1). The degree of cost sharing  required varies by, among other things, project purpose. The Corps Has Had Mixed Results in Modifying Its Organizational Alignment in Response to Changes in Its Mission, Budget, Staffing, and Workload

The Corps has faced significant changes in its mission, budget, staffing,  and workload over the last several decades. While the agency’s fundamental structure has  remained the same since 1893, it has made efforts to realign its  organization within its three-tiered structure—some of which have been  implemented, but others were not. 2). Past Efforts to Realign the Corps’ Organizational Structure

The Corps’ three-tiered structure—headquarters, divisions, and districts— has remained the same since 1893. Also, because of its expanding mission,  the Corps realigned its district offices in the 1970s by, for example, hiring  environmental specialists. In response, the Corps expanded its district roles and  responsibilities and implemented a project management process in 1989 to  improve relationships with nonfederal partners and improve project costs  and timelines. Specifically, from 1994 to 2003, the  Corps experienced a period of static administrative funding levels. In  response to this situation, the Corps launched an organizational initiative  in 2003—called USACE 2012—to realign the roles, functions, and  processes of the three tiers with the goal of improving the efficiency of the  Civil Works Program. Congress did not approve this  proposal, and it was not implemented. The Corps Has Faced and Will Likely Continue to Face Challenges If It Undertakes Organizational Realignment in the Future

Inability to obtain congressional support has been and will continue to be  the primary challenge to any organizational realignment, according to the  officials and stakeholders we interviewed, as well as our analysis of  records of past realignment attempts. These include the Corps’ funding  structure and the autonomous culture of its districts. However, some officials said that sponsors may be reluctant to  fund such a study because it will not necessarily result in a project in their  district. Officials and Stakeholders Agree That the Corps’ Three- Tiered Structure Is Appropriate, but Some Changes to Alignment Could Enhance Its Effectiveness

While many current and former Corps officials and stakeholders generally  agreed that the Corps’ three-tiered structure was appropriate to meet its  mission, some believe that the number of districts could be reduced as  part of a comprehensive organizational realignment. Specifically, according to the officials and  stakeholders we spoke with, the Corps’ three-tiered structure allows each  tier to focus on the client and stakeholder needs at that level. Current and Former Officials Identified the Need for Updated Guidance to Improve the Corps’ Effectiveness

In addition to identifying ways of improving the use of expertise, the  majority of current division and district commanders we interviewed, as  well as a former senior Corps official, said that the Corps’ technical  guidance is outdated and needs to be revised. According to some Corps  division and district commanders, on average Corps technical guidance is  between 10 and 15 years out of date, and some guidance dates back to the  1970s. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the effectiveness of the Corps’ Civil Works Program, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Chief of Engineers  and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take the  following four actions:    Review and revise as necessary the roles and responsibilities of each  component level of the organization and ensure that they are clearly  articulated in agency guidance;  re-evaluate the Centers of Expertise and develop a process to help ensure  that they are consistently used across the agency;    determine the extent to which the agency’s technical guidance needs to be  updated, create a schedule for completing these updates, and if additional  funding is needed to accomplish these updates, provide this information to  Congress; and    work with Congress to develop a more stable project funding approach  that facilitates project implementation and that provides more efficient  and effective use of funds. The department agreed that the Centers of  Expertise need to be periodically reviewed and that the agency should  improve its guidance and information on the types of services available  and qualifications of the experts in the Centers. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

We were asked to examine (1) how, over time, the U.S. Army Corps of  Engineers (Corps) has modified its organizational alignment to take into  account its changing mission, budget, staffing, and workload; (2) the  challenges the Corps has faced in realigning its organization and the extent  to which these or other challenges are still relevant; and (3) what changes  to the Corps’ organizational alignment, if any, do officials and stakeholders  believe could enhance the effectiveness of the civil works mission. During these interviews, we discussed whether the Corps was aligned to  accomplish its mission, opportunities to realign roles and responsibilities  of the three-tiers, advantages and disadvantages to the number and  location of districts and divisions, opportunities to realign expertise and  the sharing of best practices, realignment of and challenges associated  with the way in which the Corps is funded, and challenges associated with  past and any future realignment of the Corps’ Civil Works Program.
Why GAO Did This Study

The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers' (Corps) civil works mission has grown over the years, while its three-tiered headquarters, division, and district structure has remained the same since it was created in 1893. GAO was asked to examine for the Civil Works Program (1) over time, how the Corps has realigned its organization to take into account its changing mission, budget, staffing, and workload; (2) the challenges that the Corps has faced in realigning its organization; and (3) areas where officials and stakeholders believe changes to organizational alignment, if any, could enhance the Corps' civil works mission. Organizational alignment refers to, among other things, changes in structure, roles and responsibilities, and technical and policy guidance. GAO completed a historical and legislative review of the Corps' mission and past realignment efforts, reviewed budget, staffing, and workload data, and interviewed current and former officials and stakeholders.

What GAO Found

Since 1893, the Corps has had mixed results in modifying its organizational alignment in response to its changing mission, budget, staffing, and workload, but the fundamental structure has remained the same. For example, the Corps has added capacity and staff in response to its expanding mission, which now includes nine functional areas. Additionally, from 1994 to 2003, the Corps experienced static funding levels and responded by launching an effort that realigned the agency roles, functions, and processes to improve the efficiency of the Civil Works Program. In contrast to these efforts, other past proposals for realignment have not been implemented. For example, in 1992, the Corps proposed reducing the number of district offices in response to a diminished workload and budget. However, Congress did not support the closing of any districts, and therefore, this, as well as other similar proposals, have not been implemented. The Corps has faced and will likely continue to face three challenges to any realignment effort: (1) inability to gain congressional support, (2) limitations of its funding structure, and (3) the autonomous culture of its districts. Most current and former officials told GAO that past attempts to realign district offices have failed because of a lack of congressional support. They said that the perceived risk of service reductions and job losses has and will continue to generate congressional resistance to such realignment efforts. In addition, they said the Corps' annual incremental project-based appropriations and cost-sharing requirements create an impediment to realignment. For example, funding projects in increments hinders project efficiency by increasing costs and timelines. Finally, they said the autonomous culture of the districts has created a culture where they are reluctant to share resources and workload. This has impeded the Corps' efforts to realign its work and resources more efficiently. Although many officials and stakeholders that GAO spoke with generally agreed that the Corps' structure is appropriate because it allows each level to focus on client and stakeholder needs at that level, some said that the current workload did not justify 38 districts. Officials and stakeholders also identified three areas where changes could result in enhanced effectiveness. First, they identified the need to redefine and clarify roles and responsibilities within the three levels so that Corps staff and managers are clear about the extent of their responsibilities. Second, there are opportunities to make better use of the Corps' Centers of Expertise, which were created to consolidate key skills and knowledge and improve the effectiveness of the overall Civil Works Program. Areas in which the centers could be improved include better information on the types of services available and qualifications of the experts in the centers. Finally, the majority of division and district commanders we interviewed said that the Corps' technical guidance is outdated and needs to be revised. Some of this technical guidance is between 10 and 15 years out of date and may result in divisions and districts executing projects differently. To improve the effectiveness of the Corps, GAO recommends, among other things, that the Department of Defense direct the Corps to review and revise as necessary the roles and responsibilities of component levels of the organization, and determine the extent to which the agency's technical guidance needs to be updated. The Department of Defense generally agreed with the recommendations.