Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Establish Performance Measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program
Published: 2017-06-08T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: For nearly a century, the U.S. Armed Forces (i.e., the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard) have organized and participated in international and national sporting competitions in part because of the intended benefits for servicemember morale and the unique opportunity that participation provides to foster diplomatic relations.
House Report 114-537 accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 included a provision for GAO to review the Armed Forces Sports Program and its impact on the military services' readiness. This report assesses the effectiveness of DOD's implementation of the Armed Forces Sports Program. GAO analyzed participation data for fiscal years 2012 through 2016 and cost data for fiscal years 2014 through 2016, compared DOD data with attributes of successful performance measures, compared roles and responsibilities specified in policy with those being implemented, and interviewed DOD officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) has data on participation in and costs of the Armed Forces Sports Program, but has not taken steps, including developing performance measures and clarifying roles and responsibilities that are needed to help ensure the program is implemented effectively. DOD officials stated that they use sport and competition participation data to measure the performance and effectiveness of the program. According to these data, servicemember participation changed from 968 servicemembers in fiscal year 2012 to 848 servicemembers in fiscal year 2016, and program costs ranged from about $2.1 million to about $2.8 million in fiscal years 2014 through 2016. While these data provide important context about the program's size and reach, they do not exhibit several key attributes, such as linkage, a measurable target, and baseline and trend data that GAO has found are key to successfully measuring a program's performance.
First, these data do not exhibit linkage because no relationship has been established to show how the number of servicemember participants contribute to achievement of the program's objectives, such as promoting goodwill among and a positive image of the U.S. Armed Forces through sports.
Second, these data were not associated with a measurable target that would enable program officials to determine how far the program has progressed toward a desired outcome or end state.
for measures that are able to assess the program's performance and progress over time.
Without performance measures that demonstrate these attributes, DOD will be unable to effectively demonstrate that it is achieving the intended benefits of the program, such as improving readiness, recruitment, and retention as well as promoting the goodwill of the U.S. Armed Forces. Officials cited the program as aiding recruiting because it showcased unique opportunities open to those in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, outside of participation and cost data and some anecdotal examples, officials did not have specific measures for or data on the Armed Forces Sports Program's contribution to the services' readiness, recruiting, and retention efforts.
The roles and responsibilities that are currently being implemented for the program differ from the program's roles and responsibilities specified in DOD policy. DOD Instruction 1330.04 specifies that the program includes training or national qualifying events in preparation for participation in International Military Sports Council events, the Pan American Games, the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, and other international competitions. While this is how the program is defined in key program documents, DOD officials stated that all responsibilities, including costs, associated with servicemember participation in the Pan American, Olympic, and Paralympic Games are handled by the services. DOD officials stated that they plan to review DOD Instruction 1330.04 and make necessary updates, but have not yet determined what specific changes would be made to clarify the program's roles and responsibilities.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD develop and implement performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program that, at a minimum, demonstrate linkage to the program's goals or mission, have a measurable target, and include a baseline that can be used to demonstrate program performance. DOD concurred with the recommendation, noting potential limitations on establishing measures. GAO acknowledges these limitations, but continues to believe that measures are important to evaluating the program's effectiveness.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: For nearly a century, the U.S. Armed Forces have organized and  participated in international and national sporting competitions in part  because of the intended benefits for servicemember morale and the  unique opportunity that participation provides to foster diplomatic  relations. The concept originated with the U.S.-led effort to organize the  Inter-Allied Games of 1919 in France as a way to promote unity of effort  among U.S. soldiers during the lengthy period of demobilization at the  end of World War I, and to help enrich the U.S. relationship with the  Allies. In continuing these efforts, in 1948 the Armed Forces Sports  Program, originally named the Inter-service Sports Council, was  established. In 2010, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued DOD  Instruction 1330.04, which states that the Armed Forces Sports Program  includes actions such as training or national qualifying events in  preparation for servicemember participation in International Military  Sports Council events, the Pan American, Olympic, and Paralympic  Games, and other international competitions. Currently, the program  offers 24 team and individual sports for men and women; annually  administers 16 Armed Forces Sports Championships; and participates in  9 U.S. national championships and in 16 International Military Sports  Council Military World Championships.
House Report 114-537 accompanying a bill for the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 included a provision for us to  review the Armed Forces Sports Program and provide a briefing by  February 2017 on the impact the program has on the military services’  readiness. We briefed your committees in February 2017 and this report  expands on the information provided in that briefing. This report assesses  the effectiveness of DOD’s implementation of the Armed Forces Sports  Program.
For this review, we analyzed participation data for fiscal years 2012  through 2016 and cost data for fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Based  on responses of officials in the Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat  (Sports Council Secretariat) to data reliability questionnaires, we  determined that the data we obtained are sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our reporting objectives. We compared DOD’s policy for the  program against the federal standards for internal control that state  among other things that managers should establish activities to monitor  performance measures. We interviewed officials from the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Sports  Council Secretariat, and each service to discuss performance measures used to assess the program’s effectiveness, including the effects of  program participation on services’ readiness. Specifically, we interviewed  13 randomly selected servicemembers from the services that participated  in the program in calendar year 2015 to gather information related to  program participation and readiness effects on the services. We also  interviewed ten commanders who had approved a randomly selected  participants request to participate in the program to gather information  related to participation and its effect on unit readiness. Further, we  assessed program policies and interviewed officials from the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Sports  Council Secretariat, and each service to discuss policies, including roles  and responsibilities for implementing the program. Specifically, we  analyzed DOD’s implementation of department policies to determine  whether these policies were implemented as intended. We also examined  the extent to which DOD has clearly defined key areas of authority and  responsibilities and established appropriate lines of reporting for the  program, in accordance with federal standards for internal control. A  more detailed description of our scope and methodology appears in  appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2016 to June 2017 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
subsections: section_title: Roles and Responsibilities for the Armed Forces Sports Program
paragraphs: DOD instruction 1330.04 outlines the following roles and responsibilities  regarding the Armed Forces Sports Program:
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness: Provides guidance and oversight concerning the  participation of servicemembers in Armed Forces, national, and  international amateur sports competitions.
Senior Military Sports Advisor: Serves as the Service Personnel Chief  who is responsible for the management and operation of the program  and reports to the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness.
Armed Forces Sports Council: Serves as the governing body of the  program, and is composed of the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation  representatives from each service or their designated representatives.
Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat: Serves as the executive  office for the council and serves as the U.S. liaison to the International  Military Sports Council.
Armed Forces Sports Council Working Group: Serves as the staffing  body of the Armed Forces Sports Council, which is composed of  Morale, Welfare, and Recreation representatives from each service.
Secretaries of the Military Departments: Develop sports programs  based on specific needs and mission requirements that provide the  opportunity for servicemembers to prepare for and compete in  national and international amateur sports competitions on a voluntary  basis.
According to Sports Council Secretariat officials and the policies for  managing servicemembers’ participation in national and international  amateur sports competitions, the Sports Council Secretariat and the  service sports offices each have responsibilities for managing the Armed  Forces Sports Program. Table 1 further describes the responsibilities of  the Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat’s and the service sports  offices for the Armed Forces Sports Program.
section_title: Number of Staff Members Working for the Armed Forces Sports Program and Team and Individual Sports Offered
paragraphs: The number of staff members working in the Armed Forces Sports  Council Secretariat and the service sports offices and the percentage of  time staff members spend working for the Armed Forces Sports Program  varies. For example, the Navy Sports Office has two staff members who  work on the program nearly full time, while the Army Sports Office has  four staff members who work on the program part time. In addition, the  staff members working for the Armed Forces Sports Program include both  civilians and active-duty servicemembers. Table 2 provides further details  on the number of staff members and the estimated percentage of time  they spend working for the Armed Forces Sports Program.
section_title: DOD Has Participation Data, but Has Not Developed Performance Measures or Clarified Roles and Responsibilities to Help Ensure Effective Program Implementation
paragraphs: DOD has data on participation in and costs of the Armed Forces Sports  Program, but has not taken steps, including developing performance  measures and clarifying roles and responsibilities, that are needed to help  ensure that the program is implemented effectively.
subsections: section_title: DOD Has Data on Participation in and Costs of the Armed Forces Sports Program
paragraphs: Sports Council Secretariat officials provided us with data for fiscal years  2012-2016 on servicemember participation in the program, including on  the number of days servicemembers are away from their unit participating  in the program and on civilians supporting the program, and data for fiscal  years 2014-2016 on program costs.
subsections: section_title: Servicemember Participation
paragraphs: In analyzing the number of servicemembers participating in the program,  we found that servicemember participation changed from 968  servicemembers in fiscal year 2012 to 848 servicemembers in fiscal year  2016. Table 3 provides further details about the number of  servicemembers who participated in or supported the Armed Forces  Sports Program in fiscal years 2012-2016.
We also found that servicemember participation ranged from an average  of 6.8 days per event in fiscal year 2013 to 13.2 days per event in fiscal  year 2016. Sports Council Secretariat and service officials stated that the  servicemembers who participate in the program are in peak physical  shape and that they were unaware of any additional recovery time that a  participant has needed after competing. Table 4 breaks out these data for  each year from fiscal years 2012 through 2016.
According to officials, DOD civilians provide various types of support to  the Armed Forces Sports Program and may include employees who work  for the program on a full- or part-time basis, as well as those who serve in  a volunteer capacity. Civilians who support the program as volunteers  may serve in a variety roles, as coaches or as staff, for example, which  include athletic trainers, service representatives, or medical staff. Table 5  provides further details on the number of civilians who supported the  Armed Forces Sports Program in fiscal years 2012 through 2016.
Sports Council Secretariat officials stated the program covers the cost of  servicemembers participating and units do not have to provide any  funding. Program costs ranged from about $2.1 million to about $2.8  million from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Table 6 provides additional  details about these costs.
Armed Forces Sports Championships are hosted by one of the services  and must include at least three of the services in competition for all team  sports and most individual sports. Higher level competitions are attended  by the most competent athletes from the Armed Forces Sports  Championships or athletes selected based on other qualifying events or  criteria and may include U.S. national, International Military Sports  Council, or other international events. In table 7 we break out the costs for  participation in events from table 6 associated with Armed Forces Sports  Championships and higher level competitions for fiscal years 2014  through 2016.
section_title: DOD Has Not Developed Performance Measures to Demonstrate the Effectiveness of the Armed Forces Sports Program
paragraphs: While DOD has data on program participation and cost, these data are  outputs and not outcomes and therefore do not exhibit important  attributes of successful performance measures that are necessary to  demonstrate that the Armed Forces Sports Program is being  implemented effectively. Federal internal control standards state, among  other things, that managers should establish activities to monitor  performance measures. Furthermore, our prior work on performance  measurement identified ten key attributes of performance measures, such  as clarity, objectivity, having a measurable target, and having baseline  and trend data in order to identify, monitor, and report changes in  performance and to help ensure that performance is viewed in context.  Table 8 identifies each attribute of effective performance measures along  with its definition.
Sports Council Secretariat officials stated that they use data on the  number of servicemembers and services annually participating in each  sport and competition to measure the performance and effectiveness of  the Armed Forces Sports Program. While these data provide important  context about the program’s size and reach, they are outputs and do not  constitute performance measures because they do not exhibit several of  the key attributes previously discussed.
First, we found that the Sports Council Secretariat’s use of participation  data does not exhibit the attribute of linkage in that there is not clear  alignment between the number of participants and how it affects the  program’s ability to achieve its goals and mission. For example, while  DOD Instruction 1330.04 does not specify goals or a mission, the Armed  Forces Sports Council’s standard operating procedures identify that the  five objectives of the program are to:  (1) promote goodwill among the Armed Services through sports,  (2) promote a positive image of the Armed Forces through sports,  (3) provide the incentive and encourage physical fitness by promoting a  highly competitive sports program,  (4) provide a venue for military athletes to participate in national and  international competitions, and  (5) engage in valuable military-to-military opportunities with International  Military Sports Council member nations through sports.
However, Sports Council Secretariat officials have not established a link  between the participant data that they stated are used to measure  program performance and the achievement of these objectives.
Further, our prior work has shown that linkages between goals and  measures are most effective when they are clearly communicated and  create a “line of sight” so that everyone understands what an organization  is trying to achieve and the goals it seeks to reach. During meetings with  the Sports Council Secretariat, officials stated that they use data, such as  servicemember participation in the Armed Forces Sports Championships,  International Military Sports Council Championships, U.S. Nationals, and  the Olympic and Paralympic Games to measure the performance and  effectiveness of the Armed Forces Sports Program, and that they have  created performance measures on an as-needed basis when it has been  necessary to prioritize the allocation of funds for individual sports.  However, none of the documents we were provided on the program  identify participation or any other data as a performance measure, and  these efforts do not exhibit a deliberate, four-stage performance  measurement process that involves (1) identifying goals, (2) developing  performance measures, (3) collecting data, and (4) analyzing data and  reporting results. Further, servicemember participation in the Olympic  and Paralympic Games is not a valid performance measure because,  according to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the  Sports Council Secretariat, and the services, the Armed Forces Sports  Program does not have responsibility for these games.
Second, participation data do not exhibit the measurable target attribute  because they represent a summary of the program’s activity and are not  associated with numerical goals, which are needed to gauge program  progress and results. Our prior work has shown that numerical targets or  other measurable values facilitate future assessments of whether overall  goals and objectives are achieved because comparisons can be easily  made between projected performance and actual results. While the  Sports Council Secretariat’s data included the “actual” number of program  participants, they did not identify projected performance targets that  would enable program officials to determine how far they have  progressed toward a desired outcome or end state. In response to our  analysis, Sports Council Secretariat officials stated that they consider the  list of 24 sports and total number of competitions that servicemembers  may participate in to be the target—the attainment of which is based on  variables such as available funding and the extent to which each service  agrees to provide teams to participate in the competitions. However, this  is not a valid demonstration of this attribute because neither the target in  this sense nor the variables affecting participation (e.g., funding and  service branch involvement) demonstrate how well the Armed Forces  Sports Program performs or carries out its mission.
In addition, officials from the Sports Council Secretariat and the services  stated that the program directly benefits the services’ readiness,  recruitment, and retention efforts. Specifically, officials cited the program’s  emphasis on a higher level of physical fitness than is otherwise required  by the services as contributing to individual servicemember readiness,  and involvement in national and international sports championships as  aiding recruiting efforts because it showcases some of the unique  opportunities open to those in the services. Further, officials stated that  the opportunity to participate in higher level competitions through the  program helps retention because it provides an incentive for some  servicemembers to stay in the services. However, outside of participation  and cost data and some anecdotal examples, officials did not have  specific measures for or data on the Armed Forces Sports Program’s  contribution to the services’ readiness, recruiting, and retention efforts.
Third, while DOD has program participation data, it does not track  baseline and trend data in order to assess the program’s performance  and progress over time. Our prior work has demonstrated that by tracking  and developing a performance baseline for all measures—including those  that demonstrate the effectiveness of a program—agencies can better  evaluate progress made and whether or not goals are being achieved.  Further, identifying and reporting deviations from the baseline as a  program proceeds provides valuable information for oversight by  identifying areas of program risk and their causes for decision makers.  According to Sports Council Secretariat officials, many of the program’s  benefits—such as helping with readiness, recruitment, and retention—are  not measured, and commanding officers are responsible for determining  and managing the program’s effect on the readiness of their units. Thus,  given the relatively small number of program participants and participation  being contingent on obtaining commanding officer approval, Sports  Council Secretariat officials stated that they do not believe that the  services’ readiness is negatively affected by servicemembers  participating in the Armed Forces Sports Program.
We acknowledge that the measurement of the program’s performance  may be difficult, but DOD’s participation data do not include targets  allowing program performance to be measured and do not assess the  intended benefits of the program. Without effective performance  measures that demonstrate linkage with the program’s goals or mission,  have measurable targets, and an established baseline of data, DOD will  be unable to effectively demonstrate the benefits of the program and will  not have the information needed to ensure that the department is  allocating resources to its highest priority efforts.
section_title: DOD’s Implementation of Armed Forces Sports Program’s Roles and Responsibilities Differs from Those Currently Defined in Policy
paragraphs: The roles and responsibilities that are currently being implemented for the  Armed Forces Sports Program differ from the program’s roles and  responsibilities specified in DOD policy. DOD Instruction 1330.04 and the  Armed Forces Sports Council’s standard operating procedures specify  that the Armed Forces Sports Program includes training or national  qualifying events in preparation for participation in International Military  Sports Council events, the Pan American Games, the Olympic Games,  the Paralympic Games, and other international competitions. While this  is how the program is defined in key program documents, the Office of  the Secretary of Defense, Sports Council Secretariat, and service officials stated that all responsibilities, including costs, associated with  servicemember participation in the Pan American, Olympic, and  Paralympic Games are, in practice, handled by the services.
According to these officials, the program’s primary objective when it was  established was to support the Olympic movement by providing  servicemembers the opportunity to compete in the 1948 London Olympic  Games. Further, DOD Instruction 1330.04 specifies that the Armed  Forces Sports Program includes, among other things, training or national  qualifying events in preparation for participation in the Pan American  Games, the Olympic Games, and the Paralympic Games. However,  officials stated that over time, the services assumed responsibility for their  respective servicemembers’ participation in the Pan American, Olympic,  and Paralympic Games.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense and Sports Council Secretariat  officials stated they plan to review DOD Instruction 1330.04 and make  necessary updates but did not indicate what specific changes would be  made to clarify the program’s roles and responsibilities. Further, these  officials stated that they were not sure whether they would remove the  Pan American, Olympic, and Paralympic Games from the Armed Forces  Sports Council’s standard operating procedures because of the potential  for responsibilities to shift again in the future.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Armed Forces Sports Program provides a means by which  servicemember athletes can participate in national and international  competitions while representing the Armed Forces. However, the program  currently does not have performance measures with linkage, measurable  targets, or a baseline. Without measures that address the desired  outcomes and include these attributes, it will be difficult for DOD and  Congress to determine whether the program is meeting the desired goals  or benefiting readiness, recruitment, and retention.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the management of the Armed Forces Sports Program and  better determine whether the program is achieving its desired results, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of  Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop and implement  performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program that  measure the desired outcomes for the program and, at a minimum,  demonstrate linkage to the program’s goals or mission, have a  measurable target, and include a baseline that can be used to  demonstrate program performance.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD and the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS) for review and comment. In its comments on a  draft of this report, DOD concurred with our recommendation and their  comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II. DOD and DHS  also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report  as appropriate.
DOD concurred with our recommendation to develop and implement  performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program that  measure the desired outcomes for the program and, at a minimum,  demonstrate linkage to the program’s goals or mission, have a  measurable target, and include a baseline that can be used to  demonstrate program performance but also noted potential limitations on  establishing measures. Specifically, DOD said that it will explore the  development and implementation of performance outcome measures for  the Armed Forces Sports Program and that it will review Department of  Defense Instruction 1330.04 for potential opportunities to incorporate  appropriate guidance regarding performance measures for the Armed  Forces Sports Program. However, DOD stated that there are limitations  on establishing metrics for several of the program’s objectives, such as  goodwill and positive image, which are challenging to measure. Further,  DOD said that quantifying outcomes for some objectives, such as the  “spirit” of the program, also will be challenging, but that the lack of a  performance measurement does not negate the importance of pursuing  objectives that contribute to demonstrating the program’s overall  effectiveness. In our report, we acknowledged that measurement of the  program’s performance may be difficult but also necessary to produce the  evidence-based support that is needed to objectively demonstrate how  the specific activities that comprise a program are contributing to its  effectiveness. Exploring the development and implementation of  performance measures and reviewing DOD guidance regarding  performance measures are positive steps, but we continue to believe that  DOD needs to develop and implement performance measures in order to  demonstrate if the Armed Forces Sports Program is being implemented  effectively. While it may be challenging to develop performance  measures, our prior work has demonstrated that even for highly complex  areas such as DOD’s reform of its medical health system and prevention  of sexual assault, developing and implementing performance measures  can be done, and if implemented correctly, can enhance decision-making.  Until DOD does develop and implement performance measures, it will be  unable to effectively demonstrate the benefits of the program and will not  have the data needed to monitor the program, make decisions about  program management and ensure that the department is allocating  resources to its highest priority efforts.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland  Security; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the  Commandants of the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard; and the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. In addition, the report  is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff members who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To assess the effectiveness of the Department of Defense’s (DOD)  implementation of the Armed Forces Sports Program, we reviewed DOD  and service (including the Coast Guard) policies and procedures related  to the administration of and participation in the program. We interviewed  officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel  and Readiness, the Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat (“Sports  Council Secretariat”), and each service about these policies and  procedures.
We also discussed the extent to which any performance measures had  been established to assess the program’s effectiveness, including any  effects of program participation on the services’ readiness. We obtained  and analyzed data from DOD on the number of active-duty  servicemembers, by service, who had participated in the Armed Forces  Sports Program in fiscal years 2012 through 2016 as well as on the  number of days servicemembers had spent away from their respective  units participating in the program during the same time frame. We also  obtained and analyzed data from DOD on the number of DOD and Coast  Guard civilians who had supported the Armed Forces Sports Program in  fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Further, we obtained and analyzed data  from DOD on program costs for fiscal years 2014 through 2016, including  the administrative, travel, and salary costs incurred by the Armed Forces  Sports Council Secretariat, program-related travel and salary costs for  each service, and participation costs of travel participants, which  according to program officials include transportation and lodging costs.  The time frame of the participant and cost data that we obtained differs  because DOD officials stated that fiscal year 2014 was the most recent  year that cost data were available from all the services. Based on  responses from the Armed Forces Sports Program office to data reliability  questionnaires, we determined that the data we obtained were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this review. We compared DOD’s policy for  the program against the federal standards for internal control that state,  among other things, that managers should establish activities to monitor  performance measures. Additionally, we compared DOD’s participant  data—the department’s measure for demonstrating the effectiveness of  the Armed Forces Sports Program—with our prior work on performance  measurement to determine the extent to which these data exhibit the ten  key attributes of successful performance measures.
To obtain servicemembers’ perspectives on the Armed Forces Sports  Program and its effect on individual readiness, we interviewed 13  randomly selected servicemembers who had participated in the program  in calendar year 2015 since, at that time, this was the most recent year  for which the program had a complete set of participant data. To  understand any effect that a servicemembers’ participation may have had  on unit readiness, we also interviewed ten commanding officers who had  approved one of the randomly selected servicemembers’ requests to  participate in the Armed Forces Sports Program. While the information  that we obtained was nongeneralizable, it provided perspectives from  individuals with first-hand experience with the Armed Forces Sports  Program.
We also reviewed DOD and service policies and procedures to identify  roles and responsibilities associated with implementing the Armed Forces  Sports Program. Further, we interviewed officials within each organization  to discuss how designated roles and responsibilities were being  implemented.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2016 to June 2017 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 Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Kimberly A. Mayo, Assistant  Director; Christopher H. Conrad; Mae Frances Jones; Stephanie Moriarty;  Shahrzad Nikoo; Shane T. Spencer; Andrew Stavisky; and John W. Van  Schaik made key contributions to this report.