Human Capital: Corps of Engineers Needs to Update Its Workforce  
Planning Process to More Effectively Address Its Current and	 
Future Workforce Needs (07-MAY-08, GAO-08-596). 		 
                                                                 
With a workforce of about 35,000, the U.S. Army Corps of	 
Engineers (the Corps) provides engineering services for civil	 
works and military programs in the United States and overseas.	 
Recently, the Corps' focus has shifted to also support		 
contingency operations, such as responding to natural disasters. 
To meet its mission and emerging priorities, the Corps must have 
effective human capital planning processes to ensure that it can 
maintain its workforce. In this context, GAO was asked to examine
the (1) extent to which the Corps has aligned its human capital  
plan with its strategic plan, (2) extent to which the Corps has  
the information necessary to identify and meet current and future
workforce needs, and (3) challenges the Corps faces in meeting	 
its workforce needs. To address these issues, GAO reviewed agency
human capital and strategic planning documents, conducted	 
structured interviews with eight Corps divisions and a purposeful
sample of 14 of its districts, and interviewed other Corps	 
officials.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-596 					        
    ACCNO:   A81998						        
  TITLE:     Human Capital: Corps of Engineers Needs to Update Its    
Workforce Planning Process to More Effectively Address Its	 
Current and Future Workforce Needs				 
     DATE:   05/07/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Agency missions					 
	     Cost analysis					 
	     Data collection					 
	     Employee incentives				 
	     Employee retention 				 
	     Human capital					 
	     Human capital management				 
	     Human capital planning				 
	     Human capital policies				 
	     Information management				 
	     Information resources management			 
	     Labor force					 
	     Mission critical information			 
	     Needs assessment					 
	     Performance management				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Personnel recruiting				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Workfare						 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-596

   

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

May 2008: 

Human Capital: 

Corps of Engineers Needs to Update Its Workforce Planning Process to 
More Effectively Address Its Current and Future Workforce Needs: 

Corps of Engineers: 

GAO-08-596: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-596, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

With a workforce of about 35,000, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the 
Corps) provides engineering services for civil works and military 
programs in the United States and overseas. Recently, the Corpsï¿½ focus 
has shifted to also support contingency operations, such as responding 
to natural disasters. To meet its mission and emerging priorities, the 
Corps must have effective human capital planning processes to ensure 
that it can maintain its workforce. In this context, GAO was asked to 
examine the (1) extent to which the Corps has aligned its human capital 
plan with its strategic plan, (2) extent to which the Corps has the 
information necessary to identify and meet current and future workforce 
needs, and (3) challenges the Corps faces in meeting its workforce 
needs. To address these issues, GAO reviewed agency human capital and 
strategic planning documents, conducted structured interviews with 
eight Corps divisions and a purposeful sample of 14 of its districts, 
and interviewed other Corps officials. 

What GAO Found: 

The Corpsï¿½ strategic human capital plan is outdated; is not aligned 
with the agencyï¿½s most recent strategic plan, which was developed in 
2005; and is inconsistently used across the agency. Specifically, the 
human capital plan has not been revised since it was developed in 2002, 
and it is therefore not aligned with the Corpsï¿½ current strategic plan. 
Headquarters officials told GAO they ï¿½abandonedï¿½ the use of the plan 
and replaced it with the human capital updates required under a 
presidential initiative. While these updates list the Corpsï¿½ human 
capital activities and milestones for completing them, they do not 
contain key components of an effective human capital plan, such as 
goals, strategies, and a system for measuring performance. Moreover, 
the outdated human capital plan is being used inconsistently across the 
agency. Some divisions and districts are still using the 2002 plan to 
guide their human capital efforts, while others are relying on guidance 
from headquarters or the Office of Personnel Management or developing 
their own guidance. Without a current, consistently implemented human 
capital plan that is aligned with its strategic plan, the Corpsï¿½ 
ability to effectively manage its workforce is limited. 

The Corps lacks the necessary agencywide information on critical skills 
to identify and assess current and future workforce needs and therefore 
cannot effectively perform its workforce planning activities. Effective 
workforce planning depends on consistent agencywide data on the 
critical skills needed to achieve the agencyï¿½s mission. However, the 
Corps does not have a process for collecting consistent agencywide 
data, and headquarters has not provided guidance to the divisions and 
districts on how to gather this information systematically. Without 
guidance, some divisions and districts have collected this information 
independently, using varying methods, leaving the Corps with 
inconsistent and incomplete data with which to assess the agencyï¿½s 
overall workforce needs. As a result, the Corpsï¿½ ability to determine 
effective approaches to recruiting, developing, and retaining personnel 
is limited. Realizing the need for consistent information on critical 
skills, the Corps recently began an effort to systematically collect 
these data. However, it is too early to assess the Corpsï¿½ progress on 
this effort. 

The Corps faces several challenges to its workforce planning efforts, 
such as competition from the private sector and others to hire 
qualified staff. To address these challenges, the Corps uses human 
capital tools such as recruitment and retention incentives. However, 
the Corpsï¿½ use of some tools has sharply decreased recently. For 
example, in fiscal year 2002 the Corps awarded $750,000 in recruitment 
bonuses, but in 2006 this dropped to $24,000. One official told GAO he 
has had to hire less qualified staff because he has been unable to 
offer sufficient incentives. Moreover, the Corps lacks a process for 
assessing the effectiveness of the tools it uses. Consequently, the 
Corps can neither determine the overall costs and benefits of using 
these tools nor decide whether additional methods are needed to 
recruit, develop, and retain its current and future workforce. 

What GAO Recommends: 

To help the Corps better manage its workforce planning efforts, GAO 
recommends that it (1) draft a human capital plan that is directly 
linked to its strategic plan and (2) develop and implement a process 
for evaluating the effectiveness of its human capital tools. In 
commenting on a draft of the report, the Department of Defense 
generally agreed with our recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-596]. For more 
information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected] 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

The Corps Lacks a Current Human Capital Plan to Guide Its Workforce 
Planning Efforts: 

The Corps Lacks the Necessary Agencywide Data on Critical Skills to 
Identify and Assess Its Workforce Needs: 

The Corps Faces Several Challenges in Carrying Out Its Workforce 
Planning Efforts: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Corps of Engineers: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Reports: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Examples of Human Capital Flexibilities Available to the 
Corps: 

Table 2: The Corps' Use of Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention 
Incentives, by Domestic Divisions and Districts, Fiscal Years 2002 
through 2006: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: The Corps' Civil Work Program's Division and District 
Boundaries: 

Abbreviations: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

OMBL: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

Corps: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

May 7, 2008: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable George V. Voinovich: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 
Workforce, and the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Finance: 
United States Senate: 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) within the Department of 
Defense (DOD) is the world's largest public engineering, design, and 
construction management agency. The Corps' mission is to provide vital 
engineering services and capabilities to support a wide range of 
federal civil works and military programs throughout the United States 
and to support U.S. efforts overseas.[Footnote 1] The civil works 
program includes activities related to, among other things, flood 
damage reduction, environmental stewardship, and ecosystem restoration, 
while the military program includes military construction, real estate 
management, and international and interagency services. In addition to 
its headquarters office in Washington, D.C., the Corps has 8 division 
offices and 41 district offices. In fiscal year 2007, the Corps' annual 
appropriation was about $33.6 billion (about $10.3 billion and $23.3 
billion for the civil works and military programs, respectively). To 
accomplish its work, the Corps relies on a workforce of over 35,000, 
which includes biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural 
resource managers, and other professionals. 

In addition to its historical mission, since the 1990s, the Corps' 
priorities have shifted to include an increased focus on supporting 
contingency operations, such as addressing terrorism and responding to 
natural disasters. This shift in priorities is placing new demands on 
the agency's workforce and is reflected in the Corps' most recent 
strategic plan--the 2005 Campaign Plan. This plan outlines the agency's 
strategic vision for the next 3 to 4 years.[Footnote 2] For example, 
the 2005 Campaign Plan identifies the following as the Corps key areas 
of focus: supporting stability, reconstruction, and homeland security 
operations; developing sound water resources solutions; and improving 
the reliability of water resources infrastructure using a risk-based 
asset management strategy. 

Strategic human capital planning--the method by which an agency designs 
a coherent framework of human capital policies, programs, and practices 
to achieve the vision outlined in its strategic plan--is an important 
component of an agency's overall planning effort because it helps 
ensure that an agency's workforce is adequate to meet its current and 
future needs. The development and implementation of a human capital 
plan is a key step in an agency's progress toward building a highly 
effective, performance-based organization that can recruit, hire, 
motivate, and reward a high-performing, top-quality workforce. Although 
the structure, content, and format of human capital plans vary by 
agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) cites certain common 
elements that an agency's human capital plan should include (1) a 
clearly understood strategic direction; (2) human capital goals; (3) 
strategies/objectives for accomplishing the goals; (4) an 
implementation plan; (5) a communication/change management plan, if 
needed, and (6) a system for measuring how successfully the strategies/ 
objectives have been implemented.[Footnote 3] Additionally, our 
previous work suggests that regardless of an agency's mission, its 
human capital management approach should include: 

* involving top management, employees, and other stakeholders in 
developing, communicating, and implementing a human capital plan; 

* determining the critical skills that will be needed to achieve future 
programmatic results; 

* developing strategies that are tailored to address gaps in critical 
skills that need attention; 

* building the capability needed to address administrative, 
educational, and other requirements important to support workforce 
strategies; and: 

* monitoring and evaluating the agency's progress toward its human 
capital goals and the contribution that human capital results have made 
toward achieving programmatic goals.[Footnote 4] 

In this context, you requested that we examine the (1) extent to which 
the Corps has aligned its human capital plan with its strategic plan, 
(2) extent to which the Corps has the information necessary to identify 
and meet its current and future workforce needs, and (3) challenges the 
Corps faces in meeting its workforce needs. This report is the third in 
a series of reports that you have requested on human capital challenges 
facing those key federal agencies that primarily rely on a scientific, 
technical, and engineering workforce. (See related GAO products at the 
end of this report.) 

To examine the alignment of the Corps' human capital plan with its 
strategic plan, we reviewed the Corps' human capital plan, strategic 
plans, and related policy and planning documents from its headquarters 
and division offices. We also reviewed prior GAO reports, Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) reports, and information from Corps 
strategic boards and committees. In addition, we interviewed human 
resources and program managers at the Corps' headquarters and 
divisions. To examine the extent to which the Corps has the information 
necessary to identify and meet current and future workforce needs, we 
reviewed human capital planning guidance from Corps headquarters, 
divisions, and districts. We also reviewed the Corps' human capital 
planning process and compared it with four key principles of effective 
human capital planning identified by GAO. In addition, we visited two 
Corps divisions and three Corps districts and interviewed agency 
officials at these locations to obtain information on their strategic 
human capital planning and initiatives. We used the information 
obtained from our visits to develop a structured interview administered 
to all of the Corps' eight divisions and to a purposeful sample of 14 
districts that perform domestic civil works functions for the 
agency.[Footnote 5] The structured interview covered, among other 
things, questions relating to the Corps' human capital initiatives, 
performance measures, critical skills, and challenges in meeting 
workforce needs. In addition, we reviewed documents obtained from the 
Corps' divisions and districts to corroborate information obtained 
during the structured interviews. We also analyzed the Corps' 
demographic and workforce data as well as data on its use of human 
capital incentives, such as recruitment and retention incentives. To 
determine the challenges the Corps faces in meeting its workforce 
needs, we interviewed human resources and program managers at Corps 
headquarters, the eight divisions, and the selected sample of 14 
districts. Appendix I contains a more detailed description of the scope 
and methodology for our review. We conducted this performance audit 
from March 2007 to April 2008 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

The Corps' strategic human capital plan is out of date and not aligned 
with the agency's most recent strategic plan. Although the human 
capital plan was aligned with the agency's strategic plan when both 
plans were developed in 2002, the human capital plan has not been 
revised since then to reflect the agency's current strategic plan, 
which changed significantly when it was redrafted in 2005. Corps 
headquarters officials told us that although they have not informed the 
rest of the agency, they have "abandoned" the use of the existing human 
capital plan. These officials told us that they have replaced the plan 
with annual and quarterly updates of human capital activities required 
by OPM under a recent presidential initiative. However, we found that 
these updates do not provide an adequate substitute for the agency's 
human capital plan because they do not contain any of the components of 
an effective plan, such as goals, strategies, and a system for 
measuring how successfully the strategies have been implemented. 
Moreover, the lack of a current human capital plan has resulted in 
human capital activities being managed inconsistently across the 
agency. For example, some division and district officials told us they 
are still using the 2002 human capital plan as a guide, and others said 
that because they receive limited guidance from headquarters, they are 
independently seeking information on recruitment and retention 
incentives from OPM or other sources. To help the Corps more 
effectively manage its human capital activities, we are recommending 
that it redraft its human capital plan so that the plan is linked to 
the agency's strategic plan and contains all the key components 
outlined by OPM. Moreover, we are recommending that once the plan is 
revised, the Corps distribute the revised plan and direct the divisions 
and districts to use the new plan to guide their human capital 
activities. 

The Corps lacks the necessary agencywide information on critical skills 
to identify and assess current and future workforce needs and therefore 
cannot effectively perform its workforce planning activities. Effective 
workforce planning requires consistent agencywide data on the critical 
skills needed to achieve current and future programmatic results. 
However, the Corps does not have a process for collecting comprehensive 
and consistent agencywide data, and headquarters has not provided 
guidance to the divisions and districts on how to gather this 
information systematically. In the absence of such guidance, some 
divisions and districts have independently gathered some of this 
information. However, we found that the data collection methods they 
used varied, leaving the Corps without the complete, reliable, and 
comparable data that it needs to assess the agency's overall workforce 
needs. Without this information, we believe that the Corps' ability to 
effectively identify and assess areas where it needs to enhance or 
modify its workforce recruitment, development, and retention strategies 
is significantly constrained. The Corps has recently recognized the 
need for a coordinated effort to collect information on the critical 
skills needed agencywide. In October 2007, it established a team to, 
among other things, identify (1) the future roles of the Corps, (2) the 
critical skills needed to support these roles, and (3) any critical 
skills gaps. The team plans to review various division and district 
efforts to collect critical skills data and determine how these efforts 
can be applied to develop a consistent agencywide data collection 
process. However, it is too early to evaluate the team's progress on 
this effort. 

The Corps' ability to maintain a workforce sufficient to accomplish its 
mission is being affected by three key challenges. According to 
division and district officials, these challenges include (1) intense 
competition from the private sector and other entities to hire the best 
talent; (2) the loss of staff to various contingency operations, such 
as Iraq and Afghanistan; and (3) the large number of employees who are 
eligible to retire. To help offset these challenges, Corps officials 
told us they are using various human capital tools, such as recruitment 
and retention bonuses, to recruit, develop, and retain employees, and 
are also relying on contractors to carry out the Corps' workload. 
However, we found that the Corps' use of some human capital tools, 
including recruitment bonuses, sharply declined from fiscal years 2002 
to 2006. For example, in 2002 the Corps awarded about $750,000 in 
recruitment bonuses, but this number fell to about $24,000 in fiscal 
year 2006. Some district officials with whom we spoke generally felt 
that the Corps should be more aggressive in its use of human capital 
authorities and flexibilities to address its human capital challenges. 
For example, one district official said that although his district 
tries to provide incentives to recruit experienced staff, it is often 
unable to because incentives first have to be approved by the 
district's Corporate Board. If the Corporate Board does not approve the 
use of the incentives requested, the district will have to hire less 
experienced staff instead of experienced scientists and engineers. 
Moreover, it is unclear whether the human capital tools that the Corps 
has used have been effective in meeting the agency's overall workforce 
needs. We found that while the Corps collects data on the extent to 
which various tools have been used by the divisions and districts, it 
has not developed a process to evaluate the effectiveness of the tools. 
For example, the Corps could not provide us with any information to 
demonstrate whether the use of recruitment bonuses has been effective 
in hiring and retaining staff in its divisions and districts. We 
believe that without such a process, the Corps cannot determine the 
overall costs and benefits of using various methods to recruit and 
retain employees, nor can it determine whether additional approaches 
are needed to develop and maintain its workforce for the future. To 
help the Corps better manage its workforce planning efforts, we are 
recommending that it develop and implement a process for evaluating the 
effectiveness of its human capital tools so that it can adjust their 
use, as necessary, to meet workforce needs. 

In its written comments on a draft of our report (reprinted in app. 
II), the Department of Defense generally agreed with our 
recommendations and agreed to update the Corps' human capital plan by 
January 2009. 

Background: 

The Corps is an agency in the DOD that has military and civilian 
responsibilities. The military program provides engineering, 
construction, and environmental management services to DOD agencies. 
Under its civil works program, at the direction of the Congress, the 
Corps plans, constructs, operates, and maintains a wide range of water 
resources projects. A military Chief of Engineers oversees the Corps' 
civil and military operations and reports on civil works matters to an 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Corps operates as 
a military organization with a largely civilian workforce (34,600 
civilian and 650 military personnel). The Corps is organized 
geographically into its headquarters, located in Washington, D.C; eight 
divisions across the country; and 41 subordinate districts throughout 
the United States, Asia, and Europe (see fig. 1).[Footnote 6] Corps 
headquarters creates policy and plans the future direction for the 
organization. The eight divisions coordinate the work carried out by 
the 41 districts, and individual projects are largely planned and 
implemented at the district level after they have been approved at the 
division and headquarters level. 

Figure 1: The Corps' Civil Work Program's Division and District 
Boundaries: 

This figure is a map of the Corps' Civil Work Program's division and 
district boundaries. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Corps of Engineers. 

[End of figure] 

To assist in its human capital planning efforts, in September 2002, the 
Corps issued a human capital planning document entitled The Strategic 
Management of Human Capital in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The 
human capital plan was focused on recruiting and retaining a world- 
class workforce, and in order for this to happen the Corps recognized 
that it needed to become a learning organization and develop leaders at 
all levels. The plan also documented the human capital challenges the 
Corps faced as well as past, current, and future responses to those 
challenges. The plan incorporated and was driven by, among other 
things, the agency's 2002 strategic plan, called the Campaign Plan, and 
its accompanying vision statement. In developing the human capital 
plan, the Corps incorporated the three strategic goals contained in the 
Campaign Plan: (1) people--being recognized for the technical and 
professional excellence of its world class workforce, functioning as 
teams delivering projects and services; (2) process--using the project 
management business process to operate as one Corps, regionally 
delivering quality goods and services; and (3) communication-- 
communicating effectively to build synergistic relationships that serve 
the nation. 

Each new incoming Commander of the Corps has the opportunity to redraft 
the strategic plan for the agency, which last occurred in June 2005. 
Specifically, the 2005 strategic plan incorporated the Corps' increased 
responsibilities for various contingency operations, such as Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and responding to natural disasters like Hurricane 
Katrina. The strategic plan also outlines the agency's responsibilities 
as outlined in the 2004 National Response Plan--responding to the 
Department of Homeland Security domestically, and to the U.S. Agency 
for International Development globally, for non-DOD contingency 
operations. Additionally, the 2005 strategic plan contained three new 
strategic goals not contained in the agency's 2002 strategic plan: (1) 
support stability, reconstruction, and homeland security operations; 
(2) develop sound water resources solutions; and (3) improve the 
reliability of water resources infrastructure using a risk-based asset 
management strategy. Because a new Commander for the Corps was 
appointed in 2007, the agency is in the process of redrafting its 
Campaign Plan to reflect the new Commander's strategic vision and 
priorities for the next 3 to 4 years. 

Finally, in 2004 the Corps began a new organization plan, called USACE 
2012, intended to streamline the agency's organizational structure and 
reduce redundancy among districts. USACE 2012 focuses on implementing 
the following four goals, called key concepts, to achieve 
organizational and cultural change: (1) establishing regional business 
centers, which foster divisions and districts working together as a 
regional unit; (2) creating regional integration teams, focused on the 
execution of the civil works and military programs mission; (3) 
establishing communities of practice, consisting of individuals who 
practice and share an interest in a major functional area or business 
line, for the purpose of developing and sharing best practices and 
fostering cross-functional and cross-divisional collaboration; and (4) 
developing national and regional support models designed to provide 
support services that effectively separate divisions' responsibilities 
from headquarters'. Before 2004, the eight divisions served largely as 
a conduit between headquarters and the district offices, and the 41 
districts, in turn, were each responsible for managing their own 
workforce to complete their projects. Under the new organizational 
structure, the eight divisions have greater responsibility for managing 
the workforce and workload of all of their component districts on a 
regional basis. According to Corps officials, USACE 2012 is part of a 
continuous improvement process to better meet its customers' and 
national needs. 

The Corps Lacks a Current Human Capital Plan to Guide Its Workforce 
Planning Efforts: 

The Corps' 2002 strategic human capital plan is out of date and not 
aligned with the agency's most recent strategic plan, developed in 
2005. Because the Corps lacks a current human capital plan, human 
capital activities are being managed inconsistently by division and 
district officials across the agency. In 2002, the Corps' human capital 
plan was designed to, among other things, improve the agency's ability 
to attract and retain a world class workforce and provide more accurate 
and objective ways to measure success.[Footnote 7] Also consistent with 
OPM's guidance on effective human capital planning, the 2002 human 
capital plan was aligned with the agency's 2002 strategic plan and its 
accompanying vision statement. For example, the 2002 strategic plan 
included "people" as one of its three strategic goals--that is, the 
Corps wanted to "be recognized for the technical and professional 
excellence of our world class workforce, functioning as teams 
delivering projects and services."[Footnote 8] The people goal 
contained three major objectives--attract and retain a world-class 
workforce, create a learning organization, and develop leaders at all 
levels--and strategies for each of them. Each objective and strategy, 
along with an implementation plan, was addressed in the agency's human 
capital plan. 

However, the human capital plan has not been revised since 2002 to 
reflect the Corps' new strategic direction as outlined in the agency's 
most current strategic plan, developed in June 2005, and other recent 
events.[Footnote 9] For example, the 2005 strategic plan does not 
contain a strategic goal related to people. It does, however, contain 
three additional strategic goals that are not reflected in the 2002 
human capital plan: (1) support stability, reconstruction, and homeland 
security operations; (2) develop sound water resources solutions; and 
(3) improve the reliability of water resources infrastructure using a 
risk-based asset management strategy. Moreover, because the human 
capital plan has not been revised, it does not reflect events that have 
taken place since 2002 that have had a significant impact on the 
agency's human capital needs, such as the agency's increased focus on 
supporting contingency operations and its new responsibilities outlined 
in the 2004 National Response Plan.[Footnote 10] For example, since the 
1990s, the Corps has been called upon more frequently to take part in 
contingency operations at home and abroad--such as responding to 
natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. Similarly, under the National 
Response Plan, the Corps provides support as both a primary agency and 
a coordinating agency for emergency and support functions outlined in 
the plan. We found that the relevance of the Corps' outdated human 
capital plan will become further diminished in the near future because 
the agency is beginning the process of updating its 2005 strategic plan 
to reflect the new strategic direction of the incoming Commander of the 
Corps. 

According to Corps officials, although this has not been communicated 
agencywide, headquarters has "abandoned" the use of the outdated 2002 
human capital plan, replacing it with annual and quarterly updates of 
human capital activities required by OPM under the President's 2002 
Management Agenda. Officials in the Corps' Office of Human Resources 
told us that the Corps does not have the staff and resources to both 
update its human capital plan and provide the updates to OPM. The 
President's Management Agenda established governmentwide initiatives 
designed to improve the management and performance of the federal 
government in five areas, including strategic management of human 
capital. OPM was designated the lead agency for overseeing the human 
capital initiative, and federal agencies were to identify human capital 
activities they planned to undertake and to provide quarterly and 
annual updates on these activities to OPM. For example, to fulfill its 
annual reporting requirements to OPM, the Corps provides a list of 
completed human capital activities, such as "Community of Practice 
Conference Workshop held," and activities to be undertaken, such as 
"Identify Fiscal Year 2008 Intern Requirements." However, we found that 
these updates are not an adequate substitute for the Corps' human 
capital plan because they do not represent a coherent framework of the 
agency's human capital policies, programs, and practices, and they do 
not include any of the components of an effective human capital plan, 
such as goals, strategies, and a system for measuring how successfully 
the strategies have been implemented. 

The lack of a current human capital plan has also led to inconsistent 
approaches in how divisions and districts are managing human capital 
activities for the agency. For example, some division and district 
officials told us that they are still using the 2002 human capital plan 
to guide their activities; others said they relied instead on guidance 
they receive from headquarters. Still others said that because they 
receive limited guidance from headquarters on developing human capital 
goals and objectives, they have to independently develop strategies as 
best they can. For example, one district told us that it had developed 
its own informal succession plan in 2004 that it updates continually. 
The plan assesses all of the district's ongoing missions as well as the 
strategies for recruiting, developing, and retaining the technical 
skills needed to carry out the district's mission. Finally, some 
districts said they relied on information they receive from the 
divisions, and others told us that they rely on information on human 
capital flexibilities obtained from an OPM handbook to assist with 
human capital planning.[Footnote 11] 

The Corps Lacks the Necessary Agencywide Data on Critical Skills to 
Identify and Assess Its Workforce Needs: 

The Corps does not have comprehensive agencywide data on critical 
skills to identify and assess current and future workforce needs. As a 
result, the Corps cannot effectively identify gaps in its workforce 
needs and determine how to modify its workforce planning approaches to 
fill these gaps. Effective workforce planning requires consistent 
agencywide data on the critical skills needed to achieve current and 
future programmatic results. However, the Corps does not have a process 
for collecting comprehensive and consistent agencywide data, and 
headquarters has not provided guidance to its divisions and districts 
on how to collect this information. More specifically, according to 
Corps officials, while the agency collects critical skills data on its 
current workforce needs through the Army's Workforce Analysis Support 
System database, this database does not allow the Corps to capture 
information on the agency's future workforce needs. In the absence of 
such a process, some Corps divisions and districts have independently 
collected their own data on workforce needs; however, we found that 
those divisions and districts that have collected data on critical 
skills have used various methods to do so. For example, some division 
and district officials told us that they assessed their current 
workforce at the division level to determine their critical skills. 
Others stated that they conducted a gap analysis to identify critical 
skills needs. Because these data on both the agency's current and 
future workforce needs have not been systematically collected, a 
meaningful comparison of the data across divisions to assess the 
agency's overall needs is not possible. Consequently, we believe that 
the lack of this information hampers the Corps' ability to develop 
effective approaches to recruiting, developing, and retaining 
personnel. 

Obtaining comprehensive and consistent agencywide data on critical 
skills needs has become even more important since the Corps began to 
restructure its organization in 2004. One of the primary goals of the 
restructuring is to streamline the organization to more effectively 
share Corps resources. Under the previous organizational structure, 
headquarters generally sets policy, divisions communicated policy to 
the districts, and the districts were responsible for managing their 
workforce and workload. Districts' workforce management activities 
included hiring staff and contracting work out. In addition, according 
to Corps officials, while some districts interacted to share resources, 
others did not. Under the new structure, which continues to evolve, the 
workforce and workload management functions have shifted to the 
divisions. Under the new structure the Corps would like to enable the 
divisions, with input from their districts, to more efficiently meet 
the workforce needs across the division by sharing human capital 
resources, such as biologists and engineers, among the districts. 
According to the Corps, this approach should also foster information 
and resource sharing among the eight divisions. For example, officials 
in one district told us that when their work dries up, under the new 
organizational concept the district can get work from other districts, 
or staff can be reassigned or shared with other districts or divisions. 
However, it is unclear to us how the goals of this new structure can be 
realized if the Corps' divisions and districts do not have consistent 
agencywide data to enable them to identify the units that have the 
critical skills that other organizational units are seeking. 

The Corps has recently recognized the need to establish a process for 
collecting comprehensive and consistent agencywide information on 
critical skills. In June 2007, the Corps initiated a National Technical 
Competency Strategy to, among other things, identify (1) the future 
roles of the Corps, (2) the critical skills needed to support these 
roles, and (3) any critical skills gaps. In October 2007, the Corps 
established a National Technical Competency Team to implement the 
strategy through coordination with Corps senior leadership. The team is 
charged with reviewing prior and current division and district 
initiatives to collect data on the agency's technical skill needs and 
capabilities and identifying ways to unify and integrate these 
initiatives to minimize redundancy. However, it is too early to 
evaluate the Corps' overall progress on this effort. 

The Corps Faces Several Challenges in Carrying Out Its Workforce 
Planning Efforts: 

A number of human capital challenges, including strong competition from 
other employers to hire the most talented potential employees, are 
affecting the Corps' ability to attract and retain a qualified 
workforce, according to Corps officials. Although various human capital 
tools to help attract and retain a high-quality workforce are available 
to the Corps under federal personnel law, the agency's use of several 
financial incentives has sharply declined in the last 5 years. 
Moreover, the Corps does not have a process in place to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the human capital tools it has used, so while the 
agency can provide information on the extent to which it has used 
various tools, it cannot assess their effectiveness in meeting 
workforce needs. 

Officials Cited Several Factors Affecting the Corps' Ability to 
Maintain a Qualified Workforce: 

According to Corps headquarters, division, and district officials, a 
number of human capital challenges are undermining their efforts to 
balance the Corps' workforce with its workload. These challenges 
include (1) competition from the private sector and other entities, (2) 
the loss of staff to various contingency operations, and (3) the large 
number of retirement-eligible employees. First, Corps officials told us 
that competition from the private sector and other entities, such as 
state and local governments, greatly affects their ability to recruit 
and retain a qualified workforce. For example, in certain locations, 
such as Los Angeles, it can be difficult to fill engineering positions 
because the cost of living is high and the Corps has to compete with 
private firms, the city, and the county, which can pay more than the 
agency for qualified personnel. Similarly, officials told us that in 
one of the states where the Corps operates, the state government 
recently increased the salaries of engineers to a level that is 
difficult for the Corps to match, thereby making it harder for the 
Corps to effectively recruit and retain engineers in that labor market. 
In addition, Corps officials told us that the overall state of the 
economy also affects the agency's ability to compete with others for 
qualified individuals. They told us that when the economy is doing well 
it is harder for the Corps to compete with other employers. 

Second, the Corps is also challenged by the vacancies created by 
employee deployments for contingency operations, such as war and 
natural disasters, which since the 1990s have increasingly become a 
focus for the Corps. For example, Corps officials told us that since 
March 2004 about 4,000 employees have been deployed to support Iraq and 
Afghanistan operations, and since August 2005 an additional 9,000 have 
been deployed to help with efforts to address the effects of Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita. Corps officials in one division told us that they are 
running out of volunteers to support the Gulf Regions--with some 
employees having served up to three tours in these areas. In some 
cases, the Corps calls upon its remaining employees to perform dual 
roles, a situation that stresses the workforce and could put the Corps 
at risk of not being able to perform its mission. In addition, Corps 
officials told us the agency uses contractors to fill some of the gaps 
caused by these staff losses. The Corps also relies heavily upon its 
reemployed annuitant cadre to fill vacancies created by such 
deployments. At the same time, Corps officials stated that while 
vacancies created by deployments and volunteer assignments are a 
challenge, they also offer opportunities--that is, the employees who 
take over the deployed employees' responsibilities gain experience in 
new areas. Moreover, deployed employees learn from their experiences, 
adding value to the Corps. 

Finally, Corps officials told us that the increasing number of 
retirement-eligible employees is a challenge to planning for its future 
workforce. As we have previously reported, the federal government is 
confronting a retirement wave and with it the loss of leadership and 
institutional knowledge at all levels.[Footnote 12] If large numbers of 
employees retire over a relatively short period and agencies are not 
effective in replacing them with the appropriate number of employees 
possessing the needed skills, the resulting loss of institutional 
knowledge and expertise could adversely affect mission 
achievement.[Footnote 13] According to the Corps, in fiscal year 2006, 
approximately 23 percent of the agency's workforce was eligible to 
retire, although on average, Corps employees retire 5.75 years after 
they are eligible. Corps officials told us that the agency works with 
retirement-eligible employees to provide them with interesting work to 
delay their departure. For example, the Corps allows retirement- 
eligible employees to work on projects in which they have a special 
interest, or if the employees are willing, the Corps may deploy them to 
other locations, such as Iraq, for more interesting work in the hope 
that this will persuade them to stay on with the agency. 

The Corps Uses Some Tools to Offset Its Human Capital Challenges but 
Lacks a Process for Evaluating Their Effectiveness: 

The Corps uses various hiring authorities and human capital 
flexibilities to offset its human capital challenges.[Footnote 14] Some 
examples of the hiring authorities used by the agency include: 

* The Federal Career Intern Program--under this hiring authority the 
Corps hired 621 interns from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2006. 
Most interns are hired for 18 to 24 months, typically entering the 
program at entry-level salaries. At the end of the program, interns are 
guaranteed a full-time position if they agree to sign a mobility 
agreement.[Footnote 15] Corps officials told us that interns are a 
major component of the Corps' recruiting efforts because the agency can 
easily convert interns to full-time employees. They also told us that 
they primarily concentrate their intern recruitment efforts in the 
engineering and scientific specialties, which constitute approximately 
90 percent of their intern hiring efforts. Further, according to these 
officials, interns typically realize the benefits of working for the 
Corps during their internships and tend to stay with the agency. 

* Reemployed Annuitant Office Cadre Program--under this authority the 
Corps rehires former federal employees to supplement its workforce, as 
needed. The Corps established this program in response to its declining 
workforce, increased responsibilities for various contingency 
operations, and the high number of retirement-eligible employees. Among 
other things, the Corps uses these employees to fill positions needing 
specialized skills or to supplement staff to complete specific projects 
in a timely manner. 

* Student Career Experience Program and the Student Temporary 
Employment Program--under these authorities the Corps can hire 
applicants currently enrolled in high school, college, a university, or 
a technical or vocational school. Students hired through the Student 
Career Experience Program must be enrolled in a specific educational 
discipline that meets the requirements for the position and are 
eligible for conversion to permanent employees. Students hired through 
the Student Temporary Program are not required to be in educational 
disciplines that match the work the student is performing, and their 
appointments are limited to 1 year that can be extended until the 
completion of their educational requirements. 

* The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998--under this 
authority the Corps can hire applicants that have preference 
eligibility or substantially completed 3 or more years of active 
service, in addition to having received an honorable or general 
military discharge or were released under honorable conditions shortly 
before completing a 3-year tour of duty. 

One district also told us that it has an affirmative employment plan 
that includes outreach to various colleges and universities to attract 
qualified applicants from diverse backgrounds. Under the plan, the 
district participates in various conferences, such as the Hispanic 
Engineer National Achievement Awards Conference and the Black 
Engineering Conference. As a result of its affirmative employment plan, 
according to district officials, the district has increased the quality 
and diversity of its workforce. 

The Corps also uses a variety of human capital flexibilities to 
maintain its workforce as shown in table 1. According to Corps 
officials, some of these flexibilities are helpful to their recruiting 
efforts in areas where the cost of living is high, such as San 
Francisco. In such locations, the Corps uses such tools as recruitment 
and retention bonuses as an incentive for employees to work there. 
Corps officials also cited other tools they use to attract and retain a 
qualified staff, including paying for employees to obtain advanced 
degrees; providing long-term training; and providing a family-friendly 
workplace that allows flex-time, telecommuting, or alternative work 
schedules. 

Table 1: Examples of Human Capital Flexibilities Available to the 
Corps: 

Category: Hiring and retention incentives; 
Human capital flexibilities: * Recruitment bonuses; 
* Relocation bonuses; 
* Retention allowances; 
* Student loan repayments. 

Category: Other compensation; 
Human capital flexibilities: * Flexible spending accounts that allow 
employees to set aside funds for expenses related to health care and 
care for dependents; 
* Professional credential reimbursement program; 
* Transit and parking subsidy programs. 

Category: Enhanced work environment; 
Human capital flexibilities: * Business casual dress policy; 
* Alternative work schedules: flexible work schedules and compressed 
schedules; 
* Telework; 
* On-site child care and fitness centers. 

Source: GAO analysis of Corps documents. 

[End of table] 

While the Corps has a number of flexibilities available to help in its 
recruiting and retention efforts, we found that the use of these 
flexibilities has sharply declined in recent years. For example, 
although the Corps awarded approximately $2.5 million in recruitment, 
relocation, and retention bonuses during fiscal years 2002 through 
2006, the amount it devoted annually to recruitment bonuses decreased 
almost 97 percent during that time--from about $750,000 in fiscal year 
2002 to about $24,000 in fiscal year 2006. Moreover, the total amount 
the Corps spent annually on recruitment, relocation, and retention 
decreased 75 percent from fiscal year 2002 to 2006--from about $800,000 
to about $198,000. (See table 2.) This trend is inconsistent with the 
concerns Corps officials have cited about the growing impact of human 
capital challenges on the Corps' workforce over the past 6 years. 
Moreover, district officials with whom we spoke generally felt that the 
Corps should be more aggressive in its use of human capital authorities 
and flexibilities to address its human capital challenges. More 
specifically, some officials said that increasing the agency's use of 
recruitment, relocation, and retention bonuses would increase the 
agency's ability to attract and retain a qualified workforce. For 
example, according to one district official, although his district 
tries to provide incentives to recruit qualified staff, the incentives 
have to first be approved by the district's Corporate Board.[Footnote 
16] Oftentimes if this approval is not received, he has had trouble 
hiring experienced scientists and engineers and has had to hire less 
experienced staff instead. In addition, some officials told us that 
increasing the use of the various student intern and career experience 
programs would also help recruit qualified people in a shrinking labor 
pool. Further, these officials suggested establishing or increasing 
early outreach to students and schools, in addition to the Corps' 
college recruiting initiatives, as a way to increase students' interest 
in careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--as 
well as a career with the Corps. 

Table 2: The Corps' Use of Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention 
Incentives, by Domestic Divisions and Districts, Fiscal Years 2002 
through 2006: 

Incentive: Recruitment; 
2002: $754,679; 
2003: $458,993; 
2004: $291,238; 
2005: $79,014; 
2006: $24,258; 
Total: $1,608,182. 

Incentive: Relocation; 
2002: 54,112; 
2003: 64,664; 
2004: 32,999; 
2005: 59,634; 
2006: 79,535; 
Total: 290,944. 

Incentive: Retention; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 89,503; 
2004: 296,452; 
2005: 181,704; 
2006: 93,974; 
Total: 661,633. 

Incentive: Total; 
2002: $808,791; 
2003: $613,160; 
2004: $620,689; 
2005: $320,353; 
2006: $197,767; 
Total: $2,560,759. 

Source: GAO analysis of Corps of Engineers Financial Management System 
data. 

[End of table] 

In addition to the use of human capital tools discussed above, the 
Corps also has the ability to outsource portions of its workload to 
private sector organizations and other entities. More specifically, the 
Corps has a goal of contracting out 30 percent of the planning and 
design aspects of its civil works projects, allowing the agency to meet 
its workload needs without having to hire additional staff to fill gaps 
in its workforce. Corps officials told us that they use this option 
when they do not have the staff or skill sets to assign to a particular 
project. On the other hand, according to one Corps official, although 
approximately 40 percent of the Corps' engineering work is done in- 
house, that number may be declining. This official said that the 
practice of "contracting out for the sake of contracting out" makes it 
difficult to bring people into the Corps because engineers do not want 
to review the work of contractors--they would rather do the work 
themselves. The official stated that the Corps needs to find the right 
balance between in-house and contract work. 

Finally, while the Corps tracks the extent to which it uses certain 
human capital tools, it has not developed a process to systematically 
evaluate their effectiveness. For example, the Corps tracks and can 
provide information on its use of recruitment and retention bonuses, 
but it does not have a process for assessing the extent to which such 
monetary flexibilities are effective in helping recruit and retain a 
qualified staff. Consequently, the Corps could not provide us with 
information on the extent to which its use of various tools and 
flexibilities, such as retention bonuses, has been effective in meeting 
its workforce needs. Without a process to evaluate the effectiveness of 
its human capital tools, it is unclear how the Corps can determine the 
overall costs and benefits of the various methods it is using to 
recruit and retain employees and whether certain tools are being under- 
or overused. 

Conclusions: 

An agency's human capital plan is the key to its progress toward 
building a highly effective organization that can recruit, hire, 
motivate, and reward a top-quality workforce. Although the structure, 
content, and format of human capital plans may vary by agency, human 
capital plans should clearly reflect the agency's strategic direction. 
However, this is not the case with the Corps because it does not have a 
current human capital plan that is aligned with its strategic plan. 
Without such a human capital plan, the agency not only is limited in 
strategically managing its workforce efforts but also is not providing 
clear guidance to all of its organizational levels on how they are to 
effectively and consistently carry out their human capital 
responsibilities. Further, the Corps' lack of comprehensive and 
consistent agencywide data on critical skills undermines its ability to 
identify and assess current and future workforce needs. It remains to 
be seen whether the Corps' recently begun effort to develop a process 
to collect such information will be successful. Finally, although the 
Corps uses a number of human capital tools to address the challenges it 
faces, such as an aging workforce and competition from the private 
sector for qualified applicants, it lacks a process to assess the 
effectiveness of these tools. Without such a process, the Corps has no 
way to determine either the overall costs and benefits of the tools it 
uses to recruit and retain employees or whether additional approaches 
are needed to develop and maintain its workforce for the future. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To help the Corps better manage its workforce planning efforts, we are 
recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Commanding 
General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 
take the following three actions: 

* Develop a human capital plan that is directly linked to the Corps' 
current strategic plan and that contains all the key components of an 
effective plan as outlined by the Office of Personnel Management. 

* Distribute the revised plan agencywide and direct the divisions and 
districts to use it to guide their human capital activities. 

* Develop and implement a process for determining the effectiveness of 
the human capital tools the Corps is using so that it can adjust their 
use, as necessary, to meet workforce needs. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of Defense 
for review and comment. The Department generally concurred with our 
recommendations. Specifically, the Department concurred with our 
recommendation that the Corps develop a human capital plan that is 
directly linked to the Corps' current strategic plan and that contains 
all the key components of an effective plan as outlined by OPM. The 
Department stated that it will conduct an Enterprise Human Resources 
Strategy Summit on July 9 - 11, 2008, with stakeholders to obtain input 
that will be used to update the Corps' human capital plan. The 
Department stated that it expects to finalize the Corps human capital 
plan by January 2009. The Department also agreed with our 
recommendation to distribute the revised human capital plan to the 
Corps' divisions and districts, stating that it would do so with the 
appropriate guidance within 30 days of the plan being finalized. 
Finally, the Department concurred with our recommendation that the 
Corps develop and implement a process for determining the effectiveness 
of its human capital tools so that it can adjust their use, as 
necessary, to meet workforce needs. The Department stated that metrics 
for determining the effectiveness of the human capital tools used by 
the Corps will be identified and included in the agency's updated human 
capital plan. 

The Department also provided additional information regarding various 
human capital actions and initiatives mentioned in our report. The full 
text of the Department's comments can be found in appendix II as well 
as our response to these comments. Of particular note is the 
Department's comment that since 2005, the Corps has been rated "green" 
in status and "green" in progress on the Human Capital Scorecard by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). According to the Department, the 
Corps' human capital initiatives received such a rating only after 
rigorous scrutiny of OMB and OPM. We are aware that the Corps has been 
rated "green" for its human capital initiative updates, however, as we 
state in the report, these updates do not provide an adequate 
substitute for the agency's human capital plan because they do not 
include any of the components of an effective plan, such as goals, 
strategies, and a system for measuring how successfully strategies have 
been implemented. Consequently, they do not represent a comprehensive 
framework of the agency's human capital policies, programs, and 
practices needed to assist the Corps in achieving its mission. 
Additionally, the Department stated that the report placed undue weight 
on feedback from a small number of respondents. We disagree with the 
Department's characterization. We contacted officials in all eight 
Corps division offices and a third of all the Corps district offices, 
and reported on those experiences and opinions with which these 
officials generally concurred. For example, the report states that 
district officials with whom we spoke generally felt that the Corps 
should be more aggressive in its use of human capital authorities and 
flexibilities. The individual examples cited throughout the report were 
used to provide more clarification on the specific types of concerns 
and situations being faced by the district officials. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the 
Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested 
parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site 
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841 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 contributions to this 
report are listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Anu K. Mittal: 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

We were asked to examine the (1) extent to which the Corps has aligned 
its human capital plan with its strategic plan, (2) extent to which the 
Corps has the information necessary to identify and meet current and 
future workforce needs, and (3) challenges the Corps faces in meeting 
its workforce needs. 

To assess the alignment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' human 
capital plan with its strategic plan, we analyzed and reviewed a broad 
range of Corps policy and planning documents from headquarters and 
divisions. Specifically, we examined information on the Corps' 
operations and strategic planning efforts, such as the Corps' 2002 
Strategic Human Capital Plan, the Integrated Strategic Plan, Campaign 
Plans, related headquarters and division documents, and the USACE 2012 
regionalization plan. We also reviewed information from Corps strategic 
boards and committees, the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Human 
Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework, and our relevant 
reports. We corroborated information provided in these documents 
through interviews with human resources managers and program managers 
at Corps headquarters, divisions, and districts. We also interviewed 
cognizant community of practice program leaders in real estate, 
contracting, planning, research and development, operations and 
regulations, resource management, strategic integrations, human 
resources, program and project management, logistics, environment, and 
engineering and construction. 

To assess the extent to which the Corps is collecting the information 
necessary to meet current and future workforce needs, we visited and 
interviewed Corps officials at two divisions (the North Atlantic and 
South Pacific divisions) and three districts (New York, San Francisco, 
and Sacramento) to obtain information about their strategic workforce 
planning strategies and their human capital initiatives related to 
recruitment, development, and retention of staff. We used the 
information obtained from the visits to develop a structured interview 
that we administered to the Corps' eight divisions and a purposeful 
sample of 14 of the Corps' 38 districts that conduct work in the United 
States. We selected 2 districts from each division to include in our 
interviews, with the exception of Pacific Ocean Division, where we 
interviewed only the division staff. Our site selections were based on 
(1) number of scientists and engineers, (2) overall full-time 
equivalent employees, (3) budget size, and (4) geographic location. 
Although the information from our sample of districts is not 
generalizable to all districts within a division, our interviews cover 
human capital issues at locations representing nearly half (46 percent) 
of Corps scientist and engineering staff, and represent issues at 
locations with diverse staff sizes, budget sizes, and geographic 
locations. We did not include districts in the Pacific Ocean Division 
because 2 of the districts are outside the United States, and the human 
capital challenges at the domestic districts--Alaska and Honolulu-- 
would likely be unique to labor force demographics at these locations. 
Additionally, because there are only 2 districts within the Pacific 
Ocean Division that perform work in the United States, the division is 
likely more aware of the districts' activities compared to those other 
divisions that are responsible for more districts. The 14 districts 
selected were Huntington, Louisville, St. Louis, Vicksburg, New 
England, New York, Omaha, Walla Walla, Jacksonville, Mobile, 
Albuquerque, Los Angeles, Fort Worth, and Little Rock. Although the New 
Orleans District was originally selected based on our criteria, we 
chose St. Louis as a replacement because of other ongoing audit work at 
the site, and the Corps' heavy workload related to Hurricane Katrina 
reconstruction efforts. We interviewed managers identified by the 
District Deputy Commander responsible for strategic human capital 
planning and human resources-related issues. The structured interview 
covered, among other things, human capital initiatives, performance 
measures, critical skills, and challenges to meeting workforce needs. 
To reduce nonsampling errors,[Footnote 17] we conducted pretests with 
respondents from two divisions and 3 districts to ensure that questions 
were interpreted in a consistent manner and we revised the questions on 
the basis of the pretest results. We also reviewed division and 
district documents on recruitment, training and development, and 
retention to corroborate information discussed during the interviews. 

To determine the challenges the Corps faces in meeting its workforce 
needs, we included open-ended questions about challenges the Corps 
faces in meeting its workforce and program needs in our structured 
interviews and interviewed community of practice program leaders at 
Corps headquarters. We conducted a content analysis of interview 
responses for which general themes were developed and then 
independently coded. Coding discrepancies were reviewed, and if 
necessary, arbitrated by a third party until agreement statistics 
reached 100 percent. The content codes and other interview data were 
analyzed to develop general statistics on human capital issues across 
the divisions and districts. 

In addition, we analyzed data obtained from Army's Workforce Analysis 
Support System for information on the Corps' workforce and the Corps of 
Engineers Financial Management System for information on the Corps use 
of recruitment, retention, and relocation allowances as well as 
expenditures for training and development activities. To assess the 
reliability of the data needed to answer the engagement objectives, we 
checked these data for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, 
reviewed existing information about these data and the system that 
produced them, and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the 
data. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of this report. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2007 to April 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Corps of Engineers: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix. 

Department Of The Army: 
Office Of The Assistant Secretary: 
Civil Works: 
108 Army Pentagon: 
Washington DC 20310-0108: 

May 31, 2008: 

Ms. Anu Mittal: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. General Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W.: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Mittal: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft 
Report, GAO-08-596, `Human Capital: Corps of Engineers Needs to Update 
Its Workforce Planning Process to More Effectively Address Its Current 
and Future Workforce Needs,' dated April 18, 2008 (GAO Code 360805). 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
report. We generally concur with the three recommendations that the 
Corps develop a human capital plan that is directly linked to the Corps 
current strategic plan; distribute the revised plan agency wide; and 
develop and implement a process for determining the effectiveness of 
the human capital tools we use. We do, however, wish to offer some 
additional comments regarding the findings in the report. 

The Corps has been rated "green" in status and "green" in progress on 
the Human Capital Scorecard by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) since 2005. In order to achieve this rating, our human capital 
initiatives passed rigorous scrutiny of OMB and the Office of Personnel 
Management. In addition, the Corps has played a vital role in the 
Global War on Terrorism by establishing and continuing to staff a 
district office in Afghanistan and a division office in Iraq. We also 
responded to Hurricane Katrina while continuing to fulfill our ongoing 
missions. These accomplishments reflect that our human capital plans 
and actions are linked to the key strategic goals of the Corps and 
demonstrate that we have the capability to respond to the challenges 
ahead. 

(See comment 1.): 

While we respect the methodology used in deriving some of the 
conclusions shown in the GAO draft report, we are concerned that undue 
weight may have been placed on feedback from a small number of 
respondents. For instance, the draft report cites one district official 
who said his district is often unable to provide incentives to recruit 
experienced staff because it has to be approved by the agency's 
Corporate Board (page 6 of the draft report). While districts and 
divisions may have established internal boards to approve use of 
recruitment incentives, there is no agency wide corporate board that 
restricts the use of recruitment incentives. Additionally, the Corps 
has many outreach programs to high schools, colleges and universities, 
even though the draft report cites some officials who imply that these 
programs are not currently in existence (page 20 of the draft report). 

(See comment 2.): 

The draft report references the Corps Campaign Plan of 2005 that 
includes three goals: 1) support stability, reconstruction and homeland 
security operations, 2) develop sound water resources solutions, and 3) 
enhance life-cycle infrastructure management. The report further 
suggests that the Campaign Plan does not address human capital; 
however, the Campaign Plan does include "enablers" of a capable 
workforce and learning organization. These enablers are key 
capabilities that must be addressed in order to reach the goals of the 
Campaign Plan. They have been evaluated and reported on each quarter 
through the Corps Command Management Reviews and evaluated in its 
frequent Command Strategic Reviews. We agree that this method did not 
fully meet the requirements expected of a full human capital plan as 
envisioned by the draft report, but it does demonstrate that the Corps 
focus on human capital has been present continuously since 2002. 

(See comment 3.): 

The draft report also does not mention the current effort to refresh 
the Army Corps of Engineers Campaign Plan, which will be published 
soon. It contains four goals, one of which is to "Build and cultivate a 
competent, disciplined, and resilient team equipped to deliver high 
quality solutions." Two of the objectives in this goal are to 1) 
identify, develop, maintain, and strengthen technical competencies, and 
2) establish tools and systems that enable assignment to the right 
jobs. An objective in another goal is to establish human resources and 
family support programs that promote readiness and quality of life. It 
should be noted that Corps efforts in civilian deployment and family 
readiness programs are leading the way in the Army and DoD. 

(See comment 4.): 

We recognize the importance of having data on critical skills to 
identify and assess current and future workforce needs. As mentioned in 
the report, the Corps established the National Technical Competency 
Team (NTCT) in 2007. The NTCT is moving forward to identify future 
Corps missions, roles and methods of delivery, determine competencies 
and level of technical capabilities to support these future roles, and 
identify gaps between current and future capability requirements. The 
team has completed an in-house workshop on technical competencies at 
the Major Subordinate Command (MSC) staff level; completed a 
Communities of Practice survey and is currently assessing the results; 
completed the technical competency library for the Army Competency 
Management System (CMS); and issued an Engineer and Construction 
Bulletin on recruitment incentives jointly with the Directorate of 
Human Resources. Again, we believe these ongoing initiatives will 
provide the capability we need to effectively address our current and 
future workforce needs and will be incorporated into our Enterprise 
Human Capital Strategy. 

While the human capital plan itself has not been updated since 2002, 
the Corps has taken a number of actions to ensure alignment with the 
current strategic plan. Changes in the strategic plan that impacted 
human capital management were incorporated into our Proud to Be Goals 
which were required under the President's Management Agenda. In 
addition, the appendices to our human capital plan were updated 
annually, including workforce trends and analysis. This approach 
enabled us to streamline our set of human capital tools and make the 
most efficient use of limited resources. Additionally, as noted in the 
enclosure, we are planning an Enterprise Human Resources Strategy 
Summit in July to identify human capital issues and solutions, gather 
lessons learned, benchmark best practices, and begin the preparation of 
a refreshed Human Capital Plan, which is expected to be in place by 
January 2009. 

Responses to the GAO recommendations are enclosed. 

Very truly yours,

Signed by: 

John Paul Woodley, Jr.: 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works): 
Enclosure: 

GAO Draft Report Dated April 18, 2008 GAO-08-596 (GAO CODE 360805) 

"Human Capital: Corps Of Engineers Needs To Update Its Workforce 
Planning Process To More Effectively Address Its Current And Future 
Workforce Needs" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:  

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to develop a human capital plan that is directly 
linked to the Corps' current strategic plan and that contains all the 
key components of an effective plan as outlined by the Office of 
Personnel Management. (p. 22/GAO Draft Report) 

DOD Response: Concur. We will conduct an Enterprise Human Resources 
Strategy Summit on July 9-11, 2008 with our stakeholders to obtain 
input to update our human capital plan. We expect to finalize our human 
capital plan by January 2009. It is important to note that the Corps 
has been rated "green" in status and "green" in progress on the Human 
Capital Scorecard by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) since 
2005. In order to obtain this rating our human capital initiatives 
received the rigorous scrutiny of OMB and the Office of Personnel 
Management. In addition, the Corps has played a vital role in the 
Global War on Terrorism by establishing and sustaining a district 
office in Afghanistan and a division office in Iraq for five plus 
years. We believe these accomplishments reflect that our human capital 
planning is linked to the strategic plan of the organization and 
demonstrate that we have the capability to respond to the challenges 
ahead. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to distribute the revised plan agencywide and direct 
the divisions and districts to use it to guide their human capital 
activities. (p. 22/GAO Draft Report) 

DOD Response: Concur. Once the revised plan is finalized it will be 
distributed within 30 days of completion to our divisions and districts 
with the appropriate guidance. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to develop and implement a process for determining 
the effectiveness of the human capital tools the Corps is using so that 
it can adjust their use, as necessary, to meet workforce needs. (p. 
22/GAO Draft Report) 

DOD Response: Concur. Metrics for determining the effectiveness of the 
human capital tools being used will be identified in our updated human 
capital plan which will be completed by January 2009.
Attachment

The following are GAO's comments to the additional information included 
in the Department of Defense's letter dated May 1, 2008. 

GAO Comments: 

We are aware that the Corps human capital initiative updates have 
received a "green" status from OPM and OMB. However, as the report 
states these updates to OPM do not contain any of the components of an 
effective human capital plan and they do not represent a comprehensive 
framework for the agency's human capital policies, programs, and 
practices. We made no modifications to the report in response to this 
comment. 

We disagree with the Department's characterization of our report. We 
contacted officials in all of the Corps 8 division offices and 14 of 
its district offices, and presented those issues and concerns that were 
generally agreed on by these officials. The examples cited throughout 
the report were used to provide more specifics as to the type of 
concerns expressed by district officials and were not all inclusive of 
the comments received. We made no changes to the report in response to 
this comment, however we have clarified that the Corporate Board 
referred to by the district official was not an agencywide Corporate 
Board. 

We disagree with the Department's characterization of the report. Our 
report does not state that the agency's 2005 Campaign Plan does not 
address human capital. Instead our report states that the 2005 plan 
does not contain a strategic goal related to "people" similar to the 
strategic goal that was included in the 2002 Campaign Plan. We have not 
modified the report in response to this comment. 

We disagree with the Department's comment that the draft report does 
not mention the Corps ongoing effort to update its Campaign plan. Our 
report clearly states that the agency is in the process of updating its 
2005 strategic plan to reflect the new strategic direction of the 
incoming Commander of the Corps. No changes were made in response to 
this comment. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Vondalee R. Hunt (Assistant 
Director), Tania Calhoun, Nancy Crothers, William Doherty, Diana Cheng 
Goody, Nisha Hazra, Grant Mallie, Jamie A. Roberts, Rebecca Shea, and 
Katherine Hudson Walker made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Reports: 

NASA: Progress Made on Strategic Human Capital Management, but Future 
Program Challenges Remain. GAO-07-1004. Washington, D.C.: August 8, 
2007. 

Human Capital: Federal Workforce Challenges in the 21st Century. GAO- 
07-556T. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2007. 

Human Capital: Retirements and Anticipated New Reactor Applications 
Will Challenge NRC's Workforce. GAO-07-105. Washington, D.C.: January 
17, 2007. 

Human Capital: Increasing Agencies' Use of New Hiring Flexibilities. 
GAO-04-959T. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2004. 

Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce 
Planning. GAO-04-39. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003. 

A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-02-373SP. 
Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002. 

Federal Employee Retirements: Expected Increase Over the Next 5 Years 
Illustrates Need for Workforce Planning. GAO-01-509. Washington, D.C.: 
April 27, 2001. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] This report focuses on the Corps' domestic roles and 
responsibilities related to its civil works and military programs, 
which together account for about 93 percent of the agency's workforce. 

[2] Campaign Plans are revised every 3 to 4 years at the discretion of 
the incoming Commander of the Corps. 

[3] OPM, Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework 
Practitioners Guide, Human Capital Assessment and Accountability 
Resources Center at http://www.opm.gov/hcaaf_resource_center/ 
index.asp. 

[4] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 
Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). 

[5] We selected two districts from each division, with the exception of 
the Pacific Ocean Division, where we interviewed only the division 
staff. We did not include districts in this division because the human 
capital challenges at the Alaska and Honolulu districts would likely be 
unique to labor force demographics at these locations. Additionally, 
because there are only 2 districts within the Pacific Ocean Division 
that perform work domestically, the division is likely more aware of 
the districts' activities compared to other divisions that are 
responsible for more districts. 

[6] A 9th provisional division with 4 districts was activated in 
January 2004 to oversee operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

[7] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Strategic Management of Human Capital 
in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 2002. 

[8] The Corps' 2002 strategic plan included three interdependent 
strategic goals: people, process, and communication. 

[9] The Corps has updated the appendixes in the human capital plan; 
however, the body of the report has never been updated. 

[10] In December 2004, as part of homeland security, the President 
directed the development of a new National Response Plan to align 
federal coordination structures, capabilities, and resources into a 
unified, all-discipline, and all-hazards approach to domestic incident 
management. This plan was replaced in March 2008 by the National 
Response Framework. 

[11] U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Human Resources Flexibilities 
and Authorities in the Federal Government, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 
2002). 

[12] GAO, Human Capital: Federal Workforce Challenges in the 21st 
Century, GAO-07-556T (Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2007). 

[13] GAO, Federal Employee Retirements: Expected Increase Over the Next 
5 Years Illustrates Need for Workforce Planning, GAO-01-509 
(Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2001). 

[14] Hiring authorities include the Veterans Recruitment Appointment 
Authority and the Federal Career Intern Program; human capital 
flexibilities include recruitment and retention bonuses, telework, and 
alternative work schedules. 

[15] A mobility agreement stipulates that the intern is willing to move 
to another location for permanent placement, if necessary. This 
agreement is required as a condition of appointment for all centrally 
funded interns. 

[16] In commenting on a draft of this report the agency stated that 
districts and divisions may establish their own internal Corporate 
Boards, but there is no agencwide Corporate Board established for these 
purposes. 

[17] The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 
certain types of errors, commonly referred to as "nonsampling errors." 
For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, 
the sources of information available to respondents, or the types of 
people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability into 
survey results. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.  

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates."  

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:  

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061:  

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact:  

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

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

Public Affairs: 

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

*** End of document. ***