,014;
2006: $24,258;
Total: $1,608,182.
Incentive: Relocation;
2002: 54,112;
2003: 64,664;
2004: 32,999;
2005: 59,634;
2006: 79,535;
Total: 290,944.
Incentive: Retention;
2002: 0;
2003: 89,503;
2004: 296,452;
2005: 181,704;
2006: 93,974;
Total: 661,633.
Incentive: Total;
2002: $808,791;
2003: $613,160;
2004: $620,689;
2005: $320,353;
2006: $197,767;
Total: $2,560,759.
Source: GAO analysis of Corps of Engineers Financial Management System
data.
[End of table]
In addition to the use of human capital tools discussed above, the
Corps also has the ability to outsource portions of its workload to
private sector organizations and other entities. More specifically, the
Corps has a goal of contracting out 30 percent of the planning and
design aspects of its civil works projects, allowing the agency to meet
its workload needs without having to hire additional staff to fill gaps
in its workforce. Corps officials told us that they use this option
when they do not have the staff or skill sets to assign to a particular
project. On the other hand, according to one Corps official, although
approximately 40 percent of the Corps' engineering work is done in-
house, that number may be declining. This official said that the
practice of "contracting out for the sake of contracting out" makes it
difficult to bring people into the Corps because engineers do not want
to review the work of contractors--they would rather do the work
themselves. The official stated that the Corps needs to find the right
balance between in-house and contract work.
Finally, while the Corps tracks the extent to which it uses certain
human capital tools, it has not developed a process to systematically
evaluate their effectiveness. For example, the Corps tracks and can
provide information on its use of recruitment and retention bonuses,
but it does not have a process for assessing the extent to which such
monetary flexibilities are effective in helping recruit and retain a
qualified staff. Consequently, the Corps could not provide us with
information on the extent to which its use of various tools and
flexibilities, such as retention bonuses, has been effective in meeting
its workforce needs. Without a process to evaluate the effectiveness of
its human capital tools, it is unclear how the Corps can determine the
overall costs and benefits of the various methods it is using to
recruit and retain employees and whether certain tools are being under-
or overused.
Conclusions:
An agency's human capital plan is the key to its progress toward
building a highly effective organization that can recruit, hire,
motivate, and reward a top-quality workforce. Although the structure,
content, and format of human capital plans may vary by agency, human
capital plans should clearly reflect the agency's strategic direction.
However, this is not the case with the Corps because it does not have a
current human capital plan that is aligned with its strategic plan.
Without such a human capital plan, the agency not only is limited in
strategically managing its workforce efforts but also is not providing
clear guidance to all of its organizational levels on how they are to
effectively and consistently carry out their human capital
responsibilities. Further, the Corps' lack of comprehensive and
consistent agencywide data on critical skills undermines its ability to
identify and assess current and future workforce needs. It remains to
be seen whether the Corps' recently begun effort to develop a process
to collect such information will be successful. Finally, although the
Corps uses a number of human capital tools to address the challenges it
faces, such as an aging workforce and competition from the private
sector for qualified applicants, it lacks a process to assess the
effectiveness of these tools. Without such a process, the Corps has no
way to determine either the overall costs and benefits of the tools it
uses to recruit and retain employees or whether additional approaches
are needed to develop and maintain its workforce for the future.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help the Corps better manage its workforce planning efforts, we are
recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Commanding
General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
take the following three actions:
* Develop a human capital plan that is directly linked to the Corps'
current strategic plan and that contains all the key components of an
effective plan as outlined by the Office of Personnel Management.
* Distribute the revised plan agencywide and direct the divisions and
districts to use it to guide their human capital activities.
* Develop and implement a process for determining the effectiveness of
the human capital tools the Corps is using so that it can adjust their
use, as necessary, to meet workforce needs.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of Defense
for review and comment. The Department generally concurred with our
recommendations. Specifically, the Department concurred with our
recommendation that the Corps develop a human capital plan that is
directly linked to the Corps' current strategic plan and that contains
all the key components of an effective plan as outlined by OPM. The
Department stated that it will conduct an Enterprise Human Resources
Strategy Summit on July 9 - 11, 2008, with stakeholders to obtain input
that will be used to update the Corps' human capital plan. The
Department stated that it expects to finalize the Corps human capital
plan by January 2009. The Department also agreed with our
recommendation to distribute the revised human capital plan to the
Corps' divisions and districts, stating that it would do so with the
appropriate guidance within 30 days of the plan being finalized.
Finally, the Department concurred with our recommendation that the
Corps develop and implement a process for determining the effectiveness
of its human capital tools so that it can adjust their use, as
necessary, to meet workforce needs. The Department stated that metrics
for determining the effectiveness of the human capital tools used by
the Corps will be identified and included in the agency's updated human
capital plan.
The Department also provided additional information regarding various
human capital actions and initiatives mentioned in our report. The full
text of the Department's comments can be found in appendix II as well
as our response to these comments. Of particular note is the
Department's comment that since 2005, the Corps has been rated "green"
in status and "green" in progress on the Human Capital Scorecard by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). According to the Department, the
Corps' human capital initiatives received such a rating only after
rigorous scrutiny of OMB and OPM. We are aware that the Corps has been
rated "green" for its human capital initiative updates, however, as we
state in the report, these updates do not provide an adequate
substitute for the agency's human capital plan because they do not
include any of the components of an effective plan, such as goals,
strategies, and a system for measuring how successfully strategies have
been implemented. Consequently, they do not represent a comprehensive
framework of the agency's human capital policies, programs, and
practices needed to assist the Corps in achieving its mission.
Additionally, the Department stated that the report placed undue weight
on feedback from a small number of respondents. We disagree with the
Department's characterization. We contacted officials in all eight
Corps division offices and a third of all the Corps district offices,
and reported on those experiences and opinions with which these
officials generally concurred. For example, the report states that
district officials with whom we spoke generally felt that the Corps
should be more aggressive in its use of human capital authorities and
flexibilities. The individual examples cited throughout the report were
used to provide more clarification on the specific types of concerns
and situations being faced by the district officials.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the
Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested
parties. 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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@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 contributions to this
report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We were asked to examine the (1) extent to which the Corps has aligned
its human capital plan with its strategic plan, (2) extent to which the
Corps has the information necessary to identify and meet current and
future workforce needs, and (3) challenges the Corps faces in meeting
its workforce needs.
To assess the alignment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' human
capital plan with its strategic plan, we analyzed and reviewed a broad
range of Corps policy and planning documents from headquarters and
divisions. Specifically, we examined information on the Corps'
operations and strategic planning efforts, such as the Corps' 2002
Strategic Human Capital Plan, the Integrated Strategic Plan, Campaign
Plans, related headquarters and division documents, and the USACE 2012
regionalization plan. We also reviewed information from Corps strategic
boards and committees, the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Human
Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework, and our relevant
reports. We corroborated information provided in these documents
through interviews with human resources managers and program managers
at Corps headquarters, divisions, and districts. We also interviewed
cognizant community of practice program leaders in real estate,
contracting, planning, research and development, operations and
regulations, resource management, strategic integrations, human
resources, program and project management, logistics, environment, and
engineering and construction.
To assess the extent to which the Corps is collecting the information
necessary to meet current and future workforce needs, we visited and
interviewed Corps officials at two divisions (the North Atlantic and
South Pacific divisions) and three districts (New York, San Francisco,
and Sacramento) to obtain information about their strategic workforce
planning strategies and their human capital initiatives related to
recruitment, development, and retention of staff. We used the
information obtained from the visits to develop a structured interview
that we administered to the Corps' eight divisions and a purposeful
sample of 14 of the Corps' 38 districts that conduct work in the United
States. We selected 2 districts from each division to include in our
interviews, with the exception of Pacific Ocean Division, where we
interviewed only the division staff. Our site selections were based on
(1) number of scientists and engineers, (2) overall full-time
equivalent employees, (3) budget size, and (4) geographic location.
Although the information from our sample of districts is not
generalizable to all districts within a division, our interviews cover
human capital issues at locations representing nearly half (46 percent)
of Corps scientist and engineering staff, and represent issues at
locations with diverse staff sizes, budget sizes, and geographic
locations. We did not include districts in the Pacific Ocean Division
because 2 of the districts are outside the United States, and the human
capital challenges at the domestic districts--Alaska and Honolulu--
would likely be unique to labor force demographics at these locations.
Additionally, because there are only 2 districts within the Pacific
Ocean Division that perform work in the United States, the division is
likely more aware of the districts' activities compared to those other
divisions that are responsible for more districts. The 14 districts
selected were Huntington, Louisville, St. Louis, Vicksburg, New
England, New York, Omaha, Walla Walla, Jacksonville, Mobile,
Albuquerque, Los Angeles, Fort Worth, and Little Rock. Although the New
Orleans District was originally selected based on our criteria, we
chose St. Louis as a replacement because of other ongoing audit work at
the site, and the Corps' heavy workload related to Hurricane Katrina
reconstruction efforts. We interviewed managers identified by the
District Deputy Commander responsible for strategic human capital
planning and human resources-related issues. The structured interview
covered, among other things, human capital initiatives, performance
measures, critical skills, and challenges to meeting workforce needs.
To reduce nonsampling errors,[Footnote 17] we conducted pretests with
respondents from two divisions and 3 districts to ensure that questions
were interpreted in a consistent manner and we revised the questions on
the basis of the pretest results. We also reviewed division and
district documents on recruitment, training and development, and
retention to corroborate information discussed during the interviews.
To determine the challenges the Corps faces in meeting its workforce
needs, we included open-ended questions about challenges the Corps
faces in meeting its workforce and program needs in our structured
interviews and interviewed community of practice program leaders at
Corps headquarters. We conducted a content analysis of interview
responses for which general themes were developed and then
independently coded. Coding discrepancies were reviewed, and if
necessary, arbitrated by a third party until agreement statistics
reached 100 percent. The content codes and other interview data were
analyzed to develop general statistics on human capital issues across
the divisions and districts.
In addition, we analyzed data obtained from Army's Workforce Analysis
Support System for information on the Corps' workforce and the Corps of
Engineers Financial Management System for information on the Corps use
of recruitment, retention, and relocation allowances as well as
expenditures for training and development activities. To assess the
reliability of the data needed to answer the engagement objectives, we
checked these data for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness,
reviewed existing information about these data and the system that
produced them, and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the
data. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2007 to April 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Corps of Engineers:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
Department Of The Army:
Office Of The Assistant Secretary:
Civil Works:
108 Army Pentagon:
Washington DC 20310-0108:
May 31, 2008:
Ms. Anu Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. General Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft
Report, GAO-08-596, `Human Capital: Corps of Engineers Needs to Update
Its Workforce Planning Process to More Effectively Address Its Current
and Future Workforce Needs,' dated April 18, 2008 (GAO Code 360805).
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report. We generally concur with the three recommendations that the
Corps develop a human capital plan that is directly linked to the Corps
current strategic plan; distribute the revised plan agency wide; and
develop and implement a process for determining the effectiveness of
the human capital tools we use. We do, however, wish to offer some
additional comments regarding the findings in the report.
The Corps has been rated "green" in status and "green" in progress on
the Human Capital Scorecard by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) since 2005. In order to achieve this rating, our human capital
initiatives passed rigorous scrutiny of OMB and the Office of Personnel
Management. In addition, the Corps has played a vital role in the
Global War on Terrorism by establishing and continuing to staff a
district office in Afghanistan and a division office in Iraq. We also
responded to Hurricane Katrina while continuing to fulfill our ongoing
missions. These accomplishments reflect that our human capital plans
and actions are linked to the key strategic goals of the Corps and
demonstrate that we have the capability to respond to the challenges
ahead.
(See comment 1.):
While we respect the methodology used in deriving some of the
conclusions shown in the GAO draft report, we are concerned that undue
weight may have been placed on feedback from a small number of
respondents. For instance, the draft report cites one district official
who said his district is often unable to provide incentives to recruit
experienced staff because it has to be approved by the agency's
Corporate Board (page 6 of the draft report). While districts and
divisions may have established internal boards to approve use of
recruitment incentives, there is no agency wide corporate board that
restricts the use of recruitment incentives. Additionally, the Corps
has many outreach programs to high schools, colleges and universities,
even though the draft report cites some officials who imply that these
programs are not currently in existence (page 20 of the draft report).
(See comment 2.):
The draft report references the Corps Campaign Plan of 2005 that
includes three goals: 1) support stability, reconstruction and homeland
security operations, 2) develop sound water resources solutions, and 3)
enhance life-cycle infrastructure management. The report further
suggests that the Campaign Plan does not address human capital;
however, the Campaign Plan does include "enablers" of a capable
workforce and learning organization. These enablers are key
capabilities that must be addressed in order to reach the goals of the
Campaign Plan. They have been evaluated and reported on each quarter
through the Corps Command Management Reviews and evaluated in its
frequent Command Strategic Reviews. We agree that this method did not
fully meet the requirements expected of a full human capital plan as
envisioned by the draft report, but it does demonstrate that the Corps
focus on human capital has been present continuously since 2002.
(See comment 3.):
The draft report also does not mention the current effort to refresh
the Army Corps of Engineers Campaign Plan, which will be published
soon. It contains four goals, one of which is to "Build and cultivate a
competent, disciplined, and resilient team equipped to deliver high
quality solutions." Two of the objectives in this goal are to 1)
identify, develop, maintain, and strengthen technical competencies, and
2) establish tools and systems that enable assignment to the right
jobs. An objective in another goal is to establish human resources and
family support programs that promote readiness and quality of life. It
should be noted that Corps efforts in civilian deployment and family
readiness programs are leading the way in the Army and DoD.
(See comment 4.):
We recognize the importance of having data on critical skills to
identify and assess current and future workforce needs. As mentioned in
the report, the Corps established the National Technical Competency
Team (NTCT) in 2007. The NTCT is moving forward to identify future
Corps missions, roles and methods of delivery, determine competencies
and level of technical capabilities to support these future roles, and
identify gaps between current and future capability requirements. The
team has completed an in-house workshop on technical competencies at
the Major Subordinate Command (MSC) staff level; completed a
Communities of Practice survey and is currently assessing the results;
completed the technical competency library for the Army Competency
Management System (CMS); and issued an Engineer and Construction
Bulletin on recruitment incentives jointly with the Directorate of
Human Resources. Again, we believe these ongoing initiatives will
provide the capability we need to effectively address our current and
future workforce needs and will be incorporated into our Enterprise
Human Capital Strategy.
While the human capital plan itself has not been updated since 2002,
the Corps has taken a number of actions to ensure alignment with the
current strategic plan. Changes in the strategic plan that impacted
human capital management were incorporated into our Proud to Be Goals
which were required under the President's Management Agenda. In
addition, the appendices to our human capital plan were updated
annually, including workforce trends and analysis. This approach
enabled us to streamline our set of human capital tools and make the
most efficient use of limited resources. Additionally, as noted in the
enclosure, we are planning an Enterprise Human Resources Strategy
Summit in July to identify human capital issues and solutions, gather
lessons learned, benchmark best practices, and begin the preparation of
a refreshed Human Capital Plan, which is expected to be in place by
January 2009.
Responses to the GAO recommendations are enclosed.
Very truly yours,
Signed by:
John Paul Woodley, Jr.:
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works):
Enclosure:
GAO Draft Report Dated April 18, 2008 GAO-08-596 (GAO CODE 360805)
"Human Capital: Corps Of Engineers Needs To Update Its Workforce
Planning Process To More Effectively Address Its Current And Future
Workforce Needs"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to develop a human capital plan that is directly
linked to the Corps' current strategic plan and that contains all the
key components of an effective plan as outlined by the Office of
Personnel Management. (p. 22/GAO Draft Report)
DOD Response: Concur. We will conduct an Enterprise Human Resources
Strategy Summit on July 9-11, 2008 with our stakeholders to obtain
input to update our human capital plan. We expect to finalize our human
capital plan by January 2009. It is important to note that the Corps
has been rated "green" in status and "green" in progress on the Human
Capital Scorecard by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) since
2005. In order to obtain this rating our human capital initiatives
received the rigorous scrutiny of OMB and the Office of Personnel
Management. In addition, the Corps has played a vital role in the
Global War on Terrorism by establishing and sustaining a district
office in Afghanistan and a division office in Iraq for five plus
years. We believe these accomplishments reflect that our human capital
planning is linked to the strategic plan of the organization and
demonstrate that we have the capability to respond to the challenges
ahead.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to distribute the revised plan agencywide and direct
the divisions and districts to use it to guide their human capital
activities. (p. 22/GAO Draft Report)
DOD Response: Concur. Once the revised plan is finalized it will be
distributed within 30 days of completion to our divisions and districts
with the appropriate guidance.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to develop and implement a process for determining
the effectiveness of the human capital tools the Corps is using so that
it can adjust their use, as necessary, to meet workforce needs. (p.
22/GAO Draft Report)
DOD Response: Concur. Metrics for determining the effectiveness of the
human capital tools being used will be identified in our updated human
capital plan which will be completed by January 2009.
Attachment
The following are GAO's comments to the additional information included
in the Department of Defense's letter dated May 1, 2008.
GAO Comments:
We are aware that the Corps human capital initiative updates have
received a "green" status from OPM and OMB. However, as the report
states these updates to OPM do not contain any of the components of an
effective human capital plan and they do not represent a comprehensive
framework for the agency's human capital policies, programs, and
practices. We made no modifications to the report in response to this
comment.
We disagree with the Department's characterization of our report. We
contacted officials in all of the Corps 8 division offices and 14 of
its district offices, and presented those issues and concerns that were
generally agreed on by these officials. The examples cited throughout
the report were used to provide more specifics as to the type of
concerns expressed by district officials and were not all inclusive of
the comments received. We made no changes to the report in response to
this comment, however we have clarified that the Corporate Board
referred to by the district official was not an agencywide Corporate
Board.
We disagree with the Department's characterization of the report. Our
report does not state that the agency's 2005 Campaign Plan does not
address human capital. Instead our report states that the 2005 plan
does not contain a strategic goal related to "people" similar to the
strategic goal that was included in the 2002 Campaign Plan. We have not
modified the report in response to this comment.
We disagree with the Department's comment that the draft report does
not mention the Corps ongoing effort to update its Campaign plan. Our
report clearly states that the agency is in the process of updating its
2005 strategic plan to reflect the new strategic direction of the
incoming Commander of the Corps. No changes were made in response to
this comment.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Vondalee R. Hunt (Assistant
Director), Tania Calhoun, Nancy Crothers, William Doherty, Diana Cheng
Goody, Nisha Hazra, Grant Mallie, Jamie A. Roberts, Rebecca Shea, and
Katherine Hudson Walker made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Reports:
NASA: Progress Made on Strategic Human Capital Management, but Future
Program Challenges Remain. GAO-07-1004. Washington, D.C.: August 8,
2007.
Human Capital: Federal Workforce Challenges in the 21st Century. GAO-
07-556T. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2007.
Human Capital: Retirements and Anticipated New Reactor Applications
Will Challenge NRC's Workforce. GAO-07-105. Washington, D.C.: January
17, 2007.
Human Capital: Increasing Agencies' Use of New Hiring Flexibilities.
GAO-04-959T. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2004.
Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce
Planning. GAO-04-39. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003.
A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-02-373SP.
Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002.
Federal Employee Retirements: Expected Increase Over the Next 5 Years
Illustrates Need for Workforce Planning. GAO-01-509. Washington, D.C.:
April 27, 2001.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] This report focuses on the Corps' domestic roles and
responsibilities related to its civil works and military programs,
which together account for about 93 percent of the agency's workforce.
[2] Campaign Plans are revised every 3 to 4 years at the discretion of
the incoming Commander of the Corps.
[3] OPM, Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework
Practitioners Guide, Human Capital Assessment and Accountability
Resources Center at http://www.opm.gov/hcaaf_resource_center/
index.asp.
[4] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic
Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).
[5] We selected two districts from each division, with the exception of
the Pacific Ocean Division, where we interviewed only the division
staff. We did not include districts in this division because the human
capital challenges at the Alaska and Honolulu districts would likely be
unique to labor force demographics at these locations. Additionally,
because there are only 2 districts within the Pacific Ocean Division
that perform work domestically, the division is likely more aware of
the districts' activities compared to other divisions that are
responsible for more districts.
[6] A 9th provisional division with 4 districts was activated in
January 2004 to oversee operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[7] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Strategic Management of Human Capital
in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 2002.
[8] The Corps' 2002 strategic plan included three interdependent
strategic goals: people, process, and communication.
[9] The Corps has updated the appendixes in the human capital plan;
however, the body of the report has never been updated.
[10] In December 2004, as part of homeland security, the President
directed the development of a new National Response Plan to align
federal coordination structures, capabilities, and resources into a
unified, all-discipline, and all-hazards approach to domestic incident
management. This plan was replaced in March 2008 by the National
Response Framework.
[11] U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Human Resources Flexibilities
and Authorities in the Federal Government, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1,
2002).
[12] GAO, Human Capital: Federal Workforce Challenges in the 21st
Century, GAO-07-556T (Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2007).
[13] GAO, Federal Employee Retirements: Expected Increase Over the Next
5 Years Illustrates Need for Workforce Planning, GAO-01-509
(Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2001).
[14] Hiring authorities include the Veterans Recruitment Appointment
Authority and the Federal Career Intern Program; human capital
flexibilities include recruitment and retention bonuses, telework, and
alternative work schedules.
[15] A mobility agreement stipulates that the intern is willing to move
to another location for permanent placement, if necessary. This
agreement is required as a condition of appointment for all centrally
funded interns.
[16] In commenting on a draft of this report the agency stated that
districts and divisions may establish their own internal Corporate
Boards, but there is no agencwide Corporate Board established for these
purposes.
[17] The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce
certain types of errors, commonly referred to as "nonsampling errors."
For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted,
the sources of information available to respondents, or the types of
people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability into
survey results.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
