Defense Space Activities: Management and Guidance Performance	 
Measures Needed to Develop Personnel (21-SEP-05, GAO-05-833).	 
                                                                 
The Department of Defense (DOD) employs space to support critical
military capabilities and funding for space is about 5.4 percent 
of DOD's budget. In 2001, the Space Commission noted that DOD	 
needs a force composed of educated, motivated, and competent	 
personnel, but DOD was not yet on course to develop the space	 
cadre the nation needs. DOD has a defensewide space human capital
strategy and implementation plan and an Executive Agent for Space
responsible for space planning, programming, and acquisitions.	 
Congress required two GAO reports assessing DOD's strategy and	 
the military services' efforts to develop their space personnel. 
GAO's first report was issued in August 2004. In its second	 
report, GAO (1) determined DOD's progress in implementing	 
defensewide space cadre actions, (2) assessed if DOD's space	 
cadre management approach is consistent with a results-oriented  
management approach, and (3) determined the progress the services
have made in planning and completing space cadre initiatives.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-833 					        
    ACCNO:   A37558						        
  TITLE:     Defense Space Activities: Management and Guidance	      
Performance Measures Needed to Develop Personnel		 
     DATE:   09/21/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Defense capabilities				 
	     Human capital management				 
	     Human capital planning				 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Space exploration					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Performance plans					 

******************************************************************
** 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-05-833

                 United States Government Accountability Office

                     GAO Report to Congressional Committees

September 2005

DEFENSE SPACE ACTIVITIES

    Management Guidance and Performance Measures Needed to Develop Personnel

                                       a

GAO-05-833

[IMG]

September 2005

DEFENSE SPACE ACTIVITIES

Management Guidance and Performance Measures Needed to Develop Personnel

  What GAO Found

Since a January 2001 Space Commission report highlighted the need to
develop and maintain a space cadre, DOD has made limited progress on
defensewide space cadre actions. DOD has fallen behind its implementation
schedule for its February 2004 space human capital strategy. DOD's
strategy implementation plan identified tasks on space personnel
management, education and training, and critical positions. As of June
2005, DOD had completed three of the nine tasks scheduled for completion
by March 2005 and one other task. Space cadre leadership has not always
been proactive because the Executive Agent gave the space cadre a low
priority due to competing demands and then made it a higher priority in
2004. The Executive Agent's departure in March 2005 also delayed some of
the tasks. In addition, delays were caused by the need to build consensus
among the services on space cadre actions and to make changes in a large
organization.

DOD's management approach for the departmentwide space cadre is
inconsistent with a results-oriented management approach in two areas.
First, DOD has not issued detailed guidance to provide accountability by
institutionalizing space cadre authorities and responsibilities. The
strategy provides general space cadre responsibilities for the Executive
Agent and the services. DOD has not determined specific defensewide space
cadre responsibilities that should continue because DOD has not completed
its strategy implementation. Without defensewide guidance, progress may
not continue and DOD may not develop enough space-qualified professionals.
Second, DOD does not have performance measures and an evaluation plan to
assess progress. The services provided space cadre information to DOD, but
not performance measures linked to goals, such as education levels and
promotion rates. Without performance measures and a plan to evaluate
progress, the Executive Agent, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress may
not be able to monitor the services' progress in meeting their goals.

In the absence of continuous proactive defensewide space cadre leadership,
the military services' progress in planning and completing space cadre
initiatives has varied since GAO's August 2004 report. The services are
pursuing separate initiatives to address the unique needs of their
particular service and these are in various stages of completion. Without
proactive DOD leadership, the Secretary of Defense and Congress will not
have assurance that the services are obtaining and developing the space
cadre the nation needs. The Air Force, which is DOD's largest acquirer and
operator of space systems and has the largest space cadre, has continued
to implement its space professional strategy and has a permanent
organizational focal point. The Navy published its space cadre strategy
and established a permanent organizational focal point. The Army is
conducting an analysis to determine its future space cadre actions, which
could lead to a space cadre strategy and a permanent organizational focal
point. The Marine Corps, which has a space cadre strategy and a permanent
organizational focal point, continues to implement the initiatives
contained in its strategy.

United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
DOD Has Made Limited Progress in Integrating and Developing Its

Space Cadre DOD's Space Cadre Management Approach Is Incomplete Services'
Progress on Space Cadre Development Initiatives Varies Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action Agency Comments 1

3 6

9 13 17 23 24 24

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense

  Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Tables                                                                  
             Table 1: DOD Crosscutting Space Budget for Fiscal Year 2006    7 
                         Table 2: Status of Selected Tasks in DOD Strategy 
                                                            Implementation 
                                        Plan                               11 
              Table 3: DOD Space Personnel by Service as of March 2005     18 
              Table 4: DOD Space Positions by Service as of March 2005     19 
Figures                                                                 
             Figure 1: Number of DOD Space Personnel by Military Service    8 
             Figure 2: Timeline of Key Management Milestones Related to    
                         Defensewide Space Cadre Development                9 

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.

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

September 21, 2005

The Honorable John W. 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

The Department of Defense (DOD) employs space assets to support many
critical military capabilities including intelligence collection;
battlefield
surveillance and management; global command, control, and
communications; and navigation assistance. Sufficient numbers of space
qualified personnel are central to DOD's success in space. Due to concerns
about the DOD's organization and management of space activities,
Congress chartered the Commission to Assess United States National
Security Space Management and Organization (Space Commission) in
1999 to review the organization and management of national security
space activities. In its January 2001 report, the Space Commission
identified some long-standing management challenges, including
developing and maintaining a cadre of space professionals to assume
leadership roles in all aspects of space-related activities. The Space
Commission noted that DOD needs a total force composed of well
educated, motivated, and competent personnel to assign to military
service, joint, and interagency positions to work on space operations,
requirements, and acquisition, but that DOD was not yet on course to
develop the space cadre the nation needs. The commission stated that
DOD must place a high priority on intensifying investments in space career
development, education, and training to develop and sustain a highly
competent and motivated space cadre. According to the Secretary of
Defense's memo implementing the commission's recommendations, the
military services are responsible for developing and maintaining
sufficient
quantities of space-qualified personnel.

DOD issued a directive in June 2003 that established an Executive Agent
for Space. The DOD directive stipulates that the Executive Agent shall
develop, coordinate, and integrate plans and programs for space systems
and the acquisition of space major defense acquisition programs to provide
operational space force capabilities to ensure the United States has the
space power to achieve its national security objectives. Many DOD
components are involved in defense space activities and the budget request
for the space program is about $22.7 billion, or about 5.4 percent of
DOD's total budget for fiscal year 2006. The Air Force is DOD's largest
developer, procurer, and operator of space systems; has the largest space
cadre of all the services; and has about 92.6 percent of the fiscal year
2006 space budget request.

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Congress
mandated that we provide an assessment of the actions taken by the
Secretary of Defense in implementing the Space Commission's
recommendations. In April 2003, we recommended that DOD establish a
departmentwide space human capital strategy to guide its activities to
develop its cadre of space professionals. DOD issued its space human
capital strategy in February 2004. This strategy established direction for
the future and included goals and objectives for developing and
integrating space personnel. The strategy also identified key actions to
meet the objectives, which were to be implemented in three phases.

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Congress
mandated that we submit two reports assessing DOD's space human capital
strategy and the efforts by the military departments to develop their
space personnel. In our first report of August 2004, we found that DOD
lacked a complete management approach for implementing its space human
capital strategy and that the military services varied in the extent to
which they had identified and implemented initiatives to develop and
manage their space cadres. We noted that DOD had not implemented the
strategy's actions, and we recommended that DOD develop an implementation
plan for its strategy. We also noted that the Air Force and Marine Corps
had space cadre strategies and focal points for managing their space
personnel, but that the Army and Navy did not, and we recommended that the
Army and Navy develop strategies and establish focal points.

Our objectives for this second report in response to the mandate were to
(1) determine the progress DOD has made in implementing the defensewide
actions contained in its February 2004 space human capital strategy to
integrate and develop its space cadre, (2) assess if DOD's

  Results in Brief

management approach for the departmentwide space cadre is consistent with
a results-oriented management approach, and (3) determine the progress the
services have made since our August 2004 report in planning and completing
initiatives to develop and manage their space cadres. To determine the
progress DOD has made in implementing the defensewide actions contained in
the strategy, we reviewed and analyzed the DOD space human capital
strategy and its implementation plan and discussed and documented the
status of implementing actions with DOD and service personnel. To assess
DOD's management approach for the departmentwide space cadre, we compared
DOD's management approach with a results-oriented management approach and
reviewed DOD's space cadre guidance. To determine the progress the
services have made in planning and completing space cadre initiatives
since our August 2004 report, we obtained and reviewed information on the
services' initiatives and we collected and analyzed data on space
positions and personnel. We conducted our review from September 2004
through June 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. More detailed information on our scope and methodology
is provided in appendix I.

Since the January 2001 Space Commission report highlighted DOD's need to
develop and maintain a space cadre, DOD has made limited progress on
departmentwide space cadre actions. DOD has fallen behind its planned
schedule for implementing the February 2004 space human capital strategy.
In December 2004, DOD issued an implementation plan for its strategy that
identified 30 tasks related to space personnel management, education and
training, and critical space positions. Most of these tasks were scheduled
to be completed by November 2005, and some had completion dates that were
not determined. Nine tasks were scheduled for completion by March 2005. As
of June 2005, DOD had completed only 3 of these 9 tasks, as well as 1
other task that did not have an estimated completion date. DOD has not
completed 6 of the 9 tasks scheduled for completion in March 2005,
although it has taken actions on some of them. Progress on defensewide
space cadre actions has been delayed for two reasons. First, defensewide
space cadre leadership has not always been proactive because the DOD
Executive Agent for Space had varying management priorities and departed
in March 2005, which contributed to delays in implementing the space human
capital strategy. Implementation of defensewide space cadre actions was
initially not one of the highest priorities of the Executive Agent, who
concentrated on addressing issues related to major space acquisition
programs; however, in 2004, the Executive Agent made the space cadre a
higher priority. Second, DOD

officials attributed delays to challenges, such as the need to build
consensus on defensewide space cadre actions among the services, which
have differing space roles and cultures, and the difficulties in making
timely changes in large organizations.

Although DOD has developed a space human capital strategy and
implementation plan to address space cadre issues, DOD's management
approach for the departmentwide space cadre is inconsistent with a
results-oriented management approach in two areas. First, DOD has not
issued detailed defensewide guidance for providing accountability by
institutionalizing space cadre authorities and responsibilities of the
Executive Agent and the services and by requiring specific human capital
development and management structure and functions. The DOD directive that
created the Executive Agent in June 2003 did not define the Executive
Agent's specific authority and responsibilities related to the defensewide
space cadre. Hence, there is no defensewide accountability for developing
the space cadre that was called for by the Space Commission. Although the
space human capital strategy assigns general responsibilities to DOD
components, DOD has not determined the specific space cadre management
responsibilities and structure that should continue over time because DOD
has not completed implementing its strategy. Until DOD completes its
strategy implementation, it will not be in the best position to determine
the optimal management structure and processes. Without detailed DOD
guidance to determine space cadre management responsibilities and
structure, the progress made on improvements to the defensewide space
cadre may not continue, and DOD may not develop enough space professionals
with the necessary training, education, and experience to advance the use
of space power and transform military operations. Second, DOD does not
have performance measures and an evaluation plan to indicate results
related to goals that could be used by the Executive Agent to help
evaluate DOD's progress in integrating and developing space personnel over
time. One objective of DOD's human capital strategy is to collect the data
necessary to manage space personnel and the strategy implementation plan
called for an evaluation plan to compare the results to goals. The
Executive Agent has not provided leadership by developing services' space
cadre performance measures in conjunction with the services. Instead, the
Executive Agent has deferred to the services because, according to DOD
officials, the differences among the services' space activities make
uniform performance measures inappropriate. However, we observe that the
Executive Agent and the services could work together to develop
defensewide performance measures. Although some performance measures could
be the same across the services, others may need to be tailored for
service-unique

situations. Even though the services have provided information on their
space cadres to the Executive Agent, they have not provided performance
measures linked to goals. Without such performance measures and a plan to
evaluate progress, the Executive Agent does not have indicators that would
show if the services' space cadre activities are appropriately
synchronized. As a result, the Executive Agent, the Secretary of Defense,
and Congress may not be able to monitor the services' progress in meeting
their goals.

In the absence of continuous proactive defensewide space cadre leadership,
the services' progress in planning and completing their initiatives to
develop and manage their own space cadres has varied since our August 2004
report. The Space Commission identified the need for DOD to develop space
leaders for the future through focused career development, education, and
training because DOD was not yet on course to develop the space cadre the
nation needed. The services are pursuing their own separate initiatives to
address the unique needs of their particular service and these are in
various stages of completion. Without proactive DOD leadership and
oversight with regard to the services' initiatives, neither the Secretary
of Defense nor Congress will have the assurance that the services are
obtaining and developing the space cadre that was called for by the Space
Commission. Each service continues to identify the members of its space
cadre, but the Air Force is the only one to have formally included
enlisted personnel as space cadre members and has begun to identify
civilian space cadre members. The Air Force, which has a space human
capital strategy and space cadre management focal point, recently issued a
space professional career guide providing guidance to space personnel on
career development and paths, and established space experience codes for
use in assigning personnel to space positions. The Air Force has also been
working on personnel certification to indicate the depth of space
expertise and is planning to issue a policy document to require continuing
management of its space cadre. The Navy issued its space human capital
strategy in January 2005 and established an organizational focal point for
its space cadre in May 2005. The Navy also budgeted funds for the first
time to support space cadre management, contractor support, and training.
The Army has had a program for its space operations officers since 1999,
but it does not have an approved space cadre strategy or a permanent
organizational focal point for space cadre management. However, the Army
is conducting an analysis of its space personnel, which it expects to
complete in September 2005, that will recommend future courses of action
and alternatives for a space cadre management office. The Marine Corps,
which has a strategy and focal point, continues to implement its
strategy's initiatives, such as

Background

developing education and training requirements for its space cadre and an
implementation policy to delineate space roles and responsibilities.

We are making recommendations designed to provide accountability by
defining and institutionalizing space cadre management responsibilities
and structure and to help DOD better monitor and evaluate the actions it
has taken to integrate and develop its space cadre. In commenting on a
draft of this report, DOD agreed with these recommendations.

Many DOD components are involved in a variety of space activities. The
U.S. Strategic Command, one of DOD's joint combatant commands, is
responsible for the space and global strike mission, and it establishes
overall operational requirements for space activities. The services
provide support to the U.S. Strategic Command to meet these requirements.
The Air Force Space Command is the principal service command providing
space forces for the U.S. Strategic Command. The Air Force is DOD's
primary procurer and operator of space systems that are used by others
throughout DOD. The Navy operates space systems that contribute to ultra
high frequency communications and is responsible for acquiring the Mobile
User Operations System, the next generation of ultra high frequency
satellite communication systems. The Army controls a defense satellite
communications system and operates ground mobile terminals. The Army Space
and Missile Defense Command conducts space operations and provides
planning, integration, and control and coordination of Army forces and
capabilities. In the case of the Marine Corps, space capabilities provide
the warfighter with intelligence, communications, and position navigation.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the National
Reconnaissance Office, and various other DOD components also participate
in space activities.

Space activities are a significant part of the DOD budget each year. To
capture the funding for DOD's space activities, DOD established a virtual
(or crosscutting) major force program for space in its Future Years
Defense Program. The space program budget request comprises about 5.4
percent of DOD's total funding, or approximately $22.7 billion for fiscal
year 2006. The majority of the space funding program is allocated to
acquisition of space systems, including $11.0 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation and $7.8 billion for procurement.
Funding for space military personnel is about $1.1 billion, or about 5
percent of the total for the space program. As table 1 shows, the Air
Force receives approximately $20.1 billion, which is about 92.6 percent of
the funding in the space program. The rest is divided among the Department

of the Army, the Department of the Navy (Navy and Marine Corps), and other
defense components.

Table 1: DOD Crosscutting Space Budget for Fiscal Year 2006

Dollars in millions

                                By DOD component

                               Air Force $20,992

                                   Navy $916

                                   Army $413

                               Other defense $342

                         Total $22,663 By budget title

                           Military Personnel $1,124

                         Operation & Maintenance $2,684

                               Procurement $7,824

                Research, Development, Test, Evaluation $10,965

                           Military Construction $66

                                 Total $22,663

Source: DOD's Fiscal Year 2006 Future Years Defense Program, May 2005.

Due to continuing concerns about DOD's management of space activities, in
October 1999 Congress chartered the Commission to Assess United States
National Security Space Management and Organization. In its January 2001
report, the commission unanimously concluded that the security and
well-being of the United States, its allies, and friends depend on the
nation's ability to operate in space. The commission made recommendations
to DOD to improve coordination, execution, and oversight of the
department's space activities. One issue that the commission identified
was the need to create and maintain a highly trained and experienced cadre
of space professionals who could master highly complex technology, as well
as develop new space operations concepts. Further, the commission
concluded that DOD did not have a strong military space culture, which
included focused career development, education, and training. In October
2001, the Secretary of Defense directed the military departments to
promulgate guidance for developing and maintaining a cadre of sufficient
numbers of space-qualified professionals. As shown in figure 1, the
services have identified a total of about 8,200 space personnel with space
experience, education, and training throughout DOD, with the Air Force
having 91 percent of the total or 7,434 space personnel.

Figure 1: Number of DOD Space Personnel by Military Service

1%

Marine Corps (110)

2%

Army (156)

Navy (511)

Air Force (7,434)

The Space Commission also considered several options for the management
and organization of national security space. The commission recommended
the establishment of an Under Secretary of Defense for Space,
Intelligence, and Information, who would provide policy, guidance, and
oversight for space in order to help ensure that space-related issues are
addressed in the department at an appropriately influential level. Instead
of creating an Under Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Defense chose
to address this organizational and leadership issue with alternative
actions. In June 2003, a DOD directive designated the Secretary of the Air
Force as the DOD Executive Agent for Space, with the Executive Agent
responsibilities delegated to the Under Secretary of the Air Force.

Until recently, the Under Secretary of the Air Force also served as the
Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, which is a DOD
intelligence agency that designs, builds, and operates the nation's
reconnaissance satellites, in addition to serving as the Executive Agent
for Space. The Executive Agent exercises DOD-wide responsibilities for
planning and programming of space activities and for space major defense
acquisitions programs. In performing these responsibilities, the Executive

Agent reports to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense and is
subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of
Defense, according to the DOD directive. However, the directive contains
no specific provisions related to the Executive Agent's role and
responsibilities for the defensewide space cadre. Title 10 of the United
States Code provides the secretaries of the military departments with
functions related to their personnel, including recruiting, organizing,
training, and maintaining. As a result, the Executive Agent works with the
services on developing their space cadres and addresses DOD-wide issues
related to the space cadre, according to an Office of the Secretary of
Defense official. DOD has established a structure of groups to oversee and
conduct defensewide space cadre development activities, including the
Space Professional Oversight Board, which is composed of the Executive
Agent and senior leadership from the services and other DOD components.

Since the January 2001 Space Commission report highlighted DOD's need to
develop and maintain a space cadre, DOD has made limited progress on
departmentwide space cadre actions. DOD has fallen behind its planned
schedule for implementing the February 2004 space human capital strategy.
DOD's space human capital strategy established direction for the future by
including goals and objectives for developing and integrating space
personnel. DOD's plan to implement the strategy included specific tasks
related to departmentwide space personnel management, education and
training, and critical positions. As of June 2005, DOD had completed three
of the nine tasks scheduled for completion by March 2005 and had taken
actions on some of the others. The dates of key management milestones
related to the development of the defensewide space cadre are shown in
figure 2.

  DOD Has Made Limited Progress in Integrating and Developing Its Space Cadre

Figure 2: Timeline of Key Management Milestones Related to Defensewide
Space Cadre Development

                             Source: GAO analysis.

Although the Space Commission expressed concerns about DOD's space cadre
in its January 2001 report, DOD did not have a defensewide strategy to
develop and integrate its space cadre. In our April 2003 report, we
reported that the services had produced initial guidance on developing and
managing their own space professionals as directed by the Secretary of
Defense, and recommended that a departmentwide space human capital
strategy be established. According to DOD's February 2004 strategy, key
actions to address the strategy's objectives were all scheduled to be
completed by December 2004, except for a few that were to recur each year.
As of our August 2004 report, none of these actions had been completed,
although DOD had begun implementing some of them. Actions that were under
way at that time included:

o  preparing for an education and training summit;

o  evaluating space cadre best practices;

o  developing policy on human capital development and use;

o  	determining the scope, nature, and specialties associated with space
personnel certification; and

o  issuing a call for demonstration projects.

In our August 2004 report, we recommended that DOD develop a detailed
implementation plan for the key actions in its strategy. In December 2004,
DOD issued its implementation plan for the space human capital strategy. A
number of the plan's tasks are the same or similar to the key actions
called for in the space human capital strategy. However, the plan's tasks
were more specific than the strategy's actions, and each task included the
offices responsible, estimated completion date, and whether they were
recurring. Many of the tasks were scheduled to be completed by November
2005, and a few did not have estimated completion dates. As a result, the
implementation of the strategy was extended by almost 1 year when the
implementation plan's tasks replaced the strategy's actions.

The implementation plan contained 30 tasks that were grouped into three
broad areas: management, education and training, and space critical
positions. Management tasks were intended to develop a DOD-wide assessment
and oversight function that would provide feedback to the services on
their compliance with the strategy. These tasks included developing an
evaluation plan to assess the status of the space cadre and a DOD
instruction on management of the space professional development program.
The tasks for education and training included recommending actions needed
to correct overlaps and gaps in space education and training across the
services, improving space-related professional military education, and
creating educational opportunities to fulfill requirements.

Most of the tasks in the implementation plan relate to the space critical
positions that are outside the military services, such as in joint,
defense agency, or multiservice organizations. These tasks are directed
toward developing an inventory of space critical positions that would have
specific requirements for the personnel assigned to them. These
implementation plan tasks were designed to lead to a DOD space critical
position program to help manage these positions and the assignment of
personnel to them.

DOD has begun to implement the tasks in its implementation plan, but it
has not met the scheduled completion dates for all nine tasks scheduled to
be completed by March 2005. As of June 2005, three of these nine tasks
were completed on schedule and one other task, which did not have an
estimated completion date, was also completed. Table 2 below shows the
status of these implementation plan tasks.

Table 2: Status of Selected Tasks in DOD Strategy Implementation Plan

Tasks Status

Management

Services brief the Space Professional Oversight Board on Completed
development efforts and activities

  Develop an evaluation plan for space professional development Not completed

                             Education and training

Hold education and training summita Completed

Evaluate current space-related professional military education and Not
completed recommend adjustments as needed

Determine which educational and training programs are applicable Not
completed for communitywide use

    Identify existing curricula, course materials, and classes Not completed

                               Critical positions

Create a baseline proposal for space critical positions Completed

Identify where space personnel are at the DOD-wide level Completed

Identify where space personnel should be at the DOD-wide level Not
completed

Identify space critical positions Not completed

Source: GAO's analysis of DOD information.

aIn the DOD strategy implementation plan, this task has a completion date
to be determined. DOD held an education and training summit in October
2004.

The six uncompleted tasks were not completed as planned for various
reasons. Rather than develop a defensewide evaluation plan, the Executive
Agent deferred the responsibility for space cadre evaluation to the

services. The space-related professional military education task has been
delayed because the Military Education Coordination Council, which is an
advisory body to the Director of the Joint Staff on education issues, did
not select space as a special area of emphasis for this year. The
Executive Agent is still working on the task of determining which
educational and training programs are applicable for communitywide use and
identifying existing curricula, course materials, and classes. The
Executive Agent has not completed the task of identifying where space
personnel should be at the DOD-wide level because it has not yet issued a
tasking to DOD components to provide this information. The Executive Agent
has not completed the identification of space critical positions because
this task depends on DOD components' providing the information called for
in the previous task.

Defensewide space cadre leadership has not always been proactive, which
has contributed to delays in implementing the space human capital
strategy. Delays were partly caused by the fact that the Executive Agent
gave space cadre development a low priority. In December 2002, the
Executive Agent stated that he needed to devote more attention to space
cadre development because his first priority had been to address issues
related to major space acquisition programs. No defensewide space cadre
actions were taken during this time. In June 2004, the Executive Agent
stated that the space cadre was a higher priority item for him now due to
the importance of space and the growth of the space cadre. He also stated
that he thought that good progress had been made in developing the DOD
space cadre. In 2004, DOD developed the space human capital strategy and
its implementation plan. In addition, the departure of the Executive Agent
in March 2005 caused actions related to some of the implementation plan's
tasks to be delayed, such as tasking DOD components to provide information
on where their space positions should be at the DOD-wide level.

Delays in implementing the human capital strategy on schedule have also
been due partly to challenges in achieving consensus on defensewide space
cadre actions, according to DOD officials. Specifically, one challenge is
the need for all of the services and other appropriate organizations
within DOD to concur with any defensewide changes related to space cadre
development activities. Reaching consensus can be difficult because of the
differing space roles and cultures of the services. For example, the Air
Force views space as a warfighting medium and thinks in terms of space
power. The Air Force has by far the most major space programs and is the
only service with extensive space operations, such as space launch, space
control, and satellite systems. The other services tend

  DOD's Space Cadre Management Approach Is Incomplete

to view space as a force enhancer because they are primarily users of
space to support their missions. Another challenge is the difficulty
inherent in making timely changes in a large organization such as DOD.

Although DOD has developed a space human capital strategy and
implementation plan to address space cadre issues, DOD's management
approach for the departmentwide space cadre is inconsistent with a
results-oriented management approach in two areas. First, there is no
detailed DOD guidance for providing accountability by institutionalizing
space cadre responsibilities and establishing a structure for a board and
working groups to ensure that space cadre development and management
functions continue to be performed. Second, DOD has not developed
performance measures and an evaluation plan that DOD and Congress could
use to assess space cadre professional development. As a result of the
lack of a complete management approach, DOD may not be able to fully
address the concern of the Space Commission that it lacked a strong
military space culture that includes focused career development and
education and training.

    DOD Has Not Established Accountability by Issuing Guidance to
    Institutionalize Space Cadre Authority and Responsibilities

DOD has not issued detailed guidance to institutionalize DOD's space cadre
authority and responsibilities to ensure accountability for space cadre
development and management functions to be performed on a continuous basis
by the Executive Agent, the services, and other appropriate DOD
components. Such detailed guidance could include specific authority and
responsibilities for the Executive Agent and the services on space cadre
management and oversight, education and training, and space critical
positions, as well as a structure for multiservice organizational entities
to carry out these space cadre responsibilities.

Executive agent is a term used to indicate a delegation of authority by
the Secretary of Defense to a subordinate to act on the Secretary's
behalf. According to a DOD directive issued in September 2002, the nature
and scope of an executive agent's responsibilities, functions, and
authorities shall be prescribed at the time of assignment and remain in
effect until revoked or superseded.1 The June 2003 DOD directive
stipulates that the Executive Agent for Space shall develop, coordinate,
and integrate plans and programs for space systems and the acquisition of
space major

1 Section 3.1, DOD Directive 5101.1, DOD Executive Agent, Sept. 3, 2002.

defense acquisition programs to provide operational space force
capabilities to ensure the United States has the space power to achieve
its national security objectives. However, the specific authority and
responsibilities of the Executive Agent for Space related to the
defensewide space cadre are not defined in this directive. Therefore,
there is no defensewide accountability for developing and integrating the
space cadre that was called for by the Space Commission. DOD included in
its space human capital strategy general space cadre responsibilities that
were derived from the directive, including that the Executive Agent has
the responsibility to lead efforts to synchronize the services' space
cadre activities and to integrate the services' space personnel career
fields to the maximum extent practicable.

The Executive Agent established a structure of three groups to address
various activities related to the defensewide space cadre, but there is no
defensewide guidance to require this structure. As called for in the
strategy, the Executive Agent established the Space Professional Oversight
Board, which is the senior officer forum for the discussion and resolution
of matters concerning space professional development within DOD. The board
is chaired by the Executive Agent, with senior representatives from the
services and various other DOD organizations. As of March 2005, the
oversight board had held two meetings that included briefings and
discussions on the space personnel of each service and of the National
Reconnaissance Office, space graduate education, space critical positions,
and space acquisition personnel. In addition, the Executive Agent has
chartered two working groups below the level of the board. The Human
Capital Resources Working Group, which includes personnel from the
services and other DOD components, is responsible for implementing the
strategy by supporting the oversight board and acting as the primary
action working group for the development of space professionals. The Joint
Space Academic Group includes representatives from the Naval Postgraduate
School and the Air Force Institute of Technology and was chartered to help
ensure that the graduate education needs of military space professionals
are met, particularly at these two schools.

DOD has not developed specific defensewide space cadre guidance because it
has not completed identifying the key space cadre responsibilities and
management structure that should continue over time. DOD could be better
able to develop specific DOD guidance after it makes progress in
completing the tasks to implement its space human capital strategy.
Without detailed DOD guidance to require the continuation of defensewide
development and management functions, the Executive Agent and the services
will not be in the best position to continue to make

improvements to the defensewide space cadre and move toward establishing a
sufficient number of space professionals with the required training,
education, experience, and vision to advance the use of space power and
transform military operations.

    DOD Has Not Developed Performance Measures to Assess Space Cadre Development

DOD has not developed performance measures and a plan to evaluate those
measures in order to assess space cadre professional development and
management, as provided for in a results-oriented management approach.
Performance indicators and an evaluation plan would help DOD measure
program outcomes and compare results to goals. Sound general management
tenets, embraced by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993,
require agencies to pursue results-oriented management, whereby program
effectiveness is measured in terms of outcomes or impact, rather than
outputs, such as activities and processes.2 Such a management approach can
provide DOD and the military services with a framework for strategic
planning and effectively implementing and managing programs. One principle
of results-oriented management is to define the program's overall purpose,
mission, and intent, such as DOD has done in its space human capital
strategy. Another principle is to describe detailed implementation actions
and DOD has issued an implementation plan for its strategy that includes
implementing tasks. Critical elements of an implementation plan include
performance indicators, which are mechanisms to measure outcomes of the
program, and an evaluation plan, which serves as a means to compare and
report on program results versus performance goals.

The DOD directive establishing the Executive Agent required the services
to provide the Executive Agent with key indicators reflecting the status
of, or changes to, their cadre of space professionals to support the
Executive Agent's planning, programming, and acquisition activities. In
addition, DOD's space human capital strategy and its implementation plan
provided for the collection of defensewide data on the services' space
cadres and an evaluation plan to assess their performance. The strategy
called for the Executive Agent to collect data from the services in the
first phase of the strategy's implementation by April 2004. The strategy's
implementation plan also contained the following goal: ensure the
services, combatant commands, and agencies (as necessary) develop space
professionals to fulfill their unique mission needs. According to the
implementation plan,

2 Pub. L. 103-62 (1993).

this goal is to be accomplished by oversight in the form of an evaluation
plan. An evaluation plan could include various performance measures, such
as education levels, space positions unfilled, promotion and retention
rates, and personnel availability projections.

DOD has not developed performance measures and an evaluation plan, as
called for in the implementation plan. Instead, the Executive Agent
deferred to the services to develop performance measures because defense
officials believe the services' space cadres are so different that it is
not appropriate to develop uniform defensewide performance measures.
However, we observe that the Executive Agent should not have deferred to
the services and that it is appropriate for the Executive Agent and the
services to develop defensewide performance measures. Although some
performance measures could be uniform across the services, such as
education levels and promotion and retention rates, other performance
measures could be tailored for service-unique situations. As an example of
a service-unique situation, the Air Force brings in its space officers at
the entry level and may want a performance measure to assess their
progress in bringing in entry-level space personnel. However, the other
services do not place officers in the space cadre at the entry level and
would not need a similar measure. The Executive Agent is relying on the
services' briefings to the oversight board to provide indicators on the
status of their space cadres, such as numbers, skills, and competencies of
the services' space personnel and numbers and locations of space
positions. However, these briefings did not contain detailed performance
measures related to goals for the defensewide space cadre. In addition,
the Executive Agent has not developed a defensewide evaluation plan
because it has deferred to the services to assess the state of their
cadres. DOD officials asserted that the services are taking more
initiative to develop their own space cadres, thus reducing the need for
oversight by the Executive Agent. However, we observe that the services'
performance measures alone, without a defensewide evaluation plan, would
not provide the Executive Agent with an evaluation of progress in
developing the defensewide space cadre.

The services have not reported any performance measures to the Executive
Agent and there is no DOD requirement for the services to have such
performance measures. Without quantifiable, detailed performance measures
and a plan to evaluate progress, each service will continue to develop and
manage a service-unique cadre of space professionals at its own pace to
support its unique mission requirements. However, the Executive Agent, as
well as the Secretary of Defense and Congress, may not be able to assess
actions taken by the services by comparing their results to goals. In
addition, this may make it more difficult for the

  Services' Progress on Space Cadre Development Initiatives Varies

Executive Agent to synchronize the space cadre activities of the DOD, as
called for in the space human capital strategy and its implementation
plan.

In the absence of continuous proactive defensewide space cadre leadership,
the military services have made varying progress in planning and
completing initiatives to develop and manage their space cadres since our
August 2004 report.3 The services have each taken their own separate
actions to consider adding and identifying additional personnel and
positions to their space cadres. In addition, each service has planned and
pursued its own other initiatives to address the unique needs of its space
cadre and these initiatives are in various stages of completion. Some of
these initiatives include working on policy guidance related to the space
cadre, completing space cadre strategies, developing certification of
space professionals, identifying and increasing space education
opportunities, and assigning codes to personnel based on the nature of
their space expertise. Without proactive DOD leadership and oversight with
regard to the services' initiatives, neither the Secretary of Defense nor
Congress will have the assurance that the services are obtaining and
developing the space cadre that was called for by the Space Commission.

    Military Services Continue to Identify Their Space Cadres

The services have each continued to identify their space cadres, which
includes obtaining information on their personnel, such as their space
education and experience, and on space positions, such as their locations
and requirements. The services have obtained this information by surveying
space personnel and organizations where space personnel serve and by
querying their personnel systems. Each service has military officers as
space cadre members and is considering the inclusion of others, such as
additional officers, enlisted personnel, and civilian employees. The Air
Force is the only service that has formally included enlisted personnel as
space cadre members and it is currently identifying civilians, which it
expects to complete by January 2006. Furthermore, the Air Force has
established and continued to build a database that captures education and
experience information on each of its space professionals. The Navy is
working to formally identify the enlisted, reserve component, and civilian
members of its space cadre, with the goal of identifying reserve officers
and civilians by the end of November 2005 and the enlisted members shortly
thereafter. The Army is conducting a space personnel force

3 GAO-04-697.

management analysis that is expected to be completed in September 2005,
which includes considering expanding its space cadre beyond its current
space operations officers. The Marine Corps does not currently have
enlisted or civilian personnel in its space cadre, but it is considering
including additional active and reserve officers. As shown in table 3,
there are a total of 8,211 officer and enlisted space personnel across
DOD.

Table 3: DOD Space Personnel by Service as of March 2005

                             Number of            Number of   Total number of 
                  Service  space officers   space enlisted    space personnel 
                Air Force            6,051            1,383             7,434 
                     Navy              511               0a               511 
                     Army              156               0b               156 
             Marine Corps              110                0               110 
                 DOD-wide            6,828            1,383             8,211 

Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by the services.

aThe Navy is working to formally identify the enlisted members of its
space cadre.

bThe Army is conducting an analysis to determine if its space cadre will
include enlisted personnel.

In addition to identifying their space personnel, the services have also
identified 7,662 positions for their space personnel throughout DOD at the
service, joint, and interagency levels. DOD has 1,401 DOD space positions,
which is about 18 percent of the total, located in organizations that are
not responsible to the military departments. Examples of these
organizations outside the services include the Joint Staff, combatant
commands, and the National Reconnaissance Office. For example, the U.S.
Strategic Command, a joint combatant command responsible to the Secretary
of Defense, has 275 officer positions, or 23 percent of its total officer
positions, which call for expertise in space. Space positions involve
responsibilities that encompass the entire life cycle of space systems,
from research, development, and acquisition to space launch and
operations. As shown in table 4, the Air Force has by far the largest
number of space positions throughout DOD at 7,195, accounting for
approximately 94 percent of the total DOD positions.

Table 4: DOD Space Positions by Service as of March 2005

                                          Number of space Percentage of space 
                        Total number of positions outside   positions outside 
                Service space positions       the service         the service 
              Air Force           7,195             1,153 
                   Navy             248               160 
                   Army             151                56 
           Marine Corps              68                32 
              DOD total           7,662             1,401 

Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by the military services.

The Navy and Marine Corps have significantly more space personnel than
space positions because their space personnel generally rotate between
space positions and other positions that are not considered space
positions. However, the Air Force and Army have approximately the same
number of space personnel and space positions. This is because Air Force
and Army space personnel, after they have become part of the space cadre,
tend to remain in space positions throughout their careers.

    Services Are Implementing Their Own Space Cadre Initiatives

Air Force Continues to Take Actions to Develop Its Space Cadre

In addition to identifying their space cadres, each service has continued
to implement its own initiatives to address the unique needs of their
space cadres since our August 2004 report, and they are in various stages
of completion. The Air Force has continued to take actions to implement
its space cadre strategy. The Navy has published its space cadre strategy
and established the space cadre advisor as its permanent organizational
focal point. The Army has continued to conduct an analysis to determine
future courses of action for its space cadre, which could lead to an
approved space cadre strategy and a permanent organizational focal point.
The Marine Corps continues to implement the initiatives contained in its
space cadre strategy.

In our August 2004 report, we noted that the Air Force approved a strategy
in July 2003 that provides guidance on developing and sustaining the Air
Force's space cadre and has an implementation plan for the execution of
the strategy's initiatives. The implementation plan focused on six key
initiatives: identification and classification of space personnel,
certification of space personnel, professional development of space
personnel, space positions and requirements, establishment of a permanent
space professional management function, and education and training of
space personnel. We also noted in our August 2004 report that

the Air Force designated the Air Force Space Command as the focal point
for managing career development, education, and training for the Air Force
space cadre.

The Air Force has continued to implement its space human capital
strategy's initiatives since our last report. In order to identify and
classify its space cadre, referred to as space professionals, the Air
Force has identified the unique space expertise that differentiates space
professionals from other Air Force career fields and has sorted this space
expertise into 11 categories, or space experience codes, such as satellite
systems and space control. Space professionals have been assigned these
space experience codes based on the nature of their space education and
experience. To address the certification of space professionals, the Air
Force has established a three-level certification program to measure
progress throughout an individual's career. Air Force officials reported
that they are placing their space professionals at one of the three
certification levels to indicate the depth of their space expertise.
Achieving and maintaining the certification levels requires continued
space education, training, and experience over the course of a career and
is intended to provide the space professional with a career path. In
addition, the Air Force has issued career planning guidance for all
officer, enlisted, and civilian space professionals to provide general
information on career development and career paths, including information
on the three certification levels. In order to address another of the
strategy's key initiatives, the Air Force is determining the education and
experience requirements for all of its space positions. Moreover, the Air
Force has completed a career opportunities guide, which contains
information on all Air Force space positions, including the locations of
and requirements for these positions. According to Air Force officials,
the purpose of this information is to better identify and track space
professionals and assign them to space positions. To further address
management of its space professionals, the Air Force is planning to issue
an Air Force policy document and an Air Force Space Command instruction to
require continuing management functions for Air Force space professionals.
Air Force officials also related that they have undertaken significant
efforts to brief personnel on the Air Force space professional development
program, briefing a total of 4,950 personnel at 36 DOD locations between
August 2004 and April 2005.

In addition, the Air Force Space Command established the National Security
Space Institute, formerly known as the Air Force Space Operations School,
in October 2004 in order to address the Air Force strategy's initiative to
institute stronger, technically oriented space

Navy Has Issued a Space Cadre Strategy and Established an Organizational
Focal Point

education and training programs. The vision of the National Security Space
Institute is to be a multiservice organization that provides integrated
military and civilian space power education and training to senior and
intermediate space leaders. The school has grown by 44 percent in recent
years, from 629 resident students in fiscal year 2000 to 904 in fiscal
year 2004. Although the Air Force made up 79 percent of the National
Security Space Institute's military students in fiscal year 2004, military
and civilian students from throughout DOD have attended the institute.
Among the courses offered by the National Security Space Institute is
Space 200, a 4week course for midcareer space professionals with an
emphasis on warfighter integration of space power. The Air Force has made
Space 200, which has significant technical, nuclear, and acquisition
content, a requirement for the intermediate certification level for its
space professionals. Space cadre members from all the services regularly
attend this course. For example, the Army is now sending its new space
operations officers to part of the Space 200 course at the National
Security Space Institute, which has replaced some, but not all, of the
Army's own space operations officer qualification training.

In August 2004, we reported that the Navy's actions to develop and manage
its space cadre were limited because it had not developed a space human
capital strategy to provide direction and guidance for Navy actions or
established a permanent management focal point to provide centralized
leadership to develop the strategy and oversee implementation. However,
the Navy had designated an advisor for space cadre issues.

Since our last report, the Navy approved a space cadre human capital
strategy in January 2005, which incorporates the Navy's long-term goals
and approaches and is consistent with DOD's space human capital strategy.
Among the objectives included in the strategy are the development and
implementation of space professional development policies and practices
and the creation of a human capital management team to address space
professional development issues. In May 2005, the Navy revised its space
policy implementation guidance to delineate Navy space roles and
responsibilities that included designating the Navy space cadre advisor to
act as a manager for the space cadre.4 This action established a permanent
organizational focal point by formalizing the responsibilities of the Navy
space cadre advisor. In addition, in March 2005, the Navy designated the
Commander, Naval Network Warfare

4 OPNAV Instruction 5400.43, May 20, 2005.

Army Is Conducting Analysis to Determine Future Space Cadre Actions

Marine Corps Continues to Implement Its Space Cadre Strategy

Command, as its space cadre functional authority, which is the senior Navy
leader for the development and management oversight of the Navy space
cadre. Finally, the Navy provided funding to manage the Navy space cadre
community for the first time beginning in fiscal year 2005 and has
allocated $851,000 for this purpose for fiscal year 2006, including
funding for space cadre advisors, contractor support, and training.

In our August 2004 report, we noted that the Army has had a space cadre
consisting of space operations officers since 1999. The Army issued career
development guidance for its space operations officers and developed a
qualification training course to provide space operations officers with
the essential skills needed to plan and conduct space operations. We also
reported that the Army had been studying if enlisted personnel should be
added to its space cadre. Although the Army had taken these actions, we
reported that it did not have clear goals and objectives for the future of
its space cadre because it had not developed a space human capital
strategy or identified a permanent organizational focal point to manage
its space cadre.

Since our last report, the Army has incorporated its enlisted study into
an overall force management analysis of the Army space cadre, which is
considering officers, enlisted, and civilian personnel for inclusion in
the cadre. This force management analysis has been under way since June
2004 and consists of four separate phases. The first two phases centered
on developing a potential definition of the Army space cadre and
identifying space cadre roles, missions, organizations, functions, and
skills based on this potential definition. The third phase involved the
development of comprehensive courses of action related to Army space cadre
policies. The Army is currently engaged in the fourth phase of the force
management analysis, which involves a comprehensive analysis of Army
doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education,
personnel, and facilities and the development of an Army space cadre
strategy. The Army expects to complete its force management analysis by
September 2005 and provide the results to the Army Vice Chief of Staff for
decision. When approved, the Army plans to use the results of the force
management analysis to establish a future course of action by publishing
an Army space human capital strategy, and to determine new roles and tasks
for an Army space cadre office that would be a permanent organizational
focal point.

In our August 2004 report, we stated that the Marine Corps identified an
organizational focal point to manage its space cadre. We also reported
that the Marine Corps has a space cadre strategy to develop and manage its

space cadre and has an implementation plan to track initiatives. Among the
initiatives included in the Marine Corps' strategy were: improving space
operations professional military education for all officers, focusing the
graduate education of space operations students, and leveraging
interservice space training.

Since our last report, the Marine Corps has continued to implement
initiatives contained in its strategy. For example, in order to improve
space professional military education, the Marine Corps has revised its
Command and Staff College curricula to address space issues. In addition,
the Marine Corps is developing education and training requirements for its
space officers and expects to publish these requirements, when finalized,
in a training and readiness manual. In order to focus the graduate
education of its space operations students to support service needs, the
Marine Corps has identified positions requiring graduate degrees and is
assigning space operations officers to these positions based on their
Naval Postgraduate School coursework. Additionally, the Marine Corps has
made progress on leveraging interservice space training by working with
the Air Force's National Security Space Institute to ensure Marine Corps'
training requirements for its space operations staff officers are met.
Finally, the Marine Corps is in the process of drafting an implementation
policy to delineate space roles and responsibilities and to describe how
the Marine Corps will engage in national security space activities.

Conclusions 	Recent military operations have demonstrated that space-based
capabilities are critical to mission success. Although DOD has benefited
from a cadre of space professionals who are educated, motivated, and
skilled in space activities, DOD has taken limited actions to ensure the
future success of its space cadre because it has not established a
complete results-oriented management approach. Without guidance to require
accountability for space cadre development and management functions, DOD's
efforts to make improvements to its space cadre may not continue. Further,
without quantifiable, detailed performance measures for its space cadre,
DOD may not be able to evaluate the progress the services have made by
comparing results to goals. Without proactive DOD leadership and oversight
with regard to the services' initiatives, neither the Secretary of Defense
nor Congress will have the assurance that the services are acquiring and
developing the space cadre that was called for by the Space Commission. As
a result of the lack of a complete management approach, DOD may not be
able to move toward establishing a defensewide cadre of space
professionals with the required training, education, experience, and
vision to advance the use of space power and transform military

operations. DOD also may not be able to fully address the concern of the
Space Commission that it lacked a strong military space culture that
includes focused career development and education and training. In
addition, the Space Commission stated that DOD must place a high priority
on intensifying investments in space career development, education, and
training to develop and sustain a highly competent and motivated space
cadre.

  Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following two actions:

o  	Issue defensewide guidance to provide accountability by defining and
institutionalizing space cadre authorities and responsibilities, to
include:

o  	defining the Executive Agent's specific authority and responsibilities
related to the defensewide space cadre and leadership role in
synchronizing the services' space cadre activities;

o  	specifying space cadre human capital development and management
functions for the services and other DOD components; and

o  	defining the defensewide structure related to developing and managing
the space cadre, such as the Space Professional Oversight Board.

o  	Direct the DOD Executive Agent for Space, in conjunction with the
military services, to develop appropriate performance measures for each
service and an evaluation plan to indicate results related to goals in
order to help evaluate DOD's progress in integrating and developing its
space personnel over time.

Agency Comments 	In its written comments on this report, DOD agreed with
the recommendations. DOD's comments are reprinted in their entirety in
appendix II. DOD also provided technical comments that we have
incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the DOD Executive Agent for Space;
the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact
me at 202-512-5431 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report
are listed in appendix III.

Davi M. D'Agostino Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine the progress the Department of Defense (DOD) has made in
implementing the defensewide actions contained in its strategy to
integrate and develop its space cadre, we reviewed the status of actions
taken on the tasks in DOD's implementation plan for its space human
capital strategy. Specifically, we measured DOD's progress in completing
the tasks contained in the implementation plan by discussing the
implementation with officials in the National Security Space Office and
other organizations. We also obtained and analyzed available documentation
related to the implementation of the plan's tasks, such as presentations
to the Space Professional Oversight Board and minutes of the board's
meetings.

To assess DOD's management approach for the departmentwide space cadre, we
reviewed and analyzed DOD's approach for implementing its strategy and
compared it to a results-oriented management approach. We also analyzed
the DOD directive establishing the Executive Agent for Space and DOD's
space human capital strategy, both of which provide general
responsibilities to DOD components for the space cadre. We discussed the
implementation of a management approach for DOD's space cadre development
efforts with the Executive Agent's staff and analyzed documentation to
assess the actions taken to date to develop performance measures and
require continuous space cadre responsibilities. We also discussed DOD's
management efforts with officials at the Office of the Secretary of
Defense; the Joint Staff; and the U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force
Base, Nebraska. Finally, we discussed defensewide management efforts with
representatives of the military services, including the following offices:
Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado; the Army
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Arlington,
Virginia; the Army Space Operations Officer Proponency Office, Arlington,
Virginia; the Office of the Navy Space Cadre Advisor, Arlington, Virginia;
and the Office of Plans, Policies, and Operations, Headquarters, U.S.
Marine Corps, Arlington, Virginia.

To determine the progress the services have made since our August 2004
report in planning and completing initiatives to develop and manage their
space cadres, we analyzed documentation on strategies, initiatives, and
other implementing actions for each service and discussed them with
service officials. We also collected and analyzed data on space positions
and personnel from all of the services and from the U.S. Strategic Command
and on students, staff, and courses from the Air Force's National Security
Space Institute. We assessed the reliability of the Air Force's database
for its space personnel by (1) reviewing existing information about the
data and the system that provided them, and (2)

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

interviewing Air Force and contractor officials knowledgeable about the
data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. Offices visited to accomplish this objective were
the Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado; the
National Security Space Institute, Colorado Springs, Colorado; the Army
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Arlington,
Virginia; the Army Space Operations Officer Proponency Office, Arlington,
Virginia; Office of the Navy Space Cadre Advisor, Arlington, Virginia; and
the Office of Plans, Policies, and Operations, Headquarters, U.S. Marine
Corps, Arlington, Virginia.

We conducted our review from September 2004 through June 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact Davi M. D'Agostino (202) 512-5431

Acknowledgments 	In addition to the contact named above, the following
made key contributions to this report: Margaret G. Morgan, Assistant
Director; Gabrielle M. Anderson; Alan M. Byroade; Nicole Harms; Renee S.
McElveen; and Monica L. Wolford.

  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
*** End of document. ***