Military Personnel: Additional Steps Are Needed to Strengthen DOD's Oversight of Ethics and Professionalism Issues
Published: 2015-09-03T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Professionalism and sound ethical judgment are essential to executing the fundamental mission of DOD and to maintaining confidence in military leadership, but recent DOD and military service investigations have revealed misconduct related to, among other things, sexual behavior, bribery, and cheating.
House Report 113-446 included a provision for GAO to review DOD's ethics and professionalism programs for military servicemembers. This report examines the extent to which DOD has developed and implemented (1) a management framework to oversee its programs and initiatives on ethics and professionalism; and (2) tools and performance metrics to identify, assess, and measure progress in addressing ethics and professionalism issues. GAO analyzed DOD guidance and documents related to military ethics and professionalism, reviewed literature to identify ethics issues and practices, and interviewed DOD, industry, and foreign military officials experienced in implementing ethics and professionalism programs.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) has a management framework to help oversee its existing ethics program and has initiated steps to establish such a framework to oversee its professionalism-related programs and initiatives, but its efforts could be strengthened in both areas.
DOD has a decentralized structure to administer and oversee its existing, required compliance-based ethics program, which focuses on ensuring adherence to rules. However, DOD has not fully addressed a 2008 internal recommendation to develop a department-wide values-based ethics program, which would emphasize ethical principles and decision-making to foster an ethical culture and achieve high standards of conduct. In 2012, DOD studied the design and implementation of a values-based ethics program and in 2013 delivered related training to certain DOD personnel. DOD has decided to take no further actions to establish a values-based ethics program, but it has not demonstrated that additional actions are unwarranted or assessed the feasibility of expanding training to additional personnel. As a result, the department neither has assurance that it has adequately addressed the identified need for a values-based ethics program nor has information needed to target its training efforts appropriately.
DOD established a 2-year, potentially renewable, position for a Senior Advisor for Military Professionalism, ending in March 2016, to oversee its professionalism-related efforts. Since 2014 the Advisor's office has identified and taken steps toward implementing some of its major tasks, which relate to coordinating and integrating DOD's efforts on professionalism. Professionalism relates to the values, ethics, standards, code of conduct, skills, and attributes of the military workforce. However, the office has not developed timelines or information to assess its progress in completing its major tasks. Thus, DOD does not have information to track the office's progress or assess whether the SAMP position should be retained after March 2016.
DOD has not fully implemented two key tools for identifying and assessing ethics and professionalism issues, and it has not developed performance metrics to measure its progress in addressing ethics-related issues. DOD has identified several tools, such as command climate and 360-degree assessments, that can be used to identify and assess ethics and professionalism issues. However, guidance issued by the military services for command climate assessments does not meet all statutory requirements and DOD guidance. As a result, the services do not have the required level of accountability during the performance evaluation process over the occurrence of these assessments, or assurances that all military personnel are able to anonymously participate in them. Further, the Navy, Marine Corps, and Joint Staff have developed and implemented 360-degree assessments for some but not all general and flag officers, and therefore some of these officers are not receiving valuable feedback on their performance as intended by DOD guidance. Finally, federal internal control standards emphasize the assessment of performance over time, but DOD is unable to determine whether its ethics and professionalism initiatives are achieving their intended effect because it has not developed metrics to measure their progress.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends DOD determine whether there is a need for a values-based program, assess the expansion of training, modify guidance, assess the use of a key tool for identifying ethics and professionalism issues, and develop performance metrics. DOD generally or partially concurred with these recommendations but did not agree to develop information to assess the Advisor's office. GAO continues to believe the recommendations are valid, as further discussed in the report.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In November 2012, the Secretary of Defense stated that professionalism  and sound ethical judgment are essential to executing the fundamental  mission of the Department of Defense (DOD) and to maintaining  confidence in military leadership. The 2015 National Security Strategy  similarly emphasizes the need to develop leaders committed to an expert  and ethical military profession. Military personnel are required to adhere  to ethical principles and standards of conduct established in federal  statutes and departmental guidance pertaining to, among other things,  financial disclosure, conflicts of interest, gift acceptance, and travel.  Recent DOD and military service investigations of misconduct by active  duty servicemembers, including general and flag officers, have placed  DOD’s ethics and professionalism programs under increased presidential,  congressional, and departmental scrutiny. These investigations have  revealed misconduct related to, among other things, sexual behavior,  bribery, travel, use of government funds, and cheating.
Beginning in 2012, the President and the Secretary of Defense took a  series of actions to assess and improve the department’s ethical and  professional culture, including initiating a review of ethical content in  professional military education, developing 13 character development  initiatives for general and flag officers, and establishing the Senior  Advisor for Military Professionalism (SAMP). In May 2014, Congress  commended the department’s efforts to focus on military ethics,  character, and leadership, but expressed continuing concern regarding  the roles, responsibilities, and effectiveness of the department’s  professionalism and ethics programs. House Report 113-446  accompanying a proposed bill for the National Defense Authorization Act  for Fiscal Year 2015 included a provision for GAO to review DOD’s  professionalism, ethics, and integrity programs for officers and enlisted  military servicemembers. Accordingly, this report examines the extent to  which DOD has developed and implemented: (1) a management  framework to oversee its programs and initiatives on ethics and  professionalism for active duty officers and enlisted servicemembers; and  (2) tools and performance metrics to identify, assess, and measure its  progress in addressing ethics and professionalism issues.
For the first objective, we assessed—against leading practices for  strategic planning and performance management, and federal internal  control standards—guidance, plans, and work products to determine the  degree to which DOD has defined roles, responsibilities, timelines, and  measures. We also reviewed and compared actions and work products  related to the department’s ongoing and planned initiatives to establish a  values-based ethics program and develop an ethical and professional  culture against federal internal control standards, and reviewed practices  for effective ethics programs and strategic training. We interviewed  officials responsible for ethics and professionalism from the Office of the  Secretary of Defense, the military services, and the Joint Staff to identify  additional actions and determine progress in these areas. We also met  with foreign military officials, defense industry organizations, and  commercial firms that we identified during our preliminary research and  discussions with DOD officials as having experience in implementing and  evaluating compliance-based or values-based ethics programs in the  public and private sectors both domestically and internationally, and we  reviewed relevant literature to identify ethics-related issues and best  practices in DOD. Specifically, we met with officials from the Australia  Department of Defence; Canada Department of National Defence; the  Raytheon Company; Lockheed Martin Corporation; EthicsOne, Inc., and  the Ethics Resource Center.
For our second objective, we examined assessment tools identified by  DOD officials as containing ethics-related content. We also assessed the  department’s actions to implement and use the results of command  climate and 360-degree assessments in accordance with statutory  requirements and departmental guidance. Command climate  assessments are designed to assess opinions and perceptions of  individuals within an organization, while 360-degree assessments are a  professional developmental tool that allows individuals to gain insights on  their character traits by soliciting feedback about their work performance  from superiors, subordinates, and peers. Specifically, we reviewed  departmental guidance, memorandums, and other implementing  documentation, and we met with officials from the Office of the Secretary  of Defense, the military services, and the Joint Staff. Additionally, we  interviewed DOD officials to identify performance metrics that the  department could use to measure its progress in addressing ethics and  professionalism issues, and we assessed the department’s ongoing  efforts to identify such metrics against federal internal control standards  and our prior work on performance measurement leading practices.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2014 to  September 2015 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Distinguishing between Ethics and Professionalism
paragraphs: The DOD Joint Ethics Regulation defines ethics as standards that guide  someone’s behavior based on their values—which the regulation defines  as core beliefs that motivate someone’s attitudes and actions. The Joint  Ethics Regulation identifies 10 primary ethical values that DOD personnel  should consider when making decisions as part of their official duties.  These values are: honesty, integrity, loyalty, accountability, fairness,  caring, respect, promise-keeping, responsible citizenship, and pursuit of  excellence. In addition to DOD’s ethical values, each of the military  services has established its own core values. For example, the core  values of the Navy and the Marine Corps are honor, courage, and  commitment. The Air Force’s core values include integrity and service  before self, and the Army’s include loyalty, honor, duty, integrity, respect,  and selfless service.
For the purposes of this report, we distinguish between compliance-based  ethics programs and values-based ethics programs. We refer to  compliance-based ethics programs as those that focus primarily on  ensuring adherence to rules and regulations related to financial  disclosure, gift receipt, outside employment activities, and conflicts of  interest, among other things. In contrast, we use values-based ethics  programs to refer to ethics programs that focus on upholding a set of  ethical principles in order to achieve high standards of conduct. Values- based ethics programs can build on compliance to incorporate guiding  principles such as values to help foster an ethical culture and inform  decision-making where rules are not clear.
Professionalism relates to the military profession, which DOD defines as  the values, ethics, standards, code of conduct, skills, and attributes of its  workforce. One of the military profession’s distinguishing characteristics  is its expertise in the ethical application of lethal military force and the  willingness of those who serve to die for our nation. While DOD’s leaders  serve as the foundation and driving force for the military profession, DOD  considers it the duty of each military professional to set the example of  virtuous character and exceptional competence at every unit, base, and  agency.
section_title: Federal Ethics Laws and Regulations
paragraphs: There are numerous laws and regulations governing the conduct of  federal personnel. The Compilation of Federal Ethics Laws prepared by  the United States Office of Government Ethics includes nearly 100 pages  of ethics-related statutes to assist ethics officials in advising agency  employees. For the purposes of this report, we note some key laws and  regulations relevant to military ethics and professionalism. The laws and  regulations are complex and the brief summaries here are intended only  to provide context for the issues discussed in this report.
subsections: section_title: Ethics Laws
paragraphs: The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as amended established the Office  of Government Ethics, an executive agency responsible for providing  overall leadership and oversight of executive branch agencies’ ethics  programs to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest. To carry out these  responsibilities, the Office of Government Ethics ensures that executive  branch ethics programs are in compliance with applicable ethics laws and  regulations through inspection and reporting requirements; disseminates  and maintains enforceable standards of ethical conduct; oversees a  financial disclosure system for public and confidential financial disclosure  report filers; and provides education and training to ethics officials. The  Ethics in Government Act of 1978 also requires certain senior officials in  the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to file public reports of  their finances and interests outside the government, and places certain  limitations on outside employment.
The main criminal conflict of interest statute, Section 208 of Title 18 of the  U.S. Code, prohibits certain federal employees from personally and  substantially participating in a particular government matter that will affect  their financial interests or the financial interests of their spouse, minor  child, or general partner, among others. The Office of Government Ethics  implemented this statute in Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations  (C.F.R.) Part 2640, which further defines financial interests and contains  provisions for granting exemptions and individual waivers, among other  things.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes the military justice  system and provides court-martial jurisdiction over servicemembers and  other categories of personnel. Among other things, it defines criminal  offenses under military law; and it authorizes commanding officers to  enforce good order and discipline through the exercise of non-judicial  punishment.
section_title: Ethics Regulations
paragraphs: The Office of Government Ethics issued 5 C.F.R. Part 2635, which  contains standards that govern the conduct of all executive branch  employees.  To supplement Title 5, some agencies have issued  additional employee conduct regulations, as authorized by 5 C.F.R. §  2635.105. The Office of Government Ethics also issued Part 2638, which  contains the Office of Government Ethics and executive branch agency  ethics program responsibilities. For example, 5 C.F.R. § 2638.602  requires an agency to file a report annually with the Office of Government  Ethics covering information on each official who performs the duties of a  designated agency ethics official; statistics on financial disclosure report  filings; and an evaluation of its ethics education, training and counseling  programs. Additionally, 5 C.F.R. § 2638.701 requires that an agency  establish an ethics training program that includes an initial orientation for  all employees, and annual ethics training for employees who are required  to file public financial disclosure reports and other covered employees.
The Joint Ethics Regulation is DOD’s comprehensive ethics policy and  guidance related to the standards of ethical conduct. The regulation  incorporates standards and restrictions from federal statutes, Office of  Government Ethics regulations, DOD’s supplemental regulation in 5  C.F.R. Part 3601, and Executive Order 12674 to provide a single source  of guidance for the department’s employees on a wide range of rules and  restrictions, including issues such as post-government employment, gifts,  financial disclosure, and political activities. The Joint Ethics Regulation  establishes DOD’s ethics program and defines the general roles and  responsibilities of the officials who manage the ethics program at the  departmental and subordinate organizational levels. For example, the  Joint Ethics Regulation requires that the head of each DOD agency  assign a designated agency ethics official to implement and administer all  aspects of the agency’s ethics program. This regulation also defines the  roles and responsibilities of ethics counselors related to ethics program  implementation and administration.
section_title: The Panel on Contracting Integrity
paragraphs: The Panel on Contracting Integrity was established by DOD in 2007  pursuant to Section 813 of the John Warner National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Chaired by the Under Secretary  of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Panel consists  of a cross-section of senior-level DOD officials who review the  department’s progress in eliminating areas of vulnerability in the defense  contracting system that allow fraud, waste, and abuse to occur, and it  recommends changes in law, regulations, and policy. The Panel was due  to terminate on December 31, 2009, but Congress extended the Panel’s  existence until otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense, and at a  minimum through December 31, 2011. As directed, in 2007, the Panel  began submitting annual reports to Congress containing a summary of  the Panel’s findings and recommendations. Several of the Panel’s  findings and recommendations pertain to DOD ethics.
section_title: DOD Has a Management Framework to Help Oversee Its Ethics and Professionalism Programs and Initiatives but Has Not Taken Certain Actions That Could Promote Continued Progress
paragraphs: DOD has a management framework to help oversee its required ethics  program, and it has initiated steps to establish a management framework  to oversee its professionalism-related programs and initiatives. However,  DOD has not fully addressed an internal recommendation to develop a  department-wide values-based ethics program, and it does not have  performance information to assess the Senior Advisor for Military  Professionalism’s (SAMP) progress and to inform its decision on whether  the office should be retained beyond March 2016.
subsections: section_title: DOD Has a Management Framework to Help Oversee Its Ethics Program but Has Not Fully Addressed an Internal Recommendation to Develop a Values-Based Ethics Program
subsections: section_title: DOD Has a Management Framework in Place to Oversee Its Established Ethics Program
paragraphs: DOD has a decentralized structure to administer and oversee its required  ethics program and to ensure compliance with departmental standards of  conduct. This structure consists of 17 Designated Agency Ethics Officials  positioned across the department. Each Designated Agency Ethics  Official, typically the General Counsel, is appointed by the head of his or  her organization, and is responsible for administering all aspects of the  ethics program within his or her defense organization. This includes  managing the financial disclosure reporting process, conducting annual  ethics training, and providing ethics advice to employees. To assist in  implementing and administering the organization’s ethics program, each  Designated Agency Ethics Official appoints ethics counselors. Attorneys  designated as ethics counselors support ethics programs by providing  ethics advice to the organization’s employees, among other things. Within  the military departments, the Judge Advocate Generals provide ethics  counselors under their supervision with legal guidance and assistance  and support all aspects of the departments’ ethics programs.
The DOD Standards of Conduct Office (SOCO), on behalf of the DOD  General Counsel, administers the ethics program for the Office of the  Secretary of Defense and coordinates component organization ethics  programs. SOCO is responsible for developing and establishing DOD- wide ethics rules and procedures and for promoting consistency among  the component organizations’ ethics programs by providing information,  uniform guidance, ethics counselor training, and sample employee  training materials. According to the Joint Ethics Regulation, the DOD  General Counsel is responsible for providing SOCO with sufficient  resources to oversee and coordinate DOD component organization ethics  programs. The DOD General Counsel also represents DOD on matters  relating to ethics policy.
section_title: DOD Has Not Fully Addressed the Panel on Contracting Integrity’s Recommendation to Develop a Values-Based Ethics Program
paragraphs: DOD has taken steps toward developing a values-based ethics program  but has not fully addressed the recommendation of the Panel on  Contracting Integrity to develop a department-wide values-based ethics  program. For instance, DOD has taken steps such as conducting a  department-wide survey of its ethical culture and a study of the design  and implementation of such a program. DOD also began delivering  values-based ethics training annually in 2013 to select personnel.
In 2008, the Panel on Contracting Integrity recommended in its report to  Congress that DOD develop a department-wide values-based ethics  program to complement its existing rules-based compliance program  managed by SOCO. The report noted that while SOCO had been  effective in demanding compliance for set rules, the ethics program may  have provided the false impression that promoting an ethical culture was  principally the concern of the Office of General Counsel, when integrity is  a leadership issue, and therefore everyone’s concern. In 2010, the Panel  also noted that an effective values-based ethics program, as evidenced  by the many robust programs employed by DOD contractors, cannot be  limited to educating DOD leadership; rather, it must be aimed at  promoting an ethical culture among all DOD employees. The Panel’s  recommendation was based in part on the Defense Science Board’s 2005  finding that while DOD had in place a number of pieces for an ethically  grounded organization, it lagged behind best-in-class programs in  creating a systematic, integrated approach and in demonstrating the  leadership necessary to drive ethics to the forefront of organizational  behavior. The Panel reiterated its recommendation for a department- wide values-based program in its 2009 and 2010 reports to Congress.
In response to the Panel’s recommendation, DOD contracted for a 2010  survey and a 2012 study to assess DOD’s ethical culture and to  design and implement a values-based ethics program, respectively. The  2010 survey assessed various dimensions of ethical behavior, including  the level of leadership involvement in the ethics program and the extent to  which employees perceive a culture of values-based ethics and are  recognized and rewarded for ethics excellence. The survey report  findings showed that DOD’s overall ethics score was comparable to that  of other large federal government organizations, but advocated for a  values-based approach to address ethical culture weaknesses. For  example, the survey report stated that: employees believe that DOD rewards unethical behavior to an extent  that is well above average; employees fear retribution for reporting managerial/commander  misconduct to an extent that is well above average; and  the number of employees who acknowledge regularly receiving ethics  information and training is comparatively low.
The 2012 study reinforced the need for a department-wide values-based  ethics program—noting that DOD lagged behind common practices,  among other things—and made 14 recommendations related to  establishing such a program. Notably, these recommendations included  developing an independent Office of Integrity and Standards of Conduct;  adopting a set of core values representing all of DOD; conducting annual  core values training for all DOD employees; and periodically measuring  program effectiveness. In 2013, the Panel on Contracting Integrity issued  a memorandum to SOCO stating that, after reviewing the 2012 study’s  recommendations, SOCO was better positioned than the Panel to  implement the study’s recommendations.
In 2013, SOCO partially implemented 1 of the study’s 14  recommendations by annually delivering values-based ethics training to  DOD financial disclosure filers—who are required to receive annual  ethics training—as well as other select military and civilian personnel.
This training emphasizes DOD and military service core values such as  honor, courage, and integrity; highlights cases of misconduct; discusses  ethical decision-making; and features senior-leader involvement in  presentations to emphasize its importance. In 2014, the Under Secretary  of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics directed that all  acquisition workforce personnel also complete this training annually to  reinforce the importance of ethical decision-making. SOCO officials stated  that they encourage all DOD organizations to administer this values- based annual ethics training and to extend this training to other personnel  not required to receive mandatory annual ethics training. In 2014, DOD  reported that about 146,000 department personnel received annual  ethics training. We estimate that this represents about 5 percent of DOD’s  total workforce.
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, a key source of guidance often  used in developing effective ethics programs, encourage organizations to  train all employees periodically on ethics. Similarly, DOD’s 2012 study  recommended mandatory annual training on integrity and ethics for all  DOD employees, and the 2008 Panel report stated that an effective  values-based ethics program must be aimed at promoting an ethical  culture among all DOD employees. Several of the DOD, foreign military,  and industry organizations we spoke with cited the importance of training  to convey information about ethics. For example, SOCO officials stated  that positive feedback from the initial values-based training rollout in 2013  influenced their decision to continue with this format in 2014, while  officials from the SAMP office stated that employees need to be reminded  of ethics periodically, and that senior leadership should be retrained  continuously on ethics rules. Additionally, officials from each of the four  industry and foreign military organizations we contacted stated that ethics  training within their organizations was either mandatory for all employees  on a periodic basis or available to all employees in one or more formats.
As noted above, SOCO encourages DOD organizations to administer  values-based annual training to non-mandatory personnel, but neither  SOCO nor the military departments have assessed the feasibility of  expanding this training to additional personnel. A SOCO official stated  that annual training could be expanded to a larger group of employees,  potentially on a periodic instead of an annual basis, but that any decision  to appreciably expand ethics training would have to consider factors such  as associated costs related to the time and effort for leaders and ethics  counselors to conduct training, employee hours to take training, and  administrative support time to track compliance with the training  requirement. This SOCO official noted also that the Army required face- to-face annual ethics training for all employees from approximately 2002  through 2006 but subsequently eliminated the requirement because of the  resource burden and the concern that training was not needed for most  enlisted personnel and junior officers. Our work on human capital states  that agencies should strategically target training to optimize employee  and organizational performance by considering whether expected costs  associated with proposed training are worth the anticipated benefits over  the short and long terms. Without considering such factors in an  assessment of the feasibility of expanding mandatory annual values- based ethics training to a greater number of DOD employees, the  department may be limited in its ability to properly target this training, and  therefore may be missing opportunities to promote and enhance DOD  employees’ familiarity with values-based ethical decision-making.
With respect to the other 13 recommendations from the 2012 study,  SOCO officials stated that they do not plan to take further action. These  officials also stated that they have not formally responded to the Panel’s  original recommendation to develop a values-based ethics program or its  subsequent memorandum. SOCO officials expressed support for  developing a values-based ethics program provided that such a program  were properly resourced and focused on substantive issues instead of  process. Similarly, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of  Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics stated that the  department would benefit from the creation of such a program, and  stressed the need for senior leaders to be involved in promoting  awareness of ethical issues. However, SOCO officials stated that the  Panel and 2012 study recommendations were not binding, and that  SOCO—which is staffed by five attorneys—would not be optimally  positioned to develop a department-wide program. These officials also  stated that implementing all of the study’s other 13 recommendations was  neither feasible nor advisable, and they cited existing practices as being  consistent with some of the study’s recommendations. For example:
The study’s recommendation to move SOCO from under the Office of  General Counsel and rebrand it as an independent Office of Integrity  and Standards of Conduct was not possible because ethics  counselors are required to be attorneys, according to the Joint Ethics  Regulation, and must therefore remain under the supervision of the  DOD General Counsel in order to provide the legal advice that the  department and its personnel require.
The study’s recommendation to create a direct link between senior  leadership and the Secretary of Defense on ethics and  professionalism matters is addressed, in part, by the SAMP position  that was created in March 2014. However, as discussed later in this  report, if DOD decides not to renew this position or retain its functions  beyond March 2016, DOD will lose its direct link between senior  leadership and the Secretary of Defense on ethics and  professionalism matters. Both SAMP and SOCO officials stated that  there is an enduring need for such a link or the functions performed by  the SAMP office, and officials from three of the four industry and  foreign military organizations we contacted stated that their  organization had in place a direct link to senior leadership on ethics- related matters.
The study’s recommendation to assess and mitigate ethical culture  and compliance risk is consistent with SOCO’s current practice of  informally reviewing misconduct reports and survey results,  conducting ethics program reviews, consulting ethics officials, and  factoring perceived trends into training plans and appropriate ethics  guidance and policy.
Federal internal control standards emphasize the need for managers to  respond to findings and recommendations from audits and reviews and to  complete all actions that correct or otherwise resolve the matters brought  to management’s attention within established timeframes, or alternatively  to demonstrate that actions are unwarranted. However, DOD has not  identified actions or established timeframes for fully responding to the  Panel’s recommendation or the 2012 study’s other 13 recommendations;  nor has it informed the Panel that it plans to take no further action. While  not binding, the Panel’s recommendation to establish a department-wide  values-based ethics program represents a need identified by senior  leaders from across the department. Without identifying actions DOD  intends to take, with timeframes, to address the Panel’s recommendation,  including the study’s other 13 recommendations, or demonstrating that  further action is unwarranted, the department does not have assurance  that the identified need for a values-based ethics program has been  addressed.
section_title: DOD Established an Office to Coordinate Its Professionalism Initiatives but Does Not Have Timelines or Performance Measures to Determine Whether the Office Should Be Retained
subsections: section_title: DOD Established the SAMP to Coordinate the Department’s Professionalism Initiatives
paragraphs: In March 2014, the Secretary of Defense reaffirmed the previous  Secretary’s prioritization of professionalism as a top concern for DOD’s  senior leadership by establishing the office of the SAMP, headed by a  Navy Rear Admiral (Upper Half), which reports directly to the Secretary of  Defense. The SAMP position was established for a 2-year term, with an  option to renew, and it is supported by an independent office consisting of  six permanent staff members comprised variously of Air Force, Army,  Navy, Marine Corps, and Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonels,  Colonels, Commanders and Captains, and one contract employee who  provides administrative support. SAMP officials stated that they were  unclear about the rationale behind the initial 2-year term. The office is  embedded in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel  and Readiness, and it has been fully staffed since July 2014.
The purpose of the SAMP office is to coordinate and ensure the  integration of the department’s ongoing efforts to improve  professionalism, and to make recommendations to senior DOD  leadership that complement and enhance such efforts. The office  primarily interacts with senior DOD leadership through the Senior  Leadership Forum on Military Professionalism, which meets every 5  weeks, and is comprised of the Secretary of Defense, military service  secretaries and chiefs, and the DOD General Counsel, among others.  The office supports this forum by promulgating an agenda, raising issues  for discussion and decision, and briefing leadership on relevant  department-wide activities. Recent department-wide activities have been  wide-ranging, and include (1) 13 character development initiatives for  general and flag officers; (2) a review of ethics content in professional  military education; and (3) the development of tools, such as command  climate and 360-degree assessments, that can be used to identify and  assess ethics-related issues. These and various other initiatives and  senior-level communications directed by the President, the Secretary of  Defense, and Congress are intended to enhance DOD’s ethical culture  and to emphasize the importance of ethics and professionalism to  departmental personnel. A timeline of key ethics and professionalism  events and communications since 2007 is shown in appendix II.
In September 2014, the SAMP office developed a plan outlining its major  tasks across three phases: (1) assess the state of the profession, (2)  strengthen and sustain professional development, and (3) foster trust  through transparent accounting of efforts. Tasks across each respective  phase include conducting a survey to assess DOD’s ethical culture;  identifying tools for individual professional development and evaluation;  and developing an annual report card that highlights trends, best  practices, and underperforming professionalism-related programs.
section_title: DOD Does Not Have Timelines or Performance Measures to Assess SAMP’s Progress and to Inform Decision Making on Whether the SAMP Should Be Retained
paragraphs: DOD does not have timelines or performance measures to assess  SAMP’s progress and to inform its decision on whether the SAMP  position should be retained. Our work on strategic planning has found that  leading practices, such as developing detailed plans outlining major  implementation tasks and defining measures and timelines to assess  progress, contribute to effective and efficient operations. Additionally,  leading organizations that have progressed toward results-oriented  management use performance information as a basis for making  resource allocation decisions, planning, budgeting, and identifying  priorities. The SAMP office has taken steps toward implementing its  major tasks, but DOD does not have key performance information to help  inform the decision as to whether the SAMP position should be retained  beyond its initial 2-year term—which is set to expire in March 2016. The  SAMP office has drafted a white paper exploring the relationship between  the military profession and the military professional, developed a  catalogue documenting tools that can be used to assess ethics-related  issues, and initiated steps to update the 2010 department-wide survey of  DOD’s ethical culture. In addition, the SAMP office has canvassed the  military services to identify service-level initiatives for civilian personnel  that are similar to the 13 general and flag officer initiatives, conducted  sessions with senior officers to identify areas of interest to senior  leadership, and begun to partner with academic institutions to pursue  research related to utilizing behavioral science and neuroscience to  address issues of ethics, character, and competence in the military.
While the SAMP office has taken steps toward completing its major tasks,  it has not defined timelines or measures to (1) assess its progress or  impact; (2) determine whether it has completed its major tasks; or (3) help  inform the decision on whether its initial 2-year term should be renewed.  SAMP officials stated that while the office has not defined timelines or  measures, they believe that the office’s activities should help to establish  self-perpetuating professionalism efforts within the military services.  SAMP officials stated that such efforts within the services may somewhat  diminish the need for SAMP, but these same officials also noted that the  work of the office will remain necessary and that its function should exist  beyond the initial 2-year term because building and sustaining an ethical  culture and professionalism capacity constitute a continuous effort at  every grade level. They added that the Secretary of Defense will also  continue to need a mechanism for looking across the services, working  with other countries, and influencing departmental policies. The need for  senior-level oversight of professionalism or ethics issues also was cited  by other DOD, industry, and foreign military organizations we contacted.  For example, SOCO officials expressed support for maintaining the  SAMP position or function beyond the initial 2-year period, stating that  there is enduring value in having an office like SAMP because it provides  a sense of permanence to ethics and professionalism and will help  institutionalize related improvement efforts. Similarly, as previously  stated, officials from three of the four industry and foreign military  organizations we contacted stated that their organization had in place a  direct link to senior leadership on ethics-related matters. Without timelines  or measures to assess the office’s progress, DOD does not have  performance information for determining whether SAMP’s efforts are on  track to achieve desired outcomes, and the department may find it difficult  to determine the future of the office and its function. Further, DOD will not  be positioned to assess whether SAMP is the appropriate vehicle to  achieve these outcomes or how best to allocate resources within the  department to achieve them.
section_title: DOD Has Identified Potential Tools for Assessing Ethics and Professionalism Issues but Has Not Fully Implemented Key Tools or Developed Performance Metrics
paragraphs: DOD has identified a number of mandatory and optional tools that  defense organizations can use to identify and assess individual and  organizational ethics and professionalism issues. However, two key  tools—command climate and 360-degree assessments—have not been  fully implemented in accordance with statutory requirements and  departmental guidance, and DOD has not yet developed performance  metrics to measure its progress in addressing ethics-related issues.
subsections: section_title: DOD Has Identified Several Tools That Can Be Used to Identify and Assess Ethics and Professionalism Issues
paragraphs: DOD has identified several climate, professional development, and  psychometric tools that can be used to identify and assess individual and  organizational ethics-related issues. Climate tools are designed to assess  opinions and perceptions of individuals within an organization, and they  include instruments such as surveys. Professional development tools  include a range of self-and-peer assessment instruments that are  designed to provide individuals with feedback on their development.  Psychometric tools include instruments such as the Navy’s Hogan  Insights, which are designed to provide a holistic behavioral review of an  individual, and are generally used to assess and identify individual  behavior and personality traits. The SAMP office is completing an  inventory of climate, professional development, and psychometric tools  that are used across the department to enhance interdepartmental  visibility of these tools and to promote best practices. SAMP officials  stated that while these tools could be used to assess ethics-related  issues, none of the tools were designed exclusively for that purpose.  Figure 1 shows some of the tools identified by the SAMP office that could  be used to identify and assess individual and organizational ethics-related  issues.
Officials from the SAMP office and from each of the military services have  cited command climate assessments and 360-degree assessments as  the department’s primary tools that could be used for identifying ethics- related issues. Command climate assessments are designed to assess  elements that can impact an organization’s effectiveness such as trust in  leadership, equal opportunity, and organizational commitment. These  assessments can include surveys, focus groups, interviews, records of  analyses, and physical observations. The command climate  assessment’s main component is a survey administered online by the  Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. Survey results, which  are provided to the unit commander, include a detailed analysis of unit  results in comparison to other units within the organization.
In addition, 360-degree assessments are a professional developmental  tool that allows individuals to gain insights on their character traits by  soliciting feedback about their work performance from superiors,  subordinates, and peers. A variety of 360-degree assessments are used  across the department to enable different levels of personnel to obtain  such feedback. For example, the Army conducts three different 360- degree assessments under the Multi-Source Assessment Feedback  Program, which are targeted toward officers (Brigadier General and  below), non-commissioned officers, and civilian leaders. SAMP officials  stated that while none of these tools is specifically designed to assess  ethics issues, the office is investigating whether a combination of them  can be used to provide a more holistic picture of ethical behavior, and  exploring what might be gained by sharing data captured by these tools  across the department.
section_title: The Military Services Have Implemented Command Climate Assessments, but Their Guidance Does Not Fully Address All Requirements
paragraphs: The military services have issued guidance to implement command  climate assessments, but the Army, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps  do not have assurance that they are in compliance with all statutory  requirements because their guidance does not fully address implementing  and tracking requirements. In addition, the Army’s and the Navy’s  guidance do not fully address DOD guidance related to the size of the  units required to complete command climate assessments.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 contains  requirements related to (1) tracking and verifying that commanders are  conducting command climate assessments, (2) disseminating results to  the next higher level command, and (3) recording the completion of  command climate assessments in commanders’ performance  evaluations.  As shown in table 1, the Navy has developed guidance  that addresses all of the four Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense  Authorization Act’s requirements, but the Army’s, the Air Force’s, and the  Marine Corps’ guidance do not fully address two of the four requirements  that relate to recording in the performance evaluations of a commander  whether the commander has conducted a command climate assessment.
As table 1 shows, all of the military services’ guidance addresses section  587(a) of the authorization act, which requires that the results of  command climate assessments be provided to the commander and to the  next higher level command, as well as section 1721(d), which requires  that the military departments track and verify whether commanding  officers have conducted a command climate assessment. In addition to  complying with these requirements, the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy  also have command climate assessments reviewed above the next  highest level. For example, Navy officials stated that their command  climate assessment results are aggregated, analyzed, and reported to  Navy leadership annually to inform service policy and training.
With respect to sections 587(b) and 587(c) of the authorization act, the  Navy’s guidance addresses these sections, but the Army’s, the Air  Force’s, and the Marine Corps’ respective guidance do not. For example,  the Army’s performance evaluation process requires that raters assess a  commander’s performance in fostering a climate of dignity and respect,  and in adhering to the requirements of the Army’s Sexual  Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program, which requires  that command climate assessments be conducted. However, this  program does not specifically require that commanders include a  statement in their performance evaluations as to whether they conducted  an assessment, or that failure to do so be recorded in their performance  evaluation.
In addition, not all of the military services’ guidance fully meets DOD  guidance. Specifically, in July 2013, the Acting Under Secretary of  Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued a memorandum requiring  the secretaries of the military departments to establish procedures in their  respective operating instruction and regulations related to the  implementation of command climate assessments. Among other things,  the guidance addresses the size of units for conducting command climate  assessments and the dissemination of assessment results. In response to  this guidance, each of the military services has developed written  guidance. As shown in table 2, the Air Force’s and the Marine Corps’  guidance address all command climate guidance in the Under Secretary’s  memorandum, while the Army’s and the Navy’s guidance do not require  that units of fewer than 50 servicemembers shall be surveyed with a  larger unit in the command to ensure anonymity and to provide the  opportunity for all military personnel to participate in the process, as laid  out in the memorandum.
Without requiring that commanders include a statement in their  performance evaluations about whether they have conducted a command  climate assessment, and requiring that the failure of a commander to  conduct a command climate assessment be noted in the commander’s  performance evaluation, the Army, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps  will not be complying with the mandated level of accountability Congress  intended during the performance evaluation process. Additionally, without  requiring organizations of fewer than 50 servicemembers to be surveyed  with a larger unit, the Army and the Navy may be unable to ensure that all  unit members are able to participate anonymously in command climate  surveys as intended by DOD guidance.
section_title: DOD Has Not Implemented 360-degree Assessments for All Intended Military Personnel
paragraphs: The development and use of 360-degree assessments for general and  flag officers vary across the military services and the Joint Staff, and they  do not cover all intended military personnel. Specifically, the 2013  General and Flag Officer Character Implementation Plan memorandum  states that 360-degree assessments would be developed and used for all  military service and Joint Staff general and flag officers, and a November  2013 memorandum issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to  the President reiterates the department’s commitment to developing and  implementing 360-degree assessments for all general and flag officers.
The Air Force and the Army have developed and implemented 360- degree assessments for all of their general officers, but the Navy, the  Marine Corps, and the Joint Staff have developed and implemented 360- degree assessments only for certain general and flag officers. Table 3  shows the extent to which the military services and the Joint Staff have  developed and implemented 360-degree assessments for their general  and flag officers.
The Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Joint Staff cited different reasons for  developing and implementing 360-degree assessments only for certain  general and flag officers. For example, in 2013, the Navy required new  flag officers promoted to the Rear Admiral (Lower Half) rank, as well as  Rear Admiral (Lower Half) selects, to complete 360-degree assessments.  A Navy official stated that expanding 360-degree assessments to include  all Navy flag officers would incur significant costs, particularly with regard  to the cost of specially trained personnel to coach individuals on how to  respond to the results of their 360-degree assessments. Similarly, officials  from the SAMP office and Joint Staff cited coaching as a driver of costs  for 360-degree assessments. A RAND study released on behalf of DOD  in April 2015 also noted that 360-degree assessments are resource- intensive to design, implement, and maintain. Due to the costs  associated with expanding 360-degree assessments and other concerns,  such as the value of the feedback elicited by the tool, the Navy is  investigating other tools and techniques that can provide critical self- assessment for its personnel. For example, Navy officials stated they are  using a similar tool—the Hogan Assessment—as part of a Command  Leadership Course for some prospective commanding officers.
According to Marine Corps officials, in 2014, two general officers from the  Marine Corps participated in a Joint Staff 360-degree assessment pilot  program. These officials stated that there are no plans to expand the  program to include Marine Corps general officers not assigned to the  Joint Staff because Marine Corps senior officials are satisfied with the  flexibility and feedback that the Joint Staff pilot provides, and because the  Marine Corps also uses the Commandant’s Command Survey, which  similarly focuses on the climate and conduct of leaders and commanders.
In October 2014, following its pilot, the Joint Staff initiated 360-degree  assessments for one and two star general and flag officers to occur at 6  months and 2 years after assignment to the Joint Staff. In July 2015, the  Joint Staff issued guidance requiring that Joint Staff three star general  and flag officers, civilian senior executives, and one, two, and three star  general and flag officers at the combatant commands complete 360- degree assessments. Joint Staff officials stated that 360-degree  assessments are not used at the four star rank because at that level the  peer and superior populations are significantly smaller, creating a greater  possibility of assessor survey fatigue and concerns about anonymity.  Further, Joint Staff officials stated that four star level officers already  conduct command climate surveys that allow everyone within their unit or  organization to assess the leader and organization.
While the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Joint Staff cited varying  reasons for implementing 360-degree assessment only for certain general  and flag officers, the inconsistent implementation of this tool across the  department denies a number of senior military leaders valuable feedback  on their leadership skills and an opportunity for developing an  understanding of personal strengths and areas for improvement. Taking  into account the military services’ and the Joint Staff’s differing reasons,  including costs, for implementing 360-degree assessments only for  certain general and flag officers, DOD may benefit from reassessing the  need and feasibility of developing and implementing 360-degree  assessments for all general and flag officers.
section_title: DOD Does Not Have Performance Metrics to Measure Its Progress in Addressing Ethics and Professionalism Issues
paragraphs: Federal internal control standards emphasize the importance of  assessing performance over time, but DOD is unable to determine  whether its ethics and professionalism initiatives are achieving their  intended effect because it has not yet developed metrics to measure the  department’s progress in addressing ethics and professionalism issues.  In 2012, we reported that federal agencies engaging in large projects can  use performance metrics to determine how well they are achieving their  goals and to identify any areas for improvement. By using performance  metrics, decision makers can obtain feedback for improving both policy  and operational effectiveness. Additionally, by tracking and developing a  baseline for all measures, agencies can better evaluate progress made  and whether or not goals are being achieved—thus providing valuable  information for oversight by identifying areas of program risk and their  causes to decision makers. Through our body of work on leading  performance management practices, we have identified several attributes  of effective performance metrics (see table 4).
SAMP officials stated that they recognize the need to continually measure  the department’s progress in addressing ethics and professionalism, and  are considering ways to do so; however, challenges exist. For example,  the SAMP office plans to update the 2010 ethics survey by administering  a department-wide ethics survey in 2015 to reassess DOD’s ethical  culture. SAMP officials stated that they expect the new survey to yield  valuable information on DOD’s ethical culture, but they have not identified  metrics to assess DOD’s ethical culture. Additionally, SAMP officials  stated that they plan to modify questions from the 2010 survey to lessen  its focus on acquisition-related matters, and to collect new information.  While modifying the questions from the 2010 survey may improve DOD’s  understanding of its ethical climate, doing so could limit DOD’s ability to  assess trends against baseline (2010) data. Moreover, DOD’s ability to  assess trends in the future may also be affected by uncertainty as to  whether the survey will be administered beyond 2015. SAMP officials  attributed this uncertainty, in part, to survey fatigue within the  department—a factor cited by SAMP officials that could also affect the  response rate for the 2015 survey, and therefore limit the utility of the  survey data. To combat this challenge, the SAMP office is considering  merging the ethics survey with another related survey, such as the sexual  assault prevention and response survey. According to SAMP officials, the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness has  established a working group to address survey fatigue within the  department.
SAMP officials stated that they have also considered using misconduct  report data to assess the department’s ethical culture, but that interpreting  such data can be challenging. For example, a reduction in reports of  misconduct could indicate either fewer occurrences or a decrease in  reporting—the latter of which could be induced by concerns over  retribution for reporting, officials stated. Additionally, our review found  that the department’s ability to assess department-wide trends in ethical  behavior is limited because misconduct report data are not collected in a  consistent manner across DOD. Specifically, DOD organizations define  categories of misconduct differently, thereby precluding comparisons of  misconduct data across different organizations, as well as aggregate- level analysis of department-wide data. To address this challenge, the  DOD Office of Inspector General is developing common definitions to  standardize the collection of misconduct report data across the  department. DOD Office of Inspector General officials estimated that the  definitions will be finalized in 2016.
Because of such challenges, SAMP officials are considering certain  activities, such as increased focus on ethics-related matters by DOD  senior leadership, to be indicators of progress. Our work on performance  management has found that intermediate goals and measures such as  outputs or intermediate outcomes can be used to show progress or  contribution to intended results. For instance, when it may take years  before an agency sees the results of its programs, intermediate goals and  measures can provide information on interim results to allow for course  corrections. Also, when program results could be influenced by external  factors beyond agencies’ control, they can use intermediate goals and  measures to identify the program’s discrete contribution to a specific  result. Our review found that various mechanisms were used by the  industry and foreign military organizations we contacted to assess ethical  culture, with officials from all four industry and foreign military  organizations stating that their organization had used one or more tools to  assess the ethical culture of their organizations. For example, one of the  foreign military organizations we contacted administers a survey  periodically to both civilian and military personnel to measure the  organization’s ethical culture against a baseline that was established in  2003. SAMP officials similarly stated that a variety of data sources— including organizational, survey, attitudinal, behavioral, and perception of  trust data—should be used to assess DOD’s ethical culture. However,  without identifying specific sources, DOD will not have the information  necessary to assess its progress. Moreover, without establishing clear,  quantifiable, and objective metrics that include a baseline assessment of  current performance to measure progress, or intermediate or short-term  goals and measures, decision-makers in DOD and Congress will find it  difficult to determine whether the department’s ethics and professionalism  initiatives are on track to achieve desired outcomes.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Maintaining a workforce characterized by professionalism and  commitment to ethical values is key to executing DOD’s mission to  protect the security of the nation; limiting conduct that can result in  misuse of government resources; and maintaining servicemember,  congressional, and public confidence in senior military leadership. As  recent cases of misconduct demonstrate, ethical and professional lapses  can carry significant operational consequences, waste taxpayer  resources, and erode public confidence. Since 2007, DOD has taken  significant steps to improve its ethical culture, for instance by conducting  a department-wide ethics survey and follow-on study. The department  has also acted to enhance oversight of its professionalism-related  initiatives and issues, for example through creating the SAMP office.  However, its overall effort could be strengthened by taking a number of  additional steps. In particular, without fully considering the Panel on  Contracting Integrity’s recommendation to create a values-based ethics  program and the subsequent 2012 study recommendations, as well as  assessing the feasibility of expanding annual values-based ethics training  beyond the current mandated personnel, DOD will not have assurance  that it is doing enough to promote an ethical culture, and it may face  challenges in identifying areas for future action. Similarly, without  performance information, including timelines and measures, DOD will not  be optimally positioned to determine whether the SAMP—a key oversight  position—should be renewed after its initial 2-year term, or to assess the  SAMP office’s progress.
At the military service level, further actions also could improve oversight  of ethics and professionalism-related issues for senior leaders. For  instance, without revising current guidance to comply with statutory  requirements and departmental guidance and assure that commanders  are conducting command climate assessments, the Army, the Air Force,  the Navy, and the Marine Corps will be unable to discern whether  commanders are obtaining feedback on their performance and promoting  an effective culture. Furthermore, without examining the need for and  feasibility of implementing 360-degree assessments for all general and  flag officers, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Joint Staff will not have  information that could enhance individual ethics and professional values.
Finally, given the initiatives that DOD is planning and has under way, it is  important that there be reliable means by which to gauge progress.  Without identifying information sources and developing intermediate goals  and performance metrics that are clear, quantifiable, and objective—and  that are linked to an identified baseline assessment of current  performance—decision makers in DOD and Congress will not have full  visibility into the department’s progress on professionalism-related issues.  As the department realigns itself to address new challenges, a sustained  focus on ethics and professionalism issues will contribute to fostering the  ethical culture necessary for DOD to carry out its mission.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following six  actions:  1.  To promote and enhance familiarity with values-based ethical  decision-making across the department, direct appropriate  departmental organization(s), in consultation with the Office of  General Counsel and the SAMP or its successor organization(s), to  assess the feasibility of expanding annual values-based ethics  training to include currently non-mandatory recipients.  2.  To ensure that the need for a department-wide values-based ethics  program has been addressed, direct appropriate departmental  organization(s), in consultation with the Office of General Counsel, to  identify actions and timeframes for responding to the Panel on  Contracting Integrity recommendation, including the 14 related 2012  study recommendations, or alternatively demonstrate why additional  actions are unwarranted.  3.  To help inform decision makers on the SAMP’s progress as well as  the decision regarding the extension of the SAMP’s term, direct the  SAMP to define timelines and measures to assess its progress in  completing its major tasks.  4.  To increase assurance that commanders are conducting command  climate assessments in accordance with statutory requirements and  departmental guidance, direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, the  Army, and the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to  modify existing guidance or develop new guidance to comply with  requirements set forth in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense  Authorization Act and internal DOD guidance.  5.  To better inform the department’s approach to senior officers’  professional development, direct the Secretary of the Navy, the  Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chairman of the Joint  Chiefs of Staff to assess the need for and feasibility of implementing  360-degree assessments for all general and flag officers.  6.  To improve DOD’s ability to assess its progress in addressing ethics  and professionalism issues, direct the SAMP, through the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, or SAMP’s  successor organization(s), to identify information sources and develop  intermediate goals and performance metrics. At minimum, these  performance metrics should be clear, quantifiable, and objective, and  they should include a baseline assessment of current performance.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In  written comments, DOD concurred with comments on three of our six  recommendations, partially concurred with two recommendations, and did  not concur with one recommendation. DOD’s comments are summarized  below and reprinted in appendix III. DOD also provided technical  comments on the draft report, which we incorporated as appropriate.
DOD concurred with comment on our first, second, and sixth  recommendations, which relate to annual values-based ethics training, a  department-wide values-based ethics program, and performance metrics,  respectively. With regard to the first and sixth recommendations, DOD  stated that the SAMP is a temporary office established by Secretary  Hagel with a term ending no later than March 2016. As noted in our  report, the SAMP office was established in March 2014 for an initial 2- year term, with an option to renew. Because the future of the SAMP office  had not been determined at the time of this review, we directed these  recommendations toward the SAMP or its successor organization(s).
In its comments on our second recommendation, for DOD to respond to  the Panel on Contracting Integrity recommendation, including the 14  related 2012 study recommendations, or alternatively to demonstrate why  actions are unwarranted, DOD raised concerns regarding whether we are  endorsing the 2012 study’s recommendations. We are not endorsing  them. Our recommendation is for DOD to fully consider the Panel on  Contracting Integrity’s recommendation and the subsequent 2012 study  recommendations. If DOD does not believe such a program or the actions  recommended by the 2012 study are warranted, then it should  demonstrate why additional actions are unwarranted. Without fully  considering the Panel’s recommendation, including the 2012 study  recommendations, DOD will not have assurance that it is doing enough to  promote an ethical culture.
In addition, DOD voiced concern that the statement in the draft report that  SOCO officials “do not plan to take any further action” with respect to the  remaining 13 recommendations from the Phase II study could be  misunderstood to imply that SOCO is unwilling to consider additional  values-based ethics program initiatives. DOD elaborated that SOCO  embraces values-based ethics training and other initiatives. DOD added  that, as noted elsewhere in the report, DOD has practices in place that  are consistent with a number of the recommendations in the Phase II  study, and that SOCO is most receptive to assessing and recommending  implementation of additional measures where appropriate and feasible.
As noted in our report, in 2013, SOCO partially implemented 1 of the  study’s 14 recommendations by annually delivering values-based ethics  training to select military and civilian personnel. In addition, SOCO cited  existing practices as being consistent with some of the study’s remaining  13 recommendations. However, SOCO officials told us that they do not  plan to take further action, and that the Panel and 2012 study  recommendations were not binding. These officials also stated that  implementing all of the study’s remaining 13 recommendations was  neither feasible nor advisable. We continue to believe that without  identifying actions DOD intends to take, with timeframes, to address the  Panel’s recommendation, including the study’s other 13  recommendations, or demonstrating that further action is unwarranted,  the department does not have assurance that the identified need for a  values-based ethics program has been addressed.
DOD partially concurred with our fourth recommendation, that the Air  Force, the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps modify existing  guidance or develop new guidance to comply with requirements set forth  in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and  internal DOD guidance, to increase assurance that commanders are  conducting command climate assessments in accordance with these  statutory requirements and departmental guidance. In its comments, DOD  stated that the Army’s performance evaluation process requires that  raters assess a commander’s performance in fostering a climate of dignity  and respect, thereby in DOD’s view satisfying the National Defense  Authorization Act’s requirement that commanders must include a  statement in their performance evaluations as to whether or not they  conducted an assessment. In addition, DOD commented that although  DOD guidance calls for organizations of fewer than 50 servicemembers to  be surveyed with a larger unit, Army guidance calls for command climate  surveys to be conducted at the company level and states that units of  between 30 and 50 personnel may conduct their surveys separately or  together with another unit, at the commander’s discretion; and that, since  the survey response rate is sufficiently high (58 percent), the Army can  survey organizations with fewer than 50 servicemembers. Therefore,  DOD believes that the Army meets the intent of departmental guidance  for command climate survey utilization.
As noted in our report, the Army’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Response  and Prevention Program requires that command climate assessments be  conducted. However, this program does not specifically require that  commanders include a statement in their performance evaluations as to  whether they conducted an assessment, or that failure to do so be  recorded in their performance evaluation, as required by the National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Therefore, we continue to  believe that without requiring that commanders include a statement in  their performance evaluations about whether they have conducted a  command climate assessment, and requiring that the failure of a  commander to conduct a command climate assessment be noted in the  commander’s performance evaluation, the Air Force, the Army, and the  Marine Corps will not be complying with the mandated level of  accountability that Congress intended during the performance evaluation  process. In addition, as noted in the report DOD guidance requires that  organizations of fewer than 50 servicemembers shall be surveyed with a  larger unit in the command to ensure anonymity and provide the  opportunity for all military personnel to participate in the process. We  continue to maintain that, regardless of the survey response rate, without  requiring organizations of fewer than 50 servicemembers to be surveyed  with a larger unit, the Army may be unable to ensure that all unit  members are able to participate in command climate surveys, and to do  so anonymously, as intended by DOD guidance.
DOD partially concurred with our fifth recommendation, that the Navy, the  Marine Corps, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff assess the need and  feasibility of implementing 360-degree assessments for all general and  flag officers, to better inform the department’s approach to senior officers’  professional development. In its comments, DOD stated that it concurs  with the recommendation to assess the need for and feasibility of  implementing 360-degree assessments, or 360-degree-like feedback  assessments, where they are not already being performed. However,  DOD stated that it does not believe it should assess the need and  feasibility of implementing this tool for all general and flag officers, but  rather only for three star ranks and below.
As noted in our report, the 2013 General and Flag Officer Character  Implementation Plan memorandum states that 360-degree assessments  would be developed and used for all military service and Joint Staff  general and flag officers, and a November 2013 memorandum issued by  the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the President reiterates the  department’s commitment to developing and implementing 360-degree  assessments for all general and flag officers. The Air Force and the Army  have developed and implemented 360-degree assessments for all of their  general officers. However, as noted in the report, the Navy, the Marine  Corps, and the Joint Staff have developed and implemented 360-degree  assessments only for certain general and flag officers, citing varying  reasons, including costs, for doing so. We continue to believe that, given  the inconsistency of the implementation of this tool across the  department, DOD may benefit from reassessing the need for and  feasibility of developing and implementing 360-degree assessments for  all general and flag officers. Further, we continue to maintain that such a  reassessment would support the department’s approach to senior  officers’ professional development by increasing and improving the  consistency of the information provided to leadership.
DOD did not concur with our third recommendation, that the SAMP define  timelines and measures to assess its progress in completing its major  tasks, in order to help inform decision makers on the SAMP’s progress as  well as the decision regarding the extension of the SAMP’s term. In its  written comments, DOD stated that the department will submit its Fiscal  Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act report on military programs  and controls regarding professionalism to Congress on September 1,  2015, thereby satisfying the requirements of this recommendation.
Although DOD states that the intent of our recommendation will be  satisfied by the September 1, 2015, report to Congress, we have not  been provided a copy of the draft report and cannot determine whether  the report will include timelines and measures. Further, while DOD stated  that SAMP's dissolution will occur in March 2016, a formal decision has  not yet been made. As we discussed in our report, DOD officials stated  that there is an enduring need for the work and functions of the SAMP  office because, among other things, building and sustaining an ethical  culture and professionalism capacity constitute a continuous effort at  every grade level, and because of the importance of having a direct link  between senior leadership and the Secretary of Defense on ethics and  professionalism matters. The intent of our recommendation is to help  equip decision makers with the information necessary to assess SAMP's  progress and thereby determine next steps regarding its future. We  continue to believe that without timelines or measures to assess the  office’s progress, DOD will not be positioned to assess whether SAMP is  the appropriate vehicle to achieve these outcomes, or how best to  allocate resources within the department to achieve them.
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 Marine Corps. The report also is available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To evaluate the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) has  developed and implemented a management framework to oversee its  programs and initiatives on professionalism and ethics for active duty  officers and enlisted servicemembers we assessed—against leading  practices for strategic planning and performance management, and  federal internal control standards—guidance, plans, and work products to  determine the extent to which DOD has defined roles, responsibilities,  measures, and timelines for managing its existing ethics program and  professionalism oversight framework. For example, we reviewed the  Code of Federal Regulations and DOD guidance such as the Joint Ethics  Regulation, which governs DOD’s ethics program and the management of  related activities including training, financial disclosure reporting, and gift  receipt. We also reviewed work plans and timelines that define the  Senior Advisor for Military Professionalism (SAMP) position and the  scope of its activities. We compared, against federal internal control  standards and practices for effective ethics programs and strategic  training, actions and work products related to the department’s ongoing  and planned initiatives to establish a values-based ethics program and to  develop an ethical and professional culture. These documents included  studies commissioned by DOD to assess its ethical culture and to design  and implement a values-based program; memorandums and work  products related to the 13 general and flag officer character initiatives;  and Secretary of Defense memorandums requiring actions including  ethics training and professional military education reviews. We also  interviewed officials responsible for ethics and professionalism from the  Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military services, and the Joint  Staff to identify additional actions and determine progress in these areas.  We assessed these documents by comparing them against leading  practices for strategic planning and performance measurement that relate  to the need for detailed plans outlining major implementation tasks and  defined measures and timelines to measure progress; and federal internal  control standards related to the need for performance measures and  indicators, and the importance of managers determining proper actions in  response to findings and recommendations from audits and reviews and  completing such actions within established timeframes.
We obtained and analyzed Fiscal Year 2012 to 2014 misconduct data  from the DOD Office of Inspector General to identify discernible trends in  reported misconduct, as well as data regarding the number of DOD  personnel receiving annual ethics training. Specifically, we obtained  calendar year 2014 DOD annual ethics training data that included active  duty, reserve, and civilian personnel reported to the Office of Government  Ethics by the 17 DOD Designated Agency Ethics Officials, excluding the  National Security Agency. These are the most current data available on  annual ethics training, and they are the data used by the Office of  Government Ethics to determine DOD’s compliance with the annual  training requirement for financial disclosure filers. We did not assess the  reliability of these data, but we have included them in the report to provide  context. We did not use these data to support our findings, conclusions,  or recommendations. To determine the percentage of DOD personnel  who have completed annual ethics training, we obtained Fiscal Year 2014  data from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) on  the number of DOD personnel, including active duty and reserve  component military personnel and civilian full-time equivalents. We also  reviewed relevant literature to identify ethics-related issues and best  practices within DOD, and we met with foreign military officials, defense  industry organizations, and commercial firms that we identified during our  preliminary research and in discussion with DOD officials as having  experience in implementing and evaluating compliance-based or values- based ethics programs in the public and private sectors, both  domestically and internationally, to define the concept of values-based  ethics and to gather lessons learned from values-based ethics program  implementation. A full listing of these organizations can be found in table  5.
To evaluate DOD’s tools and performance metrics for identifying,  assessing, and measuring its progress in addressing ethics and  professionalism issues, we examined assessment tools identified by DOD  as containing ethics-related content, including command climate surveys  and 360-degree assessments. We used content analysis to review and  assess actions the department has taken to implement and use the  results of command climate and 360-degree assessments in accordance  with statutory requirements and departmental guidance. These  requirements pertain to the implementation, tracking, and targeting of  these tools, among other things. To do this, we met with officials from the  Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military services, and the Joint  Staff to obtain information on the status of their efforts to implement and  track command climate assessments, and to develop and implement 360- degree assessments for general and flag officers in accordance with  statutory requirements and departmental initiatives. We then assessed  guidance and instructions developed by the military services and the Joint  Staff to determine whether they addressed each of the statutory  requirements and departmental guidance related to command climate  assessments and 360-degree assessments.
To ensure accuracy, one GAO analyst conducted the initial content  analysis by coding the military services’ and the Joint Staff’s actions with  respect to each requirement, and a GAO attorney then checked the  analysis for accuracy. We determined that command climate guidance  and instructions addressed a statutory or departmental requirement if it  addressed each aspect of the requirement. Similarly, we determined the  extent to which the military services and the Joint Staff had developed  and implemented 360-degree assessments for all general and flag  officers by evaluating the steps they had taken to develop and implement  these tools for each general and flag officer rank within each organization.  Any disagreements in the coding were discussed and reconciled by the  analyst and attorney. We also spoke with officials within the Office of the  Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the military services to identify  performance metrics that could be used by the department to measure its  progress in addressing ethics and professionalism issues, and we  assessed the department’s efforts to identify such metrics against federal  internal control standards and our prior work on performance  measurement leading practices.
In addressing both of our audit objectives, we interviewed officials from  the organizations identified in table 5.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2014 to  September 2015 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Timeline of Key Department of Defense Ethics and Professionalism Events, 2007-2015
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Marc Schwartz, Assistant  Director; Tracy Barnes; Ryan D’Amore; Leia Dickerson; Tyler Kent; Jim  Lager; Amie Lesser; Leigh Ann Sheffield; Michael Silver; Christal Ann  Simanski; Cheryl Weissman; and Erik Wilkins-McKee made key  contributions to this report.