Human Capital: Opportunities Exist for DOD to Enhance Its Approach for Determining Civilian Senior Leader Workforce Needs
Published: 2010-11-04T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) relies heavily on its civilian workforce to perform duties usually performed by military personnel--including combat support functions such as logistics. Civilian senior leaders--some of whom occupy positions that might be cut during DOD's latest attempts to reduce overhead costs--are among those who manage DOD's civilians. In 2007, Congress mandated that DOD assess requirements for its civilian senior leader workforce in light of recent trends. DOD reported its recent reply to this requirement in its 2009 update to the Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan, which used information from a 2008 baseline review to validate its senior leader requirements. GAO was asked to review DOD's approach for (1) assessing its civilian senior leader workforce requirements, (2) identifying and communicating the need for additional senior leaders, and (3) developing and managing this workforce. GAO reviewed submissions for DOD's baseline review and requests for additional senior leaders, including DOD's intelligence agencies. GAO also interviewed DOD and Office of Personnel Management officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: DOD conducted a baseline review to assess and validate its civilian senior leader requirements but did not document its analysis or summarize the results of the review. Standards for internal controls call for significant events to be documented and summarized to facilitate tracing transactions and related information. Specifically, in April 2008, DOD issued guidance for components outside its intelligence community to conduct a baseline review of its senior leader needs. While DOD reported to Congress that this was a rigorous analysis, GAO found that some of the components' information was incomplete and DOD was unable to provide documentation of an analysis summarizing its results. DOD officials said that they did not summarize the analysis because the information was only intended to support a number of human capital management efforts, including a report to Congress on DOD's Civilian Human Capital Plan. Similarly, DOD's intelligence community, in 2007, issued guidance for assessing its workforce needs but also did not summarize its analysis. DOD officials stated that while the analysis was not summarized, it resulted in a number of key decisions--for example, a reduction in one agency's senior leader needs. However, without documenting and summarizing information in an analysis that could be traced to component submissions, DOD may not be able to provide Congress and stakeholders in its chain of command insight into how it assessed its senior leader needs. While most DOD entities used a consistent, clearly documented approach to identify and communicate needs for additional civilian senior leaders, the defense intelligence community's approach lacked similar consistency. Outside of the defense intelligence community, DOD used common criteria to identify its most urgent needs for additional senior leaders and communicated those needs and justifications through the chain of command. The defense intelligence community, however, assessed its needs for additional personnel using various sets of criteria and communicated those needs as one aggregate number without providing specific justifications to stakeholders and, ultimately, to Congress. GAO's prior work has shown that establishing common criteria and clear communication strategies strengthens agency processes. Without such criteria and a well-defined set of communication expectations, requests to increase senior leaders in the defense intelligence community will not appear to be supported and justified. DOD's approach for managing and developing civilian leaders includes policies and an executive education program but has some limitations. For example, the executive education program--which, according to program officials, costs an average of $6.5 million per year--was created to address problems of a predecessor program, including the lack of a plan for how graduates would be used in the future. The new program, however, does not have clearly defined metrics to measure the progress or success of the program. GAO previously reported that high-performing organizations recognize the importance of measuring how programs meet their goals.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD (1) document analyses and clarify assessment criteria for determining certain senior leader requirements and (2) create clearly defined metrics for its executive education program. DOD generally concurred with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) is facing the complex challenges of  supporting heavy involvement in overseas military operations, rebuilding  readiness, and preparing forces to counter emerging threats. To help  military forces meet these challenges, DOD is turning increasingly to the  almost 718,000 personnel in its civilian workforce. This civilian workforce  performs a wide variety of duties and responsibilities, including mission- essential combat support functions such as logistics support and  maintenance that traditionally have been performed by the uniformed  military. Further demonstrating its reliance on civilians, DOD has  increased the size of its Civilian Expeditionary Workforce, which provides  deployable civilian experts to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other theaters of  operation, and plans to convert 33,400 contractor positions to federal  civilian positions through 2015. To manage the civilian workforce DOD  depends on, among others, civilian senior leaders and must ensure that  they are sufficient in number and properly developed to help meet the  department’s complex challenges. Managing these senior civilian leaders  effectively is imperative, especially in light of DOD’s recently announced  plans to eliminate unnecessary overhead costs, including plans to possibly  reduce the number of civilian senior leader positions by 150 over the next  2 years.
DOD relies on five types of civilian senior leaders to operate and oversee  nearly every activity in the department. These are DOD’s: (1) Senior  Executive Service, (2) Senior Level, (3) Senior Technical, (4) Defense  Intelligence Senior Executive Service, and (5) Defense Intelligence Senior  Level workforces. Most of the department relies on the Senior Executive  Service workforce to fill positions with managerial, supervisory, or policy  advisory responsibilities; on the Senior Level workforce to fill positions  that require less than 25 percent of the time to be spent on supervisory or  related managerial responsibilities; and on the Senior Technical workforce  to perform high-level research and development in the physical, biological,  medical, and engineering science fields. DOD’s intelligence community  has its own specialized civilian senior leader workforce, as a result of  authority provided by Congress in fiscal year 1997 to create a separate  senior leadership system. Specifically, the defense intelligence community  relies on the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service workforce to  fill positions with managerial, supervisory, or policy advisory  responsibilities and on the Defense Intelligence Senior Level workforce to  fill positions that require that less than 25 percent of the time to be spent  on managerial or supervisory responsibilities.
Recently, Congress, GAO, and DOD have addressed the management of  DOD’s civilian senior leader workforces. For example, in 2009, Congress  passed legislation requiring DOD to, among other things, conduct  assessments of its need for civilian senior leader workforces and establish  a program to recruit and develop civilian employees as civilian senior  leaders. Additionally, we reported on DOD’s Civilian Human Capital  Strategic Plan and identified limitations in the department’s efforts to meet  previous legislative requirements related to planning for the civilian senior  leader workforces. These requirements included assessing gaps in DOD’s  civilian senior leader workforces and identifying specific strategies for  developing and training civilian senior leaders. Further, in our 2008 report  on diversity in the federal government’s Senior Executive Service, we  noted that if a significant number of retirement-eligible Senior Executive  Service personnel left government service, a loss of leadership continuity,  institutional knowledge, and expertise could be experienced across the  government. According to more recent data reported in DOD’s 2009  Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan, 82 percent of DOD’s Senior  Executive Service workforce, 93 percent of DOD’s Senior Level workforce,  and 88 percent of DOD’s Senior Technical workforce will be eligible to  retire within the next 10 years. DOD also recognized, in this 2009 update,  the importance of having civilian leaders who are trained and capable of  serving in positions that cut across all of DOD. Finally, in its 2010  Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD acknowledged that it is working to  synchronize civilian and military leadership training with the goal of  ensuring common professional training and education between Senior  Executive Service personnel and flag officers and increasing joint  capability for deployment of Senior Executive Service personnel.
You asked us to review DOD’s management of the civilian senior leader  workforces. In response to that request, we evaluated DOD’s approach for  (1) assessing civilian senior leader workforce requirements, (2) identifying  and communicating the need for additional civilian senior leaders, and (3)  developing and managing civilian senior leaders capable of leading DOD’s  civilian workforce.
For our first objective, we analyzed documents related to DOD’s efforts to  assess existing civilian senior leader workforce requirements. These  documents include an April 2008 memorandum from the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness providing  instructions for a baseline review of DOD’s Senior Executive Service,  Senior Level, and Senior Technical workforce requirements. Because  DOD’s intelligence community has its own specialized civilian senior  leader workforces, we also reviewed instructions the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Intelligence issued in 2007 for assessing Defense  Intelligence Senior Executive Service and Defense Intelligence Senior  Level workforce requirements. We reviewed the 2008 memorandum and  the 2007 instructions and compared them to guidance for classifying  civilian senior leader positions issued by the Office of Personnel  Management (OPM), which includes the Guide to Senior Executive  Service Qualifications and the Senior Executive Service Desk Guide.  We reviewed all of the available information the components provided for  DOD’s 2008 baseline review, per DOD officials. This included information  from a total of 21 DOD components. However, during the final months of  our review, DOD was unable to provide information obtained from its 2007  review of the defense intelligence community’s senior leader  requirements; as a result, we used testimonial information provided by  responsible officials in the defense intelligence community. We also  interviewed DOD officials responsible for conducting the 2008 baseline  review. We considered the information obtained from DOD in the context  of internal controls associated with conducting such assessments— specifically, requirements for documenting and summarizing the  information gathered. While we reviewed the department’s efforts to  assess the civilian senior leader workforce requirements, we did not  validate DOD’s requirements for the existing civilian senior leader  workforces.
For our second objective, we reviewed the process DOD used to identify  and communicate needs in the request for additional civilian senior leader  positions submitted for OPM’s 2010-11 Biennial Review of Executive  Resource Allocations, which is the process OPM uses to allocate civilian  senior leader workforces to federal agencies across the government. We  also reviewed the efforts by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense  for Personnel and Readiness to assess DOD’s requirements for additional  civilian senior leaders and develop and submit requests in accordance  with OPM’s guidance. Because DOD’s intelligence community has its own  specialized civilian senior leader workforce, we also reviewed the  approach that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence  took from fiscal years 2001 to 2010 to identify and communicate the needs  for additional Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service personnel  and reviewed efforts to develop legislative proposals for submission to  Congress regarding those needs. Further, we examined documents  related to adjustments in the size of the Defense Intelligence Senior Level  workforce, which is established by the Under Secretary of Defense for  Intelligence. Additionally, we reviewed DOD policies and workforce  planning documents related to strategies for addressing gaps in its civilian  senior leader workforces. We also examined and reported on OPM  workforce data. We assessed the reliability of the data and believe they are  sufficiently reliable to present allocation and workforce figures.
For our third objective, we reviewed applicable documents, including  those related to DOD’s emphasis on the importance of enterprisewide  perspectives for its civilian Senior Executive Service. We also reviewed  our prior work regarding performance measures and federal government  human capital planning efforts. We interviewed officials in the Office of  the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Army,  the Navy, the Air Force, the Office of the Director of Administration and  Management, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Civilian  Personnel Management Service. In addition, we interviewed officials in the  Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness  Office of Leader Development Programs Branch, which, according to DOD  officials, is the office responsible for developing and administering the  Defense Senior Leader Development Program—DOD’s main program for  developing the civilian senior leader workforces. We reviewed documents  related to that program and also interviewed officials at OPM who are  responsible for leadership development and for the certification of Senior  Executive Service candidate programs. Further details on our scope and  methodology can be found in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2009 through  November 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOD’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness is the adviser to the Secretary of Defense for total force  management, and as such the Under Secretary, among other things, is  responsible for identifying civilian requirements for Senior Executive  Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical positions. Specifically, the  Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness  directed the last review of DOD’s Senior Executive Service, Senior Level,  and Senior Technical positions in a 2008 baseline review. The Principal  Deputy directed that the review be completed in 60 days and stated that  the results would be used to respond to reporting requirements in the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. This act  required DOD to, among other things, assess its requirements for senior  management, functional, and technical personnel (including scientists and  engineers) in light of recent trends. Similarly, the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Intelligence exercises overall supervision and  policy oversight for human capital within the defense intelligence  community. In 2007, this office sent DOD’s intelligence community  guidance for a review of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service  and Defense Intelligence Senior Level civilian leader workforce  requirements. This review, according to the guidance, was intended to  spur an examination and validation of senior civilian requirements,  provide DOD management with evidence that resources were being used  wisely, and provide an explanation of what resources the intelligence  community required and why, so that officials could make budget  allocations decisions and defend those requirements before Congress. The  intelligence community had 120 days to conduct its review. Recently,  however, a September 3, 2010, memorandum directed the department to  perform a similar study of these positions to support efficiency initiatives  that are expected to result in a reduction of at least 150 civilian senior  leader positions.
In addition to the above, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness oversees the process for identifying the need for  additional Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical  personnel. When an entity in DOD identifies a need for an additional  Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, or Senior Technical allocation, the  need is sent to either an executive board or office that reviews the request.  Once the executive board or office has reviewed all requests, they are  forwarded to an approving official, typically the secretary of the service,  an under secretary, or someone in an equivalent position. Once the list is  approved, it is sent to the Civilian Personnel Management Service within  the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,  which aggregates, levels, and forwards the list to the Under Secretary of  Defense for Personnel and Readiness who reviews and approves the list  before it is sent to OPM. OPM, in consultation with the Office of  Management and Budget, assigns Senior Executive Service, Senior Level,  and Senior Technical allocations every 2 years to DOD and all other  federal agencies. During the biennial review, OPM establishes guidelines  for executive branch agencies to follow when requesting additional Senior  Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical allocations;  evaluates agency requests for new allocations; and authorizes increases in  the number of allocations for each agency. OPM conducted the most  recent biennial review in 2009 for allocations to be granted for fiscal years  2010 through 2011. Figure 1 depicts DOD’s process for identifying and  communicating the need for additional DOD Senior Executive Service,  Senior Level, and Senior Technical requirements for the services, the  Office of the Secretary of Defense, the defense agencies, the Joint Staff,  and DOD’s combatant commands.
Because the maximum number of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive  Service allocations is established by law, DOD uses a separate process to  communicate the need for additional Defense Intelligence Senior  Executive Service personnel. On the basis of requirements identified by  the military services’ intelligence branches and the defense intelligence  community agencies, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Intelligence develops legislative proposals to request increases in the  number of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service allocations. The  office provides the legislative proposal to the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, which submits the  proposal to DOD’s General Counsel for inclusion in DOD’s general  legislative proposal program. The Secretary of Defense was provided with  authority to create a separate Defense Intelligence Senior Executive  Service workforce by section 1632 of the National Defense Authorization  Act for Fiscal Year 1997. The legislation also stipulates that the Defense  Intelligence Senior Executive Service workforce is equivalent to the Senior  Executive Service workforce. A DOD draft directive—which department  officials said was in use at the time of our review—states that individuals  serving in Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service positions have  the same administrative requirements and responsibilities as federal  Senior Executive Service personnel. Figure 2 depicts DOD’s process to  support requests to Congress for additional Defense Intelligence Senior  Executive Service allocations.
As of September 2009, DOD was authorized 2,934 allocations for its  civilian senior leader workforces, representing less than 1 percent of  DOD’s total civilian workforce. Table 1 provides the number of DOD  Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical allocations  authorized by OPM, the number of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive  Service allocations authorized by statute, and the number of Defense  Intelligence Senior Level allocations authorized by the Under Secretary  of Defense for Intelligence as of September 2009.
For perspective, appendix II provides information on the number of  employees working in selected federal agencies across the government  and their respective number of civilian senior leader personnel, as of  September 2009. Appendix III provides three tables on the number of  Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical allocations  OPM made to selected executive branch agencies from fiscal year 2000  through fiscal year 2009.
section_title: DOD Took Steps to Assess Civilian Senior Leader Workforce Requirements but Did Not Document and Summarize the Results of Its Assessments
subsections: section_title: DOD’s Approach for Assessing Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical Workforce Requirements
paragraphs: In 2008, DOD conducted a baseline review to assess and validate Senior  Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical workforce  requirements and reported to Congress that this was a rigorous analysis.  However, while the department’s approach appears reasonable, some of  the information the components submitted in response to the review was  incomplete and DOD did not document and summarize the information so  that it could be readily traced back to the component submissions.  Standards for internal control in the federal government state that  documentation of transactions and other significant events is to be  complete and accurate and is to facilitate the tracing of the transaction or  event and related information. This applies to the entire process or life  cycle of a transaction or event—from its initiation and authorization  through its final classification in summary records.
DOD’s April 2008 memorandum for the baseline review provided  components a key opportunity to, among other things, validate and align  DOD’s civilian senior leader workforce requirements, assess gaps in  resource requirements, and identify component-specific strategic  priorities. This memorandum was sent to the secretaries of the military  departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the under  secretaries of defense, the commanders of the combatant commands, the  assistant secretaries of defense, the General Counsel of DOD, the Director  of Operational Test and Evaluation, the DOD Inspector General, the  assistants to the Secretary of Defense, the Director of Administration and  Management, the Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, the  Director of Net Assessment, the directors of the defense agencies, and the  directors of DOD field activities. We found that the 2008 memorandum  presents a reasonable way to validate baseline requirements.
However, during the course of our review officials provided us with  available data and information obtained from 21 components, and we  found that some of the components submitted information that was  incomplete and not all of the components submitted information specified  in the baseline review. For example, DOD provided us with the data and  information received from components, including the Defense Logistics  Agency, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the Defense  Information Systems Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the  Department of the Navy, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. However, our  review of the documents provided showed that at least 6 of the 21 defense  components did not submit complete responses. For example, the Office  of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provided information on its civilian senior  leader positions, such as the responsibility of the positions; the operation,  project, or program managed; and whether the positions are responsible  for managing resources. However, the Joint Staff did not provide required  narrative responses, such as position validation and missions and  strategies supported. Additionally, according to a DOD official the Army  and the Air Force did not submit information as specified in the 2008  memorandum for the baseline review. This official stated that the Army  and the Air Force chose to use assessments of their Senior Executive  Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical workforces that had been  conducted in response to OPM’s 2008-2009 Biennial Review of Executive  Resources Allocations. However, this DOD official was unable to provide  us with copies of the assessments completed by the Army and Air Force. It  is therefore unclear if these documents addressed the objectives of the  baseline review, which include such elements as aligning positions with  the department’s 21st Century Leader criteria and proposing any new  executive categories for optimum development, management, and  utilization of executive talent.
Additionally, DOD did not document or summarize the information so it  could be readily traced back to the component submissions. Specifically,  DOD was unable to provide us with documentation of aggregate, bottom- line conclusions from the analysis the department conducted after  considering the individual component submissions. Moreover, department  officials stated that they did not present their aggregate analysis in a report  summarizing the results of the baseline review. DOD officials with  knowledge of the baseline review told us that they did not intend to  summarize the baseline review analysis or provide a final report on that  review. They further stated that DOD did not summarize the analysis  because the information was only intended to be used to support a variety  of human capital management processes taking place in the department.  For example, the department said it used information from the baseline  review in DOD’s 2009 update to its Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan.  This update, which was provided to Congress, stated, for instance, that  “Within DOD there are more than 1,300 Senior Executive Service  positions.” However, this information about the number of senior  executives shows how many positions existed at the time of the update  and not how many were required. In addition, because there was no  summary analysis of the components’ submissions, this number was not  readily traceable to information provided by the individual components.  Without clearly documenting or summarizing the information in an  analysis that could be readily traced back to the component submissions,  DOD is not providing Congress and other stakeholders—such as those in  the chain of command—clear insight and visibility into DOD’s validation  of requirements for its civilian senior leader workforces and whether  those validated requirements reflect the results of its baseline review.
section_title: In 2007, DOD Assessed Its Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service and Defense Intelligence Senior Level Workforce Requirements
paragraphs: In 2007, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence  conducted a review to examine and validate DOD’s Defense Intelligence  Senior Executive Service and Defense Intelligence Senior Level positions;  however, during the final months of our review, officials from this office  were unable to provide us with information submitted by the defense  intelligence components or with a summary analysis. As mentioned  previously, standards for internal control in the federal government state  that documentation of transactions and other significant events are to be  complete and accurate and facilitate the tracing of the transaction or event  and related information. This applies to the entire process or life cycle of a  transaction or event—from its initiation and authorization through its final  classification in summary records. According to DOD, information from  this review was included in DOD’s 2008 update to its Civilian Human  Capital Strategic Plan. Specifically, per a September 28, 2007, e-mail from  the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to the military  service intelligence branches and the defense intelligence agencies, the  review was intended to be a serious examination and validation of senior  civilian requirements. The guidance also stated that the review was  intended to encourage the most effective use of limited senior civilian  resources. The 2007 memorandum presents a reasonable way to validate  baseline requirements.
According to a responsible defense intelligence official, the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence received submissions from all  eight of the defense intelligence components to which the 2007 guidance  was sent. This official told us that the responses consisted of information  and data on each of the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service and  Defense Intelligence Senior Level positions, such as the span of control  and span of influence for these positions, along with their role in  supervising and managing personnel and resources. In addition, this  official told us that the overall results of the review were used to provide  information to DOD’s 2008 strategic human capital plan. Specifically,  when referring to the 2007 defense intelligence community’s review of  senior leaders, the 2008 plan that was submitted to Congress stated,  among other things, that the defense intelligence components (1)  confirmed their positions had been validated, (2) examined the utilization  of senior leader positions, and (3) identified the impact of organization  and mission change. However, we were not able to verify such statements  because the information from the defense intelligence components was  not provided to us during the final months of our review.
A defense intelligence official responsible for this review told us that the  analysis associated with the review of senior leaders resulted in several  changes to requirements in the defense intelligence agencies. For example,  the official told us and the 2008 human capital plan states that the National  Security Agency identified about 70 positions that were categorized as  Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service positions that could be  reclassified at or below the General Schedule 15 level—therefore reducing  overall requirements for the agencies’ civilian senior leaders. However, as  mentioned previously, without the information from DOD that clearly  documents or summarizes an analysis that could be readily traced back to  the component submissions, we could not verify these statements.  DOD  officials told us that, while they were eager to do so they were not able to  respond to requests for this information during the final months of our  review due to other priorities.  Furthermore, without this information,  DOD is not able to provide Congress and other users of the information  clear insight and visibility into the defense intelligence community’s  validation of requirements for its civilian senior leader workforces and  whether those validated requirements reflect the results of its review.
section_title: A Consistent Approach to Identify, Communicate, and Address Needs Was Used in DOD’s Request for Additional Senior Leaders, but the Defense Intelligence Community’s Approach Lacked Similar Consistency
subsections: section_title: For Most Entities, DOD Conducted an Analytical Assessment of Needs Using Standard Criteria
paragraphs: For most entities—the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Office of the  Director of Administration and Management, the Office of the Chairman  of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other offices—DOD conducted an  analytical assessment of needs using standard criteria. Specifically, in  preparation for OPM’s 2010-11 Biennial Review of Executive Resource  Allocations, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel  and Readiness provided guidance to these entities; the entities used the  criteria in the guidance to identify their most urgent needs for additional  Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical allocations.  These entities, in turn, submitted evaluations of those needs and their  justifications to the Civilian Personnel Management Service within the  Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The  criteria specified in the DOD guidance included identifying the strategic  mission requirement to be addressed by the allocation, the reporting  relationship of the position and where it will be placed in the component’s  organizational structure, the number of personnel expected to report to  the person in the proposed position, and the source of funding expected to  pay for the allocation. The Civilian Personnel Management Service  considered these evaluations and then used nine standard, weighted  criteria to score each request for additional Senior Executive Service,  Senior Level, and Senior Technical allocations. Table 2 lists these nine  standard, weighted criteria.
Using these criteria, the Civilian Personnel Management Service developed  a final list in priority order of the additional Senior Executive Service,  Senior Level, and Senior Technical allocations needed and forwarded that  list to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness for approval. After approving the list, the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness sent it to OPM for  consideration during its Biennial Review of Executive Resource  Allocations process. In its request, the Office of the Under Secretary for  Personnel and Readiness identified the aggregate number of Senior  Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical allocations needed  by all of the aforementioned entities, a list of all proposed allocations in  order of priority, and the justification for each proposed allocation. During  this process, DOD requested an additional 51 Senior Executive Service  allocations and OPM allocated it 25. During the same process, DOD  requested 19 additional Senior Technical personnel and OPM allocated it  8. OPM officials told us that they did not approve all of DOD’s requested  allocations because the department’s vacancy rate—the number of  existing allocations DOD was authorized but were not filled—was too  high. According to DOD officials, at the time of our report the  department’s Senior Executive Service vacancy rate was about 8 percent  and over the past 3 years the department’s average vacancy rate has been  about 12 to 14 percent.
From the identification of needs at the component level to the  communication of those needs to OPM at the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness level, this process was  well-defined and clearly documented. At the start of the process OPM  provided all agencies, including DOD, submission timelines and guidance  on how to justify allocation increases. In response, DOD generated the  list of additional civilian senior leaders needed using a consistent process  across the services that was clearly documented and transparent. While  ultimately OPM did not allocate to DOD all of the leaders that it had  requested, DOD’s approach for identifying and communicating the needs  for additional civilian senior leaders allowed for informed decision making  both by the senior levels of DOD and by OPM. Appendix IV provides  detailed information on how many additional Senior Executive Service,  Senior Level, and Senior Technical allocations DOD has requested and  OPM has authorized since 2004.
section_title: The Defense Intelligence Community Assessed Needs Using Different Sets of Criteria; However, Justification for Those Needs Was Not Communicated to Key Stakeholders
paragraphs: While DOD used OPM’s process to request additional Senior Executive  Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical allocations, for fiscal years  2007 through 2009 and 2011, DOD submitted its request for additional  Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service allocations in the form of a  legislative proposal to Congress. To support the proposals requesting  additional allocations from Congress, the Office of the Under Secretary of  Defense for Intelligence requested the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and  the defense intelligence community agencies to identify and arrange by  priority the additional Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service  allocations they needed. However, unlike the process that the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness used—in which DOD  used common criteria—the military service intelligence branches and  defense intelligence community agencies used different sets of criteria to  verify their most urgent needs for additional civilian senior leaders and did  not communicate the justification for those needs to congressional  decision makers.
Regarding the criteria used by the defense intelligence community to  verify that new Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service allocations  met the minimum qualifications of the executive level, the military service  intelligence branches used the same criteria, while the four defense  intelligence community agencies used their own unique criteria. According  to DOD officials, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Intelligence reviewed the military services intelligence branches’ and  defense intelligence agencies’ requests for additional positions to verify  that the requests met statutory definitions. Table 3 describes the different  sets of criteria used by the military service intelligence branches and  agencies in the defense intelligence community to ensure any additional  Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service allocations meet statutory  minimum requirement to be classified above the General Schedule 15  level.
Once their needs were identified, each of the military service intelligence  branches and defense intelligence community agencies reported them to  the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. According to  defense intelligence officials, these reports had detailed justification  statements that included a description of each position, its reporting  relationships, the number of people directly supervised, the position’s total  supervisory span of control, and a justification/mission-critical  requirement statement. Unlike the process that the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness used—which required  various DOD entities to provide justifications for additional positions—the  Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence communicated its  request for positions to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness only as an aggregate number without  justifications. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel  and Readiness, in turn, as part of DOD’s general legislative program,  communicated that aggregated number to Congress. According to officials  in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, they had  detailed information on the justifications for each position needed;  however, these officials stated that by communicating the need for  additional allocations only as an aggregate number, they did not provide  sufficient details about their need for additional Defense Intelligence  Senior Executive Service allocations.
When the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997  authorized the Secretary of Defense to create the Defense Intelligence  Senior Executive Service, it set the maximum number of allocations at  492. The current maximum is 594. As stated above, to increase the  statutory cap on the number of allocations for that workforce, the defense  intelligence community must submit legislative proposals. According to  DOD directives, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence is  responsible for the overall supervision and policy oversight for human  capital within the defense intelligence community. Typically, the Office of  the Under Secretary for Intelligence communicates its legislative  proposals to Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness,  which then approves and submits them for potential inclusion in DOD’s  general legislative program.
While we have not validated DOD’s Defense Intelligence Senior Executive  Service requirements, we note that during the past 10 years, Congress has  enacted increases to the maximum number of Defense Intelligence Senior  Executive Service positions only three times—in the Floyd D. Spence  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, the National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, and the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. In January 2006, for example,  section 1125 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year  2006 increased the maximum number of positions by 50 while DOD’s  legislative proposal requested an increase of 150.
Our prior work has shown that when agencies are working toward a  common goal establishing common criteria and communication strategies  strengthens agency processes by providing stakeholders with shared  expectations to guide stakeholder efforts. Because the intelligence  agencies submit a single request for additional allocations, the individual  components should use common criteria for making that request.  Regarding the absence of common criteria used to identify the need for  additional positions, in its 2008 update to DOD’s Civilian Human Capital  Strategic Plan, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Intelligence stated that while the criteria being used by the components  are not uniform, the situation should be resolved by development of  unifying guidance in a dedicated volume of the Defense Civilian  Intelligence Personnel System—DOD’s overarching evaluation and  performance-based pay framework for agencies and departments in the  intelligence community. However, according to DOD officials, this  guidance is not yet final, and the defense intelligence community  continues to operate without common criteria. Without the use of  common criteria and without better communication of its justifications for  additional positions, requests to Congress to increase the number of  Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service personnel will not appear to  be well-supported.
section_title: DOD Uses Several Strategies to Address Gaps between the Additional Civilian Senior Leader Allocations It Requests and Those It Receives
paragraphs: DOD relies on several different human capital strategies when it  experiences gaps in its Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, or Senior  Technical workforces. It may request additional civilian senior leader  workforce allocations from OPM, reassign existing civilian senior leader  allocations, temporarily fill civilian senior leader positions with other DOD  personnel when an allocation is not available for the position, float  unused allocations to fill pressing needs throughout the department, and  maintain reserve allocations.
Requesting additional civilian senior leader workforce allocations from  OPM: DOD may request additional civilian senior leader workforce  allocations at any point between OPM’s Biennial Review of Executive  Resource Allocations cycles.
Reassignment of civilian senior leader workforce existing allocations:  Entities within DOD can reassign existing allocations to manage their  civilian senior leader workforces to meet changing mission requirements  and accommodate organizational structures.
Temporary filling of civilian senior leader positions with other  personnel: According to DOD officials, when DOD does not have an  allocation for a civilian senior leader position, it sometimes assigns a  military officer or a high-level, civilian non-senior leader employee to  temporarily fill the position until an allocation for the position is made  available. In some cases, DOD has assigned a civilian senior leader to  temporarily fill an unallocated position.
Floating allocations: OPM requires currently filled Senior Executive  Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical positions to be covered by the  allocations OPM grants to federal agencies. However, agencies often have  positions that are vacant for reasons such as an employee’s retirement.   Accordingly, agencies have some flexibility to move their vacant  allocations in the periods between OPM’s biennial reviews to meet their  civilian senior leader requirements. The Office of the Under Secretary of  Defense for Personnel and Readiness, for example, established policy to  address certain pressing needs by “floating” or borrowing unused  allocations from vacant positions to cover those needs. While this is based  on the assumption that some vacant positions will always exist, the policy  states that the office tracks, on a monthly basis, the number of float  allocations to ensure that DOD does not exceed its total OPM-authorized  senior leader allocations. The policy provides specific allocations for each  component and identified purpose, but in the aggregate DOD’s  components are authorized 10 percent (138) of their Senior Executive  Service, 6 percent (2) of their Senior Level, and 6 percent (8) of their  Senior Technical allocations for use as floats.
Reserve allocations: The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness maintains 25 of the 138 Senior Executive Service  floating allocations as a reserve, which it can distribute among DOD’s  components to meet emergent needs when other strategies are fully  utilized or otherwise unsuitable.
When the defense intelligence community has experienced gaps in its  Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service workforce, it has used three  strategies to fill them. First, the defense intelligence community has  reassigned existing allocations to positions of greater need. For example,  in 2007, during a restructuring of the defense intelligence community, the  Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence transferred Defense  Intelligence Senior Executive Service allocations within the community to  meet new civilian senior leader requirements. Second, the defense  intelligence community also has filled Defense Intelligence Senior  Executive Service positions temporarily with Defense Intelligence Senior  Level personnel when it lacked allocations. Third, officials explained that,  at times, they will divide up the responsibilities of a senior leader position  and distribute those responsibilities among other existing positions.
section_title: DOD’s Approach for Developing and Managing Civilian Senior Executive Service Personnel Includes Policies and an Executive Education Program, Though Limitations Exist
paragraphs: In addition to identifying the need for civilian senior leaders, DOD has  recently established overarching policy for managing and developing its  Senior Executive Service workforce. In a directive issued in 2007 and an  instruction issued in 2009, DOD noted the importance of focusing on  talent management and on the exposure to enterprisewide perspectives, as  part of its process, to prepare civilian personnel to move into leadership  positions. The directive identified as a goal the development of a Senior  Executive Service workforce that is fully integrated with other  components of DOD’s executive leadership, DOD’s general and flag  officers, and political leaders. The instruction defines enterprisewide  perspective as a broad point of view of DOD’s missions and an  understanding of individual or organizational responsibilities in relation to  larger DOD strategic priorities, which is shaped by experience and  education and characterized by a strategic, top-level focus on broad  requirements, joint experiences, fusion of information, collaboration, and  vertical and horizontal integration of information. More specifically, the  instruction indicates that enterprisewide perspective is a core competency  for civilian leaders, and includes, among other things, understanding  DOD’s roles and responsibilities and comprehending the relationships  between all elements of power.
In addition, chief among DOD’s efforts to develop its Senior Executive  Service workforce is DOD’s new Defense Senior Leader Development  Program, which DOD established in 2008 and, according to program  officials, costs an average of $6.5 million per fiscal year. According to DOD  documents, the Defense Senior Leader Development Program is designed  to span 2 years and support the enterprisewide effort to foster interagency  cooperation and information sharing by providing opportunities for  participants to understand and experience, firsthand, the issues and  challenges facing leaders across DOD and the broader national security  arena. Specifically, career civil service personnel at General Schedule 14  and General Schedule 15 and equivalent grades are eligible to apply for  this program and, if accepted, attend seminars and a professional service  school and enhance their individual development through substantive  enterprise-spanning activities. Furthermore, individuals who are already  members of DOD’s Senior Executive Service workforce provide feedback  to participants on strengths and competency gaps. Beyond the Defense  Senior Leader Development Program, DOD and the services have other  programs focused on developing career civilian and current Senior  Executive Service personnel. Appendix V provides examples and  descriptions of some of these programs.
DOD created the Defense Senior Leader Development Program to address  problems identified in the Defense Leadership and Management  Program—a predecessor program that was discontinued at the end of  fiscal year 2010. In 2009, we reported on problems that DOD had identified  with that program. In our report we noted that DOD concluded that the  program lacked involvement by senior leadership in the career path or  progression of potential Senior Executive Service candidates, lacked  interaction and camaraderie among participants, and had no plan for how  participants would be used after graduation. The House Armed Services  Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation has also  expressed concerns about the quality of the graduates produced under this  program. Table 4 lists some key differences between the Defense  Leadership and Management Program and the Defense Senior Leader  Development Program.
DOD has replaced the Defense Leadership and Management Program with  the Defense Senior Leader Development Program and has emphasized a  focus on developing future leaders with an enterprisewide perspective.  However, according to DOD officials, the department does not have  specific metrics for the program. Specifically, at the time of our review,  there were metrics in place to evaluate applicants prior to their being  admitted to the program and metrics in place to track their success while  enrolled; however, there were no metrics to measure the success of the  overall program. Without clearly defined program metrics to measure  them DOD cannot determine whether the implementation of the Defense  Senior Leader Development Program has been an improvement over the  Defense Leadership and Management Program. Our prior work on  effective strategic workforce planning has shown that high-performing  organizations recognize the importance of measuring both the outcomes  of human capital strategies as well as the ways that these outcomes have  helped the organizations accomplish their missions and programmatic  goals.
Furthermore, program officials said that the department had not sought  OPM certification for its new Defense Senior Leader Development  Program, but is researching the requirements for OPM certification. While  agencies are not required to operate an OPM-certified Senior Executive  Service Candidate Development Program, federal regulations state that  agencies that wish to operate OPM-certified Senior Executive Service  Candidate Development Programs must obtain approval from OPM and  provide training that addresses OPM’s Executive Core Qualifications.  These core qualifications include leading change, leading people, being  results driven, possessing business acumen, and building coalitions. Were  DOD to obtain OPM certification for the Defense Senior Leader  Development Program, OPM would be required by law to monitor the  implementation of the program and, when appropriate, take necessary  corrective action to bring the program into compliance with OPM- prescribed criteria. DOD would also be required by regulation, to  recruit candidates for the program from (at a minimum) all groups of  qualified individuals within the civil service. According to DOD officials,  the department has not sought OPM certification for the Defense Senior  Leader Development Program because the program is still in the early  stages of implementation. These officials noted, however, that they will  consider certification sometime in the future.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The range of missions DOD faces in the 21st century is broad, and DOD is  turning increasingly to its civilian workforce to perform essential  functions to accomplish those missions. Accordingly, especially in light of  a fiscally constrained environment, it is important for DOD to be able to  identify requirements for civilian senior leaders and be able to justify and  identify civilian senior leader positions of greatest need. Similarly, DOD  must be able to communicate those needs in a manner that facilitates  informed decision making. Where DOD has not been able to do this, key  decision makers have been left with insufficient information to determine  if requests for additional senior leaders are warranted. If decision makers  do not have a clear understanding of the highest-priority needs across the  department, they risk having a civilian senior leader workforce  inappropriately sized to meet DOD’s missions. Additionally, while DOD  has undertaken efforts to create a new senior leader development  program, at the time of our review, it has not yet identified program  measures. As a result, it is not in a position to know if its newly developed  program is meeting its senior leader development needs.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making the following four recommendations:  To provide supportable information about what DOD’s requirements are  for the Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical  workforces, we are recommending that in future reviews of the civilian  senior leader workforces the Secretary of Defense direct that the Office of  the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness document the  analysis conducted.
To improve the management and development of DOD’s civilian senior  leader workforces, we are recommending that the Secretary of Defense  take the following three actions:    direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to finalize and issue  common criteria for the military service intelligence elements and the  defense intelligence agencies to use in their assessments of Defense  Intelligence Senior Executive Service requirements;     direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and  the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to better communicate key  information, including justifications for each Defense Intelligence Senior  Executive Service position needed, during the development and  presentation of legislative proposals to congressional decision makers;  and      direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness to establish clearly defined metrics for the Defense Senior  Leader Development Program in order to measure the overall success of  the program.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In commenting on a draft of our report, the Office of the Under Secretary  of Defense for Personnel and Readiness partially concurred with two of  our recommendations, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense  for Intelligence fully concurred with the remaining two recommendations.   Comments from both DOD offices are reprinted in appendix VI.   Additionally, both offices provided general/technical comments on our  draft report, which we incorporated as appropriate.
subsections: section_title: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
paragraphs: In written comments, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness agreed with the overall findings of our draft but  stated that the report took an overly broad view of some of the areas  covered by the review.  The office noted that this approach affected the  resulting conclusions, and as a result, they were either inaccurate or  incomplete.  We disagree and have addressed DOD’s comments in detail in  appendix VI.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that in future reviews  of its civilian senior leader workforces the department document the  analysis conducted. Specifically, the department noted that its April 2008  review was a milestone activity of DOD’s 21st Century Senior Executive  Leadership initiative and was one of the department’s Top 21  Transformational Priorities. It further stated that, because of the wide  application and multipurpose use of the results of the baseline review,  summarizing the analysis was not the best use of resources. However, the  department concurred with GAO’s recommendation to document the  analysis conducted in future reviews of its civilian senior leaders when  such reviews are specifically targeted for an intended outcome. For  example, the department noted that a September 3, 2010, memorandum  issued jointly by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness and the Director of Administration and Management directed a  review of all civilian senior leaders within the department in support of the  Secretary’s Efficiency Initiative. According to the department, the review  will include clear documentation of information and analysis that can be  easily traced back to component submissions. In addition, the department  explained that the results of the Civilian Senior Executive study group’s  review will be summarized and presented to senior DOD officials to  provide clear insight and visibility into the recommendations of the  civilian senior leader review. We believe these actions, if implemented as  stated, will meet the intent of our recommendation.
DOD also partially concurred with our recommendation to establish  clearly defined goals and metrics for the Defense Senior Leader  Development Program in order to measure the overall success of the  program. The department stated that our recommendation should be  rewritten because the purpose and goals of the program are defined in  DODI 1430.16 (Growing Civilian Leaders). We agree and have revised our  recommendation accordingly. The department further noted that two  types of metrics are being refined and will be used to measure the  programs success. The department acknowledged that our report stated  that DOD has specific metrics in place to measure applicants prior to their  admission to the program as well as metrics in place to track participants’  success while enrolled in the program. The department noted that  summative metrics, including return on investment for graduate  utilization, are being refined and will be implemented for cohorts after the  first cohort has completed the program in 2011. Although DOD did not  provide or discuss documentation of these metrics during our review, we  believe that DOD’s efforts to develop such metrics are a positive step.   However, until additional metrics are finalized and implemented, it is  unclear to what extent they will meet the intent of our recommendation.
section_title: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
paragraphs: In written comments, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Intelligence stated that the office appreciated the opportunity to comment  on the report and that it generally agreed with the overall findings of our  report. The office further stated that it believed that some facts pertaining  to processes for determining defense intelligence senior civilian  requirements were misstated and provided technical comments on the  portions pertaining to its office. Detailed responses on these comments  are provided in appendix VI.
Regarding the recommendations, the Office of the Under Secretary of  Defense for Intelligence fully concurred with our recommendation to  finalize and issue common criteria for the military service intelligence  elements and the defense intelligence agencies to use in their assessments  of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service workforce requirements.   The office also fully concurred with our recommendation to better  communicate key information, including justifications for each Defense  Intelligence Senior Executive Service position needed, during the  development and presentation of legislative proposals to congressional  decision makers. Furthermore, in its comments on our report, the Office of  the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness stated that it  will work with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to establish  a framework for joint review and assessment of senior intelligence  positions as part of meeting total force management requirements.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and the Secretary of Defense. The report also is available at no  charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: For our first objective, to evaluate the Department of Defense’s (DOD)  approach to assessing its civilian senior leader workforce requirements,  we obtained and reviewed documents and information related to the  Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness’  2008 baseline review of DOD’s Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and  Senior Technical workforces. We also interviewed knowledgeable officials  within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness’ Civilian Personnel Management Service about the baseline  review, how the information was collected, and the results of the review.  We did not, however, validate DOD’s overall civilian senior leader  workforce requirements. In addition, we obtained and reviewed  documents related to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Intelligence’s 2008 review of DOD’s Defense Intelligence Senior Executive  Service and Defense Intelligence Senior Level workforces. We interviewed  knowledgeable officials in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Intelligence’s Human Capital Management Office about the information  collected and the results of the review. We did not, however, assess or  validate DOD’s requirements for its Defense Intelligence Senior Executive  Service or Defense Intelligence Senior Level workforces.
Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 1125 (2006).
Human Capital Management Office, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the  National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency,  and the Defense Security Service.
For our third objective, to evaluate DOD’s approach for developing and  managing civilian senior leaders capable of leading DOD’s workforce, we  obtained and reviewed DOD’s civilian human capital strategic plans and  workforce planning documents, analyzed applicable laws, and reviewed  our prior work on DOD and federal government human capital planning  efforts. During our work, we met with officials responsible for  implementing succession planning and leadership development policy and  programs. Specifically, we met with DOD officials in the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Office of the  Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, and the  office of Civilian Personnel Management Service. At the services, we met  with officials in the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army, the  Office of the Army Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and  Personnel, the Army’s Office of Civilian Senior Leader Management, the  Navy’s Executive Management Program Office, the Navy’s Office of  Civilian Human Resources, and the Air Force’s Airmen Development  Division. We also met with the Washington Headquarters Service’s  Director of Administration and Management and Program Executive  Office for Executive Lifecycle Management and the Human Resources  Directorate Office. Additionally, we obtained and reviewed documents  related to the Defense Senior Leader Development Program and met with  officials in the Civilian Personnel Management Services’ Office of  Leadership and Professional Development. We obtained and reviewed  policies and guidance related to the qualifications of Defense Intelligence  Senior Executive Service personnel and met with knowledgeable officials  in the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence’s Human Capital  Management Office, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National  Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Further, we obtained and reviewed OPM  documents and guidance related to the life cycle planning and  development of federal government civilian senior leader workforces,  Senior Executive Service qualification requirements, and Senior Executive  Service candidate development programs. At OPM, we interviewed the  Acting Program Manager of Enterprise Human Resources Integration and  the Manager of Human Capital Officers. We also met OPM officials in the  Office of the Assistant Director for Leadership and Human Resources  Development, Human Resources Solutions. We also obtained and  reviewed federal laws applicable to senior leader development and federal  career development programs. In addition, we reviewed our prior work  regarding measuring both the outcomes of human capital strategies and  how outcomes have helped organizations accomplish their missions and  programmatic goals through the use of program metrics.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2009 through October  2010 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: Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, Senior Technical, and Total Civilian Employee Workforce Numbers for Each of the Chief Financial Officers Act Agencies
paragraphs: For comparison across the federal government, we extracted data for  civilian workforces by Chief Financial Officers Act agencies in September  2009. Section 205 of the Chief Financial Officers Act identified 23 major  executive branch agencies (later expanded to 24) that as of 2009 employed  98 percent of federal employees. Table 5 shows the onboard number of  non-Senior Executive Service civilian employees and Senior Executive  Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical employees for each of the  Chief Financial Officers Act agencies as of September 2009.
section_title: Appendix III: 2000-2009 Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical Workforce Allocations for Each of the Chief Financial Officers Act Agencies
paragraphs: For comparison across the federal government, we extracted data from  OPM’s Executive Schedule C System on the number of Senior Executive  Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical allocations OPM approved for  each of the Chief Financial Officers Act agencies from 2000 through 2009.  Section 205 of the Chief Financial Officers Act identified 23 major  executive branch agencies (later expanded to 24) that as of 2009 employed  98 percent of federal employees. Table 6 shows the number of Senior  Executive Service allocations OPM approved for each of the Chief  Financial Officers Act agencies from 2000 through 2009. Table 7 shows the  number of Senior Level allocations OPM approved for each of the Chief  Financial Officers Act agencies from 2000 through 2009. Table 8 shows the  number of Senior Technical allocations OPM approved for each of the  Chief Financial Officers Act agencies from 2000 through 2009.
section_title: Appendix IV: DOD Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical Allocation Requests and Resulting Allocations since 2004
paragraphs: Every 2 fiscal years, OPM asks that federal agencies reassess their need  for Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical  allocations and request additional allocations through OPM’s Biennial  Review of Executive Resource Allocations. OPM also allows agencies to  make out-of-cycle requests for additional allocations if a pressing,  unforeseen need arises. If OPM approves fewer allocations than the  agency requested, the difference constitutes a gap that the agency must  address internally. Table 9 shows DOD’s requests for additional allocations  through OPM’s Biennial Review of Executive Resource Allocations  process and out-of-cycle requests, the allocations approved by OPM, and  the resulting gap.
section_title: Appendix V: Examples of DOD and Service- Specific Civilian Senior Leader Development Programs
paragraphs: In addition to the Defense Senior Leader Development Program, DOD and  the components have implemented other programs that are designed to  train and develop future and current civilian senior leaders. For example:    DOD’s Executive Leadership Development Program, established in 1985,  exposes civilian employees at the General Schedule 12 through General  Schedule 14 levels to the roles and missions of the entire department. The  program provides these employees with an increased understanding and  appreciation for the challenges DOD’s military warfighters face. Among  other things, the program’s curriculum includes training in areas such as  team building, problem solving, decision making, and communication  skills.
The Air Force Civilian Strategic Leader Program is designed to execute  talent management programs for General Schedule 14 and 15 or equivalent  personnel and, among other things, identifies civilians with senior  leadership potential; targets developmental opportunities for those with  the highest potential; places those with the highest potential, when ready,  into key jobs; and fills command equivalent positions with high-potential  civilian employees who have not already held a similar leadership  positions.
The Army Senior Fellows Program identifies high-potential civilian leaders  and strengthens their executive competencies through executive  education, executive leadership assignments, and executive mentoring and  includes joint development assignments that vary in length from 6 to 12  months, the opportunity to attend one of DOD’s senior service colleges,  mentoring from a member of the federal Senior Executive Service, and the  possibility of placement (upon program completion) in positions with  greater scope and responsibility.
Once an individual becomes a member of DOD’s civilian senior leader  workforce, he or she can continue development, training, and education  by participating in development programs. For example:    APEX is supported by a contract with Booz Allen Hamilton; the program  provides opportunities for new Senior Executive Service personnel to  interact with DOD senior leadership at the Pentagon and in the combatant  commands. Among other things, APEX offers individuals an overview of  DOD’s structure and the processes and opportunities to expand leadership  and strategic thinking skills.
The Joint Executive Management Program, which is held at the University  of North Carolina, is designed to broaden the business acumen of DOD’s  Senior Executive Service personnel. The course provides DOD and  interagency senior leaders the opportunity to collaborate and share ideas  and viewpoints in an educational setting. Program topics include the role  of senior leaders in the joint environment, managing people, and driving  organizational change.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense
paragraphs: GAO Draft Report – Dated October 2010  GAO Code Number: GAO-10-777  “Human Capital – Opportunities Exist for DOD to Enhance its Approach for  Determining Civilian Senior Leader Workforce Needs”
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE COMMENTS   DOD appreciates the opportunity to review and comment upon GAO’s proposed report for areas  related to the Defense intelligence components.  Generally, DOD agrees with the overall findings  of the proposed report.  However, we also believe the report misstates some facts that pertain to  the review of processes for determining Defense intelligence senior civilian requirements.  This  document provides overall technical comments on the portions of the proposed report and the  recommendations that specifically reference Defense intelligence.   1.  On pages 4, 15-16, and 17, the draft report states that “during the course of our review”  officials were unable to provide supporting information from the defense intelligence  components or analysis related the 120-day review of intelligence senior civilian  requirements. Such statements do not accurately portray the circumstances or timing of the  GAO request.  The request to see or receive copies of such supporting information or  analysis was made in late August 2010, nearly a full year after announcement of the GAO  review and a full seven months after GAO met on January 26, 2010, with Human Capital  Management staff of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence  (OUSD(I)) and executive resources officers from all of the Defense Intelligence components  to conduct interviews regarding our processes for determining senior civilian requirements.   We had occasional telephone contacts from GAO after the January 26, 2010, meeting to  clarify their understanding of our processes, but did not receive the informal request to see or  receive copies of the 120-day review supporting data and analysis until late August 2010,  when our subject-matter expert was out of town on business.  The subject-matter expert was  needed to assemble the requested documentation from classified and unclassified systems.  We regret not being able to provide access to the supporting documentation at the time it was  requested and remain eager to do so.  However, characterizing our inability to respond to that  late August 2010 request as “during the course of our review” is misleading.  We request you  change all of the statements with phrase “during the course of our review” to “DoD officials  were not able to respond to requests we made in the last month of our review to see or  receive copies of supporting documentation.”  2.  Page 17, the third sentence of the last paragraph:  For the reasons described in item 1 above,  this sentence should be changed to read, “We could not verify these statements, however,  because DoD officials were not able to respond to requests we made in the last month of our  review to see or receive copies of supporting documentation to show analysis that could be  readily traced back to component submissions.”   3.  Page 17, the fourth sentence of the last paragraph:  This sentence assumes that certain  information does not exist and declares DoD unable to provide clear insight into  requirements for senior civilian senior leaders.  The sentence should be replaced with “DoD’s  ability to provide Congress and other stakeholders clear insight and visibility into the defense  intelligence community’s validation of requirements for its civilian senior leader workforces  can be improved by clearly documented analysis that can be traced back to component  submissions.” 4.  Page 21, the last sentence:  This sentence implies the military service intelligence branches  and agencies in the defense intelligence community use position grading standards as the sole  measure of the need for new Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service (DISES)  allocations.  That is not accurate and contradicts the last sentence of the first paragraph on  page 23, which states OUSD(I) officials confirmed they had “detailed information on the  justifications for each position needed.”  As discussed with GAO, in addition to validating  that any additional DISES requirements involve responsibilities that exceed the GS-15 level  as required by statute, we also required the Defense intelligence components to submit a  description and detailed justification statements for each new DISES requirement, covering  the same kinds of criteria as for the Department’s SES positions, to include reporting  relationships, the number of people directly supervised, the position’s total supervisory span  of control, and a justification/mission-critical requirement statement.  While we did not  employ the weighted evaluation methodology used by the Civilian Personnel Management  Service to assess the relative importance of the new SES, SL and ST requirements, our  Human Capital Management staff carefully reviewed any new requirements against the  statutory criteria using the detailed justification information submitted by the Components.   The last half of the sentence should be changed to read “to ensure any additional Defense  Intelligence Senior Executive Service allocations meet the statutory minimum requirement to  be classified above the GS-15 level.”   5.  Page 22, description of Table 3:  For the reasons stated above, change the phrase “Evaluate  the Need for” to “Validate” and add after the word “Allocations” the phrase “Meet the  Statutory Requirement to Be Classified Above GS-15.”  6.  Page 22, the paragraph after Table 3:   For the reasons described in item 4 above, make the  following changes:  Add the following phrase at the end of the first sentence: “with detailed  justification statements that included a description of each position, its reporting  relationships, the number of people directly supervised, the position’s total supervisory span  of control, and a justification/mission-critical requirement statement.”  Change the remainder  of the paragraph to read as follows:  “The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Intelligence evaluated the detailed justification statements submitted by the Defense  intelligence components, but did not employ the weighted evaluation methodology used for  DOD’s Senior Executive Service requirements.  The Office of the Under Secretary of  Defense for Intelligence communicated its request for positions to the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel as an aggregate number without submitting the detailed  justifications or its analysis.  The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness, in turn, as part of DOD’s general legislative program, communicated that  aggregated number to Congress.  By submitting solely the aggregate number, DOD may not  have provided sufficient details about the need for additional Defense Intelligence Senior  Executive Service allocations.” 7.  Page 24, third, fourth, and fifth sentences :  Because these sentences refers to the criteria in  Table 3 (discussed in item 4 and 5 above), add the words “position grading” after the word  “common” in each of these sentences.  8.  Page 28, line 7 from top of page:  Change the word "levels" to "and equivalent grades" and  change footnote 46 to read "Equivalent grades include those under the National Security  Personnel System and other authorized pay plans." Rationale: This language is adapted from  DoDI 1430.16, enclosure 3, page 11, paragraph 2c(1), the official description of eligibility  for DSLDP. 9.  Page 30, footnote 50:  Add the word “equivalent” before the word “employees”.  Defense  intelligence employees are not General Schedule employees, but hold equivalent positions  under the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System.
RECOMMENDATION 2:  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to finalize and issue common criteria for the military  service intelligence elements and the defense intelligence agencies to use in their assessments of  Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service requirements.
DOD RESPONSE:  Concur.
RECOMMENDATION 3:  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Under Secretary of Defense of  Intelligence to better communicate key information, to include justification for each Defense  Intelligence Senior Executive Service position needed, during the development and presentation  of legislative proposals to Congressional decision-makers.
DOD RESPONSE:  Concur.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments DOD’s letters. Comments 1 through 21  are on specific sections in the Department of Defense (DOD) letter dated  October 25, 2010, and received by GAO on October 28, 2010. The specific  section is entitled, “Department of Defense Comments to the  Recommendations.” Comments 22 through 30 are on specific sections in  the DOD letter dated October 23, 2010, and received by GAO on October 28,  2010. The specific section is entitled “Department of Defense Intelligence  Comments to the Recommendations.”  1.  DOD asserted that our statement that “some of the components’  information was incomplete” was not accurate. DOD further  asserted that for its baseline review submission, certain DOD  components incorporated by reference their biennial allocation  activities they undertook in support of their requests for additional  civilian senior leaders, rather than duplicate those efforts. The  department further asserts that a copy of the component’s work in  this regard was provided to the GAO review team. We disagree. As  we stated in our report, a DOD official told us that the Army and the  Air Force chose to use assessments of their Senior Executive  Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical workforces that had  been conducted in response to OPM’s 2008-2009 Biennial Review of  Executive Resources Allocations. However, this DOD official was  unable to provide us with copies of the assessments completed by  the Army and Air Force. Contrary to DOD’s comments, information  the Army and Air Force submitted for the 2008-2009 biennial review  was not provided to us. As stated in our Scope and Methodology,  the only information we obtained related to the Biennial Review of  Executive Resources Allocations was for 2010-2011.  2.  DOD comments stated that the April 9, 2008, memorandum had a  number of objectives for the baseline review. We agree.  Nonetheless, we were unable to include all of those objectives on  the Highlights page, which is a summary of our report. However, we  have since added some of the objectives in other sections of our  report.  3.  DOD noted that the April 2008 memorandum results would be used  to respond to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal  Year 2007. This information was referenced in the Background  section of our report.  4.  DOD explained that, given the multipronged application of results  of the baseline review and intent to inform a variety of strategic  human capital management initiatives, the department stands by its  decision to rely on the component submissions as source material,  reference material, or both, rather than summarizing and reporting  the analysis for any single initiative. In light of the internal control  standards, which we reference in our report, we continue to believe  that the department should have documented and summarized its  analysis.  5.  DOD stated that the second to the last sentence on the Highlights  page should be revised to read that the new program “has  developed and is continuing to refine” metrics and that the new  program “did not have” clearly defined metrics to measure progress  or success. However, during the course of our review, DOD neither  discussed metrics to measure the success of the program nor  provided of such metrics.  We therefore made no change to our  report.  6.  DOD stated that the reference to the “Senior Executive Service” on  the first page of the report should be changed to say “reduce by 150  the number of senior civilian executive positions.” We have revised  our report accordingly.  7.  DOD noted that “Senior Technical” should be  “Scientific/Professional.” We clarified our use in a footnote in our  report.  8.  DOD’s commented that “Under Secretary” should be “Principal  Secretary.” We revised our report accordingly.  9.  DOD’s commented that pages 7 and 8 of our draft report described  some but not all aspects of the allocation process and failed to  mention the criteria provided to the components and upon which  biennial allocation requests are justified. We disagree. DOD’s  comments focused on the background of the report. The criteria are  clearly specified in the report on pages 17, 18, and 19.  10.  DOD’s commented that pages 7 and 8 of the draft report did not  mention the analysis and evaluation aspect of the leveling process  utilized by the Civilian Personnel Management Service is omitted  and the ability of any component to submit an out-of-cycle request  for allocations outside of the biennial process is not mentioned. We  disagree. Information on out-of-cycle request is clearly specified on page 25 and in appendix IV of our report. Per comment 11, we have  changed “prioritized” to “leveling.”  11.  DOD’s comments stated that the department objects to the  characterization of the leveling process as “reprioritizes” and DOD  evaluates all component biennial allocation submissions as a whole  against the criteria developed for the biennial process. The  department notes that the leveling process is used to ensure that all  components have applied the criteria in a consistent manner and  prioritized their positions in a similar manner. We have revised our  report accordingly.  12.  DOD’s commented that the decision to submit the combatant  commands’ request for the fiscal year 2010-2011 biennial allocation  process was a reflection of an increased demand on those  organizations and was never intended to be a standard approach for  future combatant command allocation requests. We have revised  our report accordingly.  13.  DOD’s comments asserted that the department’s full 2008-2009  biennial allocation request was made available to GAO. We  disagree. While DOD provided 2010-2011 biennial review  documents, we were not provided, even though we asked, any  documents related to DOD’s 2008-2009 biennial review submissions.  As indicated in our Scope and Methodology, we reviewed  documents related solely to DOD’s 2010-2011 biennial review  submissions.  14.  DOD commented that our report stated that the department’s  vacancy rate is about 20 percent but notes that the current Senior  Executive Service vacancy rate is approximately 8 percent and the  department’s average over the last 3 years is 12 to 14 percent. We  have revised our report accordingly.  15.  DOD asked that we change “levels” to “and equivalent grades” and  the corresponding footnote to read “Equivalent grades include  those under the National Security Personnel System and other  authorized pay plans.” We revised our report accordingly.  16.  DOD asked that we change “shadow professionals” to “enhance  their individual development through substantive enterprise- spanning experiential activity and feedback on strengths and  competency gaps from Talent Development Executives.” We  paraphrased this passage in our report.  17.  DOD asked that we “will be” to “was” in recognition that fiscal year  2010 has ended. We revised our report accordingly.  18.  DOD asked that GAO make several minor word changes to table 4.
We have revised our report accordingly.  19.  DOD commented that the statement “the department does not have  clearly defined goals and specific metrics for the program and has  not sought OPM certification” should be changed. The department  stated that its goals and purposes were identified in DODI 1430.16,  enclosure 3, page 11, paragraph 2b. We have made modifications to  our report to reflect this information. Further, the department  acknowledged, as we stated, that it has specific metrics in place to  evaluate applicants prior to their admission to its program as well  as metrics to track participants. The department also stated that  summative metrics were currently being refined and will be  implemented for each cohort after the first cohort has completed  the program in April, 2011. However, at the time of our review, DOD  did not have summative metrics that are associated with the  program and did not provide documentation or information on  these metrics. Furthermore, the department’s comments noted that  as these metrics are implemented the results would provide a more  complete evaluation of the entire program. Accordingly, we made  no modifications to our report.  20.  DOD asked that we add the following to the end of the first  sentence on page 30: “…but is researching the requirements for  OPM certification.” We revised our report accordingly.  21.  DOD asked us to make the following changes in our conclusion  paragraph: delete the phrase “it has not yet identified program goals  and measures” and add the phrase “it continues to refine the  program metrics.” We made some modifications in accordance with  our response in comment 20.  22.  DOD commented that the statement “during the course of our  review officials were unable to provide supporting information from  the defense intelligence components or analysis related to the 120- day review of intelligence senior civilian requirements” did not  accurately portray the circumstances or timing of the GAO request.  The department stated that the request to see or receive copies of  such reporting information was made in late August nearly a year  after the announcement of the GAO review and 7 months after GAO  met on January 26, 2010, with Human Capital Management staff of  the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and executive  resources officers from all of the defense intelligence components.  Accordingly, DOD asked that the statement be revised from “during  the course of our review” to “DOD officials were not able to  respond to requests made in the last month of our review to see or  receive copies of supporting documentation.” We note, however,  that we requested the information in July 2010 and stated at our  entrance conference that the scope of our work may expand as we  obtained additional information. In fact, we obtained DOD’s 2009  update to its Civilian Strategic Workforce Plan, which identified a  baseline review of DOD’s civilian senior leader workforce and a  120-day review of the defense intelligence senior leader workforce  requirements—both of which were key to this review. As a result,  the scope of our work was expanded in July 2010. We made some  revisions to clarify our report.  23.  DOD asked, in light of the changes related to comment 22, that the  third sentence of the last paragraph on page 17 be revised to “We  could not verify these statements, however, because DOD officials  were not able to respond to requests we made in the last month of  our review to see or receive copies of supporting documentation to  show analysis that could be readily traced back to component  submissions.” In light of our response in comment 22 and the fact  that we included a statement that the department needed to clearly  document or summarize an analysis that could be readily traced  back to the component submissions, we determined that this  information would be stated twice in our report. As a result, we did  not make this latter revision.  24.  DOD stated that the fourth sentence of the last paragraph on page  17 assumes that certain information does not exist and declares  DOD unable to provide clear insight into requirements for senior  civilian senior leaders. The department asked that the sentence be  changed to “DOD’s ability to provide Congress and other  stakeholders clear insight and visibility into the defense intelligence  community’s validation of requirements for its civilian senior leader  workforces can be improved by clearly documented analysis that  can be traced back to component submissions.” We disagree with  the assumption that certain information does not exist, and we did  not add the phrase “clearly documented analysis that can be traced  back to components submissions” because it was already stated in a  prior sentence in our report and would therefore be duplicative.  Accordingly, we did not make this revision.  25.  DOD’s comments stated that the last sentence on page 21 implies  that the military service intelligence branches and agencies in the  defense intelligence community use position grading standards as  the sole measure of the need for new Defense Intelligence Senior  Executive Service allocations. They further stated that this is not  accurate and asked us to change the last half of the sentence to  read: “…to ensure any additional Defense Intelligence Senior  Executive Service allocations meet the statutory minimum  requirement to be classified above the GS-15 level.” We agree and  have changed the report accordingly.  26.  DOD stated that the description of table 3 on page 22 should change  the phrase “Evaluate the Need for” to “Validate” and add after the  word “Allocations” the phrase “Meet the Statutory Requirement to  Be Classified Above GS-15.” We agree and have changed the report  accordingly.  27.  DOD asked that the following changes be made to the paragraph  after table 3 on page 23: at the end of the first sentence, add “with  detailed justification statements that included a description of each  position, its reporting relationships, the number of people directly  supervised, the position’s total supervisory span of control, and a  justification/mission-critical requirement statement.” We agree and  have made changes to the report accordingly. The department also  asked that we change the remainder of the paragraph to read as  follows: “The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Intelligence evaluated the detailed justification statements  submitted by the defense intelligence components, but did not  employ the weighted evaluation methodology used for DOD’s  Senior Executive Service requirements. The Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Intelligence communicated its request for  positions to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness as an aggregate number without  submitting the detailed justifications or its analysis. The Office of  the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in  turn, as part of DOD’s general legislative program, communicated  that aggregated number to Congress. By submitting solely the  aggregate number, DOD may not have provided sufficient details  about the need for additional Defense Intelligence Senior Executive  Service allocations.” We note that the only additional DOD text that  was not covered in our report was the phrase, “the weighted  evaluation methodology.” The focus, however, of our paragraph  was the absence of detailed justifications and not the methodology.  Accordingly, we did not make this latter change.  28.  DOD asked that the third, fourth, and fifth sentences on page 24 be  changed because these sentences refer to the criteria in table 3  (discussed in comments 25 and 26 above) by adding the words  “position grading” after the word “common” in each of these  sentences. We disagree. The text is referring to GAO’s prior work  on human capital management and not specifically to the defense  intelligence community criteria.  29.  DOD asked that we change the word “levels” to “and equivalent  grades” and change footnote 46 to read “Equivalent grades include  those under the National Security Personnel System and other  authorized pay plans.” We agree and have changed our report  accordingly.  30.  DOD asked that in footnote 52 on page 28 we add the word  “equivalent” before the word “employees.” We agree and have  changed the report accordingly.
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, David Moser, Assistant Director;  Marion Gatling, Assistant Director; Alysia Darjean; Scott Doubleday; Mae  Jones; Brian Pegram; Steven Putansu; Amie Steele; and Michael Willems  made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Human Capital: Further Actions Needed to Enhance DOD’s Civilian  Strategic Workforce Plan. GAO-10-814R. Washington, D.C.: September 27,  2010.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-09-271. Washington, D.C.: January 2009.
Human Capital: Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress to  Strengthen DOD’s Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan. GAO-09-235.  Washington, D.C.: February 10, 2009.
Human Capital: Diversity in the Federal SES and Processes for Selecting  New Executives. GAO-09-110. Washington, D.C.: November 26, 2008.
Ensuring a Continuing Focus on Implementing Effective Human Capital  Strategies. GAO-09-234CG. Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2008.
Human Capital: Corps of Engineers Needs to Update Its Workforce  Planning Process to More Effectively Address Its Current and Future  Workforce Needs. GAO-08-596. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2008.
The Department of Defense’s Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan Does  Not Meet Most Statutory Requirements. GAO-08-439R. Washington, D.C.:  February 6, 2008.
DOD Civilian Personnel: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce Plans  Needed. GAO-04-753. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004.
Military Personnel: General and Flag Officer Requirements Are Unclear  Based on DOD’s 2003 Report to Congress. GAO-04-488. Washington, D.C.:  April 21, 2004.
Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce  Planning. GAO-04-39. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003.
Foreign Assistance: Strategic Workforce Planning Can Help USAID  Address Current and Future Challenges. GAO-03-946. Washington, D.C.:  August 22, 2003.
DOD Civilian Personnel: Improved Strategic Planning Needed to Help  Ensure Viability of DOD’s Civilian Industrial Workforce. GAO-03-472.  Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2003.
Internal Control Standards: Internal Control Management and  Evaluation Tool. GAO-01-1008G. Washington, D.C.: August 2001.
Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government. GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. Washington, D.C.: November 1999.