DOD Has Issued Documents to Facilitate Coordination, but Its Entities Lack Clearly Defined Roles and Responsibilities

While DOD has issued a number of strategies, policies, and guidance  related to interagency coordination for its homeland defense and civil  support missions, DOD entities lack clearly defined roles and  responsibilities because key documents are outdated, are not fully  integrated, or are not comprehensive. Because DOD’s law  enforcement support directive has not been updated or superseded in 20  years, it is unclear which DOD office is responsible for coordinating with  law enforcement agencies. By updating, integrating, and ensuring the comprehensiveness of its  strategy, policy, and guidance, DOD would be better positioned to improve  and institutionalize its interagency coordination and external  communication efforts for homeland defense and civil support matters. DOD Communicates with Federal Partners through Various Means, but Its Approach Could be Improved

DOD communicates with its federal interagency partners through  numerous formal and informal forums, such as conferences, and  documents; however, DOD has not clearly identified the roles and  responsibilities and day-to-day coordination processes with its federal  partners through a single, readily accessible source for DOD’s federal  partners that articulates such information. For example, the 2008 National Defense Strategy states  that a unified “whole-of-government” approach is possible only when  every government department and agency understands the core  competencies, roles, missions, and capabilities of its partners. DOD Does Not Have Comprehensive Knowledge Regarding Exchanged DOD and Non- DOD Liaisons

While various DOD entities, such as NORTHCOM and ASD/HD, may be  aware of the liaisons they have individually assigned to their federal  partners, neither of these two entities nor any other DOD entity has  comprehensive situational awareness of liaisons exchanged with other  federal agencies. DOD Conducts Performance Assessments of Its Liaisons but Has Opportunities to Enhance Their Scope

DOD policy recognizes the need to conduct personnel performance  assessments. However, DOD’s performance assessments of its liaisons are  not focused on coordination competencies, and DOD does not  consistently provide feedback to its federal partners about their liaisons’  performance. We also found that DOD did not consistently request input from its federal  partners on the performance of its liaisons, nor did it provide input for the  performance assessments of non-DOD liaisons working at DOD entities. Specifically, updates of such policy and guidance  should include:    DOD’s Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support;    DOD’s law enforcement support policy (or policies) that address the  different missions of such support, including civil support,  counterdrug, and counterterrorism support;    DOD’s series of civil support policies and guidance (i.e., DOD’s  directive and instruction 3025 series);    DOD’s joint interagency coordination guidance (i.e., Joint Publication  3-08), ensuring sufficient and comprehensive coverage of homeland  defense and civil support interagency coordination requirements and  partners; and  a policy document that clearly and specifically defines the  relationships among ASD/HD, NORTHCOM, and other combatant  commanders, including interagency coordination and external  communication roles and responsibilities for homeland defense and  civil support. To facilitate and institutionalize a unified approach between DOD and its  federal partners for interagency coordination for homeland defense and  civil support missions, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct  the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in coordination with the Joint  Chiefs of Staff, to establish a time line to develop and issue a partner guide  that identifies the roles and responsibilities of DOD entities, processes,  and agreed-upon approaches for interagency coordination for homeland  defense and civil support efforts. To determine the extent to which DOD has adopted and implemented key  practices for managing homeland defense and civil support liaisons, we  identified established best practices, reviewed related DOD documents,  and interviewed officials from DOD and DOD’s federal partner agencies. To identify key practices for workforce management that can enhance  interagency coordination, we reviewed prior GAO reports on human  capital best practices.
Why GAO Did This Study

Numerous occurrences in the United States--both scheduled events and emergencies--require the Department of Defense (DOD) to coordinate, integrate, and synchronize its homeland defense and civil support missions with a broad range of U.S. federal agencies. In response to congressional inquiry, GAO examined the extent to which DOD has (1) identified clearly defined roles and responsibilities for DOD entities to facilitate interagency coordination for homeland defense and civil support missions, (2) articulated to its federal partners the DOD entities' approach toward interagency coordination, and (3) adopted key practices for managing homeland defense and civil support liaisons. GAO reviewed numerous DOD policy and guidance documents and interviewed officials from DOD and its partner agencies, including the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

What GAO Found

DOD has many strategy, policy, and guidance documents on interagency coordination for its homeland defense and civil support missions; however, DOD entities do not have fully or clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Key DOD documents are outdated, not integrated, or not comprehensive. Three separate directives, for example, respectively assign overlapping responsibilities related to law enforcement support to three different DOD entities. Because DOD's law enforcement support directive has not been updated or superseded since 1989, it is unclear which entity is responsible for certain coordination activities with law enforcement agencies. By updating, integrating, and ensuring the comprehensiveness of its strategy, policy, and guidance, DOD will be better positioned to enhance and institutionalize its interagency coordination efforts for homeland defense and civil support. DOD makes great effort to communicate with its federal partners through conferences and other forums and multiple documents, but it lacks a single, readily accessible source for its interagency partners to find needed information about its processes. The 2008 National Defense Strategy notes that a unified "whole-of-government" approach to national security issues requires that federal partner agencies understand core competencies, roles, and missions, and the National Response Framework highlights the value of using a common concise partner guide for this purpose. DOD's communication approach, however, relies largely on personal relationships that are subject to frequent rotation of both DOD and non-DOD personnel. DOD identified over 30 documents that embody its approach and processes for interagency coordination. A concise and readily accessible partner guide would provide incoming personnel from both DOD and other agencies information that could enhance their mutual understanding and facilitate a unified and institutionalized approach to interagency coordination. DOD has taken some actions to adopt key practices for managing homeland defense and civil support liaison personnel, but it has not fully implemented these practices. Key practices include situational awareness, staffing-needs assessments, position descriptions, training, and performance assessments. For example, while individual DOD entities may know the liaisons they have assigned to their federal partners, no single DOD entity knows the number or locations of all liaisons exchanged with other federal agencies. Also, while DOD policy recognizes the need to conduct personnel performance assessments, such assessments of its liaisons are not focused on coordination competencies, and DOD does not consistently request input from federal partners on the performance of its liaisons or provide feedback to its federal partners about their liaisons' performance. DOD could optimize its use of liaisons if it fully implemented current DOD human capital policies and issued policies and guidance for the remaining key practices identified above.