DOD instruction 1330.04 outlines the following roles and responsibilities regarding the Armed Forces Sports Program: Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness: Provides guidance and oversight concerning the participation of servicemembers in Armed Forces, national, and international amateur sports competitions. Senior Military Sports Advisor: Serves as the Service Personnel Chief who is responsible for the management and operation of the program and reports to the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Armed Forces Sports Council: Serves as the governing body of the program, and is composed of the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation representatives from each service or their designated representatives. Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat: Serves as the executive office for the council and serves as the U.S. liaison to the International Military Sports Council. Armed Forces Sports Council Working Group: Serves as the staffing body of the Armed Forces Sports Council, which is composed of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation representatives from each service. Secretaries of the Military Departments: Develop sports programs based on specific needs and mission requirements that provide the opportunity for servicemembers to prepare for and compete in national and international amateur sports competitions on a voluntary basis. According to Sports Council Secretariat officials and the policies for managing servicemembers’ participation in national and international amateur sports competitions, the Sports Council Secretariat and the service sports offices each have responsibilities for managing the Armed Forces Sports Program. Table 1 further describes the responsibilities of the Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat’s and the service sports offices for the Armed Forces Sports Program. The number of staff members working in the Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat and the service sports offices and the percentage of time staff members spend working for the Armed Forces Sports Program varies. For example, the Navy Sports Office has two staff members who work on the program nearly full time, while the Army Sports Office has four staff members who work on the program part time. In addition, the staff members working for the Armed Forces Sports Program include both civilians and active-duty servicemembers. Table 2 provides further details on the number of staff members and the estimated percentage of time they spend working for the Armed Forces Sports Program. DOD has data on participation in and costs of the Armed Forces Sports Program, but has not taken steps, including developing performance measures and clarifying roles and responsibilities, that are needed to help ensure that the program is implemented effectively. Sports Council Secretariat officials provided us with data for fiscal years 2012-2016 on servicemember participation in the program, including on the number of days servicemembers are away from their unit participating in the program and on civilians supporting the program, and data for fiscal years 2014-2016 on program costs. In analyzing the number of servicemembers participating in the program, we found that servicemember participation changed from 968 servicemembers in fiscal year 2012 to 848 servicemembers in fiscal year 2016. Table 3 provides further details about the number of servicemembers who participated in or supported the Armed Forces Sports Program in fiscal years 2012-2016. We also found that servicemember participation ranged from an average of 6.8 days per event in fiscal year 2013 to 13.2 days per event in fiscal year 2016. Sports Council Secretariat and service officials stated that the servicemembers who participate in the program are in peak physical shape and that they were unaware of any additional recovery time that a participant has needed after competing. Table 4 breaks out these data for each year from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. According to officials, DOD civilians provide various types of support to the Armed Forces Sports Program and may include employees who work for the program on a full- or part-time basis, as well as those who serve in a volunteer capacity. Civilians who support the program as volunteers may serve in a variety roles, as coaches or as staff, for example, which include athletic trainers, service representatives, or medical staff. Table 5 provides further details on the number of civilians who supported the Armed Forces Sports Program in fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Sports Council Secretariat officials stated the program covers the cost of servicemembers participating and units do not have to provide any funding. Program costs ranged from about $2.1 million to about $2.8 million from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Table 6 provides additional details about these costs. Armed Forces Sports Championships are hosted by one of the services and must include at least three of the services in competition for all team sports and most individual sports. Higher level competitions are attended by the most competent athletes from the Armed Forces Sports Championships or athletes selected based on other qualifying events or criteria and may include U.S. national, International Military Sports Council, or other international events. In table 7 we break out the costs for participation in events from table 6 associated with Armed Forces Sports Championships and higher level competitions for fiscal years 2014 through 2016. While DOD has data on program participation and cost, these data are outputs and not outcomes and therefore do not exhibit important attributes of successful performance measures that are necessary to demonstrate that the Armed Forces Sports Program is being implemented effectively. Federal internal control standards state, among other things, that managers should establish activities to monitor performance measures. Furthermore, our prior work on performance measurement identified ten key attributes of performance measures, such as clarity, objectivity, having a measurable target, and having baseline and trend data in order to identify, monitor, and report changes in performance and to help ensure that performance is viewed in context. Table 8 identifies each attribute of effective performance measures along with its definition. Sports Council Secretariat officials stated that they use data on the number of servicemembers and services annually participating in each sport and competition to measure the performance and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Sports Program. While these data provide important context about the program’s size and reach, they are outputs and do not constitute performance measures because they do not exhibit several of the key attributes previously discussed. First, we found that the Sports Council Secretariat’s use of participation data does not exhibit the attribute of linkage in that there is not clear alignment between the number of participants and how it affects the program’s ability to achieve its goals and mission. For example, while DOD Instruction 1330.04 does not specify goals or a mission, the Armed Forces Sports Council’s standard operating procedures identify that the five objectives of the program are to: (1) promote goodwill among the Armed Services through sports, (2) promote a positive image of the Armed Forces through sports, (3) provide the incentive and encourage physical fitness by promoting a highly competitive sports program, (4) provide a venue for military athletes to participate in national and international competitions, and (5) engage in valuable military-to-military opportunities with International Military Sports Council member nations through sports. However, Sports Council Secretariat officials have not established a link between the participant data that they stated are used to measure program performance and the achievement of these objectives. Further, our prior work has shown that linkages between goals and measures are most effective when they are clearly communicated and create a “line of sight” so that everyone understands what an organization is trying to achieve and the goals it seeks to reach. During meetings with the Sports Council Secretariat, officials stated that they use data, such as servicemember participation in the Armed Forces Sports Championships, International Military Sports Council Championships, U.S. Nationals, and the Olympic and Paralympic Games to measure the performance and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Sports Program, and that they have created performance measures on an as-needed basis when it has been necessary to prioritize the allocation of funds for individual sports. However, none of the documents we were provided on the program identify participation or any other data as a performance measure, and these efforts do not exhibit a deliberate, four-stage performance measurement process that involves (1) identifying goals, (2) developing performance measures, (3) collecting data, and (4) analyzing data and reporting results. Further, servicemember participation in the Olympic and Paralympic Games is not a valid performance measure because, according to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Sports Council Secretariat, and the services, the Armed Forces Sports Program does not have responsibility for these games. Second, participation data do not exhibit the measurable target attribute because they represent a summary of the program’s activity and are not associated with numerical goals, which are needed to gauge program progress and results. Our prior work has shown that numerical targets or other measurable values facilitate future assessments of whether overall goals and objectives are achieved because comparisons can be easily made between projected performance and actual results. While the Sports Council Secretariat’s data included the “actual” number of program participants, they did not identify projected performance targets that would enable program officials to determine how far they have progressed toward a desired outcome or end state. In response to our analysis, Sports Council Secretariat officials stated that they consider the list of 24 sports and total number of competitions that servicemembers may participate in to be the target—the attainment of which is based on variables such as available funding and the extent to which each service agrees to provide teams to participate in the competitions. However, this is not a valid demonstration of this attribute because neither the target in this sense nor the variables affecting participation (e.g., funding and service branch involvement) demonstrate how well the Armed Forces Sports Program performs or carries out its mission. In addition, officials from the Sports Council Secretariat and the services stated that the program directly benefits the services’ readiness, recruitment, and retention efforts. Specifically, officials cited the program’s emphasis on a higher level of physical fitness than is otherwise required by the services as contributing to individual servicemember readiness, and involvement in national and international sports championships as aiding recruiting efforts because it showcases some of the unique opportunities open to those in the services.