Military Personnel: DOD Needs an Oversight Framework and	 
Standards to Improve Management of Its Casualty Assistance	 
Programs (22-SEP-06, GAO-06-1010).				 
                                                                 
Almost 6,000 servicemembers died from October 2001 through	 
September 2005. The Department of Defense (DOD), the Department  
of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Social Security Administration 
(SSA) provide assistance to survivors of servicemembers who die  
on active duty. This assistance includes but is not limited to	 
making funeral arrangements, applying for federal benefits,	 
providing relocation assistance, and coordinating with other	 
agencies. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006 required GAO to assess casualty assistance provided to	 
survivors of servicemembers. For this report, GAO reviewed the	 
extent to which DOD has (1) an oversight framework and standards 
to monitor the assistance it provides to survivors of these	 
deceased servicemembers and (2) visibility over the costs of its 
casualty assistance programs. GAO also reviewed the roles of VA  
and SSA in providing casualty assistance. In conducting this	 
review, GAO analyzed agency documents and interviewed program	 
officials, limiting its scope to federal programs.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-1010					        
    ACCNO:   A61307						        
  TITLE:     Military Personnel: DOD Needs an Oversight Framework and 
Standards to Improve Management of Its Casualty Assistance	 
Programs							 
     DATE:   09/22/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Cost analysis					 
	     Employment assistance programs			 
	     Families						 
	     Federal aid programs				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Military benefits claims				 
	     Military compensation				 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Military policies					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Social security benefits				 
	     Standards						 
	     Veterans benefits					 
	     Program costs					 
	     DOD Operation Iraqi Freedom			 
	     Operation Enduring Freedom 			 
	     Thrift Savings Plan				 
	     VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** 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-06-1010

     

     * Report to Congressional Committees
          * September 2006
     * Military PErsonnel
          * DOD Needs an Oversight Framework and Standards to Improve
            Management of Its Casualty Assistance Programs
     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
          * Background
          * DOD Has Not Established an Oversight Framework and Key Standards
            That Would Enhance the Management of Its Casualty Assistance
            Programs
               * DOD Does Not Have a Comprehensive Oversight Framework
                 Establishing Casualty Assistance Outcome Measures
               * DOD Has Not Established Key Standards for the Services'
                 Casualty Assistance Programs
                    * Short- and Long-term Casualty Assistance Differs among
                      and within the Services
                    * No Standard Procedures for Coordination between the
                      Military Services and DFAS
                    * DOD Does Not Provide an Integrated Benefits Statement
                      to Survivors
          * DOD Has Limited Visibility over Casualty Assistance Programs'
            Costs
          * VA and SSA Primarily Provide Survivors with Long-term Benefits
          * Conclusions
          * Recommendations for Executive Action
          * Agency Comments
     * Survivor Benefits Administered by the Department of Defense
     * Survivor Benefits Administered by Federal Agencies Other Than DOD
     * Scope and Methodology
     * Example of the Prototype Output from the Army's Web-Based Benefits
       Statement for Survivors
     * GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
     * Related GAO Products

Report to Congressional Committees

September 2006

MILITARY PERSONNEL

DOD Needs an Oversight Framework and Standards to Improve Management of
Its Casualty Assistance Programs

Contents

Tables

Figure

September 22, 2006 Letter

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

From October 2001 through September 2005, almost 6,000 servicemembers died
in combat- and non-combat-related events. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 noted that it was the sense of
Congress that "the sacrifices made by the members of the Armed Forces are
significant and are worthy of meaningful expressions of gratitude by the
United States, especially in cases of sacrifice through loss of life.1 In
addition to offering its gratitude, the federal government provides a wide
variety of benefits to the survivors of deceased servicemembers. Moreover,
the Secretary of Defense has identified caring for servicemembers as well
as the survivors of deceased servicemembers as a priority for the
department.2 In our July 2004 report, we identified lump sum payments;
annuities; and various other benefits, such as continued use of
commissaries and exchanges, that may be provided to the survivors of
servicemembers who die while on active duty.3 See appendixes I and II for
a detailed description of the benefits available for survivors of
servicemembers who die while on active duty.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has a primary role in delivering benefits
and assistance to survivors, while the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and other agencies also
provide an array of benefits and assistance.4 DOD's casualty assistance
programs, which are carried out by each of the four military services, are
intended to guide survivors (primarily spouses, children, and parents)
through the casualty assistance process, which includes notification of
death, help with funeral arrangements, assistance with applying for
government benefits, and the return of the deceased servicemember's
personal effects. Since 2001, Congress and federal agencies have enhanced
benefits for survivors of servicemembers who die while on active duty. For
example, recent legislation increased the DOD-administered death gratuity5
payment from $12,000 to $100,000 and the maximum coverage for the
VA-administered Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance from $250,000 to
$400,000.

Some survivors and advocacy groups expressed concerns during a February
2005 congressional hearing about the quality, timeliness, and equity of
the casualty assistance and benefits that deceased servicemembers'
survivors receive. For example, one surviving spouse related her
experiences since her husband died 3 years ago. Among other things, she
stated that the casualty assistance officer tried to be helpful but was
not educated on the benefits available to her or her children nor could he
find the right people to answer her questions. Another survivor described
situations where widows experienced delays in the payment or reimbursement
for their husbands' funerals.

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
is responsible for overseeing the military services' casualty assistance
programs for the families of servicemembers who have died while on active
duty and issuing DOD-wide policy on how the services should implement
their programs. Oversight is an important tool for DOD to use in
monitoring

the implementation of its Social Compact6-a strategic human capital plan
addressing quality-of-life issues and benefits-with families. Further,
effective oversight can provide DOD with the information it needs to make
data-driven policy and program decisions. Among other things, DOD's
casualty assistance policy requires that the military services follow
DOD's policies and procedures for their casualty assistance programs.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 required DOD
to revise its policy to develop consistent procedures for the delivery of
casualty assistance. For example, the act called for uniform procedures,
such as centralized short- and long-term case management procedures.7
Furthermore, the act required us to assess the adequacy of current
policies and procedures of and funding for casualty assistance programs.
In June 2006, we briefed your offices on the requirements outlined in the
act. This report provides further information about DOD's and the
services' management of casualty assistance programs. Specifically, we
determined the extent to which DOD has (1) an oversight framework and
standards in place to monitor the casualty assistance it provides to
survivors of servicemembers who die while on active duty and (2)
visibility over the costs of its casualty assistance programs. In
addition, we reviewed the roles of VA and SSA in providing casualty
assistance to survivors of servicemembers who die on active duty.

In conducting this review, we limited our scope to federal programs and
the benefits and assistance provided to the survivors of servicemembers
who die while on active duty. To assess the extent to which DOD has an
oversight framework and standards in place to monitor the casualty
assistance it provides survivors, we gathered and analyzed various
documents, including program policies; training manuals; the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA); and congressional hearing
statements from survivors, advocacy groups, and other relevant parties. We
interviewed policy and program officials at DOD, including those in the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the
Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service (DFAS). Additionally, we visited 10 stateside and
overseas installations where we interviewed numerous parties involved in
casualty assistance programs at the installation level and obtained
supporting documentation. We interviewed survivors whose spouses had died
while on active duty, advocacy groups for the survivors of military
decedents, and relief or emergency aid societies that assist
servicemembers and their families. We similarly reviewed the casualty
assistance policies and procedures of the U.S. Coast Guard, which is a
part of the Department of Homeland Security, and interviewed Coast Guard
program managers who oversee casualty assistance efforts. To assess the
extent to which DOD has visibility over the costs of its casualty
assistance programs, we analyzed budget documents from fiscal years 2000
through 2005 for DOD, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. We also
interviewed budget officials from the services and installations. To
review the roles of VA and SSA in providing casualty assistance to
survivors of servicemembers who die on active duty, we gathered and
analyzed documents, including program policies; training manuals; sample
correspondences; and congressional hearing statements from survivors,
advocacy groups, and other relevant parties. We also interviewed policy
and program officials at VA and SSA. Additionally, at the stateside
installations we visited, we interviewed VA officials whose offices were
at the installations about their involvement in the casualty assistance
programs. We analyzed budget documents from fiscal years 2001 through 2005
for VA. We also interviewed officials from VA about budget data. We
performed our work from January 2006 through August 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix III
for more information about our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief

DOD does not have a comprehensive oversight framework and key standards
necessary to monitor the casualty assistance it provides to survivors of
servicemembers who die while on active duty. Thus, DOD does not have the
information it needs to fulfill its responsibility of overseeing the
services' casualty assistance programs and evaluate the effectiveness and
efficiency of its programs. GPRA provides federal agencies with a
framework for developing oversight, which includes establishing program
objectives, performance metrics, and reporting requirements. In addition,
DOD casualty assistance policy requires that the military services'
casualty assistance programs have consistent policies and procedures, and
the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year for 2006 also
required DOD to revise its policy to develop consistent procedures for
casualty assistance. While each service gathers information about its
casualty assistance program, DOD does not have a comprehensive oversight
framework because it has not developed departmentwide program objectives
and all the necessary outcome measures to monitor the services' casualty
assistance programs' performance. Although DOD has established the
Casualty Assistance Board as a mechanism for DOD's and the military
services' program directors to share information-for example, what is
working well and emerging problems-comparisons of findings across services
are hampered by the lack of common metrics and assessment methods, such as
a survey of survivors' satisfaction with assistance they received from
casualty assistance officers. Furthermore, DOD's current policy does not
specify three key standards that would enhance the delivery of casualty
assistance across and within the services. First, there is no DOD-wide,
comprehensive checklist for casualty assistance officers-representatives
of the military services who assist survivors-to use when determining what
actions need to be taken, by whom, and within what time frames for
survivors to receive certain benefits. Second, there are no standard,
required coordination procedures for DFAS to follow when making certain
benefit payments to survivors. Also, during our interviews, casualty
assistance officers expressed frustration that they did not have a point
of contact at DFAS to answer questions about the status of processing
payments to survivors or from whom to obtain confirmation that DFAS had
received submitted paperwork and that it was completed correctly. Lastly,
DOD does not currently provide a comprehensive, integrated statement for
survivors to aid in their understanding of the amount and array of
benefits that are available to survivors and how those benefits change
over their lifetime. Congress provided the Army with $3.5 million in
fiscal year 2004 to develop a system that produces an integrated statement
of benefits for survivors. The Army plans to introduce this system to
survivors of deceased Army servicemembers in fall 2006. While DOD is
currently revising its casualty assistance program policy to improve its
oversight and incorporate some standards, it has not been finalized, which
leaves some uncertainty as to how these issues will be addressed and
implemented. Without an established framework for oversight and key
standards, Congress and DOD do not have the information they need to
effectively monitor casualty assistance programs and determine whether
changes made to the programs will achieve their intended results. We are
making recommendations to improve DOD's ability to effectively manage its
casualty assistance programs, including developing an oversight framework
and incorporating additional standards in its casualty assistance policy.

DOD does not know the total costs of its casualty assistance programs
because it has limited visibility over all program costs. This limited
visibility over costs exists for two primary reasons: (1) casualty
assistance program costs are scattered across numerous budgets and (2)
costs of benefits provided to the survivors of deceased active duty
servicemembers and deceased military retirees are lumped together. First,
costs for casualty assistance are found in multiple parts of DOD's budget.
Costs for some benefits, such as the death gratuity and Survivor Benefit
Plan, are found in the military personnel budget, while costs for other
benefits, such as burial expenses and health care, are found in operation
and maintenance and the defense health program budgets. Moreover, casualty
assistance costs are spread throughout the various levels of DOD,
including service headquarters and individual installations. For example,
the services allocate operation and maintenance funds to individual
installations to operate aspects of the casualty assistance programs,
including travel and other costs associated with funeral honors. Also,
casualty assistance funding is paid out of annual and supplemental
appropriations. Some costs for survivor benefits-for example, the
retroactive increase in the amount of the death gratuity payment-are
included in supplemental budgets. Second, the costs of benefits provided
to the survivors of deceased active duty servicemembers are lumped
together with those of deceased military retirees. For example, because
the Survivor Benefit Plan is an annuity provided to eligible survivors of
both deceased active duty servicemembers and retirees, it is difficult for
DOD to determine how much is specifically spent on survivors of
servicemembers who die while on active duty. Federal accounting standards
specify guidance for providing relevant and reliable cost information to
assist Congress and executives in making decisions about allocating
federal resources.8 According to DOD officials, survivor groups, and
survivors whom we interviewed, all major benefits have been paid to
survivors. Although costs of the casualty assistance programs and
associated survivor benefits represent a small portion of DOD's overall
budget, without better visibility over costs, it is difficult for program
officials to make informed decisions regarding the costs of any changes to
DOD's casualty assistance programs. In our July 2005 report on the
transparency of the military compensation system, we recommended that DOD
compile the total costs to provide military compensation and communicate
them to decision makers perhaps as part of its annual budget

submission to Congress.9 Casualty assistance benefits are another type of
cost that could be included as part of total compensation costs. Because
we recommended that DOD compile total compensation costs in our July 2005
report, we are not making that recommendation here.

VA and SSA primarily administer long-term financial and nonfinancial
benefits, which provide support or compensation to survivors starting
almost immediately after the death of the servicemember and possibly
extending through the lifetime of the survivor.10 Since the onset of
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, VA and SSA established, in
coordination with DOD, policies and procedures that were designed to
expedite payments of benefits to survivors. These policies allow for DOD's
casualty assistance officers or the survivors to contact VA and SSA to
initiate the application process and in most cases start the receipt of
benefits within a few days. However, neither VA nor SSA has visibility
over the extent to which survivors of servicemembers who die on active
duty utilize benefits or the overall costs involved in providing these
benefits. VA, for example, provides many of its benefits, including
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation annuity payments, to eligible
survivors other than those of servicemembers who die on active duty. As
with the vast majority of U.S. workers, SSA provides survivors of deceased
servicemembers with Social Security recurring payments and a onetime $255
payment. The amount of the recurring payment is based on the deceased
employee's employment earnings.

Background

DOD's casualty assistance policy requires that the military services
notify the next of kin (for example, spouse and parents) of a
servicemember's
death, provide assistance to the survivors, and document casualties.11
Although the individual services have established unique policies and
procedures for implementing their casualty assistance programs, the
overarching process is similar across the services.12 Figure 1 provides a
general overview of the casualty assistance process, and the remainder of
this section describes the process as required by policy.

Figure 1: Overview of the Casualty Assistance Process

The casualty assistance process entails numerous responsibilities, many of
which must be addressed quickly following a servicemember's death.
Servicemembers are encouraged to update a Record of Emergency Data Form
(DD Form 93), among other things, to identify contact information about
the survivor(s) who are entitled to (1) make decisions about issues such
as funeral arrangements and (2) receive certain benefits, such as the
death gratuity and unpaid compensation/allowances.

Soon after the servicemember dies, the casualty assistance process begins
with notifying the next of kin of the death. This is usually performed by
uniformed military representative who is accompanied by a chaplain, if
available. The notification team is trained to compassionately deliver
news that expresses the secretary of the service's regret that the
servicemember died and broadly describes the circumstances surrounding the
servicemember's death. The notification team also offers to wait with the
next of kin until other family members or friends arrive-if it is so
desired. The services endeavor to notify the next of kin in all instances
of death (deaths from combat, training accidents, automobile accidents,
etc.); however, deaths that occur off an installation can result in
civilian authorities providing the initial notification.

Very soon after notification, a casualty assistance officer13 begins
assisting the person the servicemember authorized to make funeral
arrangements as well as survivors who are entitled to federal benefits.
For example, the death gratuity payment is typically provided to survivors
within 72 hours of the death. After the funeral, and in some cases before
the funeral occurs, casualty assistance officers assist the survivors with
beginning the processes for obtaining the federal benefits to which they
are entitled. The casualty assistance officer continues to assist the
family until the surviving family determines that it no longer needs
assistance.14 The amount of time that survivors require this type and
level of assistance varies, but Army officials stated that this period
typically lasts 6 months.

At the same time, the unit typically assigns one or more "summary court
officers" who are responsible for gathering, inventorying, and possibly
seeing to the cleaning of the servicemembers' possessions. For example, a
summary court officer would be assigned to a case of a single deceased
servicemember who had lived on an installation. The summary court officer
would be responsible for inventorying and packing the decedent's
belongings and sending them to the authorized recipient. Similarly, a case
of a servicemember who died serving in combat might be assigned a summary
court officer; however, the servicemember's belongings would be shipped to
Aberdeen Personal Effects Depot in Aberdeen, Maryland, to be cataloged,
cleaned, and returned to the designated recipient. In addition, another
summary court officer might be assigned if the deceased servicemember had
additional personal effects located on or around the stateside
installation where the servicemember had been assigned.

Recently, the Marine Corps and Army have established a formal process for
providing long-term assistance for survivors of servicemembers who die
while on active duty. Long-term assistance, for the purposes of this
report, is defined as any assistance that is provided after federal
government benefit payments have started and family members have
determined that they no longer need assistance. Long-term assistance could
include providing answers to questions or help with issues concerning
benefits-such as annuities, medical and dental insurance, housing
allowances, or moving reimbursements-or details of the servicemember's
death or autopsy. The eligibility for these benefits is affected by life
changes that may occur, such as remarriage or children turning 18 years of
age. For example, survivors may elect to receive the child-only option of
the Survivor Benefit Plan, in which case the children would stop receiving
compensation when each reaches 18 years of age. Spouses and other
dependents are also eligible for health insurance coverage. During the
first 3 years, they are considered active duty dependents; after this
period, they are converted to retiree dependent status. This conversion
requires the survivor to pay an enrollment fee as well as premiums.

DOD Has Not Established an Oversight Framework and Key Standards That
Would Enhance the Management of Its Casualty Assistance Programs

DOD has not established a comprehensive oversight framework and some key
standards necessary to monitor its casualty assistance programs in that
(1) it has not developed departmentwide program objectives and has few
outcome measures with which to monitor the services' casualty assistance
programs' performance and (2) its current policy does not specify
standards that would enhance the consistent delivery of casualty
assistance across the services. Without evaluations of the effectiveness
and efficiency of the services' casualty assistance programs and key
standards, decision makers in Congress and at DOD do not have the
information they need to make data-driven decisions about the services'
delivery of assistance or changes to survivor benefits. While DOD is
currently revising its casualty assistance program policy to improve its
oversight and incorporate some standards, it has not yet been finalized,
which leaves some uncertainty as to how these issues will be addressed and
implemented.

DOD Does Not Have a Comprehensive Oversight Framework Establishing
Casualty Assistance Outcome Measures

DOD does not have a comprehensive oversight framework because it has not
established departmentwide program objectives and all the necessary
outcome measures to monitor the effectiveness of the services' casualty
assistance programs. GPRA provides federal agencies with a model

framework for developing program oversight.15 Specifically, GPRA
establishes a results-oriented framework that includes strategic plans for
program activities and identifies, among other things, program goals and
performance measures and reports on the degree to which goals are met.16
In addition to GPRA guidance for enhancing program oversight, Congress, in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, required DOD
to revise its policy to develop consistent procedures for casualty
assistance and reporting of data-driven information on the services'
programs.

DOD casualty assistance policy does not specify departmentwide objectives.
In our April 1998 report, we issued guidance on developing program
objectives, including specifying that objectives should be reasonably free
of any significant bias that would distort the accurate assessment of
performance.17 To the greatest extent possible, the objectives should not
require subjective considerations or judgments, but should include a
quantifiable, numerical target level or other measurable value. Similarly,
DOD and the services do not use departmentwide outcome measures for
gathering information, such as a survey of survivors' satisfaction with
assistance they received from casualty assistance officers, timeliness of
receipt of benefits, and other related factors. However, the services do
track some metrics that examine the timeliness of benefits payments, such
as when the survivor received the death gratuity payment,18 and the types
of assistance provided. In 2000, DOD established the Casualty Advisory
Board as a mechanism for the department's and the military services'
program directors to share information-for example, what is working well
and emerging problems, recommend policy changes, develop actions to
incorporate legislative changes, and hear from interested groups and
individuals on the adequacy of the casualty assistance program. This board
meets three times a year and invites officials from other agencies, such
as DFAS, VA, and SSA, as well as surviving family members and other
organizations. At these meetings, the program directors may provide other
board members with information gleaned from their service-specific
experiences. For example:

o The Navy and Marine Corps mail a survey to survivors to assess the
effectiveness of their casualty assistance officers. The Navy also surveys
casualty assistance officers to determine the support they received from
regional or headquarters casualty assistance offices and their ability to
perform their duties based on the training and other resources they
received.

o The Air Force sends a letter to survivors requesting comments on the
assistance that survivors were provided during the process.

o The Army conducts a telephone survey of survivors to gather data about
the level of service that the Army and the casualty assistance officer
provided.

These tools allow the services to assess some aspects of program
performance and discuss good practices. However, because DOD has not
established a comprehensive oversight framework, it is limited in its
ability to monitor casualty assistance provided to survivors across and
within the services, and to take corrective actions if issues are
identified. During our interviews with casualty assistance officers, we
observed different standards for assisting survivors. For example, some
casualty assistance officers arranged for survivors to meet with legal
services and VA representatives as part of their routine duties while
others did not. Similarly, some casualty assistance officers we
interviewed checked to see if survivors were entitled to Montgomery G.I.
Bill refunds19 and Thrift

Savings Plan reimbursements.20 Without a policy requiring common program
outcome metrics and reporting requirements on the metrics, DOD does not
have the fact-based data needed to answer decision makers' questions, such
as whether uniformed servicemembers serving as casualty assistance
officers as assigned or full-time civilian casualty assistance officers
provide better assistance. Further, the lack of an oversight framework
limits the amount of information DOD has to manage casualty assistance
programs and to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of program
operations. Lastly, the lack of an oversight framework hinders the ability
of decision makers to determine if changes, such as defining core
standards of training, made to the program will achieve their intended
results.

DOD Has Not Established Key Standards for the Services' Casualty
Assistance Programs

DOD has not established key standards to maximize the consistent delivery
of casualty assistance across and within the services. DOD's casualty
assistance policy requires that the services' casualty assistance programs
have consistent policies and procedures. Furthermore, Congress required,
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, that DOD
develop consistent procedures for the delivery of casualty assistance.
However, DOD's policy does not specify standards for the services'
programs. We found potential for inconsistencies both across and within
the services in the delivery of short- and long-term assistance. In
addition, we found (1) no standard, required procedures for coordination
between the military services and DFAS to follow when making benefit
payments to survivors and (2) a need for a DOD-supplied, comprehensive,
integrated statement for survivors to reference in understanding the array
of benefits that are available to them and how those benefits might change
over their lifetimes.

Short- and Long-term Casualty Assistance Differs among and within the
Services

Because DOD has not established some key standards for its casualty
assistance programs, short- and long-term assistance differ among, and
sometimes within, the services. In addition to these inconsistencies
across the services, the lack of certain common requirements sometimes
results in different assistance-related procedures being used within the
same service, depending on the regional casualty assistance program.

We found three general areas with potential for inconsistency in the
delivery of short-term assistance.

o Casualty assistance officer training varies in duration, timing, and
content. The training given to casualty assistance officers affects their
familiarity with both the casualty assistance procedures and associated
survivor benefits. Table 1 shows that classroom training, which in some
cases may be supplemented with other training, varies markedly across the
services. Specifically, our review of training materials and interviews
with installation officials revealed variations in the type and content of
materials covered in the training. In our discussions with casualty
assistance officers across the services, we observed differences in their
familiarity with the benefits and types of assistance provided to
survivors. For example, some casualty assistance officers we interviewed
learned through written guidance that survivors are to be reimbursed for
the deceased servicemembers' contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan and
Montgomery G.I. Bill contributions, while others were unaware of this
benefit before they participated in our interviews. The lack of DOD-wide
data on casualty assistance officers' training means that DOD does not
know the effectiveness of the training programs, whether training could be
conducted more efficiently, and whether variations in training affect the
consistency of support provided by casualty assistance officers.

Table 1: Duration of Casualty Assistance Officer Training by Service

                                        

     Service                              Durationa                           
Army         Varies, depending on casualty assistance center, from 4 to 40 
                hours                                                         
Air Force    3-day program                                                 
Marine Corps 4 hours, also some installations offer refresher training     
Navy         1 or 2 days depending on region                               

Source: GAO analysis of DOD information.

aSome of the variation in the duration of training is due to
service-specific differences in who is responsible for what aspects of the
assistance. For example, the Air Force uses different personnel to assist
the next of kin with funeral-related matters and subsequent application
for federal benefits, but the other services use a single individual for
both of these general types of duties.

o There is no DOD-wide, comprehensive checklist for completing casualty
assistance duties and for tracking case progress. Each service, and in
some cases each region, uses a different checklist to identify the
casualty assistance officer's duties.21 For example, the Marine Corps'
checklist provided casualty assistance officers with instructions for
notification procedures, funeral arrangements, personal effects, and
financial benefits discussions. In contrast, the Army's checklist requires
casualty assistance officers to arrange for survivors to meet with legal
services and VA representatives, while at the other services'
installations we visited the checklists did not require casualty
assistance officers to make appointments with these offices. Although some
of these differences may be explained by most services having a single
casualty assistance officer to coordinate all help provided to a survivor
and the other services dividing the assistance duties among different
personnel, the absence of a DOD-wide checklist with required steps could
potentially result in inconsistent assistance being offered to some
survivors. The Army, through the U.S. Military Academy, is in the testing
phase of developing software aimed at helping to standardize the
assistance given by casualty assistance officers. Among other things, it
will automatically complete all applicable financial benefits forms once
certain data are put into the system.

o There is no DOD-wide guidance for the timing for completing or updating
a servicemember's Record of Emergency Data form (DD Form 93). Among other
things, the information on this form is the official record of the
beneficiaries designated to receive the death gratuity payment and unpaid
pay and allowances. It also contains the name and address of the person(s)
to be notified in the event of a death. Currently, the form is completed
and updated at the discretion of the services. Service officials told us
that all servicemembers are to complete and update information, including
prior to any deployment. Even though updating of the information is part
of the process before deployment, installation officials told us that some
servicemembers do not make the needed changes because of a perceived
inconvenience associated with updating the form or not understanding the
importance of the information contained in the form. Not having up-to-date
information could, among other things, delay notification of the next of
kin in the event of an injury or death and result in financial benefits
being distributed in whole or part to people that the servicemember may
not have preferred.

In addition to the potential for inconsistencies in the delivery of
short-term assistance, DOD's current casualty assistance policy does not
describe the types of long-term casualty assistance that the services may
provide to the survivors of servicemembers who die while on active duty.
Long-term benefits to survivors include annuities that may be paid
throughout an eligible survivor's lifetime, medical and dental insurance,
and the use of installation services like the commissary and exchange.
Assisting survivors with their long-term concerns about accessing these
benefits differs among the services, ranging from proactive outreach and
actions to responding to survivors' requests for assistance. The Army
recently established a call center to assist survivors, and this call
center is to become a long-term case management center by winter 2006.
Similarly, the Marine Corps recently established a single long-term case
manager for all Marine Corps survivors. The Marine Corps casualty
assistance officer and case manager begin to transition survivors to the
case manager about 60 days after a servicemember's death, and this
long-term case manager is subsequently available to address a survivor's
needs indefinitely. In contrast, the Air Force and Navy do not currently
have a centralized, formal long-term assistance program, but
representatives of those services are available to answer survivors'
questions or provide requested assistance. The absence of departmentwide
long-term casualty assistance requirements may be one reason why DOD does
not track the use of some types of assistance or benefits. The draft
revision of DOD's casualty assistance policy calls for the establishment
of centralized short- and long-term case management procedures and the
development of a common survey for survivors and casualty assistance
officers.

No Standard Procedures for Coordination between the Military Services and
DFAS

Current DOD casualty assistance policy does not set forth standard
procedures for coordination between the services and DFAS in the provision
of unpaid pay and allowances to survivors of servicemembers who die while
on active duty. Specifically, DFAS has been mailing checks to survivors
without explanations for why the money is being disbursed and later
mailing a statement informing the survivors that they have received a
check for unpaid pay and allowances. DFAS's primary guidance for

compensation administration is DOD's Financial Management Regulation.22 A
separate DFAS branch handles the payments for each of the services and is
responsible for developing procedures for the settlement process.

The limited coordination between officials at DFAS and DOD's and the
services' casualty assistance offices on these pay matters has resulted in
confusion and uncertainty about whether survivors received all of the
money to which they were entitled since they have not routinely been
supplied with an itemized statement separately listing each pay,
allowance, and debt owed to the service (e.g., from a government charge
card). Underpayment of the money owed to the deceased servicemembers would
deprive survivors of money to which they were rightfully entitled, and
overpayment could result in efforts to subsequently recover the excess
compensation. This is a concern because we recently reported on similar
pay problems for injured servicemembers who continued to receive hostile
fire and hardship duty pays after they were no longer entitled to such
pays and were told to return the overpayments.23 Another coordination
problem exists between DFAS personnel and casualty assistance officers.
The casualty assistance officers told us that they did not have specific
points of contact at DFAS to facilitate the processing for benefit
application forms that have to be faxed to DFAS because the agency does
not accept electronic signatures sent via computer. In some instances,
casualty assistance officers told us that DFAS officials had called them
about missing forms that they had already faxed. According to service
officials, the current inability of DFAS and casualty assistance personnel
to promptly identify one another has resulted in instances of delayed
claim processing as well as continued survivors' concerns about whether
the check for unpaid pay and allowances was for the correct amount.

These coordination problems may be alleviated in the future. DOD and
service casualty assistance program officials stated that they have
initiated meetings with DFAS to address these problems, and DFAS has
agreed to take steps to address some of the issues raised by DOD. For
example, Army DFAS recently established a casualty settlement office as a
point of contact for Army casualty assistance officers in assisting
survivors. In addition, DFAS officials stated that each service-specific
branch of DFAS has agreed to provide survivors with an itemized
explanation of payments made. Another aspect of this problem, however,
remains unaddressed. DFAS officials indicated that the statement will
still arrive after the survivor receives the check for payment.

DOD Does Not Provide an Integrated Benefits Statement to Survivors

DOD's current casualty assistance policy does not require that DOD or the
services provide the survivors of military servicemembers with a
comprehensive, integrated statement of federal monetary benefits. DOD, VA,
and SSA administer an array of monetary survivor benefits in the form of
lump sum cash payments or annuities and other entitlements, such as health
insurance.24 Service officials told us that an integrated statement is
needed to improve survivors' understanding of these benefits. Moreover,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 requires that
by December 1, 2006, DOD provide to Congress a plan to provide a system
with personalized and integrated information on benefits and financial
assistance available to survivors.

Currently, each service's emergency aid or relief society offers to
purchase from a for-profit company a comprehensive, integrated statement
of benefits for all surviving spouses of servicemembers who die while on
active duty. This statement currently costs the Army and Air Force relief
and aid societies $595 per surviving spouse who accepts this assistance.25
Since 2004, the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society purchased a onetime
statement of benefits for all survivors, which currently cost $200 per
surviving spouse. In addition, 36 percent of Marine Corps and 65 percent
of Navy survivors accepted a lifetime membership with the company, which
currently cost the relief society an additional $395, bringing the total
cost to $595 per spouse. During our interviews, some of the casualty
assistance officers said they were unaware of the availability of this
statement.

In fiscal year 2004, Congress provided the Army with $3.5 million to
develop or acquire a system that would produce a comprehensive, integrated
statement of benefits. The Army plans to introduce a Web-based system to
the survivors of deceased Army servicemembers in fall 2006. Army
representatives told us that this analysis is important because benefits
are not currently organized by DOD in a single, comprehensive, easily
understandable, and easily accessible location. Furthermore, a
DOD-provided statement is important because not all eligible survivors
choose to accept or are told about the statement provided by the emergency
aid and relief societies. The prototype Army system that we reviewed
contained personalized benefits information, including a benefits
calculator that reflects the potential changes in benefits throughout the
survivor's lifetime. The statement from the Army system is similar to the
statement currently provided by the for-profit company. Appendix IV
contains a sample statement from the Army's prototype system. According to
Army officials, there are no formal plans for the Army's Web-based system
to become a DOD-wide program. Failure to expand the Army system for use by
all the services or otherwise offer a similar benefit to the survivors
whose deceased servicemembers served in other services might result in
inconsistent assistance for survivors, particularly if the relief and aid
societies for the other services were unable to continue purchasing the
benefits statements from the for-profit company.

Survivors we interviewed stated that some of the benefits are complex and
can be difficult to understand. For example, a survivor who is eligible to
receive DOD's Survivor Benefit Plan and VA's Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation does not receive the full amount of both benefits. Rather,
the payments from the taxable Survivor Benefit Plan are reduced on a
dollar-for-dollar basis by any nontaxed Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation benefits received. In order to avoid this offset, surviving
spouses who continue to care for the children of deceased active duty
servicemembers are allowed to select the Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation benefits for themselves and to designate their children as
recipients of the Survivor Benefit Plan.26 The decision about which of the
annuity benefits that the surviving spouse will select is irrevocable.
Some of the survivors that we interviewed told us that in retrospect they
question having to make this irrevocable decision early in their grieving
process. A statement similar to the one provided by the for-profit company
would allow survivors to anticipate the estimated values for their
immediate financial benefits as well as changes in their cash benefits
over time.

DOD Has Limited Visibility over Casualty Assistance Programs' Costs

DOD does not know the total costs of its casualty assistance programs
because it does not have visibility over all program costs.27 This limited
visibility over casualty assistance program costs exists for two primary
reasons: (1) the costs of cash and noncash benefits as well as the costs
for program operations are scattered across many different parts of DOD's
budget and (2) costs of benefits provided to the survivors of active duty
servicemembers are lumped together with those for military retirees and
their survivors. Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4
recommends the reporting of the full costs of outputs. The full cost of an
output produced by a program is the sum of (1) the costs of resources
consumed by the program that directly or indirectly contribute to the
carrying out of that program and (2) the costs of identifiable supporting
services provided by other areas within the agency. Federal accounting
standards are aimed at providing relevant and reliable cost information to
assist Congress and program officials in making decisions about allocating
federal resources.28 In our July 2005 report on the transparency of the
military compensation system, we recommended that DOD compile the total
costs to provide military compensation and communicate them to decision
makers perhaps as part of its annual budget submission to Congress.
Casualty assistance benefits are another type of cost that could be
included as part of total compensation costs. Because we recommended that
DOD compile total compensation costs in our July 2005 report, we are not
making that recommendation here.

Costs for casualty assistance programs are found in many different parts
of DOD's budget, such as military personnel and operation and maintenance.
For example, the cost for the death gratuity is found in the military
personnel budget, while mortuary affairs costs are found in the operations
and maintenance budget. Casualty assistance costs are also spread
throughout the various levels of DOD, including service headquarters and
individual installations. For example, the services allocate operation and
maintenance funds to individual installations to operate aspects of their
casualty assistance programs. To calculate operations costs for its
casualty assistance program, each service would have to gather data about
its casualty assistance cost from individual installations. Also, other
casualty assistance costs are in DOD-wide budgets like those for the
health program and the commissary. Furthermore, some casualty assistance
benefits, like health care, result in costs that will be part of future
years' budgets since they can continue throughout the survivor's lifetime.
Finally, casualty assistance funding is paid out of annual and
supplemental appropriations. For example, the retroactive increase in the
amount of the death gratuity payment was included in supplemental budgets.

The second general type of problem in determining the total cost of the
casualty program is that the costs of benefits provided to the survivors
of active duty servicemembers and military retirees are lumped together in
the budgets. DOD does not maintain data that distinguish between the costs
of benefits provided to these two groups of survivors. The costs of the
Survivor Benefit Plan and funeral honors details are two such benefits for
which DOD cannot easily determine how much of the costs are for active
duty servicemembers' survivors and retirees' survivors. The need to
provide for benefits for both groups of survivors as well as the funding
across multiple budgets hampers DOD from determining how much is
specifically spent on benefits and assistance to survivors of
servicemembers who die while on active duty.

According to DOD officials, survivor groups, and survivors whom we
interviewed, all major benefits have been paid to survivors. Although the
costs of the casualty assistance programs and associated benefits for
survivors of servicemembers who die while on active duty represent a small
portion of DOD's overall budget, the limited visibility over costs makes
it is difficult for decision makers to arrive at informed decisions
regarding DOD's casualty assistance programs. These types of decisions
might be related to short- and long-term costs of funding the benefit
programs, as well as the onetime and continuing costs of any changes to a
program.

VA and SSA Primarily Provide Survivors with Long-term Benefits

VA and SSA also administer benefits that provide financial and
nonfinancial assistance to survivors, starting almost immediately after
the death of active duty servicemembers, and some assistance may continue
throughout the survivors' lifetimes. Specifically, VA administers two of
the largest cash benefits available to survivors: the Servicemember's
Group Life Insurance program, government-backed life insurance for
military personnel that is available for up to $400,000, and Dependency
Indemnity Compensation, long-term monthly payments to eligible surviving
spouses and children. In addition, VA may provide other benefits-such as
bereavement counseling, education assistance, and guaranteed home loans-to
eligible survivors. SSA's major benefit to survivors of servicemembers who
die while on active duty is the monthly payments that the federal
government also administers to survivors of civilians. See appendix II for
a detailed description of survivor benefits administered by VA and SSA.

Since the onset of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, VA and
SSA established, in coordination with DOD, policies and procedures that
were designed to expedite benefit payments to survivors of servicemembers
regardless of where death occurs and whether it was non-combat related.29
These policies allow DOD's casualty assistance officers or the survivors
to contact VA and SSA to initiate the expedited application procedures and
typically start receipt of benefits within a few days. The expedited
claims process for VA requires survivors to provide a single form to claim
all eligible benefits, rather than the multiple forms that were required
prior to September 11, 2001. When asked how satisfied casualty assistance
officers were with the services of several organizations after the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the Pentagon, officers chose VA as
the second most helpful organization in providing assistance to
survivors.30 The expedited claims process for SSA provides survivors and
casualty assistance officers with a toll-free number to an office
specifically designated to process expedited Social Security benefit
claims for survivors of servicemembers who die while on active duty. When
SSA's expedited procedures were pilot tested prior to their January 2004
implementation, the results showed that claims processing time dropped
from several weeks to an average of just over 2 days.

Like DOD, neither VA nor SSA has visibility over (1) the extent to which
survivors of servicemembers who die on active duty utilize benefits or (2)
the overall costs involved in providing these benefits. This is partially
because neither agency has policies or procedures that require the
separate gathering of data on benefits provided to the subgroup of
recipients who are survivors of active duty servicemembers who die while
on active duty. This subgroup represents a small portion of (1) all the
veterans who are entitled to each type of VA benefit and (2) those in the
civilian population who are eligible for the SSA annuity and onetime
payment of $255. Decision makers' ability to make informed decisions about
whether the types or amounts of short- and long-term assistance should be
changed could be limited because of the absence of data on the
participation rates and costs of casualty assistance provided to survivors
of servicmembers who die while on active duty.

Conclusions

The casualty assistance that the federal government provides to the
survivors of servicemembers who die while on active duty is an
acknowledgment of the supreme sacrifice of the deceased military
personnel. While each military service has established its own casualty
assistance program to help eligible survivors access various types of
financial and nonfinancial support, variations in the procedures used to
administer the programs could lead to inconsistent support being offered
across the military services, as well as across installations within the
services. DOD's current casualty assistance program policies do not
prescribe a comprehensive, departmentwide oversight framework that
includes performance or outcome measures and reporting requirements.
Similarly, DOD's current policy does not prescribe key standards of
assistance due all survivors of servicemembers who die while on active
duty. These deficiencies in DOD's casualty assistance policy not only
limit the department's ability to monitor the services' casualty
assistance programs for a consistent level of assistance to all survivors,
they also limit the ability of decision makers-both in Congress and at
DOD-to make informed, data-driven decisions about the oversight of the
casualty assistance programs.

DOD's draft revision of its primary casualty assistance policy has begun
to partially address some of the concerns identified in this report and
the congressional mandate for greater consistency in the delivery of
casualty assistance. Because the policy has not yet been finalized, it
offers both uncertainty and opportunity. There is uncertainty about how
these concerns will be addressed and how the changes will be implemented
to help ensure that survivors are provided optimal assistance. The fact
that the policy is still being drafted offers an opportunity to develop a
policy that fully addresses the congressional mandate and the concerns we
highlight in this report. Moreover, because DOD does not have visibility
over the costs of its casualty assistance programs, it is difficult for
program officials to make informed decisions about current and future
changes to the program. In our July 2005 report on the transparency of the
military compensation system, we recommended that DOD compile the total
costs to provide military compensation and communicate them to decision
makers. Casualty assistance benefits are another example of what could be
included as part of DOD's total compensation costs.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve DOD's ability to effectively manage its casualty assistance
programs, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to take the following two
actions:

o Develop an oversight framework that includes

o measurable DOD-wide objectives for casualty assistance programs;

o DOD-wide outcome measures to evaluate aspects of its programs, such as
survivors' satisfaction with assistance they received from casualty
assistance officers, and clearly link program performance with these
objectives; and

o requirements for the services to report on these outcome measures so
that DOD can use the reports to monitor the casualty assistance programs'
performance and make fact-based decisions about the program operations and
resources.

o Incorporate standards, such as a comprehensive checklist of duties for
casualty assistance officers, when revising its casualty assistance
policy.

Agency Comments

On August 11, 2006, we provided a draft of this report to DOD, the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Labor (DOL), SSA,
and VA for review and comment. All five agencies provided technical
comments on this report or indicated that they had no comments; we
incorporated their comments as appropriate. DOD did not provide its formal
comments in time to be included in this report.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and the Secretary of Defense. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. This report is also available at no
charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov .

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-5559 or [email protected] . Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
last page of this report. Other staff members who made key contributions
to this report are listed in appendix V.

Derek B. Stewart Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

Appendix I

Survivor Benefits Administered by the Department of Defense

Source: GAO analysis of DOD information.

Note: Eligible survivors of deceased U.S. Coast Guard servicemembers
obtain these benefits directly through the Coast Guard and in other cases
through DOD-such as military community privileges and health care.

Appendix II

Survivor Benefits Administered by Federal Agencies Other Than DOD

Source: GAO analysis of VA, SSA, and DOL information.

aDepending on the individual's adjusted gross income, up to 85 percent of
Social Security income is taxable.

bSocial Security benefit receives annual cost of living adjustment.

cIf the required information and evidence are not received within 90 days
of that notification, a follow-up is done with the survivor and the
casualty assistance officer. If the requested information is not received
within an additional 30 days, a second follow-up is sent to the survivor
with a copy to the casualty assistance officer advising that benefits may
be suspended if the information is not received by SSA within 30 days of
the notice, which would be a total of 150 days after the initial
application was filed.

Appendix III

Scope and Methodology

In conducting this review, we limited our scope to federal programs and
the benefits and assistance provided to the survivors of servicemembers
who die while on active duty. Therefore, we did not address state-provided
benefits for survivors of deceased National Guard members and benefits,
such as laptop computers or scholarship funds, which are often provided by
nonprofits and other organizations. We also did not address the casualty
assistance and benefits provided to ill or injured servicemembers and
their families, with the exception of those servicemembers who later die
of their illness or injury.

To determine the extent to which DOD has an oversight framework and
standards in place to monitor the casualty assistance it provides to
survivors of servicemembers who die while on active duty, we gathered and
analyzed various documents, including current and draft casualty
assistance program policies; procedures; training manuals; the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993; and statements from survivors,
advocacy groups, and other relevant parties. We interviewed policy and
program officials from DOD's Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness (primarily the Office of Military Community and
Family Policy); Army Human Resources Command, Casualty and Memorial
Affairs Operation Center; Navy Personnel Command, Casualty Assistance
Division and Navy Installations Command; Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve
Affairs, Casualty and Assistance Section; Air Force Personnel Center,
Casualty Matters Division and Air Force Mortuary Affairs; National Guard
Bureau; and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service office for each DOD
service. We also conducted site visits at 10 installations (see table 2).
We selected these installations, in coordination with service officials,
because these installations assisted higher numbers of survivors compared
to other installations. During the site visits, we met with some or all of
the following types of personnel: installation leaders; officials
responsible for directing or implementing the installation's casualty
assistance program; casualty assistance officers (both officers and senior
enlisted personnel); mortuary affairs representatives; chaplains;
attorneys in the Judge Advocate Corps; staff from morale, recreation, and
welfare; installation housing personnel; TRICARE staff; and finance
officials. Other individuals whom we interviewed at multiple installations
included survivors of servicemembers who had died while on active duty and
VA representatives. We compared and contrasted information extracted from
the previously cited documentary and testimonial evidence and identified
similarities and differences in the ways in which the services and
installations implemented their casualty assistance programs, as well as
issues such as reporting relationships, staffing, and the steps used to
monitor the assistance provided to survivors. We similarly reviewed the
casualty assistance policies and procedures of the U.S. Coast Guard, which
is part of the Department of Homeland Security, and interviewed Coast
Guard program managers. In addition, we met with and obtained additional
information from advocacy groups that included Gold Star Wives; the
National Association for Uniformed Services; the National Military Family
Association; and the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors. Other
information was obtained during meetings with the relief or emergency aid
society for each of the DOD services and the for-profit company that sells
the comprehensive statements of benefits to the societies.

Table 2: Installations in the United States and Germany Where GAO
Conducted Site Visits from January through July 2006

                                        

      Service                            Installation                         
Army          Fort Hood, Texas                                             
                 Fort Stewart, Georgia                                        
                 1st Personnel Command, Schwetzingen, Germany                 
                 U.S. Army Garrison, Baumholder, Germany                      
                 Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germanya       
Navy          Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida                      
Marine Corps  Camp Pendleton, California                                   
Air Force     Randolph Air Force Base, Texas                               
                 Ramstein Air Base, Germany                                   
                 Dover Port Mortuary, Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Delawarea  

Source: GAO.

aThe Army is the executive agent for mortuary affairs and has an overseas
location at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, in the European Command.
Similarly, Dover Air Force Base hosts the Dover Port Mortuary, which
receives the remains of servicemembers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan as
well as remains of mass casualties (e.g., from military training
accidents) in the United States.

To determine the extent to which DOD and the services have visibility over
the costs of casualty assistance programs, we analyzed budget documents
from fiscal years 2000 through 2005 for DOD, the Army, the Navy, the
Marine Corps, the and Air Force. We also interviewed budget officials at
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial
Management, Comptroller Army; Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Financial Management, Comptroller Navy; Office of the Assistant
Commandant of the Marine Corps, Personnel Funding Marine Corps; and Office
of the Deputy Assistant Secretary Budget, Directorate of Budget Operations
Air Force, as well as some financial offices at the installations we
visited. Casualty assistance program staff at the installations that we
visited provided additional information on the costs related to the
operation of their programs. While they were unable to quantify the dollar
costs of their operations, they were able to identify some of the items
that would need to be accounted for to arrive at the total costs of
casualty assistance. These items included personnel assigned to the
casualty assistance program, development and delivery of training for
casualty assistance, casualty assistance officers' time and expenses when
performing their duties, and personnel and transportation costs for
funeral honors details.

To review the roles of VA and SSA in providing casualty assistance to
survivors of servicemembers who die on active duty, we analyzed documents
from and interviewed officials representing those two federal agencies.
Our VA contacts included officials from the Office of Budget; the Office
of Policy and Programs; the Veterans Benefits Administration, including
the Compensation and Pension Service; the National Cemetery
Administration, including the Policy and Planning Service; and the
Veterans Health Administration, including the Readjustment Counseling
Service. At stateside DOD installations where we conducted site visits, we
also met with local VA representatives who assisted survivors and their
casualty assistance officers in briefing the survivors about
VA-administered benefits, completing applications for benefits, and
answering questions. We interviewed officials from the private sector
insurance company that offers the VA-administered Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance. In addition, we analyzed VA's budget documents for fiscal
years 2000 through 2005. Our SSA contacts included officials from the
Division of Operations Analysis and Customer Service. For both VA and SSA,
we requested documentary evidence that included program policies, sample
correspondences, and evaluations of their procedures to expedite claims
processing for the survivors. We compared and contrasted information
extracted from the previously cited documentary and testimonial evidence
and identified similarities and differences in the ways in which VA and
SSA implemented their casualty assistance programs, as well as issues such
as reporting relationships, staffing, and the steps used to monitor the
assistance provided to survivors. Additional information about the
agencies' programs came from interviews with the survivors of
servicemembers who died while on active duty, casualty assistance
officers, and staff from installation-level casualty assistance offices.

We performed our work from January 2006 through August 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix IV

Example of the Prototype Output from the Army's Web-Based Benefits
Statement for Survivors

Source: Army, Human Resources Policy Directorate.

Appendix V

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Derek Stewart, (202) 512-5559 or [email protected]

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Jack Edwards, Assistant Director;
Lori Atkinson; Alissa Czyz; LaShawnda Lindsey; Julia Matta; Maewanda
Michael-Jackson; Kenneth Patton; Charles Perdue; Terry Richardson; Suzanne
Perkins Sapp; and Sonja Ware made key contributions to this report.

Related GAO Products

Financial Management: Implications of Significant Recent and Potential
Changes for the Actuarial Soundness of the Department of Defense Survivor
Benefit Plan Program. GAO-06-837R . Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006.

Military Pay: Hundreds of Battle-Injured GWOT Soldiers Have Struggled to
Resolve Military Debts. GAO-06-494 . Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2006.

Military Pay: Inadequate Controls for Stopping Overpayments of Hostile
Fire and Hardship Duty Pay to Over 200 Sick or Injured Army National Guard
and Army Reserve Soldiers Assigned to Fort Bragg. GAO-06-384R .
Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2006.

Military Pay: Military Debts Present Significant Hardships to Hundreds of
Sick and Injured GWOT Soldiers. GAO-06-657T . Washington, D.C.: April 27,
2006.

Disability Benefits: Benefit Amounts for Military Personnel and Civilian
Public Safety Officers Vary by Program Provisions and Individual
Circumstances. GAO-06-4 . Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2006.

Military Disability Evaluation: Ensuring Consistent and Timely Outcomes
for Reserve and Active Duty Service Members. GAO-06-561T . Washington,
D.C.: April 6, 2006.

VA and DOD Health Care: VA Has Policies and Outreach Efforts to Smooth
Transition from DOD Health Care, but Sharing of Health Information Remains
Limited. GAO-05-1052T . Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2005.

Defense Management: Assessment Should Be Done to Clarify Defense Prisoner
of War/Missing Personnel Office Personnel and Funding Needs. GAO-05-756R .
Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2005.

Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Improve the Transparency and Reassess the
Reasonableness, Appropriateness, Affordability, and Sustainability of Its
Military Compensation System. GAO-05-798 . Washington, D.C.: July 19,
2005.

Military Personnel: DOD Needs Better Controls over Supplemental Life
Insurance Solicitation Policies Involving Servicemembers. GAO-05-696 .
Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005.

Military Pay: Gaps in Pay and Benefits Create Financial Hardships for
Injured Army National Guard and Reserve Soldiers. GAO-05-125 . Washington,
D.C.: February 17, 2005.

Military Personnel: Survivor Benefits of Servicemembers and Federal,
State, and City Government Employees. GAO-04-814 . Washington, D.C.: July
15, 2004.

Military Personnel: Active Duty Benefits Reflect Changing Demographics,
but Opportunities Exist to Improve. GAO-02-935 . Washington, D.C.:
September 18, 2002.

National Cemetery System: Plans for Addressing Projected Increases in
Veterans' Burials. GAO/HEHS-98-157 . Washington, D.C.: April 29, 1998.

Arlington National Cemetery: Additional Information on Burial Waiver
Decisions. GAO/HEHS-98-104R . Washington, D.C.: March 4, 1998.

(350772)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-1010 .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Derek Stewart at (202) 512-5559 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-1010 , a report to congressional committees

September 2006

MILITARY PERSONNEL

DOD Needs an Oversight Framework and Standards to Improve Management of
Its Casualty Assistance Programs

Almost 6,000 servicemembers died from October 2001 through September 2005.
The Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
and the Social Security Administration (SSA) provide assistance to
survivors of servicemembers who die on active duty. This assistance
includes but is not limited to making funeral arrangements, applying for
federal benefits, providing relocation assistance, and coordinating with
other agencies. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006 required GAO to assess casualty assistance provided to survivors of
servicemembers. For this report, GAO reviewed the extent to which DOD has
(1) an oversight framework and standards to monitor the assistance it
provides to survivors of these deceased servicemembers and (2) visibility
over the costs of its casualty assistance programs. GAO also reviewed the
roles of VA and SSA in providing casualty assistance. In conducting this
review, GAO analyzed agency documents and interviewed program officials,
limiting its scope to federal programs.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD develop an oversight framework and add standards
to its casualty assistance policy. DOD did not provide its formal comments
in time to be included in this report.

DOD does not have a comprehensive oversight framework and standards that
could improve its ability to monitor the casualty assistance it provides
to survivors of servicemembers who die while on active duty. The absence
of a comprehensive oversight framework exists because DOD has not
developed departmentwide program objectives and all the necessary outcome
measures to monitor the military services' casualty assistance programs'
effectiveness and efficiency. GAO found that while each service gathers
information about its casualty assistance program and DOD and the services
meet three times a year to share information, program performance
comparisons across services are hampered by the lack of common metrics and
assessment methods. Moreover, DOD's current policy does not specify key
standards for the services' casualty assistance programs that would
facilitate more consistent delivery of assistance across the services.
Such standards would include processes (1) for consistent delivery of
short- and long-term assistance across and within the services and (2) for
coordinating with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service about benefit
payments to survivors.

DOD does not know the total costs of its casualty assistance programs
because it has limited visibility over all program costs. This limited
visibility exists for two primary reasons: (1) casualty assistance program
costs are scattered across many different parts of DOD's budget, including
military personnel, operation and maintenance, and defense health program
budgets, and (2) costs of benefits provided to survivors of active duty
servicemembers and military retirees, such as the annuities, are lumped
together. Although casualty assistance program costs and benefits
represent a small portion of DOD's overall budget, without visibility over
costs, it is difficult for program officials to make informed decisions
regarding the costs of any changes to DOD's casualty assistance programs.
In GAO's July 2005 report on the transparency of the military compensation
system, GAO recommended that DOD compile the total costs to provide
military compensation and communicate them to decision makers perhaps as
part of its annual budget submission to Congress. Casualty assistance
benefits are another type of cost that could be included as part of total
compensation costs. Because GAO recommended that DOD compile total
compensation costs in its July 2005 report, GAO is not making that
recommendation here.

VA and SSA primarily provide long-term financial and nonfinancial benefits
to support and compensate survivors starting almost immediately after the
servicemember's death and possibly extending through the lifetime of the
survivor. However, neither agency has visibility over the extent to which
these survivors utilize their benefits or the overall costs of their
participation.
*** End of document. ***