This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-690R 
entitled 'DOD Personnel: DOD Comments on GAO's Report on DOD's Civilian 
Human Capital Strategic Planning' which was released on April 18, 2003.



This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-690R 

entitled ‘DOD Personnel: Comments on GAO’s Report on DOD’s Civilian 

Human Capital Strategic Planning’.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



April 18, 2003:



The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Readiness

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives:



Subject: DOD Personnel: DOD Comments on GAO’s Report on DOD’s Civilian 

Human Capital Strategic Planning:



Dear Mr. Ortiz:



In response to your request, we issued a report in March 2003 to you on 

the Department of Defense’s (DOD) strategic planning efforts for 

civilian personnel at DOD and selected defense components, including 

the four military services and two defense agencies.[Footnote 1] In 

that report we made recommendations to the Secretary of Defense to 

strengthen civilian human capital planning, including integration with 

military personnel and sourcing initiatives.[Footnote 2] DOD’s response 

to our March 2003 report and recommendations were received too late to 

be included in that report. To provide our perspective on DOD’s 

comments, we briefly summarize our March 2003 report’s objectives, 

results, and recommendations and DOD’s comments, along with our 

evaluation of the comments. DOD’s comments provided by the Under 

Secretary for Personnel and Readiness are included as an enclosure to 

this report.



Summary of Objectives, Results, and Recommendations:



DOD’s civilian employees play key roles in such areas as defense 

policy, intelligence, finance, acquisitions, and weapon systems 

maintenance. Although downsized 38 percent between fiscal years 1989 

and 2002, this workforce has taken on greater roles as a result of 

DOD’s restructuring and transformation. Responding to congressional 

concerns about the quality and quantity of, and the strategic planning 

for, the civilian workforce, we determined the following for DOD, the 

military services, and selected defense agencies (the Defense Contract 

Management Agency and the Defense Finance and Accounting 

Service):[Footnote 3] (1) the extent of top-level leadership 

involvement in civilian strategic planning; (2) whether elements in 

civilian strategic plans are aligned to the overall mission, focused on 

results, and based on current and future civilian workforce data; and 

(3) whether civilian and military personnel strategic plans or sourcing 

initiatives were integrated.



We found that generally civilian personnel issues appear to be an 

emerging priority among top leaders in DOD and the defense components. 

Although DOD began downsizing its civilian workforce more than a decade 

ago, it did not take action to strategically address challenges 

affecting the civilian workforce until it issued its civilian human 

capital strategic plan in April 2002. Top-level leaders in the Air 

Force, the Marine Corps, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and 

the Defense Finance and Accounting Service have initiated planning 

efforts and are working in partnership with their civilian human 

capital professionals to develop and implement civilian strategic 

plans; such leadership, however, was increasing in the Army and not as 

evident in the Navy. High-level leadership is critical to directing 

reforms and obtaining resources for successful implementation. 

Moreover, DOD has not provided guidance on how to align the components’ 

plans with the department-level plan. Without this alignment, DOD’s and 

its components’ planning may lack the focus and coordination needed (1) 

to carry out the Secretary of Defense’s transformation initiatives in 

an effective manner and (2) to mitigate risks of not having human 

capital ready to respond to national security events at home and 

abroad.



We also found that the human capital strategic plans we reviewed for 

the most part lacked key elements found in fully developed plans. Most 

of the civilian human capital goals, objectives, and initiatives were 

not explicitly aligned with the overarching missions of the 

organizations. Consequently, DOD and the components cannot be sure that 

strategic goals are properly focused on mission achievement. Also, none 

of the plans contained results-oriented performance measures to assess 

the impact of their civilian human capital initiatives (i.e., programs, 

policies, and processes). Thus, DOD and the components cannot gauge the 

extent to which their human capital initiatives contribute to achieving 

their organizations’ mission. Finally, the plans did not contain data 

on the skills and competencies needed to successfully accomplish future 

missions; therefore, DOD and the components risk not being able to put 

the right people, in the right place, and at the right time, which can 

result in diminished accomplishment of the overall defense mission.



Moreover, the civilian strategic plans did not address how the civilian 

workforce will be integrated with their military counterparts or 

sourcing initiatives. DOD’s three human capital strategic plans--two 

military and one civilian--were prepared separately and were not 

integrated to form a seamless and comprehensive strategy and did not 

address how DOD plans to link its human capital initiatives with its 

sourcing plans, such as efforts to outsource non-core responsibilities. 

The components’ civilian plans acknowledge a need to integrate planning 

for civilian and military personnel--taking into consideration 

contractors--but have not yet done so. Without an integrated strategy, 

DOD may not effectively and efficiently allocate its scarce resources 

for optimal readiness.



To improve human capital strategic planning for the DOD civilian 

workforce, we recommended in our March 2003 report that the Secretary 

of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness to undertake the following:



* Improve future revisions and updates to the DOD departmentwide 

strategic human capital plan by more explicitly aligning with DOD’s 

overarching mission, including results-oriented performance measures, 

and focusing on future workforce needs. To accomplish this, the 

revisions and updates should be developed in collaboration with top DOD 

and component officials and civilian and military human capital 

leaders.



* Direct the military services and the defense agencies to align their 

strategic human capital plans with the mission, goals, objectives, and 

measures included in the departmentwide strategic human capital plan 

and provide guidance to these components on this alignment.



* Define the future civilian workforce, identifying the characteristics 

(i.e., the skills and competencies, number, deployment, etc.) of 

personnel needed in the context of the total force and determine the 

workforce gaps that need to be addressed through human capital 

initiatives.



* Assign a high priority to and set a target date for developing a 

departmentwide human capital strategic plan that integrates both 

military and civilian workforces and takes into account contractor 

roles and sourcing initiatives.



Agency Comments And Our Evaluation:



DOD’s comments on a draft of the March 2003 report are summarized below 

and reproduced in enclosure I. DOD stated that it appreciated the 

perspectives provided in that report and intended to address the 

recommendations. Regarding our four recommendations, however, DOD 

concurred with one, partially concurred with another, and nonconcurred 

with two. In its comments, DOD pointed out that its strategic planning 

activities are in the earliest stages of development. We acknowledge 

this and, moreover, note in our March 2003 report that strategic 

planning is a continuous process. Our recommendations to the Secretary 

of Defense, thus, focus on steps the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness should take to strengthen DOD’s overall 

strategic perspective as DOD continues to develop planning initiatives 

for its civilian human capital.



Our evaluation of DOD’s comments on these recommendations follows:



DOD concurred with our recommendation to direct the military services 

and the defense agencies to align their strategic human capital plans 

with the departmentwide plan. DOD stated that it is the component’s 

responsibility to ensure that its strategic plan and outcomes dovetail 

with the departmentwide plan.



DOD partially concurred with our recommendation to improve future 

revisions and updates to the departmentwide strategic human capital 

plan by more explicitly aligning its elements (including performance 

measures) with DOD’s overarching mission and by focusing the plan more 

directly on future workforce needs. DOD stated the recommendation did 

not recognize the involvement in and the impact of DOD’s Quadrennial 

Defense Review (QDR) on the development of the departmentwide plan. As 

we note in our March 2003 report, the departmentwide civilian plan was 

directed in the QDR and Defense Planning Guidance and by the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; we also note that 

such a plan had been recommended, as well, in the Defense Science Board 

2000 report. Our analysis found, however, that the plan did not fully 

demonstrate alignment with DOD’s overall mission in that the plan 

lacked explicit information about how the civilian workforce 

contributes to accomplishing DOD’s overall mission and how the 

achievement of human capital initiatives will improve DOD’s performance 

in meeting that mission. DOD also noted that the plan contains detailed 

performance indicators and measures that are reported quarterly to OMB. 

In reviewing these indicators, we found, for the most part, they are 

necessary measures relevant to task accomplishment but not oriented to 

assessing results. In addition, DOD noted that the plan recognizes the 

need for results-oriented performance measures; we believe that our 

recommendation highlights the importance of developing such measures.



DOD did not concur with our recommendation to define its future 

civilian personnel needs in a total force context, including 

identifying the workforce gaps that need to be addressed through human 

capital initiatives. DOD stated this action was already being 

accomplished through information provided to OMB and the Office of 

Personnel Management for the President’s Management Agenda Scorecard. 

We recognize that OMB requires workforce information, however, we 

cannot comment on the completeness of the data being supplied because 

we were not permitted to review recent DOD submissions to OMB. 

Complying with OMB requirements is important but does not fully address 

the intent of our recommendation that is to ensure that workforce data, 

which identify necessary future skill sets and potential gaps that 

might occur in force-shaping, be compiled and analyzed as an integral 

part of the strategic planning process and factored into planning for 

human capital initiatives. As we note in our March 2003 report, this 

information is highly important in targeting the initiatives to address 

the gaps and to provide the rationale--that is, the business case--for 

obtaining the resources or authorities to carry out initiatives.



Also, DOD did not concur with our recommendation to assign a high 

priority to and set a target date for developing an integrated 

departmentwide plan for both military and civilian workforces that 

takes into account contractor roles and sourcing initiatives. DOD 

stated it presently has both a military and civilian plan; the use of 

contractors is just another tool to accomplish the mission, not a 

separate workforce, with separate needs, to manage. The intent of our 

recommendation (and the one above on workforce planning) is that 

strategic planning for the civilian workforce be undertaken in the 

context of the total force--civilian, military, and contractors--

because the three workforces are expected to perform their 

responsibilities in a seamless manner to accomplish DOD’s mission. 

Integrated planning could also facilitate achieving a goal in the QDR 

to focus DOD’s resources (personnel) in those areas that directly 

contribute to warfighting and to rely on the private sector for non-

core functions. The need for total force integration has been advocated 

in the QDR, DOD’s response to OMB regarding a restructuring plan, the 

Defense Science Board 2000 report, National Academy of Public 

Administration (NAPA) studies, and the Commercial Activities Panel 

report. We believe strategic planning in a total force context is 

especially important because the trend toward greater reliance on 

contractors requires a critical mass of civilian and military personnel 

with the expertise necessary to protect the government’s interest and 

ensure effective oversight of contractors’ work. Workforce planning 

should be implemented using a coordinated and integrated approach to 

determine the proper roles and mix of military, civilian, and 

contractor employees within the context of mission objectives that are 

essential to national security.



We continue to believe that our recommendations have merit and will 

strengthen the department’s strategic planning efforts for the civilian 

as well as the overall workforce; consequently, we are not revising 

them. DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as 

appropriate, into our March 2003 report.



Finally, we want to emphasize that we recognize a point made by the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness that DOD is in 

the early stages of its strategic planning efforts. We believe that DOD 

has made progress in establishing a foundation for strategically 

addressing civilian human capital issues by developing its 

departmentwide civilian human capital strategic plan. Opportunities 

exist, however, to strengthen the planning efforts. Our March 2003 

report and its recommendations should be viewed in that light.



We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Air Force, 

Army, and Navy; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Directors 

of the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service. We will also make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the 

GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.



If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-5559 or Christine Fossett at (202) 512-2956.



Sincerely yours,



Derek B. Stewart

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:



Signed by Derek B. Stewart



Enclosure:



Enclosure I:



Comments from the Department of Defense:



UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, D.C. 

20301-4000:



MAR 24, 2003



PERSONNEL AND READINESS:



Mr. Derek B. Stewart:

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Issues,

U.S. General Accounting Office:



441 G Street N.W. Washington, DC 20548:



Dear Mr. Stewart:



This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 

report, “DOD PERSONNEL: DoD Actions Needed to Strengthen Civilian Human 

Capital Strategic Planning,” dated March 3, 2003 (GAO Code 350198). The 

importance of human capital strategic planning was clearly recognized 

in the Quadrennial Defense Review. It is the first item on the 

President’s Management Agenda, and is a top priority for the 

Department.



While we appreciate the perspectives provided in your report and intend 

to address your recommendations, we are obligated to point out that a 

significant portion of the review concentrated on strategic planning 

activities in the earliest stages of development. At my direction in 

August 2001, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Civilian Personnel Policy arranged a series of meetings of senior 

Component human resources leaders to begin the development of the DoD 

Civilian Human Resources Strategic Plan. This group worked through the 

events of September 11TH and the resulting war on terrorism to produce 

the first integrated DoD-wide Civilian Human Resources Strategic Plan 

on April 12, 2002. We were notified of the General Accounting Office’s 

intent to review DoD’s Civilian Human Capital Strategic and Workforce 

Planning on May 16, 2002. Work on the review began in June 2002, less 

than 60 days after our first DoD Human Resources Strategic Plan was 

finalized and during the first cycle of a continuing process.



The Department’s consolidated comments, including Component specific 

comments, are enclosed.



Sincerely,



David S. C. Chu



Signed by David S. C. Chu



Enclosure:



GAO DRAFT REPORT DATED MARCH 3, 2003 (GAO CODE 350198):



“DOD PERSONNEL: DOD ACTIONS NEEDED TO STRENGTHEN CIVILIAN HUMAN CAPITAL 

STRATEGIC PLANNING”:



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE GAO RECOMMENDATIONS:



RECOMMENDATION 1: In order to improve human capital strategic planning 

for the DoD civilian workforce, the GAO recommended that the Secretary 

of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and 

Readiness to improve future revisions and updates to the DoD 

Department-wide strategic human capital plan by more explicitly 

aligning with DoD’s overarching mission, including results-oriented 

performance measures, and focusing on future workforce needs. To 

accomplish this, the revisions and updates should be developed in 

collaboration with top DoD and component officials and civilian and 

military human capital leaders. (p. 27/GAO Draft Report):



DOD RESPONSE: Partially concur. The recommendation does not recognize 

that the DoD Civilian Human Resources Strategic Plan imparts the 

Department’s direction, with its vision, values, principles, critical 

success goals and objectives, and that it is based on DoD’s challenges 

as defined in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The original 

version of this strategic plan was explicitly aligned with DoD’s 

overall mission in that it was based on the recommendations of the 

Defense Science Board and the QDR. The Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy) represented the 

civilian HR community on the QDR and the Senior Steering Group in the 

development of the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan contains detailed 

performance indicators and measures. Our achievements against these 

standards are reported quarterly to the Office of Management and 

Budget. In addition, the current version of the strategic plan 

recognizes the need for results-oriented performance measures and in 

particular, Objective 4 requires that measures be developed for 

critical indicators of human resources success.



Revisions and updates to the Strategic Plan have been and will continue 

to be developed in collaboration with the Components, but must remain 

at a level of specificity to allow for the Components’ varying missions 

and workforce needs. However, it is a Component responsibility to 

develop its strategic plan and outcomes to dovetail into the 

overarching DoD plan.



RECOMMENDATION 2: In order to improve human capital strategic planning 

for the DoD civilian workforce, the GAO recommended that the Secretary 

of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and 

Readiness to direct the military services and:



defense agencies to align their strategic human capital plans with the 

mission, goals, objectives, and measures included in the department-

wide strategic human capital plan, and provide guidance to these 

components on this alignment.



(p. 27/GAO Draft Report):



DOD RESPONSE: Concur.



RECOMMENDATION 3: In order to improve human capital strategic planning 

for the DoD civilian workforce, the GAO recommended that the Secretary 

of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and 

Readiness to define the future civilian workforce, identifying the 

characteristics (i.e., the skills and competencies, number, deployment, 

etc.) of personnel needed in the context of the total force, and 

determine the workforce gaps that need to be addressed through human 

capital initiatives. (p. 27/GAO Draft Report):



DOD RESPONSE: Non-concur. This action is already being accomplished 

through the President’s Management Agenda Scorecard information that is 

provided twice a year to the Office of Management and Budget and the 

Office of Personnel Management.



RECOMMENDATION 4: In order to improve human capital strategic planning 

for the DoD civilian workforce, the GAO recommended that the Secretary 

of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and 

Readiness to assign a high priority to and set a target date for 

developing a department-wide human capital strategic plan that 

integrates both military and civilian workforces and takes into account 

contractor roles and sourcing initiatives. (p. 27/GAO Draft Report):



DOD RESPONSE: Non-concur. The Department has both a military and 

civilian strategic plan. The use of contractors is just another tool to 

accomplish the mission, not a separate workforce, with separate needs, 

to manage.



(350366):



FOOTNOTES



[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, DOD Personnel: DOD Actions Needed 

to Strengthen Civilian Human Capital Strategic Planning and Integration 

with Military Personnel and Sourcing Decisions, GAO-03-475 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 28, 2003). 







[2] Sourcing initiatives, which are undertaken to achieve greater 

operating efficiencies, include such efforts as public-private 

competitions under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular 

A-76 for commercial activities and functions; direct conversions 

(converting positions from one sector to another without public-private 

competition); public-private partnerships; and privatization, 

divestiture, and reengineering.



[3] Throughout this report, the term “component” refers to all services 

and agencies in DOD. The term “service” refers to the Air Force, the 

Army, the Marine Corps, and the Navy. The term “agency” refers to the 

Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service.