DOD codified its DOD Executive Agent program in 2002 and issued a directive, DOD Directive 5101.1, that defines a DOD Executive Agent and establishes the roles and responsibilities governing the DOD Executive Agent assignments and arrangements. DOD officials told us that the department issued a directive for its DOD Executive Agent program in part because the term DOD Executive Agent had been used to describe a variety of management arrangements, and DOD Directive 5101.1 was intended to clarify the term. For example, in 1998, DOD identified approximately 401 Executive Agents within the military departments. However, after the directive was issued in 2002, ODCMO officials stated they worked with identified Executive Agents to determine which were to remain DOD Executive Agents under the directive. As a result, the number of activities and programs with the title of DOD Executive Agent was significantly reduced. For example, the Joint Interagency Task Force West was referred to as U.S. Pacific Command’s Executive Agent to support law enforcement for counterdrug efforts in the Asia-Pacific region. However, according to ODCMO officials, this task force was not considered to be an official DOD Executive Agent per DOD Directive 5101.1, and ODCMO officials removed its DOD Executive Agent designation. For issuances published before March 25, 2012, DOD policy is that directives are to be updated or cancelled after 10 years. ODCMO officials told us that they are in the process of updating DOD Directive 5101.1, certified current in 2003, but did not have a firm deadline for when the directive will be updated. DOD Executive Agent designations are conferred when 1) the efforts of more than one DOD component needs to be coordinated and no existing means to accomplish DOD objectives exists, 2) DOD resources need to be focused on a specific area or areas of responsibility in order to minimize duplication or redundancy, or 3) such designation is required by law, executive order, or government-wide regulation. Further, within the scope of its assigned responsibilities and functions, the authority of the DOD Executive Agent takes precedence over the authority of other DOD component officials performing related or collateral joint or multicomponent support responsibilities and functions. A DOD Executive Agent is the head of a DOD component. The DOD Executive Agent may delegate the authority to act to a subordinate designee within that official’s component. For example, the Secretary of the Army is the designated DOD Executive Agent for DOD Biometrics, and has delegated that responsibility to the Army’s Provost Marshall. DOD Directive 5101.1 assigns ODCMO the overall program management of the DOD Executive Agent program. Specifically, ODCMO oversees the implementation of the DOD Executive Agent directive, develops policy on DOD Executive Agent designations, and issues guidelines as appropriate to further define responsibilities contained in DOD Directive 5101.1. An OSD Principal Staff Assistant oversees the activities of DOD Executive Agents in their functional areas of responsibility. In addition, DOD Directive 5101.1 states that the OSD Principal Staff Assistant should assess the DOD Executive Agents in their functional areas periodically, but not less than once every 3 years, to determine the DOD Executive Agent’s continued need, currency, and effectiveness and efficiency in satisfying end-user requirements. According to ODCMO officials, these OSD Principal Staff Assistants are the Under Secretaries of Defense, the Deputy Chief Management Officer, the General Counsel of DOD, the Inspector General of DOD, and those Assistant Secretaries of Defense, Assistants to the Secretary of Defense, and OSD Directors, and equivalents, who report directly to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense. Typically, the OSD Principal Staff Assistants assess DOD Executive Agents within their functional areas. For example, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics would assess DOD Executive Agents involved in acquisition and logistics related areas, such as the DOD Executive Agents for Medical Material, Subsistence, Construction and Barrier Material, and Bulk Petroleum that are tasked with managing the logistics of supplying these products across the department. Only the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense may designate a DOD Executive Agent, and the designation remains in effect until the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense revokes or supersedes it. According to ODCMO officials, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense designates a DOD Executive Agent after an evaluation of existing organizational and management arrangements and a determination that a DOD Executive Agent would most effectively, economically, or efficiently carry out a function or task. However, according to ODCMO officials, the head of a DOD component may volunteer as a DOD Executive Agent and may formally request the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense make the assignment, or an OSD Principal Staff Assistant may propose that the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense assign a DOD component as a DOD Executive Agent. ODCMO officials stated this typically happens when a military department, defense agency, or a combatant command has substantial responsibility or expertise to execute a task on behalf of DOD, or the function is particularly sensitive or complex as differentiated from its overall organic mission. ODCMO officials also stated that DOD Executive Agent designations are typically formalized in a Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum, with direction to establish a DOD issuance to codify the specifics of the DOD Executive Agent arrangement at a later date. ODCMO officials stated that the issuance is important, as the designation of the title of DOD Executive Agent by itself confers no specific responsibilities. The nature and scope of the authority delegated must be stated in the memorandum or DOD issuance designating the DOD Executive Agent. According to ODCMO officials, funding of specific DOD Executive Agent activities is not determined at the time of assignment. Rather, the designated DOD Executive Agent seeks resources through DOD’s planning and budgeting process. Further, according to ODCMO officials, the DOD Executive Agent often bears the major share of the cost to execute the assigned responsibilities. However, ODCMO officials explained that, as necessary, funding determinations between the DOD Executive Agent and other DOD stakeholders are negotiated through memorandums of agreement or understanding and DOD’s annual program and budget review process. We determined that DOD had 81 DOD Executive Agents focused on a variety of topics and designated to 12 different DOD components, as of May 2017. Almost half (38 of 81) or 47 percent of the DOD Executive Agents are designated to the Secretary of the Army and 68 of 81, or 84 percent, were designated to the Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, or Navy or the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In contrast, six DOD components had one DOD Executive Agent designation each. Additionally, 11 different OSD Principal Staff Assistants oversee 81 DOD Executive Agents. This information is based on our analysis of ODCMO’s list of DOD Executive Agents. Figure 1 shows the DOD Executive Agent designations by DOD component and by OSD Principal Staff Assistant. According to ODCMO officials, a DOD Executive Agent designation is typically assigned to the DOD component that is already involved in the work related to the DOD Executive Agent. Below are several types of activities DOD Executive Agents perform and an example of a DOD Executive Agent that performs the activity: Administrative Support—The Secretary of the Army, as the designated DOD Executive Agent for the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command, is responsible for programming, budgeting, and funding all Military Entrance Processing Command operations. Developing Standards—The Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, as the DOD Executive Agent for Information Technology Standards, is responsible for developing and maintaining information-technology standards. Developing Training Programs—The Secretary of the Air Force, as the DOD Executive Agent for Military Working Dogs, is responsible for developing required training programs and curricula for military working-dog instructors, kennel masters, and handlers. Technology Management—The Secretary of the Navy, as the DOD Executive Agent for Printed Circuit Board and Interconnect Technology, is responsible for developing and maintaining a technology roadmap to ensure that DOD has access to manufacturing capabilities and technical expertise necessary to meet future military requirements regarding this technology. Acquisition Support—The Commandant of the Marine Corps, as the DOD Executive Agent for Non-Lethal Weapons, is responsible for coordinating nonlethal weapon requirements across doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities. Department-wide Visibility—The Secretary of the Army, as the DOD Executive Agent for the Unexploded Ordnance Center of Excellence, chairs the center and executes management oversight and funding responsibilities for the center. As part of our questionnaire for DOD Executive Agents, we asked about the reasons why DOD conferred the designation. In response, 51 percent (36 of 70) of DOD Executive Agents responding to our questionnaire reported that their designation was conferred to minimize the duplication or redundancy of DOD resources. Thirty-six percent (25 of 70) of DOD Executive Agents responding to our questionnaire reported that their designation was conferred because no other means existed for the department to accomplish its objective. Finally, 26 percent (18 of 70) of DOD Executive Agents responding to our questionnaire reported that their designation was conferred because it was required by law, executive order, or government-wide regulation. A majority of the DOD Executive Agents have OSD Principal Staff Assistants from one of three Under Secretaries of Defense. About half (35 of 81), or 43 percent, of the OSD Principal Staff Assistants for DOD Executive Agents are assigned to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, while another 40 percent (32 of 81) of OSD Principal Staff Assistants are assigned to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness or the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. According to DOD Directive 5101.1, an OSD Principal Staff Assistant is to oversee the activities of DOD Executive Agents in their functional areas of responsibility. In addition, the OSD Principal Staff Assistant is also assigned to assess each DOD Executive Agent to determine the DOD Executive Agent’s continued need, currency, and effectiveness and efficiency in satisfying end-user requirements. Typically, the OSD Principal Staff Assistant is to assess DOD Executive Agents within their functional areas. For example: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics oversees 35 DOD Executive Agents and typically assesses those involved in acquisition and logistics-related areas, such as the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency, serving as the DOD Executive Agent for Medical Materiel, Subsistence, Construction and Barrier Materiel, and Bulk Petroleum and is tasked with managing the logistics of supplying these products across the department. In addition, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics also oversees two designations related to chemical and biological weapons and two designations related to the safety and security of biological toxins and hazards. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness’s portfolio includes readiness; health affairs; training; and personnel requirements and management, including equal opportunity, morale, welfare, recreation, and quality-of-life matters. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness oversees 20 DOD Executive Agents, including three designations related to language training or foreign language contracts; two designations related to recruitment and entrance processing; and the Armed Services Entertainment program. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy’s portfolio includes all matters pertaining to the formulation of national security and defense policy. The office oversees 12 DOD Executive Agents, including two designations related to security cooperation activities and two designations related to multinational organizations. We found that DOD has weaknesses in its approach to tracking its DOD Executive Agents, resulting in ODCMO not having an accurate accounting of the number of DOD Executive Agents. According to DOD Directive 5101.1, ODCMO is responsible for developing, maintaining, monitoring, revising, and making available the list of DOD Executive Agent designations. However, we found that ODCMO did not maintain a list of DOD Executive Agents that was current or complete. For example, we found 10 designations on DOD’s list of DOD Executive Agents that were not accurate, including the following: Disestablished DOD Executive Agents: Three DOD Executive Agent designations that were on ODCMO’s list had been disestablished; however, they had not been removed from the list. For example, in October 2015, a Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum disestablished the DOD Executive Agent for Space by redesignating it as the Principal DOD Space Advisor. ODCMO officials stated that they were aware that it had been disestablished, but had not removed it from the list until a directive, issued in June 2017, cancelled the designation for the DOD Executive Agent for Space. In another example, the DOD Executive Agent for Global Command and Control Systems should have been removed from ODCMO’s list in 2013. Inactive DOD Executive Agents: Two DOD Executive Agent designations were no longer considered active, meaning that while the designations have not been cancelled, the DOD Executive Agents are no longer performing the responsibilities of the DOD Executive Agents. DOD Directive 5101.1 states that the designations are to remain in effect until the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense revokes or supersedes them. However, the Secretary of Defense or Deputy Secretary of Defense has not issued any documentation to disestablish the DOD Executive Agents. Specifically, some Army officials from the Chemical Demilitarization Program stated that the responsibilities of the DOD Executive Agent had been completed in 2012 and thus the designation was no longer active. In the other example, officials from the DOD Executive Agent for DOD Civilian Police Officers and Security Guards Physical Fitness Standards Program stated that the directive for this program was updated in 2012 and reference to the DOD Executive Agent designation had been removed because the designation was no longer necessary. Officials stated that they intended to pursue the cancellation of the designation at a later date. Unclear DOD Executive Agent designations: Three DOD Executive Agent designations were unclear, such that they were not considered actual DOD Executive Agents, or officials in the relevant component had no knowledge of the designation. For example, Navy officials stated that they could not find any organization currently carrying out any responsibility related to the DOD Executive Agent for High School News Service or for the Force Protection of Military Sealift Assets. ODCMO officials told us that these may have been considered DOD Executive Agents at one time, but the arrangements were never documented. In the other example, the status of the DOD Executive Agent for the Global Positioning System is unclear since Air Force officials at the program stated that they do not use the term DOD Executive Agent to refer to the program and were unaware that the program was considered to be a DOD Executive Agent. ODCMO officials stated that a determination was likely made at some point to consider this organization a DOD Executive Agent, and therefore the organization was included on ODCMO’s list, but no official documentation was issued. Air Force Officials who track the Air Force’s DOD Executive Agents stated that the Global Positioning System program may have been considered a DOD Executive Agent at one time. Missing DOD Executive Agent Designation: One DOD Executive Agent designation was missing from ODCMO’s list. ODCMO’s list included an DOD Executive Agent for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Delivery Vehicle Elimination Operations in Libya, and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency was the designated DOD Executive Agent. However, Defense Threat Reduction Agency officials stated that there are actually two separate designations, one for such operations in Libya and one in Iraq. Both ODCMO and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency lost track of the designation for Iraq and it was not included in ODCMO’s list of DOD Executive Agents. Not an DOD Executive Agent: One DOD Executive Agent designation was on ODCMO’s list that ODCMO and Army officials agree should not have been considered as a DOD Executive Agent. According to ODCMO officials, the DOD Executive Agent for the Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance was inappropriately applied to the organization. Officials explained that the center is actually a Chairman’s Controlled Activity, which is another type of management arrangement the department uses. Per DOD policy, only the Secretary of Defense or Deputy Secretary of Defense may cancel a designation. Thus, Army officials stated that until official action is taken to document that the center is not an DOD Executive Agent, it will remain on ODCMO’s list and the Army will consider it a valid DOD Executive Agent. We also identified seven other designations that ODCMO may need to revisit. ODCMO officials stated that our review highlighted several designations that may no longer be considered active and require resolution. Specifically: Army officials with whom we spoke told us that 5 of the Army’s 38 designations may no longer be necessary and could be disestablished. Officials from the DOD Executive Agent for Weapons of Mass Destruction Elimination Operations and Delivery Vehicle Elimination Operations in Libya stated in their response to our questionnaire that the DOD Executive Agent’s 2004 designation is no longer needed, as considerable time has passed and the nature of U.S. government engagement and policies toward Libya have changed significantly. Officials from both the DOD Executive Agent and the OSD Principal Staff Assistant for the DOD Executive Agent for the Regional Centers for Security Studies stated that the designation may no longer be necessary, as the functions and responsibilities of this DOD Executive Agent are operating in a routine manner. According to ODCMO officials, a number of different circumstances may prompt the cancellation of a DOD Executive Agent designation, to include circumstances when the responsibilities of a DOD Executive Agent have become institutionalized as part of an office or agency. ODCMO controls its updates to the DOD Executive Agent list to ensure any changes are vetted through the appropriate offices. However, according to ODCMO officials, to maintain the list they rely on representatives from DOD Executive Agents to self-report any modifications to the DOD Executive Agent or contact information for relevant officials, which has resulted in some of the discrepancies described above. Aside from DOD Executive Agents self-reporting any changes, ODCMO officials stated that there is no process to ensure that all information on the list is current or complete. Furthermore, ODCMO officials stated that they have not issued guidance instructing DOD Executive Agent officials under what circumstances they should self- report changes. Moreover, we found that ODCMO does not have a process for being notified when a new DOD Executive Agent is established or when one is cancelled. ODCMO officials stated that they provide consultation upon request to other DOD components that are considering establishing a new DOD Executive Agent. However, officials stated they are not always consulted and may not become aware of the new DOD Executive Agent designation until after its establishment. For example, ODCMO officials stated that were not involved in the issuance of the January 2017 Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum that announced the designation of the Secretary of the Army as the DOD Executive Agent for the DOD Biological Select Agent and Toxin Biosecurity Program. ODCMO officials told us they have, on at least one occasion, learned about interest in establishing a DOD Executive Agent for a function that another DOD Executive Agent was already addressing, and advised against its establishment. Furthermore, ODCMO officials said that a DOD Executive Agent designation can be removed from the list of DOD Executive Agents by cancelling or updating the DOD issuance that established the DOD Executive Agent. Even though ODCMO coordinates all issuances for the department, ODCMO officials stated that they are not informed of all changes in issuances related to DOD Executive Agent designations, such as when a designation is updated or cancelled. For example, as noted earlier, officials from the DOD Executive Agent for DOD Civilian Police Officers and Security Guards Physical Fitness Standards Program stated that reference to the DOD Executive Agent designation was removed as part of the 2012 update to the DOD directive for the DOD Executive Agent. However, ODCMO officials were not aware that the updated directive no longer included a reference to the DOD Executive Agent designation, and therefore ODCMO still had this DOD Executive Agent on its list. DOD Executive Agent officials stated that they intended to pursue the cancellation of the designation at a later date. When consulted on DOD issuances related to the establishment, disestablishment, or modification of a DOD Executive Agent–related issuance, ODCMO officials stated they advise the OSD Principal Staff Assistants, among others, to discretely identify the actions related to the DOD Executive Agent designation to facilitate their tracking. According to DOD Directive 5101.1, ODCMO is to issue guidelines, as appropriate, to define further the policies, responsibilities and functions, and authorities contained in the directive. This could include the process for notifying ODCMO when a change is made to a DOD Executive Agent, such as when one is established, removed, or modified. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should use high-quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives. Specifically, management obtains relevant data from reliable internal and external sources in a timely manner based on the identified information requirements. ODCMO officials agreed that they need to improve their tracking of DOD Executive Agents; however, they have not developed an approach for this. Without taking steps to ensure that it is accurately tracking its Executive Agents, ODCMO will not be able to effectively oversee the DOD Executive Agent program. An accurate list is an important tool to help ODCMO manage its DOD Executive Agent program, including ensuring that there is no overlap in efforts across the DOD Executive Agent designations. As a result, DOD’s list of Executive Agents will continue to be out dated and incomplete. According to the 70 DOD Executive Agents responding to our questionnaire, OSD Principal Staff Assistants responsible for assessing DOD Executive Agents have not conducted assessments of about half (37 of 70) of the DOD Executive Agents in the past 3 years, as required by DOD guidance. Of the remaining 33 DOD Executive Agents, 28 responded that their OSD Principal Staff Assistant assessed them. Moreover, of those 28 DOD Executive Agents, almost half (13 of 28) said their assessment was not documented or that they did not know whether documentation existed. Finally, 3 DOD Executive Agents responded that they did not know whether OSD Principal Staff Assistants had assessed them. (See fig. 2.) Among the DOD Executive Agents that indicated they were assessed and provided documentation of the assessment, we found that many did not meet all of the requirements for assessments as prescribed in DOD Directive 5101.1. Specifically, the OSD Principal Staff Assistants did not conduct the assessment at all or did not conduct it within the past 3 years. Of the 15 respondents who indicated that the assessment was documented, 12 either provided documentation, the text of the document in their response but not the document itself, or a citation to a DOD issuance related to the DOD Executive Agent that we were able to find independently. The documentation provided included, for example, minutes of annual meetings reviewing DOD Executive Agent programs, assessments the DOD Executive Agent directed independent consultants to conduct, or delegations of authority from the head of the component designated to be the DOD Executive Agent to other officials. Our review of these documents found that for half (6 of 12) of the DOD Executive Agents that provided documentation, the OSD Principal Staff Assistant did not conduct the assessment, and 3 of the 6 did not conduct it within the past 3 years, as shown in table 1 below. For example, the OSD Principal Staff Assistant did not conduct the assessments of the four DOD Executive Agents assigned to the Defense Logistics Agency (Subsistence, Bulk Petroleum, Construction/Barrier Material, and Medical Material). According to an official from the OSD Principal Staff Assistant’s office, the OSD Principal Staff Assistant delegated the responsibility to conduct the assessment directly to the DOD Executive Agent in one case, and in the other three cases the OSD Principal Staff Assistant approved the DOD Executive Agent’s decision to direct an independent consultant to conduct the assessments. In addition, according to Army officials, 2 of the 12 documented assessments should not be considered assessments. Specifically, Army officials from the Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, the office that manages the Army’s DOD Executive Agents, did not agree that the documentation submitted by two Army DOD Executive Agents should be considered an assessment. Specifically, the DOD Executive Agents for Chemical and Biological Defense Program and the DOD Executive Agent for the Contract Linguist Program submitted Army memorandums stating that the Secretary of the Army was delegating the responsibilities of the DOD Executive Agent to other offices within the Army. According to Army officials who prepared the memorandums, the Army did not conduct any review or assessment of the DOD Executive Agent while generating these memorandums. DOD Directive 5101.1 states that the OSD Principal Staff Assistant shall assess DOD Executive Agent assignments and arrangements associated with such assignments under their cognizance, as noted previously. The directive further states the assessments shall occur periodically, but not less than once every 3 years, to determine the DOD Executive Agent’s continued need, currency, and effectiveness and efficiency in satisfying end-user requirements. In addition, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system, and is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity’s internal control system. The directive also assigns ODCMO the responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the directive. ODCMO officials told us that they did not know whether the assessments were occurring, and neither requested nor received assessments. The officials stated that they have not ensured the completion of DOD Executive Agents assessments because they narrowly interpreted their responsibility to oversee the implementation of DOD Directive 5101.1. Specifically, ODCMO officials stated that their responsibilities were limited to providing advice to other DOD components that expressed interest in using the DOD Executive Agent designation and maintaining a list of DOD Executive Agent designations. Further, we found that when the assessments were completed, according to the officials, the assessments were not always documented. While DOD Directive 5101.1 does not require the assessments to be documented, in the absence of such documentation, the OSD Principal Staff Assistant cannot demonstrate it has conducted an assessment in the past 3 years or that the assessment reviewed the DOD Executive Agent’s continued need, currency, effectiveness, and efficiency in satisfying end-user requirements. According to DOD Directive 5101.1, ODCMO shall issue implementing guidance, which may include clarifying the responsibility of OSD Principal Staff Assistants in conducting assessments of DOD Executive Agents. ODCMO officials told us that they have not issued implementing guidance because they do not want to be prescriptive in how OSD Principal Staff Assistants should assess DOD Executive Agents, as each DOD Executive Agent designation is unique. Therefore, ODCMO wants to provide flexibility in how those OSD Principal Staff Assistants conduct the assessments, including how they define the terms continued need, currency, and effectiveness and efficiency in satisfying end-user requirements. However, ODCMO could issue implementing guidance that ensures that the assessments are completed and documented. Several OSD Principal Staff Assistants with whom we spoke also told us that additional ODCMO guidance could help clarify the assessment requirement. Without verifying that the OSD Principal Staff Assistants for all DOD Executive Agents have completed required assessments and providing implementing guidance requiring the documentation of the assessments, the department does not have reasonable assurance that OSD Principal Staff Assistants are assessing DOD Executive Agents or that DOD Executive Agents—as a management arrangement—are accomplishing department objectives. According to DOD officials, conducting these periodic assessments would assist the department in reviewing DOD Executive Agent designations to ensure that the department is managing its resources efficiently and effectively. DOD Executive Agents can help the department further achieve its range of objectives more efficiently and effectively when additional coordination is needed to focus DOD resources and minimize duplication or redundancy of activities, among other things. However, ODCMO faces challenges in overseeing DOD Executive Agents. For example, ODCMO has weaknesses in its approach to tracking its DOD Executive Agents, making it difficult to determine how effectively the office is carrying out its responsibilities. Further, ODCMO does not ensure that OSD Principal Staff Assistants are conducting required assessments or that these assessments are documented in a manner that supports that DOD Executive Agents were assessed for continued need, currency, and effectiveness and efficiency in meeting end-user needs. Given its oversight responsibility for the DOD Executive Agent program, ODCMO should to take action to ensure that requirements in DOD Directive 5101.1 are being met and that the program is being effectively implemented. Without this action, DOD does not know whether its Executive Agents are effective in meeting their intended purpose and may be missing opportunities to better manage its resources and activities department-wide. We recommend that DOD’s Deputy Chief Management Officer take the following three actions: strengthen its approach to track DOD Executive Agents to ensure that its list and contact information are current and complete; verify that the OSD Principal Staff Assistants for all DOD Executive Agents have completed their required assessments every 3 years; and issue implementing guidance that OSD Principal Staff Assistants should document the assessments of DOD Executive Agents, including documenting how the assessments address the DOD Executive Agents’ continued need, currency, and effectiveness and efficiency in meeting end-user needs. We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In written comments, which are summarized below and reprinted in appendix II, DOD concurred with our recommendations. In addition, DOD provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into the report as appropriate. In its written comments, DOD stated that it plans to take several actions to implement the recommendations by the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2018. Specifically, DOD stated that it will task the OSD Principal Staff Assistants to review the DOD Executive Agents under their cognizance, validate existing information, identify inaccuracies, and provide updated points of contact. In addition, DOD plans to issue guidance to the OSD Principal Staff Assistants to provide documentation of assessments completed in the last three years, and direct the OSD Principal Staff Assistants to initiate an assessment if one has not been completed in the last three years. Furthermore, this guidance will task OSD Principal Staff Assistants to conduct, document, and provide copies of these assessments for each DOD Executive Agent. Finally, DOD stated that the Deputy Chief Management Officer, once informed by the completed assessments of DOD Executive Agents, will take the necessary actions to enhance DOD Executive Agent oversight. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Deputy Chief Management Officer. In addition, the report 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 (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. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. The Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer (ODCMO) maintains a list of DOD Executive Agents. The list includes information about each DOD Executive Agent, such as the title of the DOD Executive Agent assignment, the office assigned as the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Principal Staff Assistant, the department official who designated the DOD Executive Agent, and the date of the DOD Executive Agent assignment. To describe the number of DOD Executive Agents, we analyzed DOD’s list and DOD issuances designating the DOD Executive Agent assignment, and contacted department officials of each DOD Executive Agent. Below are four tables listing the DOD Executive Agent responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of the Army (see table 2), the Secretary of the Air Force (see table 3), the Secretary of the Navy, including the Marine Corps (see table 4), and the heads of other DOD components (see table 5). In addition to the individual named above, key contributors to this report were Tina Won Sherman (Assistant Director), Angeline Bickner, Саroŀynn Саvаnuagh, Tim DiNapoli, Mae Frances Jones, Lori Kmetz, Kirsten Lauber, Shari Nikoo, Daniel Ramsey, Michael Silver, and Matthew Ullengren.

Summary: DOD maintains military forces with unparalleled capabilities. However, the department continues to confront weaknesses in the management of its business functions that support these forces. DOD uses Executive Agents, which are intended to facilitate collaboration, to achieve critical department objectives. Senate Report 114-255, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included a provision that GAO review DOD Executive Agents. This report (1) describes the number and focus of DOD Executive Agents; and evaluates the extent to which DOD (2) tracks its Executive Agents and (3) conducts periodic assessments of its Executive Agents. GAO reviewed relevant DOD directives and the list of Executive Agents; developed and implemented a questionnaire to DOD's Executive Agents; and interviewed relevant DOD officials. Based on GAO's analysis, the Department of Defense (DOD) has 81 Executive Agents—management arrangements where the head of a DOD component is designated specific roles and responsibilities to accomplish objectives when more than one component is involved. These Executive Agents are assigned to 12 DOD components and support a range of activities, including managing technology and developing training programs. The Secretary of the Army is designated as the Executive Agent for almost half of them (38 of 81). DOD's Executive Agent directive requires that the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer (ODCMO) maintain a list of Executive Agent designations and oversee their assessments, among other things. Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Principal Staff Assistants are required to assess their respective Executive Agents every 3 years to determine their continued need, currency, efficiency, and effectiveness. GAO found weaknesses in DOD's approach to tracking its Executive Agents, resulting in inaccuracies regarding 10 Executive Agents. For example, DOD's list of Executive Agents included several that are not currently active. While ODCMO is required to maintain a list of Executive Agents, ODCMO officials rely on self-reported information from DOD Executive Agents and OSD Principal Staff Assistants. Without taking steps to accurately track DOD Executive Agents, DOD's list will continue to be out dated and ODCMO cannot effectively oversee DOD Executive Agents. Principal Staff Assistants had not periodically assessed more than half (37 of 70) of DOD Executive Agents that responded to GAO's questionnaire (see figure). ODCMO is responsible for overseeing the implementation of DOD's Executive Agents directive, which requires that Principal Staff Assistants conduct assessments; however, ODCMO officials told GAO they do not ensure that Principal Staff Assistants have conducted these assessments. GAO also found that Principal Staff Assistants are not required to document these assessments. Without verifying the completion of these assessments and issuing guidance requiring their documentation, DOD does not have reasonable assurance that DOD Executive Agents are accomplishing department objectives. GAO recommends that ODCMO strengthen its approach to track DOD Executive Agents; verify assessments are conducted; and issue implementing guidance for documenting assessments. DOD concurred with the recommendations.