Human Capital: Corps of Engineers Needs to Update Its Workforce Planning Process to More Effectively Address Its Current and Future Workforce Needs
Published: 2008-05-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Corps' strategic human capital plan is outdated; is not aligned with the agency's most recent strategic plan, which was developed in 2005; and is inconsistently used across the agency.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 Moreover, the outdated human capital plan is being used inconsistently across the agency.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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) within the Department of  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) within the Department of  Defense (DOD) is the world’s largest public engineering, design, and  Defense (DOD) is the world’s largest public engineering, design, and  construction management agency.  The Corps’ mission is to provide vital  construction management agency.  The Corps’ mission is to provide vital  engineering services and capabilities to support a wide range of federal  engineering services and capabilities to support a wide range of federal  civil works and military programs throughout the United States and to  civil works and military programs throughout the United States and to  support U.S. efforts overseas.  The civil works program includes activities  support U.S. efforts overseas.
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. 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.   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.  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    developing strategies that are tailored to address gaps in critical skills that  need attention;     building the capability needed to address administrative, educational, and  other requirements important to support workforce strategies; and    monitoring and evaluating the agency’s progress toward its human capital  goals and the contribution that human capital results have made toward  achieving programmatic goals.
In this context, you requested that we examine the (1) extent to which the  Corps has aligned its human capital plan with its strategic plan, (2) extent  to which the Corps has the information necessary to identify and meet its  current and future workforce needs, and (3) challenges the Corps faces in  meeting its workforce needs.  This report is the third in a series of reports  that you have requested on human capital challenges facing those key  federal agencies that primarily rely on a scientific, technical, and  engineering workforce.  (See related GAO products at the end of this  report.)
To examine the alignment of the Corps’ human capital plan with its  strategic plan, we reviewed the Corps’ human capital plan, strategic plans,  and related policy and planning documents from its headquarters and  division offices.  We also reviewed prior GAO reports, Office of Personnel  Management (OPM) reports, and information from Corps strategic boards  and committees.  In addition, we interviewed human resources and  program managers at the Corps’ headquarters and divisions.  To examine  the extent to which the Corps has the information necessary to identify  and meet current and future workforce needs, we reviewed human capital  planning guidance from Corps headquarters, divisions, and districts.  We  also reviewed the Corps’ human capital planning process and compared it  with four key principles of effective human capital planning identified by  GAO.  In addition, we visited two Corps divisions and three Corps districts  and interviewed agency officials at these locations to obtain information  on their strategic human capital planning and initiatives.  We used the  information obtained from our visits to develop a structured interview  administered to all of the Corps’ eight divisions and to a purposeful sample  of 14 districts that perform domestic civil works functions for the agency.   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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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).  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.
To assist in its human capital planning efforts, in September 2002, the  Corps issued a human capital planning document entitled The Strategic  Management of Human Capital in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.   The human capital plan was focused on recruiting and retaining a world- class workforce, and in order for this to happen the Corps recognized that  it needed to become a learning organization and develop leaders at all  levels.  The plan also documented the human capital challenges the Corps  faced as well as past, current, and future responses to those challenges.   The plan incorporated and was driven by, among other things, the agency’s  2002 strategic plan, called the Campaign Plan, and its accompanying vision  statement.  In developing the human capital plan, the Corps incorporated  the three strategic goals contained in the Campaign Plan:  (1) people— being recognized for the technical and professional excellence of its world  class workforce, functioning as teams delivering projects and services; (2)  process—using the project management business process to operate as  one Corps, regionally delivering quality goods and services; and (3)  communication—communicating effectively to build synergistic  relationships that serve the nation.
Each new incoming Commander of the Corps has the opportunity to  redraft the strategic plan for the agency, which last occurred in June 2005.   Specifically, the 2005 strategic plan incorporated the Corps’ increased  responsibilities for various contingency operations, such as Iraq and  Afghanistan, and responding to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.   The strategic plan also outlines the agency’s responsibilities as outlined in  the 2004 National Response Plan—responding to the Department of  Homeland Security domestically, and to the U.S. Agency for International  Development globally, for non-DOD contingency operations.  Additionally,  the 2005 strategic plan contained three new strategic goals not contained  in the agency’s 2002 strategic plan:  (1) support stability, reconstruction,  and homeland security operations; (2) develop sound water resources  solutions; and (3) improve the reliability of water resources infrastructure  using a risk-based asset management strategy.  Because a new  Commander for the Corps was appointed in 2007, the agency is in the  process of redrafting its Campaign Plan to reflect the new Commander’s  strategic vision and priorities for the next 3 to 4 years.
Finally, in 2004 the Corps began a new organization plan, called USACE  2012, intended to streamline the agency’s organizational structure and  reduce redundancy among districts.  USACE 2012 focuses on  implementing the following four goals, called key concepts, to achieve  organizational and cultural change:  (1) establishing regional business  centers, which foster divisions and districts working together as a regional  unit; (2) creating regional integration teams, focused on the execution of  the civil works and military programs mission; (3) establishing  communities of practice, consisting of individuals who practice and share  an interest in a major functional area or business line, for the purpose of  developing and sharing best practices and fostering cross-functional and  cross-divisional collaboration; and (4) developing national and regional  support models designed to provide support services that effectively  separate divisions’ responsibilities from headquarters’.  Before 2004, the  eight divisions served largely as a conduit between headquarters and the  district offices, and the 41 districts, in turn, were each responsible for  managing their own workforce to complete their projects.  Under the new  organizational structure, the eight divisions have greater responsibility for  managing the workforce and workload of all of their component districts  on a regional basis.  According to Corps officials, USACE 2012 is part of a  continuous improvement process to better meet its customers’ and  national needs.
section_title: The Corps Lacks a Current Human Capital Plan to Guide Its Workforce Planning Efforts
paragraphs: 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.  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.”  The people goal contained three  major objectives—attract and retain a world-class workforce, create a  learning organization, and develop leaders at all levels—and strategies for  each of them.  Each objective and strategy, along with an implementation  plan, was addressed in the agency’s human capital plan.
However, the human capital plan has not been revised since 2002 to reflect  the Corps’ new strategic direction as outlined in the agency’s most current  strategic plan, developed in June 2005, and other recent events.  For  example, the 2005 strategic plan does not contain a strategic goal related  to people.  It does, however, contain three additional strategic goals that  are not reflected in the 2002 human capital plan:  (1) support stability,  reconstruction, and homeland security operations; (2) develop sound  water resources solutions; and (3) improve the reliability of water  resources infrastructure using a risk-based asset management strategy.   Moreover, because the human capital plan has not been revised, it does  not reflect events that have taken place since 2002 that have had a  significant impact on the agency’s human capital needs, such as the  agency’s increased focus on supporting contingency operations and its  new responsibilities outlined in the 2004 National Response Plan.   For  example, since the 1990s, the Corps has been called upon more frequently  to take part in contingency operations at home and abroad—such as  responding to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.  Similarly, under  the National Response Plan, the Corps provides support as both a primary  agency and a coordinating agency for emergency and support functions  outlined in the plan.  We found that the relevance of the Corps’ outdated  human capital plan will become further diminished in the near future  because the agency is beginning the process of updating its 2005 strategic  plan to reflect the new strategic direction of the incoming Commander of  the Corps.
According to Corps officials, although this has not been communicated  agencywide, headquarters has “abandoned” the use of the outdated 2002  human capital plan, replacing it with annual and quarterly updates of  human capital activities required by OPM under the President’s 2002  Management Agenda.  Officials in the Corps’ Office of Human Resources  told us that the Corps does not have the staff and resources to both update  its human capital plan and provide the updates to OPM. The President’s  Management Agenda established governmentwide initiatives designed to  improve the management and performance of the federal government in  five areas, including strategic management of human capital.  OPM was  designated the lead agency for overseeing the human capital initiative, and  federal agencies were to identify human capital activities they planned to  undertake and to provide quarterly and annual updates on these activities  to OPM.  For example, to fulfill its annual reporting requirements to OPM,  the Corps provides a list of completed human capital activities, such as  “Community of Practice Conference Workshop held,” and activities to be  undertaken, such as “Identify Fiscal Year 2008 Intern Requirements.”   However, we found that these updates are not an adequate substitute for  the Corps’ human capital plan because they do not represent a coherent  framework of the agency’s human capital policies, programs, and  practices, and they do not include any of the components of an effective  human capital plan, such as goals, strategies, and a system for measuring  how successfully the strategies have been implemented.
The lack of a current human capital plan has also led to inconsistent  approaches in how divisions and districts are managing human capital  activities for the agency.  For example, some division and district officials  told us that they are still using the 2002 human capital plan to guide their  activities; others said they relied instead on guidance they receive from  headquarters.  Still others said that because they receive limited guidance  from headquarters on developing human capital goals and objectives, they  have to independently develop strategies as best they can.  For example,  one district told us that it had developed its own informal succession plan  in 2004 that it updates continually.  The plan assesses all of the district’s  ongoing missions as well as the strategies for recruiting, developing, and  retaining the technical skills needed to carry out the district’s mission.   Finally, some districts said they relied on information they receive from  the divisions, and others told us that they rely on information on human  capital flexibilities obtained from an OPM handbook to assist with human  capital planning.
section_title: The Corps Lacks the Necessary Agencywide Data on Critical Skills to Identify and Assess Its Workforce Needs
paragraphs: The Corps does not have comprehensive agencywide data on critical skills  to identify and assess current and future workforce needs.  As a result, the  Corps cannot effectively identify gaps in its workforce needs and  determine how to modify its workforce planning approaches to fill these  gaps.  Effective workforce planning requires consistent agencywide data  on the critical skills needed to achieve current and future programmatic  results.  However, the Corps does not have a process for collecting  comprehensive and consistent agencywide data, and headquarters has not  provided guidance to its divisions and districts on how to collect this  information.  More specifically, according to Corps officials, while the  agency collects critical skills data on its current workforce needs through  the Army’s Workforce Analysis Support System database, this database  does not allow the Corps to capture information on the agency’s future  workforce needs.  In the absence of such a process, some Corps divisions  and districts have independently collected their own data on workforce  needs; however, we found that those divisions and districts that have  collected data on critical skills have used various methods to do so.  For  example, some division and district officials told us that they assessed  their current workforce at the division level to determine their critical  skills.  Others stated that they conducted a gap analysis to identify critical  skills needs.  Because these data on both the agency’s current and future  workforce needs have not been systematically collected, a meaningful  comparison of the data across divisions to assess the agency’s overall  needs is not possible.  Consequently, we believe that the lack of this  information hampers the Corps’ ability to develop effective approaches to  recruiting, developing, and retaining personnel.
Obtaining comprehensive and consistent agencywide data on critical skills  needs has become even more important since the Corps began to  restructure its organization in 2004.  One of the primary goals of the  restructuring is to streamline the organization to more effectively share  Corps resources.  Under the previous organizational structure,  headquarters generally sets policy, divisions communicated policy to the  districts, and the districts were responsible for managing their workforce  and workload.  Districts’ workforce management activities included hiring  staff and contracting work out.  In addition, according to Corps officials,  while some districts interacted to share resources, others did not.  Under  the new structure, which continues to evolve, the workforce and workload  management functions have shifted to the divisions.  Under the new  structure the Corps would like to enable the divisions, with input from  their districts, to more efficiently meet the workforce needs across the  division by sharing human capital resources, such as biologists and  engineers, among the districts.  According to the Corps, this approach  should also foster information and resource sharing among the eight  divisions.  For example, officials in one district told us that when their  work dries up, under the new organizational concept the district can get  work from other districts, or staff can be reassigned or shared with other  districts or divisions.  However, it is unclear to us how the goals of this  new structure can be realized if the Corps’ divisions and districts do not  have consistent agencywide data to enable them to identify the units that  have the critical skills that other organizational units are seeking.
The Corps has recently recognized the need to establish a process for  collecting comprehensive and consistent agencywide information on  critical skills.  In June 2007, the Corps initiated a National Technical  Competency Strategy to, among other things, identify (1) the future roles  of the Corps, (2) the critical skills needed to support these roles, and (3)  any critical skills gaps.  In October 2007, the Corps established a National  Technical Competency Team to implement the strategy through  coordination with Corps senior leadership.  The team is charged with  reviewing prior and current division and district initiatives to collect data  on the agency’s technical skill needs and capabilities and identifying ways  to unify and integrate these initiatives to minimize redundancy.  However,  it is too early to evaluate the Corps’ overall progress on this effort.
section_title: The Corps Faces Several Challenges in Carrying Out Its Workforce Planning Efforts
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Officials Cited Several Factors Affecting the Corps’ Ability to Maintain a Qualified Workforce
paragraphs: According to Corps headquarters, division, and district officials, a number  of human capital challenges are undermining their efforts to balance the  Corps’ workforce with its workload.  These challenges include (1)  competition from the private sector and other entities, (2) the loss of staff  to various contingency operations, and (3) the large number of retirement- eligible employees.  First, Corps officials told us that competition from the  private sector and other entities, such as state and local governments,  greatly affects their ability to recruit and retain a qualified workforce.  For  example, in certain locations, such as Los Angeles, it can be difficult to fill  engineering positions because the cost of living is high and the Corps has  to compete with private firms, the city, and the county, which can pay  more than the agency for qualified personnel.  Similarly, officials told us  that in one of the states where the Corps operates, the state government  recently increased the salaries of engineers to a level that is difficult for  the Corps to match, thereby making it harder for the Corps to effectively  recruit and retain engineers in that labor market.  In addition, Corps  officials told us that the overall state of the economy also affects the  agency’s ability to compete with others for qualified individuals.  They told  us that when the economy is doing well it is harder for the Corps to  compete with other employers.
Second, the Corps is also challenged by the vacancies created by  employee deployments for contingency operations, such as war and  natural disasters, which since the 1990s have increasingly become a focus  for the Corps.  For example, Corps officials told us that since March 2004  about 4,000 employees have been deployed to support Iraq and  Afghanistan operations, and since August 2005 an additional 9,000 have  been deployed to help with efforts to address the effects of Hurricanes  Katrina and Rita.  Corps officials in one division told us that they are  running out of volunteers to support the Gulf Regions—with some  employees having served up to three tours in these areas.  In some cases,  the Corps calls upon its remaining employees to perform dual roles, a  situation that stresses the workforce and could put the Corps at risk of not  being able to perform its mission.  In addition, Corps officials told us the  agency uses contractors to fill some of the gaps caused by these staff  losses.  The Corps also relies heavily upon its reemployed annuitant cadre  to fill vacancies created by such deployments.   At the same time, Corps  officials stated that while vacancies created by deployments and volunteer  assignments are a challenge, they also offer opportunities—that is, the  employees who take over the deployed employees’ responsibilities gain  experience in new areas.  Moreover, deployed employees learn from their  experiences, adding value to the Corps.
Finally, Corps officials told us that the increasing number of retirement- eligible employees is a challenge to planning for its future workforce.  As  we have previously reported, the federal government is confronting a  retirement wave and with it the loss of leadership and institutional  knowledge at all levels.  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.  According to the Corps, in fiscal year 2006,  approximately 23 percent of the agency’s workforce was eligible to retire,  although on average, Corps employees retire 5.75 years after they are  eligible.  Corps officials told us that the agency works with retirement- eligible employees to provide them with interesting work to delay their  departure.  For example, the Corps allows retirement-eligible employees  to work on projects in which they have a special interest, or if the  employees are willing, the Corps may deploy them to other locations, such  as Iraq, for more interesting work in the hope that this will persuade them  to stay on with the agency.
section_title: The Corps Uses Some Tools to Offset Its Human Capital Challenges but Lacks a Process for Evaluating Their Effectiveness
paragraphs: The Corps uses various hiring authorities and human capital flexibilities to  offset its human capital challenges. 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. Corps  officials told us that interns are a major component of the Corps’  recruiting efforts because the agency can easily convert interns to full-time  employees.  They also told us that they primarily concentrate their intern  recruitment efforts in the engineering and scientific specialties, which  constitute approximately 90 percent of their intern hiring efforts.  Further,  according to these officials, interns typically realize the benefits of  working for the Corps during their internships and tend to stay with the  agency.
Reemployed Annuitant Office Cadre Program—under this authority the  Corps rehires former federal employees to supplement its workforce, as  needed.  The Corps established this program in response to its declining  workforce, increased responsibilities for various contingency operations,  and the high number of retirement-eligible employees.  Among other  things, the Corps uses these employees to fill positions needing specialized  skills or to supplement staff to complete specific projects in a timely  manner.
Student Career Experience Program and the Student Temporary  Employment Program—under these authorities the Corps can hire  applicants currently enrolled in high school, college, a university, or a   technical or vocational school.  Students hired through the Student Career  Experience Program must be enrolled in a specific educational discipline  that meets the requirements for the position and are eligible for  conversion to permanent employees.  Students hired through the Student  Temporary Program are not required to be in educational disciplines that  match the work the student is performing, and their appointments are  limited to 1 year that can be extended until the completion of their  educational requirements.
The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998—under this authority  the Corps can hire applicants that have preference eligibility or  substantially completed 3 or more years of active service, in addition to  having received an honorable or general military discharge or were  released under honorable conditions shortly before completing a 3-year  tour of duty.
One district also told us that it has an affirmative employment plan that  includes outreach to various colleges and universities to attract qualified  applicants from diverse backgrounds.  Under the plan, the district  participates in various conferences, such as the Hispanic Engineer  National Achievement Awards Conference and the Black Engineering  Conference.  As a result of its affirmative employment plan, according to  district officials, the district has increased the quality and diversity of its  workforce.
The Corps also uses a variety of human capital flexibilities to maintain its  workforce as shown in table 1.  According to Corps officials, some of these  flexibilities are helpful to their recruiting efforts in areas where the cost of  living is high, such as San Francisco.  In such locations, the Corps uses  such tools as recruitment and retention bonuses as an incentive for  employees to work there.  Corps officials also cited other tools they use to  attract and retain a qualified staff, including paying for employees to  obtain advanced degrees; providing long-term training; and providing a  family-friendly workplace that allows flex-time, telecommuting, or  alternative work schedules.
While the Corps has a number of flexibilities available to help in its  recruiting and retention efforts, we found that the use of these flexibilities  has sharply declined in recent years. For example, although the Corps  awarded approximately $2.5 million in recruitment, relocation, and  retention bonuses during fiscal years 2002 through 2006, the amount it  devoted annually to recruitment bonuses decreased almost 97 percent  during that time—from about $750,000 in fiscal year 2002 to about $24,000  in fiscal year 2006. Moreover, the total amount the Corps spent annually  on recruitment, relocation, and retention decreased 75 percent from fiscal  year 2002 to 2006—from about $800,000 to about $198,000.  (See table 2.)  This trend is inconsistent with the concerns Corps officials have cited  about the growing impact of human capital challenges on the Corps’  workforce over the past 6 years.  Moreover, district officials with whom  we spoke generally felt that the Corps should be more aggressive in its use  of human capital authorities and flexibilities to address its human capital  challenges.  More specifically, some officials said that increasing the  agency’s use of recruitment, relocation, and retention bonuses would  increase the agency’s ability to attract and retain a qualified workforce.   For example, according to one district official, although his district tries to  provide incentives to recruit qualified staff, the incentives have to first be  approved by the district’s Corporate Board.  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.
In addition to the use of human capital tools discussed above, the Corps  also has the ability to outsource portions of its workload to private sector  organizations and other entities.  More specifically, the Corps has a goal of  contracting out 30 percent of the planning and design aspects of its civil  works projects, allowing the agency to meet its workload needs without  having to hire additional staff to fill gaps in its workforce.  Corps officials  told us that they use this option when they do not have the staff or skill  sets to assign to a particular project.  On the other hand, according to one  Corps official, although approximately 40 percent of the Corps’  engineering work is done in-house, that number may be declining.  This  official said that the practice of “contracting out for the sake of  contracting out” makes it difficult to bring people into the Corps because  engineers do not want to review the work of contractors—they would  rather do the work themselves.  The official stated that the Corps needs to  find the right balance between in-house and contract work.
Finally, while the Corps tracks the extent to which it uses certain human  capital tools, it has not developed a process to systematically evaluate  their effectiveness.  For example, the Corps tracks and can provide  information on its use of recruitment and retention bonuses, but it does  not have a process for assessing the extent to which such monetary  flexibilities are effective in helping recruit and retain a qualified staff.   Consequently, the Corps could not provide us with information on the  extent to which its use of various tools and flexibilities, such as retention  bonuses, has been effective in meeting its workforce needs.  Without a  process to evaluate the effectiveness of its human capital tools, it is  unclear how the Corps can determine the overall costs and benefits of the  various methods it is using to recruit and retain employees and whether  certain tools are being under- or overused.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help the Corps better manage its workforce planning efforts, we are  recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Commanding  General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to  take the following three actions:     Develop a human capital plan that is directly linked to the Corps’ current  strategic plan and that contains all the key components of an effective plan  as outlined by the Office of Personnel Management.
Distribute the revised plan agencywide and direct the divisions and  districts to use it to guide their human capital activities.
Develop and implement a process for determining the effectiveness of the  human capital tools the Corps is using so that it can adjust their use, as  necessary, to meet workforce needs.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of Defense for  review and comment.  The Department generally concurred with our  recommendations.  Specifically, the Department concurred with our  recommendation that the Corps develop a human capital plan that  is  directly linked to  the Corps’ current strategic plan and that contains all  the key components of an effective plan as outlined by OPM.  The  Department stated that it will conduct an Enterprise Human Resources  Strategy Summit on July 9 – 11, 2008, with stakeholders to obtain input  that will be used to update the Corps’ human capital plan.  The  Department stated that it expects to finalize the Corps human capital plan  by January 2009.  The Department also agreed with our recommendation  to distribute the revised human capital plan to the Corps’ divisions and  districts, stating that it would do so with the appropriate guidance within  30 days of the plan being finalized.  Finally, the Department concurred  with our recommendation that the Corps develop and implement a  process for determining the effectiveness of its human capital tools so that  it can adjust their use, as necessary, to meet workforce needs.  The  Department stated that metrics for determining the effectiveness of the  human capital tools used by the Corps will be identified and included in  the agency’s updated human capital plan.
The Department also provided additional information regarding various  human capital actions and initiatives mentioned in our report.  The full  text of the Department’s comments can be found in appendix II as well as  our response to these comments.  Of particular note is the Department’s  comment that since 2005, the Corps has been rated “green” in status and  “green” in progress on the Human Capital Scorecard by the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB).  According to the Department, the Corps’  human capital initiatives received such a rating only after rigorous  scrutiny of OMB and OPM.  We are aware that the Corps has been rated  “green” for its human capital initiative updates, however, as we state in the  report, these updates do not provide an adequate substitute for the  agency’s human capital plan because they do not include any of the  components of an effective plan, such as goals, strategies, and a system for  measuring how successfully strategies have been implemented.   Consequently, they do not represent a comprehensive framework of the  agency's human capital policies, programs, and practices needed to assist  the Corps in achieving its mission.  Additionally, the Department stated  that the report placed undue weight on feedback from a small number of  respondents.  We disagree with the Department’s characterization.  We  contacted officials in all eight Corps division offices and a third of all the  Corps district offices, and reported on those experiences and opinions  with which these officials generally concurred.  For example, the report  states that district officials with whom we spoke generally felt that the  Corps should be more aggressive in its use of human capital authorities  and flexibilities.  The individual examples cited throughout the report  were used to provide more clarification on the specific types of concerns  and situations being faced by the district officials.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the  Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of  Engineers, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested  parties.  We will also make copies available to others upon request.  In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  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.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: We were asked to examine the (1) extent to which the Corps has aligned  its human capital plan with its strategic plan, (2) extent to which the Corps  has the information necessary to identify and meet current and future  workforce needs, and (3) challenges the Corps faces in meeting its  workforce needs.
To assess the alignment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ human  capital plan with its strategic plan, we analyzed and reviewed a broad  range of Corps policy and planning documents from headquarters and  divisions.  Specifically, we examined information on the Corps’ operations  and strategic planning efforts, such as the Corps’ 2002 Strategic Human  Capital Plan, the Integrated Strategic Plan, Campaign Plans, related  headquarters and division documents, and the USACE 2012 regionalization  plan.  We also reviewed information from Corps strategic boards and  committees, the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Human Capital  Assessment and Accountability Framework, and our relevant reports.  We  corroborated information provided in these documents through interviews  with human resources managers and program managers at Corps  headquarters, divisions, and districts.  We also interviewed cognizant  community of practice program leaders in real estate, contracting,  planning, research and development, operations and regulations, resource  management, strategic integrations, human resources, program and  project management, logistics, environment, and engineering and  construction.
To assess the extent to which the Corps is collecting the information  necessary to meet current and future workforce needs, we visited and  interviewed Corps officials at two divisions (the North Atlantic and South  Pacific divisions) and three districts (New York, San Francisco, and  Sacramento) to obtain information about their strategic workforce  planning strategies and their human capital initiatives related to  recruitment, development, and retention of staff.  We used the information  obtained from the visits to develop a structured interview that we  administered to the Corps’ eight divisions and a purposeful sample of 14 of  the Corps’ 38 districts that conduct work in the United States.  We selected  2 districts from each division to include in our interviews, with the  exception of Pacific Ocean Division, where we interviewed only the  division staff.  Our site selections were based on (1) number of scientists  and engineers, (2) overall full-time equivalent employees, (3) budget size,  and (4) geographic location.  Although the information from our sample of  districts is not generalizable to all districts within a division, our  interviews cover human capital issues at locations representing nearly half  (46 percent) of Corps scientist and engineering staff, and represent issues  at locations with diverse staff sizes, budget sizes, and geographic  locations.  We did not include districts in the Pacific Ocean Division  because 2 of the districts are outside the United States, and the human  capital challenges at the domestic districts—Alaska and Honolulu—would  likely be unique to labor force demographics at these locations.  Additionally, because there are only 2 districts within the Pacific Ocean  Division that perform work in the United States, the division is likely more  aware of the districts’ activities compared to those other divisions that are  responsible for more districts.  The 14 districts selected were Huntington,  Louisville, St. Louis, Vicksburg, New England, New York, Omaha, Walla  Walla, Jacksonville, Mobile, Albuquerque, Los Angeles, Fort Worth, and  Little Rock.  Although the New Orleans  District was originally selected  based on our criteria, we chose St. Louis as a replacement because of  other ongoing audit work at the site, and the Corps’ heavy workload  related to Hurricane Katrina reconstruction efforts.  We interviewed  managers identified by the District Deputy Commander responsible for  strategic human capital planning and human resources-related issues.  The  structured interview covered, among other things, human capital  initiatives, performance measures, critical skills, and challenges to  meeting workforce needs.  To reduce nonsampling errors, we conducted  pretests with respondents from two divisions and 3 districts to ensure that  questions were interpreted in a consistent manner and we revised the  questions on the basis of the pretest results.  We also reviewed division  and district documents on recruitment, training and development, and  retention to corroborate information discussed during the interviews.
To determine the challenges the Corps faces in meeting its workforce  needs, we included open-ended questions about challenges the Corps  faces in meeting its workforce and program needs in our structured  interviews and interviewed community of practice program leaders at  Corps headquarters.  We conducted a content analysis of interview  responses for which general themes were developed and then  independently coded.  Coding discrepancies were reviewed, and if  necessary, arbitrated by a third party until agreement statistics reached  100 percent.  The content codes and other interview data were analyzed to  develop general statistics on human capital issues across the divisions and  districts.
In addition, we analyzed data obtained from Army’s Workforce Analysis  Support System for information on the Corps’ workforce and the Corps of  Engineers Financial Management System for information on the Corps use  of recruitment, retention, and relocation allowances as well as  expenditures for training and development activities.  To assess the  reliability of the data needed to answer the engagement objectives, we  checked these data for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness,  reviewed existing information about these data and the system that  produced them, and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the  data.  We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2007 to April 2008 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Corps of Engineers
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments to the additional information included  in the Department of Defense’s letter dated May 1, 2008.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 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.    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.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Related GAO Reports
paragraphs: 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.