Defense Forensics: Additional Planning and Oversight Needed to Establish an Enduring Expeditionary Forensic Capability
Published: 2013-06-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DOD used expeditionary forensics for collecting fingerprints and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to identify, target, and disrupt terrorists and enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan. The increased incidence of improvised explosive devices and other asymmetric threats has increased demand for expeditionary forensic capabilities. Many of DOD's expeditionary forensic activities are resourced through DOD's Overseas Contingency Operations funds. DOD estimates that it cost between $800 million and $1 billion of these funds from 2005 through 2012 to support expeditionary forensics activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, as military operations are projected to draw down in Afghanistan, this funding is expected to substantially decline by the end of 2014. Consequently, DOD is taking steps to establish expeditionary forensics as an enduring capability in DOD's base budget. GAO was asked to examine DOD's expeditionary forensic capability. This report assessed the extent to which DOD has taken steps to establish an enduring expeditionary forensic capability. To address this objective, GAO reviewed relevant policy, plans, and budget estimates, and interviewed cognizant DOD officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken some important steps to establish an enduring expeditionary forensic capability by issuing a concept of operations in 2008, followed by a directive in 2011 to establish policy and assign responsibilities. As required by the directive, DOD has drafted a strategic plan to guide the activities of the Defense Forensic Enterprise, including expeditionary forensics. Although the plan includes a mission statement, and goals and objectives--two of the five key elements identified by GAO as integral to a well-developed strategic plan--it does not identify approaches for how goals and objectives will be achieved, milestones and metrics to gauge progress, and resources needed to achieve goals and objectives. GAO's prior work has shown that organizations need a well-developed strategic plan to identify and achieve their goals and objectives effectively and efficiently. Officials in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OUSD(AT&L)) said that they decided to create a concise, high-level strategic plan and that they plan to issue guidance tasking the DOD components to develop individual implementation plans that include milestones. However, approaches, metrics, and resources needed to accomplish its goals and objectives were absent from the draft guidance. GAO discussed this omission with OUSD(AT&L), and in response, this office plans to revise its draft guidance. Also, the forensic strategic plan has been in draft for 2 years having undergone multiple revisions, and is still undergoing DOD internal review with no publication date set, and by extension, a publication date has not been set for the proposed DOD component implementation plans. The lack of an approved strategic plan and associated implementation plans limits DOD's ability to prioritize its efforts to develop an enduring expeditionary forensic capability by the end of 2014.
Moreover, OUSD(AT&L) has not reviewed and evaluated the adequacy of DOD components' expeditionary forensic budget estimates for fiscal years 2013 through 2018, as required by DOD's directive. OUSD(AT&L) officials said that they were waiting for the DOD components to finalize their budget estimates for fiscal years 2013 through 2018, and waiting for the Joint Capabilities Integration Development System to validate their forensic requirements. Regardless, reviewing and evaluating the DOD components' proposed budget estimates allows OUSD(AT&L) to advise the DOD components on their resource allocation decisions with respect to expeditionary forensic capabilities. OUSD(AT&L) officials cited several factors that also affected their ability to review and evaluate the DOD components' forensic budget data, such as aggregation of components' forensic budget estimates with other costs. Moreover, these officials said the directive does not provide guidance to DOD components on how to collect and report forensic budget data. GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government notes that agencies should provide policy and guidance to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of operations. Until OUSD(AT&L) reviews and evaluates the adequacy of DOD components' forensic budget estimates, and guidance is in place to inform forensic budget collection and reporting, OUSD(AT&L) will continue to experience challenges with identifying the costs associated with DOD's expeditionary forensic capabilities.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making four recommendations to DOD, including incorporating key elements in its strategic plan, periodically reviewing and evaluating DOD components' proposed forensic budget estimates--including expeditionary forensics, and issuing guidance on collecting and reporting forensic budget data. DOD concurred with all four recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: U.S. military forces have used expeditionary forensics to identify, target,  disrupt, and detain terrorists and enemy combatants in recent and  ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to support host nation rule  of law and capacity building in those areas and others such as the Horn  of Africa. DOD defines forensics as the application of multi-disciplinary  scientific processes to establish facts that may be used for the collection,  identification, and comparison of materials such as deoxyribonucleic acid  (DNA) and latent fingerprints. For the purposes of this report,  expeditionary forensics refers to the employment of forensic applications  by an armed force to accomplish a specific objective in a foreign country.  For example, in 2012 the Department of Defense (DOD) provided  forensic support to about 120 Afghan court cases linking latent  fingerprints and DNA evidence to enemy combatants, resulting in a 97  percent conviction rate. DOD has traditionally used forensics for law  enforcement and medical purposes, such as identifying and prosecuting  criminals and determining the identification of human remains. However,  DOD’s concept of operations notes that the increased incidence of  improvised explosive devices and other asymmetric threats that U.S.  military forces have encountered has created an increased demand for  expeditionary forensic capabilities across the full range of military  operations. According to a 2011 Army Audit Agency report, the conflicts  in Iraq and Afghanistan have helped revolutionize the department’s use of  expeditionary forensics in general, and latent fingerprints and DNA in  particular,that U.S. forces in Afghanistan have used latent fingerprints and DNA to   and a 2012 DOD Office of the Inspector General report noted  link known enemy combatants to captured enemy material such as  improvised explosive devices.
Many of DOD’s expeditionary forensic activities are currently resourced  through DOD’s Overseas Contingency Operations funds—appropriations  provided by Congress outside of the department’s base appropriations  process. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,  Technology, and Logistics (OUSD(AT&L)), said that from 2005 through  2012, DOD estimated that it cost between $800 million and $1 billion in  Overseas Contingency Operations appropriations to support  expeditionary forensic activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. These funds  covered such capabilities as the Army’s Expeditionary Forensic  Laboratories, the Navy’s Combined Explosives Exploitation Cells, and  Special Operations Command’s expeditionary forensic activities.  However, as U.S. military operations are projected to draw down in  Afghanistan by the end of 2014, funding for expeditionary forensics is expected to decline substantially.  While DOD maintains base funding for traditional forensic applications  and Special Operations Command’s sensitive site exploitation program,DOD officials said that base funding levels are not adequate to cover the  additional costs of current and emerging expeditionary forensic activities.  Moreover, Army officials noted that it would cost considerably more in  time and resources to recreate the Army’s expeditionary forensic  capability to support any future mission if current capabilities are allowed  to expire. Consequently, DOD is taking steps to establish expeditionary  forensics as an enduring capability prior to the projected drawdown of  operations in Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
GAO, Afghanistan: Key Oversight Issues, GAO-13-218SP (Washington, D.C.: February  11, 2013). at the end of this report.) Building on our body of work examining DOD  biometrics and forensics, as requested, we examined DOD’s  expeditionary forensic capability. Specifically, this report addresses the  extent to which DOD has taken steps to establish an enduring  expeditionary forensic capability.
We narrowed the scope of our review to laboratory applications of  expeditionary forensics, and focused on latent fingerprints and DNA —the  two most prevalent forensic disciplines U.S. forces have relied on in Iraq  and Afghanistan. Concurrently, OUSD(AT&L) contracted with CNA’s  Center for Naval Analyses to assess the department’s overall forensic  activities, to include expeditionary forensics, and issue a report for the  Secretary of Defense by the summer of 2013. We met with officials from  OUSD(AT&L) and CNA’s Center for Naval Analyses to ensure our work  did not overlap with this assessment.
To assess the steps DOD has taken to establish an enduring  expeditionary forensic capability, we analyzed relevant policy and  guidance that describe DOD’s plans to organize, train, and equip forces  to sustain expeditionary forensic activities. We also interviewed planning,  operations, and resource management officials from the Office of the  Secretary of Defense, each of the four military services, all six geographic  combatant commands, and Special Operations Command to discuss the  status of planned and ongoing initiatives related to expeditionary  forensics. We reviewed and analyzed DOD’s forensic strategic plan to  determine if it included key strategic planning elements that are  consistent with our previous work on developing and implementing  strategic plans.
Department of Defense, DOD Forensic Enterprise, DOD Directive 5205.15E (April 26,  2011). questions on data reliability. We identified several issues concerning the  reliability of the budget data obtained from OUSD(AT&L), the military  services, and Special Operations Command, including the sources from  which the budget data were derived, the consistency in how the budget  data were compiled, and the manner in which the budget data were  verified. As a result, we determined that the budget data were not  sufficiently reliable. Therefore, we are making a recommendation that  addresses OUSD(AT&L)’s ability to review and evaluate the DOD  components’ forensic budget data by calling for the development of  budget collecting and reporting guidance.
More detailed information on our scope and methodology can be found in  appendix I of this report. We conducted this performance audit from May  2012 through June 2013 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan  and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide  a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: DOD’s Expeditionary Forensic Capabilities
paragraphs: Improvised explosive devices have caused numerous injuries and  fatalities among U.S. and coalition forces while carrying out operations in  Iraq and Afghanistan. To mitigate this threat, DOD has taken a number of  actions, such as deploying its expeditionary forensic capabilities. In 2003,  DOD established the Combined Explosives Exploitation Cells to provide  technical intelligence on improvised explosive devices and render safe  these devices and other combustible materials so that they can be  forensically analyzed to obtain, among other things, latent fingerprints of  the individuals responsible for manufacturing and placing the devices. In  2006, DOD further expanded its use of expeditionary forensics by  establishing the joint expeditionary forensic facilities to analyze materials,  such as ammunition and clothing items collected on the battlefield, to help  identify enemy combatants through latent prints and DNA analysis,  among other things. In 2011, DOD consolidated the Combined Explosives  Exploitation Cells and the joint expeditionary forensic facilities to form  Expeditionary Forensic Laboratories under the purview of the Army in  order to realize efficiencies and minimize redundancies. These combined  laboratories, like their predecessors, are modular, deployable,  containerized units that can operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and  provide the capability to forensically analyze material such as latent  fingerprints, DNA, explosives, drugs, and firearms and tool marks in  response to warfighter needs. Figure 1 shows three of the Expeditionary  Forensic Laboratory modules operating in Afghanistan.
The Army also established a reachback operations center to oversee the  deployment of Expeditionary Forensic Laboratories and to provide  forensic expertise and analytical capabilities to process any overflow of  forensic cases from Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to the Army’s  expeditionary forensic capabilities, the Navy has provided staff support to  the Combined Explosives Exploitation Cells through its Explosive  Ordnance Disposal Technical Division. The Marine Corps has relied on  the Army’s Expeditionary Forensic Laboratories to forensically analyze  material that the Marine Corps has collected on the battlefield for  subsequent targeting and prosecutions. The Special Operations  Command has developed expeditionary forensic toolkits and exploitation  analysis centers as part of its sensitive site exploitation program to collect  latent fingerprint and DNA samples, among other things. The Air Force  focuses on digital and multimedia forensic applications to support  operations such as counterintelligence to process, analyze, and translate  data collected from electronic devices. We did not include the Air Force in  our review because we focused on the forensic disciplines of latent  fingerprints and DNA.
section_title: DOD Policy Governing Its Forensic Enterprise
paragraphs: In 2008, DOD issued a concept of operations that identifies existing,  emerging, and future forensic capabilities, and calls for the department to  plan for robust, fully-coordinated, and well-resourced forensic applications  across the full range of military operations. The concept of operations  states that integrating forensics—particularly expeditionary forensics—is  necessary to meet current and emerging requirements. The concept of  operations identifies several areas that the department needs to address  to develop an enduring expeditionary forensic capability, including the  following:
Doctrine—forensic doctrine to address the multiple uses of  information, varying timelines, and scientific challenges across the  strategic, operational, and tactical levels;
Training, Leadership and Education—forensic training and education  for all levels of operations, and to ensure leadership understands the  value of forensics;
Materiel—equipment and systems for the collection, transfer,  exploitation, dissemination, and storage of forensic material and  information; and
Facilities—deployed and institutional forensic laboratories to meet  mission requirements.
In an effort to address the areas identified in the concept of operations, in  2009, DOD initiated a capabilities based assessment, which includes  validating expeditionary forensic requirements as an enduring capability  within the department, through the Joint Capabilities Integration and  Development System. This system guides the development of capabilities  from a joint perspective, to help identify capability gaps and validate the  requirements of proposed capability solutions to mitigate those gaps. As  part of this process, from 2011 to 2013, DOD developed and validated an  initial capabilities document that contained information on those  capabilities needed to support current and future forensic activities across  the department—including expeditionary forensics. Furthermore, in early  2013, DOD initiated a change recommendation that will lay out specified  required forensic capabilities and projected costs. The process to review  and approve the change recommendation is scheduled to begin in  January 2014.
Department of Defense, DOD Directive 5205.15E. The directive does not cover unique  forensic applications that support technical nuclear or technical chemical and biological  disciplines, and specialized intelligence collected through reconnaissance programs.
In October, 2011, USD(AT&L) appointed a Director, Defense Biometrics and Forensics,  to oversee his responsibilities for the Defense Forensics Enterprise.
We did not examine digital and multimedia forensics because it is outside the scope of  our review. validate joint requirements for forensic capabilities for the joint force,  and coordinate theater-specific requirements for forensic capabilities.
section_title: DOD Has Taken Steps to Establish an Enduring Expeditionary Forensic Capability, but Additional Actions Are Needed
paragraphs: DOD has taken some important steps to establish an enduring  expeditionary forensic capability by issuing a concept of operations, and a  directive that calls for a strategic plan addressing DOD’s enterprise-wide  forensics, including expeditionary forensics, but has not completed its  strategic plan or reviewed and evaluated the adequacy of DOD  components’ budget estimates. DOD has drafted a forensic strategic  plan; however, it does not include three of the five key elements  identified by GAO as integral to a well-developed strategic plan.  Specifically, the plan does not include approaches for how the goals and  objectives will be achieved, milestones and metrics to gauge progress,  and resources needed to achieve the goals and objectives. Also, the  forensic strategic plan has been in draft for 2 years without a scheduled  completion date. OUSD(AT&L) officials stated that the draft is still  undergoing internal review within the department. DOD plans to capture  some of the elements of a strategic plan in implementation plans to be  developed by DOD components; however, the timeframe for issuance of  these implementation plans is unknown since they will follow publication  of the strategic plan. In addition, according to DOD’s forensic directive,  USD(AT&L) is to review the adequacy of DOD components’ forensic- related acquisition programs and associated budget submissions to  ensure they meet DOD’s overarching forensic requirements and  objectives. However, at the time of our review, OUSD(AT&L) had not  reviewed and evaluated forensic budget estimates for fiscal years 2013  through 2018 to ensure they meet the Defense Forensic Enterprise  requirements and objectives. OUSD(AT&L) officials said that they had  difficulty identifying forensic activities that are not specifically cited within  the DOD components’ forensic budget estimates. Further, OUSD(AT&L)  officials said that while the DOD directive calls for OUSD(AT&L) to  conduct a review of forensic-related programs and budget submissions, it  does not provide guidance on how forensic budget data should be  collected and reported by the DOD components.
subsections: section_title: DOD Has Issued Guidance but Its Draft Strategic Plan Does Not Include Some Key Elements
paragraphs: DOD has taken some important steps to establish an expeditionary  forensic capability by issuing a concept of operations in 2008 and a  directive in 2011 to establish policy and assign responsibilities. Consistent  with the directive, DOD has drafted a strategic plan to guide the activities  of the Defense Forensic Enterprise, including expeditionary forensics.  However, DOD’s strategic plan does not include three of the five key  elements identified by GAO as integral to a well-developed strategic plan.  The plan includes a mission statement and goals and objectives, but does  not include approaches for how these goals and objectives will be  achieved, milestones and metrics to gauge progress, and resources (e.g.,  funding and personnel) needed to achieve these goals and objectives.  GAO’s prior work on strategic planning has shown that organizations  need a well-developed strategic plan to identify and achieve their goals   Table 1, below, lists the key  and objectives effectively and efficiently.elements of a strategic plan and indicates those that are and are not  included in DOD’s draft strategic plan for the Defense Forensic  Enterprise.
Consistent with these criteria, the draft strategic plan includes a mission  statement and four broad goals that outline DOD’s intent to meet the  department’s overarching needs for the Defense Forensic Enterprise.  These goals are to (1) provide forensic information that is accurate and  timely, (2) develop cost-effective methods for providing forensic  capabilities, (3) maximize the availability and accessibility of forensic- related information, and (4) invest in forensic research and technology.  The strategic plan also includes a number of subordinate objectives that  are linked to the four goals. However, the strategic plan does not include  some key elements, such as approaches for how the objectives will be  achieved, milestones and metrics to gauge DOD’s progress, and the  resources needed to meet its goals and objectives. For example, the two  objectives under the plan’s third goal—to maximize the availability and  accessibility of forensic-related information—call for creating and  promoting a forensic information-sharing culture that supports multiple  users within DOD as well as with interagency and international partners.  However, these objectives neither describe an approach for  accomplishing them, nor include milestones, metrics, and resources.  Without these key elements, DOD will be unable to measure its progress  and adjust its approach when warranted, and identify the resources  necessary to achieve the goals and objectives outlined in the strategic  plan. Consequently, DOD may not have the information it needs to make  well-informed decisions about forensics, including setting priorities for  expeditionary forensic capabilities in an increasingly constrained fiscal  environment.
The April 2011 DOD directive assigned OUSD(AT&L) responsibility for  coordinating and publishing the DOD enterprisewide forensics strategic  plan. An OUSD(AT&L) official stated that his office decided to create a  concise, high-level strategic plan that included broad goals and  subordinate objectives, but not milestones. According to this official, this  decision was consistent with several other DOD strategic documents  including the National Defense Strategy. OUSD(AT&L) officials said that  after the strategic plan is issued, their office plans to issue guidance that  will task the DOD components to develop individual implementation plans  that include milestones. However, neither the draft strategic plan nor the  proposed implementation plans would include approaches for how the  goals and objectives will be achieved, metrics to gauge DOD’s progress,  or the resources needed to accomplish its goals and objectives. Based on  our observations of the draft guidance, OUSD(AT&L) is revising its  guidance to direct the DOD components to include approaches and  metrics, in addition to milestones, in their proposed implementation plans.  OUSD(AT&L) officials explained that resource information will continue to  be omitted because OUSD(AT&L) does not have the authority to direct  the DOD components on how to allocate their resources. However,  OUSD(AT&L) can advise DOD components’ resourcing decisions in a  manner consistent with the goals and objectives articulated in the  Defense Forensic Enterprise strategic plan.
The concept of operations, forensic directive, and strategic plan are  important actions DOD has taken to establish expeditionary forensics as  an enduring capability since 2008. However, the forensic strategic plan  has undergone multiple revisions and has been in draft for 2 years. An  OUSD(AT&L) official said that a publication date has not been set for the  strategic plan, and by extension, a publication date has not been set for  the proposed DOD component implementation plans. OUSD(AT&L)  officials stated that the draft is still undergoing internal review within the  department. GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government notes that organizations must have relevant, reliable, and  timely information to achieve their goals and objectives. Otherwise, their  ability to achieve their goals and objectives can be adversely affected.
In the absence of an approved forensic strategic plan, and in accordance  with DOD’s forensic directive, several of the military services and  combatant commands have been independently developing guidance and  plans to address their specific expeditionary forensic needs as shown in  the following examples.
The Army, as the DOD Executive Agent for Forensics, is developing  guidance that includes a process for identifying and prioritizing DOD’s  expeditionary forensic requirements and capabilities that are common  to all of the DOD components.
The Marine Corps issued an identity operations strategy that includes  a discussion of expeditionary forensic force structure and equipment  considerations.
The Special Operations Command established a program with  funding and issued guidance on sensitive site exploitation that  includes training and education, and equipment such as forensic  toolkits for expeditionary forensic activities.
Africa Command issued guidance to support requests for conducting  forensic activities on behalf of foreign partners in Africa.
European Command published guidance on using forensic  capabilities to support operations in Europe.
Additionally, the DOD forensic directive established a Forensic Executive  Committee, in 2011, to, among other things, facilitate the coordination of  forensic activities throughout DOD. At the time of our review, the Forensic  Executive Committee had not met because, according to an  OUSD(AT&L) official, there had not been any significant issues on  forensic activities that required the attention of OUSD(AT&L) senior  leadership. OUSD(AT&L) created a Coordination Steering Group in 2011  as a forum for DOD components to collectively identify and prioritize  issues, analyze alternatives, and develop recommendations for approval  by the Forensic Executive Committee. The Coordination Steering Group  has created working groups to examine performance metrics, research  and development efforts, and policy related to maintaining an enduring  expeditionary forensic capability. OUSD(AT&L) officials stated that the  Coordination Steering Group has reviewed the draft strategic plan and  provided its comments. Nonetheless, the lack of an approved strategic  plan, and associated implementation plans, limits DOD’s ability to  effectively and efficiently prioritize its efforts to develop an enduring  expeditionary forensic capability by the end of 2014.
section_title: OUSD(AT&L) Has Not Reviewed and Evaluated the Adequacy of Expeditionary Forensic Budget Estimates for Fiscal Years 2013 through 2018
paragraphs: OUSD(AT&L) has not reviewed and evaluated the adequacy of the DOD  components’ expeditionary forensic budget estimates for fiscal years  2013 through 2018. As required by the directive, USD(AT&L) is to review  the adequacy of forensic-related acquisition programs and associated  budget submissions to ensure they meet the Defense Forensic Enterprise  requirements and objectives. At the time of our review, OUSD(AT&L)  officials stated that they had most recently reviewed the DOD  components’ fiscal year 2012 forensic budget estimates, which includes  expeditionary forensic budget data. In addition, OUSD(AT&L) officials  said that they had requested the DOD components’ forensic budget  estimates for fiscal year 2013, but had not reviewed and evaluated these  estimates to ensure they meet the Defense Forensic Enterprise  requirements and objectives because the department was operating  under a continuing resolution and therefore was adhering to fiscal year  2012 budget levels. However, OUSD(AT&L) officials stated that they had  not reviewed and evaluated the adequacy of the DOD components’  expeditionary proposed forensic budget estimates for fiscal years 2014  through 2018, and had not issued a data call to obtain this information  from the DOD components until our formal request in September 2012 in  order to conduct our review. Based on the data from our formal request,  OUSD(AT&L) officials estimated that the DOD components need about  $363.5 million to fund expeditionary forensic capabilities from fiscal years  2013 through 2018; however, this conclusion was drawn without  OUSD(AT&L) evaluating the data. OUSD(AT&L) officials said that they  had not reviewed and evaluated DOD components’ forensic budget  estimates because, among other things, OUSD(AT&L) was waiting for the  DOD components to finalize their proposed budget estimates for fiscal  years 2014 through 2018, and waiting for the Joint Capabilities Integration  and Development System to validate their forensic requirements.  Regardless of not having validated forensic requirements, reviewing and  evaluating the DOD components’ proposed budget estimates allows  OUSD(AT&L) to advise the DOD components on their resource allocation  decisions with respect to expeditionary forensic capabilities and ascertain  whether the proposed funding is adequate to meet the department’s  overarching requirements and objectives. Moreover, DOD officials have  noted the need to establish base funding for expeditionary forensic  capabilities in advance of expected reductions in Overseas Contingency  Operations funding. Given the competition for limited resources within  their base budgets, DOD officials said that if the department does not  take proactive measures to reprogram funds for expeditionary forensic  activities from Overseas Contingency Operations to base budget  accounts, the military services will experience a significant funding gap  that could limit their ability to respond to current and future warfighting  requirements.
OUSD(AT&L) officials cited several factors that also affected their ability  to review and evaluate the DOD components’ forensic budget data,  including expeditionary forensics. For example, the DOD components’  budget estimates for expeditionary forensics are often aggregated with  other costs and distributed across numerous budget accounts that are not  explicitly identified as forensic activities. As a result, these officials noted  the difficulty in being able to identify forensic activities within operation  and maintenance accounts. In addition, these officials cited issues in  determining which types of forensic-related costs to identify, such as  training, research and development, and information systems. We also  identified similar issues concerning the reliability of the forensic budget  data.
OUSD(AT&L) officials said that if DOD components were instructed to  collect budget data on forensic activities, such as Expeditionary Forensic  Laboratories, training, personnel, and research and development, then  OUSD(AT&L) would be better positioned to review and evaluate their  forensic budget estimates. However, OUSD(AT&L) said the DOD  components do not have guidance on collecting and reporting their  expeditionary forensic activities. Furthermore, the DOD directive does not  include instructions on collecting and reporting forensic budget data.  According to GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government, agencies should provide policy and guidance to determine  the effectiveness and efficiency of operations, including the use of  resources needed to achieve their goals. Without collection and  reporting guidance, OUSD(AT&L) will continue to experience challenges  with reviewing and evaluating the costs associated with DOD’s  expeditionary forensic capabilities.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOD recognizes the value of expeditionary forensics for identifying and  targeting enemy combatants and terrorists, and has taken actions to  establish expeditionary forensics as an enduring capability across the full  range of military operations by the end of 2014. To achieve a coordinated,  holistic approach across the department, DOD has issued a forensic  directive that requires, among other things, USD(AT&L) to publish a  strategic plan and review the adequacy of forensic-related acquisition  programs and associated budget submissions. However, the strategic  plan has been in draft for 2 years with no publication date set—and by  extension, no publication date has been set for the proposed  implementation plans. Further, without key elements, such as  approaches, milestones and metrics, and identification of needed  resources, DOD will be unable to measure its progress and adjust its  approach and resourcing as necessary to achieve the goals and  objectives outlined in the forensic strategic plan. In the absence of an  approved strategic plan, several military services and combatant  commands have been independently developing their own guidance and  plans to inform their specific forensic activities. Further, because  USD(AT&L) has not reviewed and evaluated the adequacy of the DOD  components’ expeditionary forensic budget estimates, there is no  assurance that these proposed budget estimates are consistent with one  another and with the department’s overarching goals and objectives. As a  result, DOD’s ability to fund its expeditionary forensic requirements in the  most efficient and effective manner may be adversely affected.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: As DOD establishes an enduring expeditionary forensic capability prior to  the projected drawdown of operations in Afghanistan by the end of 2014,  we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary  of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to take the following  four actions:  Incorporate key elements in its forensic strategic plan, implementation  plans, and other associated guidance that are currently absent  including approaches for achieving goals and objectives, milestones  and metrics to gauge the department’s progress, and resources  needed to meet its goals and objectives.
Set a date to publish the strategic plan for the Defense Forensic  Enterprise.
Periodically review and evaluate the DOD components’ proposed  forensic budget estimates—including expeditionary forensics—to help  ensure the department’s overarching requirements and objectives will  be met, in accordance with the DOD Defense Forensic Enterprise  directive.
Issue guidance on how DOD components are to collect and report  their forensic budget data—including expeditionary forensic budget  data.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on this draft, DOD agreed with all four of our  recommendations and discussed steps it plans to take to address these  recommendations. DOD’s written comments are reprinted in their entirety  in appendix II. DOD also provided technical comments, which we have  incorporated into the report where appropriate.
DOD concurred with our first recommendation that the Secretary of  Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,  Technology, and Logistics to incorporate key elements which are  currently absent in its forensic strategic plan, implementation plans and  other associated guidance. DOD stated that upon approval of the  Defense Forensic Enterprise Strategic Plan, it will begin drafting the  forensic strategy’s implementation plan to include specific priorities and  tasks that support the goals and objectives of the strategic plan. The  forensics implementation plan also will assign an office of primary  responsibility to accomplish each task, propose milestones, develop  success metrics, and estimate required resources.
DOD concurred with our second recommendation to the Secretary of  Defense to direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,  Technology, and Logistics to set a date to publish the strategic plan for  the Defense Forensic Enterprise and stated that it anticipates publishing  the Defense Forensic Enterprise Strategic Plan prior to the end of fiscal  year 2013.
DOD concurred with our third recommendation to the Secretary of  Defense to direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,  Technology, and Logistics to periodically review and evaluate the DOD  components’ proposed forensic budget estimates—including  expeditionary forensics—to help ensure the department’s overarching  requirements and objectives will be met in accordance with the DOD  Defense Forensic Enterprise directive. DOD said that the Under  Secretary, Comptroller, the Joint Staff, and the military services will  coordinate to identify mechanisms to more efficiently and reliably review  DOD components’ proposed forensic budget estimates against validated  requirements. While we are encouraged with DOD’s decision, we believe  that it is important that DOD schedule its reviews at regular intervals, in  accordance with the Defense Forensic Enterprise directive.
DOD concurred with our fourth recommendation to the Secretary of  Defense to direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,  Technology, and Logistics to issue guidance on how DOD components  are to collect and report their forensic budget data—including  expeditionary forensic budget data. DOD stated that the Under Secretary,  Comptroller, and the military services will coordinate to develop and issue  guidance on reporting forensic budget data prior to the beginning of the  fiscal year 2016 budget planning cycle.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense  for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of  Staff; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the  Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of  Management and Budget. In addition, this report will be available at no  charge on the GAO Website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-4523 or at leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Office 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 III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To assess the steps DOD has taken to establish an enduring  expeditionary forensic capability, we analyzed relevant policies and  guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, such as the  Department of Defense’s (DOD) forensic directive, draft strategic plan for  the Defense Forensic Enterprise, and the capstone concept of  operations for forensics. In addition, we analyzed relevant Army, Marine  Corps, and combatant command plans, policies and guidance that  describe DOD’s efforts to organize, train, and equip forces to carry out  expeditionary forensic activities. To understand DOD’s current  expeditionary forensic capabilities, including those of the Expeditionary  Forensic Laboratories, we visited the Army’s Criminal Investigation  Laboratory at Fort Gillem, Georgia, which is primarily responsible for  conducting both traditional and expeditionary forensic activities for the  department and is known as DOD’s forensic science center of excellence.  We also met with officials from CNA’s Center for Naval Analyses to  discuss their efforts to review DOD’s overall defense forensic activities.  Further, we interviewed officials from the DOD organizations identified in  table 2 to discuss DOD’s efforts to establish an enduring expeditionary  forensic capability.
We also reviewed and analyzed the military services’ and Special  Operations Command’s current and projected forensic budget estimates  to determine if the data were sufficiently reliable and met the  department’s requirements in the DOD forensic directive. We assessed  the reliability of this budget data by interviewing knowledgeable officials  and reviewing related documentation and written responses to our  questions on data reliability. We identified several issues concerning the  reliability of the budget data obtained from Office of the Under Secretary  of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OUSD(AT&L)), the  military services and Special Operations Command, including the sources  from which the data were derived, the consistency in how the data were  compiled, and the manner in which the data were verified. As a result, we  determined that the data were not sufficiently reliable. Therefore, we are  making a recommendation that addresses OUSD(AT&L)’s ability to  review and evaluate the DOD components’ forensic budget data by  calling for the development of budget collecting and reporting guidance.
We interviewed officials from the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau  of Investigation, and Department of Homeland Security to obtain their  perspective on DOD’s efforts to develop an expeditionary forensic  capability. We also met with officials from the National Science and  Technology Council within the Executive Office of the President to gain  an understanding of national policy trends on forensics.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2012 through June 2013  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Marc Schwartz, Assistant  Director; Grace Coleman; Latrealle Lee; Alberto Leff; Amber Lopez  Roberts; Tim Persons; Terry Richardson; Amie Steele; Sabrina Streagle;  John Van Schaik; and Nicole Willems made key contributions to this  report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Afghanistan: Key Oversight Issues, GAO-13-218SP. Washington, D.C.:  February 11, 2013.
Counter-Improvised Explosive Devices: Multiple DOD Organizations Are  Developing Numerous Initiatives. GAO-12-861R. Washington, D.C.:  August 1, 2012.
Urgent Warfighter Needs: Opportunities Exist to Expedite Development of  Fielding of Joint Capabilities. GAO-12-385. Washington, D.C.: April 24,  2012.
Defense Biometrics: Additional Training for Leaders and More Timely  Transmission of Data Could Enhance the Use of Biometrics in  Afghanistan. GAO-12-442. Washington, D.C.: April 23, 2012.
Defense Biometrics: DOD Can Better Conform to Standards and Share  Biometric Information with Federal Agencies. GAO-11-276. Washington,  D.C.: March 31, 2011.
Warfighter Support: Actions Needed to Improve Visibility and  Coordination of DOD’s Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Efforts.  GAO-10-95. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2009.
Defense Management: DOD Can Establish More Guidance for Biometrics  Collection and Explore Broader Data Sharing. GAO-09-49. Washington,  D.C.: October 15, 2008.
Defense Management: DOD Needs to Establish Clear Goals and  Objectives, Guidance, and a Designated Budget to Manage Its Biometrics  Activities. GAO-08-1065. Washington, D.C: September 26, 2008.