Human Capital
Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress to Strengthen DOD's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan Gao ID: GAO-09-235 February 10, 2009Having the right number of civilian personnel with the right skills is critical to achieving the Department of Defense's (DOD) mission. With more than 50 percent of its civilian workforce (about 700,000 civilians) eligible to retire in the next few years, DOD may be faced with deciding how to fill numerous mission-critical positions--some involving senior leadership. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 requires DOD to develop a strategic human capital plan, update it annually through 2010, and address eight requirements. GAO previously found that DOD's 2007 plan did not meet most requirements. The 2007 NDAA added nine requirements to the annual update to shape DOD's senior leader workforce. GAO was asked to assess the extent to which DOD's 2008 update addressed (1) the 2006 human capital planning requirements, (2) the 2007 senior leader requirements, and (3) key factors that may affect civilian workforce planning. GAO analyzed the update, compared it with the requirements, and reviewed factors identified in the update and prior GAO work.
While DOD's 2008 update to its strategic human capital plan, when compared with the first plan, shows progress in addressing the FY 2006 NDAA requirements, the update only partially addresses each of the act's requirements. For example, DOD identified 25 critical skills and competencies--referred to as enterprisewide mission-critical occupations, which included logistics management and medical occupations. The update, however, does not contain assessments for over half of the 25 occupations, and the completed assessments of future enterprisewide mission-critical occupations do not cover the required 10-year period. Also, DOD's update included analyses of "gaps," or differences between the existing and future workforce for about half of the 25 occupations. Finally, DOD's update partially addressed the act's requirements for a plan of action for closing the gaps in DOD's civilian workforce. Although DOD recently established a program management office whose responsibility is to monitor DOD's updates to the strategic human capital plan, the office does not have and does not plan to have a performance plan--a road map--that articulates how the NDAA requirements will be met. Until such a plan is developed, DOD may not be able to design the best strategies to address the legislative requirements and meet its civilian workforce needs. DOD's 2008 update and related documentation address four of the nine requirements in the FY 2007 NDAA for DOD's senior leader workforce and partially address the remaining five. For example, the update identifies a plan of action to address, among other things, changes in the number of authorized senior leaders. However, the update noted that DOD had conducted only initial leadership assessments as a first step in identifying some of its needs, capabilities, and gaps in the existing or projected senior leader workforce and stated that the final assessments would not be completed until the summer of 2009. Although DOD recently established an executive management office to manage the career life cycle of DOD senior leaders, as well as the FY 2007 NDAA requirements, this office has not and does not plan to develop a performance plan to address the NDAA-related requirements. While DOD's 2008 update identified some key factors that could affect civilian workforce plans, such as base closures and legislation requiring the use of government employees for certain functions, it does not include strategies for addressing these factors. For example, the update noted that DOD may consider using government employees to perform, among other things, an activity performed by a contractor when an economic analysis shows DOD civilian employees are the low-cost providers, but DOD does not provide a strategy for doing so. Further, GAO's body of work has noted a similar factor not discussed in DOD's update--DOD's extensive reliance on contractors and its long-standing challenges in developing a civilian workforce strategy to address the use of contractors and the appropriate mix of contractors and civilians. Without strategies that address key factors like the use of contractors, DOD may not have the right number of people, in the right place, at the right time, and at a reasonable cost to achieve its mission in the future.
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-09-235, Human Capital: Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress to Strengthen DOD's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-235
entitled 'Human Capital: Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent
Progress to Strengthen DOD's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan'
which was released on February 10, 2009.
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:
February 2009:
Human Capital:
Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress to Strengthen DOD's
Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan:
GAO-09-235:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-235, a report to Congressional Requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Having the right number of civilian personnel with the right skills is
critical to achieving the Department of Defense‘s (DOD) mission. With
more than 50 percent of its civilian workforce (about 700,000
civilians) eligible to retire in the next few years, DOD may be faced
with deciding how to fill numerous mission-critical positions”some
involving senior leadership. The National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 requires DOD to develop a strategic
human capital plan, update it annually through 2010, and address eight
requirements. GAO previously found that DOD‘s 2007 plan did not meet
most requirements. The 2007 NDAA added nine requirements to the annual
update to shape DOD‘s senior leader workforce. GAO was asked to assess
the extent to which DOD‘s 2008 update addressed (1) the 2006 human
capital planning requirements, (2) the 2007 senior leader requirements,
and (3) key factors that may affect civilian workforce planning. GAO
analyzed the update, compared it with the requirements, and reviewed
factors identified in the update and prior GAO work.
What GAO Found:
While DOD‘s 2008 update to its strategic human capital plan, when
compared with the first plan, shows progress in addressing the FY 2006
NDAA requirements, the update only partially addresses each of the
act‘s requirements. For example, DOD identified 25 critical skills and
competencies”referred to as enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations, which included logistics management and medical
occupations. The update, however, does not contain assessments for over
half of the 25 occupations, and the completed assessments of future
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations do not cover the required
10-year period. Also, DOD‘s update included analyses of ’gaps,“ or
differences between the existing and future workforce for about half of
the 25 occupations. Finally, DOD‘s update partially addressed the act‘s
requirements for a plan of action for closing the gaps in DOD‘s
civilian workforce. Although DOD recently established a program
management office whose responsibility is to monitor DOD‘s updates to
the strategic human capital plan, the office does not have and does not
plan to have a performance plan”a road map”that articulates how the
NDAA requirements will be met. Until such a plan is developed, DOD may
not be able to design the best strategies to address the legislative
requirements and meet its civilian workforce needs.
DOD‘s 2008 update and related documentation address four of the nine
requirements in the FY 2007 NDAA for DOD‘s senior leader workforce and
partially address the remaining five. For example, the update
identifies a plan of action to address, among other things, changes in
the number of authorized senior leaders. However, the update noted that
DOD had conducted only initial leadership assessments as a first step
in identifying some of its needs, capabilities, and gaps in the
existing or projected senior leader workforce and stated that the final
assessments would not be completed until the summer of 2009. Although
DOD recently established an executive management office to manage the
career life cycle of DOD senior leaders, as well as the FY 2007 NDAA
requirements, this office has not and does not plan to develop a
performance plan to address the NDAA-related requirements.
While DOD‘s 2008 update identified some key factors that could affect
civilian workforce plans, such as base closures and legislation
requiring the use of government employees for certain functions, it
does not include strategies for addressing these factors. For example,
the update noted that DOD may consider using government employees to
perform, among other things, an activity performed by a contractor when
an economic analysis shows DOD civilian employees are the low-cost
providers, but DOD does not provide a strategy for doing so. Further,
GAO‘s body of work has noted a similar factor not discussed in DOD‘s
update”DOD‘s extensive reliance on contractors and its long-standing
challenges in developing a civilian workforce strategy to address the
use of contractors and the appropriate mix of contractors and
civilians. Without strategies that address key factors like the use of
contractors, DOD may not have the right number of people, in the right
place, at the right time, and at a reasonable cost to achieve its
mission in the future.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOD (1) develop performance plans for the new
management offices that monitor its human capital updates and senior
leader workforce and (2) include, in its next update, strategies to
address factors that may affect its workforce plan. DOD partially
concurred with GAO‘s recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-235]. For more
information, contact Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604,
farrellb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
While DOD's 2008 Update Shows Progress, It Only Partially Addresses
Each of the Fiscal Year 2006 Legislative Requirements:
DOD's 2008 Update of Its Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan
Generally Addresses 2007 Legislative Requirements for DOD's Senior
Leader Workforce:
Although DOD Identified Some Factors That Could Affect Its Plan, the
Update Does Not Include Strategies to Address These Factors:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Examples of DOD's and the Component's Senior Leader
Development and Training Programs:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Summary of Extent to Which DOD's 2008 Update to Its Civilian
Human Capital Strategic Plan Satisfies FY 2006 NDAA Legislative
Requirements:
Table 2: Information on Assessments and Projected Trends for DOD's
Enterprisewide Mission-Critical Occupations:
Table 3: Summary of Extent to Which DOD's 2008 Update Satisfies FY 2007
NDAA Legislative Requirements:
Table 4: Defense Leadership and Management Program and Defense Senior
Leader Development Program:
Figure:
Figure 1: Pay Overlap of DOD's Senior Executive Service and General
Schedule (GS) with and without D.C. Locality Pay, 2008:
Abbreviations:
BRAC: Base Realignment and Closure:
CIVFORS: Civilian Forecasting System:
CPP: Civilian Personnel Policy:
CSLP: Civilian Strategic Leader Program:
DISA: Defense Information Systems Agency:
DLA: Defense Logistics Agency:
DLAMP: Defense Leadership and Management Program:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DSLDP: Defense Senior Leader Development Program:
ECQ: Executive Core Qualifications:
ELDP: Executive Leadership Development Program:
FY: Fiscal Year:
GS: General Schedule:
NDAA: National Defense Authorization Act:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense:
OUSD(P&R): Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness:
PME: Professional Military Education:
QDR: Quadrennial Defense Review:
TRADOC: United States Army Training and Doctrine Command:
WASS: Workforce Analysis Support System:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 10, 2009:
The Honorable E. Benjamin Nelson:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Lindsey Graham:
United States Senate:
Having the right number of federal civilian personnel with the right
skills is critical to achieving the Department of Defense's (DOD)
mission. With more than 50 percent of its total civilian workforce
(about 700,000 civilians) becoming eligible to retire in the next few
years,[Footnote 1] DOD may be faced with deciding how to fill numerous
mission-critical positions--positions that involve developing policy,
providing intelligence, and acquiring weapon systems. Some of these
positions also involve leadership roles that require hiring or
promoting individuals to serve as senior leaders. However, in a 2006
report on civil service governmentwide, the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) reported that 90 percent of all federal executives in
the civil service would be eligible for retirement over the next 10
years. The report further noted that, if a significant number of these
civil servants were to retire, it could result in a loss of leadership
continuity, institutional knowledge, and expertise in the federal
government.[Footnote 2] DOD has also stressed the need for leadership
in human capital management and the need for an up-to-date human
capital strategy to address these workforce changes in its 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).[Footnote 3] Since 2001, we have
listed federal human capital management as a high-risk area, and in our
2009 High-Risk Series we stated that ample opportunities remained for
improving strategic human capital management to respond to 21st century
challenges.[Footnote 4]
In recent years, Congress has passed legislation requiring DOD to
conduct human capital planning efforts for the department's overall
civilian workforce and its senior leaders. For example, in section 1122
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (FY 2006
NDAA), Congress directed DOD to develop and submit to the Senate and
House Armed Services Committees a strategic plan to shape and improve
the department's civilian employee workforce. The act stipulated eight
requirements for the plan.[Footnote 5] This plan was to, among other
things, include assessments of (1) existing critical skills and
competencies in DOD's civilian workforce, (2) future critical skills
and competencies needed over the next decade, and (3) any gaps in the
existing or future critical skills and competencies identified. In
addition, DOD was to submit a plan of action for developing and
reshaping the civilian employee workforce to address any identified
gaps, as well as specific recruiting and retention goals and strategies
on how to train, compensate, and motivate civilian employees. The act
required DOD to submit its original plan to Congress by January 6,
2007, and to provide updates to its civilian human capital strategic
plan no later than March 1 for each year from 2007 through 2010. We
assessed DOD's original plan (which DOD submitted to Congress on
November 6, 2007) and noted that it partially addressed two of the
eight statutory requirements.[Footnote 6] For example, while DOD's plan
listed current critical skills that DOD called enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations,[Footnote 7] it lacked a "gap analysis"--an
assessment of the difference between the existing and future critical
skills and competencies of the civilian workforce. We recommended that
DOD provide Congress a plan that addresses all of the legislative
requirements. DOD disagreed, noting that its response to the
congressional reporting requirements reflected a centralized
enterprisewide strategic perspective---as opposed to providing the
information specified by law such as recruiting and retention goals.
In October 2006, section 1102 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (FY 2007 NDAA) was enacted. This
act required DOD to include in its March 1, 2008, update to the
civilian human capital strategic plan, an assessment of the senior
management, functional, and technical personnel, and a plan of action
for improving them.[Footnote 8] The act stipulates nine requirements
for the update. The update was to include assessments of (1) the needs
of DOD for senior leaders, (2) the capability of DOD's existing senior
leader workforce to meet DOD mission requirements, and (3) the gaps in
DOD's existing or projected civilian workforce that should be addressed
to ensure continued access to the senior leader workforce that DOD
needs. DOD was to also submit a plan of action to address the gaps
identified in its assessment. This plan was to include, among other
things, (1) any legislative or administrative action that may be needed
to adjust the requirements applicable to DOD's senior leader workforce,
(2) any changes in the number of personnel authorized, (3) any changes
in the rates or methods of pay, and (4) specific strategies for
developing, training, deploying, compensating, motivating, and
designing career paths and career opportunities for its senior
leadership. DOD officials stated that the latter would encompass some
parts of talent management[Footnote 9] and succession planning.
[Footnote 10] On June 24, 2008, DOD submitted its update to the
original human capital strategic plan.[Footnote 11]
In response to your request, we reviewed DOD's first update to the 2007
civilian human capital strategic plan. As agreed with your staff, we
are reporting on the extent to which DOD's 2008 update addressed (1)
the FY 2006 NDAA's human capital planning requirements, (2) the FY 2007
NDAA's senior management-related human capital and succession planning
requirements, and (3) other factors that may affect human capital
planning for its civilian workforce.
To examine the extent to which DOD's 2008 update addresses civilian
human capital planning requirements in the 2006 and 2007 acts, we
obtained and analyzed the update and compared it with the legislative
requirements. We considered a requirement to be "addressed" if DOD
demonstrated, through verifiable evidence, that it met all aspects of a
stipulated requirement in the legislation and considered a requirement
to be "partially addressed" if DOD provided evidence that showed some
aspects of the legislation had been met. While we did not assess the
reliability of the data in DOD's workforce assessments and gap
analyses, we have previously reviewed information on the workforce
forecasting system used by DOD[Footnote 12] and, during this review, we
interviewed officials at OPM and DOD to obtain updated information on
this system. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of our review. Additionally, we interviewed officials in
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness' (OUSD [P&R]) Civilian Personnel Policy and the Civilian
Personnel Management Service, along with officials from the individual
services, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the Defense Information
Systems Agency, about the update and ongoing human capital efforts
within DOD. The latter include the Office of the Secretary of Defense's
(OSD) ongoing efforts to establish a program management office that is
responsible for, among other things, developing and monitoring overall
civilian workforce trends, competency assessments, and gap analyses,
particularly for the DOD enterprisewide mission-critical occupations.
To determine DOD's succession planning efforts for its senior
management workforce, we analyzed applicable documents related to DOD's
current efforts, along with our prior work on DOD's human capital
planning efforts for senior leaders. To corroborate our understanding
of DOD's efforts related to succession planning, we interviewed
officials in DOD's office for Civilian Personnel Policy and the
components[Footnote 13] about these matters. Among other things, we
discussed DOD's efforts to establish an executive management office for
talent management and succession planning at the OSD level. Finally,
for our last objective, we identified and reviewed factors that would
affect DOD's civilian workforce planning such as those that DOD
identified in its update, and a factor previously identified in GAO's
prior work--the department's reliance on contractors.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 to February
2009, 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 objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more
information about our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
Results in Brief:
While DOD has made progress in addressing the legislative requirements
when compared to the first plan, the department's 2008 update to its
civilian human capital strategic plan partially addresses each of the
requirements in the FY 2006 NDAA. For example, DOD identified 25
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations,[Footnote 14] which include
logistics management, information technology management, and medical
occupations such as physicians, nurses, and pharmacists. The update
does not, however, contain an assessment of future enterprisewide
mission-critical occupations that covers a 10-year period, as required
in the law. DOD officials noted that its workforce assessments covered
a 7-year period--which is in line with the department's budget. At the
time of this review, DOD was just starting its assessment of future
needs and had developed projected trends for its enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations to determine, among other things, overall
workforce needs and retention goals for 11 of its 25 enterprisewide
mission-critical occupations over a 7-year period. According to DOD,
the department planned to complete its assessments of all 25
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations by the end of calendar year
2008; however, DOD did not provide additional information on these
assessments before completion of this review. Additionally, DOD's 2008
update included information related to gap analyses for about half of
its 25 enterprisewide mission-critical occupations. Further, DOD's
update partially addressed the legislative requirements for a plan of
action to develop and reshape the civilian employee workforce. OSD
officials stated that they are working to more fully address all of the
legislative requirements, and in November 2008, OUSD (P&R) officially
established a program management office--whose responsibility is to,
among other things, specifically monitor and review DOD's
enterprisewide mission-critical occupation assessments, workforce
trends, and gap analyses. While it is notable that the office has been
established, at the time of our review, DOD officials stated that they
did not have and did not plan to have a performance plan or "road map"
to articulate how the department will fully address requirements of the
FY 2006 NDAA. Our prior work has shown that key elements of a sound
management approach contain performance plans that include establishing
implementation goals and time frames, measuring performance, and
aligning activities with resources.[Footnote 15] Without such a plan,
DOD and its components may not be able to design and fund the best
strategies to address the legislative requirements and meet their
workforce needs. To continue the progress the department has made and
better focus DOD's civilian human capital strategic planning efforts,
we are recommending that the Under Secretary of Defense direct the
newly established program management office to develop a performance
plan to articulate how it will fully address all of the requirements of
the FY 2006 NDAA--to include developing assessments and gap analyses
for each of its identified enterprisewide mission-critical occupations.
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred
with our recommendation and we address those comments in detail later
in this report.
DOD's 2008 update and related documentation address four of the nine
requirements in the FY 2007 NDAA for DOD's senior leader workforce and
only partially address the remaining five. For example, as required by
legislation, the update and supporting documentation identify a plan of
action for developing or reshaping the senior leader workforce that
addresses, among other things, certain legislative actions and changes
in the number of personnel authorized. Nevertheless, the plan partially
addresses some of the remaining legislative requirements. For example,
DOD has conducted initial leadership assessments as a first step in
identifying some of its needs, capabilities, and gaps in the existing
or projected senior leader workforce. DOD's update noted, however, that
final assessments to identify specific needs, capabilities, and gaps
will not be complete until the summer of 2009. Further, the update's
plan of action partially addresses some legislative requirements
related to specific strategies for developing, training, and designing
career paths and opportunities--which, per DOD, are components of
talent management and succession planning. [Footnote 16] For example,
DOD developed programs that are intended to provide senior leaders with
targeted individual development and defense-focused leadership
seminars, as well as a departmentwide effort to coordinate the
management of its overall Senior Executive Service workforce.[Footnote
17] With regard to succession planning, officials within DOD told us
that their organization does not conduct departmentwide succession
planning for its senior management workforce. DOD officials
acknowledged that, while some work on the legislative requirements and
succession planning for its senior management workforce had started, it
was not complete, primarily because the newly formed executive
management office for talent management and succession planning at the
OSD level was not established until October 2008. At the time of our
review, these officials stated that this new office, like the
previously mentioned program management office, did not have and did
not plan to have a performance plan that includes implementation goals
and time frames, performance measures, and activities that are aligned
with resources. As noted before, without such a plan, DOD and its
components may not be able to design and fund the best strategies to
address the legislative requirements and meet their workforce needs. We
are therefore recommending that the Under Secretary of Defense task the
newly established executive management office, which is responsible for
addressing the requirements of the FY 2007 NDAA, to develop a
performance plan that includes establishing implementation goals and
time frames, measuring performance, and aligning activities with
resources. DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, and we
address those comments in detail later in this report.
While DOD's update identified some factors that could affect civilian
workforce planning, such as decisions made during its Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) process,[Footnote 18] the update did not incorporate
strategies for addressing these factors. For example, although DOD's
update noted that BRAC has the potential to affect how, when, and where
civilian positions are ultimately realigned relative to their original
location, the update does not offer specific strategies for addressing
how BRAC may affect projected trends and assessments for the civilian
workforce. At the time of our review, OSD was developing strategies to
address these factors. In addition, we have previously reported that
DOD has experienced challenges in developing a civilian workforce
strategy to address the extent of contractor use and the appropriate
mix of contractors and government personnel.[Footnote 19] For example,
in 2003, we recommended that DOD consider the roles and mix of civilian
and contractor employees in its civilian human capital strategic plans.
DOD did not concur with this recommendation, noting that the use of
contractors was just another tool to accomplish the department's
mission and was not a separate workforce with separate needs to manage.
[Footnote 20] The 2006 QDR and DOD's 2008 update, however, recognize
contractors as part of DOD's total force. We continue to believe that
without strategies that address significant factors like the use of
federal civilian personnel and contractors, DOD may not have the right
people, in the right place, at the right time, and at a reasonable cost
to achieve its mission in the future. We are, therefore, recommending
that the Secretary of Defense incorporate, in future updates to DOD's
civilian human capital strategic plan, strategies for addressing
factors that could affect DOD's civilian workforce planning--
specifically, contractor roles and the effect contractors have on DOD's
requirements for a civilian workforce. DOD partially concurred with
this recommendation, and we addressed those comments in detail later in
this report.
Background:
DOD stressed the importance of strategic human capital management in
its 2006 QDR. For example, it noted the importance of involving senior
leadership in this area and stated that DOD must (1) compete
effectively with the civilian sector for highly qualified personnel,
(2) possess an up-to-date human capital strategy, and (3) have the
authorities to recruit, shape, and sustain the force it needs.[Footnote
21] Within the department, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness, who serves as the Chief Human Capital Officer for DOD,
has overall responsibility for the development of DOD's civilian human
capital strategic plan and competency-based workforce planning. The
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy has the
lead role in developing and overseeing the implementation of the
civilian human capital strategic plan.
In January 2006, section 1122 of the FY 2006 NDAA was enacted. It
directed DOD to develop and submit to the Senate and House Armed
Services Committees a strategic plan to shape and improve the DOD
civilian employee workforce. The plan was to include eight
requirements. These requirements included an assessment of:
* the critical skills that will be needed in the future DOD civilian
employee workforce to support national security requirements and
effectively manage the department over the next decade,
* the critical competencies that will be needed in the future DOD
civilian employee workforce to support national security requirements
and effectively manage the department over the next decade,
* the skills of the existing DOD civilian employee workforce,
* the competencies of the existing DOD civilian employee workforce,
* the projected trends in that workforce based on expected losses due
to retirement and other attrition, and:
* gaps in the existing or projected DOD civilian employee workforce
that should be addressed to ensure that the department has continued
access to the critical skills and competencies needed to support
national security requirements and effectively manage the department
over the next decade.
Also, as part of its civilian human capital strategic plan, the act
directed DOD to include a plan of action for developing and reshaping
the DOD civilian employee workforce to address identified gaps in
critical skills and competencies, including specific:
* recruiting and retention goals, including the program objectives of
the department to be achieved through such goals; and:
* strategies for developing, training, deploying, compensating, and
motivating the DOD civilian employee workforce and the program
objectives to be achieved through such strategies.
In October 2006, the FY 2007 NDAA was enacted. Section 1102 of this act
required DOD to include in its March 1, 2007, update a strategic plan
to shape and improve its senior leader workforce.[Footnote 22]
The plan was to include nine requirements. These nine requirements
included an assessment of:
* the needs of DOD for senior leaders in light of recent trends and
projected changes in the mission and organization of the department and
in light of staff support needed to accomplish that mission,
* the capability of the existing civilian employee workforce to meet
requirements relating to the mission of the department, and:
* gaps in the existing or projected civilian employee workforce of the
department that should be addressed to ensure continued access to the
senior leader workforce DOD needs.
Also, as part of its civilian human capital strategic plan, the act
directed DOD to include a plan of action for developing and reshaping
the senior leader workforce to ensure the department has continued
access to the senior executives it needs. The plan of action is to
include:
* any legislative or administrative action that may be needed to adjust
the requirements applicable to any category of civilian personnel
identified or to establish a new category of senior management or
technical personnel,
* any changes in the number of personnel authorized in any category of
personnel identified that may be needed to address such gaps and
effectively meet the needs of the department,
* any changes in the rates or methods of pay for any category of
personnel identified that may be needed to address inequities and
ensure that the department has full access to appropriately qualified
personnel to address such gaps,
* specific recruiting and retention goals, including the program
objectives of the department to be achieved through such goals,
* specific strategies for developing, training, deploying,
compensating, motivating, and designing career paths and career
opportunities for the senior leader workforce of the department,
including the program objectives to be achieved through such
strategies; and:
* specific steps that the department has taken or plans to take to
ensure that the senior leader workforce is managed in compliance with
the requirements of section 129 of title 10, United States Code.
[Footnote 23]
To conduct the assessments of end strength[Footnote 24] and projected
trends in the civilian workforce based on expected losses due to
retirement and other attrition as required in the legislation, the
department used OPM's workforce forecasting software Workforce Analysis
Support System (WASS) and Civilian Forecasting System (CIVFORS). WASS
is used to evaluate workforce trends and can perform simple to complex
analyses from counts and averages to trend analyses, using such
characteristics as employee age, retirement plan participation, and
historical retirement data. CIVFORS was adapted from an Army military
forecasting model for civilian use in 1987 and uses data from DOD's
Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS).[Footnote 25] CIVFORS is
a life-cycle modeling and projection tool, which models most
significant events, including personnel actions such as promotions,
reassignments, and retirements. Officials can use a default projection
model or create their own, which can be tailored to examine issues such
as projected vacancies of hard-to-fill occupations or turnover in
specific regions by occupation. The workforce forecasts are generated
over a 7-year projection period, using the most recent 5 years of
historical data. While CIVFORS is used at the DOD enterprisewide level,
the department has not directed the components to use the system. As a
result, components use various systems and approaches for their
forecasts and trend analyses. For example, when we met with officials
from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) they noted that while they had
received training on WASS/CIVFORS, the agency was not currently using
the program, though they were having discussions to determine if they
wanted to use the system in the future. Currently, DLA conducts
workforce analysis by reviewing past information to determine future
needs and uses a commercial off-the-shelf business software package to
assist in the analysis.
While DOD's 2008 Update Shows Progress, It Only Partially Addresses
Each of the Fiscal Year 2006 Legislative Requirements:
DOD has made progress in implementing the eight requirements in the FY
2006 NDAA as compared to its first plan; however, as seen in table 1,
the 2008 update only partially addresses each of the eight
requirements. For example, DOD--through the department's functional and
human resource leadership--identified 25 enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations but did not provide an assessment that covered a
10-year period as required by the FY 2006 NDAA. Additionally, DOD
provided projected trend data related, for example, to expected losses
due to retirement on 11 of the 25 enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations. Furthermore, DOD's 2008 update only included gap analyses
for about half of the 25 identified enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations. DOD's update also partially addresses the legislative
requirements for a plan of action to develop and reshape the civilian
employee workforce. More importantly, the recently established program
management office does not have a performance plan to articulate how it
will address the legislative requirements.
Table 1: Summary of Extent to Which DOD's 2008 Update to Its Civilian
Human Capital Strategic Plan Satisfies FY 2006 NDAA Legislative
Requirements:
Legislative requirement: 1;
Description: An assessment of the critical skills that will be needed
in the future DOD civilian employee workforce to support national
security requirements and effectively manage the department over the
next decade;
2007 Civilian human capital strategic plan[A]: Does not address;
2008 Update: Partially addresses.
Legislative requirement: 2;
Description: An assessment of the competencies that will be needed in
the future DOD civilian employee workforce to support national security
requirements and effectively manage the department over the next
decade;
2007 Civilian human capital strategic plan[A]: Partially addresses;
2008 Update: Partially addresses.
Legislative requirement: 3;
Description: An assessment of the skills of the existing civilian
employee workforce;
2007 Civilian human capital strategic plan[A]: Does not address;
2008 Update: Partially addresses.
Legislative requirement: 4;
Description: An assessment of the competencies of the existing DOD
civilian employee workforce;
2007 Civilian human capital strategic plan[A]: Does not address; 2008
Update: Addresses: Partially addresses.
Legislative requirement: 5;
Description: An assessment of the projected trends in that workforce
based on expected losses due to retirement and other attrition;
2007 Civilian human capital strategic plan[A]: Does not address; 2008
Update: Partially addresses.
Legislative requirement: 6;
Description: An assessment of gaps in the existing or projected DOD
civilian employee workforce that should be addressed to ensure that the
department has continued access to the critical skills and competencies
to support national security requirements and effectively manage the
department over the next decade;
2007 Civilian human capital strategic plan[A]: Does not address;
2008 Update: Partially addresses.
Legislative requirement: 7;
Description: A plan of action for developing and shaping the DOD
civilian employee workforce to address identified gaps in critical
skills and competencies of the existing or projected civilian
workforce, including specific recruiting and retention goals and the
program objectives to be achieved through such goals;
2007 Civilian human capital strategic plan[A]: Does not address;
2008 Update: Partially addresses.
Legislative requirement: 8;
Description: A plan of action for developing and shaping the DOD
civilian employee workforce to address identified gaps in critical
skills and competencies of the existing or projected civilian
workforce, including specific strategies for developing, training,
deploying, compensating, and motivating the DOD civilian employee
workforce and the program objectives to be achieved through such
strategies;
2007 Civilian human capital strategic plan[A]: Partially addresses;
2008 Update: Partially addresses.
Legislative requirement: Total;
2007 Civilian human capital strategic plan[A]: Addresses: 0;
2007 Civilian human capital strategic plan[A]: Partially addresses: 2;
2007 Civilian human capital strategic plan[A]: Does not address: 6;
2008 Update: Addresses: 0;
2008 Update: Partially addresses: 8;
2008 Update: Does not address: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Notes: "Addresses" indicates that the agency has demonstrated, through
verifiable evidence, that all aspects of the legislative requirement
were covered. "Partially addresses" indicates that such evidence shows
that some, but not all, aspects of the legislative requirement have
been covered.
[A] The 2007 Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan was analyzed and
reported on in GAO report GAO-08-439R.
[End of table]
DOD's Update Partially Addresses the Legislative Requirements to Assess
Existing and Future Critical Skills and Competencies and Projected
Trends:
DOD's 2008 update partially addresses the legislative requirements of
the FY 2006 NDAA to assess existing and future critical skills and
competencies over the next decade and projected trends of the DOD
civilian employee workforce. For example, DOD identified--through the
department's functional and human resource leadership--25
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations but did not provide an
assessment of future enterprisewide mission-critical occupations that
covered a 10-year period. As shown in table 2, DOD provided assessments
of current and future enterprisewide mission-critical occupations and
projected trend data in separate sections of its update. Specifically,
the update had separate explanatory appendixes that addressed
assessments for 12 of the 25 enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations. These appendixes included assessment information compiled
by OSD and the components.
The update also had two separate appendixes with OSD-identified
workforce assessments for the department and the components, along with
projected trends data related to expected losses from retirements and
attrition for 11 of the 25 DOD enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations. These data were obtained from the WASS/CIVFORS analyses
and are also presented in table 2.
Table 2: Information on Assessments and Projected Trends for DOD's
Enterprisewide Mission-Critical Occupations:
1;
Occupation title: Information technology management;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Check];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Check].
2;
Occupation title: Computer scientist;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Check];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
3;
Occupation title: Computer engineer;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Check];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Check].
4;
Occupation title: Electronics engineer;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Check];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
5;
Occupation title: Contracting;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Check];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Check].
6;
Occupation title: Logistics management;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Check];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Check].
7;
Occupation title: Quality assurance;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Check].
8;
Occupation title: Human resources management;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Check];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Check].
9;
Occupation title: General engineering;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
10;
Occupation title: Civil engineering;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Check];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Check].
11;
Occupation title: Physical science;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
12;
Occupation title: Mathematician;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
13;
Occupation title: Physician;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Check];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Check].
14;
Occupation title: Nurse;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Check];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Check].
15;
Occupation title: Pharmacist;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Check];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Check].
16;
Occupation title: Security administration;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
17;
Occupation title: Intelligence;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Check];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
18;
Occupation title: Police officer;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
19;
Occupation title: Financial management;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
20;
Occupation title: Accounting;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Check][A].
21;
Occupation title: Auditing;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
22;
Occupation title: Budget analysis;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
23;
Occupation title: Foreign affairs;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
24;
Occupation title: International relations;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
25;
Occupation title: Language specialist;
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
[Empty];
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: [Empty].
Total addressed:
Explanatory appendixes for enterprisewide mission-critical occupations:
12;
Assessments and projected trends information for enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: 11.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD information.
Notes: The data are from DOD's 2008 Update to the 2007 Civilian Human
Capital Strategic Plan.
[A] For the accounting enterprisewide mission-critical occupation, OSD
only provided projected trends for the fourth estate.
[End of table]
Assessment of Existing and Future Critical Skills and Competencies:
DOD's update provided assessments for 12 of the 25 existing and future
critical skills and competencies, which OSD refers to as enterprisewide
mission-critical occupations. As shown in table 2, DOD included
explanatory appendixes on some of the enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations, including information technology management, computer
science, and logistics management. Specifically, these appendixes
discussed various issues, including end strength[Footnote 26] of the
existing workforce for these 12 enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations during fiscal year 2007. The update also contained two
separate appendixes with OSD-identified workforce assessments for the
department and the components, along with projected trends data related
to expected losses from retirements and attrition for 11 of the 25 DOD
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations.[Footnote 27] The update
noted that the department had just begun its assessments of the
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations. It further noted that, to
establish a baseline for its civilian workforce, the department decided
to hold future workforce levels for the majority of the enterprisewide
mission-critical occupations[Footnote 28] at the then 2007 level of
employment--"steady state"--through 2014. This "steady state" would be
maintained by controlling gains like "new hires." For example, in the
appendix that contained the contracting enterprisewide mission-
critical occupation, DOD noted that the 2007 end strength level was
19,090 and that this steady state could be maintained at the fiscal
year 2007 end strength levels of 19,090 through 2014, by controlling
gains like new hires.[Footnote 29]
However, DOD's update does not include an assessment of its future
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations that cover a 10-year
period, as required by the FY 2006 NDAA. DOD officials told us that the
modeling tool it used to assess its workforce, WASS/CIVFORS, only
generates forecasts for a 7-year period, in line with the department's
budget--the Future Years Defense Program.[Footnote 30] DOD officials
have noted that it is difficult to conduct workforce planning out to 10
years, especially in light of factors that cannot be predicted, like
the Global War on Terror and economic factors. On the other hand, some
factors that could affect human capital planning are known well in
advance, such as eligibility for retirement and the development of
weapons systems that could take more than 10 years.
Assessment of Projected Trends in the Critical Skills and Competencies
of the Civilian Workforce Based on Expected Losses from Retirements and
Other Attrition:
As seen in table 2, DOD's update contained projected trend data on
expected losses from retirement and other attrition for 11 of DOD's 25
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations and thus partially
addressed the legislative requirement. Again, OSD used OPM's WASS/
CIVFORS projection tool to fulfill the legislative requirement for DOD
to assess the projected trends in the civilian workforce. WASS/CIVFORS
was used to develop charts on workforce demographics for the 11
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations identified. For the medical
occupations of physician, nurse, and pharmacist, as an example, the
projected trends data show that the majority of the department's
projected losses in the medical community were due to transfers to
other federal agencies, movement to the private sector, or internal
transfers within DOD components.
Assessment of Gaps in the Existing or Projected Critical Skills and
Competencies of the Civilian Workforce:
As seen in table 1, DOD has made progress in assessing the gaps in its
civilian workforce since the publication of its 2007 civilian human
capital strategic plan. Specifically, DOD's 2008 update notes that its
approach to gap analysis has been both centralized at the OSD level--
with focus on the enterprisewide mission-critical occupations--and
decentralized within the components. While not clearly identified as a
gap assessment in the update, DOD provided data, at the OSD centralized
level, from WASS/CIVFORS that showed end strength being maintained at
the 2007 level--steady state--through 2014 for 10 of the previously
mentioned 11 enterprisewide mission-critical occupations. As stated
before, the update noted that this steady state would be maintained by
controlling gains[Footnote 31] in its workforce. Specifically, of the
11 enterprisewide mission-critical occupations[Footnote 32] for which
OSD projected trends, OSD forecasted that 10 could be maintained at a
steady state--for a baseline, as previously noted. We also note that,
for the civil engineering enterprisewide mission-critical occupation,
DOD did not project a steady state for this occupation but rather
identified a gap, stating that the projected gains would not meet
projected losses. With this steady state assumption, OSD assumes that
its goals for projected total gains will be achieved. We note however,
that if these gains--that is, new hires or transfers from other
government agencies--are not attained, then a potential gap exists.
Furthermore DOD officials told us these steady state projections do not
incorporate changes in workforce requirements resulting from
initiatives like the "Gansler report"--which identified a need for
additional contracting officials.[Footnote 33] We were told that the
department would incorporate such changes in future updates. These
changes could affect the size of the workforce.
At the time of our review, the department had asked the components and
functional community managers[Footnote 34] to validate the projected
trends, which was originally expected to be completed by July 1, 2008.
However, DOD officials stated that the functional community managers
had not yet validated OSD's projections because they had to be trained
on WASS/CIVFORS first. DOD officials said this training occurred in
September 2008. At the time of our review, the revised completion date
to validate the projected trends was January 2009.
As previously stated, the update contained explanatory appendixes that
specifically identified gap assessments for 6 enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations: civil engineering, human resource management,
information technology management, computer engineering, computer
scientist, and logistics management. Various methods and tools were
used for these assessments--from discussions about the gaps to use of
tools other than WASS/CIVFORS. For example, OPM's Federal Competency
Assessment Tool for Human Resources was used to conduct a competency
gap assessment for the human resource management enterprisewide mission-
critical occupation. Additionally, the assessment indicated that there
were gaps in the employee relations and compensation competencies,
among others. On the other hand, in the information technology
appendix--which includes the enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations information technology management, computer engineering,
and computer scientist--a federal survey was used and administered to
the information technology community. The assessment identified gaps
in, among other areas, information systems security certification and
network security.
DOD's update also included some competency gap analyses at the
component level, in addition to the enterprisewide mission-critical
occupation gap analyses. For example, DOD's update noted that the
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) conducts gap analyses by
having its employees do self-assessments to determine their proficiency
level in the skills needed for their competency or career field. The
update noted that all DISA employees are required to complete the
competency gap assessment process and have a completed individual
development plan. The update also stated that the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency has completed the first competency gap assessment for
250 of its research and development workforce personnel.
DOD officials acknowledge that work on the gap analyses for its 25
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations is not complete and efforts
at the component level are ongoing. In addition, the update notes that
the department has developed a proposed plan to identify and address
future gaps. As mentioned previously, the functional community managers
were tasked to validate and provide information for the projected
trends; however, at the time of our review, some of the functional
community managers were just established, and OSD officials said, as a
result, the department published what it had.
As we previously reported, the absence of fact-based gap analyses can
undermine an agency's efforts to identify and respond to current and
emerging challenges.[Footnote 35] Without including gap analyses for
each of the areas DOD has identified as mission-critical, DOD and the
components may not be able to design and fund the best strategies to
fill their talent needs or to make the appropriate investments to
develop and retain the best possible workforce.
DOD's Update Partially Addresses the Legislative Requirements for a
Plan of Action:
Plan of Action, Including Specific Recruiting and Retention Goals and
the Program Objectives to Be Achieved through Such Goals:
As seen in rows 7 and 8 of table 1, we found that DOD partially
addressed the legislative requirements for a plan of action for
developing and reshaping the civilian employee workforce to address the
gaps in critical skills and competencies identified.
DOD's update contains recruiting and retention goals for 11 of the 25
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations, which were developed with
the WASS/CIVFORS projection tool; however, as stated previously, these
forecasts cover 7 years, not 10 years as required by the FY 2006 NDAA.
At the time of this review, DOD was just starting the process for
developing projected trends for its enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations to determine, among other things, overall workforce needs
and retention goals for 11 of its 25 enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations over a 7-year period. DOD's update states that the
department is in the process of identifying 10-year recruiting and
retention goals for all of the enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations and expects to complete this effort by the end of calendar
year 2008; however, DOD did not provide additional information on these
assessments before completion of this review. Furthermore, DOD's update
does not link specific recruiting and retention goals to program
objectives.
Additionally, DOD's update contains strategies for recruiting and
retaining civilian employees in the appendixes that discuss the
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations. For example, for the
medical occupations, DOD formed the Tri-Service Medical Recruitment
Workgroup in 2007 to, among other things, analyze current recruitment,
hiring, and retention strategies for civilian health care positions.
Some accomplishments of the workgroup include creation of a DOD medical
recruitment sub-Web on the DOD Civilian Personnel Management Service
Web site, guidance on the use of referral bonuses as a recruitment
tool, and development of a handbook for recruiters and managers on
compensation and hiring flexibilities.
Plan of Action Including Specific Strategies for Developing, Training,
Deploying, Compensating, and Motivating the DOD Civilian Workforce and
Program Objectives:
DOD's update does contain some strategies for developing, training,
deploying, compensating, and motivating the civilian workforce.
Specifically, DOD's update discusses strategies to address workforce
requirements in the explanatory appendixes, which cover 12 of the 25
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations identified. For example,
the FY 2008 NDAA granted DOD the authority to implement a modified
version of the Information Technology Exchange Program, which would
allow DOD civilians in the IT community to conduct job details in the
private sector.[Footnote 36] However, because DOD has not completed its
assessment of all 25 enterprisewide mission-critical occupations, any
plan of action the department develops will not address gaps that have
yet to be identified. While DOD's update contains an extensive list of
strategies, it does not address the requirements of the law--that the
strategies be specifically related to gaps in the enterprisewide
mission-critical occupations. Furthermore, DOD's update does not link
specific strategies for developing, training, deploying, compensating,
and motivating the civilian workforce to program objectives.
DOD's Recently Established Program Management Office Does Not Have a
Performance Plan to Articulate How the Legislative Requirements Will Be
Addressed:
OSD officials stated that they are working to more fully address all of
the legislative requirements, and in November 2008 OUSD (P&R)
officially established a program management office[Footnote 37]--whose
responsibility is to, among other things, specifically monitor and
review DOD's enterprisewide mission-critical occupation assessments,
workforce trends, and gap analyses. According to DOD, the budget for
this office included salary and benefits for 20 people and training for
human resource consultants on strategic human capital management.
While it is notable the office has been established, at the time of our
review, DOD officials stated that they did not have and did not plan to
have a performance plan or "road map" to articulate how the department
will fully address requirements of the FY 2006 NDAA. Additionally, we
note that, prior to the establishment of this new office, the Program
Executive Office for Strategic Human Capital Planning, per DOD
officials, had responsibility to develop DOD's civilian human capital
plan. It appears DOD has never had a performance plan to help manage
this area. Our prior work has shown that key elements of a sound
management approach contain performance plans that include establishing
implementation goals and time frames, performance measures, and
activities that are aligned with resources.[Footnote 38] Without such a
plan, DOD and its components may not be able to design and fund the
best strategies to address the legislative requirements and meet their
workforce needs.
DOD's 2008 Update of Its Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan
Generally Addresses 2007 Legislative Requirements for DOD's Senior
Leader Workforce:
Of the nine requirements stipulated in the FY 2007 NDAA, DOD's update
and related documentation addresses four and partially addresses the
remaining five. Table 3 summarizes the legislative requirements and
identifies the extent to which the civilian human capital strategic
plan update addresses the requirements. Although DOD recently
established, in October 2008, an executive management office
responsible for talent management, succession planning, and other
issues, this office is operating without a performance plan that
establishes implementation goals and time frames, measures performance,
and aligns activities with resources.
Table 3: Summary of Extent to Which DOD's 2008 Update Satisfies FY 2007
NDAA Legislative Requirements:
Legislative requirement: 1;
Description: An assessment of DOD's needs for senior management,
functional, and technical personnel in light of recent trends and
projected changes in the mission and organization of DOD and in light
of staff support needed to accomplish that mission;
Partially addresses: [Check].
Legislative requirement: 2;
Description: An assessment of the capability of DOD's existing civilian
employee workforce to meet requirements relating to DOD's mission;
Partially addresses: [Check].
Legislative requirement: 3;
Description: An assessment of gaps in DOD's existing or projected
civilian employee workforce that should be addressed to ensure
continued access to senior management, functional, and technical
personnel;
Partially addresses: [Check].
Legislative requirement: 4;
Description: A plan of action including any legislative or
administrative action that may be needed to adjust the requirements
applicable to any category of civilian personnel identified or to
establish a new category of senior leaders;
Addresses: [Check].
Legislative requirement: 5;
Description: A plan of action including any changes in the number of
personnel authorized in any category of personnel identified that may
be needed to address such gaps and effectively meet DOD's needs;
Addresses: [Check].
Legislative requirement: 6;
Description: A plan of action including any changes in the rates or
methods of pay for any category of personnel identified that may be
needed to address inequities and ensure that DOD has full access to
appropriately qualified personnel to address such gaps and meet DOD's
needs;
Addresses: [Check].
Legislative requirement: 7;
Description: A plan of action including specific recruiting and
retention goals, including the program objectives of DOD to be achieved
through such goals;
Partially addresses: [Check].
Legislative requirement: 8;
Description: A plan of action including specific strategies for
developing, training, deploying, compensating, motivating, and
designing career paths and career opportunities for DOD's senior
management, functional, and technical workforce, including the program
objectives to be achieved through such strategies;
Partially addresses: [Check].
Legislative requirement: 9;
Description: A plan of action including specific steps that DOD has
taken or plans to take to ensure that DOD's senior management,
functional, and technical workforce is managed in compliance with the
requirements of section 129 of title 10, United States Code;
Addresses: [Check].
Legislative requirement: Total;
Addresses: 4;
Partially addresses: 5;
Does not address: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[A] See footnote 8 for details of positions covered by section 1102.
[End of table]
DOD's Update Addresses Four of Nine Legislative Requirements:
DOD's 2008 update addresses four requirements of the FY 2007 NDAA--
specifically, a plan of action that identifies (1) legislative or
administrative actions needed, (2) changes in the number of personnel
authorized, (3) changes in the rates or methods of pay, and (4)
specific steps DOD has identified to ensure compliance with section 129
of title 10, United States Code.[Footnote 39]
A Plan of Action Including Any Legislative or Administrative Action:
At the time of our report, DOD officials said that the department has
not determined whether additional legislative actions are needed. DOD's
update, however, identifies the issuance of DOD Directive 1403.03,
which established the policy for competency requirements and other
requirements for the management of the career life cycle of senior
executives. In addition, DOD Instruction 1400.25, issued in November
2008, established a competency-based approach to manage the life cycle
of senior executive personnel from accession through separation.
A Plan of Action Including Any Changes in the Number of Personnel
Authorized:
DOD's update notes that the department has requested an increase in the
number of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service personnel
allowed under section 1606a of title 10. Specifically, the update noted
that the department required an additional 100 allocations for Defense
Intelligence Senior Executive Service personnel in the following
agencies: Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency, Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Defense
Security Service, and Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence. Although the update states that this change will allow
critical mission requirements to be met, we did not conduct a review of
the department's analysis to determine its validity.
A Plan of Action Including Any Changes in the Rates or Methods of Pay:
DOD's update describes the finalization of a common Senior Executive
Service position tier structure,[Footnote 40] which creates a framework
for determining comparability in the management and compensation of
executive positions. The update also includes new sourcing methods to
fill positions within each tier using component talent management
processes, which includes identifying candidates across the department
who, based on annual talent reviews, have been identified as ready for
an enterprise senior executive position.[Footnote 41]
A Plan of Action Including Specific Steps DOD Has Taken or Plans to
Take to Ensure Compliance with Section 129 of Title 10, United States
Code:
DOD's update describes a DOD Instruction that is being developed that
is intended to address how DOD manages and allocates resources based on
mission requirements, workload, and prescribed performance objectives,
as prescribed by 10 U.S.C. §129. Specifically, section 129 of title 10
states that the civilian personnel of DOD will be managed each fiscal
year solely on the basis of and consistent with (1) the workload
required to carry out the functions and activities of the department
and (2) the funds made available to the department for such fiscal
year.
According to DOD's update, the new instruction will explain the
manpower and resources that are allocated and managed to support the
strategic objectives, daily operation, and effective and economical
administration of the department. Further, where possible, measures of
performance will be established as indicators of mission accomplishment
and will be regularly monitored by management officials to ensure that
budgeted manpower reflects the minimum necessary to achieve program
objectives consistent with defense priorities. In addition, the
instruction will cover the flexibilities to manage to a requirement and
the budget. The update and DOD officials did not, however, give any
indication as to when this instruction will be completed.
DOD's Update Partially Addresses Five of Nine Legislative Requirements:
DOD's 2008 update partially addresses the remaining five requirements
of the FY 2007 NDAA. As seen in table 3, these include an assessment of
the needs for, the capabilities of, and the gaps in the existing senior
leader workforce; and a plan of action that includes specific
recruiting and retention goals, along with specific strategies for
developing, training, deploying, compensating, motivating, and
designing career paths and career opportunities for the senior leader
workforce.
Assessment of DOD's Needs for Senior Leaders:
DOD's 2008 update notes that the department has not completely
addressed this requirement and has ongoing work to do so through a
baseline review of senior leadership positions. DOD officials said that
the latter will include an assessment of the needs for senior leaders.
DOD's update does, however, identify leadership capabilities needed as
part of an overall assessment of the senior leader workforce and
includes some competencies developed to address the changing
environment in which DOD operates. Specifically, the update identifies
the need for senior leaders to assimilate quickly, possess language
skills and cultural awareness, understand interagency roles and
responsibilities, and have an enterprise-spanning perspective,
including knowledge of joint matters and network-centric concepts as
new leadership capabilities.
Assessment of the Capability of the Senior Leader Workforce:
The update acknowledges that work on this requirement is ongoing, and a
DOD Instruction has been drafted that will clarify, when completed,
DOD's official policy on the development and sustainment of its senior
leader workforce. In addition, DOD officials have told us that the
department began conducting a baseline review of its senior leader
workforce in April 2008, and this review is expected to provide an
assessment of the capability of existing executive talent. While work
is ongoing, however, DOD's update provides projected trend data for the
senior leader workforce, including retirements and other attrition,
projecting that approximately 60 percent of DOD's senior leader
workforce will be eligible to retire within the next 3 years.
Assessment of Gaps in the Existing or Projected Workforce:
DOD's update partially addresses this requirement, and the update
acknowledges that work on this requirement will be ongoing until the
summer of 2009. Specifically, the update states that DOD conducted
initial leadership competency assessments at the Senior Executive
Service, manager, and supervisor levels, in 2007, using OPM's Web-based
Federal Competency Assessment Tool for Managers. The update noted that
the department identified competency gaps against DOD's Executive Core
Qualifications in areas including: creativity, flexibility, strategic
thinking, vision, conflict management, and oral and written
communications. In addition, DOD's subject-matter experts and senior
leaders, through qualitative assessments, identified the following
gaps: (1) lack of critical transformational leadership skills, (2) lack
of enterprisewide approach to managing the talent pipeline for DOD
leaders, and (3) the shortfall of excepted-service senior intelligence
executives.
A Plan of Action Including Specific Recruiting and Retention Goals:
DOD's update partially addresses this requirement. For example, the
update identifies a 5-year goal for the number of employees in
leadership positions and contains projected trends in senior leader
workforce gains, accessions, total losses, and retirement over a 7-year
period. In addition, DOD is reviewing federal travel entitlements,
benefits, and allowances to promulgate policies that attract and retain
senior leaders. For example, DOD is reviewing Overseas Benefits
Allowances to ensure the allowances are attractive incentives for
senior leaders. The update, however, does not identify specific program
goals to be achieved through such efforts. In addition, although the
update suggests that DOD has tracking measures that relate to
recruitment and retention, it does not link specific recruiting and
retention goals to program objectives.
A Plan of Action Including Specific Strategies for Developing,
Training, Deploying, Compensating, Motivating, and Designing Career
Paths and Career Opportunities:
DOD's update and the implementation of DOD Directive 1403.03 partially
address specific strategies for developing, training, deploying,
compensating, motivating, and designing career paths and opportunities,
which DOD officials stated are components of talent management and
succession planning. The update does not, however, address specific
strategies for deploying senior leaders.
* Developing and Training. DOD has developed the Defense Senior Leader
Development Program (DSLDP), which is intended to provide senior
leaders with, among other things, targeted individual development,
professional military education, and defense-focused leadership
seminars. This program is available to a small percentage of the DOD
workforce and will replace the Defense Leadership and Management
Program (DLAMP). According to DOD officials, DLAMP faced a number of
problems, such as lack of involvement of senior leadership in the
career path or progression of potential SES candidates, lack of
interaction and camaraderie among participants, and no plan for use of
employees or progression after graduation. These shortcomings were
identified through participant feedback and studies conducted by DOD.
Although the development of DSLDP seeks to address some of the
challenges that faced DLAMP, some components and defense agencies have
indicated they will not use DSLDP because they prefer using their own
component or agency programs, which they said are more focused on the
unique needs for their specific senior leaders.
In addition to DSLDP and other OSD-level leadership programs, the
components and defense agencies have other leadership development
programs, including but not limited to the Air Force's Civilian
Strategic Leader Program, the Defense Information Systems Agency's
Enterprise Leadership Development Program, and the Army Civilian
University. For more information on selected leadership development
programs throughout DOD, see appendix II.
* Designing Career Path and Career Opportunities (Talent Management and
Succession Planning). With regard to talent management and succession
planning efforts, DOD officials stated that OSD does not conduct
departmentwide succession planning for DOD's senior leader workforce.
Nevertheless, DOD issued Directive 1403.03 in October 2007 establishing
DOD policy to more effectively manage the career life cycle of DOD's
Senior Executive Service leaders, which specifically covers succession
planning for senior executives in the service components and defense
agencies. DOD's 2008 update to its civilian human capital strategic
plan states that succession planning efforts are currently being
developed.
Additionally, according to DOD officials, the executive management
office for talent management and succession planning, which was not
established until October 2008, will address these issues.[Footnote 42]
This office will provide guidance and tools for the departmentwide
talent management programs. For example, OSD is exploring the use of a
talent management system that will allow OSD and the components to
centralize their talent management efforts in accordance with DOD
guidance. Specifically, this guidance requires DOD and the components
to coordinate such efforts for the Senior Executive Service workforce.
DOD officials noted that until this office is fully operational they
will be unable to completely address the legislative requirements and
this guidance.
* Compensating and Motivating Senior Executives. In an effort to
address compensation for and motivation of its Senior Executive Service
workforce, DOD's update notes that the department issued a directive-
type memorandum on April 28, 2008, establishing a common Tier Policy to
help ensure transparency and comparability in the management and
compensation of executive positions. Specifically, the DOD tier
structure is built upon the principle that DOD senior executive
positions vary in terms of effect on mission, level of complexity, span
of control, inherent authority, scope and breadth of responsibility,
and influence in joint, national security matters. Under the three-tier
structure, DOD senior executive positions will be sorted into three
tiers based upon position characteristics, with Tier 1 positions
generally having less complexity and effect on mission outcomes and
Tier 3 positions having significant complexity, effect on mission
outcomes, or influence on joint, national security matters. Responsible
DOD officials told us that compensation levels within the tier system
are common throughout the department.
According to DOD officials, however, while the common Tier Policy
addresses compensation, the pay overlap of some General Schedule (GS)
15 employees and Senior Executive Service personnel could pose a
challenge to recruiting for the Senior Executive Service workforce.
Specifically, this overlap of pay, which involved DOD's Senior
Executive Service, some GS-15 federal compensation, and some GS-15
compensation with Washington, D.C., locality, is shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Pay Overlap of DOD's Senior Executive Service and General
Schedule (GS) with and without D.C. Locality Pay, 2008:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
DOD SES Salaries by Tier:
Tier 1: $114,468-$158,500 (Tier 1 GS 15 salary);
Tier 2: $158,500-$166,000;
Tier 3: $166,000-$172,200.
GS 15 With DC Locality Pay:
Step 6: $126,850;
Step 7: $130,694;
Step 8: $134,538;
Step 9: $138,383;
Step 10: $142,227.
GS 15 Salary Differences Without Locality Pay:
Step 8: $114,470;
Step 9: $117,650;
Step 10: $120,830.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD and OPM data.
[End of figure]
Additionally, we have previously reported on other challenges related
to Senior Executive Service compensation regarding pay compression--
which occurred when their pay reached the statutory cap.[Footnote 43]
DOD's Recently Established Executive Management Office Does Not Have a
Performance Plan to Articulate How the Legislative Requirements Will Be
Addressed:
OSD officials acknowledged that, while some work on the legislative
requirements and succession planning for its senior management
workforce had started, it was not complete, primarily because the newly
formed executive management office responsible for talent management,
succession planning, and other issues at the OSD level was not
established until October 2008. At the time of our review, these
officials stated that this new office, like the program management
office, did not have and did not plan to have a performance plan that
included implementation goals and time frames, performance measures,
and activities that are aligned with resources. As noted before,
without such a plan, DOD and its components may not be able to design
and fund the best strategies to address the legislative requirements
and meet their workforce needs.
Although DOD Identified Some Factors That Could Affect Its Plan, the
Update Does Not Include Strategies to Address These Factors:
While DOD's update identified a number of factors that could affect
civilian workforce plans, such as the effect of decisions made during
BRAC[Footnote 44] and the conversion of military positions to civilian
positions,[Footnote 45] it did not specifically incorporate strategies
to address these factors. Importantly, the department did not consider
a factor we previously identified--specifically, the department's
reliance on contractors and the related human capital challenges
associated with this reliance. For example, we previously identified
the need to develop a civilian workforce strategy to address the extent
of contractor use and the appropriate mix of contractors. The greater
reliance on contractors requires a critical mass of civilian personnel
with the expertise necessary to protect the government's interest and
ensure effective oversight of contractor work.[Footnote 46] Without
considering contractors as a factor in strategic human capital
planning, DOD may not have the right number and appropriate mix of
federal civilian employees and contractors it needs to accomplish its
mission.
DOD's Update Identified Some Factors That Could Affect Its Civilian
Human Capital Strategic Plan:
The update identified a number of factors[Footnote 47] that could
affect the department's civilian human capital strategic plan. These
included the execution of 2005 BRAC-round activities; military-to-
civilian position conversions; and the "in-sourcing" requirement in the
FY 2008 NDAA--that is, the requirement that certain positions be filled
by federal civilian employees rather than contractors. The update,
however, did not provide strategies for addressing these factors but
stated that strategies were being developed.
Specifically regarding BRAC, the update noted that the process has the
potential to affect how, when, and where positions are ultimately
realigned relative to their original location. It further noted that if
employees do not move, open positions and attrition could result, thus
increasing the recruiting needs of the department. We have previously
reported that implementing hundreds of BRAC actions by the statutory
deadline of September 15, 2011, will present a challenge for DOD to
realign about 123,000 military and civilian personnel to various
installations across the country.[Footnote 48]
The update also noted that the conversions of military positions to
civilian positions could also affect the department's workforce
projections. For example, it stated that a key aspect of maintaining
the nation's "All-Volunteer" force was the use of DOD's military
members in only those positions that are military-essential. It stated
that since 2004, more than 55,000 military positions have been selected
for conversion to civilian status in areas such as healthcare
administrators. It further noted that the department needs to consider
this potential increase in civilians as it plans and implements its
human capital strategies for future years.
Additionally, the update noted that the management of the civilian
workforce would also be affected by a new in-sourcing law--section 324
of the FY 2008 NDAA.[Footnote 49] The update mentioned that the
department may consider using government employees to perform, among
other things, a new mission requirement or an activity performed by a
contractor when an economic analysis shows DOD civilian employees are
the low-cost providers. The department further noted that the increased
use of civilians to accomplish such critical work will put greater
demands on its civilian human resources, policies, and practices.
We have previously reported a similar factor that has been a primary
challenge for DOD--the department's increasing reliance on contractors.
GAO's body of work has shown that DOD faces long-standing challenges
with increased reliance on contractors to perform core missions. These
challenges are accentuated in operations such as Iraq, where DOD has
lacked adequate numbers of personnel to provide oversight and
management of contractors.[Footnote 50]
Key to meeting this primary challenge is developing workforce
strategies that consider the extent to which contractors should be used
and the appropriate mix of contractor and federal personnel. In 2003,
we recommended that DOD develop a human capital strategic plan that
considers contractor roles and the mix of federal civilian and
contractor employees in these plans. DOD did not concur with this
recommendation, at the time, noting that the use of contractors was
just another tool to accomplish the department's mission and was not a
separate workforce with separate needs to manage.[Footnote 51] However,
we noted that strategic planning for the civilian workforce should be
undertaken in the context of the "total force," including contractors.
The 2006 QDR and DOD's 2008 update recognize contractors as part of
DOD's total workforce. We continue to believe that, without strategies
that address DOD's reliance on contractors--a key part of DOD's
workforce--the department may not have the right people, in the right
place, at the right time, and at a reasonable cost to achieve its
mission in the future.
Conclusions:
According to DOD's projections, it is possible that the department
could be faced, within the next few years, with replacing over 300,000
civilian employees. With the change in administration, the roles of
these civilians are of particular importance because of the
institutional knowledge they possess, as the military rotates, and as
political appointees change. Also, it becomes imperative that DOD
strategically manage this workforce to ensure resources are used
effectively. While DOD has made good progress in developing its
civilian human capital strategic plan, the recent update remains
incomplete. For example, the update does not assess gaps in all of the
enterprisewide mission-critical occupations identified by DOD. Also not
included are strategies for addressing factors like BRAC and DOD's
reliance on contractors. DOD's human capital strategic plan may not be
as useful as it could be to ensure that DOD has the right number of
people with the right skills to accomplish the department's mission.
DOD is moving forward in making operational the two management offices
it established in the fall of 2008--one to shape and monitor DOD's
updated plans and the other to address, among other things, talent
management and succession planning for the senior leader workforce.
However, this progress comes without performance plans to help guide
and gauge how the department is achieving its objective, which we have
previously reported is a key element of a sound management approach.
[Footnote 52]
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To continue the progress DOD has made with its human capital strategic
planning efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to
take the following three actions:
* task the newly established program management office, which is
responsible for addressing the requirements of the FY 2006 NDAA, to
develop a performance plan that includes establishing implementation
goals and time frames, measuring performance, and aligning activities
with resources;
* task the newly established executive management office, which is
responsible for addressing the requirements of the FY 2007 NDAA, to
develop a performance plan that includes establishing implementation
goals and time frames, measuring performance, and aligning activities
with resources; and:
* incorporate, in future updates to its strategic human capital plan,
strategies for addressing factors that could significantly affect DOD's
civilian workforce plans--including contractor roles and the effect
contractors have on requirements for DOD's civilian workforce.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In commenting on a draft of our report, the Acting Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness partially concurred with our three
recommendations. DOD's comments are reprinted in appendix III. DOD also
provided technical comments on our draft report, which we incorporated,
as appropriate into the report.
In written comments, DOD stated that the department had made great
progress in its strategic human capital plan implementation--from its
institutionalization in the department's philosophy to the actual
conduct of workforce forecasting and competency assessments. The
comments further stated that the department was disappointed that the
complexity of its undertaking and accomplishments were not fully
acknowledged in our report and trusted that this could be corrected in
the final report. Our review was structured to assess the extent to
which DOD's update addressed the FY 2006 and FY 2007 NDAA requirements
and key factors that may affect civilian workforce planning. We note
that our report acknowledges that DOD has made progress in addressing
the FY 2006 NDAA requirements when compared with its first strategic
human capital plan. Specifically, our report shows that the initial
plan did not meet most of the statutory requirements, while the update
partially addressed each requirement. We also noted some of DOD's
accomplishments--including issuance of a DOD Instruction on strategic
human capital management and training of component representatives on
the OPM forecasting tool. However, our report also identified those
areas where DOD has further work to do to enhance its civilian human
capital strategic plan.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the newly
established program management office, which is responsible for
addressing the requirements of the FY 2006 NDAA, develop a performance
plan that includes establishing implementation goals and time frames,
measuring performance, and aligning activities with resources. The
department noted that our report said DOD does not have and does not
plan to have a performance plan or road map for its newly formed
civilian workforce readiness program office and that this statement was
not correct. It further noted that, at the time of our review, the
newly formed program office was only a couple of months old and that
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy had
required the new office to develop both a performance plan and a road
map--and that these efforts were in progress. We disagree. To the
contrary, DOD officials did not provide any specific documentation from
OUSD(P&R) or Civilian Personnel Policy requiring the new office to
develop such plans, when asked about this plan. In fact, we were told
that the department did not have a performance plan and that the
Civilian Personnel Policy office, which had responsibility for the new
program management office, normally does not produce such documents. We
were further told that, essentially, any overall plan for the new
office was scattered through several documents--including position
descriptions, budget requests, and briefings to senior leadership. DOD
also stated that, at the time of our review, the establishment of the
civilian readiness office was only a couple of months old and its
staffing was ongoing. We note however, that another office,[Footnote
53] per DOD officials, had been addressing the FY 2006 NDAA
requirements and that DOD did not provide us with a performance plan
for that office either. After reviewing DOD's comments, we asked for
additional documentation to support its statement that the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy had required the
development of a performance plan. DOD officials told us that while
they have drafted a performance plan, they were unable to provide a
copy because it is currently under review. In light of these
circumstances, we believe it is imperative that DOD have a performance
plan that provides additional guidance and measures to assess the
extent to which the program management office is addressing the
requirements of the FY 2006 NDAA.
DOD also partially concurred with the recommendation to task the newly
established executive management office, which is responsible for
addressing the requirements of the FY 2007 NDAA, to develop a
performance plan that includes establishing implementation goals and
timeframes, measuring performance, and aligning activities with
resources. The department stated that, at the time of our review, the
executive management office was only a couple of months old. It further
noted that OUSD(P&R) and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Civilian Personnel Policy) had required the new office to develop both
a performance plan (which measures performance and aligns activities to
resources) and a road map (with implementation goals and timeframes).
The department also noted that development of these documents was in
progress. Again, DOD officials did not mention or provide GAO with any
specific documentation from OUSD(P&R) or Civilian Personnel Policy
requiring the new office to develop such plans. These actions, if
performed, appear consistent with the intent of our recommendation to
develop a performance plan that provides additional guidance and
measures to assess the extent to which the executive management office
is addressing the requirements of the FY 2007 NDAA.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation to incorporate in
future updates to its strategic human capital plan, strategies for
addressing factors that could significantly affect DOD's civilian
workforce plans--including contractor roles and responsibilities and
the effect the use of contractors has on requirements for DOD's
civilian workforce. The department stated that it has strategies in
place to address recruitment and retention needs arising from factors
affecting the DOD workforce, and that it will more closely align these
strategies to the causal factors so the linkage is clearly evident. We
believe these actions, once implemented, may meet the intent of our
recommendations.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and the Secretary of Defense. In addition, this 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) 512-3604 or farrellb@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 major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense's (DOD) 2008
update to its civilian human capital strategic plan addresses the
statutory requirements established in section 1122 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (FY 2006 NDAA) and
section 1102 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007 (FY 2007 NDAA), we obtained and reviewed DOD's May 2008 update.
This document was approximately 400 pages and was titled
"Implementation Report for the DOD Civilian Human Capital Strategic
Plan." We developed a checklist based on the FY 2006 NDAA and FY 2007
NDAA legislative requirements, which enabled us to compare the
requirements to DOD's updated plan. Two analysts independently assessed
the DOD update using the checklist and assigned a rating to each of the
elements from one of three potential ratings: "addresses," "partially
addresses," or "does not address." According to our methodology, a
rating of "addresses" was assigned if all elements of a legislative
requirement were cited, even if specificity and details could be
improved upon. Within our designation of "partially addresses," there
was a wide variation between an assessment or plan of action that
includes most of the elements of a legislative requirement and an
assessment or plan of action that includes few of the elements of a
legislative requirement. A rating of "does not address" was assigned
when elements of a characteristic were not explicitly cited or
discussed or any implicit references were either too vague or too
general to be useful. Independent assessments between the two analysts
were in agreement in the majority of the cases. When different initial
ratings were given by the two analysts, they met to discuss and resolve
differences in their respective checklist analyses and a senior analyst
validated the results. On the basis of those discussions a consolidated
final checklist was developed for both of the NDAAs.
We did not assess the reliability of the data in DOD's workforce
assessments and gap analyses; however, we have previously reported
information on the workforce forecasting system used by DOD. In
addition, we interviewed officials at the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) to obtain updated information on the workforce
forecasting systems DOD used to assess its civilian workforce and
ascertained that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of our review. We also interviewed officials in DOD offices for
Civilian Personnel Policy (CPP), the Civilian Personnel Management
Service, the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, the Defense Information
Systems Agency, and the Defense Logistics Agency about the update and
ongoing human capital efforts within DOD. We also discussed DOD's
ongoing efforts to establish a program management office that is
responsible for, among other things, monitoring and reviewing overall
civilian workforce trends, competency assessments, and gap analyses.
Additionally, we talked with officials responsible for standing up the
separate talent management offices within the components and defense
agencies. These offices will coordinate talent management efforts with
the Office of the Secretary of Defense. To determine DOD's succession
planning efforts for its Senior Executive Service workforce, we
analyzed applicable documents related to DOD's current efforts, along
with our prior work on DOD's human capital planning efforts for senior
executives. We also interviewed officials in DOD's offices for CPP, the
individual services, and the components about these matters. Among
other things, we discussed the department's efforts to establish an
executive management office for talent management and succession
planning at the OSD level.
Finally, we identified and reviewed factors that may affect DOD's
civilian workforce planning such as those that DOD identified in its
update. We also analyzed prior GAO reports examining other human
capital challenges within DOD related to the department's reliance on
contractors and discussed these matters with DOD and service officials.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 to February
2009, 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 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: Examples of DOD's and the Components' Senior Leader
Development and Training Programs:
DOD Programs:
In 1997, in response to recommendations from the Commission on Roles
and Missions of the Armed Forces, the Department of Defense (DOD)
created its Defense Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP). This is
a program aimed at preparing civilian employees for key leadership
positions throughout the department.[Footnote 54] DOD refers to DLAMP
as a systematic program of "joint" civilian leader training, education,
and development that provides the framework for developing civilians
with a DOD-wide capability, substantive knowledge of the national
security mission, and strong leadership and management skills.
Between 1997 and 2006, 1,894 participants were admitted to DLAMP, of
which 1,132 completed senior-level professional military education, 480
graduated, 470 remained in the program, and 187 were selected for
Senior Executive Service positions. Based on feedback from the
components and program participants, DOD made modifications to the
program and decided to end DLAMP in its current form in 2010. The
modifications to DLAMP resulted in it being transitioned into a new
program called Defense Senior Leader Development Program (DSLDP).
The modified approach in DSLDP focuses on developing senior civilian
leaders to excel in the 21st century's joint, interagency, and
multinational environment. DSLDP supports the governmentwide effort to
foster interagency cooperation and information sharing by providing
opportunities to understand and experience, first-hand, the issues and
challenges facing leaders across DOD and the broader national security
arena.
Table 4 shows the differences between DOD's DLAMP and DSLDP programs.
For example, DLAMP was a self-paced program and DSLDP uses a cohort-
based approach.
Table 4: Defense Leadership and Management Program and Defense Senior
Leader Development Program:
Program duration:
Defense Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP): Self-paced (2 to 5
years);
Defense Senior Leader Development Program (DSLDP): Cohort-based (2
years);
Observed differences based on program solicitation memos: DSLDP
utilizes cohorts.
Professional military education (PME):
Defense Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP): Complete: a
foundation course in national security policy, strategy, and decision
making; a senior-level course in PME from one of the senior service
schools or the National Defense University;
Defense Senior Leader Development Program (DSLDP): Prepares candidates
to take on additional responsibility, expands their knowledge of
national security, complex policy, and operational challenges;
Observed differences based on program solicitation memos: None.
Leadership courses:
Defense Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP): Two courses in
executive leadership;
Defense Senior Leader Development Program (DSLDP): Cohort-based
seminars (3-5 days in length) with classroom learning and practical
application;
Observed differences based on program solicitation memos: DSLDP
provides cohort-based seminars and seeks to build camaraderie among
candidates.
Professional development:
Defense Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP): Encourages a joint
or cross-component assignment as part of the program;
Defense Senior Leader Development Program (DSLDP): Requires the
candidate to have an Individual Development Plan;
Observed differences based on program solicitation memos: DSLDP
requires a long-range plan for the candidate to address competency
gaps.
Allocations:
Defense Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP): Fiscal year 2006--
Army 108, Navy 112, Air Force 58, fourth estate 42, and intelligence
30;
Defense Senior Leader Development Program (DSLDP): Fiscal year 2008--
Army 18, Navy 15, Air Force 12, fourth estate 10, and intelligence 5;
Observed differences based on program solicitation memos: DLAMP is
scheduled to sunset in 2010; until then, the programs will coexist.
Eligibility:
Defense Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP): GS-13 or above,
baccalaureate degree or higher;
Defense Senior Leader Development Program (DSLDP): GS-14 or above,
baccalaureate degree or higher, and 1 year of significant leadership
experience;
Observed differences based on program solicitation memos: DSLDP
requires 1 year of significant leadership and is limited to GS-14 or
above.
Selection criteria:
Defense Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP): DOD components
select candidates;
Defense Senior Leader Development Program (DSLDP): Components nominate
candidates. Nominees participate in an Executive Core Qualifications-
based (ECQ) assessment center activity and a DOD selection board
recommends selections to the Office of the Secretary of Defense;
Observed differences based on program solicitation memos: DSLDP
requires nominees to participate in an ECQ-based assessment center
activity and a selection board reviews nominations for selection.
Application process:
Defense Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP): DLAMP Applicant
Information Sheet, resume, qualification statement describing how the
applicant meets each of the ECQs, a supervisor's recommendation,
transcripts;
Defense Senior Leader Development Program (DSLDP): DSLDP Information
Sheet, resume, latest performance appraisal, current SF-50, statement
of achievements, statement of interest, supervisor's assessment,
transcripts;
Observed differences based on program solicitation memos: The DSLDP
application process requires the latest performance appraisal and a
statement of interest.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of table]
In addition to DLAMP, DOD has revamped its Executive Leadership
Development Program (ELDP), another program at the Office of the
Secretary of Defense level designed to develop a pipeline of high-
potential future leaders. The ELDP is a 10-month program for GS-12-to
GS-14-equivalent civilian personnel. According to DOD, ELDP provides
participants with exposure to roles and missions of the entire
department and fosters an increasing understanding of today's
warfighter.
Component-Specific Programs:
Some of the individual components and fourth estate agencies have their
own senior leader development programs, which are comparable to DLAMP
and DSLDP. Below is a sample of the additional programs available to
DOD civilians:
* The Air Force's Civilian Strategic Leader Program (CSLP), which is
designed to provide senior civilian leaders the career management and
development necessary to put them on par with similar general officers
in the Air Force. The intent of the CSLP process is to build a corps of
civilian personnel within the Air Force that have the potential to
progress into the Senior Executive Service.
* The Defense Information Security Agency's (DISA) Enterprise
Leadership Development Program provides leadership development and
training to its senior executives. The program focuses on its GS-13 to
GS-15 civilian employees with leadership potential. DISA also has a
program called the Emerging Leaders Program, which focuses on GS-9
through GS-12 civilian employees.
* The Army Civilian University has been established to oversee and
fully integrate an enterprise approach to education for civilians in
support of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). The
university uses an integrated and TRADOC-complementary curriculum with
a more standardized, competency-based approach to civilian education,
training and leader development initiatives. The Army has also
established the Army Senior Fellows Program to build a bench of future
Army senior executives who are innovative, adaptive, interchangeable
civilian leaders. This program is designed to (1) identify high-
potential GS-14 and GS-15 employees through an Army Secretariat Board
selection and (2) provide the employees with executive experience
assignments and educational opportunities.
* The Defense Logistics Agency launched a new Enterprise Leader
Development Program in fiscal year 2007 for supervisors and managers
who hold critical leadership positions. The objective of this program
is to increase participants' proficiency in six critical leadership
competencies: integrity/honesty, leading people, external awareness,
strategic thinking, executive-level communication, and human capital
management.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
Note: Page numbers in the draft report may differ from those in this
report.
Under Secretary Of Defense:
Personnel And Readiness:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000:
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report, GAO-09-235, "Human Capital: Opportunities Exist to Build on
Recent Progress to Strengthen DOD's Civilian Human Capital Strategic
Plan," dated December 19, 2008. Enclosed are our specific comments and
concerns.
With an institution of the size and complexity of the Department of
Defense, which employs over 760,000 civilian employees in hundreds of
decentralized commands/activities and in most career fields, it is
unreasonable to expect that implementation of a comprehensive Strategic
Human Capital Management (SHCM) plan could be completed in two years.
Rather, such a large-scale implementation is an on-going journey, which
the Department is traveling in a planned, collaborative manner with its
Defense Components.
Nevertheless, the Department has made great progress in its SHCM plan
implementation, from its institutionalization in the Department's
management philosophy, to the actual conduct of workforce forecasting
and competency assessment. I am disappointed that the complexity of the
undertaking and the accomplishments achieved thus far are not more
fully acknowledged in your report, and trust that this can be corrected
in the final report.
Ms. Patricia Bradshaw, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Civilian Personnel Policy can answer any questions you may have on the
Department's response. She can be reached at (703) 614-9487.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Michael L. Donminguez:
Acting Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness):
Enclosure: As stated:
GAO Draft Report - Dated December 19, 2008:
GAO Code 351173/GAO-09-235:
"Human Capital: Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress to
Strengthen DoD's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness to task the newly established program management office,
which is responsible for addressing the requirements of the NDAA for
Fiscal Year 2006, to develop a performance plan that includes
establishing implementation goals and timeframes, measuring
performance, and aligning activities with resources.
DOD Response: Partially concur. The GAO report indicates the Department
does not have, and does not plan to have, a performance plan or road
map for its newly formed civilian workforce readiness program office,
which will be working the Department's Strategic Human Capital
Management (SHCM) plan. This is incorrect. At the time of the GAO
engagement, the establishment of the civilian readiness office was only
a couple of months old and its staffing was ongoing The Under Secretary
of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) and the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy) have required for the newly-formed
office, the development of both a performance plan, which measures
performance and aligns activities to resources, and a road map, with
implementation goals and timeframes; development of these documents is
in progress.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness to task the newly established executive management office,
which is responsible for addressing the requirements of the Fiscal Year
2007 NDAA, to develop a performance plan that includes establishing
implementation goals and timeframes, measuring performance, and
aligning activities with resources.
DOD Response: Partially concur. At the time of the GAO engagement, the
establishment of the executive management office was only a couple of
months old. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)
and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy)
have required for the newly-formed office, the development of both a
performance plan, which measures performance and aligns activities to
resources, and a road map, with implementation goals and timeframes;
development of these documents is in progress.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness to incorporate, in future updates to its strategic human
capital plan, strategies for addressing factors that could
significantly impact DoD's civilian workforce plans-including
contractor roles and the effect contractors have on requirements for
DoD's civilian workforce.
DOD Response: Partially Concur. The Department has strategies in place
to address the recruitment and retention needs arising from factors
impacting the DoD workforce. In future updates, however, the Department
will more closely align these strategies to the causal factors, so the
linkage is clearly evident.
The following additional comments are provided regarding the GAO
report.
1. The report mentions several times the need for the Department to
address contractor/civilian mix. However, this issue was not included
as part of the GAO interviews or fact-finding. The Department has in
place several initiatives, outside of Civilian Personnel Policy, that
address this issue and requests the opportunity to present information
in its regard. [See comment 1]
2. The report also mentions several times the need for increased
contract oversight. Again, this issue was not included as part of the
GAO interviews or fact-finding. The Department also has ongoing
initiatives relevant to this issue and requests the opportunity to
present information in its regard. [See comment 2]
3. The GAO engagement on the Department's Strategic Human Capital
Management (SHCM) plan was bifurcated between an independent GAO review
of the acquisition SHCM plan and an independent GAO review of the
remaining part of the plan. This bifurcation, unfortunately, has led to
a report that does not fully address the entirety of the Department's
SHCM efforts. [See comment 3]
4. The Department's efforts to institutionalize Strategic Human Capital
Management Planning are not addressed in the report.
Institutionalization of the effort is foundational to successful
implementation, and efforts in this regard should be noted in the
report. These efforts have been planned and undertaken by Department
leadership to ensure Strategic Human Capital remains in the forefront
of all Departmental mission planning, both current and future. [See
comment 4] As discussed and presented to the GAO representatives, these
institutionalization efforts include:
i. Issuance of a DoD instruction, signed by the USD(P&R) on Strategic
Human Capital Management (SHCM), which outlines roles and
responsibilities, articulates SHCM requirements, both by Component and
by Functional Communities, and establishes an assessment and
accountability mechanism to ensure SHCM responsibilities are properly
executed. [See comment 5]
ii. Negotiation with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on
licensing costs for DoD enterprise-wide use of the WASSCIVFORE
forecasting tool; final licensing costs were received on 12 January
2009.
iii. Training of Component representatives on the Office of Civilian
Personnel Management Forecasting Tool. [See comment 6]
iv. Formulation, submission and authorization of a budget for a SHCM
Program Office, known as the Civilian Readiness Cell, which included
salary and benefits for 20 personnel, and training for HR Consultants
on SHCM. [See comment 7]
v. Development of mission and function statements, and organization
charts for a Civilian Readiness (SHCM) Program Office.
vi. Recruitment for, and selection of, SHCM staff.
vii. Development of a training curriculum for HR consultants on SHCM.
viii. Issuance of a Memorandum from the USD(P&R) to the USDs, tasking
them to appoint Functional Community Managers (FCM).
ix. Initiation of a Community of Practice for FCMs and conduct of
periodic meetings with them.
x. Development of a seven-step SHCM model and a pilot of the model
within the Information Technology, Financial Management and Logistics
communities. Pilot is gearing up to start 3rd Quarter FY 09.
Department Of Defense General Comments:
1. Highlights Section, Summary Page. The statistic that more than 50
percent of the DoD Civilian workforce is eligible to retire in the next
few years is correct. However, it is somewhat misleading, as that
figure includes both those eligible for optional and early retirement.
By 2012, 26% of the DOD workforce will be eligible for optional
retirement, and 20% will be age 59.9, which is the average age of a DoD
optional retiree. [See comment 8]
2. Summary Page. GAO's assertion that the Department's forecasting was
for a seven year vice 10 year period is correct. However, the
Department believes that a seven year forecast is valid and should be
acceptable for Human Capital Planning purposes, especially since it
mirrors DoD's budget planning cycle. [See comment 9]
3. Summary Page/Page 6, Para 1/Page 21, Last Para. The GAO report
indicates the Department does not have, and does not plan to have, a
performance plan or road map for its newly formed civilian workforce
readiness program office, which will be working the Department's SHCM
plan. This is incorrect. The formation of the civilian readiness office
is only a couple of months old and its staffing is still ongoing. There
will definitely be both a performance plan and a road map for the
office; they were just not complete at the time of the GAO engagement.
[See comment 10]
4. Summary Page. The GAO report discusses at length the Departments mix
of contractors and civilians. This issue, however, was net discussed
during the GAO interviews and, thus, GAO was not privy to the
Department's ongoing efforts to ensure the contractor/civilian mix is
appropriate. If this issue is included as part of the report, the
Department would like the opportunity to provide GAO an overview of its
ongoing initiatives in this area. [See comment 11]
5. Page 5, Para 1 GAO report discusses the, "Department's reliance on
contractors'. This issue was not raised by GAO representatives in their
discussions with DoD staff and thus was not addressed by DoD. A meeting
with appropriate DoD and GAO staff should be arranged to discuss this
issue so that GAO can be provided salient information in its regard.
[See comment 12]
6. Page 6, Para 1. The GAO report indicates forecasting was only done
for the eleven mission critical occupations (MCOs). This is incorrect.
The Department conducted workforce forecasting for: 1) the entire DoD
workforce; 2) the entirety of the Department of the Army. Air Force and
Navy; and 3) for eleven of its mission critical occupations In
addition, forecasting was completed by the Acquisition Community for
seven mission critical acquisition career fields representing 86% (over
100,000 members) of the DoD acquisition workforce. [See comment 13]
7. Page 6, Para 1, Line 7/Page 19, Para 2. The GAO report indicates the
Department did a gap analyses for about half of its 25 enterprise-wide
mission occupations. It is not clear to what gap analyses this is
referring If the report is referring to a competency gap analysis, the
report is misleading. As indicated in DoD's response to Congress, on
pages 2-15 through 2-25 of the DoD report, competency assessments were
done on many occupational series, covering thousands of personnel. [See
comment 14]
8. Page 6. Para 1, Line O. The GAO report indicates that the DoD report
partially addressed a plan of action to develop and reshape the
civilian workforce. Chapter 3 of DoD's response to Congress. which is
aligned by the Department's Human Capital Goals, comprehensively
outlines the current and future strategies DoD is deploying to develop
and reshape its workforce. Under each Human Capital goal, the report
dearly delineates recruitment programs and initiatives, including
innovative pipeline activities; retention programs and initiatives: and
development opportunities. The Departments recruitment, retention and
development activities do not focus solely on the MCOs: rather, they
are widespread and cover most of the Department's occupations. [See
comment 15]
9. Page 14. Para 2. It is correct the DoD report to Congress had
appendices on 12 of the MCOs. However. as was discussed during the GAO
interviews. this does not reflect the fatality of the Department's
efforts. The Department's acquisition community has strategic plans in
place for seven of its mission critical acquisition career fields,
covering 112.000 civilian personnel. These plans address the FY08
implementation of Section 852 of the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund, and discuss, in detail, recruitment and retention
strategies and goals Although the acquisition strategic human capital
management report is being submitted to Congress separate from the main
report, it is part of the Department's overall SHCM plan and should be
considered in the GAO assessment. [See comment 16]
10. Page 16, Footnote 28/Page 33, Para 3. The acquisition community has
conducted a human capital analysis of the acquisition program
management, contract management, and quality assurance career fields,
and has undertaken initiatives to strengthen those workforces.
Information on these initiatives, the DoD Panel on Contracting
Integrity 2007 Report to Congress (submitted January 2008) (Section
813), and the DoD Task Force on Contracting and Contract Management in
Expeditionary Operations 2008 Report to Congress, should be included
in, or referenced to, the GAO report to provide a complete picture of
the Department's SHCM initiatives related to contract oversight. [See
comment 17]
11. Page 31, Last Para. Chapter 3 of DoD's report to Congress addressed
recruitment and development strategies to meet DoD Civilian Workforce
needs Recruitment strategies are key to ensuring the successful
conversion of military positions to civilian, refreshing position
pipelines incident to projected retirements, and readying a supply of
candidates to meet in-sourcing requirements; thus, the Department
believes it indeed has strategies in place to address emergent
recruitment needs. [See comment 18]
GAO Comments:
The following are GAO's comments on specific sections in the Department
of Defense's (DOD) letter sent on January 23, 2009. The specific
sections are entitled, "The following additional comments are provided
regarding the GAO report" and "Department Of Defense General Comments."
1. DOD states that contractor issues were not a part of our interviews
and fact finding for this review. However, as identified in the DOD
notification letter, other challenges and emerging issues facing DOD's
Senior Executive Service (SES) workforce in the human capital area was
a key question included in this review. Our approach included reviewing
our prior work, analyzing DOD's update, interviewing OSD and component
officials about these issues, and discussing our potential findings
with them. These officials noted that contractor reliance was a major
challenge for the department, and we noted that the DOD 2008 update did
not mention this as one of the challenges and, thus, did not provide a
strategy. As noted in our report we assessed the extent to which the
update addressed key factors like the reliance on contractors.
2. DOD states that our report mentions the need for increased contract
oversight and that this issue, again, was not part of our interviews or
fact-finding. See comment 1.
3. DOD stated that our review was bifurcated between an independent GAO
review of the defense acquisition workforce section and a review of the
remaining part of the update to DOD's plan. This is not correct. This
review focused on how DOD's 2008 update submitted to Congress addressed
the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and 2007 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) and key factors that could affect civilian human capital
planning. According to section 851 of the FY 2008 NDAA, DOD was
required to include a section on the defense acquisition workforce
planning efforts in its 2008 update, but it did not. This review
focused on DOD's 2008 update. A separate GAO review is looking at,
among other things, the defense acquisition workforce requirements in
the FY 2008 NDAA.
4. DOD stated that we did not address the department's efforts to
institutionalize strategic human capital management planning. We
disagree. As we state in the report, the objectives for our review were
to assess the extent to which DOD's update addressed the FY 2006 and FY
2007 NDAA requirements and key factors that may affect civilian
workforce planning and our report was, therefore, structured
accordingly. Our report did, however, note some of DOD's efforts--
including issuance of a DOD Instruction on Strategic Human Capital
Management and training for component representatives on the Office of
Personnel Management's forecasting tool.
5. DOD's comments provided a list of institutionalized efforts that
included issuance of a DOD Strategic Human Capital Management
instruction. This information is referenced in our report.
6. DOD's comments provided a list of institutionalized efforts that
mentioned training of component representatives on the Office of
Personnel Management forecasting tool. This information is referenced
in our report.
7. DOD's comments provided a list of institutionalized efforts that
mentioned formulation, submission, and authorization of a budget for
the strategic human capital management program office. We added some of
this information to our report.
8. DOD's comments noted that our report said that more than 50 percent
of the DOD civilian workforce is eligible to retire in the next few
years and noted that this statement was correct but misleading because
the figure included optional and early retirement. We have revised our
report accordingly.
9. DOD's comments said that our assertion that the department's
forecasting was for a 7-year period and not a 10-year period is
correct; however, the department believes that a 7-year forecast is
valid and should be acceptable because it mirrors DOD's budget planning
cycle. We provided DOD's perspective in our report but note that the FY
2006 NDAA requires a 10-year forecast.
10. The department noted that our report said DOD does not have and
does not plan to have a performance plan or road map for its newly
formed civilian workforce readiness program office and that this
statement was not correct. It further noted that, at the time of our
review, the newly formed program office was only a couple of months
old, its staffing was still in progress, and there would definitely be
both a performance plan and a road map for the office. The department
stated that these were just not complete at the time of the GAO
engagement. We disagree. To the contrary, DOD did not provide us with
any specific documentation that a performance plan was in progress
during our review. In fact, we were told that the department did not
have a performance plan and the Civilian Personnel Policy office, which
has responsibility for the new program management office, normally does
not produce such documents. We were further told that, essentially, any
overall plan for the new office was scattered through several
documents--including position descriptions, budget requests, and
briefings to senior leadership.
11. DOD stated that our report discussed DOD's mix of contractors and
civilians and this was not discussed during our interviews. We
disagree. See comment 1.
12. DOD's comments state that our report discussed the department's
reliance on contractors and this was not raised in discussions with
DOD. We disagree. See comment 1.
13. DOD's comments assert that our report incorrectly states that the
department did forecasting only for eleven mission-critical occupations
and this was not correct. We have revised the report accordingly.
14. DOD states that our report indicates that the department did a gap
analysis for about half of its 25 enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations, but it was not clear to what gap analyses this was
referring. It further noted that, if the report was referring to a
competency gap assessment, it was misleading and noted that the update
had discussed competency assessments on pages 2-15 through 2-25 of its
update. We note that our report states that 11 gap assessments were
done with the forecasting tool---10 of which DOD identified as "steady
state" and one with an actual gap. We further noted that the update
also discussed other gap assessments for six enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations. We note that only one of these was not previously
identified as one of the 11 mission-critical occupations with gap
assessments--this was the computer science mission-critical occupation.
We also clarified that competency gap assessments were done at the
component levels and provided examples in the body of our report.
15. DOD states that our report indicates DOD's update partially
addressed a plan of action to develop and reshape the civilian
workforce and note that while its recruitment, retention and
development activities did not focus solely on its mission-critical
occupations, the strategies are widespread and cover most of the
department's occupations. We note, however, that the law required the
plan to address identified gaps in its "critical" skills and
competencies or what DOD has identified as enterprisewide mission-
critical occupations.
16. While DOD acknowledged our report correctly stated that its update
contained appendixes on 12 mission-critical occupations, it believed
that we did not reflect the totality of the Departments efforts because
the acquisition workforce section was not considered in the GAO
assessment. As stated in comment 3, information from the section on
defense acquisition workforce planning was not included in our report
because it was not completed during the course of our review.
17. DOD's comments stated that the acquisition community had conducted
a human capital analysis and undertaken initiatives to strengthen this
workforce and these should be included in the GAO report. We disagree.
See comment 3.
18. DOD stated that chapter 3 of its update addressed recruitment and
development strategies to meet DOD civilian workforce needs--noting
that strategies were key to ensuring the successful conversion of
military positions to civilians and readying a supply of candidates to
meet in-sourcing requirements. Accordingly, the department noted that
it believed it indeed had strategies in place to address emergent
recruitment needs. We note however that the introduction and executive
summary of the update noted several factors we discussed as challenges
and stated that strategies, at the time of our review, were being
developed--and, as stated previously, contractor reliance was not
identified as a challenge in the update.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact name above, Marion Gatling, Assistant
Director; Andrew Curry; Michael Hanson; Mae Jones; Amber Lopez; Lonnie
McAllister; Brian Pegram; Charlie Perdue; Terry Richardson; and Nicole
Volchko made major contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Human Capital: Diversity in the Federal SES and Processes for Selecting
New Executives. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-110].
Washington, D.C.: November 26, 2008.
Ensuring a Continuing Focus on Implementing Effective Human Capital
Strategies. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-234CG].
Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2008.
Results-Oriented Management: Opportunities Exist for Refining the
Oversight and Implementation of the Senior Executive Performance-Based
Pay System. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-82].
Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2008.
Department of Homeland Security: A Strategic Approach Is Needed to
Better Ensure the Acquisition Workforce Can Meet Mission Needs.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-30]. Washington, D.C.:
November 19, 2008.
Human Capital: DOD Needs to Improve Implementation of and Address
Employee Concerns about Its National Security Personnel System.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-773]. Washington, D.C.:
September 10, 2008.
Human Capital: Selected Agencies Have Implemented Key Features of Their
Senior Executive Performance-Based Pay Systems, but Refinements Are
Needed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1019T].
Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2008.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Human Capital Planning Has
Improved, but Strategic View of Contractor Workforce Is Needed.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-582]. Washington, D.C.:
May 28, 2008.
Human Capital: Workforce Diversity Governmentwide and at the Department
of Homeland Security. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-815T]. Washington, D.C.: May 21,
2008.
Human Capital: Transforming Federal Recruiting and Hiring Efforts.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-762T]. Washington, D.C.
May 8, 2008.
Human Capital: Corps of Engineers Needs to Update Its Workforce
Planning Process to More Effectively Address Its Current and Future
Workforce Needs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-596].
Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2008.
Older Workers: Federal Agencies Face Challenges, but Have Opportunities
to Hire and Retain Experienced Employees. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-630T]. Washington, D.C.: April 30,
2008.
Human Capital: Diversity in the Federal SES and Senior Levels of the
U.S. Postal Service and Processes for Selecting New Executives.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-609T]. Washington, D.C.:
April 3, 2008.
Defense Contracting: Army Case Study Delineates Concerns with Use of
Contractors as Contract Specialists. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-360]. Washington, D.C.: March 26,
2008.
The Department of Defense's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan Does
Not Meet Most Statutory Requirements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-439R]. Washington, D.C.: February 6,
2008.
Defense Acquisitions: DOD's Increased Reliance on Service Contractors
Exacerbates Long-standing Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-621T]. Washington, D.C.: January 23,
2008.
Federal Acquisition: Oversight Plan Needed to Help Implement
Acquisition Advisory Panel Recommendations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-160]. Washington, D.C.: December 20,
2007.
DOD Civilian Personnel: Medical Policies for Deployed DOD Federal
Civilians and Associated Compensation for Those Deployed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1235T]. Washington, D.C.: September
18, 2007.
Human Capital: DOD Needs Better Internal Controls and Visibility over
Costs for Implementing Its National Security Personnel System.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-851]. Washington, D.C.:
July 16, 2007.
Human Capital: Retirements and Anticipated New Reactor Applications
Will Challenge NRC's Workforce. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-105]. Washington, D.C.: January 17,
2007.
Defense Acquisitions: Tailored Approach Needed to Improve Service
Acquisition Outcomes. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-20]. Washington, D.C.: November 9,
2006.
Human Capital: DOD's National Security Personnel System Faces
Implementation Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-730]. Washington, D.C.: July 14,
2005.
Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on Proposed DOD National
Security Personnel System Regulations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-432T]. Washington, D.C.: March 15,
2005.
DOD Civilian Personnel: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce Plans Needed.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-753]. Washington, D.C.:
June 30, 2004.
Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development
Efforts in the Federal Government. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. Washington, D.C.: March,
2004.
Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic Planning,
Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further
Improved. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-49].
Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2004.
Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce
Planning. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39].
Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003.
Human Capital: Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other Countries'
Succession Planning and Management Initiatives. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-914]. Washington, D.C.: September
15, 2003.
DOD Personnel: Documentation of the Army's Civilian Workforce-Planning
Model Needed to Enhance Credibility. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-1046]. Washington, D.C.: August 22,
2003.
DOD Personnel: DOD Comments on GAO's Report on DOD's Civilian Human
Capital Strategic Planning. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-690R]. Washington, D.C.: April 18,
2003.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] DOD officials noted that this figure includes various types of
retirement eligibilities for its civilians, including early retirement.
[2] U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Results From the 2006 Federal
Human Capital Survey (2006).
[3] Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Feb. 6,
2006).
[4] GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (January 2009).
[5] Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 1122 (2006).
[6] GAO, The Department of Defense's Civilian Human Capital Strategic
Plan Does Not Meet Most Statutory Requirements, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-439R] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 6,
2008).
[7] According to DOD officials, enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations are used in DOD's updated strategic plan to refer to both
critical skills and competencies.
[8] For the purposes of this report, senior management, functional, and
technical personnel will be referred to as the senior leader workforce.
Section 1102 covered senior management, functional, and technical
personnel (including scientists and engineers) and includes the
following categories of DOD civilian personnel: (1) appointees in the
Senior Executive Service under section 3131 of title 5, United States
Code; (2) persons serving in positions described in section 5376(a) of
title 5, United States Code; (3) highly qualified experts appointed
pursuant to section 9903 of title 5, United States Code; (4) scientists
and engineers appointed pursuant to section 342(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Pub. L. No. 103-337
(1994)), as amended by section 1114 of the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by
Pub. L. No. 106-398 (2000)); (5) scientists and engineers appointed
pursuant to section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (5 U.S.C. 3104 note); (6)
persons serving in the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service
under section 1606 of title 10, United States Code; (7) persons serving
in Intelligence Senior-Level positions under section 1607 of title 10,
United States Code.
[9] DOD defines talent management as the deliberate management of the
career life cycle (recruitment, selection, development, performance
management, succession and sustainment of talent, and separation).
[10] DOD officials state that talent management and succession planning
are components of designing career paths and career opportunities for
its senior leadership.
[11] Implementation Report for the DOD Civilian Human Capital Strategic
Plan 2006-2010 (May 2008).
[12] GAO, DOD Personnel: Documentation of the Army's Civilian Workforce-
Planning Model Needed to Enhance Credibility, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-1046] (Washington D.C.: August 2003)
and GAO, DOD Civilian Personnel: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce
Plans Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-753]
(Washington D.C.: June 2004).
[13] Components refer to the military services and fourth-estate
agencies. "Fourth-estate" agencies are all organizational entities in
DOD that are not in the military departments or the combatant commands.
These include OSD, the Joint Staff, the Office of the Inspector General
of DOD, the defense agencies, and DOD field activities.
[14] As stated previously, DOD refers to critical skills and
competencies as enterprisewide mission-critical occupations. These
include information technology management, computer scientist, computer
engineer, electronics engineer, contracting, logistics management,
quality assurance, human resources management, general engineering,
physical science, civil engineering, mathematician, physician, nurse,
pharmacist, security administration, intelligence, police officer,
financial management, accounting, auditing, budget analysis, foreign
affairs, international relations, and language specialist.
[15] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformation, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003); and Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June
1996).
[16] Department of Defense Directive 1403.03, The Career Lifecycle of
the Senior Executive Service Leaders Within the Department of Defense
(Oct. 25, 2007).
[17] According to DOD officials, this includes one talent management
system for all of DOD and the defense agencies instead of the many
systems that are currently used.
[18] To enable DOD to close unneeded bases and realign others, Congress
passed BRAC legislation that instituted base closure rounds in 1988,
1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005.
[19] GAO, DOD Needs to Reexamine its Extensive Reliance on Contractors
and Continue to Improve Management and Oversight, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-572T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11,
2008).
[20] GAO, DOD Personnel: DOD Comments on GAO's Report on DOD's Civilian
Human Capital Strategic Planning, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-690R] (Washington D.C.: Apr. 18,
2003).
[21] Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report.
[22] See footnote 8 for details of positions covered by section 1102.
[23] Section 129 states that the civilian personnel of DOD will be
managed each fiscal year solely on the basis of and consistent with (1)
the workload required to carry out the functions and activities of the
department and (2) the funds made available to the department for such
fiscal year.
[24] For the purpose of its update, DOD defined end strength as the
level of employment necessary to meet mission requirements.
[25] DCPDS is a human resources information system that supports
civilian personnel operations in DOD. It allows DOD to use a single
management information system for DOD civilian employees.
[26] As previously stated, for the purposes of the update, DOD defined
end strength as the level of employment necessary to meet mission
requirements.
[27] As seen in table 2, assessments in the various appendixes did not
cover the same enterprisewide mission-critical occupations. Also, DOD's
update contained workforce forecasts with projected trends for the
entire DOD workforce and separate forecasts for the civilian workforce
in the Army, Air Force, Navy, and fourth estate. These were not
specific to any enterprisewide mission-critical occupations.
[28] OSD forecasted that 10 of the 11 enterprisewide mission-critical
occupations would be maintained at a steady state, while the civil
engineering mission-critical occupation was identified as having a gap
in its workforce.
[29] We have previously reported that inadequate numbers of trained
personnel to oversee and manage contracts is a long-standing problem
that continues to hinder DOD's management and oversight of contractors
in deployed locations. GAO, Military Operations: DOD Needs to Address
Contract Oversight and Quality Assurance Issues for Contracts Used to
Support Contingency Operations, GAO-08-1087 (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
26, 2008).
[30] The Future Years Defense Program summarizes resources associated,
by fiscal year, with DOD programs, as approved by the Secretary or the
Deputy Secretary of Defense. For individual programs, this means that
decision makers have visibility over planned funding for 4 or 5 years
beyond the current budget year.
[31] DOD defined total gains as the number of new hires and gains from
inactive status and transfers from government agencies.
[32] As noted in table 2, information for one of the 11 mission-
critical occupations was specific to the fourth estate--accounting.
[33] Report of the Commission on Army Acquisition and Program
Management in Expeditionary Operations, Urgent Reform Required: Army
Expeditionary Contracting (Oct. 31, 2007).
[34] Functional community managers are responsible for, among other
things, analysis of functional community workload requirements,
environmental factors, attrition and retirement trends, staffing needs,
and identifying skill gaps. They are also responsible for the
development and implementation of strategies to address identified
gaps.
[35] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-753].
[36] Section 1109, Pub. L. No. 110-181 (2008). Section 209 of the E-
Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-347) initially authorized the
establishment of an Information Technology Exchange Program.
[37] Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25, DOD Civilian Personnel
Management System: Volume 250, Civilian Strategic Human Capital
Planning (Nov. 18, 2008). This instruction assigns responsibilities
regarding civilian personnel management in DOD, articulates strategic
human capital management requirements (both for component and
functional communities), and establishes assessments and accountability
mechanisms to ensure strategic human capital management
responsibilities are properly executed.
[38] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118].
[39] 10 U.S.C. § 129 (2008).
[40] Per a DOD directive-type-memorandum issued on April 28, 2008,
DOD's tier structure sorts senior executive positions into three tiers
based upon position characteristics, with Tier 1 positions generally
having less complexity and effect on mission outcomes and Tier 3
positions having significant complexity, effect on mission outcomes, or
influence on joint, national security matters.
[41] According to DOD, enterprise senior executives will have diverse
experiences to provide expert-level perspective and understanding of
national security matters.
[42] DOD Directive 1403.03 calls for a talent management process to
include competency assessments, diagnostics of individual executive
talent, a longitudinal study of the senior leadership cadre,
identification of additional resources needed to fill gaps, and other
assessments.
[43] GAO, Results-Oriented Management: Opportunities Exist for Refining
the Oversight and Implementation of the Senior Executive Performance-
Based Pay System, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-82]
(Washington D.C.: Nov. 21, 2008).
[44] To enable DOD to close unneeded bases and realign others, Congress
enacted BRAC legislation that instituted base closure rounds in 1988,
1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005.
[45] DOD reported that tens of thousands of military personnel were
performing tasks that were not military-essential and these tasks could
be performed more cost-effectively by civilian or private-sector
contract employees.
[46] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-572T] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-690R].
[47] DOD called these factors environmental/mission influences.
[48] GAO, Military Base Realignments and Closures: Cost Estimates Have
Increased and Are Likely to Continue to Evolve, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-159] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11,
2007).
[49] This section amended chapter 146 of title 10 of the United States
Code, by adding section 2463.
[50] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-572T] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1087].
[51] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-690R].
[52] GAO, Military Personnel: Improvements Needed to Increase
Effectiveness of DOD's Programs to Promote Positive Working
Relationships between Reservists and Their Employers, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-981R] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15,
2008); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669]; and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118].
[53] This office was the Program Executive Office for Strategic Human
Capital Planning under OUSD(P&R).
[54] GAO, Human Capital: Taking Steps to Meet Current and Emerging
Human Capital Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-965T] (Washington, D.C.: July 17,
2001).
[End of section]
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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
