Military Bands: Military Services Should Enhance Efforts to Measure Performance
Released: 2017-08-10T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) uses military bands to enhance the morale of the troops, provide music for ceremonies, and promote public awareness. Bands across the military services support a range of activities, including funerals for military service members, events attended by high-level officials, and community-relations activities such as parades. In fiscal year 2013, DOD restricted its community-relations activities, including placing travel restrictions on bands, as a result of the sequestration ordered in March 2013. DOD reinstated community-relations activities at a reduced capacity in fiscal year 2014.

House Report 114-537 included a provision for GAO to review DOD's requirement for military bands. This report (1) describes the trends in personnel and costs for bands from fiscal year 2012 through 2016, and (2) assesses the extent to which the military services have evaluated how the bands are addressing their missions, among other objectives.

GAO analyzed data from the military services on military band personnel and reported operating costs of bands. GAO also reviewed the military services' guidance and approaches to evaluating their bands and interviewed band program officials at the military services.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: All of the military services reported reducing the number of military band personnel from fiscal year 2012 through 2016, but trends in total reported operating costs for the bands, such as travel and equipment expenses, varied across the services. Total military personnel dedicated to bands decreased from 7,196 in fiscal year 2012 to 6,656 in fiscal year 2016, or 7.5 percent (see figure). The Navy and Air Force reported that their total operating costs for bands over this period increased by $4.1 million and $1.6 million, respectively, and the Marine Corps reported that its costs declined by about $800,000. The Army did not have complete cost data for its reserve bands, but reported that the operating costs of its active-duty and National Guard bands declined by $3.6 million and about $500,000, respectively, from fiscal year 2012 through 2016.

The military services have not developed objectives and measures to assess how their bands are addressing the bands' missions, such as inspiring patriotism and enhancing the morale of troops. All four military services have tracked information, such as the number and type of band events. Further, military-service officials cited the demand for band performances, anecdotal examples, and support from senior leadership, as ways to demonstrate the bands are addressing their missions. However, the military services' approaches do not include measurable objectives or performance measures that have several important attributes, such as linkage to mission, a baseline, and measurable targets, that GAO has found are key to successfully measuring a program's performance. Military band officials cited the difficulty and resources required to quantify how the bands are addressing their missions, but the military services are taking steps to improve how they track information on band events to measure the bands' effectiveness. GAO believes these key steps could inform and guide the services' efforts to develop and implement measurable objectives and performance measures. Doing so could provide decision makers with the information they need to assess the value of the military bands relative to resource demands for other priorities.

section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force each develop and implement measurable objectives and performance measures for their bands. DOD concurred with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) uses military bands to, among other  things, inspire patriotism, enhance the morale of the troops, promote  public awareness, provide music for ceremonies, and support recruiting  and retention. To do so, bands across the military services—Army, Navy,  Marine Corps, and Air Force—support a range of activities, including  funerals for military service members, events where high-level officials  such as the President are in attendance, and community-relations  activities such as parades in local communities. When DOD was required  to reduce its discretionary budget due to the sequestration ordered in  March 2013, the department restricted its community-relations activities to  ensure that funding was available for wartime operations and critical  priority requirements for national security. These restrictions included  prohibiting military bands from traveling outside their local areas for  community-relations events. In fiscal year 2014, DOD reinstated  community-relations activities at a reduced capacity.

The House Armed Services Committee Report accompanying H.R. 4909  included a provision that we review DOD’s requirement for military bands. In this report, we (1) describe trends in personnel and costs for  military bands from fiscal year 2012 through 2016, (2) describe the factors  considered by the military services to determine the size and location of  bands, and (3) assess the extent to which the military services have  evaluated how the military bands are addressing their missions.

To describe trends in personnel and costs, we obtained data from the  military services on the number of bands, military personnel  authorizations dedicated to the bands, and the total reported operating  costs for the bands from fiscal year 2012 through 2016. We selected this  date range because fiscal year 2012 was the fiscal year prior to  sequestration in fiscal year 2013, and fiscal year 2016 was the most  recent full fiscal year at the time of our review. We also obtained data  from the Defense Manpower Data Center on military personnel who had a  military occupational specialty as a band member in calendar years 2012  through 2016 and analyzed data on certain personnel costs from the  Defense Finance and Accounting Service for that period. These  personnel costs include basic pay, basic allowance for subsistence, basic  allowance for housing, and other special pays and allowances, which we  refer to collectively as pay and allowance costs for the purposes of our  report. However, we were not able to obtain data that were sufficiently  reliable for determining the costs of reserve-component military band  personnel from calendar year 2012 through 2016 in time for our review,  and therefore only report on these costs for the active component. We  selected a nongeneralizable sample of six bands based on their military  service, component (whether the band was active duty, National Guard,  or reserve), size, type of band, and geographic location, and interviewed  their commanders to understand the nature of their bands’ costs and  operations. Observations from these interviews are not generalizable to  all military bands. We also interviewed officials with responsibilities for  providing guidance to their respective band programs as well as force- structure or budget officials at all of the military services on changes in  the structure or costs of military bands over time.

To better understand the types of facility and transportation resources  bands have, we sent a questionnaire to Army, Marine Corps, and Air  Force bands actively performing in fiscal year 2017 and to the Executive  Officer of the U.S. Navy Band and the Director of Navy Fleet Band  Activities. The Executive Officer of the U.S. Navy Band or Director of  Navy Fleet Band Activities completed questionnaires on behalf of each  Navy band actively performing in fiscal year 2017 because the Navy  centrally manages the operations of its bands. For the other three  services, the individual bands completed the questionnaire. We received  responses for 129 of the 134 bands or band operating locations (or 96  percent). We describe our questionnaire development and analysis  process in appendix I and report on the types of facilities and  transportation resources the bands had in appendix II.

To describe the factors considered by the military services to determine  the size and location of bands, we reviewed relevant military-service  guidance and available documentation on the number of members in  military bands and their location. In addition, we interviewed band  program officials about the factors that the military services have used to  determine the size and location of their military bands. We also  interviewed officials from each service knowledgeable about how military  bands are considered in force sizing and resourcing processes to discuss  the services’ processes for reviewing the size of and ongoing needs for  their bands.

To assess the extent military services have evaluated how military bands  are addressing their missions, we reviewed military-service guidance on  the missions of the bands and the extent to which the military services  track information related to events performed by bands. We obtained data  from the military services on the number and types of events performed  by military bands in fiscal year 2016—the most recent full year such data  were available—as well as available data on event requests declined and  the estimated number of audience members in attendance at events. As  part of the questionnaire described above, we asked the military bands to  identify the type of information they track on their events and examples of  how they have made changes to their future events as a result of tracking  this information. We also interviewed military-service band program  officials on how they determine that their bands are addressing their  missions and the extent to which the military services have established  measurable objectives and performance measures for their bands to  determine how military bands are addressing their missions. We  assessed the military services’ efforts to evaluate how bands are  addressing their missions against GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government regarding defining objectives and GAO’s  important attributes of successful performance measures.

To assess the reliability of the data we used in this report, we reviewed  corroborating documentation; analyzed the data for inconsistencies,  incomplete data fields, and outliers; reviewed relevant documentation  about data systems or databases used to generate the data; and  interviewed military-service officials about the reliability of the data. We  discussed limitations we identified with DOD or military-service officials  and noted any limitations in the report, where appropriate. We determined  that the data were sufficiently reliable to describe the trends in the  number of military bands, the number of military personnel authorizations  dedicated to bands, and the total reported operating costs for military  service components’ bands, except for the Army Reserve, from fiscal year  2012 through 2016; the trends in pay and allowances for active-duty  military personnel dedicated to military bands from calendar year 2012  through 2016; and context about the number of events performed by  military bands, the number of event requests declined, and the estimated  number of audience members in attendance at band events, in fiscal year  2016. We identified some data limitations, which we discuss in this  report.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2016 to August  2017 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: Band Types and Structure
paragraphs: The military services have two types of bands: (1) premier and specialty  bands and (2) regional and field bands. The premier and specialty  bands are predominately located in the National Capital Region and have  a ceremonial mission, but they also engage in community-relations  activities. For example, the bands’ performances include ceremonies at  Arlington National Cemetery and events where high-level officials—such  as the President and the military service Secretary and Chief of Staff— are in attendance. The regional and field bands are located throughout  the United States and worldwide, and provide musical support to military  units or commands by fulfilling ceremonial missions, participating in  community-relations events, and performing for military service members.

Bands typically consist of multiple musical groups, such as a ceremonial  band, brass quintet, and popular music group. Figure 1 describes  examples of the different types of musical groups a band may have.

section_title: Roles and Responsibilities of Organizations and Personnel Related to Military Bands
paragraphs: The Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs  establishes policies and implementation guidance for DOD’s public affairs  programs, including community-relations activities. In this role, the  Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs  oversees the execution and movement of military bands to support  community-relations activities.

The services vary in their structures for managing their bands. The Navy  centrally manages its band program, while the Army, Marine Corps, and  Air Force have decentralized management of their bands. All Navy  regional and field bands and the U.S. Naval Academy Band are field  activities of the U.S. Navy Band. The U.S. Navy Band also provides  funding to the Navy’s regional and field bands through Fleet Band  Activities, while the Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy provides  funding to the U.S. Naval Academy Band. The Army, Marine Corps, and  Air Force have service headquarters-level organizations that manage  their band programs, but their service guidance provides that local  commands maintain control over and provide funding for their bands.  Table 1 identifies Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force offices that  manage their military service’s bands, and summarizes the offices’  responsibilities.

The band members’ roles and responsibilities related to training and  deployment vary across the services. Members of all bands except for the  U.S. Marine Band—“The President’s Own” complete basic training and  ongoing physical fitness requirements. Their responsibilities for deploying  to a combat environment and whether they perform nonmusical duties in  combat environments vary by service and the type of band. Except for the  Marine Corps, the primary mission of band members who deploy is to  perform music. Marine Corps band members, according to band program  officials, provide perimeter security or support convoy operations when  deployed to a combat environment. In addition, according to military- service band program officials, members of Army National Guard and Air  National Guard bands can be called upon to assist other Air and Army  National Guard units with civil-defense duties and disaster-relief efforts.  Table 2 shows the basic training, ongoing physical fitness, and combat  environment requirements for the military services’ bands.

section_title: All Military Services Have Reduced the Number of Bands and Band Personnel since 2012, but Total Operating Cost Trends Varied across the Services
paragraphs: The military services reduced their number of bands by 9.3 percent, and  also reduced military personnel authorizations dedicated to bands by 7.5  percent, from fiscal year 2012 through 2016. Over the same period, the  Navy and Air Force reported increases in their total operating costs for  bands, while the Marine Corps reported that its costs declined. The Army  did not have complete data for the operating costs of its reserve bands  from fiscal year 2012 through 2015, but reported declines in total  operating costs for its active-duty and National Guard bands. Pay and  allowance costs of active-duty military personnel dedicated to bands  decreased from calendar year 2012 through 2016 for all of the military  services, consistent with the reductions in military personnel  authorizations dedicated to active-duty bands.
subsections: section_title: The Number of Military Bands and Authorized Military Personnel Decreased across All Military Services from Fiscal Year 2012 through 2016
subsections: section_title: Number of Bands
paragraphs: The number of bands in the four military services decreased from 150 in  fiscal year 2012 to 136 in fiscal year 2016, a decline of 9.3 percent (see  table 3). The extent of reductions in the number of bands varied by  service, with the Air Force reporting the largest decrease and the Army  reporting the smallest decrease in the number of bands from fiscal year  2012 through 2016.

From fiscal year 2012 through 2016, according to military-service data  and officials, total military personnel authorizations dedicated to bands  decreased by 7.5 percent—from 7,196 in fiscal year 2012 to 6,656 in  fiscal year 2016 (see table 4). The extent of reductions in military  personnel authorizations varied by service and component. For example,  the total number of military personnel authorizations dedicated to Air  National Guard bands declined from 320 to 200—or 37.5 percent—from  fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016, while the total for Army Reserve  and National Guard bands stayed the same in that period. According to  military-service officials, resource constraints have led to past reductions  in the size of their bands.

Our analysis shows that the total military personnel authorizations  dedicated to bands account for a relatively small amount of the military  services’ end-strength authorizations, and have decreased at a similar  rate compared to total service end-strength authorizations from fiscal year  2012 through 2016. Specifically, in fiscal years 2012 through 2016, the  number of military personnel authorizations dedicated to bands was less than half a percent of the military services’ end strength for all services. In  addition, the total number of military personnel authorizations dedicated  to bands declined by 7.5 percent compared to a 6.6 percent decline in  personnel authorizations overall (from 2.3 million authorizations in fiscal  year 2012 to 2.1 million authorizations in fiscal year 2016) across the four  military services over this period.

section_title: Future Changes to the Number of Bands and Total Band Personnel
paragraphs: The Army plans to reduce the number of bands and military band  personnel from fiscal year 2017 through 2019. The Army plans to close  12 bands—8 active-duty bands and 4 reserve bands—and reduce the  number of personnel authorizations dedicated to 43 National Guard  bands over this period. As a result of these reductions, the Army plans to  reduce the total number of military personnel authorizations dedicated to  Army bands from 4,497 in fiscal year 2016 to 3,865 in fiscal year 2019, or  by about 14 percent (see table 5). The other three services do not have  plans to change the number or size of their bands at this time, according  to service officials.

section_title: Trends in Total Reported Operating Costs Varied across the Military Services, and Active-Duty Military Personnel Costs Have Decreased Consistent with Personnel Reductions Reported Operating Costs for Fiscal Years 2012 through 2016
paragraphs: The Navy and Air Force reported that the total operating costs of their  bands increased from fiscal year 2012 through 2016, and the Marine  Corps reported decreased costs over this period. The Army did not have  complete data for its reserve bands from fiscal year 2012 through 2015,  but reported decreases in total operating costs for its active-duty and  National Guard bands. Operating costs for the bands include expenses  not related to military personnel, such as travel, transportation,  instruments, uniforms, office supplies, and civilian salaries. According to  military-service band program officials, the military services use  operations and maintenance appropriations to fund their band  programs. At the component level, the Army active-duty, Army National  Guard, Marine Corps active-duty, and Air National Guard bands reported  decreases in their total operating costs from fiscal year 2012 through  2016, and the Navy active-duty and Air Force active-duty bands reported  increases in their costs in the same period (see table 6).

Navy band program officials stated that their bands’ operating costs  increased in part because the band program was not adequately funded  to meet its mission in fiscal years 2012 through 2014 prior to the band  program’s reorganization in fiscal year 2015. In addition, the officials  stated that the U.S. Navy Band had onetime renovation costs of $749,000  in fiscal year 2016 for its office facilities and had to increase civilian and  contractor staffing to meet its new command responsibilities as a result of  the band program’s reorganization. An Air Force band program official  stated that local commands are responsible for funding their bands, so  bands may have had unique circumstances that led to increases in costs  over time. For example, the official noted that after Bolling Air Force Base  transitioned to Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, the band at that location  became responsible for funding such things as building maintenance for  its facilities on the base. The official stated that the band was not  previously responsible for these expenses, which, in part, led to increases  in the band’s funding in fiscal years 2014 through 2016.

Travel and equipment expenses are among the highest-operating cost  areas for individual bands, according to military-service band program  officials. Bands travel throughout their areas of operations or  responsibility to perform at events. In addition, according to military- service guidance or band program officials, bands maintain professional- grade instruments for their band members. Band program officials or  band commanders we met with noted that band members need to have  professional-grade instruments for several reasons, including working at a  high number of events in a range of weather conditions and a variety of  venues, such as an indoor reception or an outdoor parade. One band  commander we met with stated that the band’s travel costs were about  $364,000 in fiscal year 2016, accounting for 43 percent of the band’s total  costs of about $850,000. That same band commander stated that the  band’s supply costs, such as instruments, instrument supplies, and  uniforms, were at least about $142,000, or at least 17 percent of the  band’s total costs in fiscal year 2016. For another band, the band  commander we met with reported that travel costs were about $228,000,  or 68 percent of the band’s total costs of about $338,000 in fiscal year  2016, while the band’s costs of purchasing instruments, instrument  supplies, sheet music, and sound supplies were about $92,000, or 27  percent of the band’s total costs.
subsections: section_title: Active-Duty Military Personnel Pay and Allowance Costs for Calendar Years 2012 to 2016
paragraphs: According to data from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, pay  and allowance costs of active-duty military personnel dedicated to bands  decreased from calendar year 2012 through 2016 for all of the military  services (see table 7). Although a direct comparison with personnel  authorizations is not possible because the personnel counts above are in  fiscal years and pay and allowance costs were reported by DOD in  calendar years, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force reduced  pay and allowance costs over time consistent with the overall decrease of  10 percent in personnel authorizations dedicated to active-duty bands  from fiscal year 2012 through 2016.

We were not able to obtain data that were sufficiently reliable for  determining trends in the pay and allowance costs of military personnel  dedicated to National Guard and reserve bands in the Army and Air  National Guard bands in the Air Force in time for our review. For  example, in calendar years 2012 through 2016, the Defense Finance and  Accounting Service could not identify pay and allowance data for between  about 6 and 24 percent of the military personnel that the Defense  Manpower Data Center reported were dedicated to Army National Guard  bands in those years.

section_title: Military Services Consider Instrumentation and Regional or Command Needs to Determine the Size and Location of Bands, and Assess Ongoing Needs through Existing Force-Structure and Budget Reviews
paragraphs: The military services consider the instrumentation needed to perform at  required events, as well as needs of the region or command to which a  band is assigned, to determine the size and location of their military  bands. In addition, the military services assess the overall size of, and  ongoing needs for, their bands through existing force-structure and  budget review processes, typically in response to proposed resource  reductions.
subsections: section_title: Military Services Consider Instrumentation Needed to Perform at Required Events to Organize Their Bands
paragraphs: The military services consider the instrumentation needed to perform at a  variety of required events to organize their bands. According to military- service band program officials, the premier and specialty bands tend to  be larger than regional and field bands because of the bands’ unique  missions and the number and types of high-profile events these bands  perform. In fiscal year 2016, the premier and specialty bands ranged in  size from 35 to 252 military personnel authorizations. According to  military-service guidance or band program officials, the military services  organize their premier and specialty bands so that each band consists of  multiple musical groups to meet a variety of musical requirements. These  groups can range from a large concert band to smaller musical groups,  such as a rock band, and can perform simultaneously at different venues.  For example, Army force-structure and band program officials stated that  the U.S. Army Band—“Pershing’s Own,” which had 252 military personnel  authorizations dedicated to the band in fiscal year 2016, has seven  musical groups that performed a total of about 6,000 events in fiscal year  2016, according to data from the Army. According to these officials, the  musical groups include a 54-member ceremonial band that supports  official government events and military funerals at Arlington National  Cemetery, a 54-member concert band that performs at official and public  engagements, and the 16-member Herald Trumpets ensemble,  comprised of 14 trumpet players and 2 drummers, that performs at the  White House to welcome foreign ambassadors and visiting heads of  state.

Regional and field bands are generally smaller than premier and specialty  bands and, with the exception of one 15-member band in the Air Force,  ranged in size from 35 to 75 military personnel authorizations in fiscal  year 2016. Similar to the premier and specialty bands, the military  services have organized these bands with multiple musical groups to  perform at required events. For example, Air Force guidance states that  regional and field bands must have a sufficient number of band members  to support State Funeral Plans and deployments, and to ensure the  bands have adequate personnel for assignment rotations both within and  outside of the United States. In the case of the Marine Corps, officials  stated that each regional and field band needed to be the size of a rifle  platoon to meet its ceremonial requirements and because band members  may deploy to support combat operations. Figure 2 shows the  organization of a 35-member Navy band, illustrating how a military band  is organized into multiple groups to meet its musical requirements.

section_title: Regional and Field Band Locations Are Determined Based on Command Assignments or Regional Needs
paragraphs: The military services have generally determined the location of their  regional and field bands based on the command or region the bands  support. Appendixes III and IV include a map showing the location of  active-duty and reserve-component bands, respectively, in fiscal year  2016.

Army— Army guidance provides rules of allocation and stationing for  regional and field bands. The guidance allows planners to determine  required resources and personnel to execute music support operations  and identify stationing and mission command relationships. Allocations  and stationing are based on the type of organization being supported,  such as division headquarters or training centers, as well as the number  of brigades. According to the Army, the Army has assigned its active-duty  regional and field bands to division commands and training centers, and  its National Guard and reserve regional and field bands geographically  based on factors such as (1) population centers to support recruitment  and retention of Army musicians and (2) the location of troop and veteran  populations in the states and territories. For example, an Army Reserve  band is located in Los Angeles County, California, which had the highest  estimated number of veterans in the United States as of the end of fiscal  year 2015, and an Army National Guard band is located in Maricopa  County, Arizona, which had the second-highest estimated number of  veterans in the United States.

Navy—According to Navy band program officials, the Navy’s regional and  field bands are located in the largest fleet or headquarters locations. Each  of the regional and field bands located within the contiguous United  States has a geographic area of responsibility, while the operational  commanders define the geographic areas of responsibility for the regional  and field bands in Hawaii, Italy, and Japan.

Marine Corps—A Marine Corps band program official stated that the  Marine Corps has assigned its regional and field bands to major  commands. Marine Corps guidance requires the commanding general of  the commands to which bands are assigned to determine the size of each  band’s area of responsibility for performing events, which the guidance  defines as the geographic area in which an installation, its units, and  personnel have an economic and social impact. For example, the  commanding general of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, located in San  Diego, California, established its band’s area of responsibility for military  and civilian events as within a 100-mile radius of the installation, to  include other specific Marine Corps units outside of this radius, such as  the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Arizona. A band program official  stated that the Marine Corps regional and field bands are located at major  commands to provide ceremonial support to the largest number of  Marines and subordinate commands.

Air Force—According to Air Force band program officials, the Air Force  has assigned its active-duty regional and field bands to major commands  and generally located Air National Guard bands in states with higher  numbers of Air National Guard wings. Air Force guidance assigns a  geographic area of responsibility to the active-duty and Air National  Guard regional and field bands located within the contiguous United  States, while the commands for the two bands located in Germany and  Japan assign their bands’ geographic areas of responsibility. Air Force  band program officials noted that they have also kept the active-duty  bands located with major commands, in part, because they are spread  out evenly across the United States where the bands can reach large  population centers.

section_title: Military Services Consider the Number and Size of Bands and Ongoing Needs as Part of Their Existing Force-Structure and Budget Review Processes
paragraphs: The military services consider the overall size of, and ongoing needs for,  their military bands through existing force-structure and budget reviews.  In the past, the services have generally assessed the size of their bands  in response to proposed resource reductions; however, Army force- structure officials stated that the Army plans to make recommendations  based on a review of its music structure by the end of fiscal year 2017.

Army—The Army reviews the number and size of its bands through its  annual Total Army Analysis process, during which the Army determines  how it allocates its end strength among its units. Army force-structure  officials stated that they have considered several factors when making  force-structure decisions regarding band numbers and size, including  senior-leader priorities, critical mission needs for other organizations, and  the location of other military bands. For example, Army force-structure  officials stated that having an Air Force band in San Antonio, Texas, was  a factor in the Army’s plans to close an Army band in San Antonio in fiscal  year 2019. In February 2017, the Director of the Army Staff directed the  Commander of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command and the  Chief of Army Music to conduct a comprehensive review of the Army’s  music structure, including determining the proper organization, mission  and goals, functions, priorities, and management oversight for Army  bands. Army force-structure officials stated that the recommendations  from that review will be made to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army by the  end of fiscal year 2017.

Navy—Navy manpower officials stated that the Navy considers the  number and size of Navy bands as part of the service’s annual budget- development process. During the fiscal year 2012 budget-development  process, the Navy decided to reduce the size of its bands to offset  resource needs for other programs because of reductions to the Navy’s  overall end strength, according to Navy manpower officials. Subsequent  to the decision to make these reductions, the Navy reorganized its band  program effective in fiscal year 2015, in part because Navy band program  officials wanted to ensure that all Navy bands had a sufficient number of  band members to meet their primary mission of performing ceremonies.

Marine Corps—Marine Corps officials stated that they consider their  bands as part of reviews of total force structure. In fiscal year 2013, after  a force-structure review, the Marine Corps closed two regional and field  bands because of budget reductions. In addition, in March 2017, a Marine  Corps force-structure official stated that in an ongoing review officials had  considered reducing the size of bands to offset increases in end strength  needed to support other new Marine Corps capabilities. However, the  official stated that the Marine Corps decided not to reduce the size of  bands because senior officials recognized how much the bands are used  by commands; also, the leadership noted the value of the bands to troop  welfare and to community relations, and noted band members’ secondary  role of providing perimeter security in combat.

Air Force—Air Force manpower officials stated that the Air Force reviews  the number and size of its bands through its annual budget-development  process. From fiscal year 2012 to 2014, the Air Force closed three active- duty and six Air National Guard regional and field bands to address  budget reductions or to offset increases for other mission needs,  according to band program officials. During the fiscal year 2015 budget- development process, the Air Force Bands Division submitted four  options for reducing the number and size of bands that took into  consideration, among other things, the reduced support to major  commands and the number of outreach opportunities missed to connect  with industry leaders and the public in the areas that would no longer  have band support. However, the Air Force did not implement any of  these options. Air Force manpower officials noted that, when the Air  Force has proposed past reductions, the commanders and community  leaders strongly advocated for maintaining bands assigned to their  command and local areas because of the bands’ effect on troop morale  and community relations.

section_title: Military Services Have Tracked and Used Information on Band Events but They Have Not Developed Objectives and Measures to Assess How Bands Are Addressing Their Missions
paragraphs: The military services have tracked and used information on band events;  however, the services have not developed objectives and measures to  assess how their bands are addressing the bands’ missions, such as  inspiring patriotism, enhancing the morale of troops, and promoting U.S.  interests abroad.
subsections: section_title: Military Services Have Tracked Information on Band Events, and Bands Reported Using This Information to Plan and Improve Future Events
paragraphs: All four military services have tracked information, such as the number  and type of band events, and military bands reported using this  information to aid their planning for any improvements at future events.  The type of tracked information varies, but all services at a minimum track  the number and types of events the bands have performed, as well as the  number of audience members at these events and broadcast audience  counts. In addition, the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force track the  number of event requests their bands are not able to fulfill. Military bands  generally enter this information into a database or regularly report the  information to the services’ band program offices. We found that the  number of audience members varies widely depending on the type of  event. For example, according to Air Force data, one of the U.S. Air Force  Band’s musical groups performed at the Super Bowl in 2016 in front of an  estimated 71,000 ticketholders, while another musical group performed at  a service member’s promotion ceremony that had an estimated 75 people  in attendance. Table 8 shows the reported number of events performed  by the military bands, the number of event requests that were declined,  and the estimated number of audience members at events in fiscal year  2016, according to data collected by the military services.

Each military service categorizes the types of events performed by its  bands differently. The Army, Navy, and Air Force track several specific  categories for the types of events their bands perform. For example, the  Army tracks, among other categories, the number of funerals performed,  which accounted for 35 percent of the events Army bands performed in  fiscal year 2016 according to Army data. The Marine Corps categorizes  the types of events its regional and field bands perform more broadly as  either “Military” or “Civilian,” and reported that 79 percent and 21 percent  of the events performed by these bands in fiscal year 2016 were “Military”  and “Civilian,” respectively.

Military bands perform at a variety of events, such as military ceremonies,  community events or parades, and funerals for service members.  According to band commanders we met with, their bands prioritize  performing at military ceremonies or events where service members are  in attendance. In addition, the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of  Defense for Public Affairs issues an annual outreach planning document  that articulates, for the upcoming fiscal year, (1) the military services’  priorities for community-relations activities, (2) key resources available for  use, (3) summary details about known and anticipated activities, and (4)  certain cost information for the identified activities.

The responses to our questionnaire showed how individual bands track  and use information to plan future events. According to their responses,  101 of 125 bands (or 81 percent) responded that they track social-media  analytics, such as frequency of mentions on Facebook. In addition, we  found that bands use their band websites, Facebook, Twitter, and  YouTube to expand the reach of their events. For example, in November  2016, the U.S. Army Field Band posted a YouTube video of the band’s  performance of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” that had about 1.6  million views as of June 2017. The U.S. Air Force Band also posted a  YouTube video in December 2015 of an event at Union Station in  Washington, D.C., that had about 4 million views as of June 2017. The  military bands that responded to our questionnaire identified the following  examples of how they used tracked information to make changes to their  performances:

An Army band reported changing the timing of summer concerts from  Sundays to Saturdays to meet its audiences’ preference.

An Air Force band determined that audience members wanted an  overall entertainment product with performances using lighting,  staging, and other elements—rather than just music.

An Army band stationed in a foreign country determined that  audiences wanted mostly small-group performances, local pop music,  and other music that caters to both U.S. and local national audiences.

section_title: Military Services Have Not Developed Objectives and Performance Measures to Assess How Their Bands Are Addressing the Bands’ Missions
paragraphs: While the military services have tracked information on the events their  bands performed, they have not developed objectives and performance  measures to assess how their bands are addressing the bands’ missions,  such as inspiring patriotism, enhancing the morale of troops, and  promoting U.S. interests abroad. Table 9 shows the missions for the  military bands, according to military-service guidance. In May 2017,  officials from the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for  Public Affairs stated that DOD is revising its guidance for community- relations policy implementation to incorporate an overarching mission for  military bands.

Band program officials cited several examples of how they can determine  that their bands are addressing their missions.

Indicators of demand—Band program officials noted that the  audience counts and number of declined event requests as cited  above indicate the demand for their events and that the demand  exceeds supply. Air National Guard band program officials stated that  in addition to the counts of performances cited above, Air National  Guard bands survey audiences during summer tours to understand  how their bands are received by the general public. For example,  based on responses to these surveys in 2016, program officials  reported that 1,135 (or 98 percent) of 1,154 survey respondents  stated that they had a better understanding of the federal and state  missions of the Air National Guard after attending the bands’  performances.

Examples of effectiveness—Military service band program officials  cited examples where bands were used to address specific  challenges or objectives in their local area of operations. Air Force  band program officials provided an example where recruiters at a  base had difficulty recruiting diverse service members, so in March  2016 an Air Force band performed recruiting concerts at local  schools; the result was the band reached 7,000 students, and  recruiters reported an increase in queries after these events.

Support from senior leadership—Officials from all of the military- service band programs stated that senior leadership has supported  the bands’ missions, citing how bands aid in outreach to troops,  communities, or international audiences. For example, Navy and Air  Force band program officials stated that senior leadership has noted  how performances by bands can be an initial step towards improving  relationships with foreign nations. The Commanding Officer of the  U.S. Navy Band provided an example where the Chairman of the  Joint Chiefs of Staff hosted a delegation from a foreign nation that had  tense relations with the United States at the time. According to the  Commanding Officer, the U.S. Navy Band’s chorus provided after- dinner entertainment, and as part of the performance, sang one of the  foreign nation’s folk songs in the native language, which was  videotaped, posted on YouTube, and had over 1.1 million views.

While these examples provide important context about the bands’ reach  and impact, the approaches do not include measurable objectives nor  exhibit several of the important attributes performance measures should  include. GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  states that management should define objectives in specific and  measurable terms so they are understood at all levels of the entity and  that performance towards achieving those objectives can be assessed.  In addition, the standards state that management should establish  activities to monitor performance measures. GAO has developed several  important attributes that performance measures should include if they are  to be effective in monitoring progress and determining how well programs  are achieving their mission, such as performance measures being clear,  objective, and measurable, and having baseline and trend data to identify,  monitor, and report changes in performance and to help ensure that  performance is viewed in context. Table 10 identifies each attribute and  its corresponding definition.

However, we found that the services have not developed objectives and  performance measures that include several of the important attributes for  successful performance measures to assess how their bands are  addressing the bands’ missions. Specifically, the services’ approaches do  not exhibit the linkage attribute in that there is not clear alignment  between the information and how it affects the bands’ ability to achieve  their missions. GAO’s key attributes state that linkages between an  organization’s mission and measures are most effective when they are  clearly communicated and create a line of sight so that everyone  understands how their work contributes to the organization’s efforts. Also,  the military services have not established a baseline for the information,  so they are not able to assess the program’s performance and progress  over time. Identifying and reporting deviations from the baseline as a  program proceeds provides valuable information for oversight by  identifying areas of program risk and their causes to decision makers.  Lastly, the services’ approaches are not using the GAO attribute of  measurable targets to facilitate future assessments of whether overall  objectives were achieved.

Officials from all of the military-service band program offices stated that  they have not quantified whether their bands are addressing their  missions because the bands’ missions, such as inspiring patriotism,  enhancing the morale of troops, and promoting U.S. interests abroad, are  not quantitatively measurable. While we believe that inspiring patriotism  and enhancing the morale of troops could be quantitatively measured  through techniques such as surveys and focus groups, band program  officials stated, and we recognize, that they have limited resources to  conduct these types of activities. We also acknowledge that evaluating  how the bands are addressing their missions is difficult. However, using  the information the military services already track, such as the number of  events performed or the number of audience members in attendance, the  services could, for example, develop a baseline assessment for current  performance, set measurable targets, and monitor trends over time to  assess progress.

DOD and the services are taking steps to improve how they track  information on events to measure the effectiveness of military bands. In  September 2016, the Chief of Army Music established an Army Music  Analytics Team to define and gather data points to regularly collect  information from Army bands to report quantifiable effects on event  performance, audience engagement, and messaging. In June 2017, an  Army band program official stated that the team has expanded its scope  to collaborate with academia and industry to obtain insights and identify  metrics that can be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of Army bands.  Also, in response to our review, officials from the Office of the Assistant to  the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs stated that they met with  service band program officials and band commanders to establish  standard metrics to collect on events performed by bands. According to  these officials, DOD plans to include these metrics in its guidance on  community-relations policy implementation.

DOD’s and the services’ actions represent key steps that can inform and  guide efforts to establish measurable objectives and performance  measures that include important attributes. Developing and implementing  measurable objectives and performance measures for their band  programs that demonstrate linkage to the bands’ missions, include an  established baseline of data, and have measurable targets could provide  DOD and congressional decision makers with the information they need  to assess the value of the military bands relative to resource demands for  other priorities.

section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOD uses military bands to inspire patriotism, enhance the morale of the  troops, and promote public awareness by supporting a range of activities,  including funerals for military service members, events where high-level  officials such as the President are in attendance, and community-relations  activities such as parades in local communities. However, the services  have not developed measurable objectives and performance measures  that include important attributes for successful performance measures,  including linkage, a baseline, or measurable targets, to assess how their  bands are addressing the bands’ missions. While we acknowledge that  evaluating how bands are addressing their missions is difficult, the  information the services already collect and the additional steps they have  been taking to measure their bands’ effectiveness could inform and guide  efforts to establish such measurable objectives and performance  measures that are consistent with GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government and GAO’s past work on important attributes of  performance measures. Doing so could provide information that would  assist DOD and congressional decision makers as they assess the value  of the military bands relative to resource demands for other priorities.

section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that each service can provide information to decision  makers as they assess the value of the military bands relative to resource  demands for other priorities, we recommend that the Secretaries of the  Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps,  direct the Chief of Army Music, Commanding Officer of the U.S. Navy  Band, Chief of the Air Force Bands Division, and Director of Marine Corps  Communications, respectively, each to develop and implement  measurable objectives and performance measures for their respective  services’ bands. At a minimum, these measures should include the  important attributes for successful performance measures of  demonstrating linkage to the program’s mission, establishing a baseline,  and having measurable targets to demonstrate program performance.

section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In its  written comments, reproduced in appendix V, DOD concurred with our  recommendations. DOD also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, the  Navy, and the Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (213) 830-1011 or vonaha@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix  VI.

section_title: Appendix I: Development and Analysis of GAO Military Bands Questionnaire
paragraphs: To gather information about military bands for this review, we sent a  questionnaire to Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force bands actively  performing in fiscal year 2017 and to the Executive Officer of the U.S.  Navy Band and Director of Navy Fleet Band Activities. The Executive  Officer of the U.S. Navy Band or the Director of Navy Fleet Band  Activities completed a questionnaire on behalf of each Navy band actively  performing in fiscal year 2017 because the Navy centrally manages the  operations of Navy bands. For the other three services, the individual  bands completed the questionnaire. The total number of bands or band  operating locations surveyed was 134.

As part of the questionnaire’s development, a representative from each  military service familiar with the service’s bands reviewed a draft  questionnaire for substantive issues, and a GAO survey specialist  reviewed the questionnaire for technical issues. To minimize errors that  might occur from respondents interpreting our questions differently than  we intended, we pretested our questionnaire with a Navy band program  official with responsibilities for managing the Navy music program; and  leadership from three active-duty bands from the Army, Marine Corps,  and Air Force, one Army Reserve band, and two Army National Guard  bands. During the pretests, conducted in person or by phone, we asked  the officials to read the instructions and each question out loud and to tell  us how they interpreted the question. We then discussed the instructions  and questions with officials to determine whether (1) the instructions and  questions were clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms we used were  accurate, (3) the questionnaire was unbiased, and (4) the questionnaire  did not place an undue burden on the officials completing it, and (5) to  identify potential solutions to any problems identified. We noted any  potential problems and modified the questionnaire based on the feedback  received from the reviewers and pretests, as appropriate.

To administer the questionnaire, we sent e-mail notifications to each  recipient beginning on February 6, 2017. On February 8, 2017, we sent  the questionnaire as a Microsoft Word form and a cover e-mail and asked  the recipients to fill in the questionnaire and e-mail it back to us. We  closed the survey on March 20, 2017. Overall we received completed  questionnaires for 129 bands or band operating locations, for a response  rate of 96 percent.

Because we attempted to contact all bands rather than a sample and we  are not generalizing results to any bands, there was no sampling error.  However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce  errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,  differences in how a particular question is interpreted, the sources of  information available to respondents, how the responses were processed  and analyzed, or the types of people who do not respond can influence  the accuracy of the survey results. We took steps in the development of  the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize  these nonsampling errors and help ensure the accuracy of the answers  that were obtained. For example, a social-science survey specialist  designed the questionnaire, in collaboration with analysts having subject- matter expertise. Then, as noted earlier, the draft questionnaire was  pretested to ensure that questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy  to comprehend. The questionnaire was also reviewed by military-band  subject-matter experts and a survey specialist, as mentioned above.

Data from the Word questionnaires were entered manually by a GAO  contractor, data entry was checked, and any data-entry errors were  corrected before analyses. We examined the results to identify  inconsistencies and other indications of error, and addressed such issues  as necessary. Quantitative data analyses were conducted by an analyst  using Microsoft Excel, and another analyst verified the analyses.

The verbatim wording of a key survey question whose results are  discussed in the body of this report is below.  23.  In fiscal year 2016, which of the following types of metrics, if any, did  your band track related to the engagements it performed? Please check  one box in each row.

Broadcast or streamed audience counts  Social media analytics (e.g., Facebook Likes,  Twitter retweets or favorites)

Type of engagement (e.g., civic engagement,  base support, recruiting)

Other positive or negative feedback not listed  above (please specify below)  a.  If your band has made changes to how, when, what, or where it  performs based on observations from the metrics above, please  provide examples from fiscal year 2016. The box will expand as you  type.

section_title: Appendix II: Observations on Band Facility and Transportation Resources
paragraphs: We sent a questionnaire to Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force bands  actively performing in fiscal year 2017 and to the Executive Officer of the  U.S. Navy Band and Director of Navy Fleet Band Activities to gather  information on the types of facilities and modes of transportation used by  the bands. The Executive Officer of the U.S. Navy Band or the Director of  Navy Fleet Band Activities completed questionnaires on behalf of each  Navy band actively performing in fiscal year 2017 because the Navy  centrally manages the operations of Navy bands. For the other three  services, the individual bands completed the questionnaire. Based on the  responses to our questionnaire, we made the following observations  about the bands’ facilities and transportation resources.
subsections: section_title: Band Facility Resources
paragraphs: Based on the responses to our questionnaire, the types of facilities that  bands used varied. When asked to describe the facilities used by their  band in fiscal year 2016, bands responded that their facilities included  band halls, chapels or church buildings, armories, and former base dining  halls, among others. Bands provided additional details on the facilities  they used in fiscal year 2016, including the following:

Bands reported using between one and six buildings. Premier and  specialty bands typically reported using more buildings than the  regional and field bands.

Of the 128 bands that responded, 78 (or 61 percent) stated that they  shared at least one building with another organization. In some  cases, bands responded that they shared a building but not the  band’s offices or rooms with another organization. In other cases,  bands indicated that they shared specific areas with another  organization. For example, one band reported that its rehearsal hall  was occasionally used as a classroom, while another band stated that  one of its larger musical groups rehearsed in the base dining facility.

Bands generally reported having rehearsal space, office space, and  storage space. The overall size of these three types of spaces ranged  from 260 to about 48,000 square feet. Premier and specialty bands  reported that the overall size of their rehearsal, office, and storage  space ranged from 5,000 to about 48,000 square feet, while regional  and field bands reported the overall size of these spaces ranged from  260 to over 28,000 square feet.

Four bands reported that the facilities the band used in fiscal year 2016  were built in fiscal years 2012 through 2016, which they reported had a  total cost of $56 million. In addition, 10 bands identified single projects  greater than $1 million to repair, renovate, or construct a facility for the  bands’ use that were initiated in fiscal years 2012 through 2016, which  they reported had a total cost of about $29 million. Bands also described  the projects and why they were needed. For example, one band reported  that the project provided space so that multiple music groups could train  at the same time. In another case, a band reported that renovations were  needed to correct aged facilities based on inspection results.

section_title: Band Transportation Resources
paragraphs: Based on the responses to our questionnaire, the transportation used to  travel to performances varied by band. When asked to identify the modes  of transportation the bands used to travel to performances and whether  bands had exclusive use of any vehicles in fiscal year 2016, bands  provided us with the following information:

When traveling to events, bands reported most often using (1) base  motor-pool vehicles; (2) buses, cars, vans, or trucks leased or  chartered from a private company; or (3) commercial air.

Of the 128 that responded, 69 bands (or 54 percent) stated that they  had exclusive use of certain vehicles, such as box trucks, pickup  trucks, passenger and cargo vans, and buses, among others. The  numbers of vehicles that bands had exclusive use of ranged from 1 to  24, with premier and specialty bands reporting that they had exclusive  use of more vehicles than regional and field bands. Specifically,  premier and specialty bands reported having exclusive use of 1 to 24  vehicles per band, while regional and field bands reported having  exclusive use of 1 to 8 vehicles per band.

section_title: Appendix III: Location of Active-Duty Bands in Fiscal Year 2016
paragraphs: Figure 3 shows the location of the 31 Army, 11 Navy, 12 Marine Corps,  and 9 Air Force active-duty bands in fiscal year 2016. The active-duty  bands have different areas of responsibility for performing events:

Army guidance states that a band’s geographic area of responsibility  is the same as its installation commander’s geographic area of  responsibility.

Navy guidance establishes a geographic area of responsibility for  bands located within the contiguous United States, while the  operational commanders define the geographic areas of responsibility  of the regional and field bands in Hawaii, Italy, and Japan.

Marine Corps guidance states that the commanding general of the  commands to which bands are assigned determines the size of each  band’s area of responsibility.

Air Force guidance assigns a geographic area of responsibility to its  bands located within the contiguous United States, while the  commands for the bands located in Germany and Japan assign their  bands’ geographic areas of responsibility.

section_title: Appendix IV: Location of Reserve- Component Bands in Fiscal Year 2016
paragraphs: Figure 4 shows the location of the 5 Air National Guard, 51 Army National  Guard, and 17 Army Reserve bands in fiscal year 2016. According to  military-service band program officials, members of the Air National  Guard, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve bands are on duty for  one weekend per month and 2 weeks during the summer. In addition,  these bands have different areas of responsibility for performing events:

Air Force guidance assigns a geographic area of responsibility for  each Air National Guard band.

The Army National Guard bands generally perform events within their  respective state or territory, according to Army band program officials.

According to Army band program officials, the Army has assigned the  Army Reserve bands to Army Reserve Regional Support Commands,  and these bands perform events throughout the command’s area of  responsibility.

section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense

section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact

section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report  were Margaret A. Best (Assistant Director), William J. Cordrey, Felicia M.  Lopez, Vikki L. Porter, Richard S. Powelson, Michael D. Silver, Jared A.  Sippel, Wayne J. Turowski, and Melissa A. Wohlgemuth.


Question-summary annotations: questions: question: To what extent have military services evaluated the missions of military bands?
answer: The military services have not developed objectives and measures to assess how their bands are addressing the bands' missions, such as inspiring patriotism and enhancing the morale of troops. All four military services have tracked information, such as the number and type of band events. Further, military-service officials cited the demand for band performances, anecdotal examples, and support from senior leadership, as ways to demonstrate the bands are addressing their missions.
child_questions: question: What metrics are missing from this approach?
answer: However, the military services' approaches do not include measurable objectives or performance measures that have several important attributes, such as linkage to mission, a baseline, and measurable targets, that GAO has found are key to successfully measuring a program's performance.

question: How has the military decided to improve how they track the efficacy of military bands?
answer: Military band officials cited the difficulty and resources required to quantify how the bands are addressing their missions, but the military services are taking steps to improve how they track information on band events to measure the bands' effectiveness.

question: Why does GAO believe improving upon current methods for tracking efficacy could benefit the military services?
answer: GAO believes these key steps could inform and guide the services' efforts to develop and implement measurable objectives and performance measures. Doing so could provide decision makers with the information they need to assess the value of the military bands relative to resource demands for other priorities.

questions: question: How do military bands help the troops and their image?
answer: The Department of Defense (DOD) uses military bands to enhance the morale of the troops, provide music for ceremonies, and promote public awareness.
child_questions: question: What kinds of activities do military bands do?
answer: Bands across the military services support a range of activities, including funerals for military service members, events attended by high-level officials, and community-relations activities such as parades.

question: Why did DOD restrict the community-relations activities of bands in 2013?
answer: In fiscal year 2013, DOD restricted its community-relations activities, including placing travel restrictions on bands, as a result of the sequestration ordered in March 2013.