Defense Management: Assessment Should Be Done to Clarify Defense 
Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office Personnel and Funding	 
Needs (25-AUG-05, GAO-05-756R). 				 
                                                                 
In response to congressional concerns about the Department of	 
Defense's (DOD) performance in accounting for missing personnel, 
DOD established the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action	 
Office in July 1993. This office is now called the Defense	 
Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO). DPMO's original 
mission was to provide centralized management of prisoner of	 
war/missing in action affairs throughout DOD, and the office	 
initially focused on missing service personnel from the Vietnam  
War and, to a lesser extent, incidents during the Cold War. Since
its inception, Congress and DOD have expanded DPMO's mission and 
responsibilities. Concerned about the level of DPMO's resources, 
Congress in 2002 directed the Secretary of Defense to ensure that
DPMO was provided with sufficient military and civilian personnel
and funding to enable the office to fully perform its mission.	 
Specifically, Congress established minimum levels of resources	 
for DPMO, providing that the military and civilian personnel	 
levels, as well as funding, would be not less than requested in  
"the President's budget for fiscal year 2003." On the basis of	 
this congressional direction, DOD concluded that these minimum	 
levels were: 46 military and 69 civilian personnel and $15.974	 
million in operation and maintenance (O&M) funding. We used these
minimum levels in our analysis. The fiscal year 2005 National	 
Defense Authorization Act required that we review the missions,  
staffing, and funding of DPMO. Our objectives were to (1)	 
identify changes in DPMO's mission from the inception of the	 
office to the present; (2) compare DPMO personnel and funding	 
requests with actual staffing and funding levels from inception  
through fiscal year 2004, and determine whether the actual levels
for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were consistent with the minimum  
levels established by law; and (3) assess the extent to which DOD
has evaluated any need for adjustment in personnel and/or funding
levels, given changes in DPMO's mission. In May 2005, we provided
Congress with information summarizing our observations in a	 
briefing format. This letter summarizes and updates the 	 
information in the briefing.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-756R					        
    ACCNO:   A34518						        
  TITLE:     Defense Management: Assessment Should Be Done to Clarify 
Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office Personnel and	 
Funding Needs							 
     DATE:   08/25/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Agency missions					 
	     Data collection					 
	     Defense budgets					 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Past fiscal year					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Presidential budgets				 
	     Program evaluation 				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-756R

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

August 25, 2005

The Honorable John Warner
Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

Subject: Defense Management: Assessment Should Be Done to Clarify Defense
Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office Personnel and Funding Needs

In response to congressional concerns about the Department of Defense's
(DOD) performance in accounting for missing personnel, DOD established the
Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Office in July 1993. This office
is now called the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO).
DPMO's original mission was to provide centralized management of prisoner
of war/missing in action affairs throughout DOD, and the office initially
focused on missing service personnel from the Vietnam War and, to a lesser
extent, incidents during the Cold War. Since its inception, Congress and
DOD have expanded DPMO's mission and responsibilities.

Concerned about the level of DPMO's resources, Congress in 2002 directed
the Secretary of Defense to ensure that DPMO was provided with sufficient
military and

1

civilian personnel and funding to enable the office to fully perform its
mission. Specifically, Congress established minimum levels of resources
for DPMO, providing that the military and civilian personnel levels, as
well as funding, would be not less than requested in "the President's
budget for fiscal year 2003." On the basis of this congressional
direction, DOD concluded that these minimum levels were: 46 military

1 Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Pub.
L. No. 107-314, S: 551(a) (2002).

and 69 civilian personnel and $15.974 million in operation and maintenance
(O&M) funding. 2 We used these minimum levels in our analysis.

The fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act3 required that we
review the missions, staffing, and funding of DPMO. As we discussed with
your offices, our objectives were to (1) identify changes in DPMO's
mission from the inception of the office to the present; (2) compare DPMO
personnel and funding requests with actual staffing and funding levels
from inception through fiscal year 2004, and determine whether the actual
levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were consistent with the minimum
levels established by law; and (3) assess the extent to which DOD has
evaluated any need for adjustment in personnel and/or funding levels,
given changes in DPMO's mission. In May 2005, we provided your offices
with information summarizing our observations in a briefing format. This
letter summarizes and updates the information in the briefing (see
enclosure I).

To perform our work, we assessed DOD directives and federal laws that
either assigned missions to DOD that were later delegated to DPMO, or
assigned missions directly to DPMO. We conducted interviews with DPMO
officials and other officials in DOD components that also have
responsibility for personnel accounting, recovery, and/or budgetary
issues. We analyzed staffing data and budget materials from the
President's budget requests, as well as the Future Years' Defense Program
and other DOD sources, and we determined that the reliability of these
data was sufficient for our purposes. We performed our work from January
2005 through June 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Further details about our scope and methodology are
provided at the end of this report.

Results in Brief

Since its inception, DPMO's mission has expanded from initially accounting
primarily for missing personnel from the Vietnam War era to accounting for
missing personnel from past and current conflicts. Furthermore, in
addition to performing its accounting function, DPMO has also become DOD's
principal policy and oversight office for the rescue and return of live
personnel to friendly control - that is, recovery. As of July 2005, DOD is
revising DPMO's charter, which codifies DPMO's roles and missions.

After an initial consolidation period immediately following DPMO's
inception, total personnel and current-dollar funding requests and actual
levels have increased slightly. The total number of civilians in DPMO has
declined, reflecting the overall DOD downsizing, with little difference
between requested and actual numbers,

2 With respect to the minimum level for military personnel, we found no
specific number in the President's budget for fiscal year 2003. Other
supporting documents included various levels of military personnel for the
DPMO. For example, a budget justification document submitted to Congress
by DOD included 46 military personnel for DPMO, and DOD's Future Years
Defense Program submitted pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 221 indicated 19 military
personnel for DPMO. The Conference Report for the Authorization Act states
that the "conferees note that the budget request for fiscal year 2003
provides for 46 military personnel." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-772, at 648
(2002). In an April 27, 2004 memorandum, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
stated that Congress had directed that DPMO's military manpower should be
at least 46 billets. 3 Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, S:582 (2004).

whereas the number of military personnel working in DPMO has exhibited
more fluctuation, with varying differences between requested and actual
numbers. However, since fiscal year 2003, actual civilian and military
personnel totals have not met the congressionally directed minimums.
Actual civilian totals in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were about 6 percent
below the 69 minimum personnel--65 in both years. Actual military
personnel totals in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were 30 percent or more
below the 46 minimum personnel--32 and 29, respectively. Between fiscal
years 1996 and 2005, DPMO funding increased in both constant and current
dollar terms, and a close balance was kept between requested and actual
funding. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding (which pays civilian
salaries and other expenses) was similar in both requested and actual
amounts, and it offset fluctuations in military personnel funding. Since
fiscal year 1994, DPMO's O&M requested and actual funding levels
increased, in current dollar terms. Except for fiscal year 2003, DPMO's
funding has not met the congressionally directed minimum levels. In fiscal
years 2004 and 2005, DOD requested and received slightly less than the
congressionally directed minimum of $15.974 million--$174,000 (about 1
percent) and $10,000 (about .06 percent) respectively.

The extent to which there is any need for adjustments in personnel or
funding levels, given changes in DPMO's mission, cannot be determined
because DPMO has not been subjected to a formal needs assessment since
1998. Until DPMO's charter is finalized and an assessment is performed,
neither Congress nor the Secretary of Defense will have sufficient
information to determine what the appropriate personnel and funding levels
for the office should be.

We are making recommendations to improve DOD's ability to determine what
resources are needed for DPMO and how they can best be allocated.

DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report and concurred with
each of our recommendations. DOD also provided technical comments on the
report and we made changes where appropriate.

Background

In 1993, DOD established DPMO by combining four separate offices within
DOD. The personnel and funding resources of the four offices transferred
to DPMO; however, many of the people did not transfer with their
positions. Since its creation in 1993, DPMO has been headed by a Director,
who also serves as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the office
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
The Assistant Secretary, in turn, reports to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy.

DPMO's functions are divided between accounting and recovery missions.
With respect to a person in a missing status, accounting takes place when
(1) the person is returned to United States control alive, (2) the remains
of the person are recovered and are identified through visual or forensic
means, or (3) credible evidence exists to

                                       4

support another determination of the person's status. Recovery refers to
actions taken to rescue or extract personnel for return to friendly
control.5

Other DOD components and organizations also have roles in accounting
and/or recovery. The military services and the office of the Under
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provide casualty and family
support, handle mortuary and funeral issues, and maintain personnel
casualty databases. The Joint Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Accounting
Command, which is subordinate to U.S. Pacific Command, also focuses on
accounting issues. Teams from this command also conduct operations to
recover and identify personal remains. Finally, the Joint Personnel
Recovery Agency, which is subordinate to the U.S. Joint Forces Command,
advises the military on personnel recovery matters such as training,
planning, intelligence, and operations; and coordinates personnel recovery
issues throughout DOD and other government agencies.

DPMO's Mission Has Expanded

DPMO's roles and missions have expanded since the office was established
in July 1993, although there is no single, up-to-date document that
enumerates and describes them. DPMO responsibilities are delineated in 10
DOD directives and instructions, not including the original charter.
Mission growth has occurred incrementally, with DOD missions having been
added by legislation and delegated to DPMO by the Secretary of Defense,
without corresponding revisions having been made to the overall mission
statement or charter directive. As of August 2005, DOD is revising DPMO's
charter, which codifies DPMO's roles and missions as currently delineated.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that the charter
directive should be published later this summer.

DPMO's original missions were set out in its charter directive. The office
originally had several main responsibilities, including participating in
negotiations with foreign governments in efforts to account for missing
American servicemembers and providing representation to U.S. government
forums; assembling and analyzing information, and maintaining databases on
U.S. military or civilians who are or were POW/MIAs; declassifying
documents in accordance with the law and communicating with affected
families; and providing a statement of intelligence collection
requirements to the Defense Intelligence Agency. Over time, due to a
series of laws and DOD directives and instructions, DPMO's missions
gradually expanded. In 1994, Congress directed DOD to establish liaisons
with family members of unaccounted-for Korean War and Cold War personnel.6
In 1996, Congress further directed DOD to establish an office to have
responsibility for DOD policy on both accounting for and

7

recovery of missing persons. That year Congress also expanded the scope of
personnel considered covered to include DOD contractors.

4 Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 2310.5, Accounting for Missing
Persons, section E2.1.1
(Jan. 31, 2000) (hereinafter DOD Instruction 2310.5).
5 Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub. 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary
of Military and Associated
Terms, (May 9, 2005).
6 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, Pub. L.
103-337, S: 1031 (1994).
7 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub. L.
104-106, S: 569 (1996).

During 1996, the Secretary of Defense issued two messages that directed
DPMO to assume the new missions identified by Congress. An additional
series of DOD Directives and Instructions that further delineated DPMO's
responsibilities was

8

issued between 1997 and 2003. By 2003, these included: setting personnel
recovery, repatriation,9 and isolated personnel training10 policy;
conducting interagency coordination on all matters concerning covered
persons;11 and organizing and leading the DOD response cell established to
manage recovery of missing personnel.12 One of these instructions also
designated DPMO as the central point of contact in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense for training and education measures necessary to
support the Code of Conduct-the code outlining the expected behavior for
captured military personnel.13 Once the DOD directives and instructions
were completed, DPMO undertook an effort to update its original charter to
reflect its designated missions. DPMO's original emphasis was accounting
for personnel who were still missing from the Vietnam War era, which gave
the staff a caseload at that time of about 2,000. In contrast, the current
accounting caseload, which includes personnel missing from past and
current conflicts, is about 88,000.

Two recent documents have implications for further expanding DPMO's
mission. First, DPMO's strategic plan, issued in January 2005, specified a
goal of implementing an organizational structure that would unify
government missing personnel accounting efforts. DPMO officials have
proposed that their office lead the unification efforts, but without
necessarily changing the organizational structure. The second document,
which was still in draft form as of August 2005, would update DPMO's
charter directive. Consistent with the goal in the strategic plan, the
initial version that we reviewed would have given the office control over
the entire process of recovery of personnel missing as the result of
hostile action, designate DPMO as the single point of contact with other
parts of the U.S. and foreign governments on all accounting matters, and
assign DPMO the leading role in family outreach. Reactions to early
versions of the draft were mixed, with some organizations expressing
concern that DPMO would assume more of an operational role than it has
previously played, particularly in the areas of family outreach and live
recovery. A senior DOD official told us that all DOD stakeholders need to
reach a common understanding of the extent of DPMO's operational
responsibilities and authorities before the document can be finalized. At
the time this report was issued, the charter directive had not been
finalized, but DOD noted the directive should be published later this
summer. DOD also noted that the latest draft does not expand DPMO's roles
beyond those it is currently performing and has been revised to show DPMO
as the "primary DOD representative and point of contact" rather than the
"single point of contact" on all accounting matters.

8 DOD Instruction 2310.6, Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery in the
Department of Defense (Oct. 13,
2000).
9 DOD Instruction 2310.4, Repatriation of Prisoners of War (POW),
Hostages, Peacetime Government
Detainees, and Other Missing or Isolated Personnel (Nov 21, 2000).
10 DOD Instruction 1300.23, Isolated Personnel Training for DOD Civilian
and Contractors (Aug. 20,
2003).
11 DOD Instruction 2310.5.
12 DOD Instruction 2310.3, Personnel Recovery Response Cell (PRRC)
Procedures (Jun 6, 1997).
13 DOD Directive 1300.7, Training and Education to Support the Code of
Conduct (CoC) (Dec. 8, 2000).

DOD Has Not Met Congressionally Directed Personnel and Funding Levels

After an initial consolidation period immediately following DPMO's
inception, total personnel and current-dollar funding requests and actual
levels have increased slightly. Civilian requested and actual personnel
numbers have declined while military personnel numbers have increased. In
fiscal years 2003 and 2004, civilian and military actual levels did not
meet the congressionally directed minimum levels. O&M funding has slightly
increased since inception, but it missed the minimum level in fiscal years
2004 and 2005 by $174,000 (about 1 percent) and $10,000 (about .06
percent) respectively.

Personnel

Overall, after an initial consolidation period immediately following
DPMO's inception, total personnel levels have increased slightly from 84
in 1995 to 94 in fiscal year 2004. DPMO's requested civilian personnel
total fell steadily from 1994 through 2001, consistent with overall DOD
downsizing, and since then has stabilized at 69 requested personnel.
Throughout these years, most of the requested positions were filled.14 In
fiscal years 2003 and 2004, DPMO's actual civilian personnel level did not
meet the congressionally directed minimum of 69 personnel. In both fiscal
years, the actual number was 65, about 6 percent less. According to a DPMO
official, the office tries to stay at the 69-person level; however,
retirements, hiring actions, transfers, and other personnel issues result
in fluctuations in the actual number of civilian personnel in DPMO at any
one time. DPMO officials said that they plan to request an increase to 114
civilian positions after fiscal year 2006 on a basis of 4 additional
positions per year. After they complete development of the strategic plan
tasks and subtasks and resource estimates, they will refine their
projections and submit requirements for future funding.

The number of military personnel requested, on the other hand, has
fluctuated considerably over time because of confusion within the
department as to whether temporary positions assigned to DPMO should be
included in the number requested. Specifically, while DPMO had 19
permanent military positions after the initial consolidation period, it
also had 27 additional military positions that were temporary.15 These
temporary positions have been included in the number of positions
officially requested in some years, but excluded in others. As a result,
there is little correlation between the number requested and the actual
number of military personnel positions.

Specifically, in fiscal year 2003, the year that Congress established the
minimum number of military personnel for DPMO, DOD included the 19
permanent positions but did not include the 27 temporary positions in data
that it sent to the Office of Management and Budget for inclusion in the
President's budget request. However,

14 As of June 2005, DPMO's 69 civilian positions were graded as follows:
GS-15, 14 positions; GS-14, 17
positions; GS-13, 22 positions; GS-12, 6 positions; GS-11, 6 positions;
GS-9, 1 position; and GS-8, 3
positions.
15 DPMO identified the 27 temporary military positions as necessary to
provide support to the U.S.-
Russia Joint Commission, which was established in 1992 to account for and
recover missing American
servicemembers in the former Soviet Union, but, over time, these positions
have evolved to support
other aspects of DPMO's work.

the 19 positions were included in the more detailed budget justification
materials that are submitted by DOD to Congress. As a result, the Office
of the Comptroller within the Office of the Secretary of Defense initially
thought the congressionally directed number was 19, while DPMO believed it
to be 46.

In an April 2004 memorandum, the Deputy Secretary of Defense stated that
the total number of military personnel positions in DPMO should be 46.
While the number of positions requested has remained at 46 since that
time, the actual total has been lower than the congressionally directed
minimum of 46 in both fiscal years 2003 (32 actual, about 30 percent
below) and 2004 (29 actual, about 37 percent below). The military services
are responsible for providing personnel to fill these positions and have
not always provided the full complement of 46 servicemembers to fill
DPMO's positions. According to DOD, the positions have not always been
filled because of competing priorities, such as the global war on
terrorism. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that,
although DPMO's military personnel positions are not currently filled at
the congressionally directed minimum, DPMO continues to meet its mission
successfully.

Funding

DPMO's O&M funding requests, which pay chiefly for civilian salaries,
travel, and facilities, have increased slightly in current dollars since
fiscal year 1994, the first year for which some data were available. The
actual amounts received have closely followed the requests. It should be
noted that DPMO funding requests included in the President's Budgets for
fiscal years 2004 and 2005 were slightly lower than the $15.974 million
congressionally directed minimum for O&M, $174,000 and $10,000,
respectively. DPMO officials stated they did not know why this occurred.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that, although the FY
2004 and FY 2005 funding was slightly less than the congressionally
directed minimum, it completely funded the DPMO mission requirement.

DPMO has no control over military personnel funding, which is appropriated
to the services; in any event, there is no legislated minimum dollar
requirement for military personnel funding. We were able to obtain some
aggregated data from DOD that allowed us to compare the military personnel
funding that would support DPMO's number of military personnel positions.
Because DOD did not have specific data, we were unable to trace military
personnel funding for fiscal years prior to 1996 (when the first unified
DPMO budget was presented), but we found that military personnel requests
and actual amounts have fluctuated since that year. For example, the
actual amounts have ranged from a low of $1.17 million in fiscal year 1996
to a high of $3.31 million in fiscal year 1997.

DPMO Lacks a Recent Needs Assessment

Congress has stated that government organizations should define their
mission, measure performance, and use performance information to self
correct.16 Without

16 Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62
(1993); GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1,
1996).

such a roadmap, agencies can find it difficult to make appropriate
resource decisions, especially important in a time of overall resource
decline.17 With regard to DPMO, Congress specifically required that the
Secretary of Defense ensure that the office has adequate resources to
accomplish its mission and established the minimum personnel and funding
levels discussed above.

DPMO has not been subject to a comprehensive needs assessment since 1998.
That assessment, done by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, evaluated
each directorate and recommended personnel levels for each; however, while
the study acknowledged the need for more resources, it recognized the
constrained DOD fiscal environment and recommended that DPMO make better
use of the personnel and funding that were already available. However, the
study did not link its survey of DPMO's activities to a roles-and-missions
baseline, such as an existing strategic plan. Other studies have analyzed
aspects of DPMO's mission without providing a systematic evaluation of
what staff or budgetary resources are needed to accomplish the mission.
For example, a study done by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) and
published in 2004 considered only selected aspects of DPMO's activities
and recommended that DPMO add personnel to work on recovery aspects of its
mission without considering how this would affect other DPMO roles and
responsibilities. In its written comments on our draft report, DOD noted
that the IDA study linked the need for additional DPMO resources to
issuance of a National Security Presidential Directive, which has not yet
been issued. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Office of
Program Analysis and Evaluation recommended in 2003 that a comprehensive
study be undertaken, but its recommendation was not approved by DOD
management on the grounds that legislation had already established a floor
level of personnel and funding, and therefore a study would be redundant.

While DPMO does have a new strategic plan that includes a mission
statement, the office has not taken three key steps that constitute the
core of output-based performance management: define all desired outcomes,
establish metrics to measure performance, and use performance information
to make adjustments and link resources to performance goals. For example,
DPMO has not defined metrics to measure its performance, and, since there
are no metrics to measure performance, DPMO has insufficient information
on performance. Within DPMO, budget requests are made when division
directors argue for their particular initiatives before a management
panel; however, the panel does not link its resource decisions to a
strategic plan.

Conclusions

DOD has not clarified the precise scope of DPMO's roles and missions.
Moreover, the recently issued strategic plan lacks key elements, such as
performance metrics and linkages between resources and performance goals.
As a result, neither the Secretary of Defense nor the Congress have
sufficient knowledge about how DPMO intends to accomplish its current
missions or, if it is assigned new missions, how the office intends to
apportion its resources. Until a formal needs assessment for DPMO's
workload is conducted, Congress and DOD cannot make informed decisions

17 GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).

about what level of resources to assign to DPMO or encourage it to assume
additional responsibilities, nor can the Secretary of Defense fulfill his
statutory responsibility to ensure that DPMO has adequate resources.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy to (1) determine the scope of DPMO's
missions and responsibilities, and revise DPMO's charter accordingly; (2)
based on the results of this determination, undertake a formal needs
assessment of DPMO's workload to determine both what resources are needed
and how they can best be allocated among the various mission areas, taking
into account how DPMO fits within the overall spectrum of DOD
organizations that have accounting or recovery missions; and (3)
incorporate that information into a revised strategic plan that links
goals and objectives to performance metrics and resource needs.

Scope and Methodology

To identify changes in DPMO's mission from the inception of the office to
the present, we interviewed DPMO officials; service representatives in the
offices of headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.; The
Army Adjutant General, Alexandria, Virginia; and officials from the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Washington,
D.C.; the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and the
Joint Staff (J-5), Washington, D.C. We also conducted telephone interviews
with the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, Honolulu, Hawaii; Air Force
Personnel Center, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas; and Navy Personnel
Command, Millington, Tennessee.

To compare DPMO personnel and funding requests with actual personnel and
funding levels since DPMO's inception, we interviewed officials in the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Program Analysis
and Evaluation and Program and Financial Control; Washington Headquarters
Services; and the Directorate for Administration and Management. We also
reviewed personnel and budget data from the Defense Manpower Data Center,
Future Years' Defense Program (FYDP), Defense Manpower Requirements
reports, and DOD Program Budget Decisions and Program Decision Memoranda;
annual President's budget requests; and Congressional Budget Presentation
justification materials. For purposes of assessing actual personnel
levels, we used end-strength data - that is, the number of personnel who
were on board as of September 30 of each year, which is the last day of
the fiscal year. We encountered discrepancies in the data when comparing
different sources' information for both civilian and military actual
(on-board) personnel, and so although our chart is correct to the extent
possible using official DOD sources, we cannot be sure that each data
point represents the exact end-strength for each year. However, any errors
are modest, given the low total numbers involved. To assess funding levels
for military personnel, we used FYDP data. This database provides
information that is calculated according to the number of personnel and
whether they are officers or enlisted, rather than by adding up the
compensation of each individual who occupied a particular position for all
or part of the year. We determined that the reliability of these data was
sufficient for our purposes.

To assess the extent to which DOD has evaluated any need for adjustment in
staffing or funding levels given changes in DPMO's mission, we interviewed
officials at DPMO, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
Program Analysis and Evaluation, and the Research and Studies Office
within the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. We
obtained and analyzed reports on DPMO's structure, staffing, and resource
needs. We reviewed reports that were prepared within DOD, such as the
Directorate for Administration and Management's 1998 staffing study and
Army Manpower Analysis Agency's 1999 study, and external reports, such as
the Institute for Defense Analyses' 2004 report on creating a personnel
recovery architecture.

We performed our work from January 2005 through June 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report and concurred with
each of our recommendations.

With regard to our first recommendation that DOD determine the scope of
DPMO's mission and responsibilities and revise DPMO's charter accordingly,
DOD stated that a revised charter directive reflecting DPMO's
responsibilities and functions should be published later this summer.

With regard to our second recommendation that DOD undertake a formal needs
assessment of DPMO's workload to determine what resources are needed and
how they should be allocated, DOD stated that DPMO has contracted with the
Institute for Defense Analyses to develop an overall organizational plan
for the personnel accounting mission that unifies DOD's personnel
accounting efforts. DOD also stated that this study would not be completed
until September 30, 2006 and any changes "would not be implemented until
after it is reviewed, changes proposed and decisions implemented, a
time-consuming process. Consequently, DOD will weigh the costs and
benefits of conducting a needs assessment now versus waiting until after
the community is reorganized." We believe that, given DOD's statement that
the directive outlining DPMO's responsibilities and functions should be
published later this summer, DOD has sufficient basis for conducting a
needs assessment in the near term. We note that DPMO has not been subject
to a comprehensive assessment of its workload and resources in its 12
years of existence. Should the ongoing study result in changes affecting
DPMO, DOD could then reexamine DPMO's needs and make adjustments
accordingly.

With regard to our third recommendation that, after a formal needs
assessment is done, DOD revise DPMO's strategic plan to link goals and
objectives to performance metrics and resource needs, DOD stated that DPMO
is currently developing an implementation plan that would link the
strategic plan's goals and objectives to performance metrics and resource
expenditures. We continue to believe that a formal needs assessment must
be done to determine DPMO's resource requirements, based on DPMO's stated
mission and responsibilities in the charter directive being finalized,
before this information can be linked in any meaningful way to the goals
and objectives in a strategic plan.

DOD also provided technical comments on the report and we made changes
where appropriate. We have reprinted DOD's comments in enclosure II.

                            

Should you or your staff have any further questions, please contact me at
(202) 5129619. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations
and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key
contributors to this report were Ann Borseth, Jonathan Clark, Sally
Newman, Paul Newton, Maria-Alaina Rambus, Cheryl Weissman, John Van
Schaik, and R.K. Wild.

Sharon L. Pickup Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

Enclosures

                     Page 12 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 13 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 14 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 15 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 16 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 17 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 18 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 19 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 20 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 21 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 22 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 23 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 24 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 25 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                     Page 26 GAO-05-756R Defense Management

                    Comments from the Department of Defense

(350632)

                                 GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (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
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, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

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. 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.
*** End of document. ***