The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, in part, was intended to improve joint officer management policies, otherwise enhance the effectiveness of military operations, and improve DOD’s management and administration. With the Goldwater-Nichols Act, Congress also intended to, consistent with the congressional declaration of policy in section 2 of the National Security Act of 1947 and among other things, reorganize DOD and strengthen civilian authority in DOD. The Goldwater-Nichols Act, as amended, also: established various joint officer management policies, including requiring JPME for certain joint assignments and promotion categories; required officers to successfully complete an appropriate program at a JPME school, among other things, to be designated as joint qualified—a prerequisite for promotion to brigadier general or rear admiral lower half rank except under certain circumstances; and required the Secretary of Defense, with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to periodically review and revise the curriculum of JPME schools to enhance the education and training of officers in joint matters. In addition, the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 required the Secretary of Defense to implement a comprehensive framework for officer JPME. The PME continuum consists of five military educational levels that correspond to the five phases of a military officer’s career: (1) precommissioning, (2) primary, (3) intermediate, (4) senior, and (5) general/flag officer. As figure 1 indicates, intermediate- and senior-level PME and JPME programs—the focus of our review—are designed for officers at pay grades O-4 through O-6. As identified in figure 2 below, the military services’ intermediate- and senior-level PME programs tailor curricula according to their respective services’ needs. For example, the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps PME programs focus on land, maritime, and maneuver warfare, respectively. Further, the Chairman’s instruction concerning officer PME and JPME (hereinafter referred to as the Officer Professional Military Education Policy, or “OPMEP”) requires that JPME be integrated across a diverse array of academic topics, including history and political science, and, where appropriate, be offered in conjunction with PME. Collectively, PME and JPME prepare officers, throughout their careers, to increase their knowledge and develop the necessary skills to operate in joint environments, such as a combatant command. PME and JPME also are offered through distance learning and satellite education programs for non-resident students. The OSD, Chairman, and military services are responsible for overseeing the services’ PME and JPME programs. OSD: Within OSD, the Secretary of Defense has delegated responsibility for, among other things, military readiness, total force management, and military and civilian personnel training to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Under DOD Directive 5124.02 the Under Secretary is responsible for, among other things, developing education policies, plans, and programs for the education of all DOD personnel, including PME and JPME programs. Within OUSD(P&R), the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education and Training (DASD(FE&T)) was established in 2015. The DASD(FE&T) is responsible for developing policies, plans, programs, budgets, and other activities necessary to develop, guide, measure, implement, assess, and oversee all aspects of education and training for military personnel following basic officer and enlisted training, which includes PME and JPME programs. The USD(Comptroller) is the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense on budgetary and financial matters. The USD(Comptroller) focuses on budgetary formulation and execution; financial management and oversight; and accounting policy; among other things. The USD(Comptroller), among other things, directs the formulation and presentation of DOD budgets; and establishes and supervises the execution of uniform DOD policies, principles, and procedures, including terminologies and classifications, as necessary for certain budgetary and financial matters. Chairman: With the advice and assistance of the Chairman, the Secretary of Defense periodically reviews and revises the JPME curriculum to enhance the education and training of officers in joint matters. The OPMEP outlines the Chairman’s roles and responsibilities as they relate to PME and JPME. According to the OPMEP, the Chairman formulates polices for coordinating military education and advises and assists the Secretary of Defense through the designation and certification/accreditation of JPME. The Chairman accredits military service programs through periodic Process for the Accreditation of Joint Education (PAJE) reviews. Further, the Joint Staff Directorate for Joint Force Development is responsible for, among other things, reviewing the Chairman’s PME policies, overseeing the Military Education Coordination Council, and coordinating PAJE reviews. Military services: The military services provide PME to develop officers with expertise and knowledge appropriate to their grade, branch, and occupational specialty. Each military service is responsible for funding, developing curriculum for, and administering their respective PME programs. In addition, for programs accredited to award JPME, each military service is responsible for meeting the Chairman’s PAJE accreditation requirements and providing qualified military students and faculty to the other military services’ PME programs in accordance with the OPMEP. Membership on PAJE teams, which accredit military services’ PME programs, will be tailored to provide the appropriate balance of expertise in JPME learning areas, objectives, criteria, and standards. All of the military services’ intermediate- and senior-level PME programs are accredited to award master’s degrees. Each program undergoes a Department of Education-governed civilian accreditation process generally every 10 years, depending on the accreditor and the program. Civilian accreditation for the military services’ PME programs occurs at the institution level and includes multiple programs. For example, the civilian accreditation of Marine Corps University includes the Marine Corps’ intermediate- and senior-level PME programs, as well as other programs such as its School for Advanced Warfighting. According to PME program and civilian accreditation officials, the civilian accreditation process starts with the institution conducting a detailed self-evaluation of its performance, and preparing and providing a self-evaluation report to the accreditation officials. This is followed by a site visit by the accreditation officials and a report describing the institution’s compliance with applicable academic quality standards. The accreditation process concludes with the accreditor’s decision on the institution’s accreditation status. Table 1 shows when each of the military services’ intermediate- and senior-level PME program was last accredited (at the institutional- level) for civilian accreditation. Accreditation bodies assess academic quality by applying and enforcing standards in the following areas required, generally, by the Department of Education: (1) success with respect to student achievement; (2) curricula; (3) faculty; (4) facilities, equipment, and supplies; (5) fiscal and administrative capacity; (6) student support services; (7) recruiting and admissions practices; (8) measures of program length and objectives of the degrees or credentials offered; (9) record of student complaints received by, or available to, the accreditation body; and (10) record of compliance with certain federal student loan program responsibilities. Within these areas, civilian accreditation bodies develop their own accreditation standards, which can vary (see table 2). The military services’ intermediate- and senior-level PME programs are assessed against the applicable accreditation standards to enable the PME programs to award master’s degrees. There is no Chairman or OSD requirement for the military services’ PME programs to have civilian accreditation status, but officials reported several benefits related to civilian accreditation. Specifically, DOD and civilian accreditation officials stated that civilian accreditation provides additional assurance from a recognized external authority that the military services’ PME programs are meeting educational standards required of DOD and non-DOD programs alike. In addition, we previously reported that the U.S. accreditation system’s use of peer review offers the relevant expertise to assess academic quality and provides institutions with feedback for improvement as a key strength of the system. Furthermore, DOD officials said that the ability to award master’s degrees from an accredited program helps the programs attract and retain high- quality faculty. All of the military services’ PME programs have been accredited by the Chairman to award JPME credit. The OPMEP outlines the JPME program accreditation requirements and processes that are to occur at least every 6 years. DOD’s process for accrediting the military services’ JPME programs is through the Chairman’s PAJE. The PAJE is based on accepted civilian accreditation standards and practices. According to the OPMEP, the PAJE serves three purposes: (1) oversight, (2) assessment, and (3) improvement. Once JPME programs are initially accredited, accreditation is reaffirmed through subsequent PAJEs every 6 years. In advance of a PAJE accreditation, the military service PME program submits an OPMEP-required self-assessment, which the PAJE team reviews prior to conducting the on-site accreditation. The PAJE team prepares a report on its findings, and includes a full, conditional, or no accreditation determination. PME programs receiving a conditional accreditation or reaffirmation must demonstrate improvements in particular areas within a specific timeframe in order maintain their accreditation. Any program that fails to achieve accreditation, reaffirmation, or conditional accreditation/reaffirmation is no longer a JPME provider. According to the OPMEP, accreditation or reaffirmation is awarded when programs are judged satisfactory overall and have no significant weaknesses. Table 3 shows the date of the most recent JPME accreditation for each of the military services’ intermediate- and senior-level PME programs. Additionally, the military services’ PME programs have (1) met or partially met all of the required joint learning areas, such as joint command and control; and (2) met or partially met all required common educational standards, such as periodically assessing their JPME programs. First, the OPMEP requires intermediate- and senior-level PME programs to fulfill the appropriate joint learning areas and objectives and common educational standards, and generally have a curriculum that includes the required JPME content prescribed in statute. The PAJE review of the joint learning areas and common educational standards includes a combination of objective and subjective assessment based on peer expertise. Specifically, the OPMEP requires intermediate-level PME programs to fulfill the following six joint learning areas: (1) National military capabilities strategy, (2) Joint doctrine and concepts, (3) Joint and multinational forces at the operational level of war, (4) Joint planning and execution processes, (5) Joint command and control, and (6) Joint operational leadership and the profession of arms. The OPMEP requires senior-level PME programs to fulfill the following five joint learning areas: (1) National strategies; (2) Joint warfare, theater strategy and campaigning for traditional and irregular warfare in a joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational environment; (3) National and joint planning systems and processes for the integration of joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational capabilities; (4) Command, control and coordination; and (5) Strategic leadership and the profession of arms. According to the most recent Joint Staff PAJE accreditation reports, all of the military services’ intermediate- and senior-level PME programs met all of these mandatory joint learning areas, with the exception of the Marine Corps intermediate-level PME program which received a partially meets in the joint learning area for joint planning and execution processes. Second, the OPMEP also requires intermediate- and senior-level PME programs to meet seven common educational standards that the Chairman considers essential in awarding JPME credit. Table 4 describes these seven common educational standards. The most recent Chairman’s accreditation review found that each of the military services’ PME programs met or partially met all seven OPMEP- required common educational standards, as shown in table 5. According to Joint Staff officials, to be assessed as “met,” the program must meet all of the criteria for that common educational standard. On the other hand, if a program does not meet all of the criteria then it “partially met” the criteria for the accreditation standard. When a PAJE team determines that a program “partially met” a standard, the team suggests corrective actions for the program to consider. Receiving a “partially met” on a particular standard does not exclude a program from being accredited, as accreditation is based on the program being judged satisfactory overall and having no significant weaknesses. We identified the following examples of common educational standards that were met or partially met by the military services’ intermediate- and senior-level PME programs during our analysis of the Chairman’s most recent accreditation reports for those programs. Standard 2: Employ Predominantly Active and Highly Effective Instructional Methods – The PAJE team found that the College of Naval Warfare met this standard during its most recent review in May 2015. This standard states that instructional methods should be appropriate to the subject matter and desired levels of learning, and should employ active student learning whenever feasible. In addition, the standard requires that the goals of the educational offerings be rigorous and challenging, requiring that students engage in critical thinking and active interaction. Specifically, the PAJE team found that the College of Naval Warfare employed a preponderance of active instructional methods to achieve desired learning outcomes. The team found that the effective combination of Socratic discussion, case studies, practical exercises, written assignments, and lectures followed by seminar discussions, engaged students in critical thinking and were appropriate to the desired levels of learning. The PAJE team also found that active student discourse occurred both inside and outside of seminars. Lastly, the team found that the effectiveness of the curriculum in refining critical thinking skills was reflected in both student and alumni surveys. Standard 3: Assess Student Achievement – The PAJE team found that the Marine Corps Command and Staff College met this standard during its most recent review in September 2014. This standard states that each college should aggressively assess its students’ performance, clearly state educational goals and objectives, and measure students’ performance against defined standards using direct and indirect assessment tools to identify whether desired educational outcomes are being achieved. Specifically, the PAJE team found that the Marine Corps Command and Staff College clearly identified program outcomes, student learning outcomes, and lesson educational objectives. The PAJE team also found that student assessments were directly linked to student learning outcomes, joint learning areas, and joint learning objectives. Additionally, the team found that results were carefully tracked and used for educational outcome achievement verification, curriculum improvement, and faculty development feedback. Lastly, the PAJE team found that the College used a variety of student assessments—including research papers, exams, staff papers, oral presentations, exercises, practicums, oral defenses, and seminar participation—to provide feedback and verify learning outcome achievement. Standard 4: Assess Program Effectiveness – The PAJE team found that the Army’s Command and General Staff College partially met this standard during its most recent review in February 2014. This standard states that colleges should survey students, graduates, and their supervisors to determine curricula and educational effectiveness of their academic programs. The standard also states that leadership should periodically assess the intended educational outcomes of programs for currency, relevancy, and completeness, and the results of these analyses should be used to refine or develop curricula that continue to meet evolving mission requirements in the context of an ever-changing world. Specifically, the PAJE team found that there is a robust evaluation and assessment process for the common core courses but that neither the electives nor the Command and General Staff College-level outcomes were assessed. Additionally, the PAJE team found that there did not appear to be a process for evaluating the overall curriculum either directly or indirectly. The PAJE team suggested that the Army’s Command and General Staff College develop a capstone evaluation to assess outcomes of its common core curriculum. Army’s Command and General Staff College officials told us that in 2016 the college developed a capstone evaluation for its common core curriculum, consisting of an online examination and a faculty member oral examination. Standard 5: Conduct Quality Faculty Recruitment: Selection, Assignment, and Performance Assessment Program – The PAJE team found that the Air War College partially met this standard during its last review in October 2014. This standard states that faculty should have the academic credentials, teaching skills, and experience in joint and professional matters necessary to teach in the colleges. This standard also states that faculty roles and responsibilities should be clearly documented, and that colleges should hold faculty accountable to clearly defined and measurable performance criteria and standards. Specifically, the PAJE team found that the Air War College did not meet the OPMEP standard for its student-to-faculty ratio, but acknowledged that the college had a plan to meet this requirement by the spring of 2015. The Air War College met the student-to-faculty ratio in academic year 2015. The review also found that delays in hiring presented challenges in maintaining the requisite number of qualified faculty. The PAJE team suggested that the Air War College continue its efforts to reduce the time to complete civilian hiring actions. Air War College officials stated that as part of a wider Air University effort to streamline the civilian hiring process they were able to ameliorate this challenge by making the process more transparent, predictable, and shorter. Most of the military services’ senior-level PME programs met the OPMEP JPME seminar student mix accreditation requirement, which is part of the develop joint awareness, perspective, and attitude common educational standard (Standard 1) that pertains to joint acculturation. However, not all of the military services’ intermediate-level PME programs met the seminar student mix accreditation requirement. The OPMEP requires that each intermediate- and senior-level JPME seminar contain at least one student from each of the two non-host military departments: the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy (which includes the Marine Corps), and the Department of the Air Force. DOD defines joint acculturation as the process of understanding and appreciating the separate military service cultures resulting in joint attitudes and perspectives, common beliefs, and trust. All but one of the military services’ senior-level PME programs met the seminar student mix accreditation requirement from academic years 2014 through 2018. During that timeframe there were approximately 300 senior-level seminars, and only one did not meet the requirement. Specifically, during academic year 2017, the Air Force’s senior-level PME program lacked sufficient Navy representation for one seminar. However, not all of the military services’ intermediate-level PME programs met the seminar student mix accreditation requirement. Specifically, the Air Force’s and the Army’s intermediate-level PME programs had less than the required Sea Service representation for 3 years between academic years 2014 and 2018. For academic years 2016 and 2018, the Air Force’s intermediate-level PME program had less than the OPMEP-required Sea Service representation for about 24 percent of its seminars (totaling 288 students), as shown in table 6 below. During the 3- year timeframe, the Army’s intermediate-level PME program had less than the required Sea Service representation for about 22 percent of its seminars (totaling 664 students). On the other hand, the Navy’s and the Marine Corps’ intermediate-level PME programs generally met their respective seminar student mix accreditation requirement for each of the last 5 academic years (2014 – 2018). According to Navy officials and documentation, the Navy stated that it was unable to provide the other military services’ intermediate-level PME programs with the required numbers of officers during academic years 2016 – 2018 because of competing staffing priorities, such as its forward presence mission. However, we found that the Navy provided sufficient officers to its own intermediate-level PME program (College of Naval Command and Staff) during each of these academic years so that it could have instead assigned the required number of officers to the Air Command and Staff College and the Army’s Command and General Staff College to meet their respective Sea Service requirements. For example, the Navy sent 121 Navy officers to the College of Naval Command and Staff in academic year 2018 for 27 seminars when the Air Command and Staff College and the Army’s Command and General Staff College needed a cumulative total of 32 officers to meet their OPMEP seminar student mix requirement. As a result, most of the College of Naval Command and Staff’s seminars would have only been reduced by one Navy Officer. Officials from all of the military service PME programs told us that students interacting with students from other military departments is critical for joint acculturation. Officials from the Joint Staff Directorate for Joint Force Development reinforced the importance of the seminar student mix requirement, stating that satisfying the OPMEP common educational standard of developing joint awareness, perspective, and attitude (Standard 1) is dependent on time and intensity of student interaction with students from other military departments. Military service and Joint Staff officials stated it was difficult for Air Force and Army officers to gain a full appreciation of the Navy’s contribution to joint military operations when there were no Sea Service students in the seminar. In the situations where a seminar did not have Sea Service representation, Joint Staff officials told us that a decision was made to award students JPME credit. Furthermore, officials told us that it was decided to not “punish” military service PME programs for not meeting the OPMEP’s JPME seminar student mix requirement as military services’ programs cannot control the number of in-bound students assigned by the other military services. Officials from the Air Force’s and the Army’s intermediate-level PME programs told us that when they are unable to meet the OPMEP seminar student mix requirement, they take steps to compensate for the lack of Sea Service student representation, such as using faculty to provide Sea Service perspectives. Similarly, a 2010 Congressional report noted the value of in-residence officer PME programs because of the acculturation opportunities that they offer. Other than Joint Staff officials requesting that the Navy meet the OPMEP’s JPME seminar student mix requirement, no other actions have been taken by the Chairman, OSD, or the Navy to resolve the issue concerning Navy participation in the Air Force’s and Army’s intermediate- level PME programs. Specifically, according to DASD(FE&T) officials, as of November 2019, OSD has not been involved in addressing the Navy’s failure to meet the OPMEP’s JPME seminar student mix requirement. Additionally, Joint Staff officials told us that the Chairman cannot direct a Secretary of a military department to comply with provisions of a Chairman’s publication. However, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving defined objectives. Given that joint acculturation is a key component of intermediate-level PME programs, the lack of action to resolve or mitigate the issues at hand has the potential to negatively affect students’ opportunities to increase their knowledge and develop the necessary skills to operate in joint environments. Without DOD taking steps to determine whether the appropriate number of Navy officers can be assigned to intermediate-level PME programs of the Air Force and Army, the officers participating in these programs lack the perspectives of Sea Service participants, which diminishes the quality of the educational experience. Furthermore, neither the Chairman nor OUSD(P&R) has evaluated or approved the mitigation steps, either before or after-the-fact, when a PME program lacks representation to meet the joint acculturation requirement. Although the OPMEP requires that each intermediate- and senior-level JPME seminar contain at least one student from each of the two non-host military departments, the OPMEP does not contain guidance on what PME programs should do when they do not meet this requirement. Developing guidance concerning actions, if any, the military services can take to mitigate JPME seminar student mix shortfalls and still meet the intent of the OPEMP’s joint awareness common educational standard could better position DOD and the military services to ensure that DOD’s JPME programs are meeting their objectives. OSD has had PME and JPME statutory oversight responsibilities for more than 30 years; however, while it has taken some steps to strengthen its oversight, it is not well-positioned to assess the effectiveness of the military services’ PME programs. The Goldwater-Nichols Act, as amended, states that the Secretary of Defense shall, with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, periodically review and revise the curriculum of JPME schools, and require that the PME schools periodically review and revise their intermediate- and senior-level PME curriculums to strengthen the focus on joint matters and preparing officers for joint duty assignments. Moreover, DOD Directive 5124.02 requires the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop policies, plans, and programs for educating DOD personnel. According to several DOD officials with whom we spoke, prior to the establishment of DASD (FE&T), OUSD(P&R) unofficially relinquished its responsibilities for PME and JPME to the Chairman, whose office issued the first version of the OPMEP in 1996. As mentioned earlier, the OPMEP outlines the Chairman’s process for meeting statutory responsibilities for overseeing officer JPME, which is a subset of PME. For example, the OPMEP states that JPME is a Chairman approved body of objectives, outcomes, policies, procedures, and standards supporting the educational requirements for joint officer management. As recently as 2017, OUSD(P&R) reported to Congress that it had no formal process for exercising its authority to periodically review and revise the curricula of officer JPME. In the same report, OUSD(P&R) stated that DOD was reviewing JPME and the DOD Joint Officer Management Program. OUSD(P&R) also reported that with the reorganization of its office to include a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education and Training (DASD(FE&T)) in 2015, OSD was now organized to exercise its statutory authorities with respect to PME and JPME and would do so in line with the Secretary of Defense’s direction in the National Defense Strategy. According to the 2015 implementation plan detailing the reorganization, the Deputy Assistant Secretary’s responsibilities include measuring, assessing, and overseeing all aspects of education and training, which includes PME and JPME. In 2019, DOD issued guidance stating that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness is the principal advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness on all matters related to the readiness of the Total Force, including by developing policies and plans, providing advice, and making recommendations for PME to include alignment to the National Defense and National Military Strategies and talent management and utilization. OUSD(P&R) is drafting its first DOD instruction (the draft instruction) that covers PME and JPME, which DASD(FE&T) officials told us it plans to issue in February 2020. According to DASD(FE&T) officials, once issued, the DOD instruction will be the prevailing policy document for PME and JPME at the OSD-level. While we believe these steps will improve OSD’s oversight of the military services’ PME and JPME programs, we identified areas that could continue to impede DOD’s ability to assess the effectiveness of these programs. Specifically: DOD lacks a mission statement and performance measures for its PME and JPME programs. DASD(FE&T) officials stated that prior to the draft policy OUSD(P&R) had not developed a mission statement and performance measures for PME, but told us that the draft instruction would include a mission statement and examples of performance measures. However, we did not identify a mission statement for PME that clearly defines the respective key purposes for this program when we reviewed the draft instruction. According to leading training and development practices, a mission statement is important to an organization’s success because it explains the organization’s purpose and goals and is the basis for goal-directed performance measures. The draft instruction proposes the performance measures the military services should track and assess as part of their required annual program reviews, such as graduate assignments and retention rates. Performance measures are important because they assess an organization’s progress toward achieving results that are aligned with its mission. However, without a department-wide mission statement for PME and JPME, OUSD(P&R) is not well-positioned to propose performance measures for the military services to track and enable OUSD(P&R) to assess the effectiveness of these programs. Further, our review of the draft instruction found no examples of cost- related performance measures. DASD(FE&T) officials confirmed that cost-related performance measures were not included in the draft instruction, but told us that they planned to coordinate with officials from the Joint Staff Directorate for Joint Force Development to refine the performance measures sometime in the future. DOD’s Financial Management Regulation states that performance measurement is a means of evaluating efficiency, effectiveness, and results, and that a balanced performance measurement scorecard includes nonfinancial and financial measures focusing on quality, cycle time, and cost. Moreover, leading training and development practices state that performance measures should include both qualitative and quantitative measures to assess training results, and include the identification and tracking of costs. These same leading practices state that organizations should compare associated costs and monetized benefits of training programs to determine return on investment. DASD(FE&T) officials told us that having cost information on the military services’ PME and JPME programs to determine return on investment would enable their office to compare and make well- informed decisions about these programs. DOD lacks a requirement for the military services to report periodically on PME and JPME programs. OUSD(P&R) has not established a requirement for the military services’ to periodically report information to its office on the military services’ respective PME and JPME programs. For example, the Chairman’s PAJE reports that document accreditation findings and include a full, conditional, or no accreditation determination are not provided to OUSD(P&R). According to the OPMEP, PAJE reports will be forwarded to the Chief of the applicable military service, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, or the President of the National Defense University for appropriate action. A Joint Staff official confirmed that PAJE reports are not provided to OUSD(P&R). Our review of the draft instruction found no requirement for the Chairman to provide PAJE reports to OUSD(P&R), nor is there a requirement for the military services to report information on their PME and JPME programs—such as their annual program reviews—to OUSD(P&R). According to DASD(FE&T) officials, reporting requirements were omitted from the draft instruction because their office lacks the personnel to review and assess the information the military services would be required to collect and report. However, without a requirement for the military services’ to periodically report information on their PME and JPME programs, OUSD(P&R)’s ability to assess the effectiveness of these programs and perform meaningful oversight will continue to be limited. Leading training and development practices state that organizations should collect appropriate performance data during implementation and establish accountability for the results of these efforts. Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management relies on quality information to make informed decisions and evaluate the entity’s performance in achieving key objectives and addressing risks. These same standards state that management should receive quality information about the entity’s operational processes to help management achieve the entity’s objectives. Because OUSD(P&R) does not require the military services to periodically report information on their respective PME programs, it does not have information that would help it assess the effectiveness of these programs. We believe that addressing these limitations will enhance the ability of OUSD(P&R) and its subordinate office (i.e., DASD(FE&T)) to oversee and assess the effectiveness of the military services’ PME programs. USD(Comptroller’s) ability to monitor the military services’ PME programs is limited because the military services’ budget request data are incomplete and lack uniformity. DOD’s Financial Management Regulation requires the military services to submit separate budget request data on PME programs in support of DOD’s annual budget request, and this data is included in DOD’s annual congressional budget justification exhibits. While the Financial Management Regulation requires the military services to submit separate annual budget request data exhibits for most of their intermediate- and senior-level PME programs, it does not require the Marine Corps to submit an exhibit for its senior-level PME program, the Marine Corps War College. Based on our review of the Marine Corps’ fiscal years 2014 through 2020 budget request data exhibits and according to the USD(Comptroller) and Marine Corps officials, the Marine Corps did not submit a budget request data exhibit for the Marine Corps War College during this 7-year period. USD(Comptroller) and Marine Corps officials could not explain why the Marine Corps War College was omitted from the DOD Financial Management Regulation, where DOD last updated the chapter requiring this submission in September 2008. In addition, the data the military services include in their annual budget requests varies. DOD Directive 5118.03 outlines USD(Comptroller) responsibilities, requiring the Comptroller to, among other things: (1) direct the formulation and presentation of DOD budgets; and (2) establish and supervise the execution of uniform DOD policies, principles, and procedures, including terminologies and classifications, as necessary, for budget formulation, presentation, and execution, and certain other topics. Additionally, section 2162 of title 10, U.S. Code, requires the Secretary of Defense, with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to promulgate a uniform cost accounting system for use by the Secretaries of the military departments in preparing budget requests for the operation of PME schools. However, the DOD Financial Management Regulation does not specify how the military services should account for the data required for the military services’ budget request data submissions. Consequently, the budget request data reported by the military services varies. For example, in their fiscal year 2020 budget request data submissions the Army and the Air Force combined distance education and in-residence education programs, the Navy reported this data in separate exhibits, and the Marine Corps omitted distance education costs for its intermediate-level PME program. Additionally, according to DOD officials, the extent to which the military services accounted for costs to operate and maintain their PME colleges—such as security, facility maintenance, and information technology support—varies. In 1987, the year following the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the House Armed Services Committee established a panel on PME led by Representative Ike Skelton (the Skelton Panel). The Skelton Panel undertook a comprehensive congressional review of PME, and published its findings and recommendations in a 1989 report (the Skelton Report). Although the Skelton Panel did not take a comprehensive look at how well PME institutions were funded to accomplish their mission, the panel inquired into cost per student at each school and reported receiving from OSD raw data submitted by each PME institution, which included considerable differences in scope and cost methodology used by the PME institutions. The Skelton Report recommended that DOD establish a uniform cost accounting system for the PME schools, and that the annual report of the Secretary of Defense provide data on PME costs beginning in 1990. A 2010 congressional report focused on PME developments since the Skelton Panel’s review, investigated whether a uniform cost accounting system existed, among other things. The congressional report found that DOD did not have a uniform cost accounting method for PME schools, and that it had not provided cost data to support useful comparisons among PME schools. The report included a recommendation for DOD to report its PME funding to Congress using a standardized accounting method for cost per student at each of the PME institutions, as recommended by the Skelton Panel in 1989. According to DASD(FE&T) and Joint Staff officials, the department has not collected or reported PME program cost information to Congress as the 1989 Skelton Report and the 2010 congressional report both recommended. Without complete and uniform budget request data, USD(Comptroller)’s ability to monitor the military services’ PME programs, identify program trends within the Marine Corps and among the other military services’ PME programs, and formulate meaningful inter-service comparisons is limited. DOD relies on PME to prepare its military personnel for the intellectual demands of complex contingences and major conflicts that typically involve more than a single military service. While all the military services’ intermediate- and senior-level PME programs have met or partially met the accreditation requirements established by civilian accreditation bodies and the Chairman to award master’s degrees and JPME credit, respectively, not all service programs have met the seminar student mix requirement. The Navy, for example, has not provided the requisite representation of officers in Army and Air Force intermediate-level seminars during the 2016 – 2018 academic years. Requiring DOD to determine whether the requisite number of Navy officers can be assigned to the military department’s JPME programs and to develop policy to mitigate student mix shortfalls would address persistent student mix imbalances and align with the joint acculturation goal of JPME. OUSD(P&R)’s draft DOD instruction, expected to be finalized in February 2020, will be the prevailing policy document for PME and could improve OSD’s oversight of the military services’ PME and JPME programs. However, OUSD(P&R)’s ability to assess the effectiveness of the military services’ PME programs is limited by the absence of a department-wide mission statement that explains the purpose and goals of PME that aligns with the proposed performance measures in the draft instruction; the absence of a requirement for the military services to track program costs as a performance measure; and the absence of a requirement for the military services to report data on their PME and JPME programs—such as their annual reviews of PME programs. Addressing these limitations would better position OUSD(P&R) to oversee and assess the effectiveness of the military services’ PME and JPME programs. Finally, USD(Comptroller)’s ability to monitor the military services’ PME programs is limited because the services’ budget request data are incomplete and lack uniformity. Although the military services are required to submit separate budget request data exhibits for most PME institutions, the Financial Management Regulation does not require the Marine Corps to submit an annual budget request data exhibit for its senior-level PME program. Moreover, the data the military services include in their annual budget requests vary because the Financial Management Regulation does not specify how to account for costs. Requiring the Marine Corps to report budget request data on its senior-level PME program annually, and specifying how to account for costs in the exhibits would enhance the USD(Comptroller)’s ability to monitor the military services’ PME programs and also enhance Congress’s ability to identify trends among these programs. We are making a total of seven recommendations to the Secretary of Defense. Specifically: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of the Navy, determine whether it can assign the required number of Navy officers to the other military departments’ JPME programs, consistent with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff guidance. (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the military services, develop policy concerning actions, if any, the military services can take to mitigate JPME seminar student mix shortfalls and still meet the intent of the OPMEP’s joint acculturation requirement. (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff, develop and issue a department-wide mission statement for PME that will explain the program’s purpose and goals, and serve as a basis for performance measures. (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issue and implement performance measures—to include the tracking of costs—that align with the department-wide mission statement for PME. (Recommendation 4) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, require the military services to periodically report information to its office about the military services’ PME and JPME programs—such as results of program reviews. (Recommendation 5) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense(Comptroller) updates the DOD Financial Management Regulation to require the Marine Corps to include a budget request data exhibit for the Marine Corps War College in support of DOD’s annual budget request. (Recommendation 6) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military services and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issue guidance to standardize the cost data that the military services should include in their annual PME budget request data submissions. (Recommendation 7) We provided a draft of this product to DOD for comment. In its comments, reproduced in Appendix II, DOD concurred with all of our recommendations and stated that it will be implementing our recommendations by issuing policy, among other actions. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. The Joint Special Operations University (JSOU) was established in September 2000 and is located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. The mission of JSOU is to prepare special operations forces to shape the future strategic environment by providing specialized Joint Professional Military Education (JPME); developing applicable undergraduate- and postgraduate-level equivalent curriculum; and fostering special operations research, analysis, and outreach in support of Special Operations Command objectives. JSOU staff and faculty include active duty, active reserve, and temporary duty reserve military personnel; government civilians; civilian contractors; private consultants; and guest lecturers and speakers. JSOU’s active duty military personnel are assigned to the university by Special Operations Command and the military services. JSOU’s professional military education vision is to prepare warfighters to solve ambiguous, complex problems across the spectrum of conflict by providing dynamic and adaptive professional education opportunities. In August 2015, the Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training accredited JSOU through December 2019. As of January 2020, officials stated that they are currently undergoing reaccreditation and expect reaffirmation notification by the end of February 2020. While JSOU offers a number of courses, seminars, and programs, officials from JSOU and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict stated the university has no near-term plans to award master’s degrees; therefore, no additional civilian accreditation is necessary. JSOU officials said that they are contemplating offering senior-level JPME in the future, but stated that such an endeavor would take approximately at least 10 years to accomplish. Consistent with its mission of preparing special operations forces to shape the future strategic environment, JSOU laid out the following seven goals in its 2019 academic guidance: 1. Continue to refine target audiences in all courses, assuring the right curricula is provided to the right student at the right time. 2. Implement a title 10, U.S. Code, civilian faculty hiring process that leverages the DOD professional military education community, fully supports the JSOU vision, and retains control to rapidly hire faculty with expertise in required disciplines. 3. Establish and complete a comprehensive building improvement plan that provides a quality learning environment conducive to educational excellence and student success. 4. Establish and complete a comprehensive education technology plan that brings all classrooms and auditoriums up to planned capability inherent in a state-of-the-art learning institution. 5. Facilitate the Technology Review Committee to define and develop the JSOU advanced classroom concept, capable of a wide variety of innovative teaching methodologies. 6. Develop and sustain academic programs in the emerging mission areas of artificial intelligence/machine learning, countering weapons of mass destruction, cyberspace, sensitive activities, and joint unconventional warfare that directly support special operations. 7. Develop highly effective academic instructors and distinguished experts in their individual fields of knowledge. Remain sensitive to individual needs and career development as JSOU embarks on new hiring processes and classroom innovations. According to the JSOU Fact Book for 2018, the newly authorized title 10, U.S. Code, civilian faculty hiring authorities will allow JSOU faculty to attain new heights of excellence with expertise not normally found within the military or civil service communities. The handbook states that the title 10, U.S. Code, faculty hiring authority will have a major impact on shaping JSOU’s curriculum, and will directly add to special operations forces’ readiness and capability. Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512 -3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. In addition to the contact named above, Marc Schwartz (Assistant Director), Norris “Traye” Smith (Analyst in Charge), Rebecca Guerrero, Edward Malone, Stephanie Moriarty, Patricia Powell, Carter Stevens, and Lillian M. Yob made significant contributions to this report. Higher Education: Expert Views of U.S. Accreditation. GAO-18-5. (Washington, D.C.: December. 22, 2017). Higher Education: Education Should Strengthen Oversight of Schools and Accreditors. GAO-15-59. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2014. Joint Professional Military Education: Opportunities Exist for Greater Oversight and Coordination of Associated Research Institutions. GAO-14-216. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2014. Joint Military Education: Actions Needed to Implement DOD Recommendations for Enhancing Leadership Development. GAO-14-29. Washington, D.C.: October 23, 2013.
DOD relies on PME and JPME to prepare its military personnel throughout their careers for the intellectual demands of complex contingences and major conflicts that typically involve more than a single military service. However, according to DOD's summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, PME “has stagnated, focused more on the accomplishment of mandatory credit at the expense of lethality and ingenuity.” The Conference Report accompanying the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 included a provision for GAO to evaluate DOD PME and JPME institutions. This report examines the extent to which (1) the military services' PME programs have met civilian and JPME accreditation requirements, (2) OSD has assessed the effectiveness of the military services' PME programs, and (3) USD (Comptroller) has monitored the military services' PME program budget data. GAO analyzed applicable laws and policy, analyzed accreditation and budget information, and interviewed officials from the military services' intermediate- and senior-level resident PME programs. All of the military services' intermediate- and senior-level officer Professional Military Education (PME) programs have met civilian and met or partially met Joint PME (JPME) accreditation requirements. However, not all of the military services' PME programs met the JPME seminar student mix requirement of at least one student from the nonhost military department. For example, the Army's intermediate-level PME program did not meet its Sea Service (i.e., Navy, Marine Corps, and, in certain instances, Coast Guard) requirement (see table). GAO's analysis found that the Navy could have assigned officers to Air Force and Army programs while not harming participation in its own seminars. Without taking steps to improve Sea Service participation, students lose opportunities to interact with students from other military departments, which officials have identified as critical to joint acculturation. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has taken steps to improve its oversight of the military services' PME programs, but is limited in its ability to assess their effectiveness. Department of Defense (DOD) guidance states that performance measurement is a means of evaluating efficiency, effectiveness, and results and that a balanced performance measurement scorecard includes nonfinancial and financial measures focusing on quality, cycle time, and costs. While OSD is in the process of developing some performance measures, it is not planning to require the military services to track program costs. Implementing its planned measures and establishing costs as a performance measure will better position OSD to assess the effectiveness of PME programs. The Under Secretary of Defense (USD) (Comptroller's) ability to monitor the military services' PME programs is limited by incomplete and inconsistent reporting of service budget request data. DOD guidance does not require the Marine Corps to submit an annual budget request data exhibit for its senior-level PME program and existing guidance for programs that are reported does not specify how to uniformly account for costs. Without complete and uniform budget request data, USD(Comptroller) is challenged in monitoring these programs. GAO is making seven recommendations, including that DOD take steps to determine its ability to assign Navy officers to PME programs of other services, implement performance measures–including tracking of costs, and issue guidance for service reporting of PME budget request data. DOD concurred with all of GAO's recommendations.