Military Personnel
Comparisons between Military and Civilian Compensation Can be Useful, but Data Limitations Prevent Exact Comparisons Gao ID: GAO-10-666T April 28, 2010This testimony discusses our most recent report on military and civilian pay comparisons and the challenges associated with those types of comparisons. The Department of Defense's (DOD) military compensation package, which is a myriad of pays and benefits, is an important tool for attracting and retaining the number and quality of active duty servicemembers DOD needs to fulfill its mission. Since DOD transitioned to an all-volunteer force in 1973, the amount of pay and benefits that servicemembers receive has progressively increased. When it is competitive with civilian compensation, military compensation can be appropriate and adequate to attract and retain servicemembers. However, comparisons between the two involve both challenges and limitations. Specifically, as we have previously reported, no data exist that would allow an exact comparison between military and civilian personnel with the same levels of work experience. Also, nonmonetary considerations complicate such comparisons, because their value cannot be quantified. For example, military service is unique in that the working conditions for active duty service carry the risk of death and injury during wartime and the potential for frequent, long deployments, unlike most civilian jobs. In addition, there is variability among past studies in how compensation is defined (for example, either pay or pay and benefits) and what is being compared. Most studies, including those done by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and RAND Corporation, have compared military and civilian compensation but limit such comparisons to cash compensation--using what DOD calls regular military compensation--and do not include benefits. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required that we conduct a study comparing the pay and benefits provided by law to members of the Armed Forces with those of comparably situated private-sector employees, to assess how the differences in pay and benefits affect recruiting and retention of members of the Armed Forces. Earlier this month, we issued our report. This testimony today summarizes the findings of that report.
Comparisons between military and civilian compensation are important management tools--or measures--for the department to use to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of its compensation. However, such comparisons present both limitations and challenges. For example, data limitations and difficulties valuing nonmonetary benefits prevent exact comparisons between military and civilian personnel. Moreover, these comparisons represent points in time and are affected by other factors, such as the health of the economy. To illustrate, it is not clear the degree to which changes in the provision of civilian health care or retirement benefits affect the outcome of comparing military and civilian compensation. In addition, valuing military service is complicated. While serving in the military offers personal and professional rewards, such service also requires many sacrifices--for example, frequent moves and jobs that are arduous and sometimes dangerous. Ultimately, DOD's ability to recruit and retain personnel is an important indicator of the adequacy--or effectiveness--of its compensation.
GAO-10-666T, Military Personnel: Comparisons between Military and Civilian Compensation Can be Useful, but Data Limitations Prevent Exact Comparisons
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-666T
entitled 'Military Personnel: Comparisons between Military and
Civilian Compensation Can be Useful, but Data Limitations Prevent
Exact Comparisons' which was released on April 28, 2010.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Personnel, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, April 28, 2010:
Military Personnel:
Comparisons between Military and Civilian Compensation Can be Useful,
but Data Limitations Prevent Exact Comparisons:
Statement of Brenda S. Farrell, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
GAO-10-666T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for providing me this opportunity to discuss our most recent
report on military and civilian pay comparisons and the challenges
associated with those types of comparisons.[Footnote 1] The Department
of Defense's (DOD) military compensation package, which is a myriad of
pays and benefits, is an important tool for attracting and retaining
the number and quality of active duty servicemembers DOD needs to
fulfill its mission. Since DOD transitioned to an all-volunteer force
in 1973, the amount of pay and benefits that servicemembers receive
has progressively increased.[Footnote 2] When it is competitive with
civilian compensation, military compensation can be appropriate and
adequate to attract and retain servicemembers. However, comparisons
between the two involve both challenges and limitations. Specifically,
as we have previously reported,[Footnote 3] no data exist that would
allow an exact comparison between military and civilian personnel with
the same levels of work experience. Also, nonmonetary considerations
complicate such comparisons, because their value cannot be quantified.
For example, military service is unique in that the working conditions
for active duty service carry the risk of death and injury during
wartime and the potential for frequent, long deployments, unlike most
civilian jobs.
In addition, there is variability among past studies in how
compensation is defined (for example, either pay or pay and benefits)
and what is being compared. Most studies, including those done by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and RAND Corporation, have compared
military and civilian compensation but limit such comparisons to cash
compensation--using what DOD calls regular military compensation--and
do not include benefits.[Footnote 4] DOD has also conducted studies
comparing military and civilian compensation as part of its
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC)--a review required
by law, every 4 years, of the principles and concepts of the
compensation system for members of the uniformed services.[Footnote 5]
The 2008 QRMC (the 10th) focused on seven compensation-related areas,
including the adequacy of compensation, and it recommended, among
other things, the inclusion of both cash and some benefits--such as
health care--when assessing military compensation. The 10th QRMC also
found that, when some benefits were included, military compensation
compared approximately with the 80th percentile of comparable civilian
compensation--that is, that 80 percent of the comparable civilian
population earned less than the military population in the comparison.
Previously, the 2004 QRMC (the 9th) found that regular military
compensation met the 70th percentile of comparable civilian cash
compensation.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required
that we conduct a study comparing the pay and benefits provided by law
to members of the Armed Forces with those of comparably situated
private-sector employees, to assess how the differences in pay and
benefits affect recruiting and retention of members of the Armed
Forces.[Footnote 6] Earlier this month, we issued our report.
[Footnote 7] My testimony today summarizes the findings of that
report. Specifically, my statement will (1) examine total military
compensation for active duty officers and enlisted personnel, (2)
compare private-sector pay and benefits for civilians with those of
officers and enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces, and (3) assess
the 10th QRMC's recommendation to include regular military
compensation and select benefits when making such comparisons.
We focused our work on active duty servicemembers' perspectives on
compensation--that is, cash compensation and the value of benefits to
servicemembers versus the costs to the government of providing
compensation. To conduct our work, we identified and reviewed studies
on compensation by such organizations as CNA Corporation (CNA), CBO,
the Congressional Research Service, DOD, GAO, and RAND. We interviewed
officials from DOD's Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, including the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Military Personnel Policy and officials within the
Directorate of Compensation, as well as officials from CNA, CBO, the
Defense Manpower Data Center, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the
Military Officers Association of America. To assess total military
compensation, we reviewed a 2008 DOD-commissioned report[Footnote 8]--
completed by CNA--and identified estimated values for the elements of
military compensation (that is, regular military compensation, health
care, retirement, and additional tax advantages). We also identified
the employee benefits available to active duty servicemembers and used
DOD survey data to identify the utilization rates of these benefits by
servicemembers. To compare military compensation with private-sector
pay and benefits of comparable civilians, we used CNA's report to
identify estimated values for private-sector compensation--pay and
benefits--for comparable civilians. In addition, we reviewed the
methods CNA used to estimate values for several benefits--retirement,
health care, and additional tax advantages.[Footnote 9] Finally, to
assess the 10th QRMC's recommendation to include regular military
compensation and select benefits when comparing military and civilian
compensation, we conducted a review of recent literature on
compensation--including regular military compensation and select
benefits--and interviewed DOD officials and other knowledgeable
individuals in the fields of compensation and human capital
management. We conducted our work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Total Military Compensation for Active Duty Officers and Enlisted
Personnel Is Broad and Difficult to Assess:
DOD provides active duty servicemembers with a comprehensive
compensation package that includes a mix of cash, such as basic pay;
noncash benefits, such as health care; and deferred compensation, such
as retirement pension. The foundation of each servicemember's
compensation is regular military compensation, which consists of basic
pay, housing allowance, subsistence allowances, and federal income tax
advantage. The amount of cash compensation that a servicemember
receives varies according to rank, tenure of service, and dependency
status. For example, a hypothetical servicemember with 1 year of
service at the rank of O-1 and no dependents would currently receive
an annual regular military compensation of $54,663, whereas a
hypothetical servicemember with 4 years of service at the rank of E-5
and one dependent would receive an annual regular military
compensation of $52,589.[Footnote 10] In addition to cash
compensation, DOD offers current and retired servicemembers a wide
variety of noncash benefits. These range from family health care
coverage and education assistance to installation-based services, such
as child care, youth, and family programs.
While many studies of active duty military compensation have attempted
to assess the value of the compensation package, most did not consider
all of the components of compensation offered to servicemembers. CBO,
RAND, and CNA have assessed military compensation using varying
approaches. All of their studies include some components of
compensation--for example, cash compensation beyond basic pay, which
includes housing and subsistence allowances, the federal income tax
advantage, and, when possible, special and incentive pay. However,
these studies did not assess all components of compensation offered to
servicemembers. Thus, the results of these studies differ based on
what is being assessed, the methodology used to conduct the
assessment, and the components of compensation included in the
calculations.
The most recent study, a 2008 DOD-sponsored study performed by CNA,
assessed military compensation using regular military compensation and
some benefits (specifically, health care, the military tax advantage,
and retirement benefits).[Footnote 11] In particular, the results of
this study state that in 2006, average enlisted servicemembers'
compensation ranged from approximately $40,000 at 1 year of service to
approximately $80,000 at 20 years of service.[Footnote 12]
Additionally, in 2006 the average officers' compensation ranged from
approximately $50,000 at 1 year of service to approximately $140,000
at 20 years of service. Our analysis of CNA's 2008 study found that
overall, CNA used a reasonable approach to assessing military
compensation; however, we provided comments on two issues. In general,
we agree that when assessing military compensation for the purpose of
comparing it with civilian compensation, it is appropriate to include
regular military compensation and benefits (as many as can be
reasonably valued from the servicemembers' perspective). For example,
in order to value health care, CNA estimated the difference in value
between military and civilian health benefits, because servicemembers
receive more comprehensive health care than most civilians.[Footnote
13]
As mentioned previously, we identified two areas for comment with
regard to CNA's approach. First, with regard to retirement, health
care, and tax advantage, CNA's methodology makes various assumptions
that allow the study to calculate approximate values for these
benefits. While the assumptions are reasonable, we note that other,
alternative assumptions could have been made, and thus, in some cases,
could have generated substantially different values.[Footnote 14]
Second, the CNA study omits the valuation of retiree health care,
which is a significant benefit provided to servicemembers.
Nevertheless, we note that CNA's study and other studies of military
compensation illustrate that valuing total military compensation from
a servicemember's perspective is challenging, given the variability
across the large number of pays and benefits, the need to make certain
assumptions to estimate the value of various benefits, and the
utilization of benefits by servicemembers or their dependents, among
other reasons.
Military Compensation Generally Compares Favorably with Civilian
Compensation in Studies, but These Comparisons Present Limitations:
In comparing military and civilian compensation, CNA's study as well
as a 2007 CBO study,[Footnote 15] found that military pay generally
compares favorably with civilian pay. CNA found that in 2006, regular
military compensation for enlisted personnel averaged $4,700 more
annually than comparable civilian earnings. Similarly, CNA found that
military officers received an average of about $11,500 more annually
than comparable civilians. Further, CNA found that the inclusion of
three military benefits--health care, retirement, and the additional
tax advantage for military members--increased the differentials by an
average of $8,660 annually for enlisted servicemembers and $13,370
annually for officers. A 2007 CBO study similarly found that military
compensation compares favorably with civilian compensation. For
example, CBO's report suggested that DOD's goal to make regular
military compensation comparable with the 70th percentile of civilian
compensation has been achieved. We note that the major difference
between the two studies lies in their definitions of compensation. CNA
asserted, and we agree, that the inclusion of benefits allows for
comparisons of actual levels of compensation and provides some useful
comparison points for determining whether servicemembers are
compensated at a level that is comparable to that of their civilian
peers, although the caveats that we discuss below should be
considered. CBO also noted, and we agree, that including benefits can
add another level of complexity to such analytical studies.
However, while these studies and comparisons between military and
civilian compensation in general provide policymakers with some
insight into how well military compensation is keeping pace with
overall civilian compensation, we believe that such broad comparisons
are not sufficient indicators for determining the appropriateness of
military compensation levels. For example, the mix of skills,
education, and experience can differ between the comparison groups,
making direct comparisons of salary and earnings difficult. While some
efforts were made by CNA to control for age (as a proxy for years of
experience) and broad education levels, CNA did not control for other
factors, such as field of degree or demographics (other than age),
that we feel would be needed to make an adequate comparison. As
another example, one approach that is sometimes taken to illustrate a
difference, or "pay gap," between rates of military and civilian pay
is to compare over time changes in the rates of basic pay with changes
in the Employment Cost Index.[Footnote 16] We do not believe that such
comparisons demonstrate the existence of a pay gap or facilitate
accurate comparisons between military and civilian compensation
because they assume that military basic pay is the only component of
compensation that should be compared to changes in civilian pay and
exclude other important components of military compensation, such as
the housing and subsistence allowances. We note that CBO also
previously discussed three other shortcomings of making such
comparisons in a 1999 report.[Footnote 17] Specifically, CBO noted
that such comparisons (1) select a starting point for the comparison
without a sound analytic basis, yet the results of the pay gap
calculation are very sensitive to changes in that starting point; (2)
do not take into account differences in the demographic composition of
the civilian and military labor forces; and (3) compare military pay
growth over one time period with a measure of civilian pay growth over
a somewhat different period.
10th QRMC's Recommendation to Include Regular Military Compensation
and Select Benefits When Comparing Military and Civilian Compensation
Appears Reasonable:
The 10th QRMC's recommendation to include regular military
compensation and select benefits when comparing military and civilian
compensation appears reasonable to us because it provides a more
complete measure of military compensation than considering only cash
compensation.[Footnote 18] Given the large proportion of servicemember
compensation that is comprised of in-kind and deferred benefits, the
10th QRMC emphasized that taking these additional components of
compensation into account shows that servicemember compensation is
generous relative to civilian compensation--more so than traditional
comparisons of regular military compensation suggest.[Footnote 19] The
10th QRMC also recommended that in order to maintain the standard
established by the 9th QRMC's 70th percentile (which includes only
regular military compensation), DOD adopt the 80th percentile as its
goal for military compensation when regular military compensation and
the value of some benefits, such as health care, are included in the
analysis. In general, when comparing military and civilian
compensation, a more complete or appropriate measure of compensation
should include cash and benefits. When considering either a military
or a civilian job, an individual is likely to consider the overall
compensation--to include pay as well as the range and value of the
benefits offered between the two options. The challenge with this
approach, as mentioned previously, lies in determining how to "value"
the benefits, and which benefits to include in the comparison.
Prior to issuing our report earlier this month the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy provided us with
oral comments on a draft of the report. The Deputy Under Secretary
generally agreed with our findings, noting that numerous studies have
attempted to estimate the value military members place on noncash and
deferred benefits and that each study has found that identifying
relevant assumptions, valuing these benefits, and finding appropriate
benchmarks and comparisons are significant challenges. Noting the
variation in the results of these studies, the Deputy Under Secretary
stated that further study is necessary before DOD is willing to
consider measuring and benchmarking military compensation using a
measurement that incorporates benefits.
While comparisons between military and civilian compensation are
important management measures, they alone do not necessarily indicate
the appropriateness or adequacy of compensation. Another measure is
DOD's ability to recruit and retain personnel. We have reported in the
past that compensation systems are tools used for recruiting and
retention purposes.[Footnote 20] Similarly, in 2009, CBO stated that
ultimately, the best barometer of the effectiveness of DOD's
compensation system is how well the military attracts and retains high-
quality, skilled personnel.[Footnote 21] Since 1982, DOD has only
missed its overall annual recruiting target three times--in 1998
during a period of very low unemployment, in 1999, and most recently
in 2005. Given that (1) the ability to recruit and retain is a key
indicator of the adequacy of compensation and (2) DOD has generally
met its overall recruiting and retention goals for the past several
years, it appears that regular military compensation is adequate at
the 70th percentile of comparable civilian pay as well as at the 80th
percentile when additional benefits are included. We note that
although the services have generally met their overall recruiting
goals in recent years, certain specialties, such as medical personnel,
continue to experience recruiting and retention challenges. As a
result, permanent, across-the-board pay increases may not be seen as
the most efficient recruiting and retention mechanism. In fact, our
previous work has shown that use of targeted bonuses may be more
appropriate for meeting DOD's requirements for selected specialties
where DOD faces challenges in recruiting and retaining sufficient
numbers of personnel.[Footnote 22]
Concluding Observations:
In closing, we note that comparisons between military and civilian
compensation are important management tools--or measures--for the
department to use to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of its
compensation. However, such comparisons present both limitations and
challenges. For example, data limitations and difficulties valuing
nonmonetary benefits prevent exact comparisons between military and
civilian personnel. Moreover, these comparisons represent points in
time and are affected by other factors, such as the health of the
economy. To illustrate, it is not clear the degree to which changes in
the provision of civilian health care or retirement benefits affect
the outcome of comparing military and civilian compensation. In
addition, valuing military service is complicated. While serving in
the military offers personal and professional rewards, such service
also requires many sacrifices--for example, frequent moves and jobs
that are arduous and sometimes dangerous. Ultimately, DOD's ability to
recruit and retain personnel is an important indicator of the
adequacy--or effectiveness--of its compensation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy
to respond to any questions that you or members of the subcommittee
may have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact Brenda S.
Farrell, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, at (202) 512-
3604, or farrellb@gao.gov. Key contributors to this statement include
Marion A. Gatling, Assistant Director; K. Nicole Harms; Wesley A.
Johnson; Susan C. Langley; Charles W. Perdue; Jennifer L. Weber; and
Cheryl A. Weissman. Other contributors include Natalya Barden,
Margaret Braley, Timothy J. Carr, and Patrick M. Dudley. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this testimony.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Military Personnel: Military and Civilian Pay Comparisons
Present Challenges and Are One of Many Tools in Assessing
Compensation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-561R]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2010).
[2] Historically, "basic pay" has been the largest component of
military compensation, and is paid to all servicemembers according to
their respective rank and years of service. Congress has provided for
and DOD has also implemented over the years a number of additional
benefits--some of which may be deferred until after the completion of
active duty service. An example is the Post 9-11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Act, which expanded the education benefits available to
qualified active duty and reserve component members.
[3] GAO, Military Compensation: Comparisons With Civilian Compensation
and Related Issues, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-86-131BR] (Washington, D.C.: June 5,
1986) and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-561R].
[4] Regular military compensation is the sum of basic pay, allowances
for housing and subsistence, and the federal income tax advantage--
which is the value a servicemember receives from not paying federal
income tax on allowances for housing and subsistence. It was initially
constructed by the Gorham Commission in 1962 as a rough yardstick to
be used to compare military and civilian-sector pay.
[5] 37 U.S.C. § 1008.
[6] Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 606 (2009).
[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-561R].
[8] James E. Grefer, CNA Corporation, Comparing Military and Civilian
Compensation Packages (Alexandria, VA: March 2008).
[9] For example, servicemembers do not pay Federal Insurance
Contributions Act (FICA) tax and state tax on their housing and
subsistence allowances.
[10] These estimates come from DOD's regular military compensation
calculator, available at hyperlink,
http://militarypay.defense.gov/mpcalcs/Calculators/RMC.aspx].
[11] CNA was commissioned by the 10th QRMC to conduct a study
comparing military and civilian compensation. The results of the study
were used by the QRMC. Typically, discussions of the military tax
advantage focus on the savings that arise because the allowances for
housing and subsistence are not subject to federal income tax.
However, CNA's study also included an estimation of the expected
annual tax advantage that servicemembers receive because they do not
pay state and FICA taxes on their housing and subsistence allowances
and can often avoid paying any state income taxes depending on their
state home of record.
[12] We did not verify the calculations underlying CNA's reported
estimates of the value of these select benefits.
[13] Specifically, active duty servicemembers are automatically
enrolled in TRICARE Prime and do not pay premiums or out-of-pocket
expenses for their healthcare whereas many civilians do not receive
any health care benefits from their employers and even those who do
usually pay some out-of-pocket expenses and part of the premium. By
calculating the amount that the typical civilian worker pays for
premiums and out-of-pockets expenses, CNA found the difference between
what civilians and servicemembers pay. In other words, the benefit
servicemembers receive is avoiding the costs civilians would have to
pay to receive comparable health care.
[14] For example, when applying discount rates to value retirement
benefits, the rate assumed affects the value of the retirement. To
illustrate, if a person is to receive $100 in 20 years, the present
value of that money is $3.65 using 18 percent, $10.37 using 12
percent, or $31.18 using 6 percent.
[15] CBO, Evaluating Military Compensation (Washington, D.C.: June
2007).
[16] The Employment Cost Index is a nationally representative measure
of labor cost for the civilian economy and measures changes in wages
and employers' costs for employee benefits.
[17] CBO, What Does the Military "Pay Gap" Mean? (Washington, D.C.:
June 1999).
[18] According to senior officials in the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness' Directorate of
Compensation, the department has not yet adopted the 10th QRMC's
recommendation of including benefits in comparing military and
civilian compensation, thus setting the department's overall
compensation goal at the 80th percentile of comparable civilian
employees.
[19] According to 2005 and 2007 GAO reports, about half of active duty
compensation costs consist of benefits, as compared with about 18
percent in the private sector and about 33 percent for federal
civilian employees. See GAO, Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Improve
the Transparency and Reassess the Reasonableness, Appropriateness,
Affordability, and Sustainability of Its Military Compensation System,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-798] (Washington, D.C.:
July 19, 2005), and Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Establish a
Strategy and Improve Transparency over Reserve and National Guard
Compensation to Manage Significant Growth in Cost, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-828] (Washington, D.C.: June 20,
2007).
[20] GAO, Military Personnel: Active Duty Benefits Reflect Changing
Demographics, but Opportunities Exist to Improve, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-935] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18,
2002).
[21] CBO, Statement of Matthew S. Goldberg: Long-Term Implications of
the Department of Defense's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Submission
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 2009).
[22] GAO, Military Personnel: Observations Related to Reserve
Compensation, Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, and Mail Delivery to
Deployed Troops, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-582T]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2004); Military Personnel: DOD Needs More
Effective Controls to Better Assess the Progress of the Selective
Reenlistment Bonus Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-86] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13,
2003); Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Data to Address Financial
and Health Care Issues Affecting Reservists, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-1004] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10,
2003); and Human Capital: Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist
Agencies in Managing Their Workforces, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-2] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2002).
[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:
