This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-439R entitled 'The Department of Defense's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan Does Not Meet Most Statutory Requirements' which was released on February 7, 2008. This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 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. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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. February 6, 2008: The Honorable Carl Levin: Chairman: The Honorable John McCain: Ranking Member: Committee on Armed Services: United States Senate: The Honorable Ike Skelton: Chairman: The Honorable Duncan Hunter: Ranking Member: Committee on Armed Services: House of Representatives: Subject: The Department of Defense's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan Does Not Meet Most Statutory Requirements: The achievement of the Department of Defense's (DOD) mission is dependent in large part on the skills and expertise of its civilian workforce--which consists of almost 700,000 personnel, who develop policy, provide intelligence, manage finances, and acquire and maintain weapon systems. With more than 50 percent of its civilian personnel becoming eligible to retire in the next few years, DOD may find it difficult to fill certain mission-critical jobs with qualified personnel. Strategic workforce planning, an integral part of human capital management, helps ensure that an organization has staff with the necessary skills and competencies[Footnote 1] to accomplish its strategic goals. We have previously reported that it is critical that DOD engage in effective strategic workforce planning to ensure that its human capital reforms have maximum effectiveness and value. In 2007, we reported that strategic human capital management remained a high-risk area because the federal government now faces one of the most significant transformations to the civil service in half a century, as momentum grows toward making governmentwide changes to agency pay, classification, and performance management systems.[Footnote 2] In our prior work examining various aspects of DOD's human capital management of its civilian workforce, we found that, while DOD has developed and implemented civilian strategic workforce plans to address future civilian workforce needs, the plans generally lacked some key elements essential to successful workforce planning.[Footnote 3] For example, none of the plans included analyses of the gaps between critical skills[Footnote 4] and competencies currently needed by the workforce and those that will be needed in the future. Without such gap analyses, we noted that DOD and its components may not be able to effectively design strategies to hire, develop, and retain the best possible workforce. In January 2006, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006[Footnote 5] directed DOD to develop and submit to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees a strategic plan to shape and improve the DOD civilian employee workforce. Section 1122 (b) of the act provided that the plan address eight requirements. These included an assessment of existing and future critical skills and competencies needed to support national security and manage the department over the next decade, and an assessment of any existing gaps. In addition, DOD was to develop and submit a plan of action to address identified gaps, including specific recruiting and retention goals and strategies on how to train, compensate, and motivate civilian employees. Furthermore, the act required the Secretary of Defense to submit the plan not later than 1 year after enactment of the act, which occurred on January 6, 2006. Accordingly, DOD's plan was due on January 6, 2007. On November 6, 2007--ten months after the due date--DOD submitted to the committees both its plan titled "Department of Defense Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan 2006-2010," and its implementation report titled "The Department of Defense Human Capital Strategic Plan for Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2006 Implementation Report." This latter DOD report, however, noted that it responded to section 1122(d) of the act.[Footnote 6] In this report, we will hereafter refer to these two documents collectively as DOD's civilian human capital strategic plan. In addition to the mandate for DOD, the act also required GAO to review and report on the human capital strategic plan DOD submitted to meet its mandate no later than 90 days after DOD's submission. Accordingly, we examined the extent to which DOD's civilian human capital strategic plan addresses the reporting requirements mandated by the act. To examine the extent to which DOD's civilian human capital strategic plan addresses congressional reporting requirements, we obtained and analyzed the "Department of Defense Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan 2006-2010" and "The Department of Defense Human Capital Strategic Plan for Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2006 Implementation Report," along with other documents. We analyzed the content of these documents and compared them to the requirements of the 2006 act. We also discussed the plan with officials within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, and the Civilian Personnel Management Service. We conducted this performance audit from November 2007 to February 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Summary: Overall, DOD's civilian human capital strategic plan does not meet most statutory requirements. First, the plan partially addresses some but not all aspects of two of the congressional reporting requirements established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. Specifically, DOD's plan includes a list of mission-critical occupations needed for the current civilian workforce, but this list does not constitute the required assessment of skills of the existing workforce. Second, and most importantly, the plan does not address the majority--six of eight--of the congressional reporting requirements. For example, the plan does not include an assessment of current mission- critical competencies, future critical skills and competencies needed, gaps between the current and future needs, or specific recruiting and retention goals, even though these elements are required by the 2006 act. DOD officials acknowledged that the plan they submitted to the committees is incomplete. We note that the plan refers, in several places, to information related to DOD's mandate, but indicates that those items may be addressed at a later time. In addition, DOD officials stated that some of these items may be addressed in other documents. For example, DOD officials told us that a recent report[Footnote 7] may contain information that addresses portions of the mandate. While we reviewed some of the information in this report, it was not submitted to the committees pursuant to the 2006 act; thus, it cannot be considered as meeting the mandate. Moreover, our initial review of the document showed that, while it may address some of the requirements in DOD's mandate, it still may not address other aspects of the mandate because, for example, it does not cover the time frames Congress directed--that is, over the next decade. Without complete information on DOD's civilian human capital plan, to include analyses of gaps between critical skills and competencies needed by the current and future workforce, Congress will not have the information it needs to conduct effective oversight over DOD's efforts to hire, develop, and retain the best possible civilian workforce. Accordingly, we are recommending that DOD submit to Congress a civilian human capital strategic plan that addresses all of the statutory requirements. DOD disagreed with our recommendation noting that its response to the congressional reporting requirements reflected a centralized enterprise- wide strategic perspective--as opposed to providing the information specified by the law, such as recruiting and retention goals. The law required DOD's plan to contain very specific quantitative data and assessments. Since DOD's plan did not address the law's requirements, we continue to believe that our recommendation is valid. Background: We have previously examined various aspects of DOD's human capital management of its civilian workforce. For example, in June 2004, we reported that DOD has developed and implemented civilian strategic workforce plans to address future civilian workforce needs; however, DOD's plans generally lacked some key elements essential to successful workforce planning.[Footnote 8] To improve the comprehensiveness of strategic workforce planning for the DOD civilian workforce, we recommended that the department (1) analyze and document critical skills and competency gaps between its current and future workforces and (2) develop workforce strategies to address identified workforce gaps in skills and competencies. DOD partially concurred with both recommendations and stated, for the first recommendation, that the value of conducting a global analysis between current competencies and those needed for the future for over 650,000 jobs was unclear. Our recommendation did not suggest that DOD conduct a global gap analysis, but rather that it perform an analysis of the gaps between current critical skills and competencies. On the second recommendation DOD stated, among other things, that it uses existing flexibilities such as recruitment and retention bonuses and relocation allowances. While we acknowledged that DOD and its components had implemented various strategies including those for training and recruiting, these strategies were not derived from analyses of critical skills and competency gaps. Without such analyses, we reported that DOD may not be able to design and invest in strategies that will effectively and efficiently transition it to it the future workforce it desires and needs. While DOD has said that it is analyzing and documenting critical skills gaps and that it is actively engaged in developing workforce strategies to fill identified skills gaps, we continue to believe that our recommendations have merit and that DOD should take steps to implement them. In January 2006, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006[Footnote 9] directed DOD to develop and submit to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees a strategic plan to shape and improve the DOD civilian employee workforce. The plan was to include eight requirements. These included an assessment of: * the critical skills that will be needed in the future DOD civilian employee workforce to support national security requirements and effectively manage the department over the next decade, * the competencies that will be needed in the future DOD civilian employee workforce to support national security requirements and effectively manage the department over the next decade, * the skills of the existing DOD civilian employee workforce, * the competencies of the existing DOD civilian employee workforce, * the projected trends in that workforce based on expected losses due to retirement and other attrition, * gaps in the existing or projected DOD civilian employee workforce that should be addressed to ensure that the department has continued access to the critical skills and competencies to support national security requirements and effectively manage the department of the next decade. Also, as part of its strategic human capital plan, the act directed DOD to include a plan of action for developing and shaping the DOD civilian employee workforce to address identified gaps in critical skills and competencies including specific: * recruiting and retention goals, and: * strategies for development, training, deploying, compensating, and motivating the DOD civilian employee workforce. The act further required the Secretary of Defense to submit the plan not later than 1 year after enactment of the act, which occurred on January 6, 2006. Accordingly, DOD's plan was due on January 6, 2007. Thereafter, the act required an annual update of DOD's plan not later than March 1 of each year from 2007 through 2010. On November 6, 2007--10 months after the due date--DOD submitted its plan titled "Department of Defense Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan 2006-2010." [Footnote 10] The plan consists of 19 pages plus an additional 13 pages of appendixes that address, among other things, how DOD (1) aligns human resource actions with the goals and objectives of the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)[Footnote 11] report and its human capital strategy and (2) addresses the criteria for strategic management of human capital, per the President's Management Agenda. DOD also submitted its implementation report titled "The Department of Defense Human Capital Strategic Plan for Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2006 Implementation Report," which is dated July 2007. The report consists of 39 pages that, among other things, address (1) its enterprise-wide leadership development programs and (2) its challenges to attract and sustain the right talent, along with efforts to refresh its identification of mission-critical occupations. DOD's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan Partially Addresses Some, but Does Not Address Most, Aspects of the Congressional Reporting Requirements: DOD's civilian human capital strategic plan partially addresses some, but does not address most, aspects of the congressional reporting requirements established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. Specifically, DOD's plan includes a list of the mission-critical occupations and identifies some workforce strategies. However, the plan does not address the majority of the congressional reporting requirements. DOD's Plan Includes a List of the Current Civilian Workforce Mission- Critical Occupations and Identifies Some Workforce Strategies: The act required DOD to include an assessment of the skills of the current civilian workforce and workforce strategies; instead, DOD's plan submitted to the committees included a list of the mission- critical occupations needed for the current workforce and identified some strategies to address workforce challenges. * List of mission-critical occupations. DOD's plan included a list of mission-critical occupations needed for the current civilian workforce that will be the focus of DOD's future enterprise-wide strategic human capital planning efforts. Specifically, the plan identified 25 mission- critical occupations.[Footnote 12] However, this list does not constitute the required assessment of skills of the existing civilian workforce. * Workforce strategies. DOD's civilian human capital strategic plan also describes various strategies to address workforce challenges. For example, DOD has established a Hiring Heroes Program and a Web site especially for disabled veterans to help injured servicemembers return to productive employment. In fiscal year 2006, DOD hired 37,974 veterans through this program. In addition, DOD used the Pipeline Reemployment Program, which enables employees with job-related injuries and illnesses to return to work. According to DOD, by the end of fiscal year 2006, this program allowed 358 employees to return to productive positions, for potential lifetime cost avoidance for the department of approximately $281 million. However, DOD's workforce strategies do not appear to comprehensively address the requirement for specific strategies for development, training, deploying, compensating, and motivating DOD's civilian workforce over the next decade. DOD's Plan Does Not Address the Majority of the Congressional Reporting Requirements: Importantly, DOD's civilian human capital strategic plan also does not address the majority--six of eight--of the congressional reporting requirements. Specifically, the plan does not include an assessment of current mission-critical competencies, projected trends in that workforce based on expected losses due to retirement and other attrition, future critical skills and competencies needed, gaps between the current and future needs, or specific recruiting and retention goals, even though these elements are required by the 2006 act. * Assessment of current mission-critical competencies and projected trends in the current workforce. DOD's plan does not define current mission-critical competencies and competency proficiency levels needed for each occupation. In addition, the plan does not include an assessment of projected trends in the current workforce based on expected losses due to retirement and other attrition. The plan, for example, does not include trends in current mission-critical occupations in terms of current and expected retirement eligibility, separations, resignations, and transfers. In our June 2004 report on DOD's efforts to develop and implement strategic workforce plans,[Footnote 13] we noted that it is essential that organizations determine what is available--both the current workforce characteristics and future availability. We also noted that this is accomplished by assessing the current workforce--defining the number and types of competencies for employees in each occupational group; determining the skill levels for each competency; and assessing how they will evolve over time, factoring in such events as retirements. * Assessment of future critical skills and competencies. DOD's civilian human capital strategic plan does not include an assessment of the critical skills and competencies needed by its future civilian employee workforce over the next decade. Contrary to the requirement to cover 10 years, the plan covers the 4-year period between 2006 and 2010. In our June 2004 report, we stated that to build the right workforce to achieve strategic goals, it is essential that organizations determine the critical workforce characteristics needed in the future. Our review of DOD's plan found that the plan recognizes the need to refocus civilian force capabilities for the future and acknowledges that the department requires a future civilian employee workforce with the attributes and capabilities to perform in an environment of uncertainty and surprise, execute with a wartime sense of urgency, create tailored solutions to multiple complex challenges, build partnerships, shape choices, and plan rapidly. The plan, however, does not include information about these attributes and capabilities and how they would relate to the act's requirement for an assessment of the critical skills and competencies needed in the future civilian employee workforce over the next decade. * Assessment of gaps between current and future critical skills and competencies. DOD's civilian human capital strategic plan does not include an assessment of gaps between the critical skills and competencies currently needed and those needed in the future DOD civilian employee workforce. In June 2004, we reported that to build the right workforce to achieve strategic goals, it is essential that organizations determine the difference between what will be available and what will be needed. We noted that this is especially important as changes in national security, technology, and other factors alter the environment within which DOD operates. As an example, in 2006, we reported that the Air Force had identified gaps in its acquisition workforce and had begun considering ways to address it; however, they had not addressed the gaps at that time.[Footnote 14] * Specific recruiting and retention goals. DOD's civilian human capital strategic plan does not include specific recruiting and retention goals to address gaps in critical skills and competencies. Although Appendix D of the plan suggests that DOD does have tracking measures as well as quarterly and annual reporting requirements that relate to recruitment and retention, the plan submitted to the committees did not include specific recruiting and retention goals. DOD officials acknowledged that the plan submitted to the committees may be incomplete in addressing the requirements of sections 1122(a) and (b). Additionally, we note that the plan has information, in several places, that relate to the requirements in the act but, in these instances, the plan states that these items may be addressed at a later time or in other documents. For example, the plan states that the department will deploy an automated survey tool to identify competency gaps in the human resource community sometime during fiscal year 2007. In addition, the plan referred to a separate report[Footnote 15] that identified competency requirements for DOD's senior executive leadership. This report, however, does not constitute an assessment of the existing competencies and those needed in the future and was not provided to Congress with DOD's plan, so it cannot be considered as meeting the requirements of the mandate. DOD officials further told us that other documents not mentioned in the plan may address some of the act's requirements. For example, they said that Department of Defense Annual Human Capital Management Report for Fiscal Year 2007[Footnote 16] may also address some of the act's requirements and they provided us with this report. Our initial review of the report shows that it does contain information on DOD's efforts to align its civilian human capital strategy with existing human capital strategies, its mission, and the National Military Strategy. For instance, the report addresses DOD's efforts to build a civilian senior executive leadership cadre and discusses a goal to assess and close current leadership competency gaps. However, this effort is ongoing and DOD expects to conduct a comprehensive assessment in 2008, which it says will allow the department to develop a gap analysis and a subsequent improvement plan. Furthermore, while our review determined that the report may address some of the requirements in DOD's mandate, the report did not cover the time frames Congress directed--that is, the next decade. Moreover, since this report was not submitted to the committees, it cannot be considered as meeting the requirements of the mandate in section 1122(a) and (b). Conclusions: Although DOD has taken some steps, since we issued our 2004 report, to develop and implement a civilian human capital strategic plan to address its future civilian workforce needs, the plan it submitted to the Armed Services Committees does not meet the majority of the requirements in the law. This is becoming a long standing issue. Without a plan that addresses all of the elements essential to a successful workforce plan, such as what gaps exist in skills and competencies and what type of recruiting and retention strategies should be developed, DOD's future workforce may not possess the critical skills and competencies needed. Additionally, Congress will not have the information it needs to exercise effective oversight over DOD's efforts to hire, develop, and retain the best possible civilian workforce for the 21st century challenges. Recommendation for Executive Action: To ensure that Congress has the necessary information to provide effective oversight over DOD's civilian workforce, we are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, to submit to Congress a civilian human capital strategic plan that addresses all of the statutory requirements in section 1122 (b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This could be included in DOD's next submission, which is due in March 2008. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: In commenting on a draft of our report, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy disagreed with our recommendation. (DOD's comments are reprinted in enclosure I.) However, DOD also noted that the department plans to include more "compressive" documents in its required March 2008 report to the Armed Services Committees. DOD's comments further described several ongoing efforts to conduct workforce planning and analysis and it appears that the department is planning to take action to improve its management of civilian human capital planning. However, these ongoing efforts were not submitted to the Armed Services Committees as part of its human capital strategic plan and, therefore, do not meet the requirements of the law. Accordingly, we continue to believe that our recommendation is valid. In its written comments, DOD stated that it disagreed with the presentation of information as portrayed in our findings. Specifically, the department stated that it disagreed with findings presented in our draft report. For example, the department noted that it objected to the title of our report--stating that it does not truly reflect the findings of the report or ongoing efforts within the department. Specifically, the department noted that the title seemed inappropriate as GAO found that DOD's report to Congress "partially addressed, some but not all aspects of the congressional reporting requirements established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006." We acknowledge in the draft report that DOD partially addressed some (two aspects of the eight) reporting requirements of the law. Since DOD's plan did not address six of the eight requirements, we believe that our title, stating that the plan did not address most of the statutory requirements, is appropriate. We have refined our language in the report to make it clear that DOD did not meet most reporting requirements and partially addressed some aspects of two requirements. Additionally, DOD's comments refer to a number of ongoing human capital efforts in the department. Specifically, DOD stated that its response to the statutory requirements reflected a centralized enterprise-wide perspective that highlighted overarching DOD policy goals, objectives, and initiatives--as opposed to providing specific quantitative data such as "specific recruiting and retention goals." The department further stated that, while GAO found that its submission to Congress did not include "an assessment of current mission critical skills and competencies, future critical skills and competencies needed, gaps between the current and future needs, or specific recruiting and retention goals…," evidence of the department's diligent efforts in conducting workforce planning and analysis can be found in many documents. The department noted that these "many reports" included, but were not limited to, its report to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of Management and Budget under the President's Management Agenda; OPM's Proud-to-Be milestones and benchmarks; DOD's Human Capital Management Report, and review processes of internal DOD metrics and workforce demographic data. DOD also provided additional information regarding some ongoing and planned efforts that the military departments and defense agencies were pursuing. The act, however, did not require GAO to review DOD's ongoing human capital efforts. Instead, the act directed GAO to review the plan submitted to the Armed Services Committees and assess how it met the statutory requirements. Since these documents and information on DOD's ongoing and planned efforts were not submitted to the Committees on Armed Services to address the requirements for DOD's plan, as stipulated in law, the documents and additional information were outside the scope of our review. Moreover, as stated in our report, we did review some of DOD's documents and additional information--including the Department of Defense Annual Human Capital Management Report for Fiscal Year 2007. Our review of this report found that this document did not meet all of the requirements specified in the law. For example, as stated in our report regarding the skills and competencies for the future, the Department of Defense Annual Human Capital Management Report for Fiscal Year 2007 did not provide information over a 10-year period, as required by the law. Consequently, since these additional documents were outside the scope of our review and, in some cases, did not meet the requirements of the law, we continue to believe that DOD should submit a civilian human capital strategic plan that addresses all of the statutory requirements in section 1122 (a) and (b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. Furthermore, DOD acknowledged in its comments that its assessment of the current and future critical skills and competencies were not reflected in its submission to the Congress. DOD further stated that the department is working with the military departments and defense agencies to develop, among other things, common taxonomies, job analysis methodologies, competency gap assessment methodologies, and reporting requirement strategies. Additionally, DOD commented that the department non-concurred with our finding that its workforce strategies did not address specific strategies for developing, training, deploying, compensating, and motivating civilian workforce for the next decade. In our draft report, we acknowledged that DOD included in its plan some workforce strategies for development and hiring flexibilities to address workforce challenges. However, DOD's plan to Congress did not comprehensively discuss these strategies and did not mention the majority of the education, training, and recruitment strategies that the department described in their comments. In addition, none of the workforce strategies discussed in DOD's plans or in DOD's comments indicated that they were based on an analysis of critical skills and competency gaps. We previously recommended in our 2004 report that DOD develop workforce strategies to address identified gaps in skills and competences in its civilian workforce. DOD partially concurred with this 2004 recommendation stating, among other things, that it used existing flexibilities such as retention bonuses and relocation allowances. In that report, like this one, we acknowledged that DOD and the components had implemented various strategies; however, we stated, at that time, these strategies were not derived from analyses of critical skills and competency gaps. We further noted that, without such analyses, DOD may not be able to design and invest in strategies that will effectively and efficiently transition it to the future workforce it desires and needs. DOD provided three attachments with its comments. First was a copy of an internal department memorandum, dated November 16, 2007, regarding DOD's development of a competency based strategy for its civilian workforce. Second was an Army document identifying two mission critical occupations--pharmacists and civil engineers--and current and future staffing needs and gap information for these two occupations. Third was an analysis of annual attrition trends, DOD wide and for 10 mission critical occupation categories. Again, while the information contained in these attachments might address some of the statutory requirements, none of this information was submitted to Congress with DOD's civilian human capital strategic plan. Scope and Methodology: To determine the extent to which the DOD civilian human capital strategic plan addressed the statutory requirements established in section 1122 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, we obtained and reviewed the "Department of Defense Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan 2006-2010" and "DOD's Human Capital Strategic Plan for Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2006 Implementation Report." We analyzed the content of these documents and compared it to the requirements of the 2006 act. We also obtained and reviewed the Department of Defense Annual Human Capital Management Report for Fiscal Year 2007. In addition, we held discussions with officials in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, and the Civilian Personnel Management Service. We conducted this performance audit from November 2007 through February 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. We will also make copies available to others on request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff has any questions on the matters discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may found on the last page of this letter. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in enclosure II. Signed by: Brenda S. Farrell: Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: [End of section] Enclosure I: Comments from the Department of Defense: Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense: 4000 Defense Pentagon: Washington. D C. 20301-4000: Personnel And Readiness: FEB 01 2008: Ms. Brenda S. Farrell: Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street, N.W.: Washington, DC 20548: Dear Ms. Farrell: This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report; "The Department of Defense's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan Does Not Meet Most Statutory Requirements," dated January 29, 2008 (GAO Code: GAO-08-439R). Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report. The Department of Defense disagrees with the recommendation and presentation of information as portrayed in your findings. Our response to the Congressional reporting requirement reflected a centralized enterprise-wide strategic perspective which was called for in the report. Implementation of the tactical requirements which support workforce planning and analysis is decentralized and conducted by the Military Departments and Defense Agencies. In our enclosed response, we have provided a synopsis of our centralized initiatives and examples of the tactical implementation of those efforts by the Military Departments and Defense Agencies. Our plan is to include more compressive documents in our required March 2008 report. My point of contact regarding this audit is Mr. F. Michael Sena (Audit Liaison) who can be reached at (703) 614-9487. Sincerely, Signed by: Patricia S. Bradshaw: Civilian Personnel Policy: Enclosures: As stated: GAO Draft Report - Dated January 29, 2008: GAO CODE 351148/GAO-08-439R: "The Department of Defense's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan Does Not Meet Most Statutory Requirements" Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendation: Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness to submit to Congress a revised civilian human capital strategic plan that addresses all of the statutory requirements in section 1122 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. (p. 8/GAO Draft Report): DOD Response: The Department of Defense non-concurs with the GAO findings as presented in their audit. First, we object to the title of the GAO draft audit report. We believe that this title does not truly reflect the findings of the GAO or the on-going efforts within the Department regarding its management of civilian human capital planning. Specifically, the title seems inappropriate as the GAO found that our report to Congress "partially addressed, some but not all aspects of the Congressional reporting requirements established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006." Furthermore, the Department is working diligently with the Military Departments and Defense Agencies to provide them with the overall DoD policy guidance necessary to optimize workforce planning (covering competency assessment, skills gap and projected workforce trend analysis), and the Department and the Component's are conducting ongoing competency assessment analysis. Secondly, our response to the reporting requirement reflected a centralized enterprise-wide perspective and highlighted overarching DoD policy goals, objectives and initiatives - as opposed to providing specific quantitative data such as a "specific recruiting and retention goals." The underlying document to support our centralized policy enterprise-wide perspective is our Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan (CHCSP) 2006-2010. This plan includes our Civilian Human Capital Goals and objectives from which we have developed policy initiatives which support those goals. Implementation of those initiatives, including those which support workforce planning and analysis is decentralized and conducted by the Military Departments and Defense Agencies. The CHCSP constitutes the Department's comprehensive and enterprise-wide plan for ensuring a strong civilian workforce, which is able to meet the mission challenges of today and the future. The GAO found that our submission to Congress did not include "an assessment of current mission critical skills and competencies, future critical skills and competencies needed, gaps between the current and future needs, or specific recruiting and retention goals…." Evidence of the Department's diligent efforts in conducting workforce planning and analysis can be found in many documents. These documents include reporting requirements such as, but not limited to, reporting to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the President's Management Agenda (PMA); OPM Proud- to-Be milestones and benchmarks; DoD Human Capital Management Report, and review processes of internal DoD metrics and workforce demographic data. Development, Training, Deploying, Compensating, and Motivating Strategies: We non-concur with GAO in their finding that our workforce strategies do not address specific strategies for the development, training, and deploying, compensating, and motivating DoD's civilian workforce for the next decade. The Department is using a plethora of recruitment and compensation programs to meet its talent needs and develop the skills needed for the future. These include intern and career development programs, student employment programs, recruitment at job fairs with diverse candidates, and establishing liaisons with professional organizations to leverage their candidate pools. There are numerous Fellowship and Scholarship Programs in operation throughout the Department, providing us a pipeline for those positions deemed critical. Two such examples are the National Security Education Program, through which the Department grants scholarships for the study of language and cultures, which are especially important to the Department as it conducts its Stability/ Reconstruction efforts throughout the world; and the SMART Program (Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation), through which the Department assists students with tuition in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics arena in return for service, ensuring we keep our edge in these most vital of career fields. Pipeline/succession planning efforts also include a wide array of education and training, and professional development programs, such as: the Army Fellows Program, Training-With-Industry, Army Comptrollership Program; Graduate Cost Analysis Program; DoD Professional Enhancement Program; Logistics and Acquisition Management Program; Logistics Executive Development Program and the DoD Professional Enhancement Program. This is not an all inclusive list but provides a flavor of the type of education and training the Department provides to ensure it has the current and future talent it needs. The Department is also exploring new recruitment methodologies, such as "Boutique Recruiting", which was successfully used to recruit and hire large numbers of positions in the medical arena, to include pharmacists, one our mission critical occupations. This is in addition to the more standard recruitment sources, such as Federal Career Interns, and veterans. We are also looking at our compensation systems to ensure all needed compensation strategies are available to our managers to recruit and retain the talent needed. We are in process of developing a new "Hybrid" compensation plan for our Doctors and Dentists that will leverage the best of Title 5 and Title 38 hiring flexibilities. We also pursued with the Office of Personnel Management, and recently obtained, authority to offer retention incentives for moves within the Federal government for mission critical personnel at BRAC bases. These flexibilities are in addition to those currently in use, such as student loan repayment; special salary rates; recruitment, retention and relocation incentives; and the flexibilities offered by the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) compensation system. Employee development strategies are also being undertaken. We have embarked on a new certificate program for our Human Resources practitioners, initially focusing on the development of needed compensation strategies, as we evolve, under NSPS, to a more market- based system. The Department of the Army has created master training plans that identify training, education and development requirements that are linked to competencies and competency proficiency levels, e.g., intern through professional. The Navy, Air Force and some Defense Agencies are also embarking on structured development programs to meet their talent needs. Assessment of Current/Future Critical Skills and Competencies: Although not reflected in our submission to the Congress, the Department is diligently working to create a comprehensive competency management system methodology that can be used across its enterprise. Our immediate workforce planning and analysis efforts are focused on identifying, managing and reporting the competency strengths and needs of our many components separately via their chain of commands. However, we have also embarked on a broader effort to establish DoD-wide standards for comprehensive workforce planning and competency management. In doing so, we are establishing objectives that can be met using alternative approaches that are suitable to our components. Under our enterprise-wide competency management system (CMS) model, we are working jointly with the Military Departments and Defense Agencies to develop common taxonomies, job analysis methodologies, workforce planning strategies/tools, competency gap assessment methodologies and reporting requirement strategies. Competency assessments, along with other workforce planning data, will help set priorities and target occupational areas for strategic direction and/or remediation. We are building workforce planning data that can be evaluated annually but extended to 3 year, 5 year and 10 year projections. We will seek to address unforeseen events by utilizing our capacity to adjust resources as required and focus on pre-planned events over which we do have control. This effort has been formalized by a memorandum from the USD(P&R), which can be found at attachment A. As we work toward an enterprise-wide approach to competency management, the Department also is completing competency analysis efforts both at a corporate level, as well as within the Military Department's and Defense Agencies. A description of efforts in both these areas follows. DoD Human Resources Community: A Human Resources competency assessment was conducted in CY07. 1,722 civilian human resources specialist participated in the assessment. The assessment uncovered the following: * Labor Relations and Employee Relations, HR Information Systems, Legal, Government & Jurisprudence, and Compensation were among the lowest scoring of the twelve Technical competencies (below a 3.0 on a 5.0 scale): * Customer Service scored highest among the seven General (soft-skill) competencies (above a 4.0 on a 5.0 scale): * Greatest participation rates by grade/payband: (Journeyman Level): * Greatest participation rates by functional area: Recruitment & Placement/Staffing. This technical competency scored above a 3.0 on a 5.0 scale Department-wide. The Department is addressing these competency gaps, beginning with Compensation. The Department, in conjunction with World at Work, has developed a Strategic Compensation Certification Program, which is a future-focused initiative grounded on the critical importance and linkage of a strategic compensation philosophy with organizational goals, objectives, initiatives, and Human Capital strategy. In September 07, DoD graduated its first 100 students in the Compensation Program. The next class is scheduled February 2008. The course curriculum includes Compensation Fundamentals, Accounting & Finance for HR Professionals, Quantitative Methods and Market Pricing-Conducting a Competitive Analysis. DoD Acquisition Community: The Acquisition, Technology and Logistics workforce, which includes 126,000 members in thirteen functional communities, has embarked on a four-phased approach to addressing acquisition competency management: * Phase I - Framework Development. In this phase senior experts evaluate the existing competencies, establish a baseline, and identify subject matter experts for Phase II. * Phase II - Model Development. In this phase subject matter experts identify key work situations and competencies contributing to successful performance. The resulting model is prepared for test and evaluation in Phase III. * Phase III - Test and Evaluation. A beta test is conducted on the model in preparation for an expanded pilot assessment. * Phase IV - Assess, Report and Sustain Model. The final model is deployed for comprehensive assessments in the community. Results are analyzed and reported to functional leadership and other users. At this point, information will be available for use in gap analysis, workforce development, workforce shaping and other human capital applications. The Acquisition Community competency initiative began in October 2006 and three functional areas have completed Phase III: Contracting, Life Cycle Logistics and Program Management. These three communities have validated competency models (Phase III). The contracting community has started Phase IV. Over 350 subject matter experts participated in the competency development process. This process resulted in the identification of 8 core competencies, and to date, over 3,600 Phase IV individual assessments have been completed. The Phase IV effort is scheduled to be completed October 2008 and at that point workforce skill gaps will be identified. Pharmacists and Civil Engineer: Pharmacists and civilian engineers, two of our mission critical occupations, were subject to competency gap analysis is FY2007. The results of that analysis can be found at attachment B. Leadership: The Department of Defense provided the web-based Federal Competency Assessment Tool - Management (FCAT-M) to members of the Senior Executive Service and a random sample of GS-14/15/equivalent managers and supervisors throughout the Department from mid-June through July 2007. FCAT-M consisted of an opportunity for employees to conduct a self-assessment of current proficiency and supervisors to rate the current proficiency of the employee and the desired proficiency, for the position held by the employee. Both employee and supervisor participation was voluntary. Assessments were entered by 1,685 current DoD leaders and 499 of their supervisors. The FCAT-M provides two views of the individual's proficiency (a self assessment and a supervisor's assessment). Overall, we found the employee's self-rating to be inconsistent with the supervisor's rating. This finding is consistent with the recent report by the Merit Systems Protection Board on self ratings (Issues of Merit, July 2007). The FCAT- M also provides the supervisor's view of the level of proficiency needed for the position. The analysis of the results of this assessment provides us with the first DoD-wide baseline measure of the proficiency level of the current leadership cadre. On average, over 80 percent of our current leaders meet or exceed the proficiency levels in leadership competencies needed for successful performance on the job. The results also pinpointed a number of competencies in which lower scores warranted further review and study. Given the significant challenges faced by DoD leaders in this period of rapid change, the competencies supporting "Leading Change" are likely among the most critical. Similarly, as we move more organizations to performance-based management and compensation under the National Security Personnel System, "Leading People" is another potential area of concentration. In addition to providing the first baseline measure of leadership proficiency across the Department, the 2007 administration of FCAT-M provided a host of Lessons Learned that will be applied to future efforts. The Department has gained significant insights into every aspect of the process, to include design of the assessment tool, communication, contracting, automation support, and others, which will lead to a stronger and more viable assessment in 2008. Military Department and Defense Agencies Competency Gap & Workforce Trend Analysis: A significant amount of work is underway within the individual arenas of Army, Navy, Air Force and 4TH Estate entities. One aspect of decentralized execution is that we encourage creative approaches to problem solving and value solutions that address very unique and specific differences within our organization. In the spirit of leveraging best practices, we have established a multi-faceted component work group that links Civilian Personnel Policy and the Defense Human Capital Strategic (DHCS) Program Evaluation Office (PEO) more directly to component initiatives. The following is a brief synopsis of their efforts. Army: Army's Competency Management System (CMS) was designed to validate competency requirements for each position, identify proficiency levels of employees in the required competencies, conduct gap analysis, and accommodate updates and re-evaluations. CMS is currently validating competencies. Army plans on conducting gap assessments in phases for 544 occupations (328 white collar, 216 blue collar). There is a full competency and gap analysis for 157 occupations that is scheduled for completion by the end of FY 08. Approximately 75 occupations have already been surveyed, with mission critical occupations surveyed first. Once the validation is completed, CMS will be used to identify competency gaps, share the information through command channels, and identify the best strategies for closing the gaps. Army is also in the process of researching a number of aspects of the competency area to include their potential usage and all of the available tools in the context of a broad based Human Capital Strategic Plan. Navy: To date, 21 Civilian Communities have been established within the Navy and all job series have been aligned to those communities. Competencies have been validated through an electronic job task analysis survey tool (SkillsNet) for nine of the 21 communities with progress being made to validation for all. Both validated and un-validated competencies have been packaged into career roadmaps and have been published via the DONHR website for use in career development. A civilian leadership competency model has been developed and published including underlying behaviors. Both 1800 and 3600 assessment tools have been launched via the website to aid employees in identifying their leadership skill gaps for aid in the development progress. Additional skill gap analysis tools are in development. Steps are being taken to develop a strategy for succession planning utilizing the leadership competency model. Air Force: Air Force efforts to date have focused on two types of competencies: * Institutional - required by all, i.e. leadership, communication, leading people: * Occupational - related to career field: The following is descriptive of their program: * Initial focus has been from a corporate perspective with development of the Institutional Competencies List (ICL): * Eight competencies and 24 sub-competencies have been identified: * Applies in varying degrees to all segments of the workforce: * Efforts underway to define institutional competency expectations at various levels of the workforce: * Air Force has multiple on-going efforts involving use of occupational competencies in the functional areas and at the MAJCOM level: * Ad-hoc efforts and pilot programs are being undertaken: Competency efforts in Air Force functional areas and MAJCOMs are directly related to a number of AF Mission Critical Occupations. The following is a description of program evaluation methodologies that are planned or in place: * Performed retirement eligibility analysis evaluating trend/timing of actual retirements: * Next step is to perform analysis of data by career field to determine trend, and identify any remedial actions required: * A number of career fields (logistics, civil engineers, acquisition, and human resource) have identified development templates which evaluate combinations of knowledge, skills, abilities, education, and experience in order to gauge competency. This is utilized as basis in such processes as Development Team (DT) vectoring, selection, development, training, etc. Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS): Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) began focusing its attention on competencies and skills more than ten years ago. From the development of Career Development Plans to the current Career Development Guides (CDGs), DFAS has continually sought to map competencies, skills, and development. In 2000, the DFAS Director required all employees to have an Individual Development Plan (IDP). In 2004/2005, DFAS developed an electronic Skills Inventory. Skills were identified for most of the competencies included in the CDGs. For many skills, two or more micro-skills were identified. The approach that DFAS took was to identify all of the skills needed to perform any job in DFAS (or at least series with more than 20 incumbents). As a result, more than 2700 skills associated with 200+ competencies were identified. DFAS' Learning and Development Division (LDD) recognizes the need to refine, update, and revitalize the current competency management content. Objectives include: designing a competency management strategy that addresses the skills of tomorrow; completing thorough competency models for DFAS critical occupations, and aligning models with efforts to support the increase of workforce credentials; updating competency tools (i.e. CDG, the Skills Inventory, and eIDP); establishing metrics; and developing a communication plan to inform the DFAS population. DFAS currently has in place a Skills Inventory that measures over 2700 skills. Defense Information Systems Agency: The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) has established a career management guide, and a competency-based systematic approach to professional development. Their guide includes career maps for 95% of DISA's major career fields. Each career map includes professional, technical, and leadership competencies, learning objectives and developmental activities at the entry, intermediate and senior performance levels. DISA established a forum consisting of senior leaders who champion each career field. The forum serves as the overall approval authority for promoting professional and personal development of the DISA workforce. Additionally, DISA developed training workshops for managers and supervisors to communicate importance of improving organizational performance by linking competency gaps, individual development plans, and performance reviews. Organizational competency gaps are filled by executing the training and development programs and human resources polices for retention, recruitment, and promotion. Defense Logistics Agency (DLA): The Capability Management Program in DLA identifies and analyzes skills gaps between the required and the current levels of proficiency for particular competencies (technical, supervisory or core) associated with various job occupations. Competency assessment surveys are developed and distributed via the Competency Assessment Management Tool in the DLA Learning Management System (DLA LMS). In October 2006, a competency assessment of the Information Technology Headquarters employees (series 2210) was successfully completed. This was a pilot to evaluate the CDP and the Competency Assessment Tool. This pilot led to DLA Leadership approval for the CDP and the tool for application to mission critical and Enterprise Business System (EBS) occupations. Since February 2007, the DLA Human Resources Strategic Office has partnered with the DLA Acquisition Management Office, Defense Acquisition University (DAU) and Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) to assess the DLA contracting workforce focused on the 1101 and 1102 series. This aligns not only with the DLA Strategic Plan but also with DAU and DPAP efforts to determine what competency based capabilities exist and identify any skills gaps across the DoD contracting workforce. The deployment of the competency assessment survey to the DLA contracting workforce began on June 25, 2007. Participation in this assessment is mandatory for all DLA contracting employees (non- supervisors and supervisors). The assessment survey includes contracting, professional (leadership ECQs) and the DLA Enterprise Business System competencies. Results are being analyzed and reported to the DLA Leadership. The next step is likely to be reviewing training events and mapping them to the competencies. The DLA supply workforce (series 2003, 2010 and 1910) is scheduled for the 1ST and 2ND quarters of FY08. DLA is also looking to assess employees in positions that are highlighted as "key leadership positions". This assessment would focus on leadership competencies and include mapping the development activities to those competencies. Upon completion, the information would be recorded into Individual Development Plans (IDPs) in the DLA Learning Management System. Workforce Trends: On page 6 of GAO's draft audit report, it stated that the Department plan did not contain "an assessment of the projected trends in the current workforce based on expected losses due to retirement and attrition." Although not reflected in our enterprise-wide perspective submission to Congress, the Department routinely conducts workforce analysis and projected trends (see attachment C). Conclusion: Although the GAO found we did not provide all the documentation to support the requirements listed in the NDAA FY06; nevertheless, the Department is making significant strides in its human capital management. As such, we non-concur with the GAO draft report for the reasons provided in our response. We plan to include more compressive documents in our required March 2008 report. Attachment A: Under Secretary Of Defense: 4000 Defense Pentagon: Washington D.C. 20301-4000: November 16, 2007: Personnel And Readiness: Memorandum For Secretaries Of The Military Departments: Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff: Under Secretaries Of Defense: Commanders Of The Combatant Commands: Assistant Secretaries Of Defense: General Counsel Of The Department Of Defense: Director, Operational Test And Evaluation: Inspector General Of The Department Of Defense: Assistants To The Secretary Of Defense: Director, Administration And Management: Director, Program Analysis And Evaluation: Director, Net Assessment: Directors Of The Defense Agencies: Directors Of The Dod Field Activities: Subject: Competency Management and Workforce Planning Information: This is to update you on the Departments progress toward implementing a competency based strategy for our civilian workforce. This strategy was outlined in my Human Capital Strategy (HCS) memorandum of June 6, 2006 attached). In the past, components have independently worked on the development of competency based strategies for workforce management purposes. These initiatives have addressed a number of different objectives and represent a variety of approaches to problem solving. The time is right to take the next evolutionary step and focus on establishing a more consistent and cohesive definition of a DoD-wide strategy. This focus is important for our workforce, both under the General Schedule system as well as the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). As we continue our transition into NSPS. it becomes even more critical to enhance our ability to maximize the utilization of our workforce capabilities. Workforce planning and competency based career management provide the necessary ingredients to manage Human Capital and meet our mission requirements. I have designated Ms. Patricia S. Bradshaw. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, and Dr. Carl Dahlman, Defense Human Capital Strategy Program Executive Office. to co-lead the effort to establish a cohesive DoD-wide direction for workforce planning and competency based management. In support of this effort, they have established a competency working group with representatives from the components to accomplish a number of objectives, including the establishment of: * Common competency taxonomies where applicable; * Job analysis methodologies used for selection, promotion, training and compensation programs; * Strategies for workforce planning, competency based career management, and succession planning; * Assessment methodology for tracking and closing competency gaps; * Workforce planning and Competency Management tools; * Strategies for meeting reporting requirements; There will be a number of important milestones established this fiscal year that are associated with this initiative. I encourage you to coordinate your current competency efforts with the staffs of Defense Human Capital Strategy PEO and Civilian Personnel Policy to ensure your efforts align with the Department's direction and that, wherever possible, best practices can be leveraged. Signed by: David S. C. Chu: Figure: Attachment B: Mission Critical Occupations Data: [See PDF for image] [End of figure] Figure: Attachment C: Annual Attrition Trends: Mission Critical Occupations: [See PDF for image] [End of figure] [End of section] Enclosure II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: GAO Contact: Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov: Acknowledgments: In addition to the individual named above, Marion Gatling, Assistant Director; Renee Brown; Sandra Burrell; William Doherty; Cynthia Heckmann; Belva Martin; Julia Matta; Brian Pegram; and Terry Richardson made key contributions to this report. [End of section] Related GAO Products: DOD Civilian Personnel: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce Plans Needed. GAO-04-753. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004. Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal Government. GAO-04-546G. Washington, D.C.: March, 2004. Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning. GAO-04-39. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003. DOD Personnel: Documentation of the Army's Civilian Workforce-Planning Model Needed to Enhance Credibility. GAO-03- 1046. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2003. Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal Government. GAO-03- 893G. Washington, D.C.: July, 2003. High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-03-120. Washington, D.C.: January 2003. Acquisition Workforce: Status of Agency Efforts to Address Future Needs. GAO-03-55W. Washington, D.C.: December 18, 2002. Military Personnel: Oversight Process Needed to Help Maintain Momentum of DOD's Strategic Human Capital Planning. GAO-03-237. Washington, D.C.: December 5, 2002. Managing for Results: Building on the Momentum for Strategic Human Capital Reform. GAO-02-528T. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2002. A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-02-373SP. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002. Human Capital: Taking Steps to Meet Current and Emerging Human Capital Challenges. GAO-01-965T. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2001. Human Capital: Major Human Capital Challenges at the Departments of Defense and State. GAO-01-565T. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2001. [End of section] Footnotes: [1] According to the Office of Personnel Management, competencies are an observable, measurable set of skills, knowledge, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics an individual needs to successfully perform work roles or occupational functions. Competencies are typically required at different levels of proficiency depending on the specific work role or occupational function. Competencies can help ensure individual and team performance aligns with the organization's mission and strategic direction. [2] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (January 2007). In 2001, we designated strategic human capital management as a high-risk area because of the federal government's long-standing lack of a consistent strategic approach to marshaling, managing, and maintaining the human capital needed to maximize government performance and ensure its accountability. GAO, Exposure Draft: Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (March 15, 2002). [3] GAO, DOD Civilian Personnel: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce Plans Needed, GAO-04-753 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004). [4] Critical skills are core mission support occupations that are vital to the accomplishment of an agency's goals and objectives. [5] Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 1122 (2006). [6] Section 1122(d) of the act requires an annual report to the committees, by March 1, 2007, and annually through 2010 on the progress in implementing DOD's plan--which DOD identified as its "Department of Defense Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan 2006-2010." [7] Department of Defense Annual Human Capital Management Report for Fiscal Year 2007. [8] GAO-04-753. [9] Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 1122 (2006). [10] According to "The Department of Defense Human Capital Strategic Plan for Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2006 Implementation Report," in September 2005, the Department of Defense Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan 2006-2010 was established pursuant to Section 1122. [11] According to the Department of Defense Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan 2006-2010, the Quadrennial Defense Review Human Capital Strategy envisions a DOD framework for occupational planning designed to respond to changes in mission, be based on common definitions of competencies, and work across all DOD components. [12] The mission-critical occupations were general engineering, civil engineering, computer engineering, electronics engineering, physical scientist, mathematician, computer scientist, physician, nurse, pharmacist, security administration, police officers, intelligence, foreign affairs, international relations, language specialist, financial management, accounting, auditing, budget analysis, logistics management, contracting, quality assurance, information technology management, and human resource management. [13] GAO-04-753. [14] GAO, Defense Space Activities: Management Actions Are Needed to Better Identify, Track, and Train Air Force Space Personnel, GAO-06-908 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2006). [15] Developing 21ST Century Department of Defense Senior Executive Service Leaders: Thought Leader Forum, Washington, D.C., April 10, 2007. [16] This report was submitted to the Office of Personnel Management to fulfill the requirements for the Human Capital Standards for Success under Proud To Be V and the proposed regulations for Subpart B, Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 250. GAO's Mission: The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select "Subscribe to Updates." Order by Mail or Phone: The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room LM: Washington, D.C. 20548: To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000: TDD: (202) 512-2537: Fax: (202) 512-6061: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: Congressional Relations: Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: (202) 512-4400: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7125: Washington, D.C. 20548: Public Affairs: Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: (202) 512-4800: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7149: Washington, D.C. 20548: