Elections: DOD Needs More Comprehensive Planning to Address Military and Overseas Absentee Voting Challenges
Published: 2016-04-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act generally protects the rights of military personnel and overseas citizens to register and vote absentee in federal elections. In 2014, the most recently completed federal election, the Election Assistance Commission estimated that around 6 percent, or 8,500 of the 146,000 ballots submitted by voters covered under the act, were rejected. DOD's Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) generally implements many of the act's provisions and provides absentee voting support.
GAO was asked to review matters related to FVAP. GAO assesses the extent to which DOD has (1) identified challenges with its military and overseas voting assistance efforts and developed plans to address those challenges, and (2) implemented strategic planning practices to help ensure the long-term effectiveness of FVAP. GAO reviewed 2010-14 post-election surveys, 2014-15 DOD-commissioned studies, and compared documentation of FVAP plans with leading federal strategic planning practices; and interviewed FVAP officials and program stakeholders.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD), through its Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), has taken steps to identify challenges and needed improvements to its military and overseas absentee voting assistance efforts. However, two long-standing issues—limited awareness of resources for voters and the unpredictable postal delivery of absentee ballots—continue to pose challenges. DOD-commissioned studies and post-election survey results indicate that there is limited awareness of FVAP's resources among military and overseas voters. A 2015 study found, for example, that the online availability of blank ballots led to one of the most significant improvements in military and overseas absentee voting. At the same time, the full benefits of the improvement had not been realized because voters remained unaware that ballots could be requested online. Regarding the unpredictable postal delivery of absentee ballots, the timeliness of a voter's receipt or return of an absentee ballot depends on a number of variables, such as the mode and speed of transportation used to transmit mail. DOD has identified actions that it will take to address these and other issues. However, these challenges persist, in part, because DOD has not established time frames for completing the actions it has identified.
DOD's implementation of FVAP partially exhibits six selected leading practices of federal strategic planning. As shown below, the program exhibits some, but not all, of the characteristics that make up each practice.
According to officials, as of February 2016, DOD did not have a long-term, comprehensive strategy, such as a strategic plan, for its voting assistance program, to institutionalize existing practices and establish accountability for efforts that need further development—such as those related to the partially exhibited leading practices identified. Without a comprehensive strategic plan that institutionalizes a long-term vision, it will be difficult for FVAP to respond to the dynamic nature of the voting environment and frequent turnover in program leadership, and to demonstrate progress in addressing its long-standing challenges.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD establish time frames for actions FVAP identified to address challenges, fully implement the selected leading practices of federal strategic planning into its day-to-day operations, and develop a strategic plan that fully exhibits the six selected leading practices of federal strategic planning. DOD generally concurred with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: U.S. servicemembers and citizens living overseas undertake a complex,  multistep process to vote in a U.S. election—the success of which relies,  in part, on the coordinated efforts of federal, state, and local governments  to help ensure that voters are aware of and comply with applicable laws  and regulations. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting  Act (UOCAVA), passed in 1986 and subsequently amended, facilitates  such coordination in part by defining the roles of the federal, state, and  local governments in protecting the right for military servicemembers,  their families, and U.S. citizens living overseas to vote absentee in federal  elections. Under UOCAVA, the Department of Defense (DOD) is  generally responsible for establishing and maintaining a program to assist  all eligible voters to register to vote and cast a ballot. Specifically, the  Secretary of Defense is the presidential designee with the primary  responsibility for federal functions under UOCAVA and, through the  Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) within the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, provides support to  potential UOCAVA voters to facilitate their participation in federal  elections.
DOD has reported that UOCAVA voters—which it estimated included  over 6 million citizens living outside the United States—had their ballots  rejected at a higher rate than non-UOCAVA voters, primarily because  they were received by local election offices after each election’s  deadline. Further, the Election Assistance Commission, a national  clearinghouse of information on election administration, estimated that  approximately 6 percent of UOCAVA absentee ballots from U.S. citizens  living overseas were rejected by local election offices in the 2012 and  2014 general election cycles, while the rejection rate for domestic  absentee ballots returned during the same election cycles was  approximately 1 percent. See appendix I for additional information about  the rates and reasons for UOCAVA ballot rejection in the past four  elections.
Between 2001 and 2010, we issued four reports on absentee voting by  servicemembers and U.S. citizens living overseas that included a total of  12 recommendations intended to help DOD improve the direction,  oversight, and evaluation of FVAP services. Specifically, in these reports  we reviewed FVAP’s evaluation activities, including its post-election  surveys and performance measures, and how FVAP evaluates the  training that it provides to the military services’ voting assistance officers.  DOD concurred or partially concurred with all 12 recommendations and  has taken action to implement 8 of them. See appendix II for a description  of the recommendations from these reports, and additional details about  the actions that DOD took in response.
House Report 114-102 included a provision for us to review matters  related to the effectiveness of DOD’s Federal Voting Assistance  Program, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government  Reform requested a similar review. This report assesses the extent to  which DOD has (1) identified challenges associated with its military and  overseas voting assistance efforts and developed plans to address those  challenges, and (2) implemented strategic planning practices to help  ensure the long-term effectiveness of FVAP.
For our first objective, we reviewed and analyzed the results of 2008-14  post-election surveys that FVAP conducted with DOD’s Defense  Manpower Data Center and the Election Assistance Commission, and we  reviewed 2014 and 2015 relevant reports resulting from studies that DOD  commissioned to identify challenges of its overseas voting program. We  also interviewed relevant DOD and military service officials to discuss the  challenges, if any, that FVAP faces in providing voting assistance to  servicemembers and other overseas voters. We compared FVAP’s plans  for addressing the challenges it identified with criteria from Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government, which states that entities  should identify actions to remediate challenges on a timely basis.
For our second objective, we reviewed available documentation on  DOD’s plans for executing FVAP, and compared them with six selected  leading practices for federal strategic planning. These leading practices  were identified in our prior work and were informed in part by the  Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), as updated by the  GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, associated Office of Management and  Budget guidance, and our prior work. Based on the status of FVAP’s  planning efforts at the time of our review, we selected those practices that  are most closely associated with the initial stages of strategic planning.  Two analysts independently conducted a content analysis of documents  related to DOD’s plans for UOCAVA voter assistance to determine the  extent to which they exhibited the six selected leading practices of federal  strategic planning. The analysts independently rated each of the six  leading practices as “exhibited,” “partially exhibited,” or “did not exhibit” by  DOD. We compared the two sets of independent observations,  discussed how each analyst arrived at the assigned rating, and  collectively reconciled any rating differences. In addition to our analyses  of DOD’s plans, we interviewed relevant DOD, military service officials,  and key stakeholders to discuss any efforts related to long-term strategic  planning for FVAP’s activities. Appendix III provides additional details  about our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2015 to April 2016 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 the  evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Legislation Protects the Voting Rights of Servicemembers and U.S. Citizens Living Overseas
paragraphs: UOCAVA, as amended, generally protects the right to register and vote  by absentee ballot in federal elections for military personnel and U.S.  citizens who live overseas. The act also requires that states adopt a  number of processes, such as permitting absent servicemembers and  overseas voters to use the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot in general  elections for federal office, subject to certain exemptions. In 2002,  Congress passed and the President signed the Help America Vote Act of  2002, which amended UOCAVA and required states to be more  transparent about sending and rejecting UOCAVA ballots by, for example,  requiring states to provide voters the reasons for rejecting a registration  application or absentee ballot request and to report the number of ballots  sent to servicemembers and overseas voters and the number returned by  those voters and cast in the election. Most recently, Congress passed  and the President signed the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment  Act in 2009, which amended UOCAVA to require, among other things,  that states transmit a validly requested absentee ballot within a certain  time frame to absent uniformed services voters or overseas voters and  that DOD’s FVAP expand its efforts to raise voter awareness regarding  voter registration and absentee ballot procedures and resources.
section_title: Roles and Responsibilities for Providing Assistance to UOCAVA Voters
paragraphs: The U.S. election system for servicemembers and U.S. citizens living  overseas comprises a complex network of communication with disparate  and geographically disperse populations extending over seven  continents, 55 states and territories, and thousands of voting jurisdictions,  and relies on the coordinated efforts of federal, state, and local  governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities. The Secretary of  Defense is the presidential designee with the primary responsibility for the  federal functions under UOCAVA, generally including educating and  assisting voters covered by UOCAVA and for working with states to  facilitate absentee voting. The Secretary implements UOCAVA and  related legislation through DOD’s FVAP, which is guided by DOD  Instruction 1000.04 and is overseen by the Defense Human Resources  Activity within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel  and Readiness.
FVAP officials stated that the program works to ensure that  servicemembers, their eligible family members, and overseas citizens are  aware of their right to vote and have the resources to vote successfully  from anywhere in the world. To carry out this purpose, FVAP coordinates  with DOD components and the Department of State to provide  information to, respectively, military personnel who vote absentee and to  U.S. citizens who reside abroad. Voter education and assistance efforts  for military personnel are largely implemented by the military services  through voting assistance officers, who are assigned this role in addition  to their primary duties. As of December 2015, DOD officials estimated  that the military services collectively had approximately 4,500 unit voting  assistance officers. The voting assistance officers distribute and help  UOCAVA voters to complete FVAP forms, such as the Federal Post Card  Application and the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot, as well as any state  or local forms that voters may use to register and request a ballot. See  appendixes IV and V for copies of these forms, for which FVAP is  generally responsible in accordance with statutory and regulatory  requirements. Similarly, the Department of State is responsible for  designating a voting action officer to oversee the implementation of its  voting assistance program, and designates voting assistance officers at  each of its embassies and consulates to provide voting assistance for  U.S. citizens living abroad.
An additional FVAP election cycle responsibility is to survey UOCAVA  voters and other stakeholders, such as DOD voting assistance officers  and local election officials, and report on FVAP’s voter assistance.  Specifically, after every presidential election, DOD is required by statute  to transmit a report to the President and Congress on the effectiveness of  assistance, including a statistical analysis of uniformed services voter  participation, a separate statistical analysis of overseas nonmilitary  participation, and a description of state-federal cooperation. In addition,  DOD is required by statute to transmit a report each year to the President  and relevant congressional committees to include an assessment of the  effectiveness of voting assistance activities, voter registration and  participation by servicemembers and other overseas voters, and, in years  following federal election years, information related to absentee ballots.  Figure 1 provides a general timeline of some of the voting activities that  DOD undertakes during federal election cycles.
FVAP conducts surveys of UOCAVA voters and state and local election  officials, in coordination with the Defense Manpower Data Center and the  Election Assistance Commission, respectively, to obtain some of this and  related information. For example, FVAP works with the Defense  Manpower Data Center to survey servicemembers about their UOCAVA  voting experience. The surveys include questions to determine how  voters used DOD and FVAP voting assistance resources and how voters  requested, received, and returned their absentee ballots. FVAP also  works with the Defense Manpower Data Center to survey DOD’s voting  assistance officers about the process of delivering voting services to  servicemembers. In addition, FVAP collaborates with the Election  Assistance Commission. Their partnership began in 2013 in preparation  for the 2014 election, in which they conducted a joint survey of state-level  election offices about the state’s interaction with UOCAVA voters. The  local election office survey gathers data about the number of UOCAVA  voters that requested and submitted ballots, the methods by which voters  requested and submitted ballots, and the rates of and causes for rejected  ballots, among other things.
section_title: Multistep Process of the U.S. Absentee Election System
paragraphs: The U.S. election system is decentralized and relies on complex  interactions between people, processes, mail, and technology. Voters,  local election jurisdictions, states and territories, and the federal  government all play roles in the election process. FVAP’s role is to share  information about this process with its customers—UOCAVA voters—and  stakeholders that have roles in other parts of the process. The elections  process is primarily the responsibility of the individual states and  territories and their local election jurisdictions. Thus, the registration and  voting process is a multistep process that varies by state and territory. As  we have reported previously, states and territories have considerable  discretion in how they organize the elections process, which is reflected in  the diversity of procedures and deadlines the states and jurisdictions  establish for voter registration and absentee voting. Further, states and  jurisdictions employ a variety of voting methods, including mailed paper  ballots, emails, and faxes.
In order to vote, UOCAVA voters register, obtain and complete an  absentee ballot in accordance with state requirements (such as providing  a signature), and return the voted ballot to the local election office in time  to meet state election deadlines, which also vary. In addition to the time it  takes a voter to complete these steps, local election offices must process  these materials. Studies have shown that most UOCAVA voters still rely  on the mail to request, receive, and return their ballots. Figure 2 depicts  the steps of the absentee voting process for military and overseas voters.  Following is a description of each step of the multistep absentee voting  process in greater detail.  1.  Voter Prepares and Submits Voter Registration Application and/or  The voter prepares and submits a voter registration application and/or  absentee ballot request. According to FVAP’s voting assistance guide, all  states accept voter registration and ballot request forms by mail.  UOCAVA voters can choose whether to use the Federal Post Card  Application, the registration and absentee ballot request form that FVAP  developed and maintains, or their state’s voter registration application and  state ballot request form. Federal law requires all states to accept the  Federal Post Card Application, which is both a voter registration and  ballot request form. Some states offer online voter registration and ballot  request options directly from their websites. Ballot request options  include, depending on the state, for voters to receive their ballot by mail,  email, fax, or other electronic method, if applicable. For some ballot  request forms, including the Federal Post Card Application, the voter can  select the method by which they would like to receive their ballot from the  local election office, including mail, email, or fax.  2.  Local Election Office Receives and Processes Voter Registration  Application and/or Absentee Ballot Request and Sends Blank Ballot to  Voter  The local election office receives and processes the voter registration  application and/or absentee ballot request form or Federal Post Card  Application and sends the absentee ballot to the voter. Local election  offices provide a confirmation notice to voters that their voter registration  and absentee ballot requests have been approved, or a letter indicating  the reason the request was denied. The Military and Overseas Voter  Empowerment Act amended UOCAVA to require, among other things,  that states establish procedures to offer voters the option to receive a  ballot electronically. Local election offices transmit absentee ballots to  voters via email, fax, online download, or by mail, depending on how the  voter requested the ballot.  3.  Voter Receives, Marks, and Returns the Absentee Ballot  The voter receives, marks, and returns the absentee ballot. According to  FVAP’s voting assistance guide, all states accept the completed ballot by  mail and some states accept completed ballots by email, fax, or an online  system. If the voter does not receive the ballot from the local election  office or believes the ballot may arrive too late to return the ballot to meet  the state deadline, the voter can submit a Federal Write-in Absentee  Ballot, a backup ballot that FVAP developed and maintains, in order to  meet state deadlines. FVAP makes the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot  available to voters on its website and through unit voting assistance  officers, who distribute hard copies of the ballot. Federal law requires all  states to accept the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot as a backup ballot.  4.  Local Election Office Receives and Processes the Absentee Ballot  The local election office receives and processes the absentee ballot or  Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot. The local election office must determine  whether the ballot was received by the deadline and whether the ballot is  valid for counting, depending on requirements such as, according to  FVAP, the ballot arriving at the local election office on time and the  signature on the ballot matching the signature on the voter’s registration  form, among other requirements. Some states provide a confirmation to  voters that their ballot has been received.
section_title: DOD Has Identified Long-Standing FVAP Challenges and Needed Actions, but Has Not Established Time Frames for These Actions
paragraphs: DOD has taken various steps to identify challenges and needed  improvements to its overseas voting assistance efforts. Specifically, DOD  commissioned two studies on FVAP—one issued in 2014 and one in  2015—and administers surveys of absentee voters and voting assistance  officers after every federal election. Through these efforts, DOD has  identified long-standing issues with the limited awareness of FVAP  resources and unpredictable postal delivery of UOCAVA ballots that  continue to pose challenges to the program’s effectiveness. DOD has  identified some actions and has taken some steps to address these  challenges such as simplifying and standardizing instructions in FVAP’s  voting assistance guide to better support UOCAVA voters and their  advocates, analyzing quantitative and qualitative research on barriers to  voting success, and increasing the usage of online marketing tools to  improve outreach. However, these long-standing challenges persist in  part because DOD has not established time frames for completing actions  intended to address them.
subsections: section_title: DOD Has Taken Steps to Identify Challenges to Its Voting Assistance Efforts
paragraphs: Since we last reported on FVAP in 2010, DOD has taken various steps to  identify challenges and needed improvements to its military and overseas  voting assistance efforts. For example, since the 2012 presidential  election, DOD has commissioned two studies that identified challenges  faced by absentee voters—including active-duty military members, family  members of military personnel, overseas federal government employees,  and overseas civilian voters—as well as challenges faced by FVAP within  its own organization.
Specifically, in 2013, DOD commissioned the RAND Corporation to  conduct a study of FVAP’s strategic focus in order to assist the program  in aligning its strategy and operations to better fulfill its mission and serve  its stakeholders. According to FVAP officials, the customers of the  program are absentee voters, and the program stakeholders include the  federal agencies with which it collaborates, state and local election  officials that have a role in the absentee voting process, and the voting  action officers and military service voting assistance officers. The RAND  Corporation also identified additional stakeholders, such as congressional  staff on relevant committees, organizations that represent state and local  election officials such as the National Association of State Election  Directors, the National Association of Secretaries of State, the Election  Center, as well as nongovernment organizations that represent overseas  citizens such as the Overseas Vote Foundation. The study, issued in  2014, found in part that stakeholders did not understand FVAP’s purpose  and role in the voting process due to: (1) an ambiguous mission that was  not commonly understood by program staff, (2) fragmentation among  program activities such as assistance and institutional support, (3)  inadequate capacity in data collection and analysis, and (4) the inefficient  use of staff to carry out program priorities. Based on the results, DOD  began taking steps to address these issues, including reexamining  FVAP’s mission and purpose and implementing changes in how it works  with external stakeholders.
In July 2015, DOD released the results of another commissioned study on  FVAP in which it identified barriers to UOCAVA voting success and social  and behavioral factors that influence voters. This study found that  building relationships with positions outside of DOD that communicate  with overseas voters—such as human resources managers, study abroad  leaders, and nongovernmental organizations—could help share  information with potential absentee voters. In addition, this study found  that DOD needed to share accurate information about the absentee  voting process to contradict the myth that absentee ballots are not  counted except in rare circumstances.
In addition to these studies, FVAP is required to conduct surveys of  voters and voting assistance officers and to provide an assessment of  activities undertaken and the effectiveness of assistance. Using the  results of the 2014 survey—the most recent results available—DOD  compared UOCAVA registration and voter participation rates for the 2014  general election with the results of prior post-election surveys to better  understand dissemination of absentee voting information among the  UOCAVA voter population.
These studies and post-election surveys have helped DOD to identify  new and emerging issues with its voting assistance program. In particular,  two long-standing issues continue to pose challenges to the program’s  effectiveness. In both of the 2014 and 2015 studies that it issued and in  all of the post-election surveys that it administered between 2008 and  2014, DOD repeatedly identified that challenges persist with the limited  awareness of FVAP’s resources and the unpredictable mail delivery of  UOCAVA ballots. In addition, both of these issues were discussed in all  four reports that we issued on this subject between 2001 and 2010.  Further details about these two challenges are provided below.
subsections: section_title: Limited Awareness of FVAP Resources
paragraphs: According to DOD, efforts to vote by servicemembers and U.S. citizens  living overseas are most successful when voters are aware of the tools  and resources that are available through FVAP. However, as previously  noted, the results from recent studies and post-election surveys indicate  that there is limited awareness of FVAP’s resources among military and  overseas voters. For example, FVAP’s 2014 post-election survey  indicated that, of the active duty servicemembers who responded, 61  percent did not seek voting assistance from FVAP and were not aware of  FVAP’s assistance, while 60 percent did not seek voting assistance from  unit voting assistance officers and were not aware of voting assistance  officers. Under DOD guidance implementing UOCAVA, FVAP is  responsible for establishing and maintaining a program to assist all  eligible voters. This involves various activities including, but not limited  to, collecting and reporting on survey data, prescribing forms for  UOCAVA voters to use when registering to vote, and coordinating with  the states. Furthermore, DOD Instruction 1000.04 requires FVAP to  establish a means to inform absent uniformed servicemembers of  absentee voting information and resources 90, 60, and 30 days before  each federal election. The types of information military and overseas  absentee voters need to be aware of in order to prepare to vote include,  but are not limited to: election dates and deadlines for submitting an absentee ballot;
FVAP forms and online assistance for completing those forms;
DOD voting assistance resources available such as the installation or  the location where the voter is registered/eligible to vote;  the way to request a blank ballot;  unit voting assistance officer; and  information on FVAP’s resources, such as FVAP’s website; call  center; and email address.
Consistent with its designated responsibilities, FVAP has developed  education and outreach materials such as brochures, wallet cards, a  voting assistance guide, and a website to provide information to citizens  about the absentee voting process, including state-specific information  and service voting assistance programs. In addition, to increase  awareness of FVAP as a resource, DOD has hired contractors to support  FVAP’s voter assistance campaigns through communication and  outreach. For example, FVAP’s contractors assist FVAP in the  development of promotional materials such as videos, posters, and social  media messages.
In our 2007 report, we noted that the U.S. election system is highly  decentralized and that states and territories have considerable discretion  in determining how they organize the election process, which is reflected  in the diversity of procedures and deadlines that states and jurisdictions  establish for voter registration and absentee voting. In its 2008 post- election report to Congress, FVAP similarly highlighted the variation in  and complexity of absentee voting procedures. For the 2014 general  election, the Election Assistance Commission report summarized 8,200  survey responses from local election offices across the United States and  territories about ballots that those offices transmitted to and were returned  from UOCAVA voters. To help voters and voting assistance officers to  be aware of these variations, FVAP maintains a website with links to state  election office websites, and regularly updates its Voting Assistance  Guide, which includes state-specific instructions and timelines for  completing the required voting forms.
Despite such resources, the results of the two DOD-commissioned  studies and FVAP’s post-election surveys administered between 2008  and 2014 showed that awareness of FVAP materials to assist voters  needed improvement. For example, by conducting focus groups and  interviews with servicemembers and U.S. citizens living overseas, one of  the reports commissioned by DOD found that voters were uncertain about  registration deadlines, which, as previously noted, vary by jurisdiction.  Further, while FVAP offers UOCAVA voters online assistance with  completing, among other things, the Federal Post Card Application and  the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot online, a DOD–commissioned study  found specifically that some military voters interviewed as part of its study  were not aware of the Federal Post Card Application or that it could be  used to both register and request a ballot. As a result, servicemembers  may be taking additional time to separately request a ballot not realizing  that they can do so using the same form. Further, that study cited one of  the most significant improvements in UOCAVA voting as the states’  transmission of blank ballots to UOCAVA voters online through email or a  state portal as a result of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment  Act. Yet as of 2014, many overseas absentee voters interviewed as part  of the research study were unaware that they could receive their ballots  online.
DOD’s commissioned reports also found that state and local election  offices are not fully aware of FVAP’s role as a resource that can assist  with implementation of UOCAVA requirements. To raise awareness about  FVAP’s availability as an election resource to state and local election  officials, FVAP assists election officials by providing online training and  guidance, sending email alerts, funding research grants, participating in  conferences, conducting other local outreach, and making direct (person- to-person) contact. Upon request, FVAP can also help state election  officials look up servicemembers’ military postal addresses. However,  some local election officials and other stakeholders that we spoke with  stated that the information that FVAP provides to states may not filter  down to the smaller localities. For example, one of the local election  officials we spoke with was not aware that FVAP could look up active- duty servicemembers’ addresses for election officials. FVAP officials  stated that they focus coordination at the state level because, in their  experience, some state officials prefer to filter the information that FVAP  provides about UOCAVA voting to their localities.
To address state and local awareness of FVAP resources, the Defense  Human Resources Activity, on behalf of FVAP, entered into an agreement  with the Council of State Governments in 2013. Among other things, the  agreement required the creation and support of two advisory groups, one  to identify and promote best practices for absentee voting laws,  regulations, and policy for military and overseas voters and the second to  standardize data collection and encourage state and local election  jurisdictions to test and implement tools to report uniform data from voter  registration and election administration systems. The council submits  activity reports from this partnership to FVAP on a quarterly, semi-annual,  or annual basis depending on the type of report or deliverable, as  specified in the agreement. In December 2015, the Council of State  Governments released a series of recommendations to the states, based  on the results of this collaboration. The recommendations were related to  voter communication, the Federal Post Card Application, online voter  registration, and engagement with the military community.
section_title: Unpredictable Postal Delivery of Absentee Ballots
paragraphs: The second category of challenges identified by DOD and in our prior  work relates to the unpredictable postal delivery of absentee ballots to  and from UOCAVA voters. In addition to meeting any documentation  requirements, such as providing a signature or appropriately completing  all required sections, absentee ballots must be returned to the appropriate  election office by the specified deadline in order to have the votes  counted. However, the mail system, for a variety of reasons, can be  unpredictable for military and overseas voters. Specifically, the time it  takes for UOCAVA voters to receive an absentee ballot depends on their  location and may involve a complex and lengthy transit via different  transportation modes and speeds. For example, officials from the Military  Postal Service Agency noted that military mail transits between U.S.  Postal Service and Military Postal Service networks, and that voted  absentee ballots are shipped from overseas via air carriers. Military mail  does not enter a foreign country’s mail processing network and is  considered domestic mail, according to officials. However, overseas  citizens use foreign postal systems and DOD reported that civilians who  use those systems expressed distrust for them in certain countries.
In our 2001 report, we noted that overseas voters who do not have  access to the military postal system may have faced problems such as  longer transit times and unreliable mail service. Further, we noted that  some ballots that originated from overseas may not have been  postmarked until they arrived in the United States, raising the potential for  local jurisdictions in states with an extended deadline to disqualify them  because they lacked an overseas postmark or bore a postmark dated  after Election Day. All states provide the option to request or print ballots  online, but the availability of resources to active duty military can be  limited based on their location. For example, a service voting assistance  officer stated that U.S. Navy ships have a limited number of computer  terminals, bandwidth, and printers, which may prevent servicemembers  from accessing or printing their ballots. Furthermore, mail delays  experienced by servicemembers may also be the result of deployment  changes including the timing of their arrival at a new duty station or  departure from a current duty station. As such, guidance on the different  factors that may affect the timeliness of an absentee ballots’ transit is  critical to help ensure that those voters are optimally positioned to meet  U.S. voting deadlines.
In the 2014 general election, postal mail was the primary mode of ballot  transmission for many UOCAVA voters. For example, FVAP’s 2014 post- election survey report to Congress stated that 61 percent of UOCAVA  ballots were transmitted to potential voters via postal mail, and 75 percent  of the UOCAVA ballots counted were received via postal mail. For active  duty servicemembers, a subset of UOCAVA voters, 75 percent of those  who requested a blank ballot obtained it from their local election office  through mail delivery from the U.S. Postal Service and the Military Postal  Service—which handles military mail—and 84 percent of those members  returned their voted ballot through the mail. FVAP is required to  coordinate with the Military Postal Service Agency (MPSA), an extension  of the U.S. Postal Service components which monitors and oversees  Military Postal Service functions, to implement measures to ensure voting  materials are moved expeditiously, to the maximum extent practicable, by  military postal authorities.
To help UOCAVA voters meet the deadline to successfully cast their vote  in a U.S. election, U.S. Postal Service, in conjunction with MPSA,  provides servicemembers and overseas voters with recommended  absentee ballot mailing days and the corresponding dates by which  voters should mail their ballot prior to the election date. The MPSA  recommends ballot mailing dates for each Army or fleet post office  location. According to MPSA officials, the mailing dates are determined  by consulting with the major commands and combatant commands and  reviewing transportation routes and frequency. These dates provide an  estimate of the number of days required for a ballot to reach local election  offices through Military Postal Service and U.S. Postal Service networks.  In January 2016, the MPSA issued the recommended mail times for the  2016 election, and those times ranged from 7 to 30 days for ballots to be  transmitted to local election offices in the United States. Some of the  locations with longer transit recommendations include Ethiopia (30 days),  Egypt (20 days), and Afghanistan (20 days). In addition, MPSA  recommends that all deployed Navy ships in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets  mail their ballots at least 25 days before the 2016 election but no later  than October 10, 2016.
These recommended mailing times can be helpful to voters; however,  based on our analysis, they also indicate that some military and overseas  voters who rely solely on mail delivery may not have enough time to both  request a blank ballot and cast their vote. For example, we found that  voters on deployed Navy ships in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets may  experience a 25-day transit time. Therefore, to allow for transit of (1) the  Federal Post Card Application that the voter mails to his or her local  election office, (2) the blank ballot the local election office sends to the  voter, and (3) the voted ballot that the voter mails back to the local  election office, a voter would have to multiply the recommended transit  time by three to account for each of those transits. Further, if a voter who  is deployed in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets relies solely on mail and the  local election office sends the blank ballot not later than 45 days prior to  the election as required by statute, it is unlikely that the voted ballot will  be returned on time because those two parts of the process may take up  to 50 days, according to MPSA’s recommended mailing times.
In addition to recommending mailing dates, MPSA issues a Strategic  Postal Voting Action Plan to assist military voters during each general  election cycle. This action plan specifies, among other things, deadlines  for ballots to be collected and postmarked at overseas military postal  outposts. The plan further notes that overseas military postal activities  with intermittent transportation networks or other limiting factors may  establish alternative mailing deadlines to help ensure that absentee  ballots reach election offices by the election date. States reported to the  Election Assistance Commission that they had rejected approximately  8,500 of the approximately 146,000 UOCAVA ballots received for the  2014 general election, and that the reason ballots were most commonly  rejected is because they were received after a state’s ballot receipt  deadline.
Military personnel in overseas military postal locations can return their  absentee ballots via Express Mail using an Express Mail Label 11-DOD  that can be used only for absentee ballots originating from overseas  military postal locations. Local election officials we spoke with stated that  they send their ballots to the designated military post office via First-Class  Mail or Standard Mail because of the expense of sending a ballot via  Express Mail. Election officials have the option to use a special  identification tag for official ballot First-Class or Standard Mail addressed  for domestic or international delivery; however, this is not required. We  previously reported that the U.S. Postal Service changed its delivery  standards for some types of mail in 2012 and 2015, which generally  increased the number of days to deliver some First-Class Mail in the  continental United States. For copies of the Express Mail Label and the  official ballot identification tag, see appendix VI.
section_title: DOD Has Identified Some Actions to Address Long- Standing Challenges, but It Has Not Established Time Frames for Their Completion
paragraphs: DOD has identified some actions and has taken some steps to address  challenges associated with the awareness of voter resources provided by  FVAP and the unpredictable postal delivery of UOCAVA ballots. However  these long-standing challenges persist, in part, because DOD has not  established time frames for completing the actions intended to address  them. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government specify  that management should complete and document actions, including  resolutions of audit findings, to remediate challenges on a timely basis.
To address its finding that the awareness of voter resources provided by  FVAP continues to be limited among UOCAVA voters and stakeholders,  DOD identified various actions that it will take to resolve the issue through  several reports, including its annual reports, and a press release that  FVAP issued along with the results of its qualitative study. For example,  the actions identified range from targeting its outreach to first-time voters  to conducting more comprehensive analyses of the process used by  military and overseas voters when voting absentee. Similarly, DOD  identified actions that it would take to address the unpredictable delivery  of ballots to overseas voters, such as researching technological  innovations that could improve mail processing times and assessing the  effect of the newly modernized mail redirection system on the number of  undeliverable ballots. Table 1 lists the actions that DOD has identified in  response to both categories of voter assistance challenges and the report  in which each challenge was identified.
DOD’s identification of actions related to FVAP challenges is a key step to  addressing the challenges. However, these long-standing challenges  persist in part because DOD has not established time frames for  completing the actions intended to address the challenges. The  documentation we reviewed on DOD’s planned actions did not indicate  milestones or completion dates for these actions. DOD officials noted that  they establish time frames for election activities in voting action plans, but  our review of their most recent 2016 voting action plan contained a list of  deadlines related to the election only, and it did not contain time frames  for actions to address program challenges. Key management practices  call for developing control activities to ensure management’s directives  are being met, such as clearly defining the time frame associated with  projects and tracking whether the projects are meeting their goals.
Specifically, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  state that control activities should be designed and implemented to  ensure that management’s directives are achieved and that projects  should be tracked so that managers can determine whether they are  meeting their goals. Further, A Guide to the Project Management Body  of Knowledge states that project time management includes the  processes required to manage the timely completion of the project, such  as defining activities, sequencing activities, estimating activity resources,  and estimating activity durations.
Without establishing time frames for the actions it identified, DOD will lack  the necessary processes to manage the timely completion of  improvements to its voting assistance activities, which would help the  department achieve FVAP’s stated goals. Further, given the magnitude  and complexity of FVAP’s work, establishing time frames would better  position DOD to effectively target resources to high-priority initiatives.  Finally, time frames would help to provide benchmarks against which  DOD can demonstrate FVAP’s progress to Congress and other  stakeholders, including through the statutorily required annual reporting  process. Stakeholder involvement and performance measures for FVAP  are discussed in more detail in the next section of this report.
section_title: DOD’s Implementation of FVAP Exhibits Some Leading Practices of Federal Strategic Planning, but DOD Has Not Developed a Strategy to Help Ensure the Long- Term Effectiveness of the Program
paragraphs: DOD’s implementation of its voting assistance program exhibits some  characteristics of the six selected leading practices associated with the  initial stages of effective federal strategic planning but has not fully  exhibited any of these practices. For example, leading practices—such as  defining goals, identifying resources, and using performance measures— are only partially exhibited, in part, because DOD largely plans its  activities around federal election cycles, during which it focuses on near- term needs, driven by the upcoming election, and federal fiscal year  budgeting cycles, according to officials. Furthermore, as of February  2016, DOD does not have a long-term strategy for its voting assistance  program, such as a strategic plan, to help ensure the long-term  effectiveness of the program.
subsections: section_title: FVAP Exhibits Some Characteristics of Each Leading Practice of Federal Strategic Planning
paragraphs: During our review, we found that DOD’s voting assistance program  exhibits some characteristics of each of the six selected leading practices  of effective federal strategic planning. Our prior work has identified these  leading practices for the initial stages of federal strategic planning, which  we derived in part from the Government Performance and Results Act  (GPRA), as updated by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, associated  guidance, and our prior work. Specifically, these leading practices are  to: (1) define the mission and goals, (2) define strategies that address  management challenges and identify resources needed to achieve goals,  (3) ensure leadership involvement and accountability, (4) involve  stakeholders, (5) coordinate with other federal agencies, and (6) develop  and use performance measures. Table 2 describes the six selected  leading practices and the extent to which they are exhibited in DOD’s  implementation of FVAP.
Below we discuss in more detail our assessment of the extent to which  FVAP exhibits the characteristics of each selected leading practice of  federal strategic planning.
subsections: section_title: Define the Mission and Goals
paragraphs: FVAP has recently revised its mission statement, purpose, and strategic  goals; however, we rated this leading practice as “partially exhibits”  because FVAP has not made them publicly available. Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management  should communicate information externally through established reporting  lines so that external parties can help the entity achieve its objectives.  FVAP officials referred us to FVAP’s website, which states that the  purpose of the program is to ensure that servicemembers, their eligible  family members, and overseas citizens are aware of their right to vote  and have the resources to do so. However, the purpose statement on  FVAP’s website does not match the revised mission statement and DOD  Instruction 1000.04 does not clearly define the mission of the program,  although it identifies the various voting assistance activities and  responsibilities throughout DOD. As previously noted, in 2013, DOD  commissioned the RAND Corporation to conduct a study on aligning  FVAP’s strategy and operations. The results of the study, which DOD and  the RAND Corporation released in October 2015, found, among other  things, that FVAP lacked a clearly articulated mission, shared among its  staff and stakeholders. For example, the report noted that FVAP thought  UOCAVA voters were best served through intermediaries such as voting  assistance officers and local election officials. However, the  intermediaries identified did not have a similar understanding of their role  and connection to FVAP and voters, and were generally unsure of what  FVAP was doing and why.
In anticipation of the report’s findings and before the final report was  issued, FVAP leaders and staff convened an offsite meeting during the  summer of 2015 and proactively developed a new mission statement,  vision, and strategic goals. FVAP officials provided us with this new  mission statement, purpose, and associated strategic goals during our  review, but as of January 2016 these new statements had not been made  publicly available. According to FVAP officials, the new mission and  strategic goals are part of a forthcoming strategic plan, and they do not  plan to make them publicly available until after November 2016 to avoid  distraction prior to the upcoming presidential election. However, without  communicating its updated mission, vision, and strategic goals publicly,  FVAP stakeholders may continue to be unclear about FVAP’s purpose  and their role in its achievement. In addition, without a consistent  understanding between program staff and stakeholders about FVAP’s  role, potential UOCAVA voters may not receive information that is needed  to help maximize their opportunity to vote in the upcoming 2016  presidential election.
We also found that FVAP has not maintained consistent strategic goals  for its program. In November 2015, a senior FVAP official told us that  FVAP has three broad strategic goals that will help it achieve its mission:  (1) reducing obstacles to voting, (2) educating and making voters aware  of the voting process, and (3) being a highly valued customer service  organization. We reviewed FVAP’s fiscal year 2014-2016 budget  justification documents, which contain FVAP’s strategic goals and  corresponding performance measures and found that FVAP has changed  its strategic goals in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, and changed the  performance measures associated with the strategic goals from year to  year. In addition, the mission and strategic goals are different than the  purpose statement that FVAP shares publicly on its website. Although the  changes in FVAP’s strategic goals are not substantial, the frequency with  which they have changed, coupled with the fact that FVAP does not share  its goals publicly, inhibits FVAP’s ability to track and demonstrate  progress over time. Table 3 shows how FVAP’s strategic goals have  changed.
Further, FVAP has not consistently publicized the aforementioned  strategic goals on, for example, its website or in its annual reports to  Congress, where they could be made available for FVAP’s customers and  stakeholders. Without consistent, publicly available strategic goals and  their intended results, FVAP cannot effectively demonstrate to essential  stakeholders and potential voters how its efforts are helping to achieve  progress toward its goals.
section_title: Define Strategies That Address Management Challenges and Identify Resources Needed to Achieve Goals
paragraphs: DOD has identified some challenges faced by FVAP related to voter  awareness. As a result, we rated this leading practice as “partially  exhibits.” In our work on performance management, we have previously  reported that it is particularly important that agencies develop strategies  that address management challenges, outside of their control, that  threaten their ability to meet long-term strategic goals. During our  review, officials acknowledged that FVAP faces challenges beyond its  control, especially related to military and overseas citizens’ interest in  voting. To make decisions about populations on which to concentrate  voter awareness activities, DOD used the results of post-election surveys  to group individuals based on how likely they are to vote. For example,  FVAP’s post-election surveys suggest that servicemembers with spouses  vote at consistently higher rates than those who are unmarried. DOD  officials told us that a significant portion of the program’s budget— approximately $1.2 million of a total $3.5 million to $4 million annually—is  used to fund FVAP’s voter awareness campaign, and that the information  obtained from post-election surveys will enable FVAP to more effectively  target the distribution of outreach materials based on the unique  characteristics of each group. However, DOD has not taken similar steps  to define strategies or devote resources to address challenges that FVAP  has identified related to unpredictable mail processing and its potential  impact on the timely transmission of ballots between voters and local  election offices. Without identifying strategies and resources needed to  address all of FVAP’s identified challenges, FVAP cannot ensure the  program’s ability to meet its long-term strategic goals.
section_title: Ensure Leadership Involvement and Accountability
paragraphs: FVAP’s current Director, whom DOD designated in November 2013,  has demonstrated involvement in the program; however, we rated this  leading practice as “partially exhibits” because DOD has not established  and institutionalized mechanisms to help ensure the accountability of the  FVAP Director in achieving program goals. Leading practices suggest  that a program’s leadership is responsible for ensuring that strategic  planning becomes the basis for day-to-day operations and that formal and  informal practices hold managers accountable and create incentives for  working to achieve the agency’s goals. Prior to the current Director, FVAP  was led by four different Directors from 2008 through 2013, and,  according to DOD officials, these leadership transitions were routinely  accompanied by changes in program priorities. FVAP’s current Director  has demonstrated involvement in the program by taking initial steps to  identify issues that may pose challenges to DOD’s voting assistance  efforts and to develop a strategic plan. For example, the Director initiated  and included program staff in a 3-year study that FVAP commissioned the  RAND Corporation to conduct on FVAP. The study found that FVAP staff  could not reach consensus about the program’s purpose and its role in  the voting community. In response to these results, the Director led staff  in the development of the new mission, vision, and purpose statements  previously discussed, as well as in the revision of strategic goals for  DOD’s voting assistance program.
With regard to leadership accountability, FVAP’s Director provides a  weekly report on program activities to the Acting Director of the Defense  Human Resources Activity, which includes information about media  inquiries, inquiries from Congress, and high-profile meetings, among  other activities. In addition, the Defense Human Resources Activity tracks  FVAP’s budget execution and procurement actions throughout the fiscal  year. While the Defense Human Resources Activity requires its programs  to submit a mission, goals, and performance measures as part of the  budget justification according to a senior official, the official told us that  the Defense Human Resources Activity uses that information to identify  resource needs only, and not to measure FVAP’s progress toward goals.  Further, the official stated that Defense Human Resources Activity does  not use formal mechanisms, such as a strategic plan, to hold FVAP or  any of its other programs accountable for the achievement of program  goals. Without accountability mechanisms, DOD will have a limited ability  to maximize the current and future Director’s ownership of and focus on  FVAP’s mission and progress.
section_title: Involve Stakeholders
paragraphs: DOD coordinates extensively with some of the stakeholders involved in its  voting assistance efforts; however, we rated this leading practice as  “partially exhibits” because it has not fully involved all of its stakeholders  in the development of FVAP’s mission, goals, and strategies. For  example, FVAP involved its stakeholders in the studies it commissioned  to identify internal and external challenges, and those studies  incorporated the stakeholder perspectives into their findings. However,  FVAP did not fully involve stakeholders in the development of its mission  and goals. Involving stakeholders in developing a program’s mission,  goals, and strategies is important to help ensure that they target the  highest priorities, as specified in the leading practices for federal strategic  planning. UOCAVA voting is a complex process that involves multiple  stakeholders, and DOD officials told us that there are several key  stakeholders with whom they routinely communicate.
In addition, FVAP and the stakeholders provided a number of examples  of coordination and information sharing, such as a monthly  teleconference that FVAP holds with voting action officers from all the  services to make announcements, share information, and discuss issues  related to its voting assistance efforts. In addition, FVAP shares  information related to voting assistance with stakeholders on its website,  by developing voting awareness materials and public service  announcements.
FVAP also works with local election offices to facilitate absentee voting  under UOCAVA and to help ensure mutual understanding of state- specific absentee voting procedures, in accordance with the DOD  instruction. DOD officials also told us that they routinely communicate  FVAP-related information to the states via the Council of State  Governments. Specifically, in 2013 the Defense Human Resources  Activity entered into a cooperative agreement with the Council of State  Governments to establish two working groups to advise FVAP—one  focused on best practices for absentee voting laws, regulations, and  policy for absent uniformed service and overseas voters and the other  focused on election technology initiatives. These working groups  comprise state and local election officials including secretaries of state,  election directors, and voter registrar positions, and in December 2015,  developed recommendations to the states to improve the absentee voting  process for UOCAVA voters.
However, DOD officials also noted that their interactions with other FVAP  stakeholders typically occur on an as-needed basis. For example, DOD  officials told us that FVAP representatives attend conferences held by  state organizations and state and local election officials to share  information on UOCAVA voting. We spoke with local election officials in  two districts and other stakeholders who similarly told us that FVAP does  not involve them directly in its activities; rather, states communicate  information—at their discretion—from FVAP to local election offices. As a  result, local election officials may not receive FVAP-related information on  a consistent basis if it is not shared by state election officials. Further, the  October 2015 RAND Corporation report stated that some stakeholders  did not clearly understand FVAP’s role and others felt that stakeholder  engagement was largely driven by the agendas of agency officials rather  than by the agency’s mission. Without involving all of its stakeholders in  developing FVAP’s mission, goals, and strategies, program officials  cannot ensure that they are optimally targeting the highest priorities for  improving voting assistance activities.
section_title: Coordinate with Other Federal Agencies and Entities
paragraphs: FVAP coordinates with related federal agencies and entities, including the  uniformed services and the Coast Guard, the Election Assistance  Commission, the Department of State, and MPSA to help ensure that  agencies with a role in the absentee voting process are working toward  similar results; however, we rated this leading practice as “partially  exhibits” because, while DOD coordinates with these federal entities to  provide voting assistance, FVAP has not involved its federal partners in  the development of its mission and goals. A senior FVAP official stated  that FVAP staff developed only the program’s mission and goals,  although the program worked with stakeholders to identify absentee  voting challenges, as previously discussed. FVAP carries out its  coordination with these agencies and state election officials in  accordance with DOD Instruction 1000.04. For example, the instruction  requires FVAP, in coordination with the military services, to develop  training materials for installation voting assistance offices, unit voting  assistance officers, and recruiters to provide voter registration and  absentee ballot assistance. FVAP develops these training materials,  which include a description of the absentee voting process and the  resources available to assist that process, and provides them on its  website. FVAP also provides in-person training workshops on installations  worldwide. In addition, FVAP holds monthly teleconferences with the  service voting action officers—who are responsible for voting assistance  operations within their service—in which they discuss issues and plans  related to voting assistance.
A senior FVAP official provided examples of FVAP’s coordination with the  Department of State to leverage data on the overseas citizen population,  to quantify the population and identify areas where overseas citizens are  concentrated. Specifically, the Department of State provides FVAP  avenues to reach overseas citizens with voting process awareness  messaging, through their in-country U.S. citizen registration process,  Smart Traveler Enrollment Program, embassies, consulates, and warden  networks. The official further stated that FVAP considered partnering with  other federal agencies that maintain information on overseas citizens,  such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security  Administration, but did not pursue it due to the sensitive nature of the data  those agencies maintain.
UOCAVA requires FVAP to coordinate with the Election Assistance  Commission and chief state election officials to develop standards for the  states to report data on the numbers of ballots transmitted and received  during a general election. To carry out this requirement, FVAP  partnered with the Election Assistance Commission in 2014 to combine  existing surveys for local election offices to report the number of  UOCAVA voters who requested and submitted ballots, the methods by  which UOCAVA voters requested and submitted ballots, and the rates of  and causes for rejected ballots, among other relevant issues. This  partnership allows both FVAP and Election Assistance Commission to  meet statutory reporting requirements while eliminating duplicate requests  for local election officials to provide election data.
section_title: Develop and Use Performance Measures
paragraphs: DOD collects data for three sets of metrics that are intended to evaluate  DOD’s voting assistance; however, we rated this leading practice as  “partially exhibits” because, according to a senior DOD official, none of  these sets of metrics are used to evaluate FVAP’s performance toward  the program’s strategic goals. The performance measures identified by  FVAP include:
Measures of Effect and Performance: DOD Instruction 1000.04  requires FVAP to prescribe metrics for the DOD components and  services to use to evaluate their individual voting assistance programs  and, to the extent practicable, establish and maintain an online portal  to collect and consolidate program metrics. FVAP developed its  Measures of Effect & Performance initially in 2011, and updated those  measures in October 2014. These measures are intended for the  service voting assistance officers to track the assistance they provide,  and include counts of the number and types of personnel assisted, the  methods of assistance, and the number of forms distributed. A senior  FVAP official told us that FVAP uses these metrics to monitor  activities and make real-time resource decisions, but did not plan to  use these metrics to assess FVAP’s performance toward meeting  program goals.
In addition to developing and prescribing that the military departments  collect these metrics, FVAP developed a portal for the military  services to record their program metrics. Under DOD’s guidance,  installation and unit-level voting assistance officers in each service are  encouraged to collect and record information about the voting  assistance they provide on a quarterly basis. These metrics are not  linked to FVAP’s strategic goals and are not evaluative. In addition,  one voting action officer noted that the measures are not reflective of  voting assistance activities. Rather, the measures are tallies that  record the number and types of actions taken by voting assistance  officers.
In 2010, we identified similar limitations in a previous version of  FVAP’s Measures of Effect and Performance, including reliability  concerns and concerns that the measures were credible to evaluate  only some of FVAP’s efforts. In 2013, the DOD Inspector General  also reported that FVAP had not applied clearly defined voting  assistance program goals and metrics to enable program officials to  evaluate program performance and effectiveness, and that the focus  of FVAP’s metrics was limited to measuring the level of activity.  However, in 2015 the DOD Inspector General reported that FVAP had  begun tracking the measures of effect and performance on January 1,  2015, and that those measures were designed to provide FVAP with a  more accurate representation of the resources utilized for voting  assistance and would help to determine the level and type of  assistance that is being sought by servicemembers.
Budget Estimate Performance Measures: FVAP identifies strategic  goals and related performance measures in its annual budget  justification submission for the Defense Human Resources Activity  Operation and Maintenance budget estimates. FVAP’s submission  includes performance measures because the Defense Human  Resources Activity requires that they be included in budget estimates,  according to an official. As previously stated, our review of FVAP’s  budget estimates for fiscal years 2014-16 indicates that FVAP has  changed its strategic goals and the associated performance  measures, thus preventing FVAP from assessing or demonstrating its  performance over time. In addition, a senior FVAP official told us that  these performance measures are aligned with short-term goals that  change from year to year based on factors such as the election cycle  and program initiatives. One senior-level FVAP official told us that the  performance measures listed in the budget estimates do not  communicate a full picture of all of the program activities that FVAP is  undertaking and thus FVAP does not regularly use them to evaluate  the program; rather, the performance metrics are used mostly to meet  the information requirements of FVAP’s budget requests. Further, an  official from the Defense Human Resource Activity noted that while  the office asks the programs for which it has oversight (including  FVAP) to identify their performance measures as a budget exhibit, it  does not require the programs to demonstrate how the performance  measures are used to evaluate progress.
Call Center Metrics: FVAP maintains a call center for UOCAVA voters  and FVAP stakeholders to submit questions, via phone, fax, email, or  FVAP’s website, about all aspects of absentee voting. Once a service  that FVAP contracted out to a third party, FVAP officials noted that  they recently brought the call center back in house and  knowledgeable FVAP staff now manage the center and respond to  questions. In addition, FVAP maintains a portal with metrics  describing the assistance it provides through the call center. Like the  measures of effect and performance, the call center metrics are tallies  of the number of inquiries, broken down by method of inquiry, type of  caller (military, overseas citizen, local election official, or other), and  the nature of the inquiry. Further, the call center metrics include  feedback from the caller about satisfaction with the assistance  provided. While the call center metrics are initial steps to help FVAP  demonstrate how it provides assistance and identify challenges that  callers are facing, these metrics do not allow FVAP to track the  progress it is making toward its mission and all three of its strategic  goals  While these three mechanisms help FVAP collect data that enables  program officials to monitor voting assistance activities, the data do not  measure how well these activities make progress toward FVAP’s goals of  (1) reducing obstacles to voting, (2) being a highly valued customer  service organization, and (3) educating and making voters aware of the  voting process. Without establishing performance measures and using  the information that those measures are intended to collect, FVAP cannot  track the progress it is making toward its goals to inform decision making  or demonstrate progress to its staff, DOD, and stakeholders.
section_title: FVAP Has Not Developed a Long-Term Strategy to Guide Its Voting Assistance Efforts
paragraphs: According to officials, as of February 2016, FVAP did not have a long- term strategy, such as a strategic plan, to institutionalize ongoing  practices and establish accountability for efforts still being developed,  such as the partially exhibited leading practices that we have identified  above. Instead, FVAP plans its activities in the near-term around federal  election cycles, and links its activities to statutory requirements and some  challenges that it has identified.
FVAP’s most recent strategic plan was published in 2010, but a senior  FVAP official told us they stopped using the plan in 2012. FVAP officials  also told us that they do not have a current strategic plan because there  has been frequent turnover in the program director position, and that the  transitions in leadership were often accompanied by changes in priorities.  As a result, FVAP operated without a strategic plan to guide its overseas  voting assistance efforts throughout the 2012 and 2014 general election  cycles. According to a DOD official and as evidenced in its annual reports  to Congress, FVAP is accustomed to cyclical planning, by identifying  lessons learned about overseas absentee voting following each federal  election and applying those lessons to the next election cycle.
Instead of updating their previous strategic plan, FVAP’s senior officials  told us that they are in the process of developing a new strategic plan that  they expect to finalize internally among FVAP staff in the summer of  2016. However, these officials further stated that they do not plan to  publish the strategic plan until after November 2016 so as to avoid any  distraction from FVAP’s voter assistance responsibilities prior to and  during the upcoming presidential election. While FVAP officials provided a  timeline for some steps they will take to develop a new strategic plan,  they did not have documentation of a draft strategic plan because they  said it was early in the development phase. Without a strategic plan that  institutionalizes a long-term vision, it will be difficult for FVAP to  demonstrate progress in addressing its long-standing challenges, such as  those previously discussed. Furthermore, a strategic plan would help to  incorporate all of the leading practices of federal strategic planning that  can help to ensure that FVAP has a defined and sustainable path through  the dynamic voting environment and any future transitions in leadership.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Since our first report on FVAP in 2001, DOD has taken steps to improve  its assistance to servicemembers and overseas voters. For example,  DOD has proactively commissioned studies that identified challenges with  FVAP and it has administered and analyzed the results of post-election  surveys to identify areas needing improvement. While these are positive  steps, some of the challenges identified, such as the limited voter and  stakeholder awareness of FVAP resources and the unpredictable postal  delivery of absentee ballots, are long-standing issues and continue to  persist—in part because DOD has not established time frames for  completing identified corrective actions. Having time frames would help  DOD to better focus its effort and resources and would provide important  benchmarks against which DOD could demonstrate program progress to  Congress and other stakeholders, including through the statutorily  required annual reports. Further, while DOD’s leadership of FVAP has  stabilized since 2013, DOD has not fully implemented the six selected  leading practices for federal strategic planning into the day-to-day  operation of the program. In addition, DOD has not developed a long-term  strategy that could help focus the program and further develop and  institutionalize the leading practices that it partially exhibits through future  leadership transitions, so it can effectively respond to the changing nature  of the voting environment.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making three recommendations to improve DOD’s management  of FVAP.
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary  of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to establish time frames to  complete actions that its Federal Voting Assistance Program has  identified it will take to address challenges, and also to use these time  frames to demonstrate progress for stakeholders, including through its  statutorily required annual reporting.
We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness, through the Defense Human Resources Activity, direct  FVAP’s Director to fully implement the six selected leading practices of  federal strategic planning into the day-to-day operations of the program.
We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness, through the Defense Human Resources Activity, direct  FVAP’s Director to complete the development of a strategic plan that fully  exhibits the six selected leading practices of federal strategic planning,  including, but not limited to: a statement of FVAP’s revised mission and goals; an identification of strategies that address management challenges  and resources needed to achieve goals; a description of leadership involvement and accountability; a description of stakeholder involvement in the development of FVAP a coordination strategy to communicate the program’s mission and  goals to other federal agencies; and a description of performance measures, aligned with program goals  that FVAP will use to track progress toward achieving goals.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with one  of our three recommendations, and concurred with the other two  recommendations. DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix VII. DOD,  the U.S. Postal Service, and the MPSA also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.
In partially concurring with our first recommendation that the Secretary of  Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness to establish time frames to complete actions that FVAP has  identified that it will take to address challenges, and to use these time  frames to demonstrate progress for stakeholders, DOD agreed that time  frames can provide a “yard stick” for measuring program effectiveness.  However, DOD stated that it had not specified time frames because  recommendations in FVAP’s reports to Congress are taken for immediate  action and election cycles provide a natural timeframe for completion.  DOD further highlighted a number of efforts that are complete or  underway for the 2016 election cycle and that it plans to include in its next  report to Congress.
As stated in our report, we recognize that FVAP is accustomed to a  cyclical planning process that is largely driven by the 2-year timeframe of  the federal election schedule. In addition, we note in our report steps that  have been taken to address long-standing challenges such as increasing  voter awareness of FVAP resources and mitigating unpredictability in  postal delivery. However, these long-standing challenges persist in part  because DOD has not established time frames for completing actions  intended to address them, as discussed in our report. We believe that, if  time frames are not established with the specificity needed to help ensure  that actions are completed in a timely manner for implementation into the  next election cycle, actions may not be properly prioritized, resources  may not be effectively targeted; and decision makers and stakeholders  may not have necessary information regarding FVAP’s progress with  respect to improvements.
In concurring with our second recommendation that the Under Secretary  of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, through the Defense Human  Resources Activity, direct FVAP’s Director to fully implement the six  selected leading practices of federal strategic planning into the day-to-day  operations of the program, DOD stated that its formal efforts to implement  selected leading strategic planning practices began in 2015 when the  RAND Corporation assessed FVAP’s organizational structure and FVAP  took initial steps to position itself as a customer-focused service delivery  organization. We agree that FVAP’s strategic planning activities began  during the review by the RAND Corporation, and in our report note  FVAP’s efforts to revise the mission and strategic goals through a staff  offsite after initial feedback from the RAND Corporation.
In addition, DOD highlighted the following steps it has taken to  incorporate the characteristics of strategic planning leading practices that  our analysis identified as missing, and provided examples that  demonstrate progress in some of these areas.  1.  Define the mission and goals: DOD noted that FVAP will make the  complete strategic plan publicly available in December 2016. We  agree that this is a positive step, and note in our report FVAP’s plan to  issue a strategic plan after November 2016 because FVAP wanted to  avoid distraction prior to the upcoming presidential election.  2.  Define strategies that address management challenges and  identify resources needed to achieve goals: DOD stated that most  factors that influence the success of a voter are outside the influence  or control of DOD. Further, DOD stated that FVAP works to facilitate  the voting process and improve areas where it has the ability to affect  the process. While we agree that DOD does not control many of the  factors that influence the success of a voter to cast a ballot, we note in  our report that it is particularly important that agencies specifically  develop strategies to address those management challenges that are  outside of their control. We believe that, by identifying the challenges  that are outside of its control, FVAP can also identify a reasonable  level of resources to devote to address certain challenges, or  determine how to leverage partnerships with the stakeholders that  have more direct control on absentee voting such as states, the  voters, and the MPSA.  3.  Ensure leadership involvement and accountability: DOD noted  that it has a well-established chain of command in carrying out its  responsibilities under UOCAVA and those lines of accountability are  articulated in a relevant directive and instruction. We disagree with  DOD’s implication that the guidance alone ensures leadership  involvement and accountability, and have concerns that the strategic  planning activities initiated by the current Director could be diminished  by a future leadership transition. Officials noted during our review that  leadership transitions were routinely accompanied by changes in  program priorities.  4.  Involve stakeholders: DOD noted that stakeholder involvement was  part of the RAND Corporation’s study, during which stakeholder views  of FVAP responsibilities were solicited. Further, DOD stated that  some of the stakeholder misconceptions about FVAP's role were  based on previous communication from FVAP. In our report, we note  the involvement of FVAP's stakeholders in the RAND Corporation  study and continue to believe that a strategic plan could help FVAP  communicate its role consistently and publicly to its stakeholders, to  address the misconceptions, such as the perception that FVAP  stakeholder coordination was driven by individual agendas, which the  RAND study uncovered.   5.  Coordinate with other federal agencies: DOD stated that it  coordinated with other federal agencies, which were also included in  the RAND study, in the development of its mission, goals, and  strategies. These efforts led to the newly defined and focused  strategic goals. We do not have evidence from the stakeholders we  spoke with, listed in appendix III, that the RAND Corporation or FVAP  consulted them specifically regarding the development of FVAP's  mission, goals, and strategies.  6.  Develop and use performance measures: DOD stated that FVAP  and each of its employees are evaluated by yearly performance  measures tied to the work conducted on a daily basis. We disagree  that annual performance evaluations for individual staff constitute  performance measures that help FVAP measure progress toward  achieving its strategic goals, even when these performance measures  are tracked, as DOD suggests, upward from the individual to the  FVAP office, the Defense Human Resources Activity, the Under  Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), and overall DOD  strategies and goals. In addition, DOD noted that FVAP will refine its  analysis of metrics collected by service voting assistance officers and  compare the numeric values collected with historical values over time.  However, the metrics we reviewed were a tally of numbers associated  with a type of assistance or service provided. Those metrics did not  contain a baseline to indicate how such assistance efforts compared  with assistance needed or with the size of the UOCAVA voter  population.
In concurring with our third recommendation to complete the development  of a strategic plan that fully exhibits the six selected leading practices of  federal strategic planning, DOD stated that FVAP embraces GAO’s six  selected leading practices of strategic planning, and that, as noted earlier,  it will publicly issue a final strategic plan in December 2016. While FVAP’s  identification of a time frame for issuing its strategic plan demonstrates  progress, it also indicates that FVAP will not have a plan to guide its work  through another presidential election. We noted in our report that the  program did not have a strategic plan during the 2012 and 2014 general  election cycles. Further, in its comments, DOD took issue with our  statement that the lack of a strategic plan has hindered FVAP’s ability to  respond to challenges faced in the military and overseas citizen voting  environment. We disagree and continue to believe that, as discussed in  our report, it will be difficult for FVAP to demonstrate progress in  addressing its long-standing challenges without a strategic plan. Further,  we continue to believe that a publicly available strategic plan will help  FVAP communicate its role to stakeholders and customers, clearly state  its program goals, and identify the metrics that FVAP will use to measure  progress toward its goals and to mitigate challenges.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of  Staff; the Secretaries of the military departments, and the Commandant of  the U.S. Marine Corps. This report is also available at no charge on the  GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Description of Military and Overseas Ballots in Elections Held in 2008 through 2014
paragraphs: We reviewed 2008-14 general election survey data from the Election  Assistance Commission, which show that the turnout of voters covered  under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act has  fluctuated between the mid-term and presidential elections, and that  states have received a higher number of ballots from voters covered by  the Act during presidential elections. In table 4 we show that, of the  ballots that local election offices received, counted, and rejected during  each election, the state-provided absentee ballots were the most common  in each category. Further, the usage of Federal Write-in Absentee  Ballots, FVAP’s write-in backup ballot for eligible UOCAVA voters who  have not received their requested ballots at least 30 days before federal  elections, increased between the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.  Specifically, local election offices received, counted, and rejected Federal  Write-in Absentee Ballots at higher rates in the 2012 presidential election  than the 2008 presidential election. The Election Assistance Commission  reported that local election offices rejected absentee ballots primarily  because they had received those ballots after the deadline in each  election. Local election offices also rejected ballots for other reasons,  such as because a voter’s name or address did not match that voter’s  registration or because local election offices did not have an absentee  ballot registration on file.
section_title: Appendix II: Implementation Status of Prior GAO Recommendations Related to Military and Overseas Voting
paragraphs: We have made 12 recommendations related to military and overseas  voting and the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) to the  Department of Defense (DOD) between 2001 and 2010. All  recommendations have been closed. Of the recommendations we made,  eight were closed as implemented and four were closed as not  implemented. In table 5, we list the 12 recommendations and summarize  the status of each recommendation at the time we closed it.
section_title: Appendix III: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) has  identified challenges associated with its military and overseas absentee  voting assistance efforts and developed plans to address those  challenges, we interviewed program officials at the Federal Voting  Assistance Program (FVAP); obtained relevant documents, studies, and  data; and discussed their voting assistance efforts, including challenges  and planned corrective actions. We interviewed the senior service voting  representative and voting action officers from each of the military  services, including the U.S. Coast Guard, to discuss their coordination  with FVAP and management of the service voting assistance activities.  We also contacted officials at other DOD organizations, the military  services, other executive branch agencies, and nongovernmental  organizations to discuss the challenges that FVAP faces in providing  voting assistance to military and overseas voters. In table 6 we list the  DOD entities, other federal agencies, and other organizations that we  contacted for this review.
We reviewed reports that resulted from two studies on FVAP that DOD  commissioned and that were issued in 2015 and 2014, respectively. The  first study, conducted by the RAND Corporation, examined FVAP’s  internal operations; the second study, conducted by Lake Research  Partners, identified challenges faced by overseas absentee voters, their  eligible family members, DOD’s voting assistance officers, overseas  citizens, and local election officials. We interviewed staff from the RAND  Corporation that conducted the study of FVAP’s internal operations to  discuss their views of the program and its challenges. We reviewed  documentation that FVAP provided from the Lake Research Partners  study, including transcripts from focus groups with voters covered under  the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA),  including servicemembers, their family members, and overseas citizen to  identify the absentee voting challenges faced by those FVAP customers.
We also reviewed and analyzed the results of post-election surveys that  FVAP had conducted with the Defense Manpower Data Center and the  Election Assistance Commission between 2008 and 2014. The surveys  are used to determine participation in the electoral process by UOCAVA  voters; assess the impact of FVAP’s efforts to simplify and ease the  process of voting absentee; evaluate progress made to facilitate absentee  voting; and identify remaining obstacles to voting by individuals covered  by UOCAVA. These surveys include questions for the voter about the  methods voters used to cast a ballot and the effectiveness of the  information sources the voters consulted. The surveys also collect data  from local election officials regarding the numbers of absentee ballots  processed and the reasons for rejection. We determined that that FVAP’s  surveys with the Defense Manpower Data Center and the Election  Assistance Commission were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our  report.
We reviewed communication plans and a media engagement plan that  FVAP uses to promote awareness of its resources. We reviewed our  previous reports on DOD’s FVAP, including the recommendations that  had resulted from those reports and the status of those  recommendations. In addition, we learned about challenges faced by  local election officials by attending an Election Data Summit sponsored by  the Election Assistance Commission, in which election officials from  fourteen states spoke about challenges they face. In addition, we  interviewed local election officials in Virginia and Colorado, among the  states with large populations of UOCAVA voters, to discuss their  perspectives on challenges associated with overseas absentee voting.
We compared FVAP’s identification of and plans for addressing  challenges with applicable internal control standards and relevant  program management criteria. Specifically, we reviewed the plans and  actions that FVAP had identified to address challenges in post-election  survey reports and press releases. We compared FVAP’s actions with  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, which call for  agencies to complete and document actions to remediate challenges on a  timely basis. We also compared those actions with the Project  Management Body of Knowledge practice for identifying time frames  associated with projects to determine whether projects are meeting their  goals. The PMBOK® Guide provides guidelines for managing individual  projects, including developing a project management plan.
We interviewed officials from the U.S. Postal Service and the Military  Postal Service Agency to discuss the process for identifying and  transmitting UOCAVA election materials and ballots, and to determine  how those agencies track the transit time for UOCAVA ballots. We also  obtained information regarding Military Postal Service Agency’s process  for developing recommended dates by which UOCAVA voters should mail  their completed ballots in order for those ballots to return in time for local  election offices to count, and compared the 2016 recommended mailing  times with related statutory requirements for the transmission of ballots to  voters.
To determine the extent to which has DOD implemented strategic  planning practices to help ensure the long-term effectiveness of FVAP,  we reviewed documentation of FVAP’s long-term planning, including  information FVAP provides on its public website; annual budget estimates  FVAP submits to the Defense Human Resource Agency, which include  strategic goals and performance measures that FVAP intends to measure  progress toward those goals; FVAP’s annual reports to Congress, which  include FVAP’s goals and actions it intends to take to meet those goals;  and documentation of the performance metrics FVAP uses to collect data  to monitor its activities. We also reviewed a cooperative agreement  between the Defense Human Resources Activity and the Council of State  Governments related to FVAP; commissioned reports from the RAND  Corporation and Lake Research Partners; and annual reports from 2008- 14 that the DOD Inspector General conducted on FVAP and the services’  implementation of their respective voting assistance programs. We  interviewed relevant DOD and military service officials, as well as key  stakeholder officials from the Election Assistance Commission, the  Department of State, U.S. Vote Foundation, and selected local election  offices, among others, to discuss their coordination with FVAP and their  knowledge of FVAP’s long-term planning activities.
We compared these activities with leading practices for strategic planning  that we have identified in prior work, informed, in part, by requirements  from the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act.  Specifically, in prior work, we identified six leading practices in federal  strategic planning by reviewing (1) the Government Performance and  Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, as updated by the GPRA Modernization Act  of 2010 (2) associated Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  guidance; and (3) related leading practices that we have identified in  past work. We selected the six leading practices because, according to  officials, FVAP’s current strategic planning efforts are in the initial  planning stage, and we judged these practices to be the most relevant to  evaluating FVAP’s strategic planning activities to date.
To assess whether FVAP planning activities exhibited each of the six  selected leading practices in federal strategic planning, two analysts  independently conducted a content analysis of documents related to  DOD’s plans for its UOCAVA voter assistance program to determine the  extent to which they exhibited six selected leading practices of federal  strategic planning. The analysts independently rated each of the six  selected leading practices as “exhibits,” “partially exhibits,” or “does not  exhibit” by DOD. We determined that DOD “exhibits” a leading practice  for federal strategic planning when FVAP’s activities explicitly addressed  all characteristics set forth in the leading practice and determined that  DOD “partially exhibits” a leading practice when FVAP’s activities  addressed at least one or more characteristics of the leading practice, but  not all characteristics of the leading practice. Finally, we determined that  DOD “does not exhibit” a leading practice when FVAP’s activities did not  address any characteristics of the leading practice. We compared the two  sets of independent observations, discussed how each analyst arrived at  the assigned rating, and collectively reconciled any rating differences.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2015 to April 2016 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 the  evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix IV: Federal Post Card Application
paragraphs: The Federal Post Card Application acts as a registration and absentee  ballot request form for absent servicemembers, their families, and citizens  residing outside the United States. The Federal Voting Assistance  Program (FVAP) provides the Federal Post Card Application to the  services for distribution to overseas voters. In addition, on its website,  FVAP compiles and distributes descriptive material on state procedures  related to the application and instructions for completing and sending the  application.
section_title: Appendix V: Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot
paragraphs: The Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot is a write-in backup ballot that  absent servicemembers, their families, and citizens residing outside the  U.S. can complete to vote in federal general elections. The Federal  Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) provides the ballot to the services for  distribution to overseas voters. In addition, FVAP compiles descriptive  material on state procedures related to the ballot and provides  instructions for completing and sending the ballot on its website.
section_title: Appendix VI: Postal Identification Label and Tag for Military and Overseas Absentee Ballots
paragraphs: Servicemembers in overseas military postal locations can use Label 11- DOD to return envelopes containing completed absentee ballots via  Express Mail service—the fastest mail service offered by the U.S. Postal  Service—for regularly scheduled federal general elections. The U.S.  Postal Service produces and supplies the label to the Department of  Defense (DOD). The Joint Military Postal Activity, which monitors all  postal functions for military post offices with Army Post Office, Fleet Post  Office, Armed Force America, and Armed Forces Europe designations,  supplies the Label-11 DOD to all Army and Fleet Post Offices.
Tag 191 is developed and distributed by the U.S. Postal Service, and  used by election officials to identify ballot mail prepared at the First-Class  Mail or Standard Mail rates and addressed for domestic or international  delivery. Although use of the tag is optional, it provides greater visibility to  containers of ballot mail as they move through Postal Service processing  and distribution operations.
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Kimberly Mayo, Assistant  Director; Sara Cradic; Alana Finley; Rebecca Gambler; Stephanie  Heiken; Tom Jessor; Mae Jones; Tamiya Lunsford; Michael McKemey;  Amanda Miller; Terry Richardson; Michael Shaughnessy; Amie Lesser;  and Leslie Stubbs made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: U.S. Postal Service: Actions Needed to Make Delivery Performance  Information More Complete, Useful, and Transparent. GAO-15-756.  Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2015.
Elections: Observations on Wait Times for Voters on Election Day 2012.  GAO-14-850. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2014.
U.S. Postal Service: Information on Recent Changes to Delivery  Standards, Operations, and Performance. GAO-14-828R. Washington,  D.C.: September 26, 2014.
Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws. GAO-14-634.  Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2014.
Elections: State Laws Addressing Voter Registration and Voting on or  before Election Day. GAO-13-90R. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2012.
Elections: DOD Can Strengthen Evaluation of Its Absentee Voting  Assistance Program. GAO-10-476. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2010.
Elections: Action Plans Needed to Fully Address Challenges in Electronic  Absentee Voting Initiatives for Military and Overseas Citizens.  GAO-07-774. Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2007.
Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic  Voting System Challenges. GAO-07-576T. Washington, D.C.: March 7,  2007.
Elections: DOD Expands Voting Assistance to Military Absentee Voters,  but Challenges Remain. GAO-06-1134T. Washington, D.C.: September  28, 2006.
Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the  November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June  6, 2006.
Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens  Increased for the 2004 General Election, but Challenges Remain.  GAO-06-521. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2006.
Election Reform: Nine States’ Experiences Implementing Federal  Requirements for Computerized Statewide Voter Registration Lists.  GAO-06-247. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2006.
Elections: Views of Selected Local Election Officials on Managing Voter  Registration and Ensuring Eligible Citizens Can Vote. GAO-05-997.  Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005.
Elections: Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic  Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be  Completed. GAO-05-956. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005.
Elections: Additional Data Could Help State and Local Elections Officials  Maintain Accurate Voter Registration Lists. GAO-05-478. Washington,  D.C.: June 10, 2005.
Department of Justice’s Activities to Address Past Election-Related  Voting Irregularities. GAO-04-1041R. Washington, D.C.: September 14,  2004.
Elections: Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents  Challenges. GAO-04-975T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.
Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should Be  Improved. GAO-01-1026. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.
Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election  Administration. GAO-01-470. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001.