United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

HUMAN CAPITAL

Corps of Engineers 

Needs to Update Its 

Workforce Planning 

Process to More 

Effectively Address Its 

Current and Future 

Workforce Needs 

May 2008 

 

GAO-08-596 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

May 2008

HUMAN CAPITAL

Corps of Engineers Needs to Update Its Workforce 

Planning Process to More Effectively Address Its

Highlights of GAO-08-596, a report to Current and Future Workforce Needs

congressional requesters 

With a workforce of about 35,000, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(the Corps) provides engineering

services for civil works and

military programs in the United

States and overseas. Recently, the

Corps’ focus has shifted to also 

support contingency operations,

such as responding to natural 

disasters. To meet its mission and 

emerging priorities, the Corps must

have effective human capital 

planning processes to ensure that it 

can maintain its workforce. In this 

context, GAO was asked to

examine the (1) extent to which the 

Corps has aligned its human capital 

plan with its strategic plan, (2) 

extent to which the Corps has the 

information necessary to identify 

and meet current and future

workforce needs, and (3)

challenges the Corps faces in

meeting its workforce needs. To 

address these issues, GAO 

reviewed agency human capital and 

strategic planning documents,

conducted structured interviews

with eight Corps divisions and a 

purposeful sample of 14 of its 

districts, and interviewed other 

Corps officials. 

What GAO Recommends

To help the Corps better manage its 

workforce planning efforts, GAO 

recommends that it (1) draft a 

human capital plan that is directly

linked to its strategic plan and (2) 

develop and implement a process 

for evaluating the effectiveness of

its human capital tools. In 

commenting on a draft of the 

report, the Department of Defense

generally agreed with our

recommendations. 

The Corps’ strategic human capital plan is outdated; is not aligned with the 

agency’s most recent strategic plan, which was developed in 2005; and is

inconsistently used across the agency. Specifically, the human capital plan has 

not been revised since it was developed in 2002, and it is therefore not aligned 

with the Corps’ current strategic plan. Headquarters officials told GAO they 

“abandoned” the use of the plan and replaced it with the human capital 

updates required under a presidential initiative. While these updates list the 

Corps’ human capital activities and milestones for completing them, they do 

not contain key components of an effective human capital plan, such as goals, 

strategies, and a system for measuring performance. Moreover, the outdated 

human capital plan is being used inconsistently across the agency. Some 

divisions and districts are still using the 2002 plan to guide their human capital

efforts, while others are relying on guidance from headquarters or the Office 

of Personnel Management or developing their own guidance. Without a 

current, consistently implemented human capital plan that is aligned with its 

strategic plan, the Corps’ ability to effectively manage its workforce is limited. 

The Corps lacks the necessary agencywide information on critical skills to 

identify and assess current and future workforce needs and therefore cannot 

effectively perform its workforce planning activities. Effective workforce 

planning depends on consistent agencywide data on the critical skills needed 

to achieve the agency’s mission. However, the Corps does not have a process 

for collecting consistent agencywide data, and headquarters has not provided 

guidance to the divisions and districts on how to gather this information 

systematically. Without guidance, some divisions and districts have collected

this information independently, using varying methods, leaving the Corps with 

inconsistent and incomplete data with which to assess the agency’s overall 

workforce needs. As a result, the Corps’ ability to determine effective 

approaches to recruiting, developing, and retaining personnel is limited. 

Realizing the need for consistent information on critical skills, the Corps 

recently began an effort to systematically collect these data. However, it is

too early to assess the Corps’ progress on this effort. 

The Corps faces several challenges to its workforce planning efforts, such as 

competition from the private sector and others to hire qualified staff. To 

address these challenges, the Corps uses human capital tools such as 

recruitment and retention incentives. However, the Corps’ use of some tools 

has sharply decreased recently. For example, in fiscal year 2002 the Corps 

awarded $750,000 in recruitment bonuses, but in 2006 this dropped to $24,000. 

One official told GAO he has had to hire less qualified staff because he has 

been unable to offer sufficient incentives. Moreover, the Corps lacks a

process for assessing the effectiveness of the tools it uses. Consequently, the

Corps can neither determine the overall costs and benefits of using these tools 

nor decide whether additional methods are needed to recruit, develop, and 

retain its current and future workforce. To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-596. 

For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at 

(202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 7

The Corps Lacks a Current Human Capital Plan to Guide Its 

Workforce Planning Efforts 10 

The Corps Lacks the Necessary Agencywide Data on Critical Skills 

to Identify and Assess Its Workforce Needs 12 

The Corps Faces Several Challenges in Carrying Out Its Workforce 

Planning Efforts 14 

Conclusions 20

Recommendations for Executive Action 20 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 21 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 23 

Appendix II Comments from the U.S. Corps of Engineers 26 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 31 

Related GAO Reports 32 

Tables 

Table 1: Examples of Human Capital Flexibilities Available to the 

Corps 18 

Table 2: The Corps’ Use of Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention 

Incentives, by Domestic Divisions and Districts, Fiscal 

Years 2002 through 2006 19 

Figures 

Figure 1: The Corps’ Civil Work Program’s Division and District 

Boundaries 8

Page i GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Abbreviations 

DOD Department of Defense 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

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 ii GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

May 7, 2008

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 

Chairman 

The Honorable George V. Voinovich

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

 the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 

Chairman 

The Honorable George V. Voinovich

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

 the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Finance 

United States Senate 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) within the Department of 

Defense (DOD) is the world’s largest public engineering, design, and 

construction management agency. The Corps’ mission is to provide vital 

engineering services and capabilities to support a wide range of federal 

civil works and military programs throughout the United States and to 

support U.S. efforts overseas.1

 The civil works program includes activities 

related to, among other things, flood damage reduction, environmental 

stewardship, and ecosystem restoration, while the military program 

includes military construction, real estate management, and international 

and interagency services. In addition to its headquarters office in 

Washington, D.C., the Corps has 8 division offices and 41 district offices. 

In fiscal year 2007, the Corps’ annual appropriation was about $33.6 billion 

(about $10.3 billion and $23.3 billion for the civil works and military 

programs, respectively). To accomplish its work, the Corps relies on a 

workforce of over 35,000, which includes biologists, engineers, geologists,

hydrologists, natural resource managers, and other professionals. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) within the Department of 

Defense (DOD) is the world’s largest public engineering, design, and 

construction management agency. The Corps’ mission is to provide vital 

engineering services and capabilities to support a wide range of federal 

civil works and military programs throughout the United States and to 

support U.S. efforts overseas.1

 The civil works program includes activities 

related to, among other things, flood damage reduction, environmental 

stewardship, and ecosystem restoration, while the military program 

includes military construction, real estate management, and international 

and interagency services. In addition to its headquarters office in 

Washington, D.C., the Corps has 8 division offices and 41 district offices. 

In fiscal year 2007, the Corps’ annual appropriation was about $33.6 billion 

(about $10.3 billion and $23.3 billion for the civil works and military 

programs, respectively). To accomplish its work, the Corps relies on a 

workforce of over 35,000, which includes biologists, engineers, geologists,

hydrologists, natural resource managers, and other professionals. 

In addition to its historical mission, since the 1990s, the Corps’ priorities 

have shifted to include an increased focus on supporting contingency 

operations, such as addressing terrorism and responding to natural 

In addition to its historical mission, since the 1990s, the Corps’ priorities 

have shifted to include an increased focus on supporting contingency 

operations, such as addressing terrorism and responding to natural 

 1

This report focuses on the Corps’ domestic roles and responsibilities related to its civil 

works and military programs, which together account for about 93 percent of the agency’s 

workforce. 

Page 1 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
disasters. This shift in priorities is placing new demands on the agency’s 

workforce and is reflected in the Corps’ most recent strategic plan—the 

2005 Campaign Plan. This plan outlines the agency’s strategic vision for 

the next 3 to 4 years.2

 For example, the 2005 Campaign Plan identifies the

following as the Corps key areas of focus: supporting stability, 

reconstruction, and homeland security operations; developing sound 

water resources solutions; and improving the reliability of water resources 

infrastructure using a risk-based asset management strategy. 

Strategic human capital planning—the method by which an agency designs 

a coherent framework of human capital policies, programs, and practices

to achieve the vision outlined in its strategic plan—is an important 

component of an agency’s overall planning effort because it helps ensure 

that an agency’s workforce is adequate to meet its current and future 

needs. The development and implementation of a human capital plan is a 

key step in an agency’s progress toward building a highly effective, 

performance-based organization that can recruit, hire, motivate, and 

reward a high-performing, top-quality workforce. Although the structure, 

content, and format of human capital plans vary by agency, the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) cites certain common elements that an 

agency’s human capital plan should include (1) a clearly understood 

strategic direction; (2) human capital goals; (3) strategies/objectives for 

accomplishing the goals; (4) an implementation plan; (5) a 

communication/change management plan, if needed, and (6) a system for 

measuring how successfully the strategies/objectives have been

implemented.3

 Additionally, our previous work suggests that regardless of 

an agency’s mission, its human capital management approach should 

include 

• involving top management, employees, and other stakeholders in 

developing, communicating, and implementing a human capital plan; 

• determining the critical skills that will be needed to achieve future 

programmatic results; 

• developing strategies that are tailored to address gaps in critical skills that 

need attention; 

 2

Campaign Plans are revised every 3 to 4 years at the discretion of the incoming 

Commander of the Corps. 

3

OPM, Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework Practitioners Guide, 

Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Resources Center at

http://www.opm.gov/hcaaf_resource_center/index.asp. 

Page 2 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
• building the capability needed to address administrative, educational, and 

other requirements important to support workforce strategies; and 

• monitoring and evaluating the agency’s progress toward its human capital 

goals and the contribution that human capital results have made toward 

achieving programmatic goals.4

In this context, you requested that we examine the (1) extent to which the 

Corps has aligned its human capital plan with its strategic plan, (2) extent

to which the Corps has the information necessary to identify and meet its

current and future workforce needs, and (3) challenges the Corps faces in 

meeting its workforce needs. This report is the third in a series of reports 

that you have requested on human capital challenges facing those key 

federal agencies that primarily rely on a scientific, technical, and 

engineering workforce. (See related GAO products at the end of this 

report.) 

To examine the alignment of the Corps’ human capital plan with its 

strategic plan, we reviewed the Corps’ human capital plan, strategic plans, 

and related policy and planning documents from its headquarters and 

division offices. We also reviewed prior GAO reports, Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) reports, and information from Corps strategic boards 

and committees. In addition, we interviewed human resources and 

program managers at the Corps’ headquarters and divisions. To examine 

the extent to which the Corps has the information necessary to identify 

and meet current and future workforce needs, we reviewed human capital

planning guidance from Corps headquarters, divisions, and districts. We 

also reviewed the Corps’ human capital planning process and compared it 

with four key principles of effective human capital planning identified by

GAO. In addition, we visited two Corps divisions and three Corps districts 

and interviewed agency officials at these locations to obtain information 

on their strategic human capital planning and initiatives. We used the 

information obtained from our visits to develop a structured interview 

administered to all of the Corps’ eight divisions and to a purposeful sample 

 4

GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).

Page 3 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
of 14 districts that perform domestic civil works functions for the agency.5

 

The structured interview covered, among other things, questions relating

to the Corps’ human capital initiatives, performance measures, critical 

skills, and challenges in meeting workforce needs. In addition, we 

reviewed documents obtained from the Corps’ divisions and districts to 

corroborate information obtained during the structured interviews. We 

also analyzed the Corps’ demographic and workforce data as well as data 

on its use of human capital incentives, such as recruitment and retention 

incentives. To determine the challenges the Corps faces in meeting its 

workforce needs, we interviewed human resources and program managers 

at Corps headquarters, the eight divisions, and the selected sample of 14 

districts. Appendix I contains a more detailed description of the scope 

and methodology for our review. We conducted this performance audit

from March 2007 to April 2008 in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

The Corps’ strategic human capital plan is out of date and not aligned with 

the agency’s most recent strategic plan. Although the human capital plan

was aligned with the agency’s strategic plan when both plans were 

developed in 2002, the human capital plan has not been revised since then 

to reflect the agency’s current strategic plan, which changed significantly

when it was redrafted in 2005. Corps headquarters officials told us that 

although they have not informed the rest of the agency, they have 

“abandoned” the use of the existing human capital plan. These officials 

told us that they have replaced the plan with annual and quarterly updates

of human capital activities required by OPM under a recent presidential 

initiative. However, we found that these updates do not provide an

adequate substitute for the agency’s human capital plan because they do 

not contain any of the components of an effective plan, such as goals, 

Results in Brief 

 5

We selected two districts from each division, with the exception of the Pacific Ocean 

Division, where we interviewed only the division staff. We did not include districts in this 

division because the human capital challenges at the Alaska and Honolulu districts would 

likely be unique to labor force demographics at these locations. Additionally, because 

there are only 2 districts within the Pacific Ocean Division that perform work domestically, 

the division is likely more aware of the districts’ activities compared to other divisions that

are responsible for more districts.

Page 4 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
strategies, and a system for measuring how successfully the strategies 

have been implemented. Moreover, the lack of a current human capital 

plan has resulted in human capital activities being managed inconsistently 

across the agency. For example, some division and district officials told 

us they are still using the 2002 human capital plan as a guide, and others 

said that because they receive limited guidance from headquarters, they 

are independently seeking information on recruitment and retention 

incentives from OPM or other sources. To help the Corps more effectively 

manage its human capital activities, we are recommending that it redraft

its human capital plan so that the plan is linked to the agency’s strategic 

plan and contains all the key components outlined by OPM. Moreover, we 

are recommending that once the plan is revised, the Corps distribute the 

revised plan and direct the divisions and districts to use the new plan to 

guide their human capital activities. 

The Corps lacks the necessary agencywide information on critical skills to 

identify and assess current and future workforce needs and therefore 

cannot effectively perform its workforce planning activities. Effective 

workforce planning requires consistent agencywide data on the critical

skills needed to achieve current and future programmatic results. 

However, the Corps does not have a process for collecting comprehensive 

and consistent agencywide data, and headquarters has not provided 

guidance to the divisions and districts on how to gather this information 

systematically. In the absence of such guidance, some divisions and 

districts have independently gathered some of this information. However, 

we found that the data collection methods they used varied, leaving the 

Corps without the complete, reliable, and comparable data that it needs to

assess the agency’s overall workforce needs. Without this information, we 

believe that the Corps’ ability to effectively identify and assess areas 

where it needs to enhance or modify its workforce recruitment, 

development, and retention strategies is significantly constrained. The

Corps has recently recognized the need for a coordinated effort to collect

information on the critical skills needed agencywide. In October 2007, it

established a team to, among other things, identify (1) the future roles of 

the Corps, (2) the critical skills needed to support these roles, and (3) any 

critical skills gaps. The team plans to review various division and district 

efforts to collect critical skills data and determine how these efforts can be 

applied to develop a consistent agencywide data collection process. 

However, it is too early to evaluate the team’s progress on this effort. 

The Corps’ ability to maintain a workforce sufficient to accomplish its 

mission is being affected by three key challenges. According to division

and district officials, these challenges include (1) intense competition from 

Page 5 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
the private sector and other entities to hire the best talent; (2) the loss of 

staff to various contingency operations, such as Iraq and Afghanistan; and 

(3) the large number of employees who are eligible to retire. To help offset 

these challenges, Corps officials told us they are using various human 

capital tools, such as recruitment and retention bonuses, to recruit, 

develop, and retain employees, and are also relying on contractors to carry 

out the Corps’ workload. However, we found that the Corps’ use of some 

human capital tools, including recruitment bonuses, sharply declined from 

fiscal years 2002 to 2006. For example, in 2002 the Corps awarded about 

$750,000 in recruitment bonuses, but this number fell to about $24,000 in 

fiscal year 2006. Some district officials with whom we spoke generally felt

that the Corps should be more aggressive in its use of human capital 

authorities and flexibilities to address its human capital challenges. For 

example, one district official said that although his district tries to provide 

incentives to recruit experienced staff, it is often unable to because 

incentives first have to be approved by the district’s Corporate Board. If 

the Corporate Board does not approve the use of the incentives requested,

the district will have to hire less experienced staff instead of experienced

scientists and engineers. Moreover, it is unclear whether the human 

capital tools that the Corps has used have been effective in meeting the 

agency’s overall workforce needs. We found that while the Corps collects 

data on the extent to which various tools have been used by the divisions 

and districts, it has not developed a process to evaluate the effectiveness 

of the tools. For example, the Corps could not provide us with any 

information to demonstrate whether the use of recruitment bonuses has 

been effective in hiring and retaining staff in its divisions and districts. We 

believe that without such a process, the Corps cannot determine the 

overall costs and benefits of using various methods to recruit and retain 

employees, nor can it determine whether additional approaches are 

needed to develop and maintain its workforce for the future. To help the 

Corps better manage its workforce planning efforts, we are recommending 

that it develop and implement a process for evaluating the effectiveness of 

its human capital tools so that it can adjust their use, as necessary, to meet 

workforce needs. 

In its written comments on a draft of our report (reprinted in app. II), the 

Department of Defense generally agreed with our recommendations and 

agreed to update the Corps’ human capital plan by January 2009. 

Page 6 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
The Corps is an agency in the DOD that has military and civilian 

responsibilities. The military program provides engineering, construction, 

and environmental management services to DOD agencies. Under its civil 

works program, at the direction of the Congress, the Corps plans, 

constructs, operates, and maintains a wide range of water resources 

projects. A military Chief of Engineers oversees the Corps’ civil and 

military operations and reports on civil works matters to an Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Corps operates as a military 

organization with a largely civilian workforce (34,600 civilian and 650 

military personnel). The Corps is organized geographically into its 

headquarters, located in Washington, D.C.; eight divisions across the 

country; and 41 subordinate districts throughout the United States, Asia, 

and Europe (see fig. 1).6

 Corps headquarters creates policy and plans the 

future direction for the organization. The eight divisions coordinate the 

work carried out by the 41 districts, and individual projects are largely 

planned and implemented at the district level after they have been 

approved at the division and headquarters level. 

Background 

 6

A 9th provisional division with 4 districts was activated in January 2004 to oversee 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Page 7 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Figure 1: The Corps’ Civil Work Program’s Division and District Boundaries 

Sacramento

San Francisco

Los Angeles

Albuquerque

Honolulu

Alaska

Fort Worth

Omaha

Walla 

Portland Walla

Seattle

Kansas City

Dallas

Galveston

Mobile

Atlanta

Tulsa

Buffalo

New York

New England

Norfolk

Jacksonville

Savannah

New Orleans

Charleston

Wilmington

St. Paul

Great Lakes and 

Ohio River

North Atlantic

Mississippi Valley

Source: Corps of Engineers. 

Pacific Ocean

Southwestern

Division/Regional 

HQ location

District HQ location

Division boundary

District boundary

Rock Island

Little 

Rock

Vicks Burg

Pittsburgh

Memphis

Louisville

Nashville

Cincinnati

Chicago

Baltimore

Philadelphia

Detroit

Huntington

Northwestern

South Atlantic

South Pacific

St. Louis

To assist in its human capital planning efforts, in September 2002, the 

Corps issued a human capital planning document entitled The Strategic 

Management of Human Capital in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The human capital plan was focused on recruiting and retaining a worldclass workforce, and in order for this to happen the Corps recognized that

it needed to become a learning organization and develop leaders at all 

levels. The plan also documented the human capital challenges the Corps 

Page 8 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
faced as well as past, current, and future responses to those challenges. 

The plan incorporated and was driven by, among other things, the agency’s

2002 strategic plan, called the Campaign Plan, and its accompanying vision 

statement. In developing the human capital plan, the Corps incorporated

the three strategic goals contained in the Campaign Plan: (1) people—

being recognized for the technical and professional excellence of its world 

class workforce, functioning as teams delivering projects and services; (2)

process—using the project management business process to operate as 

one Corps, regionally delivering quality goods and services; and (3) 

communication—communicating effectively to build synergistic 

relationships that serve the nation. 

Each new incoming Commander of the Corps has the opportunity to 

redraft the strategic plan for the agency, which last occurred in June 2005. 

Specifically, the 2005 strategic plan incorporated the Corps’ increased 

responsibilities for various contingency operations, such as Iraq and 

Afghanistan, and responding to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. 

The strategic plan also outlines the agency’s responsibilities as outlined in 

the 2004 National Response Plan—responding to the Department of 

Homeland Security domestically, and to the U.S. Agency for International 

Development globally, for non-DOD contingency operations. Additionally, 

the 2005 strategic plan contained three new strategic goals not contained

in the agency’s 2002 strategic plan: (1) support stability, reconstruction, 

and homeland security operations; (2) develop sound water resources 

solutions; and (3) improve the reliability of water resources infrastructure 

using a risk-based asset management strategy. Because a new 

Commander for the Corps was appointed in 2007, the agency is in the 

process of redrafting its Campaign Plan to reflect the new Commander’s 

strategic vision and priorities for the next 3 to 4 years. 

Finally, in 2004 the Corps began a new organization plan, called USACE 

2012, intended to streamline the agency’s organizational structure and 

reduce redundancy among districts. USACE 2012 focuses on

implementing the following four goals, called key concepts, to achieve 

organizational and cultural change: (1) establishing regional business 

centers, which foster divisions and districts working together as a regional

unit; (2) creating regional integration teams, focused on the execution of 

the civil works and military programs mission; (3) establishing 

communities of practice, consisting of individuals who practice and share 

an interest in a major functional area or business line, for the purpose of

developing and sharing best practices and fostering cross-functional and 

cross-divisional collaboration; and (4) developing national and regional 

support models designed to provide support services that effectively 

Page 9 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
separate divisions’ responsibilities from headquarters’. Before 2004, the 

eight divisions served largely as a conduit between headquarters and the 

district offices, and the 41 districts, in turn, were each responsible for 

managing their own workforce to complete their projects. Under the new 

organizational structure, the eight divisions have greater responsibility for 

managing the workforce and workload of all of their component districts 

on a regional basis. According to Corps officials, USACE 2012 is part of a 

continuous improvement process to better meet its customers’ and 

national needs. 

The Corps’ 2002 strategic human capital plan is out of date and not aligned 

with the agency’s most recent strategic plan, developed in 2005. Because

the Corps lacks a current human capital plan, human capital activities are

being managed inconsistently by division and district officials across the 

agency. In 2002, the Corps’ human capital plan was designed to, among 

other things, improve the agency’s ability to attract and retain a world 

class workforce and provide more accurate and objective ways to measure 

success.7

 Also consistent with OPM’s guidance on effective human capital 

planning, the 2002 human capital plan was aligned with the agency’s 2002

strategic plan and its accompanying vision statement. For example, the 

2002 strategic plan included “people” as one of its three strategic goals—

that is, the Corps wanted to “be recognized for the technical and 

professional excellence of our world class workforce, functioning as 

teams delivering projects and services.”8

 The people goal contained three

major objectives—attract and retain a world-class workforce, create a 

learning organization, and develop leaders at all levels—and strategies for 

each of them. Each objective and strategy, along with an implementation

plan, was addressed in the agency’s human capital plan. 

The Corps Lacks a 

Current Human 

Capital Plan to Guide 

Its Workforce 

Planning Efforts 

However, the human capital plan has not been revised since 2002 to reflect 

the Corps’ new strategic direction as outlined in the agency’s most current 

strategic plan, developed in June 2005, and other recent events.

9

 For 

example, the 2005 strategic plan does not contain a strategic goal related 

 7

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Strategic Management of Human Capital in the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, September 2002. 

8

The Corps’ 2002 strategic plan included three interdependent strategic goals: people, 

process, and communication. 

9

The Corps has updated the appendixes in the human capital plan; however, the body of the

report has never been updated.

Page 10 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
to people. It does, however, contain three additional strategic goals that

are not reflected in the 2002 human capital plan: (1) support stability, 

reconstruction, and homeland security operations; (2) develop sound 

water resources solutions; and (3) improve the reliability of water 

resources infrastructure using a risk-based asset management strategy. 

Moreover, because the human capital plan has not been revised, it does 

not reflect events that have taken place since 2002 that have had a 

significant impact on the agency’s human capital needs, such as the 

agency’s increased focus on supporting contingency operations and its 

new responsibilities outlined in the 2004 National Response Plan.10 For 

example, since the 1990s, the Corps has been called upon more frequently 

to take part in contingency operations at home and abroad—such as 

responding to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. Similarly, under 

the National Response Plan, the Corps provides support as both a primary 

agency and a coordinating agency for emergency and support functions 

outlined in the plan. We found that the relevance of the Corps’ outdated 

human capital plan will become further diminished in the near future 

because the agency is beginning the process of updating its 2005 strategic 

plan to reflect the new strategic direction of the incoming Commander of 

the Corps. 

According to Corps officials, although this has not been communicated 

agencywide, headquarters has “abandoned” the use of the outdated 2002 

human capital plan, replacing it with annual and quarterly updates of 

human capital activities required by OPM under the President’s 2002 

Management Agenda. Officials in the Corps’ Office of Human Resources 

told us that the Corps does not have the staff and resources to both update 

its human capital plan and provide the updates to OPM. The President’s 

Management Agenda established governmentwide initiatives designed to 

improve the management and performance of the federal government in 

five areas, including strategic management of human capital. OPM was 

designated the lead agency for overseeing the human capital initiative, and 

federal agencies were to identify human capital activities they planned to 

undertake and to provide quarterly and annual updates on these activities 

to OPM. For example, to fulfill its annual reporting requirements to OPM, 

the Corps provides a list of completed human capital activities, such as 

“Community of Practice Conference Workshop held,” and activities to be 

 10In December 2004, as part of homeland security, the President directed the development 

of a new National Response Plan to align federal coordination structures, capabilities, and 

resources into a unified, all-discipline, and all-hazards approach to domestic incident

management. This plan was replaced in March 2008 by the National Response Framework. 

Page 11 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
undertaken, such as “Identify Fiscal Year 2008 Intern Requirements.” 

However, we found that these updates are not an adequate substitute for 

the Corps’ human capital plan because they do not represent a coherent

framework of the agency’s human capital policies, programs, and 

practices, and they do not include any of the components of an effective 

human capital plan, such as goals, strategies, and a system for measuring 

how successfully the strategies have been implemented. 

The lack of a current human capital plan has also led to inconsistent 

approaches in how divisions and districts are managing human capital 

activities for the agency. For example, some division and district officials 

told us that they are still using the 2002 human capital plan to guide their 

activities; others said they relied instead on guidance they receive from 

headquarters. Still others said that because they receive limited guidance 

from headquarters on developing human capital goals and objectives, they

have to independently develop strategies as best they can. For example, 

one district told us that it had developed its own informal succession plan

in 2004 that it updates continually. The plan assesses all of the district’s 

ongoing missions as well as the strategies for recruiting, developing, and

retaining the technical skills needed to carry out the district’s mission. 

Finally, some districts said they relied on information they receive from 

the divisions, and others told us that they rely on information on human 

capital flexibilities obtained from an OPM handbook to assist with human 

capital planning.11 

The Corps does not have comprehensive agencywide data on critical skills 

to identify and assess current and future workforce needs. As a result, the 

Corps cannot effectively identify gaps in its workforce needs and 

determine how to modify its workforce planning approaches to fill these 

gaps. Effective workforce planning requires consistent agencywide data

on the critical skills needed to achieve current and future programmatic 

results. However, the Corps does not have a process for collecting 

comprehensive and consistent agencywide data, and headquarters has not 

provided guidance to its divisions and districts on how to collect this 

information. More specifically, according to Corps officials, while the 

agency collects critical skills data on its current workforce needs through 

the Army’s Workforce Analysis Support System database, this database

The Corps Lacks the 

Necessary 

Agencywide Data on 

Critical Skills to 

Identify and Assess Its 

Workforce Needs 

 11U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Human Resources Flexibilities and Authorities 

in the Federal Government, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2002). 

Page 12 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
does not allow the Corps to capture information on the agency’s future 

workforce needs. In the absence of such a process, some Corps divisions 

and districts have independently collected their own data on workforce 

needs; however, we found that those divisions and districts that have 

collected data on critical skills have used various methods to do so. For 

example, some division and district officials told us that they assessed 

their current workforce at the division level to determine their critical 

skills. Others stated that they conducted a gap analysis to identify critical 

skills needs. Because these data on both the agency’s current and future 

workforce needs have not been systematically collected, a meaningful 

comparison of the data across divisions to assess the agency’s overall 

needs is not possible. Consequently, we believe that the lack of this 

information hampers the Corps’ ability to develop effective approaches to 

recruiting, developing, and retaining personnel. 

Obtaining comprehensive and consistent agencywide data on critical skills 

needs has become even more important since the Corps began to 

restructure its organization in 2004. One of the primary goals of the 

restructuring is to streamline the organization to more effectively share 

Corps resources. Under the previous organizational structure, 

headquarters generally sets policy, divisions communicated policy to the 

districts, and the districts were responsible for managing their workforce 

and workload. Districts’ workforce management activities included hiring 

staff and contracting work out. In addition, according to Corps officials, 

while some districts interacted to share resources, others did not. Under 

the new structure, which continues to evolve, the workforce and workload 

management functions have shifted to the divisions. Under the new 

structure the Corps would like to enable the divisions, with input from 

their districts, to more efficiently meet the workforce needs across the 

division by sharing human capital resources, such as biologists and 

engineers, among the districts. According to the Corps, this approach 

should also foster information and resource sharing among the eight 

divisions. For example, officials in one district told us that when their 

work dries up, under the new organizational concept the district can get 

work from other districts, or staff can be reassigned or shared with other 

districts or divisions. However, it is unclear to us how the goals of this 

new structure can be realized if the Corps’ divisions and districts do not 

have consistent agencywide data to enable them to identify the units that 

have the critical skills that other organizational units are seeking. 

The Corps has recently recognized the need to establish a process for 

collecting comprehensive and consistent agencywide information on 

critical skills. In June 2007, the Corps initiated a National Technical 

Page 13 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Competency Strategy to, among other things, identify (1) the future roles 

of the Corps, (2) the critical skills needed to support these roles, and (3)

any critical skills gaps. In October 2007, the Corps established a National 

Technical Competency Team to implement the strategy through 

coordination with Corps senior leadership. The team is charged with 

reviewing prior and current division and district initiatives to collect data 

on the agency’s technical skill needs and capabilities and identifying ways 

to unify and integrate these initiatives to minimize redundancy. However, 

it is too early to evaluate the Corps’ overall progress on this effort. 

A number of human capital challenges, including strong competition from 

other employers to hire the most talented potential employees, are 

affecting the Corps’ ability to attract and retain a qualified workforce, 

according to Corps officials. Although various human capital tools to help

attract and retain a high-quality workforce are available to the Corps under 

federal personnel law, the agency’s use of several financial incentives has 

sharply declined in the last 5 years. Moreover, the Corps does not have a 

process in place to evaluate the effectiveness of the human capital tools it 

has used, so while the agency can provide information on the extent to

which it has used various tools, it cannot assess their effectiveness in 

meeting workforce needs. 

According to Corps headquarters, division, and district officials, a number 

of human capital challenges are undermining their efforts to balance the 

Corps’ workforce with its workload. These challenges include (1) 

competition from the private sector and other entities, (2) the loss of staff 

to various contingency operations, and (3) the large number of retirementeligible employees. First, Corps officials told us that competition from the 

private sector and other entities, such as state and local governments, 

greatly affects their ability to recruit and retain a qualified workforce. For 

example, in certain locations, such as Los Angeles, it can be difficult to fill

engineering positions because the cost of living is high and the Corps has 

to compete with private firms, the city, and the county, which can pay 

more than the agency for qualified personnel. Similarly, officials told us 

that in one of the states where the Corps operates, the state government

recently increased the salaries of engineers to a level that is difficult for 

the Corps to match, thereby making it harder for the Corps to effectively 

recruit and retain engineers in that labor market. In addition, Corps 

officials told us that the overall state of the economy also affects the 

agency’s ability to compete with others for qualified individuals. They told

The Corps Faces 

Several Challenges in 

Carrying Out Its 

Workforce Planning 

Efforts

Officials Cited Several 

Factors Affecting the 

Corps’ Ability to Maintain 

a Qualified Workforce 

Page 14 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
us that when the economy is doing well it is harder for the Corps to 

compete with other employers. 

Second, the Corps is also challenged by the vacancies created by 

employee deployments for contingency operations, such as war and 

natural disasters, which since the 1990s have increasingly become a focus 

for the Corps. For example, Corps officials told us that since March 2004

about 4,000 employees have been deployed to support Iraq and 

Afghanistan operations, and since August 2005 an additional 9,000 have

been deployed to help with efforts to address the effects of Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita. Corps officials in one division told us that they are 

running out of volunteers to support the Gulf Regions—with some 

employees having served up to three tours in these areas. In some cases, 

the Corps calls upon its remaining employees to perform dual roles, a 

situation that stresses the workforce and could put the Corps at risk of not 

being able to perform its mission. In addition, Corps officials told us the 

agency uses contractors to fill some of the gaps caused by these staff 

losses. The Corps also relies heavily upon its reemployed annuitant cadre

to fill vacancies created by such deployments. At the same time, Corps 

officials stated that while vacancies created by deployments and volunteer 

assignments are a challenge, they also offer opportunities—that is, the 

employees who take over the deployed employees’ responsibilities gain 

experience in new areas. Moreover, deployed employees learn from their 

experiences, adding value to the Corps. 

Finally, Corps officials told us that the increasing number of retirementeligible employees is a challenge to planning for its future workforce. As 

we have previously reported, the federal government is confronting a 

retirement wave and with it the loss of leadership and institutional 

knowledge at all levels.12 If large numbers of employees retire over a 

relatively short period and agencies are not effective in replacing them 

with the appropriate number of employees possessing the needed skills, 

the resulting loss of institutional knowledge and expertise could adversely

affect mission achievement.13 According to the Corps, in fiscal year 2006,

approximately 23 percent of the agency’s workforce was eligible to retire,

although on average, Corps employees retire 5.75 years after they are 

 12GAO, Human Capital: Federal Workforce Challenges in the 21st Century, GAO-07-556T 

(Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2007). 

13GAO, Federal Employee Retirements: Expected Increase Over the Next 5 Years 

Illustrates Need for Workforce Planning, GAO-01-509 (Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2001). 

Page 15 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
eligible. Corps officials told us that the agency works with retirementeligible employees to provide them with interesting work to delay their 

departure. For example, the Corps allows retirement-eligible employees

to work on projects in which they have a special interest, or if the 

employees are willing, the Corps may deploy them to other locations, such 

as Iraq, for more interesting work in the hope that this will persuade them 

to stay on with the agency. 

The Corps Uses Some 

Tools to Offset Its Human 

Capital Challenges but 

Lacks a Process for 

Evaluating Their 

Effectiveness 

The Corps uses various hiring authorities and human capital flexibilities to

offset its human capital challenges.14 Some examples of the hiring 

authorities used by the agency include 

• The Federal Career Intern Program—under this hiring authority the Corps 

hired 621 interns from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2006. Most 

interns are hired for 18 to 24 months, typically entering the program at 

entry-level salaries. At the end of the program, interns are guaranteed a 

full-time position if they agree to sign a mobility agreement.15 Corps

officials told us that interns are a major component of the Corps’ 

recruiting efforts because the agency can easily convert interns to full-time 

employees. They also told us that they primarily concentrate their intern 

recruitment efforts in the engineering and scientific specialties, which 

constitute approximately 90 percent of their intern hiring efforts. Further, 

according to these officials, interns typically realize the benefits of 

working for the Corps during their internships and tend to stay with the 

agency. 

• Reemployed Annuitant Office Cadre Program—under this authority the 

Corps rehires former federal employees to supplement its workforce, as 

needed. The Corps established this program in response to its declining 

workforce, increased responsibilities for various contingency operations, 

and the high number of retirement-eligible employees. Among other 

things, the Corps uses these employees to fill positions needing specialized 

skills or to supplement staff to complete specific projects in a timely 

manner. 

 14Hiring authorities include the Veterans Recruitment Appointment Authority and the

Federal Career Intern Program; human capital flexibilities include recruitment and 

retention bonuses, telework, and alternative work schedules. 

15A mobility agreement stipulates that the intern is willing to move to another location for 

permanent placement, if necessary. This agreement is required as a condition of 

appointment for all centrally funded interns.

Page 16 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
• Student Career Experience Program and the Student Temporary 

Employment Program—under these authorities the Corps can hire 

applicants currently enrolled in high school, college, a university, or a 

technical or vocational school. Students hired through the Student Career 

Experience Program must be enrolled in a specific educational discipline 

that meets the requirements for the position and are eligible for 

conversion to permanent employees. Students hired through the Student 

Temporary Program are not required to be in educational disciplines that 

match the work the student is performing, and their appointments are 

limited to 1 year that can be extended until the completion of their 

educational requirements. 

• The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998—under this authority 

the Corps can hire applicants that have preference eligibility or 

substantially completed 3 or more years of active service, in addition to 

having received an honorable or general military discharge or were 

released under honorable conditions shortly before completing a 3-year 

tour of duty.

One district also told us that it has an affirmative employment plan that 

includes outreach to various colleges and universities to attract qualified 

applicants from diverse backgrounds. Under the plan, the district 

participates in various conferences, such as the Hispanic Engineer 

National Achievement Awards Conference and the Black Engineering 

Conference. As a result of its affirmative employment plan, according to

district officials, the district has increased the quality and diversity of its 

workforce. 

The Corps also uses a variety of human capital flexibilities to maintain its 

workforce as shown in table 1. According to Corps officials, some of these 

flexibilities are helpful to their recruiting efforts in areas where the cost of 

living is high, such as San Francisco. In such locations, the Corps uses 

such tools as recruitment and retention bonuses as an incentive for 

employees to work there. Corps officials also cited other tools they use to 

attract and retain a qualified staff, including paying for employees to 

obtain advanced degrees; providing long-term training; and providing a 

family-friendly workplace that allows flex-time, telecommuting, or 

alternative work schedules. 

Page 17 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Table 1: Examples of Human Capital Flexibilities Available to the Corps 

Category Human capital flexibilities 

• Recruitment bonuses 

• Relocation bonuses 

• Retention allowances 

Hiring and retention 

incentives 

• Student loan repayments 

• Flexible spending accounts that allow employees to set aside 

funds for expenses related to health care and care for 

dependents 

• Professional credential reimbursement program 

Other compensation 

• Transit and parking subsidy programs 

• Business casual dress policy 

• Alternative work schedules: flexible work schedules and 

compressed schedules 

• Telework 

Enhanced work

environment 

• On-site child care and fitness centers 

Source: GAO analysis of Corps documents. 

While the Corps has a number of flexibilities available to help in its 

recruiting and retention efforts, we found that the use of these flexibilities 

has sharply declined in recent years. For example, although the Corps 

awarded approximately $2.5 million in recruitment, relocation, and 

retention bonuses during fiscal years 2002 through 2006, the amount it 

devoted annually to recruitment bonuses decreased almost 97 percent 

during that time—from about $750,000 in fiscal year 2002 to about $24,000 

in fiscal year 2006. Moreover, the total amount the Corps spent annually 

on recruitment, relocation, and retention decreased 75 percent from fiscal 

year 2002 to 2006—from about $800,000 to about $198,000. (See table 2.) 

This trend is inconsistent with the concerns Corps officials have cited 

about the growing impact of human capital challenges on the Corps’ 

workforce over the past 6 years. Moreover, district officials with whom 

we spoke generally felt that the Corps should be more aggressive in its use 

of human capital authorities and flexibilities to address its human capital 

challenges. More specifically, some officials said that increasing the 

agency’s use of recruitment, relocation, and retention bonuses would 

increase the agency’s ability to attract and retain a qualified workforce. 

For example, according to one district official, although his district tries to 

provide incentives to recruit qualified staff, the incentives have to first be

Page 18 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
approved by the district’s Corporate Board.16 Oftentimes if this approval is

not received, he has had trouble hiring experienced scientists and 

engineers and has had to hire less experienced staff instead. In addition, 

some officials told us that increasing the use of the various student intern

and career experience programs would also help recruit qualified people 

in a shrinking labor pool. Further, these officials suggested establishing or 

increasing early outreach to students and schools, in addition to the Corps’ 

college recruiting initiatives, as a way to increase students’ interest in 

careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—as well as a 

career with the Corps. 

Table 2: The Corps’ Use of Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention Incentives, by Domestic Divisions and Districts, Fiscal 

Years 2002 through 2006 

Incentive 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Recruitment $754,679 $458,993 $291,238 $79,014 $24,258 $1,608,182

Relocation 54,112 64,664 32,999 59,634 79,535 290,944

Retention 0 89,503 296,452 181,704 93,974 661,633

Total $808,791 $613,160 $620,689 $320,353 $197,767 $2,560,759

Source: GAO analysis of Corps of Engineers Financial Management System data. 

In addition to the use of human capital tools discussed above, the Corps 

also has the ability to outsource portions of its workload to private sector

organizations and other entities. More specifically, the Corps has a goal of

contracting out 30 percent of the planning and design aspects of its civil 

works projects, allowing the agency to meet its workload needs without 

having to hire additional staff to fill gaps in its workforce. Corps officials 

told us that they use this option when they do not have the staff or skill 

sets to assign to a particular project. On the other hand, according to one 

Corps official, although approximately 40 percent of the Corps’ 

engineering work is done in-house, that number may be declining. This 

official said that the practice of “contracting out for the sake of 

contracting out” makes it difficult to bring people into the Corps because 

engineers do not want to review the work of contractors—they would 

rather do the work themselves. The official stated that the Corps needs to 

find the right balance between in-house and contract work. 

 16In commenting on a draft of this report the agency stated that districts and divisions may 

establish their own internal Corporate Boards, but there is no agencwide Corporate Board

established for these purposes. 

Page 19 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Finally, while the Corps tracks the extent to which it uses certain human 

capital tools, it has not developed a process to systematically evaluate

their effectiveness. For example, the Corps tracks and can provide 

information on its use of recruitment and retention bonuses, but it does 

not have a process for assessing the extent to which such monetary 

flexibilities are effective in helping recruit and retain a qualified staff. 

Consequently, the Corps could not provide us with information on the 

extent to which its use of various tools and flexibilities, such as retention 

bonuses, has been effective in meeting its workforce needs. Without a 

process to evaluate the effectiveness of its human capital tools, it is 

unclear how the Corps can determine the overall costs and benefits of the 

various methods it is using to recruit and retain employees and whether 

certain tools are being under- or overused. 

An agency’s human capital plan is the key to its progress toward building a

highly effective organization that can recruit, hire, motivate, and reward a 

top-quality workforce. Although the structure, content, and format of 

human capital plans may vary by agency, human capital plans should 

clearly reflect the agency’s strategic direction. However, this is not the 

case with the Corps because it does not have a current human capital plan

that is aligned with its strategic plan. Without such a human capital plan, 

the agency not only is limited in strategically managing its workforce 

efforts but also is not providing clear guidance to all of its organizational 

levels on how they are to effectively and consistently carry out their 

human capital responsibilities. Further, the Corps’ lack of comprehensive 

and consistent agencywide data on critical skills undermines its ability to 

identify and assess current and future workforce needs. It remains to be 

seen whether the Corps’ recently begun effort to develop a process to 

collect such information will be successful. Finally, although the Corps 

uses a number of human capital tools to address the challenges it faces, 

such as an aging workforce and competition from the private sector for 

qualified applicants, it lacks a process to assess the effectiveness of these 

tools. Without such a process, the Corps has no way to determine either 

the overall costs and benefits of the tools it uses to recruit and retain 

employees or whether additional approaches are needed to develop and 

maintain its workforce for the future. 

To help the Corps better manage its workforce planning efforts, we are 

recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Commanding 

General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 

take the following three actions: 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Page 20 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
• Develop a human capital plan that is directly linked to the Corps’ current 

strategic plan and that contains all the key components of an effective plan 

as outlined by the Office of Personnel Management. 

• Distribute the revised plan agencywide and direct the divisions and 

districts to use it to guide their human capital activities. 

• Develop and implement a process for determining the effectiveness of the 

human capital tools the Corps is using so that it can adjust their use, as 

necessary, to meet workforce needs.

We provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of Defense for 

review and comment. The Department generally concurred with our 

recommendations. Specifically, the Department concurred with our 

recommendation that the Corps develop a human capital plan that is 

directly linked to the Corps’ current strategic plan and that contains all 

the key components of an effective plan as outlined by OPM. The 

Department stated that it will conduct an Enterprise Human Resources 

Strategy Summit on July 9 – 11, 2008, with stakeholders to obtain input 

that will be used to update the Corps’ human capital plan. The 

Department stated that it expects to finalize the Corps human capital plan 

by January 2009. The Department also agreed with our recommendation 

to distribute the revised human capital plan to the Corps’ divisions and 

districts, stating that it would do so with the appropriate guidance within

30 days of the plan being finalized. Finally, the Department concurred 

with our recommendation that the Corps develop and implement a 

process for determining the effectiveness of its human capital tools so that 

it can adjust their use, as necessary, to meet workforce needs. The 

Department stated that metrics for determining the effectiveness of the 

human capital tools used by the Corps will be identified and included in 

the agency’s updated human capital plan. 

The Department also provided additional information regarding various 

human capital actions and initiatives mentioned in our report. The full 

text of the Department’s comments can be found in appendix II as well as 

our response to these comments. Of particular note is the Department’s 

comment that since 2005, the Corps has been rated “green” in status and 

“green” in progress on the Human Capital Scorecard by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). According to the Department, the Corps’ 

human capital initiatives received such a rating only after rigorous 

scrutiny of OMB and OPM. We are aware that the Corps has been rated

“green” for its human capital initiative updates, however, as we state in the 

report, these updates do not provide an adequate substitute for the 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 21 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
agency’s human capital plan because they do not include any of the 

components of an effective plan, such as goals, strategies, and a system for 

measuring how successfully strategies have been implemented. 

Consequently, they do not represent a comprehensive framework of the 

agency's human capital policies, programs, and practices needed to assist 

the Corps in achieving its mission. Additionally, the Department stated 

that the report placed undue weight on feedback from a small number of 

respondents. We disagree with the Department’s characterization. We 

contacted officials in all eight Corps division offices and a third of all the 

Corps district offices, and reported on those experiences and opinions 

with which these officials generally concurred. For example, the report 

states that district officials with whom we spoke generally felt that the 

Corps should be more aggressive in its use of human capital authorities 

and flexibilities. The individual examples cited throughout the report 

were used to provide more clarification on the specific types of concerns 

and situations being faced by the district officials.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the 

Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested 

parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

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

of this report. GAO staff who made contributions to this report are listed 

in appendix III. 

Anu K. Mittal 

Director, Natural Resources 

and Environment 

Page 22 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

We were asked to examine the (1) extent to which the Corps has aligned

its human capital plan with its strategic plan, (2) extent to which the Corps 

has the information necessary to identify and meet current and future 

workforce needs, and (3) challenges the Corps faces in meeting its 

workforce needs. 

To assess the alignment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ human 

capital plan with its strategic plan, we analyzed and reviewed a broad 

range of Corps policy and planning documents from headquarters and 

divisions. Specifically, we examined information on the Corps’ operations 

and strategic planning efforts, such as the Corps’ 2002 Strategic Human 

Capital Plan, the Integrated Strategic Plan, Campaign Plans, related 

headquarters and division documents, and the USACE 2012 regionalization 

plan. We also reviewed information from Corps strategic boards and 

committees, the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Human Capital 

Assessment and Accountability Framework, and our relevant reports. We 

corroborated information provided in these documents through interviews

with human resources managers and program managers at Corps 

headquarters, divisions, and districts. We also interviewed cognizant 

community of practice program leaders in real estate, contracting, 

planning, research and development, operations and regulations, resource 

management, strategic integrations, human resources, program and 

project management, logistics, environment, and engineering and 

construction. 

To assess the extent to which the Corps is collecting the information 

necessary to meet current and future workforce needs, we visited and 

interviewed Corps officials at two divisions (the North Atlantic and South

Pacific divisions) and three districts (New York, San Francisco, and 

Sacramento) to obtain information about their strategic workforce 

planning strategies and their human capital initiatives related to 

recruitment, development, and retention of staff. We used the information 

obtained from the visits to develop a structured interview that we 

administered to the Corps’ eight divisions and a purposeful sample of 14 of 

the Corps’ 38 districts that conduct work in the United States. We selected 

2 districts from each division to include in our interviews, with the 

exception of Pacific Ocean Division, where we interviewed only the 

division staff. Our site selections were based on (1) number of scientists 

and engineers, (2) overall full-time equivalent employees, (3) budget size, 

and (4) geographic location. Although the information from our sample of 

districts is not generalizable to all districts within a division, our 

interviews cover human capital issues at locations representing nearly half 

(46 percent) of Corps scientist and engineering staff, and represent issues 

Page 23 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

at locations with diverse staff sizes, budget sizes, and geographic 

locations. We did not include districts in the Pacific Ocean Division 

because 2 of the districts are outside the United States, and the human 

capital challenges at the domestic districts—Alaska and Honolulu—would 

likely be unique to labor force demographics at these locations. 

Additionally, because there are only 2 districts within the Pacific Ocean 

Division that perform work in the United States, the division is likely more 

aware of the districts’ activities compared to those other divisions that are 

responsible for more districts. The 14 districts selected were Huntington, 

Louisville, St. Louis, Vicksburg, New England, New York, Omaha, Walla 

Walla, Jacksonville, Mobile, Albuquerque, Los Angeles, Fort Worth, and 

Little Rock. Although the New Orleans District was originally selected 

based on our criteria, we chose St. Louis as a replacement because of 

other ongoing audit work at the site, and the Corps’ heavy workload 

related to Hurricane Katrina reconstruction efforts. We interviewed 

managers identified by the District Deputy Commander responsible for 

strategic human capital planning and human resources-related issues. The 

structured interview covered, among other things, human capital 

initiatives, performance measures, critical skills, and challenges to 

meeting workforce needs. To reduce nonsampling errors,1

 we conducted

pretests with respondents from two divisions and 3 districts to ensure that 

questions were interpreted in a consistent manner and we revised the 

questions on the basis of the pretest results. We also reviewed division 

and district documents on recruitment, training and development, and 

retention to corroborate information discussed during the interviews. 

To determine the challenges the Corps faces in meeting its workforce 

needs, we included open-ended questions about challenges the Corps 

faces in meeting its workforce and program needs in our structured 

interviews and interviewed community of practice program leaders at 

Corps headquarters. We conducted a content analysis of interview 

responses for which general themes were developed and then 

independently coded. Coding discrepancies were reviewed, and if 

necessary, arbitrated by a third party until agreement statistics reached 

100 percent. The content codes and other interview data were analyzed to

 1

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce certain types of errors, 

commonly referred to as “nonsampling errors.” For example, differences in how a 

particular question is interpreted, the sources of information available to respondents, or

the types of people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability into survey 

results. 

Page 24 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

develop general statistics on human capital issues across the divisions and 

districts. 

In addition, we analyzed data obtained from Army’s Workforce Analysis 

Support System for information on the Corps’ workforce and the Corps of 

Engineers Financial Management System for information on the Corps use 

of recruitment, retention, and relocation allowances as well as 

expenditures for training and development activities. To assess the 

reliability of the data needed to answer the engagement objectives, we 

checked these data for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, 

reviewed existing information about these data and the system that 

produced them, and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the 

data. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2007 to April 2008 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

Page 25 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Corps Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

of Engineers 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

See comment 1. 

See comment 2. 

 Page 26 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Corps 

of Engineers 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

 Page 27 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Corps 

of Engineers 

 Page 28 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Corps 

of Engineers 

 Page 29 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Corps 

of Engineers 

The following are GAO’s comments to the additional information included

in the Department of Defense’s letter dated May 1, 2008. 

1. We are aware that the Corps human capital initiative updates have 

received a “green” status from OPM and OMB. However, as the report 

states these updates to OPM do not contain any of the components of 

an effective human capital plan and they do not represent a 

comprehensive framework for the agency’s human capital policies, 

programs, and practices. We made no modifications to the report in 

response to this comment. 

GAO Comments 

2. We disagree with the Department’s characterization of our report. We 

contacted officials in all of the Corps 8 division offices and 14 of its 

district offices, and presented those issues and concerns that were 

generally agreed on by these officials. The examples cited throughout 

the report were used to provide more specifics as to the type of 

concerns expressed by district officials and were not all inclusive of 

the comments received. We made no changes to the report in 

response to this comment, however we have clarified that the 

Corporate Board referred to by the district official was not an 

agencywide Corporate Board. 

3. We disagree with the Department’s characterization of the report. Our 

report does not state that the agency’s 2005 Campaign Plan does not 

address human capital. Instead our report states that the 2005 plan

does not contain a strategic goal related to “people” similar to the 

strategic goal that was included in the 2002 Campaign Plan. We have

not modified the report in response to this comment. 

4. We disagree with the Department’s comment that the draft report does 

not mention the Corps ongoing effort to update its Campaign plan. 

Our report clearly states that the agency is in the process of updating 

its 2005 strategic plan to reflect the new strategic direction of the 

incoming Commander of the Corps. No changes were made in 

response to this comment. 

Page 30 GAO-08-596 Corps of Engineers
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 31 GAO-08-596

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Vondalee R. Hunt (Assistant 

Director), Tania Calhoun, Nancy Crothers, William Doherty, Diana Cheng 

Goody, Nisha Hazra, Grant Mallie, Jamie A. Roberts, Rebecca Shea, and 

Katherine Hudson Walker made key contributions to this report. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Corps of Engineers
Related GAO Reports

Page 32 GAO-08-596

Related GAO Reports 

NASA: Progress Made on Strategic Human Capital Management, but 

Future Program Challenges Remain. GAO-07-1004. Washington, D.C.: 

August 8, 2007. 

Human Capital: Federal Workforce Challenges in the 21st Century. 

GAO-07-556T. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2007.

Human Capital: Retirements and Anticipated New Reactor 

Applications Will Challenge NRC’s Workforce. GAO-07-105. Washington, 

D.C.: January 17, 2007. 

Human Capital: Increasing Agencies’ Use of New Hiring Flexibilities. 

GAO-04-959T. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2004. 

Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce 

Planning. GAO-04-39. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003. 

A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-02-373SP. 

Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002. 

Federal Employee Retirements: Expected Increase Over the Next 5 Years 

Illustrates Need for Workforce Planning. GAO-01-509. Washington, D.C.: 

April 27, 2001. 

(360805) Corps of Engineers
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@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 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER