JOINT 

PROFESSIONAL 

MILITARY 

EDUCATION

Opportunities Exist for 

Greater Oversight and 

Coordination of 

Associated Research 

Institutions

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2014

GAO-14-216

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-216, a report to 

congressional committees

March 2014

JOINT PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION

Opportunities Exist for Greater Oversight and 

Coordination of Associated Research Institutions

Why GAO Did This Study

DOD’s colleges and universities that 

provide JPME, including their research 

institutions, are intended to develop 

military personnel throughout their 

careers by broadening them 

intellectually and fostering 

collaboration across the military 

services. JPME research institutions 

generally provide studies and analysis 

research that can support academic 

programs or inform DOD policymakers.

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for FY 2013 mandated GAO to 

review JPME research institutions. 

GAO’s report (1) describes how JPME 

research institutions have changed in 

number, funding, and size; (2) 

evaluates the extent to which DOD 

assesses JPME research institution 

performance; and (3) evaluates the 

extent to which DOD coordinates the 

research requests of these and other 

DOD-funded research organizations.

GAO identified and examined the

20 JPME research institutions that 

conduct research as their primary 

mission and have dedicated personnel. 

GAO reviewed DOD documents and 

interviewed officials on changes at the

20 institutions and how they are 

overseen, as well as the processes to 

coordinate their research activities and 

those of 14 other DOD-funded 

research organizations GAO 

determined conduct research activities. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD take 

actions to define the role of JPME 

research institutions, assign 

responsibilities for assessing 

performance, and establish a 

mechanism to coordinate studies and 

analysis research requests. DOD 

concurred with the recommendations.

What GAO Found

Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) research institutions, particularly at 

the National Defense University, experienced growth in number, funding, and 

size in terms of staffing levels from fiscal year (FY) 2007 through FY 2011, but 

the number of institutions as well as funding and staffing levels declined over the 

past 2 years. For example, total funding for JPME research institutions increased 

from $30.8 million in FY 2007 to $47.7 million in FY 2011, but subsequently 

decreased to $40.6 million in FY 2013. GAO identified several factors that 

contributed to these institutions’ growth, including increases in funding provided 

by outside organizations for research and the creation of new research 

institutions. Department of Defense (DOD) officials reported that DOD-wide 

budget reductions, including the effects of sequestration, contributed to 

decreases in the number, size, and funding for JPME research institutions. 

The extent to which DOD can assess the performance of JPME research 

institutions is limited by the lack of a comprehensive framework to systematically 

assess their performance in meeting professional military education and other 

departmental goals and objectives. JPME colleges and universities have not 

consistently established measurable goals or objectives linked with performance 

metrics for their associated research institutions. Best practices state that 

achieving results in government requires a framework with measurable goals and 

objectives and metrics to assess progress. Further, oversight mechanisms for the 

colleges and universities, such as accreditation processes, focus on the quality of 

JPME academic programs and not on the research institutions’ performance. 

There is no DOD-wide guidance that addresses the intended role of the research 

institutions in supporting JPME or other departmental goals, or assigns 

responsibilities for conducting reviews of them, leaving the department without a 

basis to assess the institutions’ stated mission and actual performance against

planned or expected results. Therefore, DOD does not have a basis to assess 

the institutions’ missions and performance against expected results, as called for 

by best practices. Without measurable goals and objectives linked with 

performance metrics, and clear guidance on their intended roles and assignment 

of oversight responsibilities, DOD cannot ensure JPME research institutions are 

effectively accomplishing their missions.

DOD has not established mechanisms to coordinate requests for research 

conducted by JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded research 

organizations because there is no requirement to do so. Although many of these 

organizations have missions to conduct research in similar topic areas, DOD 

uses a variety of processes to request studies and analysis research. 

Specifically, offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military 

departments each have their own separate internal processes to manage 

research requests and do not participate in one another’s processes. Best 

practices on managing for results state that organizations involved in similar 

missions should coordinate and share information to avoid unnecessary 

duplication of work. At a time of constrained budgets, fragmentation in DOD’s 

approach to managing its research requests across the department exposes 

DOD to the risk of potential overlap of studies and analysis research. View GAO-14-216. For more information, 

contact Johana Ayers at (202) 512-5741 or 

ayersj@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Letter 1 

Background 7

JPME Research Institutions Expanded from 2007 through 2011 

Due to Several Factors, but Have Subsequently Contracted 13

DOD Is Limited in Its Ability to Assess the Performance of JPME 

Research Institutions 22

DOD Does Not Formally Coordinate Studies and Analysis 

Research Requests Performed by JPME and Other DODFunded Research Institutions, Although Some Conduct Work in 

Similar Topic Areas 29

Conclusions 39

Recommendations for Executive Action 40

Agency Comments and 2ur Evaluation 40

Appendix I Objectives, Scope and Methodology 43

Appendix II Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions 51

Appendix III Research Project Title Analysis 73

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 75

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 76

Table

Table 1: JPME Colleges and Universities and Associated 

Research Institutions, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2013 10

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Figures

Figure 1: Map of Service and Joint Colleges and Universities 

Certified to Provide Joint Professional Military Education 

(JPME) 8

Figure 2: Number of Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) 

Research Institutions, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2013 15

Figure 3: Total Funding for Joint Professional Military Education 

(JPME) Research Institutions by JPME College and 

University, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2013 16

Figure 4: Staffing Levels for Joint Professional Military Education 

(JPME) Research Institutions by JPME College and 

University, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2013 18

Figure 5: Total Reimbursable Funding for the National Defense 

University’s (NDU) Research Institutions, Fiscal Years 

2007 through 2013 19

Figure 6: Similarities in Research Topic Areas for 34 Research 

Organizations, According to Mission Statements 32

Figure 7: Similarities in Research Topic Areas for 34 Research 

Organizations, According to 2012 and 2013 Research 

Project Titles 4
Page iii GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Abbreviations 

DOD Department of Defense

JPME Joint Professional Military Education

PME Professional Military Education

NDU National Defense University

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

CCO Center for Complex Operations

CSR Center for Strategic Research

CSCMA Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs

CSWMD Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction

CRRC Conflict Records Research Center

CTNSP Center for Technology and National Security Policy

CTSS Center for Transatlantic Security Studies

AFRI Air Force Research Institute

AFCPC Air Force Counterproliferation Center

CSAT Center for Strategy and Technology

SRD Strategic Research Department

CMSI China Maritime Studies Institute

ILD International Law Department

SSG Strategic Studies Group

HD History Department

MES Middle East Studies

TRG Translational Research Group at Center for 

Advanced Operational Culture Learning

SSI Strategic Studies Institute

CAL Center for Army Leadership

CSI Combat Studies Institute

RAND PAF RAND Project Air Force

RAND NDRI RAND National Defense Research Institute

CNA Center for Naval Analyses

IDA Institute for Defense Analyses

Marshall Center George C. Marshall European Center for Security 

Studies

NESA Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies

Perry Center William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense 

Studies

ACSS Africa Center for Strategic Studies

NPS: CI Naval Postgraduate School: Cebrowski Institute for 

Information and Innovation

NPS: MOVES Naval Postgraduate School: Modeling, Virtual 

Environments and Simulation Institute
Page iv GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

NPS: CIRPAS Naval Postgraduate School Center for 

Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Studies

CAA Center for Army Analysis

TRAC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

Analysis Center

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 10, 2014

Congressional Committees

As operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere over the past decade 

have demonstrated, military personnel must think critically, communicate 

well, conduct themselves with integrity, and lead others in difficult and 

often dangerous situations that involve forces from across the four military 

services. To that end, the Department of Defense (DOD) relies on joint 

professional military education (JPME), a subset of professional military 

education (PME),1 to educate servicemembers throughout their careers, 

broaden their knowledge, improve performance during joint assignments, 

and foster collaboration across the military services. In 1989, a 

congressional panel undertaking a comprehensive review of PME 

strongly expressed the importance of JPME in guiding intellectual thought 

on doctrine, tactics, strategy, and the future of each of the military 

services.2 DOD has colleges and universities throughout the country that 

not only provide academic instruction in PME and JPME, but also conduct 

research.3 At JPME-granting colleges and universities, research is 

conducted by students and professors, as well as by specifically 

dedicated research institutions. These JPME research institutions4

 

1

According to DOD guidance, officer professional military education—both service and 

joint—provides the education needed to complement training, experience, and selfimprovement to produce the most professionally competent (strategic-minded, criticalthinking) servicemembers. Department of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

Officer Professional Military Education Policy (OPMEP), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 1800.01D (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2009). (Hereinafter cited 

as CJCSI 1800.01D.) 

primarily conduct studies and analysis research that may directly support 

both PME and JPME academic programs by providing new concepts for 

2

Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Report of the Panel on Military 

Education of the One Hundredth Congress, 101st Cong., 1st sess., No. 4, (1989). 

3

For the purposes of this report, we refer to service and joint colleges and universities that 

are accredited by the Joint Staff to provide JPME certification as JPME colleges and 

universities. 

4

For purposes of this report, we refer to research institutions affiliated with service and 

joint colleges and universities as JPME research institutions. 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

the classroom or DOD’s broader needs, such as policy development and 

planning efforts.5

Given its importance in educating military leaders, a 2010 report from the 

House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

concluded that PME, of which JPME is a subset, warrants more-frequent 

congressional oversight.6 However, our prior work7

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 mandated 

that we review the work performed by JPME research institutions in 

support of PME and DOD’s broader mission.

has found that past 

studies of PME were unable to fully identify the costs associated with

DOD’s JPME programs. Specifically, we found that without reliable cost 

information, decision makers could be hindered in determining the mostefficient allocation of departmental resources for JPME. Moreover, the 

Joint Staff has expressed concerns about considerable budgetary growth 

at the National Defense University (NDU), which DOD has characterized 

as the premier center for JPME. For example, in a 2012 review, the Joint 

Staff concluded that it could not identify a clear link between some of the 

activities of NDU’s research institutions and its JPME mission.

8

To address these objectives, we included in the scope of our review the

intermediate- and senior-level colleges and universities that provide 

In this report, we (1) 

describe how JPME research institutions have changed in number, 

funding, and size and the factors that contributed to any changes; (2) 

evaluate the extent to which DOD is assessing the performance of JPME 

research institutions in meeting PME and other departmental goals and 

objectives; and (3) evaluate the extent to which DOD coordinates 

research requests for JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded 

research organizations.

 

5

DOD broadly defines studies and analysis research as research done to support DOD 

policy development, decision making, alternative approaches, and new ideas for the DOD 

community.

6

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Armed Services, House of 

Representatives, Another Crossroads? Professional Military Education Two Decades After 

the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the Skelton Panel, H.R. 111-4 (2010). 

7

GAO, Joint Military Education: Actions Needed to Implement DOD Recommendations for 

Enhancing Leadership Development, GAO-14-29 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 23, 2013). 

8

Pub. L. No. 112–239, § 547(b) (2013). 
 

Page 3 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

JPME certification—that is, NDU, the Army War College, Army Command 

and General Staff College, Air University, Naval War College, and Marine 

Corps University. Research conducted at these JPME colleges and 

universities can be accomplished by research institutions associated with 

the colleges and universities as well as by students and professors as 

part of academic coursework. For the purposes of this report, we focused 

on research institutions that conduct research as their primary mission 

and have dedicated personnel to do so. We excluded certain centers and 

institutes associated with JPME colleges and universities because we 

determined they did not have a mission to primarily conduct research or 

did not have dedicated personnel.9

To determine the extent to which JPME research institutions have 

changed in number, funding, and size, and the factors contributing to any 

changes, we obtained questionnaire responses and other documentation 

on the number of research institutions that existed at JPME colleges and 

universities from fiscal years 2000 through 2013 and collected and 

analyzed available JPME research institute funding and staffing data

We also excluded from our analysis 

research conducted by students as part of their academic coursework 

and by professors not affiliated with the research institutions. To identify 

the JPME research institutions included within the scope of our review, 

we examined documentation and gathered testimonial evidence related to 

the missions, activities, and organization of the institutions that conduct 

research at the JPME colleges and universities. Based on this evidence, 

we determined that 20 institutions were conducting research as their 

primary mission and had dedicated personnel assigned to them and 

therefore were included in the scope of our review.

10

 

9

For example, although the Army War College’s Army Physical Fitness Research Institute 

conducted research and had dedicated personnel, we concluded that its resources were 

primarily focused on educating and promoting the mental and physical readiness of 

thousands of Army leaders and spouses each year. As a result, we concluded that it did 

not meet both of our criteria and is not included within our scope.

for 

these years. We assessed the reliability of the funding and staffing data 

collected by analyzing questionnaire responses from JPME colleges and 

universities, which included information on their data-system 

management, data quality-assurance processes, and potential sources of 

errors and mitigations of those errors. Based on our review of the data 

10Staffing data provided by JPME colleges and universities include military and civilian 

personnel, noncontractor researchers, contractor researchers, as well as noncontractor 

administrative staff positions. 
 

Page 4 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

provided and our review of the questionnaire responses, we concluded

that the systems used to provide the data, and thus the data they provide, 

are sufficiently reliable for our audit purposes. However, based on this 

evidence, we determined that we were unable to report consistent data 

on JPME research institution funding and staffing levels prior to fiscal 

year 2007 and therefore we are providing trend data on JPME research 

institutions from fiscal years 2007 through 2013.11

To determine the extent to which DOD is assessing the performance of 

JPME research institutions in meeting PME and other departmental goals 

and objectives, we obtained and reviewed documentation from the Joint 

Staff and the JPME colleges and universities that identify any goals, 

objectives, or performance measures for JPME research institutions. 

Specifically, we reviewed current strategic plans, mission statements, and 

other documentation describing activities of the JPME research 

institutions. We also reviewed documentation describing external 

oversight mechanisms that monitor the academic quality of JPME 

colleges and universities. To further our understanding of any processes 

used to assess the performance of JPME research institutions, we used a 

standard set of questions to interview DOD officials and personnel at the 

JPME colleges and universities. We then reviewed the results of the 

interviews and related documents to develop summary findings. In 

reviewing this documentation and testimonial evidence, we referred to our 

prior work on best practices that identifies elements that constitute a 

comprehensive oversight framework. Specifically, these best practices

Furthermore, although 

we have identified a number of factors that could affect data quality, we 

concluded that these were the best available data on JPME research 

institutions. We also concluded that the data would not lead to an 

incorrect or unintentional message since they are corroborated through 

interviews with DOD officials. We also discussed the reasons for any 

trends in these budget and staffing data with knowledgeable officials in 

DOD and at the JPME colleges and universities.

12

 

11Officials at JPME colleges and universities stated that because federal records-retention 

policies generally require agencies to maintain data for 6 years and 3 months, they were 

unable to provide reliable data in many cases prior to fiscal year 2007. 

12See, for example, GAO, Building Partner Capacity: Actions Needed to Strengthen DOD 

Efforts to Assess the Performance of the Regional Centers for Security Studies, 

GAO-13-606 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2013) and State Partnership Program: 

Improved Oversight, Guidance, and Training Needed for National Guard’s Efforts with 

Foreign Partners, GAO-12-548 (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2012). 
 

Page 5 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

state that such a framework should include measurable goals and 

objectives linked with metrics for assessing progress, which is consistent 

with the framework identified in the Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA), as amended by the GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010.13 We also reviewed this evidence in light of key internal-control 

standards that state that federal agencies should conduct reviews by 

management at the functional or activity level and compare actual 

performance to planned or expected results.14

To determine the extent to which research activities of JPME research 

institutions and other DOD-funded research organizations are 

coordinated, we included in the scope of our review the 20 JPME 

research institutions discussed above and 14 other DOD-funded research 

organizations. To identify the other DOD-funded research institutions, we 

gathered DOD documentation from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Research and Engineering and canvassed knowledgeable DOD officials 

in offices responsible for requesting research, such as the military 

departments, science and technology executive agents, studies and 

analysis research program managers, and the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, including the Offices of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Policy. We reviewed documentation from and interviewed 

officials with these offices to better understand the process for requesting 

studies and analysis research from JPME institutions and other DODfunded research organizations. Specifically, we used a standard set of 

questions to interview officials with the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

and the military services about the processes used to share information 

with other offices that also request studies and analysis research. We 

then reviewed the results of the interviews and related documents to 

develop summary findings. We reviewed the documentary and testimonial 

evidence in light of key practices for enhancing and sustaining 

coordination as described in our prior work on best practices. Specifically, 

best practices state that organizations involved in similar missions should 

coordinate and share information to avoid unnecessary duplication of 

 

13Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993); Pub. L. No. 111-352 (2011). 

14GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 
 

Page 6 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

work.

15

We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 through March

2014 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.

Further, we assessed similarities and dissimilarities among the 

missions of the JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded 

research organizations in the following four ways: (1) we determined the 

general category of research being conducted at JPME and other DODfunded research institutions, for example, whether the research was 

studies and analysis– or science and technology–focused; (2) we 

reviewed the current mission statements for all research organizations 

included in our scope to determine the topic areas in which they conduct 

research; (3) we categorized research project titles from 2012 and 2013 

provided to us by all research organizations included in our scope to 

determine the topic areas in which they conduct research; and (4) we 

reviewed documentation about the offices that request JPME and other 

DOD-funded research institutions, along with testimonial evidence 

gathered during our interviews with DOD officials, to provide context for 

any similarities or dissimilarities we identified through our analysis of 

mission statements and project titles. The results of our analysis are not 

generalizable beyond the 20 JPME research institutions and 14 other 

DOD-funded research institutions included in the scope of our review. A 

more-detailed discussion of our scope and methodology is included in 

appendix I.

 

15GAO, Interagency Collaboration: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight of National 

Security Strategies, Organizations, Workforce, and Information Sharing, GAO-09-904SP

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2009). 
 

Page 7 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

The primary purpose of PME is to develop military personnel, throughout 

their careers, for the intellectual demands of complex contingencies and 

major conflicts. The military services provide PME at their respective staff 

and war colleges. Each service educates service members in their core 

competencies according to service needs. Air Force colleges, for 

example, primarily teach air and space warfare. Similarly, Army, Navy, 

and Marine Corps colleges focus on land, maritime, and expeditionary 

warfare, respectively. DOD depends on the services’ PME institutions to 

develop personnel with these service-specific skills. However, the JPME 

program places emphasis on preparing leaders to conduct operations as 

a coherently joint force in complex operating environments.

Following the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act16 (the Act) in 1986, 

DOD developed JPME as a subset of learning within the PME program, 

to comply with the “joint” requirements outlined in the Act and subsequent 

legislation.17

 

16Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-

433. 

Currently, JPME is provided at multiple sites across the 

country, including the services’ staff and war colleges and NDU. 

Together, PME and JPME, prepare service members in successive 

stages throughout their careers to engage intellectual challenges 

appropriate to increases in their ranks and responsibilities. See figure 1 

for a map of service and joint colleges and universities where JPME is 

provided.

17The statutorily mandated levels are JPME Phase I, which generally focuses on tactical 

and operational levels of war; Phase II, which is a follow-on for selected graduates of 

service schools and other appropriate education programs that complements and 

enhances the Phase I instruction; and the CAPSTONE course of JPME for general/flag 

officers that focuses on the operational and strategic levels of war for high-level joint, 

interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational responsibilities. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 2153-

2155.

Background

Overview of Professional 

Military Education 
 

Page 8 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Figure 1: Map of Service and Joint Colleges and Universities Certified to Provide Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) 

Note: Marine Corps University comprises two JPME-granting colleges—U.S. Marine Corps War 

College and U.S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Similarly, Air University comprises the 

Air War College and Air Command and Staff College.

The military services are primarily responsible for overseeing PME at their 

respective staff and war colleges. As part of their oversight efforts, the 

military services’ leader-development efforts are included in education 

programs. For example, the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command 

serves as the executive agent for ensuring leader development is 

integrated into PME courses at the Army War College and the Army 

Command and Staff College. In contrast, JPME is overseen by the Joint 

Staff. The Joint Staff is responsible for developing the learning objectives 

for JPME and for accrediting the service staff and war colleges and the 

joint institutions to provide JPME coursework. The Joint Staff also has 

oversight responsibility of NDU. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

is statutorily responsible for formulating policies for coordinating the 
 

Page 9 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

military education and training of members of the armed forces.18

The Joint Staff conducts periodic assessments of the three statutorily 

mandated levels of officer JPME to ensure that the curricula being taught 

at service staff and war colleges and the joint institutions meet the 

prescribed joint educational requirements outlined in the Officer 

Professional Military Education Policy.

The 

Military Education Coordination Council, which consists of representatives 

from the Joint Staff, the service and joint colleges and universities, and 

other JPME-accredited institutions, serves as an advisory body to the 

Joint Staff on joint education issues. The purpose of the council is to 

address key educational issues of interest to the joint educational 

community, promote cooperation and collaboration among the colleges 

and universities certified to grant JPME degrees, and coordinate joint 

education initiatives.

19 According to the policy, the 

JPME program includes curriculum components that JPME colleges and 

universities should follow to develop the knowledge, analytical skills, 

perspectives, and values that are essential for U.S. servicemembers to 

function effectively in joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and 

multinational operations. Moreover, Enclosure A of the policy states that 

senior officer studies at JPME-degree-granting colleges and universities 

should emphasize analysis, foster critical examination, and provide 

progressively broader educational experiences.

DOD funds several kinds of research. One type of research is studies and 

analysis research, which DOD officials describe as analysis and advice 

done to support DOD policy development, decision making, alternative 

approaches, and new ideas for the DOD community. Studies and analysis 

research is conducted by different organizations across DOD. For 

example, JPME research institutions can enhance strategic thought by 

providing, publishing, and disseminating research products for academic 

coursework, such as on emerging threats students may face in their 

future leadership positions. To provide broad educational experiences, 

students can conduct research at the JPME research institutions as part 

of their academic program. Students may also work together with the 

research faculty resident at the institutions, providing them with access to 

 

1810 U.S.C. § 153(a)(5)(c). 

19CJCSI 1800.01D. 

DOD Funds Various Types 

of Research, Including 

Research Conducted at 

JPME Research 

Institutions
 

Page 10 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

subject-matter experts in their field of study. Table 1 provides a list of the 

20 research institutions that are associated with JPME colleges and 

universities and are within the scope of our review.

Table 1: JPME Colleges and Universities and Associated Research Institutions, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2013

College or university Associated research institution

National Defense University (NDU) Center for Complex Operations

Center for Strategic Research 

Center for Study of Chinese Military Affairs 

Center for Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Center for Technology & National Security Policy

Conflict Records Research Center 

Center for Transatlantic Security Studiesa

Air University 

 

Air Force Research Institute 

Center for Strategy and Technology 

Air Force Counterproliferation Center 

Naval War College Strategic Research Department 

China Maritime Studies Institute 

International Law Department 

Strategic Studies Group

Marine Corps University History Division

Middle East Studies 

Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning Translational Research Group 

Army War College Strategic Studies Institute

Army Command & General Staff College Center for Army Leadership 

Combat Studies Institute 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

a

NDU’s Center for Transatlantic Security Studies was disestablished in September 2012.

Other DOD-funded organizations also conduct studies and analysis 

research. For example: 

• Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, such as the 

Center for Naval Analyses and the Institute for Defense Analyses, 

maintain capabilities to conduct research in core competencies in 

areas of importance to DOD, such as analysis, acquisition support, 

and research and development. According to a May 2011 

memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics, the mission of Federally Funded Research 
 

Page 11 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

and Development Centers is to provide DOD with unique capabilities 

in many areas where the government cannot attract and retain 

personnel in sufficient depth and numbers. The memorandum further 

explains that Federally Funded Research and Development Centers 

are a vital component of the department’s overall acquisition 

workforce because they operate in the public interest, free from 

organizational conflicts of interest.

• Service-affiliated organizations, such as the Naval Postgraduate 

School and the Center for Army Analysis, provide research products 

to their parent services to help with decision making and analysis on 

critical issues facing the service.

• DOD’s Regional Centers for Security Studies support DOD’s objective 

to build the defense capacity of partner nations.20 In our prior work, 

we reported that the Regional Centers’ activities include education, 

exchanges, research, and information sharing.21

JPME research institutions receive funding through their colleges and 

universities and other departmental offices for their operations, which 

include research activities. Specifically, most JPME colleges and 

universities receive direct funding from their respective military service to 

fund their PME and JPME programs, and some of those resources are 

used to fund their JPME research institutions. For example, the Naval 

War College receives operation and maintenance and military personnel 

funding from the Department of the Navy as well as funds in the form of 

monetary gifts from the Naval War College Foundation. In turn, the 

college allocates some of those resources to fund its associated research 

institutions, such as the China Maritime Studies Institute. However, NDU 

receives operation and maintenance funding from defense-wide 

appropriations for its JPME program and research institutions. With these 

funds, JPME research institutions can support PME and JPME programs 

as well as the research needs of those entities that provide their funding. 

 For example, the 

George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies conducts 

research on European security issues relevant to U.S. interests.

 

20DOD’s Regional Centers for Security Studies include the George C. Marshall European 

Center for Security Studies, the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, the 

William J. Perry Center for Western Hemisphere Defense Studies, the Africa Center for 

Strategic Studies, and the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. 

21GAO-13-606. 
 

Page 12 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

For example, the Air University’s Center for Strategy and Technology 

produces research that is responding to key questions and topics of 

interest posed by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

Additionally, some JPME research institutions receive funding on a 

reimbursable basis from other departmental offices, such as the 

directorates within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, 

and the military services.22 These offices receive their own funding, such 

as research, development, test, and evaluation funds and operation and 

maintenance funds, which may be used in part to fund annual 

requirements for research projects. To fulfill these annual research 

requirements, funding may be allocated to JPME research institutions, 

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, or think tanks23

DOD also funds science and technology–related research. According to 

testimony in April 2013 by Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Defense Research & Engineering, science and technology research is 

funded to mitigate new or emerging capabilities that could degrade U.S. 

capabilities, enable new or extended capabilities in existing military 

systems, and develop new concepts and technologies through science 

and engineering applications to military problems.

to 

conduct individual research projects in support of those offices’ annual 

research requirements. For example, NDU’s research institutions have 

received funding from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to study and 

build subject-matter expertise on issues related to Afghanistan and 

Pakistan.

24

 

22For the purposes of this report, reimbursable funding refers to amounts earned or 

collected from outside organizations for research services furnished by the institution. 

Science and 

technology research is conducted under the auspices of the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. According 

to DOD guidance, this office develops the strategies and supporting plans 

for utilizing technology to respond to DOD needs and ensures U.S. 

23For the purposes of this report, a think tank is defined as a nonprofit organization that 

conducts public policy research and analysis. An example of a think tank is the Brookings 

Institution, based in Washington, D.C. 

24Alan R. Shaffer, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Defense Research & 

Engineering, Budget Request for DOD Science and Technology Programs, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Committee 

on Armed Services, House of Representatives,113th Cong., 1st sess., April 16, 2013. 
 

Page 13 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

technological superiority.25 The office is the executive secretary for DOD’s 

Research and Engineering Executive Committee. This committee brings 

together leadership from the DOD components that have science and 

technology research investments for the purpose of strengthening 

coordination and enhancing the efficiency of research and engineering 

investments in areas that cannot be addressed adequately by any single 

component. Science and technology research comprises basic research, 

applied research, and advanced technology development.26 JPME 

research institutions do not conduct science and technology research. 

Science and technology research is generally conducted by DOD 

laboratories associated with the military services, such as the Army 

Research Laboratory, and some Federally Funded Research and 

Development Centers, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Lincoln Laboratory, among other organizations.

JPME research institutions, particularly at NDU, experienced 

considerable growth in number, funding, and size in terms of staffing 

levels from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011 but have declined 

over the past 2 years. Several factors contributed to JPME research 

institution growth, including increases in reimbursable funding from 

outside offices sponsoring JPME research, the creation of new research 

institutions, and the realignment of institutions at some JPME colleges 

and universities. While a variety of factors contributed to the expansion of 

JPME research institutions, it has primarily been department-wide budget 

reductions that contributed to their decreases in number, funding, and 

size since 2011.

 

25Department of Defense, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Directive 

5134.3 (Nov. 3, 2003). 

26Basic research is the systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or 

understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without 

specific applications toward processes or products in mind. Applied research is the 

systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means 

by which a recognized and specific need may be met. Advanced technology development 

includes all efforts that have moved into the development and integration of hardware for 

field experiments and tests. 

JPME Research 

Institutions Expanded 

from 2007 through 

2011 Due to Several 

Factors, but Have 

Subsequently 

Contracted
 

Page 14 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

JPME research institutions, particularly at NDU, experienced 

considerable growth in number, funding, and size in terms of staffing 

levels from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011, but have declined 

over the past 2 years. The following sections discuss overall trends in the 

number of research institutions at JPME colleges and universities from 

fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2013, as well as overall trends in 

funding and staffing levels for this same period.27

From 2007 through 2011, the number of JPME research institutions grew 

from 14 to 20. During this period, the number of research institutions at 

NDU increased by 3. At Marine Corps University and Air University, the 

number of research institutions increased by 2 and 1, respectively. Since 

2011, however, the number of research institutions has slightly declined 

due to the disestablishment of the Center for Transatlantic Security 

Studies at NDU in 2012. Figure 2 shows the total number of JPME 

research institutions for fiscal years 2007 through 2013.

Appendix II provides 

more-detailed information for each of the 20 JPME research institutions 

from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2013, as available.

 

27Officials at PME colleges and universities were unable to provide consistent data on 

JPME research institution funding and staffing levels prior to fiscal year 2007. Therefore, 

we are providing composite data on JPME research institutions from fiscal year 2007 

through fiscal year 2013. 

Number, Funding, and 

Size of JPME Research 

Institutions Grew from 

2007 through 2011, Then 

Declined

Number of JPME Research 

Institutions
 

Page 15 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Figure 2: Number of Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Research 

Institutions, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2013

Funding for research institutions at JPME colleges and universities 

experienced growth from fiscal year 2007 through 2011. Specifically, total 

funding for JPME research institutions increased from about $31.0 million 

in fiscal year 2007 to about $47.7 million in fiscal year 2011. Much of the 

growth took place at NDU, where research institutions’ total funding 

increased by about 78 percent. Other JPME colleges and universities 

also experienced considerable increases in funding for the operation of 

their associated research institutions. For example, with the 

establishment of the Middle East Studies institute and the Center for 

Advanced Operational Culture Learning’s Translational Research Group 

in 2007 and 2010, respectively, funding for Marine Corps University’s 

research institutions increased from $156,000 in fiscal year 2007 to about 

$4.9 million in fiscal year 2011.

Since fiscal year 2011, funding for JPME research institutions decreased 

overall. Specifically, total funding for JPME research institutions fell by 

about 15 percent from fiscal year 2011 through 2013, from about $47.7 

million to about $40.6 million. Much of the decline reflects decreases at 

NDU, where research institutions experienced a 21 percent decrease in 

total funding from about $21.4 million in fiscal year 2011 to about $16.8 

million in fiscal year 2013. The Army Command and General Staff 

Funding for JPME Research 

Institutions
 

Page 16 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

College’s Combat Studies Institute and the Center for Army Leadership 

also experienced considerable declines during this period, as total 

funding for both decreased by about 19 percent. Figure 3 provides total 

funding for JPME research institutions by JPME college and university for 

fiscal years 2007 through 2013.

Figure 3: Total Funding for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Research 

Institutions by JPME College and University, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2013

Note: Nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.
 

Page 17 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Staffing levels at JPME research institutions also increased considerably 

from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011. Specifically, staffing levels, 

in terms of full-time equivalents, increased from 207 in fiscal year 2007 to 

384 in fiscal year 2011, about an 86 percent increase.28

Since 2011, total staffing levels at JPME research institutions decreased 

from 384 to 310, about a 19 percent decrease. Much of the decrease is 

the result of a decline in staffing levels at NDU, where research 

institutions experienced a 31 percent decline during this period. Figure 4 

shows staffing levels for JPME research institutions by JPME college and 

university for fiscal years 2007 through 2013.

In particular, total 

staffing levels at NDU’s research institutions increased by about 58 

percent during this period while other JPME colleges and universities also 

experienced growth in staffing levels. For example, total staffing levels at 

Air University’s research institutions increased from 19 to 97.

 

28DOD reported staffing level data in full-time equivalents, which are calculated as the total 

hours worked in jobs retained divided by the number of hours in a full time schedule, and 

include noncontractor researchers, contractor researchers, and noncontractor 

administrative staff positions. 

Staffing Levels at JPME 

Research Institutions
 

Page 18 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Figure 4: Staffing Levels for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Research 

Institutions by JPME College and University, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2013

Several factors contributed to JPME research institution growth from 

fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011, including increases in 

reimbursable funding provided by outside offices sponsoring JPME 

research, the creation of new research institutions, the realignment of 

institutions such that they were incorporated into JPME colleges and 

universities, and an increase in resources dedicated to research at some 

JPME colleges and universities. According to DOD officials, these 

increases occurred within the context of the then-ongoing operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the Joint Staff and the military services 

expected the JPME research institutions to provide increased support to 

the warfighter. In particular, these factors led to an expansion at NDU’s 

Several Factors 

Contributed to JPME 

Research Institution 

Expansion and 

Subsequent Contraction
 

Page 19 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

research institutions during this period. For example, NDU’s research 

budget grew primarily due to increases in reimbursable research funded 

by outside offices such as the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the 

Joint Staff. Reimbursable funding provided to NDU’s research institutions 

increased from about $5.6 million in 2007 to about $14.6 million in fiscal 

year 2011, as shown in figure 5. Specifically, reimbursable funding for 

NDU’s Center for Technology and National Security Policy’s research 

increased from about $3.8 million in fiscal year 2007 to about $6.9 million 

in fiscal year 2011. Additionally, funding for NDU’s Center for Study of 

Weapons of Mass Destruction, which is funded entirely on a reimbursable 

basis, more than doubled from $1.5 million in fiscal year 2007 to $3.1 

million in fiscal year 2011.

Figure 5: Total Reimbursable Funding for the National Defense University’s (NDU) 

Research Institutions, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2013

Note: Nominal dollar, unadjusted for inflation.

NDU officials attributed the growth in reimbursable funding to the fact that 

research had evolved into a key area of emphasis for the university. 

These officials also noted that, as a result, faculty members at the 

research institutions were encouraged to pursue research directly funded 

by other DOD entities and other U.S. government agencies. To meet the 

increased demands for reimbursable research, particularly when in-house 

expertise did not exist, NDU increased the number of contractor and 
 

Page 20 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

noncontractor researchers at its research institutions.29

We also found that funding for NDU’s research institutions increased as 

the result of the transfer of research institutions to NDU as well as the 

broadening of missions of other research institutions. For example, 

according to DOD officials, in an effort to better deliver education to DOD 

and other U.S. government personnel on issues related to ongoing 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as irregular warfare, 

counterinsurgency, and stability and reconstruction operations, the Center 

for Complex Operations was transferred from the Defense Security 

Cooperation Agency to NDU in 2009. Furthermore, funding for the Center 

for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction at NDU increased due to 

DOD’s decision to broaden the Center’s counterproliferation focus 

government-wide. Moreover, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

designated the center as the focal point for weapons of mass destruction 

education for JPME. As a result, the Joint Staff began to fund the center 

in 2008 to perform that mission.

Joint Staff officials 

noted that because a significant portion of the NDU workforce, including 

that of its research institutions, is made up of senior-level positions, 

researcher salaries contributed to the growth in NDU’s research budget.

Other JPME colleges and universities also experienced considerable 

increases in research institution funding and staffing levels from fiscal 

year 2007 through fiscal year 2011 due to factors such as the creation of 

new research institutions and the realignment of others within JPME 

colleges and universities. For instance, according to Air Force 

documentation and officials, Air University’s increase in staffing levels for 

its research institutions can largely be attributed to the establishment of 

the Air Force Research Institute in 2008. According to an Air University 

official, the establishment of the Air Force Research Institute resulted 

from the consolidation and realignment of personnel from existing Air 

Force institutions as well as the creation of 18 new positions. Air Force 

officials also stated that staffing levels at the Air Force 

Counterproliferation Center and the Air Force Center for Strategy and 

Technology increased due to increased research requests from the Air 

Staff on nuclear and strategic-level research projects, respectively. 

Marine Corps University’s increase in staffing levels at its three research 

 

29According to an NDU official, the vast majority of NDU’s noncontractor researchers serve 

on renewable term appointments ranging from 1 to 3 years.
 

Page 21 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

institutions can be attributed to the establishment of the Translational 

Research Group in 2010 and increases in staff positions within the 

History Division and Middle East Studies center.

While a variety of factors contributed to the expansion of JPME research 

institutions, it has primarily been department-wide budget reductions, 

including the implementation of sequestration in fiscal year 2013, that 

contributed to their decreases in number, funding, and size. For example, 

officials stated that decreases in funding for NDU’s research institutions 

and staffing levels resulted from overall reductions at the university due to 

declining budgets. Furthermore, according to officials, NDU’s budget for 

its research institutions came under increased scrutiny in 2011 with the 

issuance of a new mission statement for NDU by the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff that prioritized research that more-directly supported 

education over reimbursable research. Moreover, according to officials, 

the Joint Staff established full-time equivalent caps for both direct and 

reimbursable funding in 2012. As a result of actions taken to reduce 

NDU’s budget, NDU’s Center for Transatlantic Studies was disestablished 

in September 2012, and the decision was made in early 2013 to defund 

the Conflict Records Research Center beginning in fiscal year 2014.

Similarly, DOD-wide budget reductions contributed to decreases in the 

funding and size of other JPME research institutions. For example, Naval 

War College officials stated that its research institutions absorbed a 

majority of the college’s budget cuts since fiscal year 2011 because the 

college prioritized funds to support its principal education mission. Air 

University has also experienced decreasing budgets and staffing level 

reductions beginning in fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013. 

Specifically, we found that the Air Force Research Institute’s total staffing 

levels decreased from a high of 81 in fiscal year 2011 to 61 in fiscal year 

2013 as a result of overall reductions in Air Force civilian personnel.
 

Page 22 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

The extent to which DOD can assess the performance of JPME research 

institutions is limited by the lack of a comprehensive framework to 

systematically assess their performance in meeting PME and other 

departmental goals and objectives. With limited exceptions, the JPME 

colleges and universities, which have broad latitude in overseeing their 

associated research institutions, have not consistently established 

measurable goals or objectives linked with metrics to assess the 

performance of their associated research institutions. However, best 

practices30 state that achieving results in government requires a 

comprehensive framework that includes measurable goals and objectives 

and metrics for assess progress, consistent with the framework identified 

in the Government Performance and Results Act.31 Further, while there 

are mechanisms in place for overseeing JPME colleges and universities, 

such as the Joint Staff’s JPME accreditation process, these are focused 

on the quality of academic programs and not on the research institutions’ 

performance. There is no DOD-wide guidance that addresses the 

intended role of the research institutions in supporting PME or other 

departmental goals or assigns responsibilities for conducting reviews of 

them, leaving the department without a basis to assess the institutions’ 

stated mission and actual performance against planned or expected 

results. This is inconsistent with the Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government, which state that agencies should conduct reviews 

by management at the functional or activity level, which in this case would 

be the JPME research institutions, and compare actual performance to 

planned or expected results.32 Clearly establishing linkages between 

significant activities, their intended role in meeting agency-wide goals and 

objectives, and assigning oversight responsibilities underpins an agency’s 

ability to conduct such reviews.

According to officials representing the Joint Staff and JPME colleges and 

universities, DOD has provided JPME colleges and universities with 

broad latitude in overseeing their associated research institutions. In 

doing so, the Joint Staff and the military services have not provided 

guidance to assist the JPME colleges and universities in developing a 

 

30See, for example, GAO-13-606 and GAO-12-548. 

31Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993), as amended by Pub. L. No. 111-352 (2011). 

32GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

DOD Is Limited in Its 

Ability to Assess the 

Performance of JPME 

Research Institutions

DOD Does Not Have a 

Framework to Assess the 

Performance of JPME 

Research Institutions
 

Page 23 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

comprehensive oversight framework for assessing the performance of 

JPME research institutions. As a result, we found that JPME colleges and 

universities have not consistently established measurable goals and 

objectives linked with performance metrics to assess the performance of 

their associated research institutions and therefore are unable to 

comprehensively assess their performance to determine whether they are 

furthering JPME or other departmental goals. According to best 

practices,33

Based on our review of available strategic plans, mission statements, and 

other documentation, such as strategic issues lists, that has guided the 

work of the 20 JPME research institutions, we found that JPME colleges 

and universities have not consistently established measurable goals and 

objectives linked with performance metrics for their associated research 

institutions. Specifically, we identified limited instances where specific 

goals or objectives for associated JPME research institutions have been 

established. Air University’s strategic plan, for example, establishes a 

goal for the Air Force Research Institute to produce and publish scholarly, 

credible, relevant, and useful research and outreach products. This goal 

is consistent with best practices of being measurable and specific. 

Recently, NDU has taken steps intended to provide a basis for assessing 

the performance of the university’s research institutions. Specifically, in 

2013 following a review by the Joint Staff,

achieving results in government requires a comprehensive 

oversight framework that includes measurable goals and objectives, and 

metrics for assessing progress, consistent with the framework identified in 

the Government Performance and Results Act.

34

 

33See, for example, 

NDU developed a strategic 

plan for research that establishes linkages between the university’s 

strategic goals and objectives for NDU’s research institutions. For 

example, one of the research goals is to address the knowledge and skills 

for understanding and leading in a rapidly changing global security 

environment, which reflects one of NDU’s strategic goals. In order to carry 

out this objective, NDU’s plan calls for research faculty to engage with 

GAO-13-606 and GAO-12-548. 

34In April 2012, the Joint Staff conducted a management control review of NDU, the 

purpose of which was to assess the administrative and fiscal control processes that were 

in place to ensure proper stewardship of NDU’s resources. As part of that review, the Joint 

Staff noted that throughout NDU there appeared to be a fundamental disagreement 

regarding how its research supported the JPME mission and courses. Accordingly, the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provided NDU with a new mission statement 

emphasizing that its research should support its academic mission. 
 

Page 24 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

teaching faculty to bring together expertise in national security studies. 

The NDU President approved the strategic plan for research in January 

2014.

We identified other examples where JPME colleges and universities 

identified broad goals and objectives for research. However, the linkage 

between these goals and objectives and JPME research institutions was 

unclear as the goals and objectives are not specifically assigned to 

associated JPME research institutions. For example, the Naval War 

College’s strategic plan contains a guiding principle to keep the college’s 

research and scholarly activities relevant to the needs of the Navy and 

the nation. Similarly, Marine Corps University’s strategic plan contains a 

goal related to strengthening professional scholarship and outreach. 

However, neither of these goals makes reference to the college’s or 

university’s research institutions. Additionally, JPME colleges and 

universities, such as Air University and Army War College, have 

developed lists of research priorities on an annual basis. According to 

officials, these lists are developed to reflect the priorities of senior 

leadership within their service and have been used to guide the research 

activities of JPME students. In 2013, the Army War College completed a 

strategic review of its academic programs and, as a result of this review, 

has aligned the development of its Key Strategic Issues List with a 

specific strategic goal of influencing national security decision-making. 

However, the Army War College has not clearly linked its strategic issues 

list with the education goals of the college.

Furthermore, we found that JPME colleges and universities have not 

consistently established metrics to assess the performance of JPME 

research institutions in meeting PME or other departmental needs. Based 

on our review, we identified some examples where JPME colleges and 

universities had established performance metrics for their associated 

research institutions. For example, Air University established a 

performance measure for the Air Force Research Institute that includes a 

count of the requested versus the delivered research studies for senior 

Air Force staff. Similarly, Marine Corps University established several 

measures to assess the progress its research institutions have made in 

achieving desired outcomes. For example, the university established a 

measure for the History Division intended to assess its responsiveness to 

research inquiries.

Officials from JPME colleges and universities, including JPME research 

institutions, told us that they recognize the need to establish measures for 

assessing the research institutions’ performance. They explained, 
 

Page 25 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

however, that they have faced difficulties in developing them for research 

institutions. For example, officials representing JPME colleges and 

universities stated that it is challenging to compile quantitative data that 

represent the value or the usefulness of research. Although we recognize 

that it is difficult to establish performance measures for outcomes that are 

not readily observable or in some cases systematic,35 the department 

does use metrics to assess the performance of other DOD-funded 

organizations that conduct studies and analysis research. For example, 

DOD guidance directs organizations that sponsor a Federally Funded 

Research and Development Center to assess their performance.36

Without a framework that includes measurable goals and objectives 

linked with metrics, DOD, including its JPME colleges and universities, 

does not have a systematic basis to comprehensively assess the 

performance of JPME research institutions. Best practices state that a 

framework that consists of measurable goals and objectives linked with 

metrics for assessing progress would better enable DOD to determine 

whether JPME research institutions are achieving results. Moreover, it 

would provide the DOD with a sounder basis for making resource 

determinations to ensure that these research institutions are furthering 

JPME and other departmental goals and that JPME continues to provide 

servicemembers with the expertise necessary for their careers.

According to the guidance, sponsoring organizations must develop 

procedures to annually monitor the value, quality and responsiveness of 

their work. For instance, officials we spoke with within the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 

stated that their office compiles data on metrics for the RAND National 

Defense Research Institute—a Federally Funded Research and 

Development Center—that are primarily based upon quantitative ratings 

and comments gathered from surveying organizations that contracted for 

research projects with it. For those research projects that received low 

ratings or negative comments, the RAND National Defense Research 

Institute is required to follow up with sponsors to understand what had 

happened and provide a plan for corrective actions.

 

35See, for example, GAO-13-606 and GAO-12-548. 

36Department of Defense, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics, Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) Management 

Plan and Associated “How-to-Guides,” Memorandum (May 2, 2011).
 

Page 26 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 

agencies should conduct reviews by management at the functional or 

activity level and compare actual performance to planned or expected 

results.37 Clearly establishing linkages between significant activities, their 

intended role in helping meet agency-wide goals and objectives, and 

assigning oversight responsibilities underpins an agency’s ability to 

conduct such reviews. According to these standards, such controls are an 

integral part of an agency’s planning, implementing, reviewing, and 

accountability for stewardship of government resources and achieving 

effective results. However, the oversight conducted by the Joint Staff and 

by external accrediting bodies reviews the quality of JPME academic 

programs and not the JPME research institutions’ performance. For 

example, the Joint Staff’s Process for Accreditation of Joint Education 

process is DOD’s primary mechanism of oversight, assessment, and 

improvement of JPME academic programs. The instruction governing this 

process38 lays out seven educational standards common to all PME 

colleges and universities, including JPME colleges and universities, which 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff considers essential.39

Although the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is statutorily 

responsible for overseeing the officer joint education system, the Joint 

Staff instruction that serves as the primary guidance for JPME-related 

policy does not address what the intended role of research institutions 

should be at JPME colleges and universities and it does not assign 

responsibilities for conducting oversight of their activities. Without clarity 

as to the intended role of research institutions in support of JPME 

academic programs or for another purpose, there is no basis by which to 

compare the research institutions’ respective stated missions as well as 

Officials 

from the Joint Staff JPME Division stated that this office conducts reviews 

of the JPME colleges and universities every 6 years to determine how 

well their academic programs are meeting these education standards.

 

37GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

38CJCSI 1800.01D. 

39According to Enclosure E of CJCSI 1800.01D, the seven educational standards are (1) 

develop joint awareness, perspective, and attitudes; (2) employ predominantly active and 

highly effective instruction methods; (3) assess student achievement; (4) assess program 

effectiveness; (5) conduct quality faculty recruitment: selection, assignment, and 

performance assessment program; (6) conduct faculty development programs for 

improving instructional skills and increasing subject matter mastery; and (7) provide 

institutional resources to support the educational process. 

Established Oversight 

Processes Do Not Assess 

the Performance of JPME 

Research Institutions
 

Page 27 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

actual performance to planned or expected results, as required by 

Standards for Internal Control.40 Specifically, the instruction contains 

standards to evaluate the quality of JPME academic programs, but it does 

not define the role of JPME research institutions and it contains no 

educational standards, learning areas, or specific objectives for research 

that would enable DOD to assess the performance of research institutions 

at JPME colleges and universities.41

Joint Staff officials agreed that their accreditation process is focused 

specifically on JPME academic programs and pertains only to academic 

curricula development and quality and the assurance of uniformity in 

course content across the different JPME colleges and universities. As a 

result, JPME research institutions are not reviewed as part of the Joint 

Staff’s accreditation process. Moreover, according to Joint Staff officials, 

while they are statutorily responsible for overseeing the quality of JPME 

academic programs, there is no statutory responsibility for the Joint Staff 

to oversee the performance of JPME research institutions. One JPME 

official with whom we met noted that if the department had goals, 

objectives, and performance measures for JPME research institutions as 

part of the instruction governing the Joint Staff accreditation process, it 

would strengthen the department’s oversight process for JPME research 

institutions. In the absence of DOD-wide guidance that defines the role of 

research institutions as part of the JPME system and establishes roles 

and responsibilities for conducting oversight of JPME research 

institutions, the department and JPME colleges and universities cannot 

systematically assess the performance of JPME research institutions and 

whether they are furthering JPME.

Further, no organization is assigned 

specific responsibility for overseeing the performance of the research 

institutions.

In addition to the Joint Staff’s accreditation process, oversight of JPME 

academic quality is performed by external accrediting bodies. 

Accreditation is a means of self-regulation and peer review to ensure 

agreed upon standards are met. The regional accreditation process is 

intended to examine academic institutions as a whole. While the 

accreditation process may review the extent to which research is 

 

40GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

41While not tied to the research institutions, the process provides an accreditation standard 

for research related to faculty’s professional development. 
 

Page 28 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

conducted at a JPME college or university among a number of other 

activities, these evaluations are not intended to assess the performance 

of JPME research institutions in meeting JPME and other departmental 

goals and objectives.42

JPME colleges and universities, as Master’s Degree–granting institutions, 

are accredited by the following four regional accreditation bodies:

• Middle States Commission on Higher Education accredits NDU and 

the Army War College;

• Higher Learning Commission accredits the Army Command and 

General Staff College;

• New England Association of Schools and Colleges accredits the 

Naval War College; and

• Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on 

Colleges accredits Air University, including its Staff and War Colleges, 

and Marine Corps University, including its Staff and War Colleges.

JPME colleges and universities are subject to the regional accreditation 

processes every 10 years and these processes are intended to 

strengthen and sustain the quality and integrity of higher education. For 

example, according to the Middle States Commission on Higher 

Education, accreditation by the commission is based on the results of 

institutional reviews by peers and colleagues and attests to the judgment 

that the institution has met certain criteria, such as that it has a mission 

appropriate to higher education; it is guided by well-defined and 

appropriate goals, including goals for student learning; and it has 

established conditions and procedures under which its mission and goals 

can be realized.

While the accreditation process reviews the quality at JPME colleges and 

universities, it does not specifically assess the performance of JPME 

research institutions. Our review of reports prepared through the regional 

 

42While these accrediting bodies are institutional accreditors, responsible for reviewing an 

entire institution and indicating that each of an institution’s parts is contributing to the 

achievement of the institution’s objectives, their reviews do not focus in detail on research 

institutions. In addition, at some JPME schools, the research institutions are more-loosely 

affiliated with the school and are not viewed as a central part of the institution.
 

Page 29 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

accreditation process as well as interviews with JPME officials 

knowledgeable about the accreditation processes confirmed that their 

reviews are generally focused on the curriculum of JPME academic 

programs and not the performance of JPME research institutions. 

Therefore, the accrediting processes also do not provide DOD or JPME 

colleges and universities with a means for evaluating the performance of 

JPME research institutions and whether they are furthering JPME and 

other departmental goals. 

DOD does not formally coordinate requests for studies and analysis 

research conducted by JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded 

research organizations, even though many of these organizations have 

missions to conduct work in similar topic areas. Our analysis found that 

multiple organizations, including JPME research institutions and other 

DOD-funded research organizations, such as Federally Funded Research 

and Development Centers, have missions to conduct work in similar topic 

areas. However, DOD relies on a variety of separate processes to 

manage research requests that can be conducted at either JPME 

research institutions or other DOD-funded research organizations. 

Specifically, offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the 

military departments have their own separate internal processes to 

request such research. Because there is no requirement for them to do 

so, these offices do not have mechanisms in place to participate in one 

another’s processes, thereby limiting opportunities to share information 

on DOD-wide priorities and collective research efforts, and to identify any 

areas of potentially similar research. Although there are notable 

differences even among the JPME research institutions and other DODfunded organizations that have missions to conduct work in similar topic 

areas, we note that, as we concluded in September 2009, organizations 

involved in similar missions should coordinate to avoid unnecessary 

duplication of work.43 Furthermore, results-oriented management 

practices call for establishing a means to operate across organizational 

boundaries to enhance and sustain coordination.44

 

43See GAO-09-904SP. 

44GAO-06-15. 

DOD Does Not 

Formally Coordinate 

Studies and Analysis 

Research Requests 

Performed by JPME 

and Other DODFunded Research 

Institutions, Although 

Some Conduct Work 

in Similar Topic Areas
 

Page 30 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Although we did not identify specific instances of duplication through our 

analyses of mission statements and the research project titles of 20 

JPME and 14 other DOD-funded research institutions, we identified 

similarities in their research topic areas. Through our analysis of the 

mission statements, we identified multiple instances in which several 

DOD research organizations conduct work in similar topic areas.45

• 11 JPME research institutions, 5 Federally Funded Research and 

Development Centers, 3 regional centers and 2 service-affiliated 

research organizations have missions to conduct research related to 

DOD strategy, policy, and doctrine;

For 

example, we found that

• 5 JPME research institutions, 1 Federally Funded Research and 

Development Center, and 3 regional centers have missions that 

include researching issues related to civilian-military issues and 

irregular warfare; and

• 2 JPME research institutions, 5 Federally Funded Research and 

Development Centers, and 4 service-affiliated research organizations 

have missions that include researching technology, acquisition, and 

systems issues.

Our analysis of mission statements also identified instances in which 

more-limited numbers of DOD research organizations conduct work in 

similar topic areas. For example, we found that

• 2 JPME research institutions and 1 service-affiliated research 

organization have missions that include researching issues related to 

cyber issues; and

• 2 JPME research institutions and 2 regional centers have missions 

that include researching issues related to Africa.

Figure 6 summarizes the results of our analysis of similarities in research 

topic areas for the 20 JPME research institutions and 14 other DOD-

 

45The topic areas represent 23 broad categories of research activities and are based on 

the general topic areas in which JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded 

research organizations categorize their research. 

Some DOD Research 

Organizations Have 

Missions to Conduct Work 

in Similar Topic Areas
 

Page 31 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

funded research organizations, according to 23 areas of concentration.46

 

46The results do not include the following three areas of concentration: (1) Public Affairs 

and Communication; (2) Other; and (3) Unable to Code. “Public Affairs and 

Communication” is not included because no mission statements were coded into that area 

of concentration. “Other” and “Unable to Code” were not included because these are not 

areas of concentration intended to show similarity. Rather, “Other” is intended for project 

titles or mission statements that do not fit into the other areas of concentration and 

“Unable to Code” is used for methodological purposes to categorize incomplete 

information. 

A checkmark indicates a research institution’s mission statement 

identified that category is a topic area in which it conducts research.
 

Page 32 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Figure 6: Similarities in Research Topic Areas for 34 Research Organizations, According to Mission Statements

a

Note: See Abbreviations list on page iii. 

Army Command and General Staff College. 
 

Page 33 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

The similarities among the DOD research organizations are also 

illustrated in the titles of the research projects conducted by JPME 

research institutions and other DOD-funded research organizations. By 

categorizing 2,217 research project titles provided to us for 2012 and 

2013 from both JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded 

research organizations, we found that multiple organizations’ project titles 

were grouped in related topic areas. For example,

• project titles from 13 JPME research institutions, 5 Federally Funded 

Research and Development Centers, and 2 regional centers were 

related to the Middle East;

• project titles from 11 JPME research institutions, 5 Federally Funded 

Research and Development Centers, 2 regional centers, and 1 

service-affiliated research organization concerned Asia studies; and

• project titles from 10 JPME research institutions, 5 Federally Funded 

Research and Development Centers, 1 regional center, and 1 serviceaffiliated research organization concerned force structure and 

operational issues.

Our analysis also identified limited instances of similarities of specific 

research project titles within topic areas. For example, we identified four 

research project titles that focused on the “Arab Spring” and two research 

project titles specifically related to China’s development-assistance 

efforts. However, given our objective’s focus on research organizations as 

opposed to projects, we did not review the content of individual research 

projects and their respective methodologies. As a result, we did not 

assess the extent to which individual research projects and their findings 

overlapped or were duplicative with other research projects. Appendix III 

provides more-detailed results of our analysis of research project titles 

conducted by JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded research 

organizations in 2012 and 2013.

While there are similarities in the research topic areas of JPME research 

institutions and other DOD-funded research organizations, DOD officials 

also identified notable differences among these organizations. One such 

difference is that some JPME research institutions are required to support 

the PME mission at their respective colleges and universities, whereas 

that is not part of the mission of other DOD-funded research 

organizations. For example, the mission statement of NDU’s Institute for 

National Strategic Studies, which comprises its research institutions, 

There Are Notable 

Differences among JPME 

and Other DOD-funded 

Research Institutions
 

Page 34 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

currently includes advancing the strategic thinking of NDU and the JPME 

community through research. Also along these lines, Air University’s 

JPME research institutions seek to use research publications to enhance 

strategic thought within the Air Force and in Air University academic 

curricula. To carry out their mission to support JPME academic programs, 

the research institutions engage in efforts not required of other-DOD 

funded research organizations. For example, officials at Air University 

noted that the research products developed by the Counterproliferation 

Center are used to update Air Force PME curriculum. As another 

example, faculty from Naval War College JPME research institutions 

teach elective courses in the JPME academic program. Conversely, the 

mission of the Center for Naval Analyses, a Federally Funded Research 

and Development Center, is to provide independent, authoritative 

research, analysis, and technical support to the Navy and other DOD 

organizations, and this research is not tied to JPME academic programs.

We identified two additional factors that differentiate JPME research 

institutions among themselves and other DOD-funded research 

organizations. The first pertains to differences among the JPME research 

institutions as to which office primarily sponsors the work of research 

institutions. For example, two JPME research institutions have missions 

to conduct research on China issues—the China Maritime Studies 

Institute at the Naval War College and the Center for the Study of 

Chinese Military Affairs at NDU. However, the two institutions conduct 

research on different aspects of China, reflecting the interests of their 

primary sponsors. Specifically, the China Maritime Studies Institute 

conducts research on Chinese maritime issues primarily for the Navy, 

while the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs conducts 

broader research on Chinese strategic-level issues for the Joint Staff and 

Office of the Secretary of Defense.

According to officials from JPME colleges and universities and other 

DOD-funded research organizations, a second factor that differentiates 

JPME research institutions among themselves and with other DODfunded research organizations is the level of technical expertise provided 

by some research organizations. Specifically, officials explained that 

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers can produce 

research with a more scientific and technical focus than that of JPME 

institutions. For example, while both the Institute for Defense Analyses, a 

Federally Funded Research and Development Center, and NDU’s Center 

for Technology and National Security Policy have missions related to 

researching technology, the Institute for Defense Analyses conducts tests 

and evaluations of technologies, requiring staff to have specialized 
 

Page 35 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

scientific and technical skills, while the Center for Technology and 

National Security Policy’s research discusses the effect of technology on 

defense policy.

Although multiple organizations, including JPME research institutions and 

other DOD-funded research organizations, have missions to conduct 

work in similar topic areas, offices throughout DOD use separate 

processes to request studies and analysis research. This fragmentation 

across DOD occurs in the absence both of a DOD requirement to 

coordinate studies and analysis research requirements among the military 

departments and of other DOD offices and mechanisms to facilitate such 

coordination. In September 2009, we concluded that offices involved in 

similar missions should coordinate and share relevant information to 

avoid unnecessary duplication of work.47 Furthermore, results-oriented 

management practices call for establishing a means to operate across 

organizational boundaries to enhance and sustain coordination.48

We identified several separate processes used by JPME research 

institutions or DOD offices to manage requests for studies and analysis 

research, but DOD has not established formal mechanisms to coordinate 

requests. JPME research institutions, for example, individually manage 

their own research activities. According to Joint Staff officials, JPME 

research activities are not typically coordinated with other departmental 

offices that request studies and analysis research. At JPME research 

institutions, researchers have the discretion to determine whether 

research has been or is being conducted on a given topic. For example, 

JPME research institution officials told us that while it is not a 

requirement, they may contact other subject-matter experts to determine 

whether similar work is being conducted at another JPME research 

institution. Officials also said researchers may conduct a literature review 

to understand the existing research on a topic as part of the research 

process, or they may review completed research projects that are 

contained in the Defense Technical Information Center database to see 

 

47See GAO-09-904SP. 

48GAO-06-15. 

Multiple Offices Use 

Fragmented Processes to 

Request Studies and 

Analysis Research
 

Page 36 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

whether DOD has funded past studies.49

Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, multiple offices generate 

requests annually for studies and analysis research, but these research 

requests are determined based on individual offices’ research 

requirements and are not formally coordinated with other departmental 

offices. Office of the Secretary of Defense research requests may be 

fulfilled by contracting with other DOD-funded research organizations or 

JPME research institutions to conduct the research. For example, 

research requests for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics are managed at the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Studies and Federally Funded Research and 

Development Center Management office. In doing so, officials with this 

office explained that they do not formally coordinate with other DOD 

offices to determine whether similar research requests are being funded 

by other departmental offices. Separately, the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy uses a different process to manage 

requests for studies and analysis research. Specifically, the Office of the 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Forces 

reviews requests from within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy on an annual basis. These research requests are not formally 

coordinated with other Office of the Secretary of Defense offices or other 

departmental offices, such as service-level studies and analysis offices, to 

determine whether similar work is being conducted or funded elsewhere.

However, that database does 

not contain information on ongoing research efforts, and no other formal 

mechanism for sharing information on ongoing studies and analysis 

research activities within DOD was identified.

Similarly, the military departments have their own respective internal 

processes for requesting studies and analysis research, but absent a 

DOD requirement to do so, these processes are not used to formally 

coordinate research requests among the military departments or with 

other DOD offices. In general, these processes are used as a mechanism 

to coordinate requests for studies and analysis research within each of 

the military departments. For example:

 

49The Defense Technical Information Center manages an online database that makes past 

DOD-funded research studies available to the research community to enable future 

researchers to understand the purpose, scope, approach, results or outcomes, and 

conclusions or recommendations of prior work before undertaking new studies. 
 

Page 37 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

• According to a senior Air Force official, the Air Staff’s Analyses, 

Assessments and Lessons Learned directorate is responsible for 

collecting annual research requests from across the Air Force and for 

ensuring that the contracted studies are not duplicative. A senior 

official within this office told us that the Air Force has experienced 

challenges with regard to its oversight over the number of studies it 

has funded. In response, the Air Force has developed a policy to track 

all Air Force funded studies in an internal database. However, 

according to this official, the Analyses, Assessments and Lessons 

Learned directorate generally does not formally coordinate with offices 

outside the Air Force on annual research requests.

• The Army Study Program Management Office within Headquarters, 

Department of the Army, issues an annual call for research requests 

from Army commands, and in turn funds the research requests 

according to Army priorities. A senior Army official in this office said 

that its process is focused on reviewing Army-specific research 

requests and does not include other DOD offices that request or 

conduct studies and analysis research.

• The Navy’s annual research requests are administered through the 

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, which compiles and prioritizes 

research needs identified from across the Navy. The Navy’s studies 

and analysis program guidance says that the Navy should coordinate 

analytic efforts with the Marine Corps, but according to an official in 

this office, the Navy generally does not coordinate with other DODfunded research organizations or JPME research institutions with 

regard to these annual research requests.

DOD officials within the studies and analysis research community 

observed that there are both costs and benefits to the department’s 

decentralized approach to requesting studies and analysis research. One 

official told us that limited coordination among the multiple offices that 

request studies and analysis research may put DOD at risk for funding 

overlapping research activities. Furthermore, a senior Air Force official in 

the Air Staff’s Analyses, Assessments and Lessons Learned directorate 

stated that the current approach makes it difficult for DOD to have a 

complete picture of how much money is being spent on studies and 

analysis research. While DOD officials identified costs to the current 

approach for coordinating studies and analysis research requests, 

officials also acknowledged that DOD’s decentralized approach may 

result in several benefits. For example, a senior Air Force official in the Air 

Staff’s Analyses, Assessments and Lessons Learned directorate stated 
 

Page 38 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

that decentralization generates creativity and diversity of thought in 

DOD’s studies and analysis community, which can prove useful in 

informing DOD decision makers. Furthermore, a senior Navy official in the 

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations stated that the current approach 

allows each office to be concerned with its own area of functional 

expertise, which varies widely across the services and DOD. For 

example, the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations is responsible for 

funding studies related to naval functional areas such as designing, 

building, and maintaining ships, which is unique when compared to other 

service-level studies and analysis offices such as the Air Force Analyses, 

Assessments and Lessons Learned office or the Army Study Program 

Management Office.

In contrast to how it manages requests for studies and analysis research, 

DOD has established mechanisms to coordinate science and technology–

specific research efforts across multiple departmental offices engaged in 

similar missions. Specifically, the science and technology research 

community has governing bodies, such as executive committees to 

facilitate such coordination. These committees are intended to better 

manage DOD’s science and technology research by bringing together the 

multiple departmental offices that sponsor such research for the purpose 

of sharing information. A senior official responsible for coordinating 

science and technology research efforts explained that the executive 

committees do not require additional resources. Rather, they are intended 

to share offices’ existing annual research plans and provide opportunities 

to leverage resources in a fiscally constrained environment. Some DOD 

officials we spoke with who are responsible for managing studies and 

analysis research requests also said that a mechanism that provided 

greater information on what studies and analysis research other 

departmental offices were sponsoring would improve their ability to 

identify potential overlap in research requests. Without a mechanism for 

coordinating research requests and sharing information on studies and 

analysis research activities among multiple offices, DOD cannot ensure 

that it minimizes potentially unnecessary overlap in research activities. 

Furthermore, making information on department-wide annual research 

requests available to JPME research institutions would provide the 

institutions an opportunity to further understand research needs and align 

some of the institutions’ research with strategic priorities identified by 

DOD leadership.
 

Page 39 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Given the ongoing and unique role of JPME research institutions in the 

development of DOD’s future leaders, DOD’s oversight of these 

institutions is important for helping the department to make the best use 

of the resources it devotes to the colleges and universities that provide 

PME and JPME and for decreasing fragmentation of research requests 

and the risk of potential overlap in research activities. As fiscal pressures 

facing DOD continue to mount, so too does the need for the department 

to prioritize resources for JPME research institutions to most-effectively 

meet the JPME mission. Considering the overall growth of JPME 

research institutions that occurred between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal 

year 2011 in number, funding, and size, it is paramount that DOD 

maintains oversight of these institutions. Best practices state that 

achieving results in government requires a comprehensive oversight 

framework that includes measurable goals and objectives, and metrics for 

assessing progress. Yet, with limited exceptions, the research institutions 

lack such goals, objectives, and associated metrics. Additionally, while 

DOD has some oversight mechanisms in place for JPME, DOD does not 

have clear guidance establishing the role of JPME research institutions in 

furthering PME or other departmental goals that would provide a basis for 

evaluating their performance and helping ensure that intended results are 

achieved. Further, no entity within DOD is assigned responsibility for 

overseeing the performance of JPME research institutions. Consequently, 

DOD cannot ensure the effectiveness of JPME research institutions and 

lacks a sound basis for making resource determinations. Furthermore, 

some JPME research institutions and other DOD funded research 

organizations have missions to conduct research in similar topic areas, 

but DOD uses a variety of separate processes for requesting studies and 

analysis research. Results-oriented management practices call for 

establishing a means to operate across organizational boundaries to 

enhance and sustain coordination. DOD, however, does not have a 

mechanism in place to coordinate studies and analysis research requests 

and minimize fragmentation. While DOD officials believe that their current 

decentralized approach to requesting studies and analysis research has 

its benefits, they also recognize that it has its costs. It is not clear that the 

benefits of DOD’s current approach outweigh the risks of fragmentation 

and potential duplication, particularly in a budget-constrained 

environment. DOD’s science and technology research community 

provides one mechanism for a coordination mechanism, but by no means 

is it the only mechanism that could meet the needs of the studies and 

analysis research community as it seeks to support department-wide 

priorities. Without a mechanism to facilitate coordination and reduce 

fragmentation among offices requesting studies and analysis research, 

DOD cannot ensure that it minimizes potential overlap in research 

Conclusions
 

Page 40 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

activities and that its resources are used efficiently in support of 

department-wide priorities at its JPME research institutions and other 

research organizations.

To enhance the performance of JPME research institutions, we are 

recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretaries of the military departments for 

their respective PME and JPME colleges and universities to take the 

following three actions:

• define the role of JPME research institutions to provide a basis for 

evaluating their performance,

• assign responsibilities for conducting performance reviews of JPME 

research institutions, and

• establish a framework that includes measurable goals and objectives 

linked with metrics to assess the performance of JPME research 

institutions.

To improve the coordination of requests for studies and analysis research 

within the department and to reduce the risk of potential overlap in 

research activities, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense 

establish and implement a departmental mechanism that requires 

leadership from the military services and departmental offices responsible 

for managing requests for studies and analysis research to coordinate 

their annual research requests and ongoing research efforts. 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our 

recommendations. The full text of DOD’s written comments is reprinted in 

appendix IV. 

In concurring with our first recommendation, DOD noted that some work 

is already in progress to clarify organizational goals and establish metrics 

of success at each of the research institutions. DOD stated that, for 

example, the Joint Staff has been collaborating with NDU to refine its 

research enterprise. DOD noted that our recommendation is reflected in 

NDU’s Strategic Plan for Research 2014-2019 and a revision of the 

Chairman’s policy document for the university. According to the 

department, our recommendation should be fully implemented when the 

next academic year begins in the fall of 2014. We agree that these are 

positive steps towards establishing a comprehensive framework at NDU 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 41 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

to systematically assess the performance of its JPME research 

institutions in meeting PME and other departmental goals and objectives. 

Notwithstanding this effort, as noted in our report there remains no DODwide guidance that addresses the intended role of research institutions in 

supporting PME, including JPME, or other departmental goals or assigns 

responsibilities for conducting performance reviews of them. This leaves 

the department without a sound basis to assess NDU’s and the other 

research institutions’ stated missions and actual performance against 

planned or expected results. Clearly establishing linkages between 

significant activities, their intended role in meeting agency-wide goals and 

objectives, and assigning oversight responsibilities underpins DOD’s 

ability to conduct such reviews.

In its concurrence with our second recommendation, DOD stated that to 

improve coordination of research requests, it plans to establish a Studies 

and Analysis Executive Committee by the end of fiscal year 2014 with 

regional and topical “communities of interest.” DOD noted that the 

committee will be a combined effort organized through the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Research and Engineering, with other representation from 

the JPME and PME community, as appropriate. 

DOD also provided technical comments on a draft of our report, which 

we have incorporated into the report, as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense, the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of the Air Force, the 

Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Commandant 

of the Marine Corps. In addition, the report will also be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-5741 or ayersj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Johana Ayers 

Acting Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
 

Page 42 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Richard Durbin

Chairman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon

Chairman 

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen

Chairman

The Honorable Pete Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 mandated 

that we review the work performed by joint professional military education 

(JPME) research institutions in support of professional military education 

and the Department of Defense’s (DOD) broader mission.1

To address these objectives, we included in the scope of our review the 

intermediate- and senior-level colleges and universities that provide 

JPME certification—that is, the National Defense University, Army War 

College, Army Command and General Staff College, Air University, Naval 

War College, and Marine Corps University.

In this report, 

we (1) describe how JPME research institutions have changed in number, 

funding, and size, and the factors that contributed to any changes; (2) 

evaluate the extent to which DOD is assessing the performance of JPME 

research institutions in meeting professional military education and other 

departmental goals and objectives; and (3) evaluate the extent to which 

DOD coordinates research requests for JPME research institutions and 

other DOD-funded research organizations.

2 Research conducted at 

JPME colleges and universities can be accomplished by research 

institutions associated with the colleges and universities as well as by 

students and professors as part of academic coursework. For the 

purposes of this report, we focused on research institutions that conduct 

research as their primary mission and have dedicated personnel to do so. 

We excluded certain centers and institutes associated with JPME

colleges and universities because we determined they did not have a 

mission to primarily conduct research or did not have dedicated 

personnel.

3

 

1

Pub. L. No. 112–239, § 547(b) (2013). 

We also excluded from our analysis research conducted by 

students as part of their academic coursework and by professors not 

affiliated with the research institutions. To identify the JPME research 

institutions included within the scope of our review, we examined 

documentation and gathered testimonial evidence related to the missions, 

activities, and organization of the institutions that conduct research at the 

2

For the purposes of this report, we refer to service and joint colleges and universities that 

are accredited by the Joint Staff to provide JPME certification as JPME colleges and 

universities. 

3

For example, although the Army War College’s Army Physical Fitness Research Institute 

conducted research and had dedicated personnel, we concluded that its resources were 

primarily focused on educating and promoting the mental and physical readiness of 

thousands of Army leaders and spouses each year. As a result, we concluded that it did 

not meet both of our criteria and is not included within our scope.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

JPME colleges and universities. Based on this evidence, we determined 

that 20 institutions were conducting research as their primary mission and 

had dedicated personnel assigned to them and therefore were included in 

the scope of our review.

For our first objective of determining the extent to which JPME research 

institutions have changed in number, funding, and size, and the factors 

contributing to any changes, we obtained questionnaire responses and 

other documentation on the number of research institutions that existed at 

JPME colleges and universities from fiscal years 2000 through 2013 and 

collected and analyzed available funding and staffing data for these 

years4 for the JPME research institutions. We assessed the reliability of 

the funding and staffing data collected by analyzing questionnaire 

responses from JPME colleges and universities, which included 

information on their data-system management, data quality-assurance 

processes, and potential sources of errors and mitigations of those errors. 

Based on our review of the data provided and our review of the 

questionnaire responses, we concluded that the systems used to provide 

the data, and thus the data they provide, are sufficiently reliable for our 

audit purposes. However, based on this evidence, we determined that we 

were unable to report consistent data on JPME research institution 

funding and staffing levels prior to fiscal year 2007, and therefore we are 

providing trend data on JPME research institutions from fiscal years 2007 

through 2013.5

 

4

Staffing data provided by JPME colleges and universities includes military and civilian 

personnel, noncontractor researchers, contractor researchers as well as noncontractor 

administrative staff positions.

Furthermore, although we have identified a number of 

factors that could affect data quality, we concluded that these were the 

best available data on JPME research institutions. We also concluded 

that the data would not lead to an incorrect or unintentional message 

since it is corroborated through interviews with cognizant officials at the 

National Defense University, Army War College, Army Command and 

General Staff College, Air University, Naval War College, and Marine 

Corps University. We also discussed the reasons for any trends in these 

budget and staffing data with knowledgeable officials in DOD and at the 

JPME colleges and universities. Specifically, we conducted interviews 

with officials from the Joint Staff; Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

5

Officials at JPME colleges and universities stated because federal records-retention 

policies generally require agencies to maintain data for 6 years and 3 months, they were 

unable to provide reliable data in many cases prior to fiscal year 2007. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

(Comptroller); National Defense University; Army War College; Army 

Command and General Staff College; Air University; Naval War College; 

and Marine Corps University.

For our second objective of determining the extent to which DOD is 

assessing the performance of JPME research institutions in meeting 

professional military education and other departmental goals and 

objectives, we obtained and reviewed documentation from the Joint Staff 

and the JPME colleges and universities that identify any goals, objectives, 

or performance measures for JPME research institutions. Specifically, we 

reviewed current strategic plans, mission statements, and other 

documentation describing activities of the JPME research institutions. We 

also reviewed documentation describing oversight mechanisms that 

monitor the academic quality of JPME colleges and universities. 

Specifically, we reviewed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 

(CJCSI) 1800.01D, Officer Professional Military Education Policy, which is 

the DOD policy that governs the Joint Staff’s Accreditation of Joint 

Education process.6 We also reviewed reports prepared by external 

regional accrediting bodies.7

 

6

Department of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Officer Professional Military 

Education Policy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 1800.01D 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2011). 

To further our understanding of any 

processes used to assess the performance of JPME research institutions, 

we used a standard set of questions to interview officials with the Joint 

Staff; Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force; National Defense 

University; Army War College; Army Command and General Staff 

College; Air University; Naval War College; and Marine Corps University. 

We then reviewed the results of the interviews and related documents to 

develop summary findings. In reviewing this documentation and 

testimonial evidence, we referred to our prior work on best practices that 

identifies elements that constitute a comprehensive oversight framework. 

7

The JPME colleges and universities, as Master’s Degree–granting institutions, are 

accredited by four regional accreditation bodies: the Middle States Commission on Higher 

Education (which accredits the National Defense University and Army War College); 

Higher Learning Commission (which accredits the Army Command and General Staff 

College); New England Association of Schools and Colleges (which accredits the Naval 

War College); and Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on 

Colleges (which accredits Air University and Marine Corps University). The accreditation 

process is intended to strengthen and sustain the quality and integrity of higher education, 

making it worthy of public confidence and minimizing the scope of external control. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Specifically, best practices8 state that such a framework should include 

measurable goals and objectives linked with metrics for assessing 

progress, which is consistent with the framework identified in the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), as amended by the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010.9 We also reviewed this evidence in 

light of key internal control standards, which state that federal agencies 

should conduct reviews by management at the functional or activity level 

and compare actual performance to planned or expected results.10

For our third objective of determining the extent to which DOD 

coordinates research requests for JPME research institutions and other 

DOD-funded research organizations, we included the 20 JPME research 

institutions discussed above and 14 other DOD-funded research 

organizations. To identify the other DOD-funded research institutions to 

include in the scope of our review, we gathered documentation from the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and 

canvassed knowledgeable DOD officials in offices responsible for 

requesting research, such as the military departments, science and 

technology executive agents, studies and analysis research program 

managers, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including the 

offices of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Based on this 

work, we determined that we would include the following 14 other DODfunded research organizations for the purposes of our review:

• DOD’s Regional Centers for Security Studies:11

• George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies,

 

8

See, for example, GAO, Building Partner Capacity: Actions Needed to Strengthen DOD 

Efforts to Assess the Performance of the Regional Centers for Security Studies, 

GAO-13-606 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2013) and State Partnership Program: 

Improved Oversight, Guidance, and Training Needed for National Guard’s Efforts with 

Foreign Partners, GAO-12-548 (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2012). 

9

Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993); Pub. L. No. 111-352 (2011). 

10GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

11We did not include the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies because it did not have 

any research projects in 2012 or 2013 that could be used in our analysis of research 

project titles as part of our effort, as discussed below, to identify similarities and 

differences between research organizations. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

• the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies,

• the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, and

• the Africa Center for Strategic Studies;

• service-affiliated research organizations:

• the Naval Postgraduate School Modeling, Virtual Environments and 

Simulation Institute,

• the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely 

Piloted Aircraft Studies,

• the Naval Postgraduate School’s Cebrowski Institute for Information 

and Innovation,

• the Army’s Center for Army Analysis, and

• U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center;

• Federally Funded Research and Development Centers that were 

identified as studies and analysis research centers:

• Center for Naval Analyses,

• RAND Arroyo,

• RAND Project Air Force,

• RAND National Defense Research Institute, and

• the Institute for Defense Analyses.

To further our understanding on the processes used to request studies 

and analysis research from JPME institutions and other DOD-funded 

research organizations, we reviewed documentation from and interviewed 

officials at the military services, Office of the Secretary of Defense, JPME 

research institutions and other DOD-funded research organizations. We 

also reviewed documentation and interviewed knowledgeable agency 

officials about DOD’s approach to coordinate research requests among 

DOD organizations. Specifically, we used a standard set of questions to 

interview officials with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the 

military services about the processes used to share information with other 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

offices that also request studies and analysis research. We then reviewed 

the results of the interviews and related documents to develop summary 

findings. We reviewed the documentary and testimonial evidence in light 

of key practices for enhancing and sustaining coordination as described 

in best practices. Specifically, best practices state that organizations 

involved in similar missions should coordinate and share information to 

avoid unnecessary duplication of work.12

• First, we assessed whether the JPME and DOD-funded research 

institutions were conducting science and technology–related research 

or studies and analysis–related research, using missions statements 

and other documentation provided by DOD to make this 

determination. We did not conduct further analysis on other DODfunded organizations that conduct science and technology research 

as that type of research represented a notable difference from the 

JPME research institutions that primarily conduct studies and analysis 

research.

Further, we assessed whether 

there were any similarities or dissimilarities among the missions of the 

JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded research 

organizations. We did this in four ways:

• Second, for all the JPME and DOD-funded research institutions 

conducting studies and analysis research, we reviewed mission 

statements and other mission-related information provided by DOD, 

and categorized the organization’s mission as falling primarily into 1 or 

more of 23 areas of concentration—for example, Asia studies or 

leadership and ethics studies. To create the 23 areas of concentration 

that were used to categorize mission statements and research project 

titles, we reviewed documentation from the JPME research institutions 

that identified general topic areas in which the institutions conducted 

research. We also reviewed documentation from Federally Funded 

Research and Development Centers that identified the core topic 

areas within which the Federally Funded Research and Development 

Centers were authorized to conduct work. The areas of concentration 

are identified as follows: Africa; Asia; Europe; Middle East; Western 

Hemisphere; civilian-military issues and irregular warfare; cyber; 

energy and environment; force structure and operational issues; 

 

12GAO, Interagency Collaboration: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight of National 

Security Strategies, Organizations, Workforce, and Information Sharing, GAO-09-904SP

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2009).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 49 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

historical; intelligence; leadership and ethics; legal; logistics; nuclear 

and weapons of mass destruction; other; personnel and training; 

public affairs and communication; resource management; strategy, 

policy, and doctrine; technology, acquisition, and systems; war 

gaming; and unable to code. We determined that these areas of 

concentration we selected were appropriate for comparing JPME 

research institutions and other DOD-funded research institutions 

because they explain the focus of each organization’s primary studies 

and analysis efforts. To complete the content analysis, two GAO 

analysts independently reviewed the mission statements and other 

mission-related information provided by DOD and coded them into 

one or more of the 23 areas of concentration. When the coding was 

completed, both analysts reviewed every code made by the other 

analyst and indicated whether they agreed or disagreed with the code. 

The analysts then met to discuss their coding determinations and to 

reach agreement where there were any discrepancies. The results of 

our analysis are not generalizable beyond the 20 JPME research 

institutions and 14 other DOD-funded research institutions included in 

the scope of our review.

• Third, for all the JPME and DOD-funded research institutions 

conducting studies and analysis research, we collected a list of 

research projects they conducted for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. To 

complete the content analysis, one GAO analyst independently 

reviewed each of the 2,217 research project titles and coded them 

into one or more of the 23 areas of concentration. When the coding 

was completed, two GAO analysts shared responsibility to review the 

coding made by the first analyst and indicated whether they agreed or 

disagreed with the code. The analysts then met to discuss their 

coding determinations and to reach agreement where there were any 

discrepancies. The results of our analysis are not generalizable 

beyond the 20 JPME research institutions and 14 other DOD-funded 

research institutions included in the scope of our review.

• Fourth, we reviewed documentation about the offices that request 

research from the JPME and other DOD-funded research institutions, 

along with testimonial evidence gathered during our interviews with 

DOD officials to provide context for any similarities or dissimilarities 

we identified through the mission statement and project title analysis.

To further our understanding of DOD’s processes for requesting research 

and of the similarities and differences among research organizations, we 

conducted interviews with officials from the Joint Staff; Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Office of the Under Secretary of 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 50 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Defense for Policy; Office of the Secretary of Defense, Studies and 

Federally Funded Research and Development Center Management 

Office; Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering; Army Study Program Management Office; Air Force 

Analyses, Assessments and Lessons Learned office; Office of the Chief 

of Naval Operations; Marine Corps Analysis Directorate; National 

Defense University; Army War College; Army Command and General 

Staff College; Air University; Naval War College; and Marine Corps 

University.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 through March

2014 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.
Appendix II: Joint Professional Military 

Education Research Institutions

Page 51 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

This appendix contains more-detailed information for each of the 20 joint 

professional military education (JPME) research institutions included in 

the scope of our review. For each research institution, we provide a onepage summary that includes information on the following elements:

• Location: the institution’s associated JPME college or university and 

geographical location.

• Background: the date that the institution was established and 

information on its establishment, as well as any relevant information 

such as changes in the research institution’s name.

• Mission: the institution’s mission, either self-reported or as derived 

from relevant documentation.

• Customers: a list of entities, as reported by the research institutions 

and other documents that represent the principal requesters and 

users of the research institutions’ research products.

• Nature of research and publications: a summary description of the 

types of research and studies conducted by the research institution, 

as well as the names of publications produced by the institution, if 

any.

• Total funding:1

 

1

We assessed the reliability of the funding and staffing data collected by analyzing 

questionnaire responses from JPME colleges and universities, which included information 

on their data-system management, data quality-assurance processes, and potential 

sources of errors and mitigations of those errors. Based on our review of the data 

provided and our review of the questionnaire responses, we concluded that the systems 

used to provide the data, and thus the data they provide, are sufficiently reliable for our 

audit purposes. Furthermore, although we have identified a number of factors that could 

affect data quality, we concluded that these were the best available data on JPME 

research institutions.

the institution’s total funding, depicted in thousands of 

dollars, for fiscal years 2004 to 2013, as available. Total funding is 

subdivided into two categories—direct funding and reimbursable 

funding. Direct funding includes federal appropriations made available 

for JPME colleges or universities. Reimbursable funding refers to 

amounts earned or collected from outside offices for research 

services furnished by the institution.

Appendix II: Joint Professional Military 

Education Research Institutions
Appendix II: Joint Professional Military 

Education Research Institutions

Page 52 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

• Total staffing: the institution’s total number of personnel, expressed as 

full-time equivalents2

 

2

DOD reported staffing-level data in full-time equivalents, which are calculated as the total 

hours worked in jobs retained divided by the number of hours in a full-time schedule, and 

include noncontractor researchers, contractor researchers, and noncontractor 

administrative staff positions.

for fiscal years 2004 through 2013, as available. 

Full-time equivalents are calculated as the total hours worked divided 

by the number of compensable hours in a full-time schedule.
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 53 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: Air University, 

Montgomery, AL

Background: Established in 2008 by 

a Special Order from Headquarters 

Air Force, the Air Force Research 

Institute’s research roots extend back 

to the Airpower Research Institute of 

the late 1970s and even the 1930s in 

the Air Corps Tactical School. The 

organizational functions were 

previously embedded in the Air War 

College and later the College of 

Aerospace Doctrine, Research and 

Education.

Mission: To conduct research, 

outreach, and engagement to 

enhance national security and assure 

the effectiveness of the United States 

Air Force.

Examples of Customers

• Secretary of the Air Force 

• Air Education and Training 

Command

• Air University officials

• Combatant commands

• Chief of Staff of the Air Force

• National security community

Air Force Research Institute 

Nature of Research and Publications

The Air Force Research Institute augments Air University’s and the Air Force’s 

research capacity and supports airpower research inquiries from the Chief of Staff 

of the Air Force, as well as other decision makers throughout DOD. The institute 

conducts research on topics related to air, space, and cyberspace opportunities, 

threats, and capabilities; evaluation of operational and strategic issues; conducts 

regional strategic assessments; estimates long-term strategic and technical 

capabilities; analyses of logistical constraints and basing issues, among other

issues. The institute also serves as the focal point and provides support for Air 

University’s “Call for Topics,” which makes potential research topics of interest to 

Air Force leaders available to student researchers. The institute also operates the 

Air University Press, and publishes the Department of the Air Force’s Air and 

Space Power Journal, and the Strategic Studies Quarterly. 

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 54 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: Air University, 

Montgomery, AL

Background: The Center for 

Strategy and Technology was 

established at the Air University in 

1996.

Mission: To engage in long-term 

strategic thinking about the 

implications of technological change 

and its implications for U.S. national 

security. The Center for Strategy and 

Technology focuses on education, 

research, and publications that 

support the integration of technology 

into national strategy and policy. 

Examples of Customers

• Educational institutions

• Senior military and political 

officials

• Think tanks 

Air Force Center for Strategy and Technology 

Nature of Research and Publications

The Center for Strategy and Technology promotes the integration of technology 

and strategy in support of Air Force and U.S. national security objectives.

The center conducts research on topics such as future concepts and technologies

and critical areas of emerging technologies such as directed energy, 

biotechnology, nanotechnology, and cyber technologies, among others. The 

center also manages a series of long-range studies, called Blue Horizons study, 

looking 20 to 30 years into the future to provide a vision to prepare the Air Force 

for future challenges. Research conducted under the auspices of the center is 

briefed to the Air Staff, published as occasional papers and disseminated to senior 

military and political officials, think tanks, educational institutions, and other 

interested parties.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 55 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: Air University, 

Montgomery, AL

Background: Established in 1998 at 

the direction of the Chief of Staff of 

the Air Force by a memorandum of 

agreement between the Air War 

College Commandant and the Air 

Staff Director for Nuclear and 

Counterproliferation. 

Mission: To develop Air Force, 

Department of Defense, and other 

U.S. Government leaders who 

advance the state of knowledge, 

policy, and practices within strategic 

defense issues involving nuclear, 

biological, and chemical weapons. 

Examples of Customers

• Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency

• National Nuclear Security 

Administration

• Headquarters Department of 

the Air Force

• Air Force major commands

• U.S. Strategic Command

• Center for the Study of 

Weapons of Mass 

Destruction

Air Force Counterproliferation Center

Nature of Research and Publications

The center provides research articles, papers, and monographs addressing issues 

pertinent to U.S. military-response options for dealing with nuclear, biological, 

and chemical threats and attacks. Research topics include military and diplomatic 

policy and concepts related to weapons of mass destruction; international 

nonproliferation diplomacy; nonproliferation and arms control treaty regimes; 

counterterrorist activities; and nuclear deterrence of conflicts. The center 

develops a strategic-issues list that provides potential research topics to student 

and faculty researchers. Additionally, it conducts outreach on issues related to 

counterproliferation and nuclear operations through its publication of 

Counterproliferation Center Outreach Journal, and the Trinity Site Papers 

series, and through an annual conference on countering weapons of mass 

destruction. 

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 56 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: Army Command and

General Staff College, Leavenworth, 

KS

Background: The Center for Army 

Leadership was established in 2001 in 

response to a study chartered by the 

Chief of Staff of the Army to identify 

the characteristics and skills required 

for Army leaders in light of changes 

to the operational environment.

Mission: To conduct leadership and 

leader development research, studies, 

analysis, assessment and 

evaluation; to provide the Army 

leadership and leader development 

doctrine products and services; to 

develop and maintain the Army 

Leader; to manage the Army Leader 

Development Program. 

Examples of Customers

• Joint Staff

• Combatant commands

• Military services

• Army commands

• Other Department of Defense 

Organizations

Center for Army Leadership

Nature of Research and Publications

The Center for Army Leadership conducts research and studies to identify leader 

development trends and requirements, and to develop and promote leadership 

and leader development practices and techniques for the Army. Further, the 

Center accomplishes these outcomes by contributing to Army doctrine and policy 

by informing leadership on best practices for developing leader competencies, 

and by producing the Annual Survey of Army Leadership, which is a surveybased study that assesses Army-leader attitudes regarding leader education, 

including the quality of leadership, and the contribution of leadership to 

accomplishing the Army’s overall mission. 

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation. Army Command and

General Staff College officials were unable to provide reliable data prior to fiscal year 2007.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing

Note: Army Command and General Staff College officials were unable to provide reliable data prior to 

fiscal year 2007.
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 57 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: Army Command and

General Staff College, Leavenworth, 

KS

Background: The Combat Studies 

Institute was established in 1979 to 

provide a range of military historical 

and educational support to the 

Combined Arms Center, Training and 

Doctrine Command, and the United 

States Army.

Mission: To provide military 

historical and educational support to 

the Combined Arms Center, Training 

and Doctrine Command, and the 

United States Army.

Examples of Customers

• Army Leadership

• Army Training and Doctrine 

Command

Combat Studies Institute 

Nature of Research and Publications

The Combat Studies Institute researches, writes, and publishes, through the 

Combat Studies Institute Press, original interpretive works on doctrinal and 

operational issues of relevance to the U.S. Army and policymakers. The center 

also implements U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command’s program of military 

history instruction throughout the Army, conducts an oral history research 

program that targets Command and General Staff College students and faculty, as 

well as visitors of the Combined Arms Center, focusing on compiling their past 

operational experiences, and provides oversight responsibilities for the Combined 

Arms Center Command History program, the Staff Ride team—which offers live 

and virtual battlefield tours—and the Frontier Army Museum.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation. Army Command and

General Staff College officials were unable to provide reliable data prior to fiscal year 2007.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing

Note: Army Command and General Staff College officials were unable to provide reliable data prior to 

fiscal year 2007.
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 58 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: Army War College, Carlisle 

Barracks, PA

Background: Established in 1954 by 

the Commandant of the Army War 

College to create an advanced study 

group to undertake a program of 

long-range thinking on strategy and 

land power. 

Mission: To conduct and 

disseminate independent strategic 

analysis that develops 

recommendations for addressing key 

national security issues.

Examples of Customers

• Office of the Secretary of 

Defense

• Joint Staff 

• Combatant commands

• Military services

• U.S. Army Headquarters

• Army commands

Strategic Studies Institute 

Nature of Research and Publications

The Strategic Studies Institute conducts research on topics such as the future of 

American strategy; geostrategic analyses; strategic landpower; Army forward 

presence in the Pacific; cyber security; energy security; Army’s role in missile 

defense; effects of war on leadership; and Army profession and public trust. The 

institute also compiles a Key Strategic Issues List based on input from the U.S. 

Army War College faculty, the Army Staff, the Joint Staff, the unified and specified 

commands, and other Army organizations. This is designed to guide the research 

of the Strategic Studies Institute, the U.S. Army War College, and other Armyrelated strategic analysts.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 59 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: Marine Corps University, 

Quantico, VA 

Background: The Translational 

Research Group was established in 

2010 by the Director of the Center for 

Advanced Operational Culture and 

Learning at the Marine Corps 

University and by the Executive 

Deputy of the Marine Corps Training 

and Education Command.

Mission: To identify practical 

applications for social and behavioral 

scientific research that will help 

address pressing challenges facing 

the Marine Corps.

Examples of Customers

• Marine Corps leadership

• Marine Corps combat 

personnel

Translational Research Group

Nature of Research and Publications

The Translational Research Group at the Center for Advanced Operational 

Culture Learning aims to link the findings of scientists with the needs of Marine 

Corps soldiers and leadership by helping the two sides understand each other’s 

needs and capabilities.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 60 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: Marine Corps University, 

Quantico, VA 

Background: Established in 1919 by 

Marine Corps Headquarters to 

record, preserve, and distribute the 

Corps’ history, the History Division 

was transferred in 2005 to Marine 

Corps University. 

Mission: To write, document and 

track the history of the Marine Corps 

across the entire spectrum of time; to 

collect documents and accounts of 

permanent value to the history of the 

Marine Corps and preserve them for 

future use; and distribute the history 

of the Corps through publications, 

papers and other programs, in order 

to preserve history, aid combat and 

noncombat decision making, support 

Professional Military Education, 

motivate Marines, and inform the 

American public.

Examples of Customers

• Joint Staff

• Marine Corps personnel

• White House

• U.S. citizens

• Members of Congress

History Division

Nature of Research and Publications

The History Division’s primary task is to research and write the Marine Corps’ 

official history. The division provides assistance through their reference branch 

and deploying field historians to record history in the making during operations. 

The History Division and also conducts research through an oral history program, 

in which it obtains, catalogs, transcribes, and preserves personal narrative 

experiences and observations of historic value from active-duty and retired 

Marines for use as reference source material. The division prepares a wide variety 

of official publications that tell the Marine Corps story. Publications include 

articles, monographs, occasional papers, and definitive histories. It also creates 

material for and publishes Fortitudine, an online bulletin of the Marine Corps 

history program.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 61 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: Marine Corps University, 

Quantico, VA 

Background: Established in 2007 at 

the request of the Commanding 

General of the Marine Corps Combat 

Development Command. The Marine 

Corps University Education 

Command Order issued in 2011 

included the Middle East Studies 

Center as one of the university’s staff 

offices.

Mission: To serve as the Marine 

Corps’ center of expertise on the 

Middle East, and, more broadly, 

Pakistan and Afghanistan, in order to 

deepen the Marine Corps’ 

understanding of this critical region 

and to link the Marine Corps to the 

broader academic, 

intergovernmental, and international 

Middle East studies community.

Examples of Customers

• Marine Corps command 

elements

• Marine Corps leadership

• Military services

• Federal agencies

Middle East Studies 

Nature of Research and Publications

In an effort to improve the Marine Corps’ understanding of the complex security 

environment of the Middle East, the center began three forms of publications. The 

Middle East Studies Occasional Paper Series, with the first issue published in 

June 2011, aims to disseminate original, peer-reviewed research papers on a wide 

variety of subjects pertaining to the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The 

MES Monograph Series, with the first issue published in August 2011, focuses on 

subjects of strategic relevance to the current and future U.S. professional military 

education community and is meant to be published quickly to address fastdeveloping situations. Finally, the Middle East Studies institute publishes 

Insights, which is produced bimonthly as the newsletter of the center. It features 

short analytical pieces as well as information on events organized by the center 

and provides a forum for debate with readers.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 62 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: National Defense 

University, Washington, DC 

Background: The U.S. Congress 

authorized the creation of a Center 

for Complex Operations in the 

National Defense Authorization Act 

for fiscal year 2009. The center was 

initially established in 2008 in the 

Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Policy, and moved in 

early 2009 to the National Defense 

University in accordance with a 

memorandum of agreement between

the National Defense University and 

the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Policy, dated January 30, 

2009, subsequently amended.

Mission: To foster unity of effort 

among Department of Defense and 

interagency personnel in complex 

operations; to collect and analyze 

lessons from military and civilian 

personnel; and to incorporate those 

lessons into policy, doctrine, 

education, training, and exercises. 

Examples of Customers

• Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Policy

• Joint Staff

• Combatant Commands

• U.S. Department of State 

• U.S. Agency for International 

Development

Center for Complex Operations

Nature of Research and Publications

The center collects and analyzes interagency lessons from the field on overseas 

contingency operations, including stabilization, irregular warfare, and security 

assistance, and integrates them into joint military doctrine on such topics as 

counterinsurgency, stability operations, security cooperation, and interagency 

coordination; as well as into education, policy, training, and joint 

military/interagency exercises. The center also analyzes interagency aspects of 

overseas operations on behalf of Department of Defense, the Intelligence 

Community, and several federal agencies. The center’s principal journal, PRISM, 

serves to inform members of U.S. federal agencies, allies, and other partners on 

complex and integrated national security operations; reconstruction and nationbuilding; relevant policy and strategy; lessons learned; and developments in 

training and education. The center also produces publications on issues of 

importance to interagency stakeholders and JPME, such as its recent book 

Convergence: Illicit Networks in the Age of Globalization. 

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing

Note: National Defense University officials were unable to provide reliable staffing level data for the 

Center for Complex Operations prior to fiscal year 2010. According to the National Defense 

University officials, prior year staffing level data for the center were captured in summary-levelLQIRUPDWLRQ

SURYLGHGWRXVIRUWKH,QVWLWXWHIRU1DWLRQDO6HFXULW\6WXGLHVZKLFKLVWKHSDUHQWRUJDQL]DWLRQIRUWKH

1DWLRQDO'HIHQVH8QLYHUVLW\¶VUHVHDUFKLQVWLWXWLRQV
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 63 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: National Defense 

University, Washington, DC

Background: Established in 2009 at 

the direction of the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy as a subelement of the 

Institute for National Strategic 

Studies. The center was defunded for 

fiscal year 2014, but in September 

2013, the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy 

provided funding to keep the center 

open. Section 1071 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 provided statutory 

authorization for the center.

Mission: To facilitate research using 

records captured during combat 

operations from countries, 

organizations, and individuals now or 

once hostile to the United States.

Examples of Customers

• Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Policy

• Joint Staff

• Combatant commands

• Federal agencies 

Conflict Records Research Center

Nature of Research and Publications

To fulfill its mission, the Conflict Records Research Center was charged with 

organizing, encouraging, and facilitating greater analytic and academic access to 

digitized copies of captured documents; coordinating the translation of captured 

documents of interest; conducting sponsored research and analysis on captured 

documents; developing and delivering training programs and providing research 

assistance; informing researchers of the collections in its custody; and publishing 

research in books, reports, journal articles, conference papers, newsletters, or 

other media. 

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 64 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: National Defense 

University, Washington, DC

Background: Established in 1984 by 

the Secretary of Defense as the 

Research Directorate of National 

Defense University’s Institute for 

National Security Studies, the center 

was originally charged to provide 

independent advice to Secretary of 

Defense, the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, and the combatant 

commands for the formulation of 

national security policy and strategy. 

The center was renamed in 2010 

during the university’s research 

reorganization.

Mission: To provide educational 

support to joint professional military 

education and advice to the Secretary 

of Defense, Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, and the combatant 

commands through studies, reports, 

briefings, and memorandums; 

conducts directed research and 

analysis in the areas of strategic 

studies and regional studies; and 

engages in independent and leadingedge research and analysis in related 

areas.

Examples of Customers

• Office of the Secretary of 

Defense

• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff

• Combatant commands

• Federal agencies

• Military services

Center for Strategic Research

Nature of Research and Publications

The Center for Strategic Research performs research and educational activities in 

support of joint professional military education and explores strategic and 

regional topics to offer advice and strategic support to the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Joint Staff, and other senior DOD officials. 

The center also conducts outreach to share its research with policymakers 

through studies, reports, briefings, and memorandums. Strategic studies 

encompass national security and military strategy, to include defense policy and 

organization, deterrence, arms control and counter proliferation, peace operations 

and small-scale contingencies, transnational security problems, command and 

control, and future warfare. Regional studies encompass national security 

strategy, defense policy, defense cooperation, and military strategy issues as they 

relate to significant countries or geographic areas of the world such as Asia and 

the Middle East. The center’s publication product line includes books, Occasional 

Papers, Strategic Perspectives, Strategic Forum (policy papers), conference 

papers, and journal articles.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 65 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: National Defense 

University, Washington, DC

Background: Established in 2000 as 

a part of National Defense 

University’s Institute for National 

Strategic Studies, pursuant to the 

National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2000. 

 

Mission: To serve as a national focal 

point and resource center for 

multidisciplinary research and 

analytic exchanges on the national 

goals and strategic posture of the 

People’s Republic of China and the 

ability of that nation to develop, field, 

and deploy an effective military 

instrument in support of its national 

strategic objectives.

Examples of Customers

• Office of the Secretary of 

Defense

• Joint Staff

• Military services

• U.S. Pacific Command

• Federal agencies

Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs

Nature of Research and Publications

The center’s research focuses on documenting China’s expanding international 

interests, understanding China’s development and employment of new economic, 

military, and diplomatic capabilities, and analyzing Chinese debates about how 

these capabilities should be employed to advance national goals. It also explores 

the implications of these developments for U.S.-China relations and for the U.S. 

role in Asia. The center also conducts outreach to share its research with 

policymakers and informs the public debate through books, articles, 

memorandums, briefings and conferences. For example, the center cosponsors an 

annual conference on the People’s Liberation Army with the Council for Advanced 

Policy Studies (a Taiwanese think tank), and RAND, a nonprofit institution that 

conducts research and analysis. The center’s publication product line includes 

books, Occasional Papers, Strategic Perspectives, Strategic Forum (policy 

papers), conference papers, and journal articles.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 66 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: National Defense 

University, Washington, DC

Background: Established in 1994 as 

the Center for Counterproliferation

Research, pursuant to memoranda of 

understanding among the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Nuclear 

Security and Counterproliferation, 

the Director of Strategic Plans and 

Policy, the Joint Staff, and the 

President, National Defense 

University. The center was renamed 

the Center for the Study of Weapons 

of Mass Destruction in 2004.

Mission: To prepare the joint 

warfighter and select others to 

address the challenges posed by 

weapons of mass destruction through 

education and professional 

development, scholarship, and 

outreach and collaboration activities 

across the full spectrum of issues 

related to weapons of mass 

destruction and to become one of the 

preeminent institutions in the United 

States for weapons of mass 

destruction expertise.

Examples of Customers

• Office of the Secretary of 

Defense 

• Joint Staff

• Combatant commands 

• Intelligence community

• Federal agencies

Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass 

Destruction 

Nature of Research and Publications

The Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction performs research on 

the full spectrum of issues related to weapons of mass destruction, engages in 

educational activities, and collaborates with partners across the government. The 

center conducts directed and self-initiated research of the following types: (1) 

operational and policy support; (2) traditional academic research; and (3) 

research undertaken to support the joint professional military education program 

at the National Defense University. Research topics related to studies in weapons 

of mass destruction include deterrence; counterproliferation operations; and 

policy and doctrinal development regarding weapons of mass destruction. The 

center also conducts outreach to share its research through papers, and planning 

and participating in various venues, including conferences and dialogues with 

participants from U.S. and foreign partner entities. For example, the center 

organizes the annual meeting of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Education 

Consortium. 

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 68 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center 

Location: National Defense 

University, Washington, DC

Background: The Center for 

Technology and National Security 

Policy was created by the President 

of the National Defense University in 

2001 to address technology and 

policy gaps which affect national 

security policy and decision making.

Mission: To research national 

security and defense policies in the 

context of transformational changes 

in emerging technology, advanced 

concepts, organizational structures, 

and international trends to develop 

and implement actionable 

recommendations, to publish and 

distribute findings, and to introduce 

research results in the joint 

professional military education class 

room.

Examples of Customers 

• Office of the Secretary of 

Defense 

• Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy 

• Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisitions, Technology, and 

Logistics 

• Joint Staff 

• Military services 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

Nature of Research and Publications 

The Center for Technology and National Security Policy conducts research on a 

reimbursable basis by means of memorandums of understanding with sponsoring 

organizations on science and technology (chemical/biological defense, human 

hardiness research, counter–improvised explosive devices, policing, and 

counterinsurgency); civilian-military integration (transformative innovation for 

development and emergency support, social media in strategic communication); 

emerging challenges (anticipatory governance concerning cyber security; climate 

change; vulnerability to severe space weather); and advanced education 

initiatives. The center’s publication product line includes books, Defense 

Technology Papers, Defense Horizons (policy papers), conference papers, and 

journal articles. 

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding 

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing 
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 68 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: National Defense 

University, Washington, DC

Background: The Center for 

Transatlantic Security Studies was 

formed in 2010 to support the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy in 

North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization/European–related 

policy development. The center 

incorporated the NATO Orientation 

Program that had provided training to 

NATO assigned officers since at least 

1990 as was mandated by the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

As of October 2012, both the center 

and the NATO Orientation Program 

were dissolved. 

Mission: To be the focal point for 

national and international 

collaboration on issues related to 

transatlantic security, defense policy, 

and military strategy through 

research, education, and outreach. 

Develops and conducts education 

and orientation programs for U.S. and 

allied military officers, government 

civilians, and international partners 

on issues relating to NATO and 

transatlantic security community.

Examples of Customers

• Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy

• Joint Staff

• U.S. European Command

• North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization

• Allied Command Transformation

Center for Transatlantic Security Studies 

Nature of Research and Publications

The Center for Transatlantic Studies provided senior Department of Defense and 

other U.S. government leaders with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) and Transatlantic policy advice, research, and outreach, notably in the 

run-up to the 2012 NATO Summit and beyond. Specifically, the center conducted

research on capabilities studies, evaluating transatlantic bargain and dialogue, 

and, NATO–Russia relations, and NATO’s countering hybrid threats. It also 

published Transatlantic Currents, CTSS Flash notes, and Transatlantic 

Perspectives. 

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 69 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: Naval War College, 

Newport, RI

Background: The China Maritime 

Studies Institute was established as a 

subcomponent of the Strategic 

Research Department on October 1, 

2006, in accordance with a Program 

Objective Memorandum by the Chief 

of Naval Operations. 

Mission: To increase knowledge and 

understanding of the maritime 

dimensions of China’s rise; evaluate 

the open-source maritime literature 

in China; provide analyses for the 

Navy, and maintain collegial 

relationships with Chinese national 

security scholars

Examples of Customers

• U.S. Navy leadership

• Military leaders 

• Intelligence community

• Federal agencies

China Maritime Studies Institute 

Nature of Research and Publications

The China Maritime Studies Institute1has four primary areas of activity: (1) broad, 

multidisciplinary research on China’s maritime activity as it relates to its strategic 

orientation; (2) annual conferences and speaker series; (3) publications, ranging 

from short assessments and think pieces to monographs and books; and (4) 

support for U.S. Navy and joint commands. The center conducts research in areas 

related to China’s maritime development, including energy, global commerce, law 

of the sea, maritime technologies, merchant marine, naval development, naval 

diplomacy, and shipbuilding.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation. Naval War College officials 

were unable to provide reliable data prior to fiscal year 2007.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing



Note: Naval War College officials were unable to provide reliable data prior to fiscal year 2007. 

1

Although the China Maritime Studies Institute was established as a subcomponent of the Strategic 

Research Department, it receives dedicated funding on an annual basis for its research activities, 

including to fund its own researchers. As a result, we have categorized the China Maritime Studies 

Institute as a separate joint professional military education research institution for the purposes of this 

report. However, because the center is a subcomponent of the Strategic Research Department, 

Naval War College officials stated that it shares budgetary, personnel, and administrative functions 

with the Strategic Research Department.
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 70 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: Naval War College, 

Newport, RI

Background: The International Law 

Department was founded in 1984 and 

opened its doors in 1986. 

Mission: To conduct and 

disseminate advanced international 

law research and analysis.

Examples of Customers

• U.S. Navy leadership

• Federal agencies

• Military leadership 

• Naval War College

International Law Department

Nature of Research and Publications

 

The International Law Department serves as the Naval War College’s focal point 

for the study of international and maritime law and oceans policy as they affect 

U.S. military policy, strategy and operations. As part of its research efforts, the 

department compiles, edits, and publishes the International Law Studies Series

that provides a forum for prominent legal scholars to publish articles that 

contribute to the broader understanding of international law. Recently, in 

response to discussion with the Joint Staff, the department initiated an 

Information Paper Series. These are short papers that break down legal issues for 

further consideration by senior military leaders. Furthermore, in addition to the 

Information Paper Series and International Law Studies, the individual staffers 

of the department engage in independent research and writing. In addition to legal 

research and scholarly writing, Naval War College officials state that staff 

members actively support the Naval War College’s core intermediate and seniorlevel Navy PME courses as professors, lecturers, and moderators, while hosting 

several operational-law electives throughout the academic year.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation. Naval War College officials 

were unable to provide reliable data prior to fiscal year 2007.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing

Note: Naval War College officials were unable to provide reliable data prior to fiscal year 2007.
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 71 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

.

About the Center

Location: Naval War College, 

Newport, RI

Background: Formally established in 

1987 by the Dean of the Center for 

Naval Warfare Studies, and in 

consultation with the Chief of Naval 

Operations. However, the Strategic 

Research Department dates back to 

the origins of the Center for Naval 

Warfare Studies in 1981. 

Mission: To produce innovative 

strategic research and analysis for 

the U.S. Navy, Department of 

Defense, and the broader national 

security community.

Examples of Customers

• Secretary of the Navy

• Chief of Naval Operations

• U.S. Marine Corps leadership

• Combatant commands

• Federal agencies

Strategic Research Department 

Nature of Research and Publications

The Strategic Research Department’s research projects, including those of the 

China Maritime Studies Institutes, fall into three broad categories: (1) projects 

assigned by the Navy or another U.S. national security organization; (2) sustained 

projects that do not depend on year-to-year tasking but rather constitute 

multiyear, multideliverable, multiclient investments serving long-term U.S. 

national security and Navy interests (these projects focus on strategic regions 

such as Eurasia, Africa, the greater Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region, as 

well as on functional topics such as maritime strategy, cyber conflict, and seabased ballistic missile defense); (3) self-sponsored projects conducted in 

consultation with the leadership of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies (these

projects have no specific tasking or set of clients, rather, they address emerging 

issues that officials believe will garner substantial national or naval attention in 

the foreseeable future). 

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation. Naval War College officials 

were unable to provide reliable data prior to fiscal year 2007.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing

Note: Naval War College officials were unable to provide reliable data prior to fiscal year 2007.
 - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions - 

Page 72 GAO-14-216 JPME Research 

About the Center

Location: Naval War College, 

Newport, RI

Background: The Strategic Studies 

Group was established by the Chief 

of Naval Operations in 1981. The 

Strategic Studies Group is only 

tasked by and reports directly to the 

Chief of Naval Operations. 

Mission: To generate revolutionary 

naval warfare concepts for the future

Examples of Customers

• Chief of Naval Operations

Strategic Studies Group

Nature of Research and Publications

Each year, the Chief of Naval Operations selects a broad governing theme for the 

Strategic Studies Group’s research. The 2013 topic is Undersea Dominance out to 

2030. The Strategic Studies Group is responsible for keeping the Chief of Naval 

Operations informed of progress throughout the year and produces a summary 

briefing and written report of actionable concepts with recommendations that can 

be executed by the Chief of Naval Operations in the near term. The products, 

while encompassing long-term views, are designed to help inform the Chief of 

Naval Operations on near- and mid-term program decisions. 

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding

Note: The reported funding is in nominal dollars, unadjusted for inflation. Naval War College officials 

were unable to provide reliable data prior to fiscal year 2007.

Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Staffing

Note: Naval War College officials were unable to provide reliable data prior to fiscal year 2007.
Page 73 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

This appendix contains the results of our research project title analysis. 

We reviewed 2,217 research project titles from 20 joint professional 

military education research institutions and 14 other DOD-funded 

research organizations. These titles are associated with projects 

conducted in 2012 and 2013. Based on a project’s title, we coded it into 

one or more areas of concentration. The table below presents the number 

of research project titles coded into these 23 areas of concentration. The 

results do not add to 2,217 because some research project titles could be 

coded into more than one area of concentration and two areas of 

concentration are not included in the final results.3

 3

The results do not include the following two areas of concentration: (1) Other; and (2) 

Unable to Code. “Other” and “Unable to Code” were not included because these are not 

areas of concentration intended to show similarity. Rather, “Other” is intended for project 

titles that do not fit into the other areas of concentration, and “Unable to Code” is used for 

methodological purposes to categorize incomplete information. 

 For example, a 

research project title on North Korea’s nuclear future would be coded into 

both the “Asia” and “nuclear and weapons of mass destruction” topic 

areas. 

Appendix III: Research Project Title Analysis
Appendix III: Research Project Title Analysis

Page 74 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Figure 7: Similarities in Research Topic Areas for 34 Research Organizations, According to 2012 and 2013 Research Project 

Titles

a

Note: See abbreviations list on page iii. 

Army Command and General Staff College. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 75 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 76 GAO-14-216 JPME Research Institutions

Johana Ayers, (202) 512-5741 or ayersj@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Matthew Ullengren, Assistant 

Director; Erin Behrmann; Richard Burkard; Gabrielle A. Carrington; 

Alberto Leff; Marcus Lloyd Oliver; Michael Silver; and Cheryl Weissman 

made key contributions to this report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(351808)
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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 website, 

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.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.