Special Operations Forces: Additional Actions Are Needed to Effectively Expand Management Oversight

As DOD increased its reliance on special operations forces, SOCOM's budget has increased from $5.2 billion in 2005 to $12.3 billion in 2018. Section 922 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017 included provisions to enhance the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict's responsibilities to be similar to those of a military department secretary regarding the organization, training, and equipping of special operations forces.

The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2018 NDAA included a provision for GAO to assess DOD's actions in response to section 922. This report assesses (1) the extent to which DOD has identified and taken actions to implement section 922; (2) what, if any, challenges it faces in completing implementation; and (3) the extent to which its hiring approach for the office of the ASD-SO/LIC has incorporated strategic workforce planning principles. GAO reviewed relevant documents and interviewed DOD officials.

Since 2017 the Department of Defense (DOD) has made recommendations, developed actions, and taken steps to address requirements in section 922 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 to expand the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict's (ASD-SO/LIC) roles and responsibilities. DOD officials noted that they have taken an incremental implementation approach to addressing section 922. In 2018, DOD identified 166 recommendations to change the ASD-SO/LIC's oversight of special operations forces (SOF). These recommendations were used to develop 87 actions that were necessary to implement section 922. Since February 2019, DOD has implemented 56 of these actions. For example, the Deputy Secretary of Defense approved a new Special Operations Policy and Oversight Council directive that identified the ASD-SO/LIC as the lead for that council. The Deputy Secretary of Defense also delegated the ASD-SO/LIC with authority to approve waivers to hire civilian personnel during a civilian hiring freeze.

Although the office of the ASD-SO/LIC has taken many actions to implement section 922, DOD faces two key challenges in completing its implementation of the ASD-SO/LIC's new roles and responsibilities:

Lack of time frames . As of February 2019, 28 out of 31 unimplemented actions associated with section 922 did not have clear time frames for implementation. According to ASD-SO/LIC and U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) officials, they did not prioritize establishing time frames because they took an incremental approach to implementing actions and addressed them on a case-by-case basis. Without clear time frames for implementation, ASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM may be less effective in implementing section 922.

Unclear guidance . Current guidance about ASD-SO/LIC responsibilities is outdated: for example, it states that the ASD-SO/LIC shall report directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. However, section 922 states that special operation forces-related administrative matters are managed directly by the Secretary of Defense to the ASD-SO/LIC. The special operations force enterprise is a complex system, and unless roles and responsibilities are clarified in guidance, other DOD stakeholders, such as the military services, may not know the extent of the ASD-SO/LIC's and SOCOM's authorities and responsibilities. DOD officials expressed some concerns that until these matters are clarified in guidance, it will remain unclear whether the ASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM should work together—for example, on personnel issues—and how their relationships with stakeholders with oversight authority will be managed. DOD partially concurred, and based on its comments, GAO modified one recommendation.

The office of the ASD-SO/LIC has made efforts to develop a workforce plan, including commissioning a manpower study and taking steps to develop a hiring plan; however, these efforts do not fully incorporate some leading principles for a strategic workforce plan. For example, ASD-SO/LIC did not share the hiring plan with its staff, including key officials from the office of the ASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM. Without completing a comprehensive strategic workforce plan that includes key principles, the office of the ASD-SO/LIC may not know what gaps exist in skills and competencies in order to develop effective workforce strategies to fill those gaps. These issues could put the office of the ASD-SO/LIC at risk of hiring personnel who may not adequately meet its needs as defined by section 922.

GAO is making three recommendations to DOD to establish time frames for section 922 actions; update applicable guidance to clarify roles and responsibilities for the ASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM; and develop a strategic workforce plan that incorporates key principles. DOD partially concurred with the recommendations and GAO continues to believe the recommendations are valid, as discussed in the report. GAO also modified one recommendation to address DOD concerns regarding its applicability.

For more than a decade the Department of Defense (DOD) has increased  its reliance on U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF), growing from  45,000 SOF personnel in 2001 to 70,000, carrying out a broad range of  activities that include counterterrorism, crisis response, and contingency  force operations. To support these activities, funding for U.S. Special  Operations Command (SOCOM) increased from $5.2 billion in 2005 to  $12.3 billion in 2018. Despite the growth in activities and resourcing,  oversight of SOCOM’s responsibilities to organize, train, and equip has  remained largely the same. SOCOM has a unique structure and  responsibilities in that it has both combatant command responsibilities  and military service-like functions for organizing, training, and equipping  SOF. Under sections 164 and 167 of Title 10, United States Code, the  SOCOM commander is responsible for, among other things, training and  ensuring the combat readiness of assigned forces and monitoring the  preparedness of SOF assigned to unified combatant commands to carry  out assigned missions.

To strengthen the oversight of SOCOM and SOF, section 922 of the  National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017  (hereinafter referred to as section 922) included a number of reforms  designed to enhance the role of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for  Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (hereinafter referred to as  ASD-SO/LIC). Taken together, these reforms are intended to give the  ASD-SO/LIC responsibilities similar to those of a military department  secretary with regard to certain SOF-peculiar administrative matters, such  as budgeting, programming, and personnel matters related to the  organization, training, and equipping of SOF. This “service secretary-like”  role was further reinforced in section 917 of the John S. McCain National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. The Office of the  Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict  (hereinafter referred to as OASD-SO/LIC) assists the ASD-SO/LIC in  carrying out his roles and responsibilities.

Section 1074 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 directed the Secretary of  Defense to submit a report on the implementation of requirements  specified in section 922. The joint explanatory statement accompanying  the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for us to review  DOD’s report and any actions taken to implement section 922. For this  report, we assess (1) the extent to which DOD has identified and taken  actions in response to section 922 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017; (2)  what challenges, if any, DOD faces in completing its implementation of  the ASD-SO/LIC’s new service secretary-like roles and responsibilities;  and (3) the extent to which DOD has incorporated strategic workforce  planning principles into its hiring approach for OASD-SO/LIC.

For objective one, we reviewed monthly reports from September 2018  through February 2019 submitted by OASD-SO/LIC to Congress on the  steps DOD has taken to address requirements in section 922. Two  analysts independently assessed the extent to which OASD-SO/LIC’s and  SOCOM’s combined recommendations for OASD-SO/LIC’s  implementation of section 922 established new roles and responsibilities.  In cases where two independent analysts disagreed on an assessment,  we compared the two sets of observations, discussed the assessments,  and reconciled any differences. We analyzed the action items listed in the  monthly reports to determine the items that were implemented. The  monthly reports indicate whether each action item was implemented. To  conduct the evaluation, an analyst reviewed the action items listed in  these reports to determine how many action items had been implemented  or had not been implemented, whether the description of the action item  referred to OASD-SO/LIC’s involvement in a meeting, and whether the  description of the action item referred to OASD-SO/LIC’s “coordination”  role.

For objective two, we reviewed challenges to completing the  implementation of ASD-SOLIC’s roles and responsibilities under section  922. Specifically, we analyzed the extent to which the action items listed  in the monthly reports to Congress were linked to clear time frames for  implementation. To conduct the evaluation, an analyst reviewed the  action items listed in these reports to determine whether the action items  that had not been implemented were linked to clear time frames for  implementation. We also compared existing guidance with the ASD- SO/LIC’s evolving roles and responsibilities under section 922. Based on  the monthly reports to Congress and the combined OASD-SO/LIC and  SOCOM recommendations on implementing the section 922 roles and  responsibilities, we assessed the extent to which the ASD-SO/LIC has  taken steps to strengthen its roles and responsibilities and support new  service secretary-like authorities under section 922. We also reviewed  potential challenges we identified against Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government, which states that establishing time frames is  important for agency reform efforts and that management should define  objectives clearly throughout the organization.

For objective three, we reviewed steps that DOD has taken to develop a  hiring plan and the extent to which the plan fully incorporates key  strategic workforce planning principles. For example, DOD commissioned  a study by the Army’s Office of the Assistant Secretary of Manpower and  Reserve Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the Army study) that  determined personnel requirements needed to implement section 922.  We also compared OASD-SO/LIC’s hiring plan against key strategic  workforce-planning principles that state, for example, that workforce  planning should involve both employees and management, and we met  with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Manpower and Reserve  Affairs, which performed the manpower study to discuss personnel  requirements. We compared OASD-SO/LIC’s hiring plan against key  principles for strategic workforce planning that we identified in prior work  and compiled as part of this review.

To address all of the objectives in this report, we also interviewed officials  responsible for implementing section 922 in OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM;  the Office of the Chief Management Officer; Office of the Director, Cost  Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE); Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD (P)); and Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).

We conducted this performance audit from July 2018 to May 2019 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.

Roles and Responsibilities of SOCOM and the ASD- SO/LIC

SOCOM has a unique structure and responsibilities in that it has both  combatant command responsibilities and military service-like functions for  organizing, training, and equipping SOF. Under sections 164 and 167 of  Title 10, United States Code, the SOCOM commander is responsible for  training and ensuring the combat readiness of assigned forces and  monitoring the preparedness to carry out assigned missions of SOF  assigned to unified combatant commands. In addition, SOCOM is  responsible for developing special operations strategy, doctrine, and  tactics; the employment of forces of the command to carry out assigned  missions; requirements validation; acquisition of special operations- peculiar equipment; and formulating and submitting requirements for  intelligence support, among other things. In its combatant command  function, the commander of SOCOM is responsible for and has the  authority to conduct the following special operations activities: (1) direct  action, (2) strategic reconnaissance, (3) unconventional warfare, (4)  foreign internal defense, (5) civil affairs, (6) military information support  operations, (7) counterterrorism, (8) humanitarian assistance, (9) theater  search and rescue, and (10) other activities such as may be specified by  the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Congress initially established the position of the ASD-SO/LIC in the  NDAA for Fiscal Year 1987. As previously discussed, in 2016 Congress  enhanced the role of the ASD-SO/LIC in section 922, which is codified in  section 138(b) of Title 10, United States Code. The ASD-SO/LIC’s current  statutory responsibilities include overall supervision, including policy and  resources, of special operations activities listed above; exercising  authority, direction, and control of all special operations-peculiar  administrative matters relating to the organization, training, and equipping  of SOF; and assisting the Secretary of Defense and USD (P) in the  development and supervision of policy, program planning and execution,  and allocation and use of resources for irregular warfare, combating  terrorism, and special operations activities.

DOD Directive 5111.10, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special  Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC), first issued in 1995 and  most recently updated in 2011, also prescribes the roles and  responsibilities for the ASD-SO/LIC. Among other things, the ASD- SO/LIC serves as the principal staff assistant to the USD (P) and the  Secretary of Defense on special operations and low-intensity conflict  matters and counterdrug policy, among others. DOD Directive 5111.10  also establishes responsibilities, functions, relationships, and authorities  for the ASD-SO/LIC on issues such as the coordination and oversight of  policy for humanitarian assistance, refugee affairs, and foreign disaster  relief activities (e.g., emergency relief for Ebola).

Prior to the enactment of section 922, OASD-SO/LIC coordinated  regularly with SOCOM on administrative matters, such as reviewing  SOCOM’s budget materials. Specifically, the administrative chain of  command for SOF-related matters was formally changed by section 922  to give the ASD-SO/LIC more oversight over SOCOM through direct  interaction with the Secretary of Defense. Section 922 provided the  ASD-SO/LIC with the statutory authority to exercise authority, direction,  and control of all special operations-peculiar administrative matters  relating to organizing, training, and equipping SOF. Section 922 did not  alter SOCOM’s operational chain of command as a combatant command.

DOD’s Report Summarizing Its Progress in Implementing Section 922

Section 1074 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 directed DOD to submit a  report on the progress the department had made in implementing the  requirements identified in section 922. Section 1074 specified seven  reporting elements, such as the accounting of personnel currently  assigned, that DOD’s report should address. DOD submitted its report on  March 12, 2018, wherein it identified a high-level summary of actions  taken, as shown in table 1 below.

DOD Has Made Recommendations, Developed Actions, and Taken Steps to Address Requirements in Section 922

DOD Identified Recommendations and Developed Actions to Address Requirements in Section 922

In 2018, DOD identified 166 recommendations to address the reforms  required by section 922 that are aimed at increasing the ASD-SO/LIC’s  role in the management of SOF and special operations. To identify these  recommendations and support the implementation of service secretary- like responsibilities under section 922, OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM  created a “tiger team” to review broad functional areas typically performed  by the military service secretariats and determine the need for potential  changes to the roles and responsibilities of OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM  related to addressing requirements in section 922. The tiger team  included five working groups to review potential roles and responsibilities  for budget, special access programs, personnel and readiness, program  and requirements, and acquisition functions. Two officials, respectively  representing OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM, co-led each of these working  groups.

OASD-SO/LIC established design principles to help the working groups  identify new roles and responsibilities for OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM  under section 922. These principles included the following three broad  categories of authorities that OASD-SO/LIC could be expected to take on:

Monitor: This role requires that OASD-SO/LIC be informed, observe,  and check the progress or quality of an activity throughout the lifetime  of the activity. This includes, for example, monitoring SOCOM’s  submission of its presidential budget justification material to  Congress.

Review and coordinate: This role requires that OASD-SO/LIC  review, analyze, and coordinate throughout the lifetime of an activity  to ensure compliance with authoritative policy and with statutory and  other regulatory issuances, and to ensure achievement of broad  program goals. Coordination does not imply authority to compel  agreement, however. An example of the review and coordinate role is  that OASD-SO/LIC liaises with the military departments on military  personnel issues.

Approve: This role requires OASD-SO/LIC’s concurrence to give  explicit or official sanction, permission, or ratification of an activity. An  example of approval authority is that ASD-SO/LIC approves  SOCOM’s Program Objective Memorandum (POM).

We found the largest share of the 166 recommendations made by the  working groups strengthened OASD-SO/LIC’s roles related to monitor  and to review and coordinate, as shown in figure 1. Specifically, 80 out of  166 recommendations (48 percent) would strengthen OASD-SO/LIC’s  role regarding monitor or review and coordinate. Twenty-two out of 166  recommendations (13 percent) would give OASD-SO/LIC approval  authority—requiring OASD-SO/LIC’s concurrence to give explicit or  official sanction, permission, or ratification of an activity. Of these 22  recommendations, 16 involved either joint approval—requiring both  OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM to jointly approve the action—or partial  approval—that is, OASD-SO/LIC would have approval authority on  certain aspects of an action item. Sixty-four out of 166 recommendations  (39 percent) did not recommend any change to OASD-SO/LIC’s role. In  addition, the majority of the recommendations, about 156 out of 166  (about 94 percent) would not change SOCOM’s roles.

OASD-SO/LIC used the 166 recommendations to inform the development  of 87 actions in OASD-SO/LIC’s monthly reports to Congress. We found  that with regard to the 87 actions identified in OASD-SO/LIC’s February  2019 monthly report, 49 percent of the action items (43 out of 87) focused  on OASD-SO/LIC’s participation in meetings. For example, prior to the  implementation of section 922, OASD-SO/LIC attended Joint Resources  Management Board meetings. After implementing section 922, OASD- SO/LIC exercised its review and coordinate responsibility by attending  Joint Resources Management Board meetings, thereby formalizing  OASD-SO/LIC’s prior role. According to DOD officials, there is a value in  adding OASD-SO/LIC as a participant in key meetings and formalizing  OASD-SO/LIC’s review and coordinate role. For example, officials  explained that, by participating in meetings, OASD-SO/LIC can have  more situational awareness about key topics and can better advocate for  the SOF enterprise.

DOD Has Taken Several Actions to Address Section 922 Requirements

DOD, through OASD-SO/LIC, has taken various actions, including  changes in roles and responsibilities, related to addressing requirements  in section 922. According to OASD-SO/LIC officials, its actions reflect an  incremental approach to strengthening OASD-SO/LIC’s roles and  responsibilities. In February 2019 OASD-SO/LIC reported to Congress  that it had completed 56 of its 87 actions. For example, one of the actions  identified in the February 2019 monthly report was the need to enhance  OASD-SO/LIC’s role in the development and approval of SOF-related  program and budget matters. The report further identified a number of  actions, including having OASD-SO/LIC approve SOCOM’s POM.  According to the report, OASD-SO/LIC was briefed on and approved  SOCOM’s POM for fiscal years 2020-2024. As another example, the  report identified the need to enhance OASD-SO/LIC’s oversight of SOF- related military construction activities and contingency basing. This  included a requirement that OASD-SO/LIC co-chair SOCOM’s Military  Construction Summit, which according to officials deals with acquisition- related issues regarding military construction and is used to inform the  POM. According to the February 2019 report, OASD-SO/LIC co-chaired  the summit for fiscal year 2019, and its formal role as co-chair will be  reflected in future updates to SOCOM guidance. The February report also  explained that the Deputy Secretary of Defense approved a new Special  Operations Policy and Oversight Council directive that identified the ASD- SO/LIC as the lead for that council. The Deputy Secretary of Defense  also delegated the ASD-SO/LIC with authority to approve waivers to hire  civilian personnel during a civilian hiring freeze.

Many of the actions taken thus far formalize pre-existing, informal  relationships between OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM. According to OASD- SO/LIC officials, a formalization of a pre-existing role occurs when OASD- SO/LIC identifies a role that OASD-SO/LIC performed informally before  addressing requirements under section 922 and continues to maintain the  role officially under its section 922 responsibilities. Based on the  February 2019 report to Congress, we found that 26 out of 56  implemented action items (about 50 percent) formalize ongoing OASD- SO/LIC roles and responsibilities that were previously conducted  informally. Officials stated that all of the actions relating to budget  execution are formalizations of previously existing informal roles and  responsibilities. For example, according to OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM  officials, OASD-SO/LIC had an informal role in reviewing SOCOM’s POM  prior to section 922, such as participating in the review of the POM  without formal approval authority. According to DOD officials familiar with  the POM process, giving OASD-SO/LIC approval authority for SOCOM’s  POM essentially formalized what had been done in the past, while  allowing OASD-SO/LIC to perform a more thorough review. Similarly,  officials stated that OASD-SO/LIC had an informal role in developing  SOCOM’s budget justification books prior to the passage of section 922.  Another action identified in DOD’s February 2019 monthly report is  OASD-SO/LIC’s role in budget submission. Officials explained that, in an  effort to enhance OASD-SO/LIC’s role in budget submission, OASD- SO/LIC has formalized this role. According to the officials, the benefit of  this formalization is that OASD-SO/LIC has greater access to the process  of producing justification books. There have been similar examples of  formalization of pre-existing roles in other areas as well. For example,  prior to section 922, SOCOM’s public affairs requirements were  coordinated with USD (P)’s public affairs office. Rather than duplicate  SOCOM’s existing public affairs role with an additional public affairs office  for the ASD-SO/LIC, OASD-SO/LIC coordinates with the USD (P)’s public  affairs office.

Lack of Clear Time Frames and Guidance Are Challenges to Completing Implementation of the ASD-SO/LIC’s Roles and Responsibilities

Most Actions That Remain to Be Implemented Do Not Have Clear Time Frames

Most of the actions remaining to be implemented do not have clear time  frames for implementation. Based on our analysis of the February 2019  monthly report, we found that 31 out of 87 identified actions remain  unimplemented. Of these 31 actions, three have clear time frames for  implementation. For example, one of the remaining actions involves  enhancing the ASD-SO/LIC’s role in SOF military personnel-related  issues. Among other things, this includes liaising with the military  departments on relevant military personnel issues and coordinating on  related policy issues. The February 2019 monthly report includes an  action related to OASD-SO/LIC’s plans to coordinate a process to monitor  promotions of SOF personnel and communicate issues with military  departments. The report specifies that the ASD-SO/LIC expected to  implement this process in 2019. As another example, documenting and  funding for the Secretariat for Special Operations was expected to be  resolved by the first quarter of fiscal year 2019.

However, the remaining 28 actions do not have time frames for  implementation. For example, some of the actions associated with  implementing the ASD-SO/LIC’s key functions, such as acquisitions and  legislative affairs, do not have clear time frames for implementation.

Regarding acquisitions, OASD-SO/LIC is developing standard operating  procedures, such as regular coordination and meetings, but it has not  established time frames for the creation or implementation of these  procedures. Similarly, OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM are prescribing roles  with regard to legislative affairs pending further departmental guidance,  but they have not established time frames within which these roles will be  defined.

DOD officials identified some reasons for not having identified time  frames for the remaining actions. First, according to OASD-SO/LIC  officials, their initial efforts were focused on identifying and prioritizing the  list of actions needed to implement section 922, as reflected in the March  2018 report required by law. Since then, according to OASD-SO/LIC and  SOCOM officials, OASD-SO/LIC has taken an incremental approach to  implementing these actions, addressing items on a case-by-case basis as  they occur. For example, OASD-SO/LIC initially placed a higher priority  on implementing its fiscal roles and responsibilities, partly because the  POM cycle included deadlines associated with the President’s Budget for  Fiscal Year 2020. Throughout the cycle, OASD-SO/LIC determined its  specific role in each step of the POM process as the step arose. Second,  OASD-SO/LIC officials stated that they had not established clear time  frames linked to action items because the ASD-SO/LIC was new in that  role and they were waiting for him to determine OASD-SO/LIC’s broader  strategy and goals, which they could use to inform implementation time  frames. However, we note that the ASD-SO/LIC has been in that position  since December 2017, and OASD-SO/LIC has hired new personnel who  could help develop and track time frames.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government emphasizes the  need to establish time frames to implement actions effectively, and as we  reported in June 2018, establishing time frames with key milestones and  deliverables to track implementation progress are important for agency  reform efforts. Failure to do so can have significant consequences. For  example, by not establishing clear time frames for updating guidance that  defines the ASD-SO/LIC’s acquisition roles, the ASD-SO/LIC is at risk for  having unclear roles and responsibilities that may overlap between  SOCOM and the Office of the Secretary of Defense on functions related  to acquisitions. According SOCOM officials, having clearer time frames to  update DOD guidance could enable OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM to  operate more efficiently and effectively. Without establishing clear time  frames for the implementation of key oversight functions and other  actions, the ASD-SO/LIC may not be able to fully execute OASD- SO/LIC’s service secretary-like authority, and DOD decision-makers may  not be well positioned to track progress and evaluate whether or how the  ASD-SO/LIC’s completed and pending actions support the full  implementation of section 922.

Outdated Guidance Limits Clarity of Understanding of the ASD-SO/LIC’s Broader Roles and Responsibilities under Section 922

While the ASD- SO/LIC’s responsibilities, functions, relationships, and  authorities are established in DOD Directive 5111.10, Assistant Secretary  of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD  SO/LIC) (Mar. 22, 1995) (incorporating Change 2, Oct. 21, 2011), this  directive is outdated and does not reflect the ASD- SO/LIC’s statutory  roles under section 922 and codified at 10 U.S.C. § 138. For example,  DOD Directive 5111.10 states that the ASD- SO/LIC shall serve under the  authority, direction, and control of the USD (P). However, section 922  states that the ASD- SO/LIC’s exercise of authority of all special  operations-peculiar administrative matters related to the organization,  training, and equipping of SOF shall be subject to the authority, direction,  and control of the Secretary of Defense. According to DOD officials, while  there is other guidance that broadly lays out DOD roles and  responsibilities, this guidance lacks details concerning operationalizing  ASD- SO/LIC’s roles and responsibilities under the new administrative  chain of command, creating potential confusion regarding the ASD-  SO/LIC’s roles and responsibilities on some key SOF-related issues. For  example:

SOF personnel issues: SOF personnel activities include readiness  reporting, training, education, warrior care, awards, decorations, and  death notification. Support for SOF personnel issues is generally  dispersed among different components, including the military  services, SOCOM, the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness (USD (P&R)), and OASD- SO/LIC.  Although DOD Directive 5111.10 states that the ASD- SO/LIC “shall  advise and coordinate with the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness on manpower” issues, it does not define  whether manpower issues include SOF career management, such as  special pay and promotion. According to DOD officials, DOD lacks  overarching guidance that would clarify ASD-SO/LIC’s role on  manpower issues. DOD Directive 5111.10 also does not provide  specific information about the extent of the ASD- SO/LIC’s  coordination role as it relates, for example, to issues such as career  management, retirement, pay, or promotion with regard to USD (P&R)  responsibilities on SOF personnel management. As a result,  according to DOD officials, the lack of clear and updated guidance  has caused some confusion among DOD components. According to  OASD-SO/LIC officials, after section 922 was implemented, OASD-  SO/LIC’s initial attempts to provide strategic outreach for SOF  personnel faced some challenges because officials were not included  in key personnel meetings. For example, OASD-SO/LIC officials told  us they were not included in some meetings that discussed delegating  civilian hiring waivers. By not participating in some key SOF  personnel-related meetings, OASD-SO/LIC could have missed the  opportunity to advocate for similar waiver authority. According to DOD  officials, USD (P&R) officials did not fully understand the ASD- SO/LIC’s authorities under section 922 when OASD-SO/LIC officials  attended some meetings.

Despite this confusion, the ASD-SO/LIC has taken some steps to  strengthen its role on SOF personnel issues. For example, according  to DOD officials, during the federal government civilian employee  hiring freeze, DOD delegated civilian employee hiring waivers to the  secretaries of the military departments but did not include waivers for  the ASD-SO/LIC or SOCOM. Without the waiver authority to re-instate  SOF personnel, SOCOM would have to request a waiver separately  through the military services. OASD-SO/LIC officials told us that by  ensuring the ASD-SO/LIC was granted a similar waiver authority,  OASD-SO/LIC officials streamlined the process and supported  SOCOM’s efforts to hire additional SOF civilian personnel. However,  the ASD-SO/LIC’s authority on SOF personnel matters remains  unclear and SOF personnel issues are generally dispersed among the  authorities of USD (P&R), military services, and SOCOM. Overall, it  remains unclear what, if any, authorities the ASD-SO/LIC has with  respect to leading and coordinating the department’s SOF personnel  issues.

Budgetary authority: SOF-related budgetary issues include the  SOCOM special operations–specific–funding budget materials, the  POM, acquisition, and congressional requests for information, among  other things. DOD officials told us that before section 922 was  enacted, the ASD-SO/LIC reviewed SOF-peculiar budget materials  (generally linked to major force program funding) prior to submission  of the POM, and the ASD-SO/LIC was notified of SOF-related  congressional unfunded priority list submissions. The ASD-SO/LIC  did not have principal staff assistant authority to approve the POM.  DOD Directive 5111.10 states that the ASD-SO/LIC will provide  overall supervision of the preparation and justification of the SOF  budget and programs and will review the SOCOM POM. However, the  DOD directive has not been updated to provide the ASD-SO/LIC with  clear oversight and approval authority over special operations– specific funding, which traditionally has been controlled by SOCOM.  DOD Directive 5111.10 also states that the ASD-SO/LIC will advise  and coordinate with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition  and Technology on acquisition priorities, but this does not provide the  ASD-SO/LIC with oversight of the SOF acquisition process. In  addition, DOD does not have any guidance that gives ASD-SO/LIC  clear oversight roles regarding the SOF acquisition process. By  comparison, SOCOM is responsible for the development and  acquisition of special operations-peculiar equipment, materiel,  supplies, and services in accordance with section 167(e) of Title 10,  U.S. Code, and it executes funding in operation and maintenance,  procurement, and military construction accounts, among other things.  According to OASD-SO/LIC senior officials, the ASD-SO/LIC has  some authority over special operations–specific funding through the  POM process. According to OASD-SO/LIC officials, after  implementing section 922, the ASD-SO/LIC established a new  principal staff assistant authority to approve the POM in 2018.  However, DOD officials familiar with SOF-related budgetary issues  stated that it is unclear how much authority the ASD-SO/LIC has over  funding issues to adjudicate potential disagreements between the  services and SOCOM on either SOF-specific or common funding  issues.

Special Access Programs (SAP): SAPs are programs established  for a specific class of classified information that impose safeguarding  and access requirements that exceed those normally required for  information at the same classification level. Given the sensitive nature  of these programs, DOD has established different levels of authorities  to create and manage SAPs. According to DOD Directive 5205.07,  Special Access Program (SAP) Policy, the Deputy Secretary of  Defense designates certain DOD component heads, or DOD agency  heads—for example, the secretary of a military department or the  Commander, SOCOM—as cognizant authorities to manage and  execute their respective SAPs. While the ASD-SO/LIC has always  played a role in SOF-related SAPs, DOD officials stated that the role  is expected to evolve as part of the implementation of section 922.  OASD-SO/LIC’s February 2019 monthly report includes several  actions intended to enhance the ASD-SO/LIC’s role in the  management of SAPs, and OASD-SO/LIC has already begun  participating in various SAP-related conferences and meetings.  However, according to DOD officials, the ASD-SO/LIC’s future role  related to SAPs remains unclear in existing guidance. For example,  DOD Directive 5111.10 states that the ASD-SO/LIC will provide  oversight over all special operations and low-intensity conflict related  sensitive SAPs. Although the ASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM officials told  us that they are currently further defining these roles, the DOD  directive has not been updated to clarify whether the ASD-SO/LIC  should be included in the SAP governance process, which includes  designating the ASD-SO/LIC as a cognizant authority with service  secretary-like SAP responsibilities. DOD officials expressed some  concerns that until these matters are clarified in guidance, it will  remain unclear whether the ASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM should work  together on SAP issues, and how their relationships with the various  Under Secretaries of Defense with oversight authority will be  managed.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  management should define objectives clearly and assign responsibility for  key roles throughout the organization. Specifically, the standards call for management to define objectives in specific terms so that they are  understood at all levels of the entity. This involves clearly defining what is  to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and time  frames for its achievement. We have also previously reported that  management practices key to program success include clearly identifying  organizational roles and responsibilities and clarifying program  objectives. OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM officials stated that updated  guidance is needed to help clarify the ASD-SO/LIC’s roles and  responsibilities under section 922. In December 2018 OASD-SO/LIC  officials told us that they were starting to update guidance on the ASD- SO/LIC’s roles and responsibilities under section 922 in DOD directive  5111.10. However, OASD-SO/LIC officials did not provide details about  the information that would be updated, and did not provide a copy of that  draft guidance. In addition, OASD-SO/LIC officials did not have clear time  frames regarding when the guidance will be updated.

As DOD updates the ASD-SO/LIC’s roles and responsibilities either in  DOD Directive 5111.10 or through new guidance, it has an opportunity to  clarify changes in its relationship with DOD components involved in  overseeing SOF administrative matters related to personnel, budgetary  authority, and SAPs. The SOF enterprise is a complex system, and  without clearly identified roles and responsibilities for a service secretary- like role for the ASD-SO/LIC, other DOD components—such as the  military departments, USD (P), and USD (P&R) —may not know the  extent of the ASD-SO/LIC’s and SOCOM’s authorities in key issues  where they have vested interests. For example, it will remain unclear  what authorities the ASD-SO/LIC has with regard to SOF-related  administrative matters, and which entities will have visibility over any  problems or resourcing decisions related to the SOF enterprise. By  clarifying the ASD-SO/LIC’s roles and responsibilities with regard to its  relationship with SOCOM and other DOD components, DOD can more  effectively implement the intent of section 922.

DOD Has Taken Steps to Develop a Hiring Plan but Has Not Fully Incorporated Some Key Strategic Workforce Planning Principles

OASD-SO/LIC Has Hired Additional Personnel and Taken Steps to Develop a Hiring Plan to Guide Future Growth

OASD-SO/LIC has taken steps to develop a hiring plan to identify  personnel requirements and an approach to hiring additional personnel.  DOD’s efforts began in 2017, when OASD-SO/LIC commissioned the  Army Office of Manpower and Reserve Affairs to conduct a manpower  study to provide an analysis of manpower requirements based on  unconstrained resources that are necessary to satisfy the service  secretary-like responsibilities under section 922. The Army’s manpower  study was based on nine functions, including budget, acquisitions, and  legislative activities. For each function, the study identified  corresponding tasks and the average man hours, or time needed, to  complete each task. The study, which was included in DOD’s March 2018  report to Congress, ultimately estimated that up to 64 full-time equivalent  (FTE) positions might be needed to implement the ASD-SO/LIC’s section  922 responsibilities. According to OASD-SO/LIC officials, the study  provided an initial framework for OASD-SO/LIC to determine its staffing  needs, but the study was not comprehensive and OASD-SO/LIC’s hiring  needs will likely continue to change in the future.

Over the past 2 years, according to OASD-SO/LIC officials, OASD- SO/LIC has begun to hire personnel to fulfill various roles and  responsibilities. Specifically, the number of FTEs hired to support OASD-  SO/LIC’s implementation of section 922 increased from 14 in March 2018  to 24 as of December 2018. In addition, section 361 of the John S.  McCain NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 gave the ASD-SO/LIC additional  flexibility to hire staff in fiscal year 2019. For example, section 361  directed that not less than $4 million in fiscal year 2019 shall be used to  fund additional civilian personnel to help implement section 922. Section  361 also provided the OASD-SO/LIC an exemption from the statutory  civilian personnel limitation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense  imposed by 10 U.S.C. § 143. Figure 2 shows OASD-SO/LIC’s hiring  actions to date, along with key events related to the implementation of  section 922.

In December 2018 OASD-SO/LIC officials completed a basic hiring plan  to guide future personnel growth as OASD-SO/LIC continues to  implement actions related to section 922. The plan—documented in a  10 slide presentation—includes OASD-SO/LIC’s short-term hiring goals  through the start of fiscal year 2020, a hiring approach involving a mix of  permanent and temporary staff, and the identification of targeted skillsets  for personnel hired. For example, the plan includes targets related to  achieving key skills, such as force planning and shaping the President’s  Budget for Fiscal Year 2021. The plan also calls for OASD-SO/LIC to  grow from 27 current FTEs to a total of 55 FTEs in fiscal year 2020.

OASD-SO/LIC’s Hiring Plan Does Not Fully Incorporate Key Strategic Workforce-Planning Principles

While OASD-SO/LIC’s current hiring plan represents a first step toward  developing a broad overview of its hiring goals and some key hiring  considerations, it does not fully incorporate some leading practices for  strategic workforce-planning. As we have previously reported, strategic  workforce planning addresses two critical needs: (1) aligning an  organization’s human capital program with its current and emerging  mission and programmatic goals; and (2) developing long-term strategies  for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve programmatic  goals. While agencies’ approaches to workforce planning will vary, we  have previously identified several key principles that strategic workforce  planning should address, irrespective of the context in which the planning  is done. GAO’s prior work on workforce planning identified the following  five key principles: involve top management, employees, and other  stakeholders in developing the strategic workforce plan; determine the  critical skills and competencies needed to achieve long-term goals;  develop strategies that are tailored to address critical competency gaps;  build the capacity needed to address requirements important to  supporting workforce strategies; and monitor and evaluate the agency’s  progress toward its human capital goals. However, we found that as of  December 2018, the OASD-SO/LIC’s hiring plan had not fully  incorporated several of these key strategic workforce-planning principles,  as described below:

The hiring plan was not fully aligned with long-term goals. A key  principle in strategic workforce planning is strategic alignment, which  occurs when an agency’s human capital program is linked with its  mission and goals. However, we found that OASD-SO/LIC has not  clearly linked its hiring plan with its overall mission and goals. For  example, the hiring plan mentions short-term goals, such as analyzing  the budget for fiscal year 2021 and long-term goals, such as strategic  assessment and aligning the organization with National Defense  Strategy requirements. However, the plan does not define strategic  assessment, and it lacks detail about how newly hired personnel in  fiscal year 2019 will help OASD-SO/LIC meet long-term goals related  to strategic assessment. For example, OASD-SO/LIC recently hired  seven personnel, but it is not clear whether the newly hired personnel  have skills that match competencies, such as the ability to work with  Special Access Programs, identified in OASD-SO/LIC’s hiring plan.  We have previously reported that unless hiring needs are clearly  linked with long-term goals, the hiring plan may be incomplete or  premature.

OASD-SO/LIC’s approach did not fully involve stakeholders.

While stakeholder involvement is not statutorily required, another key  principle of effective strategic workforce planning is to involve top  management, employees, and other stakeholders in developing,  communicating, and implementing strategic workforce plans. We  found several cases in which OASD-SO/LIC did not involve  stakeholders in its key efforts. For example, although OASD-SO/LIC  senior officials shared information about the hiring plan with one  senior official at SOCOM, several OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM  officials stated that OASD-SO/LIC did not communicate the hiring  plan’s expectations or strategies more broadly, to involve a full range  of OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM officials and other stakeholders, such  as USD (P). In another example, when OASD-SO/LIC hired personnel  from September 2018 through December 2018, several OASD- SO/LIC and SOCOM officials were unclear about the specific roles  and responsibilities of new personnel hired.

The hiring plan did not include strategies to address critical  competency gaps and identify related personnel requirements.  Leading principles of effective strategic workforce planning hold that  agencies should develop strategies to address critical skill gaps and  systematic personnel requirements processes, which are considered  a good human capital practice across government. However, we  found that OASD-SO/LIC’s hiring plan did not include completed  competency-gap assessments or have procedures in place to  periodically reassess personnel requirements. Without a systematic  process to periodically assess personnel requirements, OASD-SO/LIC  could not determine whether the Army study’s initial estimates were  the most efficient choice for the workforce. For example with regard to  the legislative affairs positions, OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM officials  told us that the Army manpower study’s initial estimate of eight FTEs  was too high. OASD-SO/LIC officials eventually hired two FTEs for  the legislative affairs office, but the hiring plan did not include a  methodology to analyze the workforce and explain why two FTEs  would fit within the Army study’s framework. According to OASD- SO/LIC officials, OASD-SO/LIC also did not use a standardized  process to assess whether two FTEs would meet its requirements.

According to OASD-SO/LIC officials, the hiring plan is the first step in  developing an initial framework, and they stated that it lacked  implementation details. OASD-SO/LIC officials stated that they anticipate  building upon the hiring plan as the current workforce plan evolves over  time. In addition, OASD-SO/LIC officials stated that key priorities include  strengthening OASD-SO/LIC’s participation and oversight of SOF  resources through the POM and fiscal guidance processes. As a result,  the hiring plan includes information about new personnel focused on  fiscal oversight, such as analyzing the budget in fiscal years 2020 through  2021, but it does not clarify long-term goals, competency gaps, and  program results tied to other priorities, such as legislative and acquisition- related functions. Officials from OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM agreed that  incorporating key principles in the strategic workforce plan would help  them determine the most appropriate size and composition of OASD- SO/LIC’s workforce.

Until OASD-SO/LIC completes a comprehensive strategic workforce plan  that includes key principles as outlined above, OASD-SO/LIC may not  know what gaps exist in skills and competencies, and what their  workforce strategies to fill those gaps should be. These issues could put  OASD-SO/LIC at risk of hiring personnel who may not adequately meet  its needs as defined by section 922.

As DOD increasingly relies on SOF, the department has taken steps to  implement section 922. Given the expanded statutory authority under  section 922, the ASD-SO/LIC has greater authority to oversee and  advocate for the SOF enterprise. The ASD-SO/LIC has implemented  several actions to clarify and strengthen its oversight roles and  responsibilities, and it has many additional planned actions underway.  However, without time frames to implement action items and revised or  new guidance that clearly articulates the ASD-SO/LIC’s roles and  responsibilities with regard to SOCOM and the wider SOF enterprise,  these changes may not be fully effective. In addition, without a strategic  workforce plan that fully incorporates leading practices to ensure that the  department has the right people, in the right place, at the right time,  OASD-SO/LIC may not be well prepared to respond to future workload  changes and manage its human capital strategically. As OASD-SO/LIC  makes progress in its hiring plan, it is important for OASD-SO/LIC to  develop a strategic workforce plan to ensure that it appropriately  addresses the human-capital challenges of the future and better  contributes to the agency’s efforts to meet its missions and goals.

We are making three recommendations to the Secretary of Defense:  The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of  Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict defines time  frames for completing action items necessary to implement the Assistant  Secretary of Defense for SO/LIC’s expanded section 922 responsibilities.  (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of  Defense for the Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict updates  existing guidance or develops new guidance to clarify the roles and  responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for SO/LIC and  relationships with DOD components that have vested interests in the SOF  enterprise—such as the military services, SOCOM, the Under Secretary  of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and the Under Secretary of  Defense for Policy. (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of  Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict builds upon its  hiring plan by developing a strategic workforce plan that incorporates key  principles, such as aligning the plan with long-term mission goals; fully  involving stakeholders in developing the plan; and including strategies to  address critical competency gaps and identify related personnel  requirements. (Recommendation 3)

In written comments on the draft of this report, DOD partially concurred  with our recommendations. Comments from DOD are summarized below  and reprinted in appendix I. DOD also provided technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate.

DOD partially concurred with the first recommendation that the ASD- SO/LIC define time frames for completing action items necessary to  implement the ASD-SO/LIC‘s  expanded section 922 responsibilities. In  its response, DOD stated that most time frames have been established or  the action completed. Additionally, DOD noted that some actions may not  be completed because they depend on events, actions or leadership  decisions that are outside of OASD-SO/LIC’s control. We agree that  some DOD leadership decisions have yet to be made. However, 28 out of  31 already identified actions do not have clear time frames for  implementation. Further, time frames can be modified as events change  or better information becomes available.   As we discuss in the report,  establishing time frames with key milestones to track implementation  progress are important for agency reform efforts. Without clear time  frames, ASD-SO/LIC may not be able to fully execute its service  secretary-like authority.

DOD partially concurred with the second recommendation that the ASD- SO/LIC update DOD Directive 5111.10 to clarify the roles and  responsibilities of the ASD-SO/LIC and relationships with DOD  components that have vested interests in the SOF enterprise. DOD is in  the process of revising this directive, but DOD noted that the purpose of  DOD Directive 5111.10 is to define only specific Department-wide roles  and missions for ASD-SO/LIC and is not the appropriate issuance to  define ASD-SO/LIC’s relationship with other DOD components in the SOF  enterprise. Given that DOD does not believe DOD Directive 5111.10 is  the appropriate issuance to clarify ASD-SO/LIC’s relationships with DOD  components, we modified our recommendation from focusing solely on  updating DOD Directive 5111.10 to updating existing guidance and/or  developing new guidance. Updating or developing guidance that clarifies  ASD SO/LIC’s relationship with DOD components, such as the military  departments, USD (P), and USD (P&R) would likely allow for improved  oversight of and collaboration on SOF matters related to personnel,  budgetary authority and SAPs.

DOD partially concurred with the third recommendation that the ASD- SO/LIC  build upon its hiring plan by developing a strategic workforce  plan that incorporates key principles, such as aligning the plan with long- term mission goals; fully involving stakeholders in developing the plan;  and including strategies to address critical competency gaps and identify  related personnel requirements. In its response, DOD agreed that there is  room to improve the involvement of stakeholders. In addition, DOD stated  that it developed a strategic workforce plan that aligns with long-term  mission goals and has identified strategies to address critical competency  gaps, including target skillsets. However, as noted in our report, the 10  slide presentation that constitutes the hiring plan lacks details that would  be included in a comprehensive workforce plan. For example, the hiring  plan did not explain how the hiring needs would be specifically tied to  long-term goals, such as National Defense Strategy requirements.  Although the hiring plan mentions some skillsets, it does not include a  competency gap assessment or assess personnel requirements. As  noted in our report, OASD-SO/LIC and SOCOM officials stated that the  initial personnel requirements developed by the Army study were  inaccurate for several reasons, including the lack of a standardized  process to assess personnel requirements. Accordingly, we continue to  believe that until OASD-SO/LIC develops a comprehensive strategic  workforce plan that includes key principles outlined in our report, OASD- SO/LIC could be at risk of hiring personnel who may not adequately meet  its needs to perform the roles and responsibilities of section 922.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional  committees and the Acting Secretary of Defense. In addition, this report  will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-5431 or at russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Jim Reynolds (Assistant  Director), Tracy Barnes, Mikey Erb, Amie Lesser, Mike Silver, Cheryl  Weissman, and Yee Wong (Analyst-in-Charge) made key contributions to  this report.

DOD has increasingly relied upon Special Operations Forces since 9/11. The number of personnel has jumped from 45,000 to 70,000 and the budget for Special Operations Command has more than doubled.

Congress recently directed DOD to improve its oversight of special operations.

We found DOD faces two key challenges in improving oversight:

It has not set timeframes for taking planned actions

It has not clearly described DOD's and special operations' roles and responsibilities

We made 3 recommendations, including that DOD set timeframes for new oversight actions, and update or develop guidance to clarify roles and responsibilities.