The  intelligence community had 120 days to conduct its review. DOD Took Steps to Assess Civilian Senior Leader Workforce Requirements but Did Not Document and Summarize the Results of Its Assessments

		DOD’s Approach for Assessing Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical Workforce Requirements

In 2008, DOD conducted a baseline review to assess and validate Senior  Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical workforce  requirements and reported to Congress that this was a rigorous analysis. Moreover, department  officials stated that they did not present their aggregate analysis in a report  summarizing the results of the baseline review. They further stated that DOD did not summarize the analysis  because the information was only intended to be used to support a variety  of human capital management processes taking place in the department. For example, the department said it used information from the baseline  review in DOD’s 2009 update to its Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan. Without clearly documenting or summarizing the information in an  analysis that could be readily traced back to the component submissions,  DOD is not providing Congress and other stakeholders—such as those in  the chain of command—clear insight and visibility into DOD’s validation  of requirements for its civilian senior leader workforces and whether  those validated requirements reflect the results of its baseline review. A Consistent Approach to Identify, Communicate, and Address Needs Was Used in DOD’s Request for Additional Senior Leaders, but the Defense Intelligence Community’s Approach Lacked Similar Consistency

		For Most Entities, DOD Conducted an Analytical Assessment of Needs Using Standard Criteria

For most entities—the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Office of the  Director of Administration and Management, the Office of the Chairman  of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other offices—DOD conducted an  analytical assessment of needs using standard criteria. Without the use of  common criteria and without better communication of its justifications for  additional positions, requests to Congress to increase the number of  Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service personnel will not appear to  be well-supported. DOD’s Approach for Developing and Managing Civilian Senior Executive Service Personnel Includes Policies and an Executive Education Program, Though Limitations Exist

In addition to identifying the need for civilian senior leaders, DOD has  recently established overarching policy for managing and developing its  Senior Executive Service workforce. In addition, chief among DOD’s efforts to develop its Senior Executive  Service workforce is DOD’s new Defense Senior Leader Development  Program, which DOD established in 2008 and, according to program  officials, costs an average of $6.5 million per fiscal year. However, according to DOD officials, the department does not have  specific metrics for the program. Our prior work on  effective strategic workforce planning has shown that high-performing  organizations recognize the importance of measuring both the outcomes  of human capital strategies as well as the ways that these outcomes have  helped the organizations accomplish their missions and programmatic  goals. Similarly, DOD  must be able to communicate those needs in a manner that facilitates  informed decision making. To improve the management and development of DOD’s civilian senior  leader workforces, we are recommending that the Secretary of Defense  take the following three actions:    direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to finalize and issue  common criteria for the military service intelligence elements and the  defense intelligence agencies to use in their assessments of Defense  Intelligence Senior Executive Service requirements;     direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and  the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to better communicate key  information, including justifications for each Defense Intelligence Senior  Executive Service position needed, during the development and  presentation of legislative proposals to congressional decision makers;  and      direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness to establish clearly defined metrics for the Defense Senior  Leader Development Program in order to measure the overall success of  the program. However, the  department concurred with GAO’s recommendation to document the  analysis conducted in future reviews of its civilian senior leaders when  such reviews are specifically targeted for an intended outcome. 1. DOD asserted that our statement that “some of the components’  information was incomplete” was not accurate. However, this DOD official was  unable to provide us with copies of the assessments completed by  the Army and Air Force. 2. 3. In light of the internal control  standards, which we reference in our report, we continue to believe  that the department should have documented and summarized its  analysis. The department asked that the sentence be  changed to “DOD’s ability to provide Congress and other  stakeholders clear insight and visibility into the defense intelligence  community’s validation of requirements for its civilian senior leader  workforces can be improved by clearly documented analysis that  can be traced back to component submissions.” We disagree with  the assumption that certain information does not exist, and we did  not add the phrase “clearly documented analysis that can be traced  back to components submissions” because it was already stated in a  prior sentence in our report and would therefore be duplicative. DOD Civilian Personnel: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce Plans  Needed.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Defense (DOD) relies heavily on its civilian workforce to perform duties usually performed by military personnel--including combat support functions such as logistics. Civilian senior leaders--some of whom occupy positions that might be cut during DOD's latest attempts to reduce overhead costs--are among those who manage DOD's civilians. In 2007, Congress mandated that DOD assess requirements for its civilian senior leader workforce in light of recent trends. DOD reported its recent reply to this requirement in its 2009 update to the Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan, which used information from a 2008 baseline review to validate its senior leader requirements. GAO was asked to review DOD's approach for (1) assessing its civilian senior leader workforce requirements, (2) identifying and communicating the need for additional senior leaders, and (3) developing and managing this workforce. GAO reviewed submissions for DOD's baseline review and requests for additional senior leaders, including DOD's intelligence agencies. GAO also interviewed DOD and Office of Personnel Management officials.

What GAO Found

DOD conducted a baseline review to assess and validate its civilian senior leader requirements but did not document its analysis or summarize the results of the review. Standards for internal controls call for significant events to be documented and summarized to facilitate tracing transactions and related information. Specifically, in April 2008, DOD issued guidance for components outside its intelligence community to conduct a baseline review of its senior leader needs. While DOD reported to Congress that this was a rigorous analysis, GAO found that some of the components' information was incomplete and DOD was unable to provide documentation of an analysis summarizing its results. DOD officials said that they did not summarize the analysis because the information was only intended to support a number of human capital management efforts, including a report to Congress on DOD's Civilian Human Capital Plan. Similarly, DOD's intelligence community, in 2007, issued guidance for assessing its workforce needs but also did not summarize its analysis. DOD officials stated that while the analysis was not summarized, it resulted in a number of key decisions--for example, a reduction in one agency's senior leader needs. However, without documenting and summarizing information in an analysis that could be traced to component submissions, DOD may not be able to provide Congress and stakeholders in its chain of command insight into how it assessed its senior leader needs. While most DOD entities used a consistent, clearly documented approach to identify and communicate needs for additional civilian senior leaders, the defense intelligence community's approach lacked similar consistency. Outside of the defense intelligence community, DOD used common criteria to identify its most urgent needs for additional senior leaders and communicated those needs and justifications through the chain of command. The defense intelligence community, however, assessed its needs for additional personnel using various sets of criteria and communicated those needs as one aggregate number without providing specific justifications to stakeholders and, ultimately, to Congress. GAO's prior work has shown that establishing common criteria and clear communication strategies strengthens agency processes. Without such criteria and a well-defined set of communication expectations, requests to increase senior leaders in the defense intelligence community will not appear to be supported and justified. DOD's approach for managing and developing civilian leaders includes policies and an executive education program but has some limitations. For example, the executive education program--which, according to program officials, costs an average of $6.5 million per year--was created to address problems of a predecessor program, including the lack of a plan for how graduates would be used in the future. The new program, however, does not have clearly defined metrics to measure the progress or success of the program. GAO previously reported that high-performing organizations recognize the importance of measuring how programs meet their goals.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD (1) document analyses and clarify assessment criteria for determining certain senior leader requirements and (2) create clearly defined metrics for its executive education program. DOD generally concurred with GAO's recommendations.