Joint Professional Military Education: Opportunities Exist for Greater Oversight and Coordination of Associated Research Institutions
Published: 2014-03-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DOD's colleges and universities that provide JPME, including their research institutions, are intended to develop military personnel throughout their careers by broadening them intellectually and fostering collaboration across the military services. JPME research institutions generally provide studies and analysis research that can support academic programs or inform DOD policymakers.
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 mandated GAO to review JPME research institutions. GAO's report (1) describes how JPME research institutions have changed in number, funding, and size; (2) evaluates the extent to which DOD assesses JPME research institution performance; and (3) evaluates the extent to which DOD coordinates the research requests of these and other DOD-funded research organizations. GAO identified and examined the 20 JPME research institutions that conduct research as their primary mission and have dedicated personnel. GAO reviewed DOD documents and interviewed officials on changes at the 20 institutions and how they are overseen, as well as the processes to coordinate their research activities and those of 14 other DOD-funded research organizations GAO determined conduct research activities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) research institutions, particularly at the National Defense University, experienced growth in number, funding, and size in terms of staffing levels from fiscal year (FY) 2007 through FY 2011, but the number of institutions as well as funding and staffing levels declined over the past 2 years. For example, total funding for JPME research institutions increased from $30.8 million in FY 2007 to $47.7 million in FY 2011, but subsequently decreased to $40.6 million in FY 2013. GAO identified several factors that contributed to these institutions' growth, including increases in funding provided by outside organizations for research and the creation of new research institutions. Department of Defense (DOD) officials reported that DOD-wide budget reductions, including the effects of sequestration, contributed to decreases in the number, size, and funding for JPME research institutions.
The extent to which DOD can assess the performance of JPME research institutions is limited by the lack of a comprehensive framework to systematically assess their performance in meeting professional military education and other departmental goals and objectives. JPME colleges and universities have not consistently established measurable goals or objectives linked with performance metrics for their associated research institutions. Best practices state that achieving results in government requires a framework with measurable goals and objectives and metrics to assess progress. Further, oversight mechanisms for the colleges and universities, such as accreditation processes, focus on the quality of JPME academic programs and not on the research institutions' performance. There is no DOD-wide guidance that addresses the intended role of the research institutions in supporting JPME or other departmental goals, or assigns responsibilities for conducting reviews of them, leaving the department without a basis to assess the institutions' stated mission and actual performance against planned or expected results. Therefore, DOD does not have a basis to assess the institutions' missions and performance against expected results, as called for by best practices. Without measurable goals and objectives linked with performance metrics, and clear guidance on their intended roles and assignment of oversight responsibilities, DOD cannot ensure JPME research institutions are effectively accomplishing their missions.
DOD has not established mechanisms to coordinate requests for research conducted by JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded research organizations because there is no requirement to do so. Although many of these organizations have missions to conduct research in similar topic areas, DOD uses a variety of processes to request studies and analysis research. Specifically, offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments each have their own separate internal processes to manage research requests and do not participate in one another's processes. Best practices on managing for results state that organizations involved in similar missions should coordinate and share information to avoid unnecessary duplication of work. At a time of constrained budgets, fragmentation in DOD's approach to managing its research requests across the department exposes DOD to the risk of potential overlap of studies and analysis research.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD take actions to define the role of JPME research institutions, assign responsibilities for assessing performance, and establish a mechanism to coordinate studies and analysis research requests. DOD concurred with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere over the past decade  have demonstrated, military personnel must think critically, communicate  well, conduct themselves with integrity, and lead others in difficult and  often dangerous situations that involve forces from across the four military  services. To that end, the Department of Defense (DOD) relies on joint  professional military education (JPME), a subset of professional military  education (PME), to educate servicemembers throughout their careers,  broaden their knowledge, improve performance during joint assignments,  and foster collaboration across the military services. In 1989, a  congressional panel undertaking a comprehensive review of PME  strongly expressed the importance of JPME in guiding intellectual thought  on doctrine, tactics, strategy, and the future of each of the military  services. DOD has colleges and universities throughout the country that  not only provide academic instruction in PME and JPME, but also conduct  research. At JPME-granting colleges and universities, research is  conducted by students and professors, as well as by specifically  dedicated research institutions. These JPME research institutions  primarily conduct studies and analysis research that may directly support  both PME and JPME academic programs by providing new concepts for  the classroom or DOD’s broader needs, such as policy development and  planning efforts.
Given its importance in educating military leaders, a 2010 report from the  House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations  concluded that PME, of which JPME is a subset, warrants more-frequent  congressional oversight. studies of PME were unable to fully identify the costs associated with  DOD’s JPME programs. Specifically, we found that without reliable cost  information, decision makers could be hindered in determining the most- efficient allocation of departmental resources for JPME. Moreover, the  Joint Staff has expressed concerns about considerable budgetary growth  at the National Defense University (NDU), which DOD has characterized  as the premier center for JPME. For example, in a 2012 review, the Joint  Staff concluded that it could not identify a clear link between some of the  activities of NDU’s research institutions and its JPME mission.
However, our prior workThe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 mandated  that we review the work performed by JPME research institutions in   In this report, we (1) support of PME and DOD’s broader mission. describe how JPME research institutions have changed in number,  funding, and size and the factors that contributed to any changes; (2)  evaluate the extent to which DOD is assessing the performance of JPME  research institutions in meeting PME and other departmental goals and  objectives; and (3) evaluate the extent to which DOD coordinates  research requests for JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded  research organizations.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Armed Services, House of  Representatives, Another Crossroads? Professional Military Education Two Decades After  the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the Skelton Panel, H.R. 111-4 (2010).
JPME certification—that is, NDU, the Army War College, Army Command  and General Staff College, Air University, Naval War College, and Marine  Corps University. Research conducted at these JPME colleges and  universities can be accomplished by research institutions associated with  the colleges and universities as well as by students and professors as  part of academic coursework. For the purposes of this report, we focused  on research institutions that conduct research as their primary mission  and have dedicated personnel to do so. We excluded certain centers and  institutes associated with JPME colleges and universities because we  determined they did not have a mission to primarily conduct research or   We also excluded from our analysis  did not have dedicated personnel.research conducted by students as part of their academic coursework  and by professors not affiliated with the research institutions. To identify  the JPME research institutions included within the scope of our review,  we examined documentation and gathered testimonial evidence related to  the missions, activities, and organization of the institutions that conduct  research at the JPME colleges and universities. Based on this evidence,  we determined that 20 institutions were conducting research as their  primary mission and had dedicated personnel assigned to them and  therefore were included in the scope of our review.
Staffing data provided by JPME colleges and universities include military and civilian  personnel, noncontractor researchers, contractor researchers, as well as noncontractor  administrative staff positions. provided and our review of the questionnaire responses, we concluded  that the systems used to provide the data, and thus the data they provide,  are sufficiently reliable for our audit purposes. However, based on this  evidence, we determined that we were unable to report consistent data  on JPME research institution funding and staffing levels prior to fiscal  year 2007 and therefore we are providing trend data on JPME research  institutions from fiscal years 2007 through 2013. Furthermore, although  we have identified a number of factors that could affect data quality, we  concluded that these were the best available data on JPME research  institutions. We also concluded that the data would not lead to an  incorrect or unintentional message since they are corroborated through  interviews with DOD officials. We also discussed the reasons for any  trends in these budget and staffing data with knowledgeable officials in  DOD and at the JPME colleges and universities.
To determine the extent to which DOD is assessing the performance of  JPME research institutions in meeting PME and other departmental goals  and objectives, we obtained and reviewed documentation from the Joint  Staff and the JPME colleges and universities that identify any goals,  objectives, or performance measures for JPME research institutions.  Specifically, we reviewed current strategic plans, mission statements, and  other documentation describing activities of the JPME research  institutions. We also reviewed documentation describing external  oversight mechanisms that monitor the academic quality of JPME  colleges and universities. To further our understanding of any processes  used to assess the performance of JPME research institutions, we used a  standard set of questions to interview DOD officials and personnel at the  JPME colleges and universities. We then reviewed the results of the  interviews and related documents to develop summary findings. In  reviewing this documentation and testimonial evidence, we referred to our  prior work on best practices that identifies elements that constitute a  comprehensive oversight framework. Specifically, these best practices  state that such a framework should include measurable goals and  objectives linked with metrics for assessing progress, which is consistent  with the framework identified in the Government Performance and  Results Act (GPRA), as amended by the GPRA Modernization Act of  2010. We also reviewed this evidence in light of key internal-control  standards that state that federal agencies should conduct reviews by  management at the functional or activity level and compare actual  performance to planned or expected results.
To determine the extent to which research activities of JPME research  institutions and other DOD-funded research organizations are  coordinated, we included in the scope of our review the 20 JPME  research institutions discussed above and 14 other DOD-funded research  organizations. To identify the other DOD-funded research institutions, we  gathered DOD documentation from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Research and Engineering and canvassed knowledgeable DOD officials  in offices responsible for requesting research, such as the military  departments, science and technology executive agents, studies and  analysis research program managers, and the Office of the Secretary of  Defense, including the Offices of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and the Under Secretary of  Defense for Policy. We reviewed documentation from and interviewed  officials with these offices to better understand the process for requesting  studies and analysis research from JPME institutions and other DOD- funded research organizations. Specifically, we used a standard set of  questions to interview officials with the Office of the Secretary of Defense  and the military services about the processes used to share information  with other offices that also request studies and analysis research. We  then reviewed the results of the interviews and related documents to  develop summary findings. We reviewed the documentary and testimonial  evidence in light of key practices for enhancing and sustaining  coordination as described in our prior work on best practices. Specifically,  best practices state that organizations involved in similar missions should  coordinate and share information to avoid unnecessary duplication of  work.missions of the JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded  research organizations in the following four ways: (1) we determined the  general category of research being conducted at JPME and other DOD- funded research institutions, for example, whether the research was  studies and analysis– or science and technology–focused; (2) we  reviewed the current mission statements for all research organizations  included in our scope to determine the topic areas in which they conduct  research; (3) we categorized research project titles from 2012 and 2013  provided to us by all research organizations included in our scope to  determine the topic areas in which they conduct research; and (4) we  reviewed documentation about the offices that request JPME and other  DOD-funded research institutions, along with testimonial evidence  gathered during our interviews with DOD officials, to provide context for  any similarities or dissimilarities we identified through our analysis of  mission statements and project titles. The results of our analysis are not  generalizable beyond the 20 JPME research institutions and 14 other  DOD-funded research institutions included in the scope of our review. A  more-detailed discussion of our scope and methodology is included in  appendix I.
Further, we assessed similarities and dissimilarities among the  We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 through March  2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Overview of Professional Military Education
paragraphs: The primary purpose of PME is to develop military personnel, throughout  their careers, for the intellectual demands of complex contingencies and  major conflicts. The military services provide PME at their respective staff  and war colleges. Each service educates service members in their core  competencies according to service needs. Air Force colleges, for  example, primarily teach air and space warfare. Similarly, Army, Navy,  and Marine Corps colleges focus on land, maritime, and expeditionary  warfare, respectively. DOD depends on the services’ PME institutions to  develop personnel with these service-specific skills. However, the JPME  program places emphasis on preparing leaders to conduct operations as  a coherently joint force in complex operating environments.
Following the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act (the Act) in 1986,  DOD developed JPME as a subset of learning within the PME program,  to comply with the “joint” requirements outlined in the Act and subsequent  legislation. Currently, JPME is provided at multiple sites across the  country, including the services’ staff and war colleges and NDU.  Together, PME and JPME, prepare service members in successive  stages throughout their careers to engage intellectual challenges  appropriate to increases in their ranks and responsibilities. See figure 1  for a map of service and joint colleges and universities where JPME is  provided.
The military services are primarily responsible for overseeing PME at their  respective staff and war colleges. As part of their oversight efforts, the  military services’ leader-development efforts are included in education  programs. For example, the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command  serves as the executive agent for ensuring leader development is  integrated into PME courses at the Army War College and the Army  Command and Staff College. In contrast, JPME is overseen by the Joint  Staff. The Joint Staff is responsible for developing the learning objectives  for JPME and for accrediting the service staff and war colleges and the  joint institutions to provide JPME coursework. The Joint Staff also has  oversight responsibility of NDU. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff  is statutorily responsible for formulating policies for coordinating the  military education and training of members of the armed forces.Military Education Coordination Council, which consists of representatives  from the Joint Staff, the service and joint colleges and universities, and  other JPME-accredited institutions, serves as an advisory body to the  Joint Staff on joint education issues. The purpose of the council is to  address key educational issues of interest to the joint educational  community, promote cooperation and collaboration among the colleges  and universities certified to grant JPME degrees, and coordinate joint  education initiatives.
The Joint Staff conducts periodic assessments of the three statutorily  mandated levels of officer JPME to ensure that the curricula being taught  at service staff and war colleges and the joint institutions meet the  prescribed joint educational requirements outlined in the Officer  Professional Military Education Policy. JPME program includes curriculum components that JPME colleges and  universities should follow to develop the knowledge, analytical skills,  perspectives, and values that are essential for U.S. servicemembers to  function effectively in joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and  multinational operations. Moreover, Enclosure A of the policy states that  senior officer studies at JPME-degree-granting colleges and universities  should emphasize analysis, foster critical examination, and provide  progressively broader educational experiences.
section_title: DOD Funds Various Types of Research, Including Research Conducted at JPME Research Institutions
paragraphs: CJCSI 1800.01D. subject-matter experts in their field of study. Table 1 provides a list of the  20 research institutions that are associated with JPME colleges and  universities and are within the scope of our review.
Other DOD-funded organizations also conduct studies and analysis  research. For example:
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, such as the  Center for Naval Analyses and the Institute for Defense Analyses,  maintain capabilities to conduct research in core competencies in  areas of importance to DOD, such as analysis, acquisition support,  and research and development. According to a May 2011  memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,  Technology and Logistics, the mission of Federally Funded Research  and Development Centers is to provide DOD with unique capabilities  in many areas where the government cannot attract and retain  personnel in sufficient depth and numbers. The memorandum further  explains that Federally Funded Research and Development Centers  are a vital component of the department’s overall acquisition  workforce because they operate in the public interest, free from  organizational conflicts of interest.
Service-affiliated organizations, such as the Naval Postgraduate  School and the Center for Army Analysis, provide research products  to their parent services to help with decision making and analysis on  critical issues facing the service.
DOD’s Regional Centers for Security Studies support DOD’s objective  to build the defense capacity of partner nations. In our prior work,  we reported that the Regional Centers’ activities include education,  exchanges, research, and information sharing. For example, the  George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies conducts  research on European security issues relevant to U.S. interests.
JPME research institutions receive funding through their colleges and  universities and other departmental offices for their operations, which  include research activities. Specifically, most JPME colleges and  universities receive direct funding from their respective military service to  fund their PME and JPME programs, and some of those resources are  used to fund their JPME research institutions. For example, the Naval  War College receives operation and maintenance and military personnel  funding from the Department of the Navy as well as funds in the form of  monetary gifts from the Naval War College Foundation. In turn, the  college allocates some of those resources to fund its associated research  institutions, such as the China Maritime Studies Institute. However, NDU  receives operation and maintenance funding from defense-wide  appropriations for its JPME program and research institutions. With these  funds, JPME research institutions can support PME and JPME programs  as well as the research needs of those entities that provide their funding.
For example, the Air University’s Center for Strategy and Technology  produces research that is responding to key questions and topics of  interest posed by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
Additionally, some JPME research institutions receive funding on a  reimbursable basis from other departmental offices, such as the  directorates within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff,  and the military services. These offices receive their own funding, such  as research, development, test, and evaluation funds and operation and  maintenance funds, which may be used in part to fund annual  requirements for research projects. To fulfill these annual research  requirements, funding may be allocated to JPME research institutions,  Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, or think tanksconduct individual research projects in support of those offices’ annual  research requirements. For example, NDU’s research institutions have  received funding from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to study and  build subject-matter expertise on issues related to Afghanistan and  Pakistan.
DOD also funds science and technology–related research. According to  testimony in April 2013 by Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Defense Research & Engineering, science and technology research is  funded to mitigate new or emerging capabilities that could degrade U.S.  capabilities, enable new or extended capabilities in existing military  systems, and develop new concepts and technologies through science  and engineering applications to military problems. Science and technology research is conducted under the auspices of the Office of the  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. According  to DOD guidance, this office develops the strategies and supporting plans  for utilizing technology to respond to DOD needs and ensures U.S.  technological superiority. The office is the executive secretary for DOD’s  Research and Engineering Executive Committee. This committee brings  together leadership from the DOD components that have science and  technology research investments for the purpose of strengthening  coordination and enhancing the efficiency of research and engineering  investments in areas that cannot be addressed adequately by any single  component. Science and technology research comprises basic research,  applied research, and advanced technology development.research institutions do not conduct science and technology research.  Science and technology research is generally conducted by DOD  laboratories associated with the military services, such as the Army  Research Laboratory, and some Federally Funded Research and  Development Centers, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology  Lincoln Laboratory, among other organizations.
section_title: JPME Research Institutions Expanded from 2007 through 2011 Due to Several Factors, but Have Subsequently Contracted
paragraphs: JPME research institutions, particularly at NDU, experienced  considerable growth in number, funding, and size in terms of staffing  levels from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011 but have declined  over the past 2 years. Several factors contributed to JPME research  institution growth, including increases in reimbursable funding from  outside offices sponsoring JPME research, the creation of new research  institutions, and the realignment of institutions at some JPME colleges  and universities. While a variety of factors contributed to the expansion of  JPME research institutions, it has primarily been department-wide budget  reductions that contributed to their decreases in number, funding, and  size since 2011.
subsections: section_title: Number, Funding, and Size of JPME Research Institutions Grew from 2007 through 2011, Then Declined
paragraphs: JPME research institutions, particularly at NDU, experienced  considerable growth in number, funding, and size in terms of staffing  levels from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011, but have declined  over the past 2 years. The following sections discuss overall trends in the  number of research institutions at JPME colleges and universities from  fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2013, as well as overall trends in  funding and staffing levels for this same period. Appendix II provides  more-detailed information for each of the 20 JPME research institutions  from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2013, as available.
subsections: section_title: Number of JPME Research Institutions
paragraphs: From 2007 through 2011, the number of JPME research institutions grew  from 14 to 20. During this period, the number of research institutions at  NDU increased by 3. At Marine Corps University and Air University, the  number of research institutions increased by 2 and 1, respectively. Since  2011, however, the number of research institutions has slightly declined  due to the disestablishment of the Center for Transatlantic Security  Studies at NDU in 2012. Figure 2 shows the total number of JPME  research institutions for fiscal years 2007 through 2013.
Funding for research institutions at JPME colleges and universities  experienced growth from fiscal year 2007 through 2011. Specifically, total  funding for JPME research institutions increased from about $31.0 million  in fiscal year 2007 to about $47.7 million in fiscal year 2011. Much of the  growth took place at NDU, where research institutions’ total funding  increased by about 78 percent. Other JPME colleges and universities  also experienced considerable increases in funding for the operation of  their associated research institutions. For example, with the  establishment of the Middle East Studies institute and the Center for  Advanced Operational Culture Learning’s Translational Research Group  in 2007 and 2010, respectively, funding for Marine Corps University’s  research institutions increased from $156,000 in fiscal year 2007 to about  $4.9 million in fiscal year 2011.
Since fiscal year 2011, funding for JPME research institutions decreased  overall. Specifically, total funding for JPME research institutions fell by  about 15 percent from fiscal year 2011 through 2013, from about $47.7  million to about $40.6 million. Much of the decline reflects decreases at  NDU, where research institutions experienced a 21 percent decrease in  total funding from about $21.4 million in fiscal year 2011 to about $16.8  million in fiscal year 2013. The Army Command and General Staff  College’s Combat Studies Institute and the Center for Army Leadership  also experienced considerable declines during this period, as total  funding for both decreased by about 19 percent. Figure 3 provides total  funding for JPME research institutions by JPME college and university for  fiscal years 2007 through 2013.
Staffing levels at JPME research institutions also increased considerably  from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011. Specifically, staffing levels,  in terms of full-time equivalents, increased from 207 in fiscal year 2007 to  384 in fiscal year 2011, about an 86 percent increase. In particular, total  staffing levels at NDU’s research institutions increased by about 58  percent during this period while other JPME colleges and universities also  experienced growth in staffing levels. For example, total staffing levels at  Air University’s research institutions increased from 19 to 97.
Since 2011, total staffing levels at JPME research institutions decreased  from 384 to 310, about a 19 percent decrease. Much of the decrease is  the result of a decline in staffing levels at NDU, where research  institutions experienced a 31 percent decline during this period. Figure 4  shows staffing levels for JPME research institutions by JPME college and  university for fiscal years 2007 through 2013.
section_title: Several Factors Contributed to JPME Research Institution Expansion and Subsequent Contraction
paragraphs: Several factors contributed to JPME research institution growth from  fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011, including increases in  reimbursable funding provided by outside offices sponsoring JPME  research, the creation of new research institutions, the realignment of  institutions such that they were incorporated into JPME colleges and  universities, and an increase in resources dedicated to research at some  JPME colleges and universities. According to DOD officials, these  increases occurred within the context of the then-ongoing operations in  Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the Joint Staff and the military services  expected the JPME research institutions to provide increased support to  the warfighter. In particular, these factors led to an expansion at NDU’s  research institutions during this period. For example, NDU’s research  budget grew primarily due to increases in reimbursable research funded  by outside offices such as the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the  Joint Staff. Reimbursable funding provided to NDU’s research institutions  increased from about $5.6 million in 2007 to about $14.6 million in fiscal  year 2011, as shown in figure 5. Specifically, reimbursable funding for  NDU’s Center for Technology and National Security Policy’s research  increased from about $3.8 million in fiscal year 2007 to about $6.9 million  in fiscal year 2011. Additionally, funding for NDU’s Center for Study of  Weapons of Mass Destruction, which is funded entirely on a reimbursable  basis, more than doubled from $1.5 million in fiscal year 2007 to $3.1  million in fiscal year 2011.
NDU officials attributed the growth in reimbursable funding to the fact that  research had evolved into a key area of emphasis for the university.  These officials also noted that, as a result, faculty members at the  research institutions were encouraged to pursue research directly funded  by other DOD entities and other U.S. government agencies. To meet the  increased demands for reimbursable research, particularly when in-house  expertise did not exist, NDU increased the number of contractor and  noncontractor researchers at its research institutions.noted that because a significant portion of the NDU workforce, including  that of its research institutions, is made up of senior-level positions,  researcher salaries contributed to the growth in NDU’s research budget.
We also found that funding for NDU’s research institutions increased as  the result of the transfer of research institutions to NDU as well as the  broadening of missions of other research institutions. For example,  according to DOD officials, in an effort to better deliver education to DOD  and other U.S. government personnel on issues related to ongoing  operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as irregular warfare,  counterinsurgency, and stability and reconstruction operations, the Center  for Complex Operations was transferred from the Defense Security  Cooperation Agency to NDU in 2009. Furthermore, funding for the Center  for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction at NDU increased due to  DOD’s decision to broaden the Center’s counterproliferation focus  government-wide. Moreover, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff  designated the center as the focal point for weapons of mass destruction  education for JPME. As a result, the Joint Staff began to fund the center  in 2008 to perform that mission.
Other JPME colleges and universities also experienced considerable  increases in research institution funding and staffing levels from fiscal  year 2007 through fiscal year 2011 due to factors such as the creation of  new research institutions and the realignment of others within JPME  colleges and universities. For instance, according to Air Force  documentation and officials, Air University’s increase in staffing levels for  its research institutions can largely be attributed to the establishment of  the Air Force Research Institute in 2008. According to an Air University  official, the establishment of the Air Force Research Institute resulted  from the consolidation and realignment of personnel from existing Air  Force institutions as well as the creation of 18 new positions. Air Force  officials also stated that staffing levels at the Air Force  Counterproliferation Center and the Air Force Center for Strategy and  Technology increased due to increased research requests from the Air  Staff on nuclear and strategic-level research projects, respectively.  Marine Corps University’s increase in staffing levels at its three research  institutions can be attributed to the establishment of the Translational  Research Group in 2010 and increases in staff positions within the  History Division and Middle East Studies center.
While a variety of factors contributed to the expansion of JPME research  institutions, it has primarily been department-wide budget reductions,  including the implementation of sequestration in fiscal year 2013, that  contributed to their decreases in number, funding, and size. For example,  officials stated that decreases in funding for NDU’s research institutions  and staffing levels resulted from overall reductions at the university due to  declining budgets. Furthermore, according to officials, NDU’s budget for  its research institutions came under increased scrutiny in 2011 with the  issuance of a new mission statement for NDU by the Chairman of the  Joint Chiefs of Staff that prioritized research that more-directly supported  education over reimbursable research. Moreover, according to officials,  the Joint Staff established full-time equivalent caps for both direct and  reimbursable funding in 2012. As a result of actions taken to reduce  NDU’s budget, NDU’s Center for Transatlantic Studies was disestablished  in September 2012, and the decision was made in early 2013 to defund  the Conflict Records Research Center beginning in fiscal year 2014.
Similarly, DOD-wide budget reductions contributed to decreases in the  funding and size of other JPME research institutions. For example, Naval  War College officials stated that its research institutions absorbed a  majority of the college’s budget cuts since fiscal year 2011 because the  college prioritized funds to support its principal education mission. Air  University has also experienced decreasing budgets and staffing level  reductions beginning in fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013.  Specifically, we found that the Air Force Research Institute’s total staffing  levels decreased from a high of 81 in fiscal year 2011 to 61 in fiscal year  2013 as a result of overall reductions in Air Force civilian personnel.
section_title: DOD Is Limited in Its Ability to Assess the Performance of JPME Research Institutions
paragraphs: The extent to which DOD can assess the performance of JPME research  institutions is limited by the lack of a comprehensive framework to  systematically assess their performance in meeting PME and other  departmental goals and objectives. With limited exceptions, the JPME  colleges and universities, which have broad latitude in overseeing their  associated research institutions, have not consistently established  measurable goals or objectives linked with metrics to assess the  performance of their associated research institutions. However, best  practices state that achieving results in government requires a  comprehensive framework that includes measurable goals and objectives  and metrics for assess progress, consistent with the framework identified  in the Government Performance and Results Act. Further, while there  are mechanisms in place for overseeing JPME colleges and universities,  such as the Joint Staff’s JPME accreditation process, these are focused  on the quality of academic programs and not on the research institutions’  performance. There is no DOD-wide guidance that addresses the  intended role of the research institutions in supporting PME or other  departmental goals or assigns responsibilities for conducting reviews of  them, leaving the department without a basis to assess the institutions’  stated mission and actual performance against planned or expected  results. This is inconsistent with the Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government, which state that agencies should conduct reviews  by management at the functional or activity level, which in this case would  be the JPME research institutions, and compare actual performance to  planned or expected results. Clearly establishing linkages between  significant activities, their intended role in meeting agency-wide goals and  objectives, and assigning oversight responsibilities underpins an agency’s  ability to conduct such reviews.
subsections: section_title: DOD Does Not Have a Framework to Assess the Performance of JPME Research Institutions
paragraphs: According to officials representing the Joint Staff and JPME colleges and  universities, DOD has provided JPME colleges and universities with  broad latitude in overseeing their associated research institutions. In  doing so, the Joint Staff and the military services have not provided  guidance to assist the JPME colleges and universities in developing a  comprehensive oversight framework for assessing the performance of  JPME research institutions. As a result, we found that JPME colleges and  universities have not consistently established measurable goals and  objectives linked with performance metrics to assess the performance of  their associated research institutions and therefore are unable to  comprehensively assess their performance to determine whether they are  furthering JPME or other departmental goals. According to best  practices, achieving results in government requires a comprehensive  oversight framework that includes measurable goals and objectives, and  metrics for assessing progress, consistent with the framework identified in  the Government Performance and Results Act.
In April 2012, the Joint Staff conducted a management control review of NDU, the  purpose of which was to assess the administrative and fiscal control processes that were  in place to ensure proper stewardship of NDU’s resources. As part of that review, the Joint  Staff noted that throughout NDU there appeared to be a fundamental disagreement  regarding how its research supported the JPME mission and courses. Accordingly, the  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provided NDU with a new mission statement  emphasizing that its research should support its academic mission. teaching faculty to bring together expertise in national security studies.  The NDU President approved the strategic plan for research in January  2014.
We identified other examples where JPME colleges and universities  identified broad goals and objectives for research. However, the linkage  between these goals and objectives and JPME research institutions was  unclear as the goals and objectives are not specifically assigned to  associated JPME research institutions. For example, the Naval War  College’s strategic plan contains a guiding principle to keep the college’s  research and scholarly activities relevant to the needs of the Navy and  the nation. Similarly, Marine Corps University’s strategic plan contains a  goal related to strengthening professional scholarship and outreach.  However, neither of these goals makes reference to the college’s or  university’s research institutions. Additionally, JPME colleges and  universities, such as Air University and Army War College, have  developed lists of research priorities on an annual basis. According to  officials, these lists are developed to reflect the priorities of senior  leadership within their service and have been used to guide the research  activities of JPME students. In 2013, the Army War College completed a  strategic review of its academic programs and, as a result of this review,  has aligned the development of its Key Strategic Issues List with a  specific strategic goal of influencing national security decision-making.  However, the Army War College has not clearly linked its strategic issues  list with the education goals of the college.
Furthermore, we found that JPME colleges and universities have not  consistently established metrics to assess the performance of JPME  research institutions in meeting PME or other departmental needs. Based  on our review, we identified some examples where JPME colleges and  universities had established performance metrics for their associated  research institutions. For example, Air University established a  performance measure for the Air Force Research Institute that includes a  count of the requested versus the delivered research studies for senior  Air Force staff. Similarly, Marine Corps University established several  measures to assess the progress its research institutions have made in  achieving desired outcomes. For example, the university established a  measure for the History Division intended to assess its responsiveness to  research inquiries.
Officials from JPME colleges and universities, including JPME research  institutions, told us that they recognize the need to establish measures for  assessing the research institutions’ performance. They explained,  however, that they have faced difficulties in developing them for research  institutions. For example, officials representing JPME colleges and  universities stated that it is challenging to compile quantitative data that  represent the value or the usefulness of research. Although we recognize  that it is difficult to establish performance measures for outcomes that are  not readily observable or in some cases systematic, the department  does use metrics to assess the performance of other DOD-funded  organizations that conduct studies and analysis research. For example,  DOD guidance directs organizations that sponsor a Federally Funded  Research and Development Center to assess their performance.
According to the guidance, sponsoring organizations must develop  procedures to annually monitor the value, quality and responsiveness of  their work. For instance, officials we spoke with within the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics  stated that their office compiles data on metrics for the RAND National  Defense Research Institute—a Federally Funded Research and  Development Center—that are primarily based upon quantitative ratings  and comments gathered from surveying organizations that contracted for  research projects with it. For those research projects that received low  ratings or negative comments, the RAND National Defense Research  Institute is required to follow up with sponsors to understand what had  happened and provide a plan for corrective actions.
Without a framework that includes measurable goals and objectives  linked with metrics, DOD, including its JPME colleges and universities,  does not have a systematic basis to comprehensively assess the  performance of JPME research institutions. Best practices state that a  framework that consists of measurable goals and objectives linked with  metrics for assessing progress would better enable DOD to determine  whether JPME research institutions are achieving results. Moreover, it  would provide the DOD with a sounder basis for making resource  determinations to ensure that these research institutions are furthering  JPME and other departmental goals and that JPME continues to provide  servicemembers with the expertise necessary for their careers.
section_title: Established Oversight Processes Do Not Assess the Performance of JPME Research Institutions
paragraphs: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  agencies should conduct reviews by management at the functional or  activity level and compare actual performance to planned or expected  results. Clearly establishing linkages between significant activities, their  intended role in helping meet agency-wide goals and objectives, and  assigning oversight responsibilities underpins an agency’s ability to  conduct such reviews. According to these standards, such controls are an  integral part of an agency’s planning, implementing, reviewing, and  accountability for stewardship of government resources and achieving  effective results. However, the oversight conducted by the Joint Staff and  by external accrediting bodies reviews the quality of JPME academic  programs and not the JPME research institutions’ performance. For  example, the Joint Staff’s Process for Accreditation of Joint Education  process is DOD’s primary mechanism of oversight, assessment, and  improvement of JPME academic programs. The instruction governing this  process lays out seven educational standards common to all PME  colleges and universities, including JPME colleges and universities, which  the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff considers essential. Officials  from the Joint Staff JPME Division stated that this office conducts reviews  of the JPME colleges and universities every 6 years to determine how  well their academic programs are meeting these education standards.
Although the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is statutorily  responsible for overseeing the officer joint education system, the Joint  Staff instruction that serves as the primary guidance for JPME-related  policy does not address what the intended role of research institutions  should be at JPME colleges and universities and it does not assign  responsibilities for conducting oversight of their activities. Without clarity  as to the intended role of research institutions in support of JPME  academic programs or for another purpose, there is no basis by which to  compare the research institutions’ respective stated missions as well as  actual performance to planned or expected results, as required by  Standards for Internal Control. Specifically, the instruction contains  standards to evaluate the quality of JPME academic programs, but it does  not define the role of JPME research institutions and it contains no  educational standards, learning areas, or specific objectives for research  that would enable DOD to assess the performance of research institutions  at JPME colleges and universities. Further, no organization is assigned  specific responsibility for overseeing the performance of the research  institutions.
Joint Staff officials agreed that their accreditation process is focused  specifically on JPME academic programs and pertains only to academic  curricula development and quality and the assurance of uniformity in  course content across the different JPME colleges and universities. As a  result, JPME research institutions are not reviewed as part of the Joint  Staff’s accreditation process. Moreover, according to Joint Staff officials,  while they are statutorily responsible for overseeing the quality of JPME  academic programs, there is no statutory responsibility for the Joint Staff  to oversee the performance of JPME research institutions. One JPME  official with whom we met noted that if the department had goals,  objectives, and performance measures for JPME research institutions as  part of the instruction governing the Joint Staff accreditation process, it  would strengthen the department’s oversight process for JPME research  institutions. In the absence of DOD-wide guidance that defines the role of  research institutions as part of the JPME system and establishes roles  and responsibilities for conducting oversight of JPME research  institutions, the department and JPME colleges and universities cannot  systematically assess the performance of JPME research institutions and  whether they are furthering JPME.
In addition to the Joint Staff’s accreditation process, oversight of JPME  academic quality is performed by external accrediting bodies.  Accreditation is a means of self-regulation and peer review to ensure  agreed upon standards are met. The regional accreditation process is  intended to examine academic institutions as a whole. While the  accreditation process may review the extent to which research is  conducted at a JPME college or university among a number of other  activities, these evaluations are not intended to assess the performance  of JPME research institutions in meeting JPME and other departmental  goals and objectives.
JPME colleges and universities, as Master’s Degree–granting institutions,  are accredited by the following four regional accreditation bodies:
Middle States Commission on Higher Education accredits NDU and  the Army War College;
Higher Learning Commission accredits the Army Command and
New England Association of Schools and Colleges accredits the  Naval War College; and
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on  Colleges accredits Air University, including its Staff and War Colleges,  and Marine Corps University, including its Staff and War Colleges.
JPME colleges and universities are subject to the regional accreditation  processes every 10 years and these processes are intended to  strengthen and sustain the quality and integrity of higher education. For  example, according to the Middle States Commission on Higher  Education, accreditation by the commission is based on the results of  institutional reviews by peers and colleagues and attests to the judgment  that the institution has met certain criteria, such as that it has a mission  appropriate to higher education; it is guided by well-defined and  appropriate goals, including goals for student learning; and it has  established conditions and procedures under which its mission and goals  can be realized.
While the accreditation process reviews the quality at JPME colleges and  universities, it does not specifically assess the performance of JPME  research institutions. Our review of reports prepared through the regional  accreditation process as well as interviews with JPME officials  knowledgeable about the accreditation processes confirmed that their  reviews are generally focused on the curriculum of JPME academic  programs and not the performance of JPME research institutions.  Therefore, the accrediting processes also do not provide DOD or JPME  colleges and universities with a means for evaluating the performance of  JPME research institutions and whether they are furthering JPME and  other departmental goals.
section_title: DOD Does Not Formally Coordinate Studies and Analysis Research Requests Performed by JPME and Other DOD- Funded Research Institutions, Although Some Conduct Work in Similar Topic Areas
paragraphs: DOD does not formally coordinate requests for studies and analysis  research conducted by JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded  research organizations, even though many of these organizations have  missions to conduct work in similar topic areas. Our analysis found that  multiple organizations, including JPME research institutions and other  DOD-funded research organizations, such as Federally Funded Research  and Development Centers, have missions to conduct work in similar topic  areas. However, DOD relies on a variety of separate processes to  manage research requests that can be conducted at either JPME  research institutions or other DOD-funded research organizations.  Specifically, offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the  military departments have their own separate internal processes to  request such research. Because there is no requirement for them to do  so, these offices do not have mechanisms in place to participate in one  another’s processes, thereby limiting opportunities to share information  on DOD-wide priorities and collective research efforts, and to identify any  areas of potentially similar research. Although there are notable  differences even among the JPME research institutions and other DOD- funded organizations that have missions to conduct work in similar topic  areas, we note that, as we concluded in September 2009, organizations  involved in similar missions should coordinate to avoid unnecessary  duplication of work. Furthermore, results-oriented management  practices call for establishing a means to operate across organizational  boundaries to enhance and sustain coordination.
subsections: section_title: Some DOD Research Organizations Have Missions to Conduct Work in Similar Topic Areas
paragraphs: Although we did not identify specific instances of duplication through our  analyses of mission statements and the research project titles of 20  JPME and 14 other DOD-funded research institutions, we identified  similarities in their research topic areas. Through our analysis of the  mission statements, we identified multiple instances in which several  DOD research organizations conduct work in similar topic areas. For  example, we found that
11 JPME research institutions, 5 Federally Funded Research and  Development Centers, 3 regional centers and 2 service-affiliated  research organizations have missions to conduct research related to  DOD strategy, policy, and doctrine;
5 JPME research institutions, 1 Federally Funded Research and  Development Center, and 3 regional centers have missions that  include researching issues related to civilian-military issues and  irregular warfare; and
2 JPME research institutions, 5 Federally Funded Research and  Development Centers, and 4 service-affiliated research organizations  have missions that include researching technology, acquisition, and  systems issues.
Our analysis of mission statements also identified instances in which  more-limited numbers of DOD research organizations conduct work in  similar topic areas. For example, we found that
2 JPME research institutions and 1 service-affiliated research  organization have missions that include researching issues related to  cyber issues; and
2 JPME research institutions and 2 regional centers have missions  that include researching issues related to Africa.
Figure 6 summarizes the results of our analysis of similarities in research  topic areas for the 20 JPME research institutions and 14 other DOD- funded research organizations, according to 23 areas of concentration.A checkmark indicates a research institution’s mission statement  identified that category is a topic area in which it conducts research.
The similarities among the DOD research organizations are also  illustrated in the titles of the research projects conducted by JPME  research institutions and other DOD-funded research organizations. By  categorizing 2,217 research project titles provided to us for 2012 and  2013 from both JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded  research organizations, we found that multiple organizations’ project titles  were grouped in related topic areas. For example, project titles from 13 JPME research institutions, 5 Federally Funded  Research and Development Centers, and 2 regional centers were  related to the Middle East; project titles from 11 JPME research institutions, 5 Federally Funded  Research and Development Centers, 2 regional centers, and 1  service-affiliated research organization concerned Asia studies; and project titles from 10 JPME research institutions, 5 Federally Funded  Research and Development Centers, 1 regional center, and 1 service- affiliated research organization concerned force structure and  operational issues.
Our analysis also identified limited instances of similarities of specific  research project titles within topic areas. For example, we identified four  research project titles that focused on the “Arab Spring” and two research  project titles specifically related to China’s development-assistance  efforts. However, given our objective’s focus on research organizations as  opposed to projects, we did not review the content of individual research  projects and their respective methodologies. As a result, we did not  assess the extent to which individual research projects and their findings  overlapped or were duplicative with other research projects. Appendix III  provides more-detailed results of our analysis of research project titles  conducted by JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded research  organizations in 2012 and 2013.
section_title: There Are Notable Differences among JPME and Other DOD-funded Research Institutions
paragraphs: While there are similarities in the research topic areas of JPME research  institutions and other DOD-funded research organizations, DOD officials  also identified notable differences among these organizations. One such  difference is that some JPME research institutions are required to support  the PME mission at their respective colleges and universities, whereas  that is not part of the mission of other DOD-funded research  organizations. For example, the mission statement of NDU’s Institute for  National Strategic Studies, which comprises its research institutions,  currently includes advancing the strategic thinking of NDU and the JPME  community through research. Also along these lines, Air University’s  JPME research institutions seek to use research publications to enhance  strategic thought within the Air Force and in Air University academic  curricula. To carry out their mission to support JPME academic programs,  the research institutions engage in efforts not required of other-DOD  funded research organizations. For example, officials at Air University  noted that the research products developed by the Counterproliferation  Center are used to update Air Force PME curriculum. As another  example, faculty from Naval War College JPME research institutions  teach elective courses in the JPME academic program. Conversely, the  mission of the Center for Naval Analyses, a Federally Funded Research  and Development Center, is to provide independent, authoritative  research, analysis, and technical support to the Navy and other DOD  organizations, and this research is not tied to JPME academic programs.
We identified two additional factors that differentiate JPME research  institutions among themselves and other DOD-funded research  organizations. The first pertains to differences among the JPME research  institutions as to which office primarily sponsors the work of research  institutions. For example, two JPME research institutions have missions  to conduct research on China issues—the China Maritime Studies  Institute at the Naval War College and the Center for the Study of  Chinese Military Affairs at NDU. However, the two institutions conduct  research on different aspects of China, reflecting the interests of their  primary sponsors. Specifically, the China Maritime Studies Institute  conducts research on Chinese maritime issues primarily for the Navy,  while the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs conducts  broader research on Chinese strategic-level issues for the Joint Staff and  Office of the Secretary of Defense.
According to officials from JPME colleges and universities and other  DOD-funded research organizations, a second factor that differentiates  JPME research institutions among themselves and with other DOD- funded research organizations is the level of technical expertise provided  by some research organizations. Specifically, officials explained that  Federally Funded Research and Development Centers can produce  research with a more scientific and technical focus than that of JPME  institutions. For example, while both the Institute for Defense Analyses, a  Federally Funded Research and Development Center, and NDU’s Center  for Technology and National Security Policy have missions related to  researching technology, the Institute for Defense Analyses conducts tests  and evaluations of technologies, requiring staff to have specialized  scientific and technical skills, while the Center for Technology and  National Security Policy’s research discusses the effect of technology on  defense policy.
section_title: Multiple Offices Use Fragmented Processes to Request Studies and Analysis Research
paragraphs: Although multiple organizations, including JPME research institutions and  other DOD-funded research organizations, have missions to conduct  work in similar topic areas, offices throughout DOD use separate  processes to request studies and analysis research. This fragmentation  across DOD occurs in the absence both of a DOD requirement to  coordinate studies and analysis research requirements among the military  departments and of other DOD offices and mechanisms to facilitate such  coordination. In September 2009, we concluded that offices involved in  similar missions should coordinate and share relevant information to  avoid unnecessary duplication of work. Furthermore, results-oriented  management practices call for establishing a means to operate across  organizational boundaries to enhance and sustain coordination.
We identified several separate processes used by JPME research  institutions or DOD offices to manage requests for studies and analysis  research, but DOD has not established formal mechanisms to coordinate  requests. JPME research institutions, for example, individually manage  their own research activities. According to Joint Staff officials, JPME  research activities are not typically coordinated with other departmental  offices that request studies and analysis research. At JPME research  institutions, researchers have the discretion to determine whether  research has been or is being conducted on a given topic. For example,  JPME research institution officials told us that while it is not a  requirement, they may contact other subject-matter experts to determine  whether similar work is being conducted at another JPME research  institution. Officials also said researchers may conduct a literature review  to understand the existing research on a topic as part of the research  process, or they may review completed research projects that are  contained in the Defense Technical Information Center database to see  whether DOD has funded past studies.not contain information on ongoing research efforts, and no other formal  mechanism for sharing information on ongoing studies and analysis  research activities within DOD was identified.
However, that database does  Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, multiple offices generate  requests annually for studies and analysis research, but these research  requests are determined based on individual offices’ research  requirements and are not formally coordinated with other departmental  offices. Office of the Secretary of Defense research requests may be  fulfilled by contracting with other DOD-funded research organizations or  JPME research institutions to conduct the research. For example,  research requests for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Acquisition, Technology and Logistics are managed at the Office of the  Secretary of Defense, Studies and Federally Funded Research and  Development Center Management office. In doing so, officials with this  office explained that they do not formally coordinate with other DOD  offices to determine whether similar research requests are being funded  by other departmental offices. Separately, the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Policy uses a different process to manage  requests for studies and analysis research. Specifically, the Office of the  Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Forces  reviews requests from within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense  for Policy on an annual basis. These research requests are not formally  coordinated with other Office of the Secretary of Defense offices or other  departmental offices, such as service-level studies and analysis offices, to  determine whether similar work is being conducted or funded elsewhere.
Similarly, the military departments have their own respective internal  processes for requesting studies and analysis research, but absent a  DOD requirement to do so, these processes are not used to formally  coordinate research requests among the military departments or with  other DOD offices. In general, these processes are used as a mechanism  to coordinate requests for studies and analysis research within each of  the military departments. For example:
According to a senior Air Force official, the Air Staff’s Analyses,  Assessments and Lessons Learned directorate is responsible for  collecting annual research requests from across the Air Force and for  ensuring that the contracted studies are not duplicative. A senior  official within this office told us that the Air Force has experienced  challenges with regard to its oversight over the number of studies it  has funded. In response, the Air Force has developed a policy to track  all Air Force funded studies in an internal database. However,  according to this official, the Analyses, Assessments and Lessons  Learned directorate generally does not formally coordinate with offices  outside the Air Force on annual research requests.
The Army Study Program Management Office within Headquarters,  Department of the Army, issues an annual call for research requests  from Army commands, and in turn funds the research requests  according to Army priorities. A senior Army official in this office said  that its process is focused on reviewing Army-specific research  requests and does not include other DOD offices that request or  conduct studies and analysis research.
The Navy’s annual research requests are administered through the  Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, which compiles and prioritizes  research needs identified from across the Navy. The Navy’s studies  and analysis program guidance says that the Navy should coordinate  analytic efforts with the Marine Corps, but according to an official in  this office, the Navy generally does not coordinate with other DOD- funded research organizations or JPME research institutions with  regard to these annual research requests.
DOD officials within the studies and analysis research community  observed that there are both costs and benefits to the department’s  decentralized approach to requesting studies and analysis research. One  official told us that limited coordination among the multiple offices that  request studies and analysis research may put DOD at risk for funding  overlapping research activities. Furthermore, a senior Air Force official in  the Air Staff’s Analyses, Assessments and Lessons Learned directorate  stated that the current approach makes it difficult for DOD to have a  complete picture of how much money is being spent on studies and  analysis research. While DOD officials identified costs to the current  approach for coordinating studies and analysis research requests,  officials also acknowledged that DOD’s decentralized approach may  result in several benefits. For example, a senior Air Force official in the Air  Staff’s Analyses, Assessments and Lessons Learned directorate stated  that decentralization generates creativity and diversity of thought in  DOD’s studies and analysis community, which can prove useful in  informing DOD decision makers. Furthermore, a senior Navy official in the  Office of the Chief of Naval Operations stated that the current approach  allows each office to be concerned with its own area of functional  expertise, which varies widely across the services and DOD. For  example, the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations is responsible for  funding studies related to naval functional areas such as designing,  building, and maintaining ships, which is unique when compared to other  service-level studies and analysis offices such as the Air Force Analyses,  Assessments and Lessons Learned office or the Army Study Program  Management Office.
In contrast to how it manages requests for studies and analysis research,  DOD has established mechanisms to coordinate science and technology– specific research efforts across multiple departmental offices engaged in  similar missions. Specifically, the science and technology research  community has governing bodies, such as executive committees to  facilitate such coordination. These committees are intended to better  manage DOD’s science and technology research by bringing together the  multiple departmental offices that sponsor such research for the purpose  of sharing information. A senior official responsible for coordinating  science and technology research efforts explained that the executive  committees do not require additional resources. Rather, they are intended  to share offices’ existing annual research plans and provide opportunities  to leverage resources in a fiscally constrained environment. Some DOD  officials we spoke with who are responsible for managing studies and  analysis research requests also said that a mechanism that provided  greater information on what studies and analysis research other  departmental offices were sponsoring would improve their ability to  identify potential overlap in research requests. Without a mechanism for  coordinating research requests and sharing information on studies and  analysis research activities among multiple offices, DOD cannot ensure  that it minimizes potentially unnecessary overlap in research activities.  Furthermore, making information on department-wide annual research  requests available to JPME research institutions would provide the  institutions an opportunity to further understand research needs and align  some of the institutions’ research with strategic priorities identified by  DOD leadership.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Given the ongoing and unique role of JPME research institutions in the  development of DOD’s future leaders, DOD’s oversight of these  institutions is important for helping the department to make the best use  of the resources it devotes to the colleges and universities that provide  PME and JPME and for decreasing fragmentation of research requests  and the risk of potential overlap in research activities. As fiscal pressures  facing DOD continue to mount, so too does the need for the department  to prioritize resources for JPME research institutions to most-effectively  meet the JPME mission. Considering the overall growth of JPME  research institutions that occurred between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal  year 2011 in number, funding, and size, it is paramount that DOD  maintains oversight of these institutions. Best practices state that  achieving results in government requires a comprehensive oversight  framework that includes measurable goals and objectives, and metrics for  assessing progress. Yet, with limited exceptions, the research institutions  lack such goals, objectives, and associated metrics. Additionally, while  DOD has some oversight mechanisms in place for JPME, DOD does not  have clear guidance establishing the role of JPME research institutions in  furthering PME or other departmental goals that would provide a basis for  evaluating their performance and helping ensure that intended results are  achieved. Further, no entity within DOD is assigned responsibility for  overseeing the performance of JPME research institutions. Consequently,  DOD cannot ensure the effectiveness of JPME research institutions and  lacks a sound basis for making resource determinations. Furthermore,  some JPME research institutions and other DOD funded research  organizations have missions to conduct research in similar topic areas,  but DOD uses a variety of separate processes for requesting studies and  analysis research. Results-oriented management practices call for  establishing a means to operate across organizational boundaries to  enhance and sustain coordination. DOD, however, does not have a  mechanism in place to coordinate studies and analysis research requests  and minimize fragmentation. While DOD officials believe that their current  decentralized approach to requesting studies and analysis research has  its benefits, they also recognize that it has its costs. It is not clear that the  benefits of DOD’s current approach outweigh the risks of fragmentation  and potential duplication, particularly in a budget-constrained  environment. DOD’s science and technology research community  provides one mechanism for a coordination mechanism, but by no means  is it the only mechanism that could meet the needs of the studies and  analysis research community as it seeks to support department-wide  priorities. Without a mechanism to facilitate coordination and reduce  fragmentation among offices requesting studies and analysis research,  DOD cannot ensure that it minimizes potential overlap in research  activities and that its resources are used efficiently in support of  department-wide priorities at its JPME research institutions and other  research organizations.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance the performance of JPME research institutions, we are  recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Chairman of the  Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretaries of the military departments for  their respective PME and JPME colleges and universities to take the  following three actions: define the role of JPME research institutions to provide a basis for assign responsibilities for conducting performance reviews of JPME establish a framework that includes measurable goals and objectives  linked with metrics to assess the performance of JPME research  institutions.
To improve the coordination of requests for studies and analysis research  within the department and to reduce the risk of potential overlap in  research activities, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense  establish and implement a departmental mechanism that requires  leadership from the military services and departmental offices responsible  for managing requests for studies and analysis research to coordinate  their annual research requests and ongoing research efforts.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our  recommendations. The full text of DOD’s written comments is reprinted in  appendix IV.
In concurring with our first recommendation, DOD noted that some work  is already in progress to clarify organizational goals and establish metrics  of success at each of the research institutions. DOD stated that, for  example, the Joint Staff has been collaborating with NDU to refine its  research enterprise. DOD noted that our recommendation is reflected in  NDU’s Strategic Plan for Research 2014-2019 and a revision of the  Chairman’s policy document for the university. According to the  department, our recommendation should be fully implemented when the  next academic year begins in the fall of 2014. We agree that these are  positive steps towards establishing a comprehensive framework at NDU  to systematically assess the performance of its JPME research  institutions in meeting PME and other departmental goals and objectives.  Notwithstanding this effort, as noted in our report there remains no DOD- wide guidance that addresses the intended role of research institutions in  supporting PME, including JPME, or other departmental goals or assigns  responsibilities for conducting performance reviews of them. This leaves  the department without a sound basis to assess NDU’s and the other  research institutions’ stated missions and actual performance against  planned or expected results. Clearly establishing linkages between  significant activities, their intended role in meeting agency-wide goals and  objectives, and assigning oversight responsibilities underpins DOD’s  ability to conduct such reviews.
In its concurrence with our second recommendation, DOD stated that to  improve coordination of research requests, it plans to establish a Studies  and Analysis Executive Committee by the end of fiscal year 2014 with  regional and topical “communities of interest.” DOD noted that the  committee will be a combined effort organized through the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Assistant Secretary of  Defense for Research and Engineering, with other representation from  the JPME and PME community, as appropriate.
DOD also provided technical comments on a draft of our report, which  we have incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense, the  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of the Air Force, the  Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Commandant  of the Marine Corps. In addition, the report will also be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-5741 or ayersj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 mandated  that we review the work performed by joint professional military education  (JPME) research institutions in support of professional military education   In this report,  and the Department of Defense’s (DOD) broader mission.we (1) describe how JPME research institutions have changed in number,  funding, and size, and the factors that contributed to any changes; (2)  evaluate the extent to which DOD is assessing the performance of JPME  research institutions in meeting professional military education and other  departmental goals and objectives; and (3) evaluate the extent to which  DOD coordinates research requests for JPME research institutions and  other DOD-funded research organizations.
For the purposes of this report, we refer to service and joint colleges and universities that  are accredited by the Joint Staff to provide JPME certification as JPME colleges and  universities.
JPME colleges and universities. Based on this evidence, we determined  that 20 institutions were conducting research as their primary mission and  had dedicated personnel assigned to them and therefore were included in  the scope of our review.
For our first objective of determining the extent to which JPME research  institutions have changed in number, funding, and size, and the factors  contributing to any changes, we obtained questionnaire responses and  other documentation on the number of research institutions that existed at  JPME colleges and universities from fiscal years 2000 through 2013 and  collected and analyzed available funding and staffing data for these  years for the JPME research institutions. We assessed the reliability of  the funding and staffing data collected by analyzing questionnaire  responses from JPME colleges and universities, which included  information on their data-system management, data quality-assurance  processes, and potential sources of errors and mitigations of those errors.  Based on our review of the data provided and our review of the  questionnaire responses, we concluded that the systems used to provide  the data, and thus the data they provide, are sufficiently reliable for our  audit purposes. However, based on this evidence, we determined that we  were unable to report consistent data on JPME research institution  funding and staffing levels prior to fiscal year 2007, and therefore we are  providing trend data on JPME research institutions from fiscal years 2007  through 2013. Furthermore, although we have identified a number of  factors that could affect data quality, we concluded that these were the  best available data on JPME research institutions. We also concluded  that the data would not lead to an incorrect or unintentional message  since it is corroborated through interviews with cognizant officials at the  National Defense University, Army War College, Army Command and  General Staff College, Air University, Naval War College, and Marine  Corps University. We also discussed the reasons for any trends in these  budget and staffing data with knowledgeable officials in DOD and at the  JPME colleges and universities. Specifically, we conducted interviews  with officials from the Joint Staff; Office of the Under Secretary of Defense  (Comptroller); National Defense University; Army War College; Army  Command and General Staff College; Air University; Naval War College;  and Marine Corps University.
For our second objective of determining the extent to which DOD is  assessing the performance of JPME research institutions in meeting  professional military education and other departmental goals and  objectives, we obtained and reviewed documentation from the Joint Staff  and the JPME colleges and universities that identify any goals, objectives,  or performance measures for JPME research institutions. Specifically, we  reviewed current strategic plans, mission statements, and other  documentation describing activities of the JPME research institutions. We  also reviewed documentation describing oversight mechanisms that  monitor the academic quality of JPME colleges and universities.  Specifically, we reviewed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction  (CJCSI) 1800.01D, Officer Professional Military Education Policy, which is  the DOD policy that governs the Joint Staff’s Accreditation of Joint  Education process. We also reviewed reports prepared by external  regional accrediting bodies.processes used to assess the performance of JPME research institutions,  we used a standard set of questions to interview officials with the Joint  Staff; Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force; National Defense  University; Army War College; Army Command and General Staff  College; Air University; Naval War College; and Marine Corps University.  We then reviewed the results of the interviews and related documents to  develop summary findings. In reviewing this documentation and  testimonial evidence, we referred to our prior work on best practices that  identifies elements that constitute a comprehensive oversight framework.
To further our understanding of any  Specifically, best practices state that such a framework should include  measurable goals and objectives linked with metrics for assessing  progress, which is consistent with the framework identified in the  Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), as amended by the  GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. We also reviewed this evidence in  light of key internal control standards, which state that federal agencies  should conduct reviews by management at the functional or activity level  and compare actual performance to planned or expected results.
For our third objective of determining the extent to which DOD  coordinates research requests for JPME research institutions and other  DOD-funded research organizations, we included the 20 JPME research  institutions discussed above and 14 other DOD-funded research  organizations. To identify the other DOD-funded research institutions to  include in the scope of our review, we gathered documentation from the  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and  canvassed knowledgeable DOD officials in offices responsible for  requesting research, such as the military departments, science and  technology executive agents, studies and analysis research program  managers, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including the  offices of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and  Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Based on this  work, we determined that we would include the following 14 other DOD- funded research organizations for the purposes of our review:
DOD’s Regional Centers for Security Studies:
George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies,  the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, and the Africa Center for Strategic Studies; the Naval Postgraduate School Modeling, Virtual Environments and  Simulation Institute,  the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely  Piloted Aircraft Studies, the Naval Postgraduate School’s Cebrowski Institute for Information  and Innovation, the Army’s Center for Army Analysis, and
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center;
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers that were  identified as studies and analysis research centers:
Center for Naval Analyses,
RAND Project Air Force,
RAND National Defense Research Institute, and  the Institute for Defense Analyses.
To further our understanding on the processes used to request studies  and analysis research from JPME institutions and other DOD-funded  research organizations, we reviewed documentation from and interviewed  officials at the military services, Office of the Secretary of Defense, JPME  research institutions and other DOD-funded research organizations. We  also reviewed documentation and interviewed knowledgeable agency  officials about DOD’s approach to coordinate research requests among  DOD organizations. Specifically, we used a standard set of questions to  interview officials with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the  military services about the processes used to share information with other  offices that also request studies and analysis research. We then reviewed  the results of the interviews and related documents to develop summary  findings. We reviewed the documentary and testimonial evidence in light  of key practices for enhancing and sustaining coordination as described  in best practices. Specifically, best practices state that organizations  involved in similar missions should coordinate and share information to  avoid unnecessary duplication of work. Further, we assessed whether  there were any similarities or dissimilarities among the missions of the  JPME research institutions and other DOD-funded research  organizations. We did this in four ways:
First, we assessed whether the JPME and DOD-funded research  institutions were conducting science and technology–related research  or studies and analysis–related research, using missions statements  and other documentation provided by DOD to make this  determination. We did not conduct further analysis on other DOD- funded organizations that conduct science and technology research  as that type of research represented a notable difference from the  JPME research institutions that primarily conduct studies and analysis  research.
Second, for all the JPME and DOD-funded research institutions  conducting studies and analysis research, we reviewed mission  statements and other mission-related information provided by DOD,  and categorized the organization’s mission as falling primarily into 1 or  more of 23 areas of concentration—for example, Asia studies or  leadership and ethics studies. To create the 23 areas of concentration  that were used to categorize mission statements and research project  titles, we reviewed documentation from the JPME research institutions  that identified general topic areas in which the institutions conducted  research. We also reviewed documentation from Federally Funded  Research and Development Centers that identified the core topic  areas within which the Federally Funded Research and Development  Centers were authorized to conduct work. The areas of concentration  are identified as follows: Africa; Asia; Europe; Middle East; Western  Hemisphere; civilian-military issues and irregular warfare; cyber;  energy and environment; force structure and operational issues;  historical; intelligence; leadership and ethics; legal; logistics; nuclear  and weapons of mass destruction; other; personnel and training;  public affairs and communication; resource management; strategy,  policy, and doctrine; technology, acquisition, and systems; war  gaming; and unable to code. We determined that these areas of  concentration we selected were appropriate for comparing JPME  research institutions and other DOD-funded research institutions  because they explain the focus of each organization’s primary studies  and analysis efforts. To complete the content analysis, two GAO  analysts independently reviewed the mission statements and other  mission-related information provided by DOD and coded them into  one or more of the 23 areas of concentration. When the coding was  completed, both analysts reviewed every code made by the other  analyst and indicated whether they agreed or disagreed with the code.  The analysts then met to discuss their coding determinations and to  reach agreement where there were any discrepancies. The results of  our analysis are not generalizable beyond the 20 JPME research  institutions and 14 other DOD-funded research institutions included in  the scope of our review.
Third, for all the JPME and DOD-funded research institutions  conducting studies and analysis research, we collected a list of  research projects they conducted for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. To  complete the content analysis, one GAO analyst independently  reviewed each of the 2,217 research project titles and coded them  into one or more of the 23 areas of concentration. When the coding  was completed, two GAO analysts shared responsibility to review the  coding made by the first analyst and indicated whether they agreed or  disagreed with the code. The analysts then met to discuss their  coding determinations and to reach agreement where there were any  discrepancies. The results of our analysis are not generalizable  beyond the 20 JPME research institutions and 14 other DOD-funded  research institutions included in the scope of our review.
Fourth, we reviewed documentation about the offices that request  research from the JPME and other DOD-funded research institutions,  along with testimonial evidence gathered during our interviews with  DOD officials to provide context for any similarities or dissimilarities  we identified through the mission statement and project title analysis.
To further our understanding of DOD’s processes for requesting research  and of the similarities and differences among research organizations, we  conducted interviews with officials from the Joint Staff; Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Office of the Under Secretary of  Defense for Policy; Office of the Secretary of Defense, Studies and  Federally Funded Research and Development Center Management  Office; Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and  Engineering; Army Study Program Management Office; Air Force  Analyses, Assessments and Lessons Learned office; Office of the Chief  of Naval Operations; Marine Corps Analysis Directorate; National  Defense University; Army War College; Army Command and General  Staff College; Air University; Naval War College; and Marine Corps  University.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 through March  2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions
paragraphs: This appendix contains more-detailed information for each of the 20 joint  professional military education (JPME) research institutions included in  the scope of our review. For each research institution, we provide a one- page summary that includes information on the following elements:
Location: the institution’s associated JPME college or university and  geographical location.
Background: the date that the institution was established and  information on its establishment, as well as any relevant information  such as changes in the research institution’s name.
Mission: the institution’s mission, either self-reported or as derived  from relevant documentation.
Customers: a list of entities, as reported by the research institutions  and other documents that represent the principal requesters and  users of the research institutions’ research products.
Nature of research and publications: a summary description of the  types of research and studies conducted by the research institution,  as well as the names of publications produced by the institution, if  any.  the institution’s total funding, depicted in thousands of  dollars, for fiscal years 2004 to 2013, as available. Total funding is  subdivided into two categories—direct funding and reimbursable  funding. Direct funding includes federal appropriations made available  for JPME colleges or universities. Reimbursable funding refers to  amounts earned or collected from outside offices for research  services furnished by the institution.
Total staffing: the institution’s total number of personnel, expressed as  full-time equivalents for fiscal years 2004 through 2013, as available.  Full-time equivalents are calculated as the total hours worked divided  by the number of compensable hours in a full-time schedule.
The Air Force Research Institute augments Air University’s and the Air Force’s  research capacity and supports airpower research inquiries from the Chief of Staff  of the Air Force, as well as other decision makers throughout DOD. The institute  conducts research on topics related to air, space, and cyberspace opportunities,  threats, and capabilities; evaluation of operational and strategic issues; conducts  regional strategic assessments; estimates long-term strategic and technical  capabilities; analyses of logistical constraints and basing issues, among other  issues. The institute also serves as the focal point and provides support for Air  University’s “Call for Topics,” which makes potential research topics of interest to  Air Force leaders available to student researchers. The institute also operates the  Air University Press, and publishes the Department of the Air Force’s Air and  Space Power Journal, and the Strategic Studies Quarterly.
Background: Established in 2008 by  a Special Order from Headquarters  Air Force, the Air Force Research  Institute’s research roots extend back  to the Airpower Research Institute of  the late 1970s and even the 1930s in  the Air Corps Tactical School. The  organizational functions were  previously embedded in the Air War  College and later the College of  Aerospace Doctrine, Research and  Education.
Location:  Air University,  Montgomery, AL Background: The Center for  Strategy and Technology was  established at the Air University in  1996. looking 20 to 30 years into the future to provide a vision to prepare the Air Force  for future challenges. Research conducted under the auspices of the center is  briefed to the Air Staff, published as occasional papers and disseminated to senior  military and political officials, think tanks, educational institutions, and other  interested parties.
Mission: To engage in long-term  strategic thinking about the  implications of technological change  and its implications for U.S. national  security. The Center for Strategy and  Technology focuses on education,  research, and publications that  support the integration of technology  into national strategy and policy.
section_title: - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions -
paragraphs: Nature of Research and Publications  The center provides research articles, papers, and monographs addressing issues  pertinent to U.S. military-response options for dealing with nuclear, biological,  and chemical threats and attacks. Research topics include military and diplomatic  policy and concepts related to weapons of mass destruction; international  nonproliferation diplomacy; nonproliferation and arms control treaty regimes;  counterterrorist activities; and nuclear deterrence of conflicts. The center  develops a strategic-issues list that provides potential research topics to student  and faculty researchers. Additionally, it conducts outreach on issues related to  counterproliferation and nuclear operations through its publication of  Counterproliferation Center Outreach Journal, and the Trinity Site Papers  series, and through an annual conference on countering weapons of mass  destruction.
section_title: - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions -
paragraphs: The Center for Army Leadership conducts research and studies to identify leader  development trends and requirements, and to develop and promote leadership  and leader development practices and techniques for the Army. Further, the  Center accomplishes these outcomes by contributing to Army doctrine and policy  by informing leadership on best practices for developing leader competencies,  and by producing the Annual Survey of Army Leadership, which is a survey- based study that assesses Army-leader attitudes regarding leader education,  including the quality of leadership, and the contribution of leadership to  accomplishing the Army’s overall mission.
Background: The Center for Army  Leadership was established in 2001 in  response to a study chartered by the  Chief of Staff of the Army to identify  the characteristics and skills required  for Army leaders in light of changes  to the operational environment.
The Combat Studies Institute researches, writes, and publishes, through the  Combat Studies Institute Press, original interpretive works on doctrinal and  operational issues of relevance to the U.S. Army and policymakers. The center  also implements U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command’s program of military  history instruction throughout the Army, conducts an oral history research  program that targets Command and General Staff College students and faculty, as  well as visitors of the Combined Arms Center, focusing on compiling their past  operational experiences, and provides oversight responsibilities for the Combined  Arms Center Command History program, the Staff Ride team—which offers live  and virtual battlefield tours—and the Frontier Army Museum.
Background: The Combat Studies  Institute was established in 1979 to  provide a range of military historical  and educational support to the  Combined Arms Center, Training and  Doctrine Command, and the United  States Army.
Mission:  To provide military  historical and educational support to  the Combined Arms Center, Training  and Doctrine Command, and the  United States Army.
Location: Army War College, Carlisle  Barracks, PA Background: Established in 1954 by  the Commandant of the Army War  College to create an advanced study  group to undertake a program of  long-range thinking on strategy and  land power.
The Strategic Studies Institute conducts research on topics such as the future of  American strategy; geostrategic analyses; strategic landpower; Army forward  presence in the Pacific; cyber security; energy security; Army’s role in missile  defense; effects of war on leadership; and Army profession and public trust. The  institute also compiles a Key Strategic Issues List based on input from the U.S.  Army War College faculty, the Army Staff, the Joint Staff, the unified and specified  commands, and other Army organizations. This is designed to guide the research  of the Strategic Studies Institute, the U.S. Army War College, and other Army- related strategic analysts.
Mission: To conduct and  disseminate independent strategic  analysis that develops  recommendations for addressing key  national security issues.
Examples of Customers   - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions -   Nature of Research and Publications  The Translational Research Group at the Center for Advanced Operational  Culture Learning aims to link the findings of scientists with the needs of Marine  Corps soldiers and leadership by helping the two sides understand each other’s  needs and capabilities.
Location: Marine Corps University,  Quantico, VA  Background: The Translational  Research Group was established in  2010 by the Director of the Center for  Advanced Operational Culture and  Learning at the Marine Corps  University and by the Executive  Deputy of the Marine Corps Training  and Education Command.
Mission: To identify practical  applications for social and behavioral  scientific research that will help  address pressing challenges facing  the Marine Corps.
The History Division’s primary task is to research and write the Marine Corps’  official history. The division provides assistance through their reference branch  and deploying field historians to record history in the making during operations.  The History Division and also conducts research through an oral history program,  in which it obtains, catalogs, transcribes, and preserves personal narrative  experiences and observations of historic value from active-duty and retired  Marines for use as reference source material. The division prepares a wide variety  of official publications that tell the Marine Corps story. Publications include  articles, monographs, occasional papers, and definitive histories. It also creates  material for and publishes Fortitudine, an online bulletin of the Marine Corps  history program.
Background: Established in 1919 by  Marine Corps Headquarters to  record, preserve, and distribute the  Corps’ history, the History Division  was transferred in 2005 to Marine  Corps University.
Mission: To write, document and  track the history of the Marine Corps  across the entire spectrum of time; to  collect documents and accounts of  permanent value to the history of the  Marine Corps and preserve them for  future use; and distribute the history  of the Corps through publications,  papers and other programs, in order  to preserve history, aid combat and  noncombat decision making, support  Professional Military Education,  motivate Marines, and inform the  American public.
Examples of Customers   - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions -   Nature of Research and Publications  In an effort to improve the Marine Corps’ understanding of the complex security  environment of the Middle East, the center began three forms of publications. The  Middle East Studies Occasional Paper Series, with the first issue published in  June 2011, aims to disseminate original, peer-reviewed research papers on a wide  variety of subjects pertaining to the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The  MES Monograph Series, with the first issue published in August 2011, focuses on  subjects of strategic relevance to the current and future U.S. professional military  education community and is meant to be published quickly to address fast- developing situations. Finally, the Middle East Studies institute publishes  Insights, which is produced bimonthly as the newsletter of the center. It features  short analytical pieces as well as information on events organized by the center  and provides a forum for debate with readers.
section_title: - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions -
paragraphs: Nature of Research and Publications   The center collects and analyzes interagency lessons from the field on overseas  contingency operations, including stabilization, irregular warfare, and security  assistance, and integrates them into joint military doctrine on such topics as  counterinsurgency, stability operations, security cooperation, and interagency  coordination; as well as into education, policy, training, and joint  military/interagency exercises. The center also analyzes interagency aspects of  overseas operations on behalf of Department of Defense, the Intelligence  Community, and several federal agencies. The center’s principal journal, PRISM,  serves to inform members of U.S. federal agencies, allies, and other partners on  complex and integrated national security operations; reconstruction and nation- building; relevant policy and strategy; lessons learned; and developments in  training and education. The center also produces publications on issues of  importance to interagency stakeholders and JPME, such as its recent book  Convergence: Illicit Networks in the Age of Globalization.
Fiscal Year 2004-2013 Total Funding
Office of the Under Secretary
Combatant Commands
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Agency for International   - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions -   Nature of Research and Publications   To fulfill its mission, the Conflict Records Research Center was charged with  organizing, encouraging, and facilitating greater analytic and academic access to  digitized copies of captured documents; coordinating the translation of captured  documents of interest; conducting sponsored research and analysis on captured  documents; developing and delivering training programs and providing research  assistance; informing researchers of the collections in its custody; and publishing  research in books, reports, journal articles, conference papers, newsletters, or  other media.
Location: National Defense  University, Washington, DC Background: Established in 2009 at  the direction of the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for  Policy as a subelement of the  Institute for National Strategic  Studies. The center was defunded for  fiscal year 2014, but in September  2013, the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Policy  provided funding to keep the center  open. Section 1071 of the National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal  Year 2014 provided statutory  authorization for the center.
About the Center   Location: National Defense  University, Washington, DC Background: Established in 1984 by  the Secretary of Defense as the  Research Directorate of National  Defense University’s Institute for  National Security Studies, the center  was originally charged to provide  independent advice to Secretary of  Defense, the Chairman of the Joint  Chiefs of Staff, and the combatant  commands for the formulation of  national security policy and strategy.  The center was renamed in 2010  during the university’s research  reorganization.
The Center for Strategic Research performs research and educational activities in  support of joint professional military education and explores strategic and  regional topics to offer advice and strategic support to the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Joint Staff, and other senior DOD officials.  The center also conducts outreach to share its research with policymakers  through studies, reports, briefings, and memorandums. Strategic studies  encompass national security and military strategy, to include defense policy and  organization, deterrence, arms control and counter proliferation, peace operations  and small-scale contingencies, transnational security problems, command and  control, and future warfare. Regional studies encompass national security  strategy, defense policy, defense cooperation, and military strategy issues as they  relate to significant countries or geographic areas of the world such as Asia and  the Middle East. The center’s publication product line includes books, Occasional  Papers, Strategic Perspectives, Strategic Forum (policy papers), conference  papers, and journal articles.
Mission: To provide educational  support to joint professional military  education and advice to the Secretary  of Defense, Chairman of the Joint  Chiefs of Staff, and the combatant  commands through studies, reports,  briefings, and memorandums;  conducts directed research and  analysis in the areas of strategic  studies and regional studies; and  engages in independent and leading- edge research and analysis in related  areas.
Location: National Defense  University, Washington, DC Background: Established in 2000 as  a part of National Defense  University’s Institute for National  Strategic Studies, pursuant to the  National Defense Authorization Act  for Fiscal Year 2000.
The center’s research focuses on documenting China’s expanding international  interests, understanding China’s development and employment of new economic,  military, and diplomatic capabilities, and analyzing Chinese debates about how  these capabilities should be employed to advance national goals. It also explores  the implications of these developments for U.S.-China relations and for the U.S.  role in Asia. The center also conducts outreach to share its research with  policymakers and informs the public debate through books, articles,  memorandums, briefings and conferences. For example, the center cosponsors an  annual conference on the People’s Liberation Army with the Council for Advanced  Policy Studies (a Taiwanese think tank), and RAND, a nonprofit institution that  conducts research and analysis. The center’s publication product line includes  books, Occasional Papers, Strategic Perspectives, Strategic Forum (policy  papers), conference papers, and journal articles.
Mission: To serve as a national focal  point and resource center for  multidisciplinary research and  analytic exchanges on the national  goals and strategic posture of the  People’s Republic of China and the  ability of that nation to develop, field,  and deploy an effective military  instrument in support of its national  strategic objectives.
section_title: - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions -
paragraphs: University, Washington, DC Background: Established in 1994 as  the Center for Counterproliferation  Research, pursuant to memoranda of  understanding among the Assistant  Secretary of Defense for Nuclear  Security and Counterproliferation,  the Director of Strategic Plans and  Policy, the Joint Staff, and the  President, National Defense  University. The center was renamed  the Center for the Study of Weapons  of Mass Destruction in 2004.
The Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction performs research on  the full spectrum of issues related to weapons of mass destruction, engages in  educational activities, and collaborates with partners across the government. The  center conducts directed and self-initiated research of the following types: (1)  operational and policy support; (2) traditional academic research; and (3)  research undertaken to support the joint professional military education program  at the National Defense University. Research topics related to studies in weapons  of mass destruction include deterrence; counterproliferation operations; and  policy and doctrinal development regarding weapons of mass destruction. The  center also conducts outreach to share its research through papers, and planning  and participating in various venues, including conferences and dialogues with  participants from U.S. and foreign partner entities. For example, the center  organizes the annual meeting of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Education  Consortium.
Mission: To prepare the joint  warfighter and select others to  address the challenges posed by  weapons of mass destruction through  education and professional  development, scholarship, and  outreach and collaboration activities  across the full spectrum of issues  related to weapons of mass  destruction and to become one of the  preeminent institutions in the United  States for weapons of mass  destruction expertise.
Nature of Research and Publications  The Center for Technology and National Security Policy conducts research on a  reimbursable basis by means of memorandums of understanding with sponsoring  organizations on science and technology (chemical/biological defense, human  hardiness research, counter–improvised explosive devices, policing, and  counterinsurgency); civilian-military integration (transformative innovation for  development and emergency support, social media in strategic communication);  emerging challenges (anticipatory governance concerning cyber security; climate  change; vulnerability to severe space weather); and advanced education  initiatives.  The center’s publication product line includes books, Defense  Technology Papers, Defense Horizons (policy papers), conference papers, and  journal articles.
section_title: - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions -
paragraphs: The Center for Transatlantic Studies provided senior Department of Defense and  other U.S. government leaders with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization  (NATO) and Transatlantic policy advice, research, and outreach, notably in the  run-up to the 2012 NATO Summit and beyond. Specifically, the center conducted  research on capabilities studies, evaluating transatlantic bargain and dialogue,  and, NATO–Russia relations, and NATO’s countering hybrid threats. It also  published Transatlantic Currents, CTSS Flash notes, and Transatlantic  Perspectives.
Background: The Center for  Transatlantic Security Studies was  formed in 2010 to support the Under  Secretary of Defense for Policy in  North Atlantic Treaty  Organization/European–related  policy development. The center  incorporated the NATO Orientation  Program that had provided training to  NATO assigned officers since at least  1990 as was mandated by the  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  As of October 2012, both the center  and the NATO Orientation Program  were dissolved.
Mission:  To be the focal point for  national and international  collaboration on issues related to  transatlantic security, defense policy,  and military strategy through  research, education, and outreach.   Develops and conducts education  and orientation programs for U.S. and  allied military officers, government  civilians, and international partners  on issues relating to NATO and  transatlantic security community.
Examples of Customers
Under Secretary of Defense for   - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions -   Nature of Research and Publications  The China Maritime Studies Institute  has four primary areas of activity: (1) broad,  multidisciplinary research on China’s maritime activity as it relates to its strategic  orientation; (2) annual conferences and speaker series; (3) publications, ranging  from short assessments and think pieces to monographs and books; and (4)  support for U.S. Navy and joint commands. The center conducts research in areas  related to China’s maritime development, including energy, global commerce, law  of the sea, maritime technologies, merchant marine, naval development, naval  diplomacy, and shipbuilding.
Background: The China Maritime  Studies Institute was established as a  subcomponent of the Strategic  Research Department on October 1,  2006, in accordance with a Program  Objective Memorandum by the Chief  of Naval Operations.
Research Department, it receives dedicated funding on an annual basis for its research activities,  including to fund its own researchers. As a result, we have categorized the China Maritime Studies  Institute as a separate joint professional military education research institution for the purposes of this  report.  However, because the center is a subcomponent of the Strategic Research Department,  Naval War College officials stated that it shares budgetary, personnel, and administrative functions  with the Strategic Research Department.
section_title: - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions -
paragraphs: Location: Naval War College,  Newport, RI Background:  The International Law  Department was founded in 1984 and  opened its doors in 1986.
The International Law Department serves as the Naval War College’s focal point  for the study of international and maritime law and oceans policy as they affect  U.S. military policy, strategy and operations. As part of its research efforts, the  department compiles, edits, and publishes the International Law Studies Series  that provides a forum for prominent legal scholars to publish articles that  contribute to the broader understanding of international law. Recently, in  response to discussion with the Joint Staff, the department initiated an  Information Paper Series. These are short papers that break down legal issues for  further consideration by senior military leaders. Furthermore, in addition to the  Information Paper Series and International Law Studies, the individual staffers  of the department engage in independent research and writing. In addition to legal  research and scholarly writing, Naval War College officials state that staff  members actively support the Naval War College’s core intermediate and senior- level Navy PME courses as professors, lecturers, and moderators, while hosting  several operational-law electives throughout the academic year.
Mission: To conduct and  disseminate advanced international  law research and analysis.
The Strategic Research Department’s research projects, including those of the  China Maritime Studies Institutes, fall into three broad categories: (1) projects  assigned by the Navy or another U.S. national security organization; (2) sustained  projects that do not depend on year-to-year tasking but rather constitute  multiyear, multideliverable, multiclient investments serving long-term U.S.  national security and Navy interests (these projects focus on strategic regions  such as Eurasia, Africa, the greater Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region, as  well as on functional topics such as maritime strategy, cyber conflict, and sea- based ballistic missile defense); (3) self-sponsored projects conducted in  consultation with the leadership of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies (these  projects have no specific tasking or set of clients, rather, they address emerging  issues that officials believe will garner substantial national or naval attention in  the foreseeable future).
Background: Formally established in  1987 by the Dean of the Center for  Naval Warfare Studies, and in  consultation with the Chief of Naval  Operations. However, the Strategic  Research Department dates back to  the origins of the Center for Naval  Warfare Studies in 1981.
Mission:  To produce innovative  strategic research and analysis for  the U.S. Navy, Department of  Defense, and the broader national  security community.
Secretary of the Navy
Chief of Naval Operations
U.S. Marine Corps leadership
Combatant commands
Federal agencies   - Appendix II: Joint Professional Military Education Research Institutions -   Nature of Research and Publications  Each year, the Chief of Naval Operations selects a broad governing theme for the  Strategic Studies Group’s research. The 2013 topic is Undersea Dominance out to  2030. The Strategic Studies Group is responsible for keeping the Chief of Naval  Operations informed of progress throughout the year and produces a summary  briefing and written report of actionable concepts with recommendations that can  be executed by the Chief of Naval Operations in the near term. The products,  while encompassing long-term views, are designed to help inform the Chief of  Naval Operations on near- and mid-term program decisions.
section_title: Appendix III: Research Project Title Analysis
paragraphs: This appendix contains the results of our research project title analysis.  We reviewed 2,217 research project titles from 20 joint professional  military education research institutions and 14 other DOD-funded  research organizations. These titles are associated with projects  conducted in 2012 and 2013. Based on a project’s title, we coded it into  one or more areas of concentration. The table below presents the number  of research project titles coded into these 23 areas of concentration. The  results do not add to 2,217 because some research project titles could be  coded into more than one area of concentration and two areas of  concentration are not included in the final results. For example, a  research project title on North Korea’s nuclear future would be coded into  both the “Asia” and “nuclear and weapons of mass destruction” topic  areas.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Matthew Ullengren, Assistant  Director; Erin Behrmann; Richard Burkard; Gabrielle A. Carrington;  Alberto Leff; Marcus Lloyd Oliver; Michael Silver; and Cheryl Weissman  made key contributions to this report.