Military officers can participate in a variety of types of  fellowships at host organizations such as universities, think tanks,  corporations, federal agencies, and congressional committees or member  offices. Think tanks. assignments. However, for two types  of fellowships—legislative and interagency—the underlying authorities are  less explicit than they are for the others. DOD Primarily Uses Two Explicit Statutory Authorities

We determined that DOD’s authority to pursue fellowships at non-DOD  educational institutions, foundations, and corporations derives primarily  from section 2603 of Title 10 of the United States Code, which authorizes  servicemembers to accept fellowships from certain organizations, and  section 2013 of Title 10 of the United States Code, which authorizes the  training of servicemembers at nongovernmental facilities. OSD Has Limited Visibility over Fellowship and Training-with-Industry Programs

OSD has limited visibility over its fellowship and training-with-industry  programs, because (1) OSD has not developed a clear mission statement  for these programs that defines the programs’ purpose, (2) OSD has not  consistently enforced its requirement for the military departments to  provide annual reports on fellowship and training-with-industry programs,  and (3) not all fellowship and training-with-industry programs have a  designated office within each department to be responsible for preparing  information for these programs. In turn, OSD does not have a reliable  inventory of the various fellowship and training-with-industry programs to  educate its military officers. Additionally, OSD has limited visibility over  one type of fellowship program—legislative—because OSD has not  clearly delineated roles and responsibilities for overseeing this program  and has not developed documented criteria for the placement of DOD  fellows with congressional committees and members. OSD officials agree  that such placement criteria would be helpful, since DOD does not have  enough legislative fellows to meet the full congressional demand. Having a clear mission statement is  critical because it defines an organization’s purpose in language that  states desired outcomes. An OSD official stated that establishing a clear  mission statement would improve its ability to conduct policy oversight of  DOD’s fellowship and training programs. Military Services Are Not Well Positioned to Determine the Extent of the Benefits from These Programs

The military services believe that they derive benefits from their  fellowships and training-with-industry programs, but they are not well  positioned to determine the extent of these benefits for four main reasons. For  example, they do not ensure that the needs that prompted the program  and the goals of the program are being met. Third, the services do not know their overall  program costs, including both direct and indirect costs, and therefore it is  difficult to know whether these programs are cost-effective. For some of the programs,  there is no requirement to conduct periodic program reviews. Without conducting periodic and  comprehensive performance reviews, the services’ ability to determine  the benefit they derive from fellowship and training-with-industry  programs will remain limited. To help ensure compliance with DOD Instruction 1322.06 and thus  enhance DOD’s visibility over all of the fellowship and training-with- industry programs, and to promote a shared understanding across the  military services of what is expected in meeting the instruction, the  Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness to take the following five actions:  (1) develop a mission statement that clearly defines the respective  purposes of the legislative and nonlegislative fellowship and training-with- industry programs to be in a better position to know the extent to which  desired program outcomes are being achieved;  (2) more consistently enforce the DOD instruction’s requirement on the  submission of annual reviews from the military services on these  programs; and  (3) collaborate with the military departments to ensure that each service  has designated an office to be responsible for compiling information on  the legislative and nonlegislative fellowship and training-with-industry  programs for the annual reports required in the DOD instruction. Finally, to better position DOD to determine the extent of the benefits it  derives from legislative and nonlegislative fellowship and training-with- industry programs and better assess whether fellowship and training-with- industry programs offer the best venues for developing needed personnel  skills, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the  Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the  Department of the Air Force to take the following four actions:  (8) perform periodic and comprehensive program reviews that assess the  progress using quantifiable measures, validate that programs continue to  meet current or emerging needs, incorporate feedback from program  participants and host organizations, and document the results of reviews;  (9) clarify guidance for determining what qualifies as a follow-on utilization  tour, and establish criteria to determine when a utilization tour is needed  or, conversely, when it can be postponed or waived;  (10) determine the direct costs of these programs by periodically  obtaining and analyzing overall direct program costs, and explore the  feasibility of estimating indirect program costs; and  (11) establish and periodically review fellowship written agreements or  memoranda of understanding to document key information and  expectations between the services and the host organizations, such as  fellowship objectives, criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of fees or  tuition charged to the military departments , and criteria for evaluating the  appropriateness of the projects involved. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the   11 recommendations we made to improve OSD oversight and strengthen  the military services’ management of its fellowships and training-with- industry programs. To determine the extent to which the military services are able to  determine that they derive benefits from these programs, we obtained  and assessed service guidance, collected and reviewed information on  service processes and practices used to manage their programs, and  interviewed service officials.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Defense (DOD), which includes the military services, selects mid- to upper-career-level military officers to participate in fellowship and training-with-industry programs conducted at non-DOD organizations such as universities, think tanks, private corporations, federal agencies, and Congress. For some fellowships, the military departments pay a fee or tuition to the host organization. GAO was directed to review DODs use of these programs. GAOs objectives were to determine: (1) the statutory provisions that authorize DODs fellowship and training-with-industry programs for military officers, (2) the extent of the Office of the Secretary of Defenses (OSD) visibility over these programs, and (3) the extent to which the services are able to determine that they derive benefits from these programs. GAO analyzed relevant laws and DOD policies, collected data, and interviewed OSD and military service officials on their oversight and management roles and responsibilities for these programs.

What GAO Found

GAO determined that DOD primarily uses two explicit statutory authoritiessection 2603 of Title 10 of the United States Code, which authorizes servicemembers to accept fellowships from certain organizations, and section 2013 of Title 10 of the United States Code, which authorizes the training of servicemembers at nongovernmental facilitiesfor its fellowships and training-with-industry programs for military officers. For two specific types of fellowshipsLegislative and Interagencythe underlying authorities are less explicit than they are for the others.
OSD has limited visibility over its fellowship and training-with-industry programs for several reasons. First, OSD has not developed a mission statement that would clearly define the respective key purposes for these programs. Having a clear mission statement is critical because it defines an organizations purpose in language that states desired outcomes. Additionally, OSD has not consistently enforced its requirement for the military departments to provide an annual report on fellowship and training-with-industry programs. Further, not all fellowship and training-with-industry programs have a designated office within each department for preparing the annual report. OSDs visibility is also limited by not having a reliable inventory of these various programs, and by not having a clear and commonly shared definition of a fellowship. Without improved oversight, OSDs visibility over the military departments compliance with its requirements governing these programs will remain limited. Additionally, visibility is limited over the legislative fellowship program in particular because oversight responsibilities are not clearly delineated, and because OSD does not have documented criteria for the placement of DOD fellows with the offices of congressional committees and members. OSD officials agree that such criteria would be helpful since it does not have enough available fellows to meet the full congressional demand.
The military services are not well positioned to determine the extent of the benefits they are deriving from their participation in these programs for four principal reasons. First, not all of the services conduct periodic program reviews, as are required for some programs. In addition, the reviews that are conducted are not comprehensive in that they do not assess the program against program goals using quantifiable performance measures, review the needs that prompted the program, incorporate feedback from fellows into the review, or document the results of the review. Second, they do not have clear guidance as to what qualifies as a postfellowship assignmentan assignment that uses the skills and knowledge developed during the fellowship programor criteria for when such assignments can be postponed or waived, thus limiting the extent the services are able to determine they are deriving benefits from these programs. Third, the services do not know their overall program costs, so it is difficult to know whether these programs are cost-effective. Finally, some of the services do not have memoranda of understanding with the non-DOD host organizations, such as think tanks, so they cannot be assured that expectations are clearly understood and the intended benefits are obtained. Without better management controls, the services ability to determine the benefits of these programs will remain limited. However, service officials believe that they obtain benefits from fellowships and training-with-industry programs.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making 11 recommendations to DOD for improving oversight and management of DODs fellowship and training-with-industry programsfor example, submitting DOD-required annual reports and performing service-required program reviewsthat would enhance OSDs visibility over the programs and better position DOD to determine the extent to which it derives benefits from them. In response to a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the 11 recommendations and stated its action plan to implement the recommendations.