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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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. 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.