The Marine Corps Cannot Fully Track All Unit-Level Training Funds for Ground Combat Forces through the Budget Cycle

Our analysis of data from the three MEFs for fiscal year 2017 funds  shows that the MEFs had some data available that could be used to track  some training funds from budget request to obligation. One of the primary reasons that the Marine Corps cannot fully track all  training funds through the budget cycle is that the Office of Programs and  Resources has not established the consistent use of fiscal codes to  provide greater detail about the use of funds across the budget cycle  phases, and the accuracy of these fiscal codes is sometimes  questionable. Two key  fiscal codes that officials identified as relevant to efforts to track funds for  unit-level training are the Marine Corps Programming Code (MCPC) and  the Special Interest Code (SIC). When the Marine Corps programs  funds for intended use, it uses MCPCs to identify the funds; however,  when it executes those funds, it uses a different set of fiscal codes to  identify them. In fiscal years 2011,  2012, and 2013, the Marine Corps found in a series of reports that it  faced challenges tracking funds through the budget cycle, in part  because MCPCs were used to program funds, but not to track them in  the execution phase. The Marine Corps uses  SICs to track funds associated with individual training exercises. Specifically, officials at all three MEFs told us that units  generate SICs for large-scale training exercises directed at the MEF  or division level, but may not generate SICs to track expenses for  small-scale exercises at lower unit levels such as the regiment and  battalion, making it difficult to track those funds. According to officials in the Office of  Programs and Resources, the Marine Corps is currently conducting a  fiscal code alignment effort to address inconsistent use of fiscal codes,  but this effort is in its early stages, and the Marine Corps has not yet  developed clear guidance for implementation of the effort. Without the ability to track unit-level training funds through the  budget cycle, including aligning MCPCs and ensuring consistent use of  SIC codes, the Marine Corps lacks data to assess the extent to which  funds were obligated consistent with their programmed intent and to  adequately forecast and defend budget requests for training. The Marine Corps Has Made Limited Progress Establishing a Link between Training Funds for Ground Combat Forces and Readiness

		The Marine Corps Identified a Need to Link Training Funds to Readiness, but Did Not Designate Responsibility to Meet That Need

Although internal Marine Corps assessments and guidance state that the  Marine Corps needs an enterprise-wide process to link resources to  readiness, the Marine Corps has made little progress fulfilling this need. The reports cited a number of factors inhibiting the  Marine Corps’ ability to link funding to readiness, including stove-piped  efforts, lack of an analytical framework, limited data availability, and poor  data quality. For example, although the order  directed the Deputy Commandant for Programs and Resources to  organize a quarterly coordination event of key stakeholders to synchronize activities within each major line of effort, officials from this  office told us that they have not been given the authority to direct the  various efforts. Marine Corps Has Not Assessed Its Current Initiative to Link Dollars to Readiness

In the absence of a single entity responsible for overseeing the Marine  Corps’ efforts to link training funds to readiness, two different  organizations within the Marine Corps developed separate and  overlapping initiatives. While these initiatives were both designed to help the Marine Corps link  dollars to readiness, each had its own particular use and design. Data quality limitations. In addition, both PRM and C2RAM  used some of the same data sources. Without conducting this  analysis, the Marine Corps is unlikely to make headway in tackling the  challenges posed by trying to link resources to readiness. Moreover, the Marine Corps has not  assessed whether C2RAM provides an enterprise-wide performance  management process linking resources to readiness. (Recommendation 1)
The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the  Marine Corps designates a single entity responsible for directing,  overseeing, and coordinating efforts to achieve the objective of  establishing an enterprise-wide performance management process that  links resources to readiness. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report evaluates the extent to which the Marine Corps (1) tracks unit- level Operations and Maintenance (O&M) training funds for ground  combat forces through the budget cycle; and (2) links unit-level training  funds for ground combat forces to readiness. In addition, we reviewed guidance and other related documents on the  Predictive Readiness Model (PRM) and Cost to Run a Marine  Expeditionary Force (C2RAM).
Why GAO Did This Study

Training is key to building readiness—the military's ability to fight and meet the demands of its missions. Through the Department of Defense (DOD) budget cycle, the Marine Corps estimates or programs its funding needs for training and spends funds to accomplish its training mission. Questions have been raised about whether the Marine Corps' training budget estimates are sufficiently detailed to determine training costs at the unit level or the expected readiness generated by those costs.
House Report 115-200 included a provision for GAO to examine the military services' budgeting processes to build unit-level training readiness. This report examines the extent to which the Marine Corps (1) tracks unit-level training funds for ground combat forces through the budget cycle, and (2) links ground combat forces' unit-level training funds to readiness. GAO analyzed budget data and studies conducted by the Marine Corps and others, examined tools used by units to link training funds with readiness, and interviewed knowledgeable officials at various levels in the Marine Corps.

What GAO Found

The Marine Corps cannot fully track all unit-level training funds for ground combat forces through the budget cycle. According to GAO's analysis of data provided by the Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEFs), the principal warfighting organization for the Marine Corps, units can track some, but not all, funds for training exercises from the budget request through use of the funds. The Marine Corps cannot fully track all training funds through the budget cycle, in part, because it has not established the consistent use of fiscal codes. Two key fiscal codes that officials identified as relevant to track funds for unit-level training are the Marine Corps Programming Code (MCPC) and the Special Interest Code (SIC). The Marine Corps uses MCPCs to program funds, but GAO found that when the Marine Corps spends those funds, it uses a different set of fiscal codes. This makes it difficult to link the programmed intent of funds to the execution of those funds. The Marine Corps uses SICs to track funds associated with training exercises, but GAO found that units do not use SICs consistently. For example, officials at all three MEFs told GAO that units generate SICs for large-scale training exercises, but may not do so for small-scale exercises. The Marine Corps is taking steps to align fiscal codes across the budget cycle, but this effort is in its early stages and will not include MCPCs, and may not address the inconsistent use of SICs. Without the ability to track unit-level training funds through the budget cycle, the Marine Corps lacks readily available data to assess whether funds were obligated consistent with their programmed intent and to adequately forecast and defend budget requests for training.
Although internal Marine Corps assessments and guidance state that the Marine Corps needs an enterprise-wide process to link resources to readiness, the Marine Corps has made little progress establishing a link between training funds for ground combat forces and readiness. The Marine Corps identified challenges with linking funds to readiness in a series of reports from fiscal years 2009 through 2014, citing factors such as stove-piped efforts and limited data availability and quality. Guidance directed that the Deputy Commandant for Programs and Resources organize quality coordination events with key stakeholders to synchronize activities within major lines of effort, but officials from this office stated that they have not been given the authority to direct the various efforts. Therefore, challenges have persisted, in part, because the Marine Corps has not designated a single entity with authority to oversee and coordinate efforts to link training funds to readiness. In the absence of a single oversight entity, two separate and overlapping tools were developed—the Cost to Run a MEF (C2RAM) tool and the Predictive Readiness Model (PRM). Although each tool had its own particular use and design, both were intended to link resources to readiness. Moreover, both faced similar challenges, such as data quality limitations, and relied on some of the same data sources. The Marine Corps recently assessed and discontinued development of PRM, however, it has not assessed C2RAM and how it could support an enterprise wide performance management process linking resources to readiness. Without dedicating a single entity with authority, and conducting an assessment of C2RAM, the Marine Corps is unlikely to make headway in addressing the challenges posed by trying to link resources to readiness.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Marine Corps (1) tracks training funds through the budget cycle, (2) designates a single entity to oversee establishment of a process that links resources to readiness, and (3) conducts an assessment of C2RAM. DOD concurred, and based on its comments, GAO modified one recommendation.