Professionalism relates to the military profession, which DOD defines as  the values, ethics, standards, code of conduct, skills, and attributes of its  workforce. DOD Has a Management Framework to Help Oversee Its Ethics and Professionalism Programs and Initiatives but Has Not Taken Certain Actions That Could Promote Continued Progress

DOD has a management framework to help oversee its required ethics  program, and it has initiated steps to establish a management framework  to oversee its professionalism-related programs and initiatives. However,  DOD has not fully addressed an internal recommendation to develop a  department-wide values-based ethics program, and it does not have  performance information to assess the Senior Advisor for Military  Professionalism’s (SAMP) progress and to inform its decision on whether  the office should be retained beyond March 2016. DOD Has a Management Framework to Help Oversee Its Ethics Program but Has Not Fully Addressed an Internal Recommendation to Develop a Values-Based Ethics Program

			DOD Has a Management Framework in Place to Oversee Its Established Ethics Program

DOD has a decentralized structure to administer and oversee its required  ethics program and to ensure compliance with departmental standards of  conduct. In response to the Panel’s recommendation, DOD contracted for a 2010  survey and a 2012 study to assess DOD’s ethical culture and to  design and implement a values-based ethics program, respectively. Recent department-wide activities have been  wide-ranging, and include (1) 13 character development initiatives for  general and flag officers; (2) a review of ethics content in professional  military education; and (3) the development of tools, such as command  climate and 360-degree assessments, that can be used to identify and  assess ethics-related issues. The SAMP office has taken steps toward implementing its  major tasks, but DOD does not have key performance information to help  inform the decision as to whether the SAMP position should be retained  beyond its initial 2-year term—which is set to expire in March 2016. The need for  senior-level oversight of professionalism or ethics issues also was cited  by other DOD, industry, and foreign military organizations we contacted. DOD Has Identified Potential Tools for Assessing Ethics and Professionalism Issues but Has Not Fully Implemented Key Tools or Developed Performance Metrics

DOD has identified a number of mandatory and optional tools that  defense organizations can use to identify and assess individual and  organizational ethics and professionalism issues. In addition, not all of the military services’ guidance fully meets DOD  guidance. DOD Does Not Have Performance Metrics to Measure Its Progress in Addressing Ethics and Professionalism Issues

Federal internal control standards emphasize the importance of  assessing performance over time, but DOD is unable to determine  whether its ethics and professionalism initiatives are achieving their  intended effect because it has not yet developed metrics to measure the  department’s progress in addressing ethics and professionalism issues. In particular, without fully considering the Panel on  Contracting Integrity’s recommendation to create a values-based ethics  program and the subsequent 2012 study recommendations, as well as  assessing the feasibility of expanding annual values-based ethics training  beyond the current mandated personnel, DOD will not have assurance  that it is doing enough to promote an ethical culture, and it may face  challenges in identifying areas for future action. If DOD does not believe such a program or the actions  recommended by the 2012 study are warranted, then it should  demonstrate why additional actions are unwarranted. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To evaluate the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) has  developed and implemented a management framework to oversee its  programs and initiatives on professionalism and ethics for active duty  officers and enlisted servicemembers we assessed—against leading  practices for strategic planning and performance management, and  federal internal control standards—guidance, plans, and work products to  determine the extent to which DOD has defined roles, responsibilities,  measures, and timelines for managing its existing ethics program and  professionalism oversight framework. We did not assess the  reliability of these data, but we have included them in the report to provide  context. To do this, we met with officials from the  Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military services, and the Joint  Staff to obtain information on the status of their efforts to implement and  track command climate assessments, and to develop and implement 360- degree assessments for general and flag officers in accordance with  statutory requirements and departmental initiatives.
Why GAO Did This Study

Professionalism and sound ethical judgment are essential to executing the fundamental mission of DOD and to maintaining confidence in military leadership, but recent DOD and military service investigations have revealed misconduct related to, among other things, sexual behavior, bribery, and cheating.
House Report 113-446 included a provision for GAO to review DOD's ethics and professionalism programs for military servicemembers. This report examines the extent to which DOD has developed and implemented (1) a management framework to oversee its programs and initiatives on ethics and professionalism; and (2) tools and performance metrics to identify, assess, and measure progress in addressing ethics and professionalism issues. GAO analyzed DOD guidance and documents related to military ethics and professionalism, reviewed literature to identify ethics issues and practices, and interviewed DOD, industry, and foreign military officials experienced in implementing ethics and professionalism programs.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) has a management framework to help oversee its existing ethics program and has initiated steps to establish such a framework to oversee its professionalism-related programs and initiatives, but its efforts could be strengthened in both areas.
DOD has a decentralized structure to administer and oversee its existing, required compliance-based ethics program, which focuses on ensuring adherence to rules. However, DOD has not fully addressed a 2008 internal recommendation to develop a department-wide values-based ethics program, which would emphasize ethical principles and decision-making to foster an ethical culture and achieve high standards of conduct. In 2012, DOD studied the design and implementation of a values-based ethics program and in 2013 delivered related training to certain DOD personnel. DOD has decided to take no further actions to establish a values-based ethics program, but it has not demonstrated that additional actions are unwarranted or assessed the feasibility of expanding training to additional personnel. As a result, the department neither has assurance that it has adequately addressed the identified need for a values-based ethics program nor has information needed to target its training efforts appropriately.
DOD established a 2-year, potentially renewable, position for a Senior Advisor for Military Professionalism, ending in March 2016, to oversee its professionalism-related efforts. Since 2014 the Advisor's office has identified and taken steps toward implementing some of its major tasks, which relate to coordinating and integrating DOD's efforts on professionalism. Professionalism relates to the values, ethics, standards, code of conduct, skills, and attributes of the military workforce. However, the office has not developed timelines or information to assess its progress in completing its major tasks. Thus, DOD does not have information to track the office's progress or assess whether the SAMP position should be retained after March 2016.
DOD has not fully implemented two key tools for identifying and assessing ethics and professionalism issues, and it has not developed performance metrics to measure its progress in addressing ethics-related issues. DOD has identified several tools, such as command climate and 360-degree assessments, that can be used to identify and assess ethics and professionalism issues. However, guidance issued by the military services for command climate assessments does not meet all statutory requirements and DOD guidance. As a result, the services do not have the required level of accountability during the performance evaluation process over the occurrence of these assessments, or assurances that all military personnel are able to anonymously participate in them. Further, the Navy, Marine Corps, and Joint Staff have developed and implemented 360-degree assessments for some but not all general and flag officers, and therefore some of these officers are not receiving valuable feedback on their performance as intended by DOD guidance. Finally, federal internal control standards emphasize the assessment of performance over time, but DOD is unable to determine whether its ethics and professionalism initiatives are achieving their intended effect because it has not developed metrics to measure their progress.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends DOD determine whether there is a need for a values-based program, assess the expansion of training, modify guidance, assess the use of a key tool for identifying ethics and professionalism issues, and develop performance metrics. DOD generally or partially concurred with these recommendations but did not agree to develop information to assess the Advisor's office. GAO continues to believe the recommendations are valid, as further discussed in the report.