Background DOD has reported that more than a decade of conflict, budget uncertainty, and reductions in force structure have degraded military readiness. In response, DOD has made rebuilding the readiness of the military forces a top priority. The 2018 National Defense Strategy states that the central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term, strategic competition with China and Russia. Further, the strategy stresses that restoring and retaining readiness for large-scale combat is critical to success in this emerging security environment. Nevertheless, DOD reported that readiness of the total military force remains low and has remained so since 2013. In June 2017, we found that Army readiness goals and timelines for rebuilding readiness are not clear for all portions of the force, especially for the reserve component, although the Army is making progress in these areas. Across the department, DOD has made progress in developing a plan to rebuild the readiness of the military force, with the military services providing regular input on the status of their readiness recovery efforts. In August 2018, we reported that the Office of the Secretary of Defense developed a Readiness Recovery Framework that the department is using to guide the services’ efforts, and plans and to regularly assess, validate, and monitor readiness recovery. The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the services have recently revised readiness goals and accompanying recovery strategies, metrics, and milestones to align with the 2018 National Defense Strategy and Defense Planning Guidance. According to The Army Strategy, the Army projects that it will reach its readiness goals by 2022, at which point its priority is expected to shift to modernization. We have ongoing work assessing DOD’s progress in achieving its overall readiness goals in each of five warfighting domains: ground, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. The number one stated goal of Army leadership is readiness, including recovering the readiness lost from years of sustained conflict while preparing for potential large-scale combat operations against a global competitor such as Russia or China. These efforts are occurring in a challenging context that requires DOD to make difficult decisions regarding how best to address continuing operational demands while preparing for future challenges. An important aspect of this, across all of the military services, is determining an appropriate balance between maintaining and upgrading legacy weapon systems currently in operational use, and modernizing to ensure the ability to outpace advancing competitors. Our work has shown that the Army has improved ground force readiness in recent years; however, the Army has also identified capability shortcomings in its weapon systems and platforms that have yet to be addressed through its modernization efforts. In an effort to achieve higher, more consistent levels of readiness over longer time periods, the Army is implementing a redesigned way to generate forces called the sustainable readiness concept. A key part of the concept includes determining readiness objectives by unit type, which are developed by comparing the numbers of key unit types against planned and potential warfighting demands. In addition, since 2014 the Army has invested significantly in stocks of warfighting equipment that are being stored in Europe, and has begun deploying armored formations to the continent on a continuous basis for training and exercises to enhance its readiness against potential Russian aggression. As the Army works to rebuild and sustain higher readiness of its current force, the service is moving to update its doctrine, equipment, and formations to conduct operations in a more complex warfighting environment. The Army believes that it must be able to operate not only on land against potential adversaries, but also have the capability to act against them in other domains, namely air, sea, cyber, and space. The new Army Operating Concept, published in December 2018, describes how the Army would operate in a “multi-domain” environment. It identifies readiness as being key to deterring aggression from potential adversaries and, should conflict occur, addresses how Army forces would operate in multiple domains to penetrate anti-access and area denial systems. To support this concept, the Army’s modernization strategy aims to build the next generation of weapon systems and platforms that are more agile, lethal, resilient, and sustainable on the future battlefield. We have ongoing work reviewing the Army’s efforts to develop its multi-domain operations concept and to field capabilities to support such operations. The Army Has Increased Personnel and Force Structure, but Manning and Management Challenges Remain The Army is growing slightly from a previously-planned size of 980,000 uniformed personnel to just over 1 million personnel. The Army is also adjusting its force structure to address increasing operational risks as it prepares for potential combat operations against a major adversary. However, our work shows that the Army faces challenges in filling and maintaining key skills in a number of areas, and in managing the time Army personnel spend away from their home station. The Army Is Adding End Strength and Capacity to Its Force, Reversing a Planned Decline In 2016, we reported that the Army was planning to reduce its end strength from a high of about 1.11 million uniformed personnel in fiscal year 2011 to an end strength of 980,000 by fiscal year 2018. The Army stated that at this level it could execute the National Defense Strategy, but at significant risk. Army leadership testified in March 2015 that if there were further end strength reductions, the Army would not be able to execute the defense strategic guidance. We reported in 2016 that the Army needed to assess the risks associated with the planned reductions and better document its force-planning process. The Army concurred with both of our recommendations, changed the way it assessed risk, and made adjustments to its force structure based on these assessments. After our 2016 report, Congress partly reversed these planned reductions by authorizing end-strength increases in fiscal years 2017 through 2019. The principal increase occurred in 2017, when Congress authorized an end strength of 1.018 million uniformed personnel, or 28,000 more than the Army had planned for that year. The Army’s authorized end strength since 2011, including planned end strength in 2017 and 2018, are summarized in figure 1. Additionally, as we found since our 2016 report was published, the Army has added or plans to add capacity, including converting two infantry brigades into armored brigades and activating two new Mobile Short Range Air Defense battalions by fiscal year 2022, to better prepare the force for large-scale combat against major adversaries. Also, to support combat forces during a conflict, the Army is activating additional combat sustainment formations that are responsible for supply, distribution, and transportation. Our ongoing work has found that over the next few years the Army is building or plans to build several new cyber and electronic warfare units to operate at various levels within the force to make the Army more effective in contested environments. The Army Faces Challenges in Meeting Authorized End Strength, Filling Key Skills Shortages and Managing Personnel Time Away from Home According to the Chief of Staff of the Army, in a January 2019 speech, the Army has used its end strength increases to increase the manning of combat units. The goal of Army leadership is to fill operational units to 100 percent by the end of fiscal year 2019, and 105 percent by the end of fiscal year 2020. However, in preparing this statement we found that, in three of the past four years, the Army has fallen short of meeting its overall end strength authorizations. Army officials told us that these differences from the authorized end strength fall under the Secretary of Defense’s authority to reduce the end strengths by a certain amount. Moreover, these officials added that in 2015 and 2016, the Army was drawing down end strength and planning further reductions. However, the Army fell short of its end strength authorization by 0.38 percent in 2017, and fell short again by 2.56 percent in 2018. The percentage differences between authorized and actual end strength for the total Army, from 2015 through 2018, are summarized in figure 2. As we prepared this statement, Army officials told us that the primary reason why it has struggled to meet its authorized end strength is because it has had difficulty meeting recruiting goals, which have negatively affected the Army’s ability to expand the force. For example, Army officials told us the Army was short of its goal for 2018 by 6,500 new recruits for the regular Army. Army officials told us that the Army does not expect to be able to achieve its authorized end strength for fiscal year 2019. Looking ahead, the Army is considering revisions to its expansion plans and now expects to reach a new end strength goal by 2025. In addition to challenges in meeting authorized end strength, our past and ongoing work indicates that the Army faces challenges in filling and maintaining key skills in a number of areas, and in managing the time Army personnel spend away from their home station. Both of these challenges can negatively affect readiness. For example: Accelerated activation of Security Force Assistance Brigades led to manning challenges. In December 2018, we reported that the Army’s decision to deploy the first security force assistance brigade 8 months earlier than planned posed challenges to manning the unit. The Army currently plans to activate up to six of these brigades (one in the U.S. Army National Guard) by the end of fiscal year 2019. The Army views the Security Force Assistance Brigades to be critical to restoring the readiness of its combat forces. Prior to their formation, the Army met security force assistance missions by, among other things, pulling senior leaders and other personnel with specific ranks and skills from active-duty brigades, which compromised their readiness for large-scale combat. The Army has had difficulty filling new cyber and electronic warfare units. During our ongoing work, we have found that the Army has had difficulty filling new formations with personnel to conduct operations in the cyber domain, including electronic warfare. In October 2018, the Army activated part of a Multi-Domain Task Force, which is focused on intelligence, information, cyber, electronic warfare, and space missions and is being used in major exercises in the Pacific region. However, Army headquarters officials told us that the Army activated the unit as a pilot, or a test, unit and with an accelerated timeline to learn how the new formation should be structured, equipped, and trained. Based on our ongoing work, filling the unit with personnel with the right skills has been a slow process. Near the end of January 2019 the unit was staffed at 50 percent, and the Army projects it will reach 75 percent by August 2019, according to Army headquarters officials. The officials added that many of the shortages are in senior level and cyber positions. Meanwhile, Army documentation obtained during our ongoing work shows that the service is considering options for creating more task forces for other regions. Additionally, there are plans for new cyber and electronic warfare force structure supporting Brigade Combat Teams. Army officials stated that these will be fielded in an accelerated manner as well, adding that filling these units could be challenging because cyber personnel are in high demand. Army headquarters officials said they are exploring options to address the challenges. Army depots have had difficulty filling and maintaining critical skills in their workforces. For our December 2018 report, officials told us that Army depots experienced consistent challenges in hiring critical personnel. Also, we reported that workload fluctuations usually resulted in too little workload to maintain proficiency in certain skills. For example, we reported that a hiring freeze at Corpus Christi Army Depot in 2017 caused shortages of civilian flight test pilots, who are responsible for test flights before returning aircraft to service after maintenance. The Army, however, had not assessed how effective the depots have been at hiring, training, and retaining the critical skills of their workforce. We recommended that the Army do this, as personnel challenges such as these have affected depots’ ability to meet mission requirements and created maintenance delays for some equipment. The Army concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would assess the effectiveness of the depots’ hiring, training, and retention programs to ensure Army requirements are met and critical skills are maintained. The Army has had difficulty manning ballistic missile defense units. As we reported in October 2017, the Army’s Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) ballistic missile defense forces have been in high demand for many years. Army officials told us at the time that with reductions in end strength, the Army in 2016 stopped its practice of assigning extra personnel to these units to ensure operational requirements would be met. Army officials stated that the high aptitude standards and specialized nature of operating Patriot and THAAD systems reduced the number of eligible recruits. Officials also stated that enlistment shortfalls could have long-term effects on these forces’ operations and career development. Since we issued our report, Army officials told us that fewer-than-expected new recruits had advanced into Patriot and THAAD career fields in 2018, but the Army was forecasting improvements. High personnel tempos can negatively affect personnel. In 2018, we reported that the pace of operations has had a negative effect on Army readiness, including Brigade Combat Teams and Combat Aviation Brigades. We also reported that managing personnel tempo—the amount of time that individual service members spend away from home on official duties—had been a persistent challenge for the Army. In 2015, the Army issued a regulation identifying a personnel tempo threshold for its service members, but officials told us that the threshold is not enforced and stated the regulation was published only to emphasize that personnel tempo data was a priority. We found that personnel tempo data collected by DOD was incomplete. However, we estimated from the data that at least 41 percent of Army service members who were away from their home station in fiscal year 2016 were away for more than 7 months. Because time away from home can stress the force, we recommended that DOD or the Army take steps to clarify and follow personnel tempo guidance on thresholds, and also take steps to emphasize the collection of complete and reliable personnel tempo data to allow monitoring. DOD concurred with both recommendations. The Army Is Developing New Warfighting Concepts and Modernizing Equipment, but Faces Challenges in Maintenance Timeliness and Managing Modernization Efforts The Army Is Developing Concepts for Future Warfare and Modernizing Its Equipment to Support Future Readiness The Army is in the process of updating and developing new concepts and equipment to deal with a future environment that will be increasingly lethal, competitive, complex, and dynamic. The Army anticipates that it will have to contend with a resurgent Russia and a rising China, as well as regional challenges from North Korea and Iran. According to the Army, these adversaries have improved their military capabilities, in particular their ability to prevent U.S. forces from massing close to the potential battlefield, thereby eroding advantages that the Army has enjoyed for decades. Once deployed, the Army stated it expects that its forces will be constantly under surveillance and potentially under attack. To counter the adversaries’ threats, the Army is focusing on updating warfighting concepts and modernizing the force. In December 2018, the Army published a new Army Operating Concept that is specifically designed to deter and defeat China and Russia, and addresses large- scale ground combat. The concept emphasizes that the Army must demonstrate its readiness to conduct multi-domain operations—such as ground, air, and cyber—as a key part of deterring adversaries from escalation. To support its readiness for future missions in this complex environment, the Army has begun to update or upgrade multiple weapon systems. In April 2018, the Army published its Army Modernization Strategy, which identified six priorities that are key to operationalizing multi-domain operations, including long-range precision fires and next generation combat vehicles, as shown in table 1. All six of these priorities involve modernizing equipment and/or acquiring new equipment with improved capabilities. The Army has identified the need to make changes to how it develops and acquires new weapons systems. To that end, the Army established the Army Futures Command to provide unity of command, accountability, and modernization at the speed and scale required to prevail in future conflicts. The Army Faces Equipping Challenges Due to Maintenance and Modernization Management Issues Our prior work has found that the Army has faced challenges with managing maintenance efforts and developing requirements for future weapon systems. Some of the challenges include the following: The Army lacks an implementation plan to guide its retrograde and reset activities, which could lead to inconsistent reset efforts. As we reported in May 2016, officials from different Army entities disagreed about which documents constituted their guidance for implementing retrograde and reset, suggesting that there was confusion about the Army’s strategies for these activities. We recommended that the Army develop an implementation plan for its retrograde and reset efforts. In August 2018, however, we reported that the Army did not have plans to act on this recommendation. According to one official, this was because guidance and plans are adjusted based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Given the Army’s drawdown of equipment used during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is coming to a close, we continue to believe that an implementation plan for retrograde and reset of equipment used during any future operations would help ensure that the Army more consistently and effectively budgets for and distributes resources. The Army has not comprehensively assessed the causes of reset maintenance delays for Patriot equipment, which can limit unit training time. In June 2018, we reported that of seven Patriot battalions undergoing reset in fiscal years 2014 through 2017, only one received all of its equipment back from depot maintenance within the Army’s policy of 180 days, as shown in figure 3. Since delays in returning equipment to units can reduce units’ training time, we recommended that the Army analyze the various factors affecting reset delays—such as equipment arriving late to the depot, supply chain delays, and worker errors—to identify their relative importance and inform corrective actions. The Army concurred with our recommendation, stating that it will identify and address factors that may affect reset timeliness. The Army’s near-term modernization efforts face management challenges. In September 2018, we reported that the Army had not established processes for evaluating its modernization efforts against its overarching objective of outpacing rapidly advancing competitors, such as Russia or China. Also, we found that the Army had not fully estimated the costs of its near-term modernization efforts. Further, we found that the Army’s April 2018 modernization strategy report set near-term goals for closing critical capability gaps and a longer term, overarching objective of being able to decisively defeat major adversaries. The strategy also identified the cost of key modernization investments through fiscal year 2023, but did not discuss tens of billions in already-programmed modernization-related investments, or describe how the funding would support upgrades for existing weapon systems. Moreover, the strategy did not disclose the extent to which the Army had relied on Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) appropriations for upgrading weapon systems. Army officials told us at the time that the Army had been preparing to analyze its efforts to address specific warfighting capability gaps, but had not decided on an overall evaluation approach. Additionally, officials told us that the Army planned to reflect its analysis of near-term modernization investments in the fiscal year 2020 budget submission. We recommended that the Army (1) develop a plan to finalize the processes for evaluating how its near-term investments contribute to the Army’s ability to decisively defeat a major adversary, and (2) finalize its cost analysis of near-term investments and report those costs to Congress. The Army concurred with our recommendations. The Army has been unable to ensure that requirements for new warfighting capabilities are feasible. In June 2017, we reported that the Army had prioritized combat readiness and rebuilding force structure over resourcing its requirements development process to meet future readiness needs. We reported that even though the Army made some improvements in this area, officials were unable to ensure requirements for major defense acquisition programs were well-informed and feasible because of workforce constraints. For example, we found that the Army’s requirements development workforce declined by 22 percent from 2008 to 2017, with some requirements development centers reporting more significant reductions. In that report, we recommended that the Army assess the resources necessary for the requirements development process and determine whether shortfalls can be addressed given other funding priorities. The Army concurred with our recommendation. In 2018, Army officials told us that the Army plans to implement this recommendation once Army Futures Command is fully operational and key Army development entities are reorganized under its command. The Army has not fully applied leading practices for technology development in its modernization efforts. We reported in January 2019 that while the Army has generally applied leading practices identified by GAO to its modernization efforts, it may be beginning weapon systems development at a lower level of maturity than what leading practices recommend. As we concluded in that report, establishing Army Futures Command creates unique opportunities for the Army to improve its modernization efforts. However, proceeding into weapon systems development before technology is sufficiently mature raises the risk that the resulting systems could experience cost increases, delivery delays, or failure to deliver desired capabilities. The Army concurred with our four recommendations to apply leading practices and lessons learned as it moves forward with its modernization efforts. In its response to our January 2019 report, the Army stated that it would conduct operational technology demonstrations and was exploring a train-the-trainer program, among other actions. The Army Has Made Progress Implementing Its Training Priorities and Addressing Past Issues, but Faces Some Implementation Challenges Our prior work has shown that the Army has made progress in preparing the force for large-scale combat operations by increasing training exercises and reducing mandatory training requirements. It also has addressed past issues we reported on, including making better use of virtual training devices and accounting for the training needs of supporting units in its Pacific Pathways exercises. Moreover, our prior and ongoing work has shown that the Army faces implementation challenges in training new units that the Army plans to field on shortened schedules. The Army Has Made Progress Implementing Its Training Priorities and Addressing Past Challenges Army units are receiving more frequent training for large-scale combat. Our prior work has shown that the Army has made progress in preparing the force for large-scale combat by increasing training exercises. After a decade of focusing its training on counterinsurgency operations, the Army assessed that opportunities to train thousands of company commanders, field-grade officers, and battalion commanders on tasks related to large-scale combat were lost. However, in August 2016, we reported that the Army increased the number of brigades that had completed a decisive-action exercise from one brigade combat team in fiscal year 2011 to 14 brigade combat teams in fiscal year 2015, while at the same time decreasing training for counterinsurgency. We noted in a September 2016 report that a key part of the Army’s plan to rebuild readiness was to ensure that soldiers have repeated training experience on their core competencies. Since we completed our work, the Army is funding up to 26 brigade combat teams to go through a decisive-action training event at its combat training centers in fiscal year 2019. Mandatory training and directed tasks have been reduced. In August 2016, we also reported that the Army had determined that mandatory training requirements and directed tasks were too numerous and were creating challenges for commanders in balancing their units’ training time with these other requirements. Additionally, we identified steps the Army had taken to make these requirements less burdensome. We reported, for example, that the Army had delegated authority to two-star commanders to exempt units, as needed, from certain mandatory training. We reported that the Army had begun to lock in a unit’s planned training six weeks in advance, in an effort to protect units from external tasks that could affect training schedules of brigades and their subordinate units. The early setting of training schedules was intended to prevent an external task from interfering with that training. We did not make any recommendations related to reducing mandatory training; however; since we completed our work, the Secretary of the Army has directed the elimination of numerous individual training requirements, such as eliminating certain requirements to train in avoiding accidents, and other administrative tasks, such as maintaining a physical reference library of corrosion prevention and control publications. The Army is making better use of virtual devices to train and prepare units. In the same 2016 report, we identified a number of challenges the Army faced in using virtual training devices to help units prepare for major conflict. Using such devices is important because of the challenges of training for combat in a live environment, such as limited range availability and resource constraints. We reported that the Army had taken some steps to improve the integration of virtual training devices into its operational training. However, our work identified several factors that limited the Army’s ability to conduct training with virtual training devices, including outdated virtual training policies, a lack of guidance for analyzing the effectiveness of virtual training devices, and the need to better integrate devices in training strategies. As of January 2019, the Army has implemented two of the three recommendations we made in our report. Specifically, the Army published a training analysis best- practices guide, analyzed virtual training devices’ effectiveness, and analyzed regular Army formations’ readiness training models, among other steps to implement these recommendations. Additionally, the Army further plans to modify its policy on virtual training devices in 2021, which would require that training developers consider the amount of time available to train with or expected usage rates of new virtual training devices. Further, in preparing this statement, Army officials told us that the Army has used acquisition authorities provided by Congress to prototype new technologies to replace existing simulators. It is investing in these prototypes based on the usage rates of the older training equipment, and at the same time involving operational forces in the prototyping for their feedback and to help inform requirements. The Army is taking some steps to improve its Pacific Pathways initiative. In November 2016, we reported on an initiative, known as Pacific Pathways, intended to strengthen relationships with allies and build readiness by combining certain exercises with partner nations. The Army began the Pacific Pathways initiative—which deploys a battalion-size task force to the Asia-Pacific region to conduct multiple exercises over 90 days—as a way of building the readiness of its participating units. We found that the size and complexity of the operations under Pacific Pathways created potentially unique training opportunities for supporting units—such as transportation units—to exercise the capabilities they would be required to provide in a contingency. However, we found that the Army could improve its approach by fully synchronizing Army plans, stakeholders, and objectives into the exercises. The Army has implemented two of the recommendations that we made in our report to modify processes and guidance so that stakeholders are integrated into the planning, and also to seek and incorporate the training objectives of supporting units. U.S. Army Pacific officials have stated that they do not plan to implement the recommendation to perform a cost-benefit analysis of Pacific Pathways because it is not required. The Army Faces Challenges with Training Pilots for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), and Personnel for New Cyber Units Our prior and ongoing work has identified some challenges that the Army faces in training personnel in particular specialties, especially as it stands up new units on shortened schedules. These include: A lack of training facilities and airspace creates challenges for UAS pilot training and further steps could be taken to enhance pilot candidate selection. In January 2017, we reported that the Army’s UAS pilot training strategy did not account for some challenges the Army faced, such as a lack of adequate training facilities and limited available airspace. The Army used flexibilities to overcome some of these challenges, but at the time of our report it was too early to tell whether these flexibilities would be enough to overcome training shortfalls. In addition, we found that the way the Army assessed whether service members were good candidates for UAS pilot training could have been improved. For example, we reported that the Army used only 3 of the 78 identified competencies that an Army-Air Force research team identified as “moderately,” “highly,” or “extremely important” for UAS pilots. We made recommendations on these issues, and DOD partially concurred, stating that although the actions we recommended were prudent or already an integral part of workforce management, additional Army guidance would be unnecessary. Fielding and deploying new types of units can pose challenges to training. The accelerated pace at which the Army is creating new units can pose challenges to training and readiness. As previously discussed, the Army is activating new units to sustain readiness and to operate in a more complex environment. However, the Army’s approach can pose training challenges, and negatively affect readiness. Also, our ongoing work indicates that the Army is fielding new cyber units at an accelerated pace, resulting in the units not having either fully trained personnel or the equipment to conduct training, according to Army officials. For example, the Army is planning to add uniformed personnel who specialize in cyber operations to its combat units and as part of newly established Multi- Domain Task Forces, but there is not yet a clear understanding of the tasks they will have to perform or an updated training strategy to support them, according to Army officials. Army officials stated that this will affect the readiness of the units to perform their missions, but they are taking steps to clarify and update these issues. - - - - - In sum, while the Army has made progress in rebuilding readiness, it continues to face challenges meeting its goals. Moreover, the Army will need to balance the readiness of its existing force with plans to grow and modernize. We have made 44 recommendations that the Army has generally concurred with; the Army has implemented 7 of them, and taken actions to begin implementing many others. These recommendations provide a partial roadmap to address important readiness challenges, and implementing our recommendations to improve the management of personnel, equipment maintenance, and training would help the Army meet current threats and assist it as it refocuses on readiness for large- scale combat operations. In addition, sustained management attention and continued congressional oversight will be needed to ensure that the Army demonstrates progress in addressing its personnel, equipment, and training challenges. Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Kaine, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have at this time. GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments If you or your staff have questions about this testimony, please contact John H. Pendleton, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Kevin O’Neill (Assistant Director), Matthew Spiers (Analyst In Charge), Steven Bagley, Rebecca Beale, Cynthia Grant, Kris Keener, Alberto Leff, Amie Lesser, Jon R. Ludwigson, Shahrzad Nikoo, Marcus Oliver, Richard Powelson, James A. Reynolds, Cary Russell, Michael Silver, Matthew Ullengren, Nicole Volchko, Erik Wilkins-McKee, Matthew Young, and Delia Zee. Appendix I: Implementation Status of Prior GAO Recommendations Related to Army Readiness Over the past 4 years, we issued several reports related to Army readiness that are cited in this statement. Table 2 summarizes the status of key GAO recommendations related to Army and DOD components in coordination with the Army since 2016, which include a total of 44 recommendations. The Department of Defense has implemented 7 of these recommendations to date. For each of the reports, the specific recommendations and their implementation status are summarized in tables 3 through 19. Related Prior GAO Work Army Modernization: Steps Needed to Ensure Army Futures Command Fully Applies Leading Practices, GAO-19-132. Washington, D.C.: January 23, 2019. DOD Depot Workforce: Services Need to Assess the Effectiveness of Their Initiative to Maintain Critical Skills [Reissued with revisions on December 26, 2018.], GAO-19-51. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2018. Navy and Marine Corps: Rebuilding Ship, Submarine, and Aviation Readiness Will Require Time and Sustained Management Attention, GAO-19-225T. Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2018. Air Force Readiness: Actions Needed to Rebuild Readiness and Prepare for the Future, GAO-19-120T. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2018. Army Modernization: Actions Needed to Measure Progress and to Fully Identify Near-Term Costs, GAO-18-604SU. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2018. Military Readiness: Analysis of Maintenance Delays Needed to Improve Availability of Patriot Equipment for Training, GAO-18-447. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2018. Military Readiness: Clear Policy and Reliable Data Would Help DOD Better Manage Service Members’ Time Away from Home, GAO-18-253. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2018. European Reassurance Initiative: DOD Needs to Prioritize Posture Initiatives and Plan for and Report their Future Cost, GAO-18-128. Washington, D.C.: December 8, 2017. Military Readiness: Personnel Shortfalls and Persistent Operational Demands Strain Army Missile Defense Units and Personnel, GAO-18-168SU. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 2017. Army Weapon Systems Requirements: Need to Address Workforce Shortfalls to Make Necessary Improvements, GAO-17-568. Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2017. Supply Chain Management: DOD Could More Efficiently Use Its Distribution Centers, GAO-17-449. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2017. Army Readiness: Progress Made Implementing New Concept, but Actions Needed to Improve Results, GAO-17-458SU. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2017. Unmanned Aerial Systems: Air Force and Army Should Improve Strategic Human Capital Planning for Pilot Workforces, GAO-17-53. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2017. Comprehensive Assessment and Planning Needed to Capture Benefits Relative to Costs and Enhance Value for Participating Units [Reissued on November 30, 2016], GAO-17-126. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2016. Military Readiness: DOD’s Readiness Rebuilding Efforts May Be at Risk without a Comprehensive Plan, GAO-16-841. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2016. Patriot Modernization: Oversight Mechanism Needed to Track Progress and Provide Accountability, GAO-16-488. Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2016. Army Training: Efforts to Adjust Training Requirements Should Consider the Use of Virtual Training Devices, GAO-16-636. Washington, D.C.: August 16, 2016. Military Readiness: DOD Needs to Incorporate Elements of a Strategic Management Planning Framework into Retrograde and Reset Guidance, GAO-16-414. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2016. Army Planning: Comprehensive Risk Assessment Needed for Planned Changes to the Army’s Force Structure, GAO-16-327. Washington, D.C.: April 13, 2016. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.


Background DOD is the largest U.S. government department and one of the most complex organizations in the world. In support of its military operations, the department manages many interdependent business functions, including logistics management, procurement, health care management, and financial management. DOD relies extensively on IT to support its business functions. The department’s IT budget organizes investments in four categories, called mission areas—enterprise information environment, business, warfighting, and intelligence. Figure 1 shows the amount of DOD’s total requested fiscal year 2020 IT budget (of $36.1 billion) that the department plans to spend on each of its mission areas (including the approximately $8.9 billion it plans to spend on developing, modernizing, operating, and maintaining its business systems). The department further organizes its IT budget by segments. In this regard, the business mission area segments are logistics/supply chain management, human resource management, health, financial management, acquisition, real property management, training and readiness, other business services, and defense security enterprise. Figure 2 shows the department’s projected fiscal year 2020 spending (of $8.9 billion) for each segment in the business mission area. U.S. Code Establishes Requirements for Managing Defense Business Systems As amended in 2016, the U.S. Code requires DOD to perform certain activities aimed at ensuring that its business system investments are managed efficiently and effectively. Specifically, the amendments established four sets of requirements for the department related to (1) issuing policy and guidance for managing defense business systems; (2) developing and maintaining a defense business enterprise architecture; (3) establishing a Defense Business Council to provide advice to the Secretary on managing defense business systems; and (4) obtaining approvals before systems proceed into development (or if no development is required, into production or fielding). Further, the amendments to the code established specific designations and thresholds that, among other things, provided additional details about the department’s requirements: Covered defense business systems. The code defines a covered defense business system as a system that is expected to have a total amount of budget authority of over $50 million over a period of 5 years or more. Priority defense business systems. The code establishes a category of system, called a priority defense business system. This refers to a system that is (1) expected to have a total amount of budget authority of over $250 million over the period of the current future-years defense program, or (2) designated by the DOD chief management officer (CMO) as a priority defense business system based on specific program analyses of factors including complexity, scope, and technical risk, and after notification to Congress of such designation. Thresholds and officials responsible for review and certification of defense business systems. The code states that, unless otherwise assigned by the Secretary of Defense, military department CMOs are to have approval authority for their covered defense business system investments of below $250 million over the future- years defense program. The CMO is to have approval authority for defense business systems owned by DOD components other than the military departments, systems that will support the business process of more than one military department or other component, and priority defense business systems. Certification requirements. The code requires that a defense business system program be reviewed and certified at least annually, on the basis of its compliance with the business enterprise architecture and appropriate business process reengineering. In addition, the code requires that the business system program be reviewed and certified on the basis of having valid, achievable requirements and a viable plan for implementing the requirements; having an acquisition strategy designed to eliminate or reduce the need to tailor commercial off-the-shelf systems; and being in compliance with the department’s auditability requirements. DOD Has Assigned Roles and Responsibilities for Managing Defense Business Systems DOD Instruction 5000.75: Business System Requirements and Acquisitions assigns roles and responsibilities for managing defense business system investments. Table 1 identifies the key entities and their responsibilities for managing defense business system investments. GAO Previously Has Reported on DOD Business Systems Modernization Efforts GAO designated the department’s business systems modernization efforts as high risk in 1995 and has continued to do so in the years since. In addition, since 2005, we have issued 12 reports in which we assessed DOD’s actions to respond to the business system investment management requirements contained in U.S. Code Title 10, Section 2222. These 12 reports, which are listed in appendix I, collectively contained 29 recommendations to help strengthen the department’s management of its business systems. For example, In 2014, we reported that DOD had taken steps to comply with key provisions in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2005; however, the department continued to face challenges in fully complying with the provisions and modernizing its business systems environment. As a result, we recommended that the department improve its business system certification and approval process. DOD agreed with, and implemented this recommendation. In 2015, we reported that DOD had implemented 5 of the 16 recommendations made by GAO since June 2011 to address each of the overarching provisions for improving business systems management described in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2005. The department had partially implemented the other 11 recommendations. We also reported that DOD’s business enterprise architecture and process reengineering efforts were not fully achieving the intended outcomes described in statute. Thus, we made a recommendation aimed at ensuring that the department better achieve business process reengineering and enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits. DOD agreed with this recommendation and took steps toward implementing it. In 2018, we reported that DOD had made progress in complying with most legislative provisions for managing its defense business systems, but that additional actions were needed. For example, the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2016 required DOD and the military departments to issue guidance to address five requirements for reviewing and certifying the department’s business systems. We reported that, while DOD had issued guidance addressing all of the requirements, the military departments had shown mixed progress. Accordingly, we recommended that the military departments issue guidance to address certifiying their business systems on the basis of the five requirements. While DOD partially agreed with these recommendations, the military departments implemented them. As of June 2019, the department had implemented 15 of the 29 recommendations contained in the 12 reports. In addition, we closed two of the recommendations as “not implemented” because the actions taken by the department did not sufficiently address the recommendations. The department had not yet taken actions to address the other 12 recommendations. Table 2 identifies the four sets of requirements for strengthening DOD’s management of defense business systems identified in the U.S. Code. In addition, the table identifies a fifth category associated with human capital, which supports the department’s execution of the other four sets of requirements. The table also identifies the 12 GAO recommendations that remained to be implemented as of June 2019. DOD Made Progress in Strengthening Its Management of Business Systems, but Had Not Addressed All Recommendations Relating to the Statutory Requirements DOD took actions toward addressing GAO’s recommendations related to business system requirements contained in the U.S. Code. In doing so, the department made progress in strengthening the management of its defense business system investments. Specifically, between June 2019 and November 2019, the department demonstrated that it had implemented four of the 12 remaining recommendations aimed at strengthening business systems management. As of November 2019, for example, the department had taken actions to implement a recommendation that helped the department comply with the code’s requirement to establish guidance for effectively managing its defense business system investments. In this regard, the Office of the CMO demonstrated that DOD had implemented our recommendation to improve the department’s policy to require full consideration of sustainability and technological refreshment requirements for its defense business systems investments. Specifically, the department demonstrated that its Instruction 5000.75, DOD Directive 5000.01, and DOD Financial Management Regulation Volume 2B guidance includes policy requiring consideration of sustainability and technological refreshment. The department also demonstrated that its DOD Directive 5000.01 guidance includes policy to ensure that best systems engineering practices are used in the procurement and deployment of commercial systems, modified commercial systems, and defense-unique systems. In addition, with regard to the requirement that DOD ensure that business systems are reviewed and certified in accordance with U.S. Code Title 10, Section 2222, the Army demonstrated that it had implemented our recommendation that the department improve its guidance for certifying defense business systems. Specifically, the Army issued guidance to require that the systems be certified on the basis of (1) having valid, achievable requirements and a viable plan to implement the requirements; (2) having an acquisition strategy designed to eliminate or reduce the need to tailor commercial off-the-shelf systems to meet unique requirements, incorporate unique requirements, or incorporate unique interfaces to the maximum extent practicable; and (3) being in compliance with DOD’s auditability requirements. The Air Force also demonstrated that it had implemented our recommendation that the department improve its guidance for certifying defense business systems. Specifically, the Air Force issued guidance to require that systems be certified on the basis of (1) having an acquisition strategy designed to eliminate or reduce the need to tailor commercial off-the-shelf systems to meet unique requirements, incorporate unique requirements, or incorporate unique interfaces to the maximum extent practicable; and (2) being in compliance with DOD’s auditability requirements. Further, with regard to this requirement, the Office of the CMO demonstrated that it had addressed the recommendation to implement and use business enterprise architecture and business process reengineering compliance assessments more effectively. Specifically, in September 2019, the Office of the CMO demonstrated that it had reviewed business enterprise architecture and business process reengineering compliance assessments and identified in investment decision memorandums which systems had assessments that required action. Even with the actions taken, however, more remained to be done to implement eight other recommendations relating to the code’s requirements that could help strengthen the department’s management of its business systems. Specifically, with regard to the requirement to ensure that business systems are reviewed and certified in accordance with the code, the department had not implemented two of our related recommendations. For example, it had not implemented our recommendation to ensure that portfolio assessments are conducted in key areas identified in GAO’s IT investment management framework, such as current schedule, project reporting, and risks. In addition, with regard to the requirement to develop and maintain a defense business enterprise architecture and IT enterprise architecture, in accordance with relevant laws and Office of Management and Budget policies and guidance, the department had developed a business enterprise architecture. However, it had not implemented our five related recommendations. For example, it had not implemented our recommendation to integrate its business and IT architectures. According to officials in the Office of the CIO, the office plans to finalize the first increment of version 3 of its DOD Information Enterprise Architecture (i.e., IT enterprise architecture) by the end of December 2019, and intends to integrate the business enterprise architecture into the Information Enterprise Architecture as a part of that effort. Further, with regard to human capital, which supports the other requirements, the department had not implemented our related recommendation to develop a skills inventory, needs assessment, gap analysis, and plan to address identified gaps as part of a strategic approach to human capital planning. In commenting on its status in addressing the recommendation in September 2019, the Office of the CMO stated that it intends to publish a Defense Business Operations Management Workforce Plan by December 31, 2019. According to office officials, the plan is to include skills requirements for both Office of the CMO permanent employees and DOD employees detailed to the Office of the CMO in support of the management and reform of defense business operations management. Table 3 summarizes the status of the 12 recommendations, as of November 2019, relative to the requirements established in the code. Further, appendix II provides additional information about the status of the recommendations, as of November 2019. By taking actions to implement four of the 12 remaining recommendations, DOD made important progress in its efforts to comply with the requirements established in the U.S. Code. Nevertheless, taking further actions to implement all of the recommendations is essential to helping the department comply with all of the requirements—and ultimately, to strengthen the management of its defense business system investments and efforts to effectively transform its business operations. Agency Comments and our Evaluation DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in appendix III. In its comments, the department stated that it appreciated GAO’s recognition of the progress that DOD has made to strengthen business systems management. The department agreed that more needs to be done to strengthen the management of investments in DOD business operations and stated that, in the coming months, it plans to execute a reform agenda intended to strengthen oversight and improve business performance. Further, while this report made no new recommendations, the department concurred with our assessment of the status of seven of the eight open recommendations that DOD has not yet implemented. In addition, the department suggested that we close one recommendation that it perform specific activities as part of a strategic approach to human capital planning for the Office of the CMO, based on the CMO’s submission of a human capital analysis report to Congress in early January 2020. The department subsequently provided us a copy of the CMO’s human capital analysis report on February 7, 2020. We plan to assess the report to determine if it meets the intent of our recommendation. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Defense, and other interested parties. This report also is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff members have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4456 or harriscc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Appendix I: Prior GAO Reports on Department of Defense Business System Modernization Since 2005, GAO has issued 12 reports in which we assessed DOD’s actions to respond to business systems modernization requirements contained in U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 2222. These requirements specify how DOD is to manage its business system investments. The reports are listed below: Defense Business Systems: DOD Needs to Continue Improving Guidance and Plans for Effectively Managing Investments, GAO-18-130 (Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2018). DOD Business Systems Modernization: Additional Action Needed to Achieve Intended Outcomes, GAO-15-627 (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2015). Defense Business Systems: Further Refinements Needed to Guide the Investment Management Process, GAO-14-486 (Washington, D.C. May 12, 2014). DOD Business Systems Modernization: Further Actions Needed to Address Challenges and Improve Accountability, GAO-13-557 (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2013). DOD Business Systems Modernization: Governance Mechanisms for Implementing Management Controls Need to Be Improved, GAO-12-685 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2012). Department of Defense: Further Actions Needed to Institutionalize Key Business System Modernization Management Controls, GAO-11-684 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2011). Business Systems Modernization: Scope and Content of DOD’s Congressional Report and Executive Oversight of Investments Need to Improve, GAO-10-663 (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2010). DOD Business Systems Modernization: Recent Slowdown in Institutionalizing Key Management Controls Needs to Be Addressed, GAO-09-586 (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2009). DOD Business Systems Modernization: Progress in Establishing Corporate Management Controls Needs to Be Replicated Within Military Departments, GAO-08-705 (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008). DOD Business Systems Modernization: Progress Continues to Be Made in Establishing Corporate Management Controls, but Further Steps Are Needed, GAO-07-733 (Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2007). Business Systems Modernization: DOD Continues to Improve Institutional Approach, but Further Steps Needed, GAO-06-658 (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2006). DOD Business Systems Modernization: Important Progress Made in Establishing Foundational Architecture Products and Investment Management Practices, but Much Work Remains, GAO-06-219 (Washington, D.C.: November 23, 2005). Appendix II: Status of GAO Recommendations Aimed at Strengthening DOD’s Approach to Managing Its Business System Investments, as of November 2019 Table 4 summarizes the status of recommendations made to the Department of Defense (DOD), based on GAO’s assessments of DOD’s actions to respond to defense business system investment management requirements contained in U.S. Code Title 10, Section 2222. The recommendations, included in GAO reports issued from 2005 through 2018, were aimed at helping the department strengthen its approach to managing its business system investments. As of June 2019 (when GAO began its current review of DOD’s actions to address the recommendations), the department had not yet addressed 12 of 29 total recommendations. Subsequently, between June 2019 and November 2019, the department implemented four of the recommendations, but did not implement eight other recommendations. Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff Acknowledgments In addition to the contact above, individuals who made contributions to this report include Michael Holland (Assistant Director), Tyler Mountjoy (Analyst in Charge), Camille Chaires, Cheryl Dottermusch, William Hutchinson, Monica Perez-Nelson, Priscilla Smith, and Adam Vodraska.


Background DOD requires each Military Service to establish its own EFMP for active duty servicemembers. According to DOD guidance, EFMPs are to have three components—identification and enrollment, assignment coordination, and family support. Identification and enrollment: DOD requires servicemembers to enroll in their Military Service’s EFMP once eligible family members are identified by medical and educational personnel at each installation. Assignment coordination: Before finalizing a servicemember’s assignment to a new location, DOD requires each Military Service to consider any family member’s special needs, including the availability of required medical and special educational services at a new location. Family support: DOD requires each Military Service’s EFMP to help families with special needs identify and gain access to programs and services at their current, as well as proposed locations. As required by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010, DOD established the Office of Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs (Office of Special Needs or OSN) to develop, implement, and oversee a policy to support these families. Among other things, this policy must (1) address assignment coordination and family support services for families with special needs; (2) incorporate requirements for resources and staffing to ensure appropriate numbers of case managers are available to develop and maintain services plans that support these families; and (3) include requirements regarding the development and continuous updating of a services plan for each military family with special needs. OSN is also responsible for monitoring the Military Services’ EFMPs and collaborating with the Military Services to standardize EFMP components as appropriate. For example, as part of its guidance for monitoring the Military Services’ EFMPs, DOD requires each Military Service to certify or accredit its family support services provided through the EFMP. In addition, DOD states that each Military Service must balance the need for overarching consistency across EFMPs with the need for each Military Service to provide family support that is consistent with their specific mission. Table 1 provides an overview of the procedures each Military Service must establish for the assignment coordination and family support components of the EFMP that we identified in our May 2018 report. Key Aspects of Assistance for Families with Special Needs Vary Widely Across DOD Which Leads to Potential Gaps in Support In May 2018, DOD reported that each Military Service provides family support services in accordance with DOD guidance, as well as Military Service-specific guidance. However, we found that, the type, amount, and frequency of assistance families with special needs receive varied by Military Service, which could lead to gaps in assistance (see table 2). For example, in our May 2018 report, we found that the Marine Corps is the only Military Service that specifies a minimum frequency (quarterly) with which families with special needs should be contacted by their family support providers. The other Military Services either do not have requirements for regular contact with these families (Air Force and Army) or require contact only for selected families (Navy). In addition, we reported that unlike the Marine Corps, the Air Force, Army, and Navy choose not to employ special education attorneys. For example, Marine Corps attorneys may represent families with special needs who fail to receive special education services from local school districts, as specified in their children’s individualized education programs (IEP). Officials from the Air Force, Army, and Navy told us that they find other ways to help families with special needs resolve special education issues. For example, Army officials said EFMP managers could refer families with special needs to other organizations that provide legal support. Services Plans As we reported in May 2018, services plans are an important part of providing family support during the relocation process because they describe the necessary services and support for a family with special needs and provide a record for the gaining installation. However, we found that every Military Service had created relatively few services plans compared to the number of servicemembers or the number of family members enrolled in the EFMP (see table 3). The Military Services and OSN provided a number of reasons as to why they do not develop and maintain a services plan for each family with special needs. For example, Air Force officials said they first consider whether a services plan will help each family receive the required services. In addition, Army and Marine Corps officials said they may not develop a services plan if a family does not request it. According to a Navy official, some families also lack the required services plans because installations may not have the staff needed to develop them. Finally, OSN officials said the Military Services may not have developed many services plans during fiscal year 2016 because DOD had not yet approved a standardized form that all of the Military Services could use, and because some families’ circumstances did not require a services plan. In our May 2018 report, we recommended that DOD assess the extent to which each Military Service is developing a services plan for each family with special needs. DOD concurred with our recommendation, but as of January 2020, we determined that DOD has not fully implemented the recommendation because it has not yet assessed the extent to which each Military Service is developing services plans for each family with special needs. In its annual report to the congressional defense committees in April 2019, DOD stated that it was exploring legislative changes to the law that would require a services plan to be developed and updated only for those families who request services. A senior official from DOD stated that although this proposal received Office of Management and Budget approval, it was not included in the NDAA for fiscal year 2020. Also, in April 2019, in response to our recommendation, DOD reported to us that the Military Services had begun using a standardized form to develop services plans. In January 2020, a senior DOD official said its standardized form provides an option for a family to decline a services plan, and that the Department began collecting data related to services plans in the last quarter of 2019. Resources To meet requirements of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010, in April 2017, DOD stated that it issued to the Military Services guidance that directed them to “rogram, budget, and allocate sufficient funds and other resources, including staffing,” to meet DOD’s policy objectives for the EFMP. We reported in May 2018 that DOD relies on each Military Service to determine what level of funds and resources are sufficient and what constitutes an appropriate number of family support personnel. To determine the appropriate number of family support providers and staffing levels, the Military Service officials with whom we spoke said they consider a number of factors, including the number of families with special needs enrolled in the EFMP at any given installation. See Table 4 for a summary of EFMP family support providers and other key personnel at CONUS installations. In May 2018, based on our analysis of EFMP family support providers and other key personnel at CONUS installations, we found that DOD had not developed a standard for determining the sufficiency of funding and resources each Military Service allocates for family support. As a result, the Military Services may not know the extent to which their funding and resources for family support comply with DOD’s policy. Federal internal control standards require that agencies establish control activities, such as developing clear policies, in order to accomplish agency objectives, such as those of the Military Services’ EFMPs. Because DOD had not identified and addressed potential gaps in family support across the Military Services’ EFMPs, such as those we identified in types of assistance, services plans, and resources, we concluded that some families with special needs may not get the assistance they require, particularly when they relocate. We recommended in our May 2018 report that DOD assess the extent to which each Military Service is providing sufficient resources to staff an appropriate number of family support providers. DOD concurred with our recommendation. In April 2019, the most recent update DOD provided on this recommendation, DOD officials said they were planning to pilot a staffing tool to help the Military Services determine the number of family support providers needed at each installation; the pilot is expected to last 2 years before it can be implemented across the Military Services. DOD Described Plans to Improve EFMP Oversight, but Lacks a Way to Fully Assess Performance across the Military Services and a Process for Evaluating Their Monitoring Activities We reported in May 2018 that OSN had several efforts underway to improve its oversight of the EFMP. For example, to help provide a more consistent EFMP screening process across the Military Services and improve the collection of comparable assignment coordination data, OSN had planned for each Military Service to use standard screening forms for family members with special medical or educational needs prior to making new assignments. In January 2020, DOD told us that the forms were approved, but related guidance had not yet been developed for implementation across all of the Military Services. In addition, OSN planned to centralize the management of EFMP data across the Military Services. In April 2019, DOD reported that 82 percent of the EFMP related data terms were collectable across the Military Services which can improve OSN’s monitoring and reporting capabilities of the EFMP. Despite OSN’s initial efforts, we found that DOD lacked common performance measures for assignment coordination and family support, and therefore is unable to fully assess EFMP performance across the Military Services. In our May 2018 report, we recommended that DOD direct OSN to develop common performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support, in accordance with leading practices for performance measurement. DOD concurred with our recommendation. In April 2019, the most recent update DOD provided on this recommendation, DOD officials told us that each Military Service submits data on assignment coordination and family support to the EFMP data repository on a quarterly basis, and that OSN was currently developing additional performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support. Until these metrics are fully developed and implemented, DOD will remain unable to fully assess the effectiveness of its efforts related to assignment coordination and family support at each of its installations. We also found in May 2018 that OSN did not have a process to systematically evaluate the results of the Military Services’ monitoring activities. Instead, DOD requires each Military Service to monitor its own assignment coordination and family support provided through the EFMP and requires each Military Service to assess performance at least once every 4 years using standards developed by a national accrediting body. In addition, DOD requires personnel from each of the Military Service’s headquarters to periodically visit installations as part of their monitoring activities. We also reported that the Military Services’ family support programs were not accredited by a national accrediting body because, according to Military Service officials, they were unable to obtain funding for engaging in that process. Instead, each Military Service has a self-certification process based on standards that meet those of a national accrediting body, Military Service-specific standards, and best practices. We also reported in May 2018 that OSN officials did not systematically review the results of monitoring activities, such as the certification process, because they rely on each Military Service to self- monitor. In addition, officials said efforts to standardize certification of EFMPs have been unsuccessful because the Military Services cannot agree on a set of standards that can be used across installations. We recommended in our May 2018 report that DOD implement a systematic process for evaluating the results of the Military Services’ monitoring activities. DOD concurred with our recommendation but has not yet fully implemented it. DOD last commented on this recommendation in April 2019 and said the family support component is monitored and evaluated through each Military Service’s certification process, which includes specific standards for the EFMP. In addition, OSN participated in a monitoring site visit to Marine Corps Base Quantico in December 2018 and plans to participate in additional site visits that are coordinated by each Military Service’s certification team. We will consider this recommendation implemented only when DOD provides evidence that it has implemented a systematic process to evaluate the results of each Military Service’s monitoring activities. In conclusion, DOD relies on each Military Service to implement its policy on support for families with special needs. In doing so, they also rely on each Military Service to determine the extent to which its assistance to families with special needs complies with this policy. As it plans for the future, DOD will need to balance the flexibility it provides each Military Service to implement its policy with the need to assess the adequacy of the Military Services’ EFMPs in serving families with special needs, including any gaps in services these families receive. Chairwoman Speier, Ranking Member Kelly, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time. Contact and Staff Acknowledgements For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki, Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this statement include Bill MacBlane (Assistant Director), Brian Egger (Analyst-in-Charge), Holly Dye, Robin Marion, James Rebbe, Shelia Thorpe, Walter Vance, Kelsey Kreider, and Mimi Nguyen. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.