Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Organizational Changes and Determine Workforce Needs

The Coast Guard is a multi-mission maritime military service responsible for maritime safety, security, and environmental protection, among other things. Since 2006 the Coast Guard has implemented organizational changes to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. During this time, the Coast Guard also created a workforce assessments process to determine the number of personnel and skills required to meet mission needs. In April 2018, the Coast Guard reported to Congress that it was operating below the workforce necessary to meet its mission needs.

GAO was asked to review the status of the Coast Guard's modernization and workforce assessment efforts. Among other things, this report examines the extent to which the Coast Guard (1) applied key practices for agency reorganization and (2) has assessed its workforce needs. GAO analyzed Coast Guard documents used to plan and implement its modernization effort against GAO key practices for agency reorganization. GAO also analyzed Coast Guard workforce assessments and data from 2003 through 2019. GAO also reviewed policy and planning documents and interviewed Coast Guard officials.

The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) realigned its mission planning and mission support functions through an effort known as “modernization,” but did not consistently apply key practices for agency reorganization in implementing the effort. Of seven key practices, the Coast Guard did not apply two and partially applied three. For example, the Coast Guard did not measure its progress in achieving the goal of modernization, as key practices recommend. Coast Guard documents for organizational change and associated guidance do not require such practices to be followed. By ensuring such practices are implemented, the Coast Guard will be better positioned to determine the extent to which its investments meet modernization's goal of improving effectiveness and efficiency.

Although the Coast Guard has informed Congress that it needs to increase its workforce, it has assessed a small portion of its workforce needs. Its preferred tool for assessing workforce needs is its manpower requirements determination process, which includes manpower requirements analyses (MRA) and is completed with a manpower requirements determination (MRD). Coast Guard guidance states that MRAs are to be updated every 5 years, and according to its April 2018 Manpower Requirements Plan, the Coast Guard's goal is to complete MRDs for all of its 58,000 personnel and 158 unit types. However, the Coast Guard had completed MRAs for 13 percent of its workforce and MRDs for 2 percent over the past 5 calendar years (see figure).

The Coast Guard's plan does not include time frames and milestones for how it will achieve its workforce assessment goal, and information on the resources it needs to complete MRDs for all positions and units has not been updated in 10 years. By updating its plan to complete manpower requirements determinations and obtaining information on the resources needed to achieve its workforce assessment goal, the Coast Guard will be better positioned to ensure that it has the right number of people with requisite skills in the right units to meet its mission demands and to inform Congress of its manpower needs.

GAO is making six recommendations, including that the Coast Guard measure progress in achieving the goal of modernization, update a plan with time frames and milestones for completing its workforce assessment goal, and obtain information on the resources needed to meet its goal. DHS concurred with our recommendations.

The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), a multi-mission, maritime military  service within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), serves as the  principal federal agency responsible for maritime safety, security, and  environmental stewardship. Composed of approximately 58,000  personnel, the Coast Guard is to protect and defend more than 100,000  miles of U.S. coastline and inland waterways, and safeguard an economic  region covering 4.5 million square miles. In addition, the Coast Guard  serves as a first responder and humanitarian service that provides aid to  people in distress or affected by natural and man-made disasters whether  at sea or on shore.

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Coast Guard has been charged  with additional security-related mission responsibilities. In addition, the  growing frequency of natural disasters and growth in commercial maritime  activity has increased demands on the Coast Guard’s longstanding  mission responsibilities. The effect of these additional missions and  increased demands underscore the importance for the Coast Guard to  identify its resource needs, including the assets (vessels and aircraft) it  needs to carry out its missions and the workforce to operate and maintain  them. In April 2018, the Coast Guard reported to Congress that it faced  challenges meeting its daily mission demands because it was operating  below the workforce level necessary to meet all of its mission  requirements.

The Coast Guard has implemented initiatives over the past 2 decades to  improve its ability to meet its increased mission demands, such as its  multibillion-dollar recapitalization effort to acquire a new fleet of aircraft  and vessels. During this time, the Coast Guard has undertaken other key  efforts to support its ability to meet its increased mission demands. These  have included an effort known as “modernization,” which realigned its  organizational structure, and creation of a process to conduct workforce  assessments to determine the number and type of personnel required to  meet mission needs. In 2009 and 2010, we issued reports on the status  of modernization. We noted that it was too soon to assess its effects and  that as the Coast Guard continued to implement its new organizational  structure, it should develop ways to measure the effects of its  organizational changes to determine whether modernization met its  intended benefits of creating a more effective and efficient Coast Guard.

You requested that we review the status of modernization and the Coast  Guard’s progress in implementing its new organizational structure and  assessing its workforce needs. This report examines (1) how the Coast  Guard modernized its organization and the extent to which it has applied  key reform practices to its organizational change efforts and (2) the extent  to which the Coast Guard has assessed its workforce needs.

To address both objectives we reviewed agency documents and prior  GAO reports related to organizational realignment, Coast Guard  organizational changes, Coast Guard assessment of resources, and  relevant high-risk issues in the federal government such as workforce  planning. We also interviewed cognizant officials from Coast Guard  headquarters and field units, including its Atlantic and Pacific Area  commands, and two Coast Guard districts and two Coast Guard sectors  collocated with them. Headquarters and field officials we interviewed  were responsible for the overall management of their organization,  facilitating the implementation of organizational change efforts, and  developing workforce assessments for staffing Coast Guard units.

To examine how the Coast Guard modernized its organization and the  extent to which it has applied key reform practices to its organizational  change efforts, we analyzed Coast Guard documents, including policies  and guidance on how the Coast Guard implemented its modernization  effort and descriptions of its status. In addition, we reviewed reports  evaluating longstanding agency management challenges. We assessed  Coast Guard organizational changes that occurred as part of  modernization against key practices we outlined in our June 2018 report  on government reorganization. Specifically, we collected and analyzed  documentation related to the Coast Guard’s actions to implement  organizational change efforts, such as the modernization effort and the  integration of the Coast Guard’s reserve component into the headquarters  governance structure. We assessed these reports, data, and other  documents against selected criteria for key practices and considerations  for agency reorganization identified in our June 2018 report on  government reorganization.

We evaluated the Coast Guard’s actions against key reform practices to  determine if they were generally, partially, or not at all applied.

Generally applied. Agency documentation demonstrated that Coast  Guard officials substantially applied applicable key practices.

Partially applied. Agency documentation demonstrated that Coast  Guard officials applied some key practices but not to a significant  degree.

Not at all applied. Agency documentation did not demonstrate that  Coast Guard officials applied key practices.

To examine the extent to which the Coast Guard has assessed its  workforce needs, we analyzed Coast Guard documentation, including  guidance for assessing workforce needs and guidance that sets out the  Coast Guard’s 2016 Human Capital Strategy. In particular, we analyzed  documents on the Coast Guard’s manpower requirements determination  process, which is the process the Coast Guard is to use to determine the  number of people and the mix of skills needed for each of its 158 unit  types. To do this, we analyzed data from manpower requirements  analyses and determinations that the Coast Guard prepared from  calendar year 2003, when the service began implementing its manpower  requirements determination process, through calendar year 2019, the last  full year of data available at the time of our review. We assessed the  reliability of these data, through electronic testing, reviewing  documentation, and interviewing Coast Guard headquarters and field unit  officials on how these data were collected and used. We determined that  these data were sufficiently reliable for determining the number of  positions within each type of Coast Guard unit. Finally, we evaluated the  Coast Guard’s workforce assessment efforts against Coast Guard  guidance for conducting manpower requirements analyses, and best  practices identified in our prior work related to strategic human capital  management.

Appendix I describes our objectives, scope, and methodology in more  detail.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2018 to February  2020 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.

Coast Guard Organizational Changes since 9/11

Since 9/11, the Coast Guard has made a series of organizational  changes to realign its functions. First, from 2004 through 2006, under an  effort known as “Sectorization,” the Coast Guard revised its field structure  by consolidating field activities under individual commands, known as  sectors. The Coast Guard’s 37 sectors report to nine districts, and each  district reports to one of two area commands. District commanders are  responsible for regional operations and execute operations and missions  within their area of responsibility. Sector commanders are responsible for  local operations within each district. Each of the Coast Guard area  commands, districts, and sectors is responsible for managing its assets  and accomplishing missions within its geographic area of responsibility  and, for the purposes of this report, are referred to as field units. Figure 1  shows the Coast Guard’s field structure.

In June 2006, the Coast Guard implemented another organizational  change effort known as modernization. The goal of modernization was to  realign its mission planning and mission support functions, among other  things. According to Coast Guard documents, the effort was intended to  address challenges the Coast Guard faced in aligning its operations with  Coast Guard-wide priorities, and delivering mission support in a more  cost effective manner. It was also intended to realign the Coast Guard’s  operations and policies across multiple headquarters program offices. For  example, the Coast Guard has six operational mission programs  overseeing its statutory missions, and before modernization the  leadership of each of them developed separate action plans and policies  to execute their missions, while independently making resource  decisions. Through modernization, the Coast Guard also sought to  improve delivery of mission support services throughout the field,  particularly with respect to maintenance of the Coast Guard’s assets,  including its vessels, aircraft, and shore infrastructure.

Coast Guard Actions to Determine Workforce Requirements

The Coast Guard uses three analytical tools to determine its workforce  requirements: manpower requirements determinations, the Sector  Staffing Model, and the Activity-Based Staffing Model for boat stations.  Manpower requirements determinations, which begin with a manpower  requirements analysis (MRA), are the Coast Guard’s preferred tool for  determining the number of personnel and mix of skills its units require to  meet mission needs, according to Coast Guard documents. The analysis  identifies both the number of personnel required, and their necessary  competencies, while also taking into account the effect of existing, new,  or modified requirements on Coast Guard’s workforce. The Coast Guard  considers the manpower requirements determination process to be its  preferred method to determine workforce requirements for its assets and  field units.

The Coast Guard’s other two analytical tools—the Sector Staffing Model  and Activity-Based Staffing Model—use historic levels of activity to  determine workforce requirements. The Sector Staffing Model assesses  workforce requirements for shore force units, while the Activity-Based  Staffing Model assesses boat stations. For comparison, while activity  models may identify the workforce needed based on the activities  previously conducted by a unit, determinations identify the workforce  needed to conduct the activities required by a unit to accomplish its  planned mission, based on documented requirements. For this reason,  the Coast Guard considers activity models to be less reliable for  determining workforce needs than manpower requirements. Table 1  summarizes these three Coast Guard analytical tools for determining  workforce requirements.

Coast Guard Realigned Operations and Mission Support Functions, but Did Not Consistently Apply Key Reform Practices to Modernization Effort

The Coast Guard Realigned Operations and Mission Support Functions

In a 2018 report to Congress, the Coast Guard stated that under the  modernization effort, it realigned its operations and mission support  functions to address deficiencies that affected its ability to fulfill  missions. Between 2009 and 2015, the effort focused on establishing  headquarters organizations and business processes to manage  operations and mission support. Central to the effort was the Coast  Guard’s establishment of three new headquarters organizations.

Deputy Commandant for Operations. Created to manage  operational strategy and policy. The Deputy Commandant for  Operations is responsible for the strategic management of the Coast  Guard’s mission programs. This includes assessing and monitoring  the performance of the Coast Guard’s missions and developing Coast  Guard-wide strategy and operational policy. The Deputy  Commandant for Operations also provides support for issues that  affect multiple Coast Guard missions, such as managing intelligence  activities, coordinating interaction with external stakeholders, and  identifying new and emerging issues that threaten operations, such as  cyberattacks. According to the Coast Guard’s 2018 report to  Congress, consolidating these functions under a single organization  has enhanced operational effectiveness and efficiency and aligned  national priorities with Coast Guard-wide planning efforts. In 2019, the  Coast Guard placed its reserve component under the Deputy  Commandant for Operations to better incorporate the Coast Guard’s  reserves into its plans for meeting mission needs.

Deputy Commandant for Mission Support. Created to manage  mission support delivery and business processes. The Deputy  Commandant for Mission Support is responsible for managing mission  support policy, strategy, planning, and resourcing to meet mission  needs for human resources, engineering and logistics, information  systems, and acquisitions. At the field level, through the Director of  Operational Logistics, this organization assists with maintenance of  assets and logistics planning through a network of bases. The  Director of Operational Logistics manages Coast Guard bases which  deliver operations level support to specific assets and oversees the  functions of each Coast Guard base.

In addition, the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support organization  manages Coast Guard Logistic and Service Centers. Each logistic or  service center exercises authority over its functions and the delivery of  mission support to the Coast Guard’s fleet of aircraft and vessels.  For example, the Aviation Logistics Center, located in Elizabeth City,  North Carolina, is the lead entity for ensuring aviation asset services,  such as maintenance and supply, for Coast Guard’s aircraft, while the  Surface Forces Logistics Center, in Baltimore, Maryland, is  responsible for ensuring these services for its vessels. Coast Guard  officials told us that the modernized mission support structure enabled  the Coast Guard to standardize delivery of products and service. For  example, they told us that this structure helped them ensure that the  materials and parts provided remained consistent across the Coast  Guard’s field units.

Force Readiness Command (FORCECOM). Created as an  organization within the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support to  prepare the Coast Guard workforce to properly perform and execute  missions. FORCECOM is responsible for overseeing Coast Guard’s  training plans and policies. This includes developing and delivering  training courses, and conducting performance and compliance  assessments of units, to determine whether each mission has the  necessary equipment and personnel skills to ensure operational  readiness. Figure 2 provides an overview of the Coast Guard’s  modernized organizational structure and the responsibilities of the  headquarters organizations known as the Deputy Commandant for  Operations and Deputy Commandant for Mission Support.

Coast Guard Continues to Make Organizational Changes

In 2018, the Coast Guard reported to Congress that while it completed its  primary organizational changes, it continued to modernize its business  processes. For example, it reported that it continued making  improvements to its risk management process, organizational structure,  and mission support functions, including human resources utilization and  asset acquisition. In October 2019, Coast Guard officials told us that  some of these adjustments continue in smaller, incremental efforts within  the Deputy Commandant offices and individual Coast Guard programs.  For example, Coast Guard officials from the Office of Mission Support  Integration within the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support told us  that efforts to modernize its mission support functions were ongoing.  Officials told us that they were centralizing management of certain  support delivery functions. Officials told us that centralization would help  to ensure consistency in how functions are performed across the  organization, as well as provide access to timely and complete  information about the status of assets, personnel, and equipment. They  told us that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support had largely  centralized such functions for one directorate—engineering and  logistics—and expected to apply them for another directorate responsible  for information systems in fiscal year 2020.

According to officials, the Coast Guard has faced difficulty applying these  same mission business practices to human resources since these  practices focus on a specific capability and are geared more towards  assets, such as vessels and aircraft, rather than personnel. Specifically,  while information about the status of asset availability is generally static,  there are more variables to determining the Coast Guard’s human  resources needs. For example, in addition to identifying the size of the  workforce necessary to perform missions, the Coast Guard must also  consider how to retain personnel and develop a workforce that can adapt  to changes such as addressing emerging threats like cyber-attacks.

In 1995, the Coast Guard integrated the  reserve and active duty workforce at the  field level; however, the component did  not have headquarters representation.   In 2006, the Coast Guard issued a  modernization goal to optimize the use of  the reserve component by ensuring the  workforce had the necessary training and  support.   In 2018, the Coast Guard chartered a  project team to evaluate the state of the  reserve component’s governance. The  team found that the structure under the  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support  did not take into account the difference  between the reserves workforce and  Coast Guard programs.  In 2019, the Coast Guard established a  new reserve component organization  under the Deputy Commandant for  Operations.

Changes stemming from modernization continued with the Coast Guard’s  reorganization of its reserve component (see sidebar). In June 2019, the  Coast Guard moved its reserve component from the Deputy  Commandant for Mission Support to the Deputy Commandant for  Operations. Coast Guard officials stated that the change was meant to  address longstanding issues, such as not incorporating the reserve  component into Coast Guard-wide policymaking. Coast Guard officials  stated that when the reserve component was under the mission support  organization, it was not strategically managed to align with Coast Guard- wide mission needs. For example, when reserve components were  dispatched, there was no plan to support all of the operational needs of  the mission, such as by providing additional equipment needed by the  reserve workforce. Figure 3 provides a timeline of key actions the Coast  Guard took from 2004 through 2019 to modernize its organizational  structure.

Coast Guard Has Not Consistently Applied Selected Key Reform Practices to Modernization Effort

The Coast Guard has not consistently applied selected key reform  practices to its modernization effort. Specifically, the Coast Guard did not  apply or partially applied 5 of 7 selected key practices. We have  previously reported that an agency must closely and carefully manage  organizational reforms, since fully implementing major transformations  can span several years. This is particularly important when the  transformations include several major changes to the organization.

The Coast Guard’s 2018 report to Congress on its modernization effort  acknowledged that the risk of complications increases significantly with  large-scale reorganization efforts, such as modernization, and noted that  such changes require formal processes to look for complications as they  arise and to fully assess their impact on the organization, including its  workforce. To this end, we assessed the Coast Guard’s implementation of  its modernization effort against selected key reform practices in three  subcategories—Leadership focus and attention; Managing and  monitoring; and Strategic workforce planning—and found the Coast  Guard did not consistently apply these practices. Additionally, we  assessed the extent to which the Coast Guard’s reorganization of its  reserve component applied key reform practices under the Leadership  focus and attention, Managing and monitoring and Strategic workforce  planning subcategories. Figure 4 shows our assessment of the extent to  which the Coast Guard’s actions to implement the modernization effort  applied selected key reform practices.

We found that the Coast Guard generally applied two key practices under  this subcategory, including identifying a case for change and dedicating a  team to lead the initial implementation effort, and it partially applied the  key practice of holding leadership accountable for its success.

Identify case for change. The Coast Guard generally applied this key  practice because it identified a case for change to continue to drive the  need for the modernization effort. Our prior work shows that key elements  of successful initiatives are the demonstrated commitment of top leaders  and accountability for change. Further, top leadership involvement and  clear lines of accountability for making improvements are critical to  overcoming organizations’ natural resistance to change. According to  Coast Guard documents, in 2006, when the modernization effort started,  Coast Guard leadership promoted the changes outlined in the Coast  Guard’s 10 modernization initiatives through internal memos and action  plans. Coast Guard documentation highlighted the benefits of the  change and identified the next steps to be taken in order to complete the  change. Additionally, commandants issued their strategic priorities  highlighting plans for the modernization effort. More recently, the Coast  Guard’s 2018 report to Congress reiterated the importance of the  modernization effort, noting that the challenges that initially drove the  need for organizational changes continue to challenge the Coast Guard.

Dedicated implementation team. The Coast Guard generally applied  this key practice because it established a team to implement its  modernization changes. In 2007, Coast Guard created the Strategic  Transformation Team to coordinate the early implementation of the  modernization effort. According to Coast Guard officials from the Office of  Resource, Organizational Analysis, and Workforce Management, as the  effort moved from the planning stages to implementation, the team  consolidated the goals in the Coast Guard’s 10 modernization initiatives  into five main reorganization efforts. The team was responsible for  ensuring that the implementation of these five efforts was consistent with  the initial goals of modernization. This included facilitating the use of the  Coast Guard’s existing organizational review and approval processes for  organizational changes and leading the measurement processes for  ensuring that the goals of modernization were met.

Hold leaders accountable. The Coast Guard partially applied this key  practice because it initially established an office to oversee its  modernization but did not continue these efforts to ensure leadership  accountability for modernization implementation. In 2009, the Coast  Guard created a permanent oversight office under the Office of the Vice  Commandant to transition the coordination responsibilities of the Strategic  Transformation Team to monitor implementation of the modernization  effort. The office was given an expanded role of managing change  efforts across the Coast Guard, including overseeing the development of  metrics related to organizational change efforts to ensure that these  changes achieved goals.

However, in 2015 the Coast Guard disestablished this oversight office  and did not specify any office responsible for ensuring organizational  change efforts met intended goals. According to Coast Guard officials  from the Office of Resource, Organizational Analysis, and Workforce  Management, the Coast Guard redistributed some of the oversight  office’s responsibilities among other offices within the established  headquarters organizations. The officials told us they did so since they  determined the initial goals of modernization—to create the new  headquarters organizations—had been met and oversight was no longer  needed. These officials stated that the individual headquarters  organizations could manage any necessary planning moving forward for  their specific organization.

As such, the Coast Guard’s shifting leadership priorities affected what  parts of the modernization effort were implemented and, in some cases,  resulted in years spent working towards a change that was later  terminated. For example, in 2012, the Commandant stated that the  original modernization initiative to establish a single operations command  to manage field operations was not near completion, taking up  institutional energy, and impacting operations. As a result, he decided to  discontinue the effort and retain the two area field command structure.  However, according to Coast Guard officials from the Office of Resource,  Organizational Analysis, and Workforce Management, planning for the  effort was close to completion, and ending it led to the reassignment of  staff. During this time, the Coast Guard also reduced FORCECOM’s role  from managing and measuring the overall readiness capabilities of the  service to focusing on workforce training, and moved the organization  under the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support. At that point, the  Coast Guard had already prepared and issued a business plan for  FORCECOM outlining the initial primary mission, goals and metrics for  evaluating effectiveness.

We also assessed the Coast Guard’s application of key reform practices  against its reorganization of the reserve component and found, similar to  our determinations of the modernization effort, it partially applied key  practices under Leadership focus and attention. For example, while the  Coast Guard identified key leadership and stakeholders currently  responsible for implementing the effort, it could not demonstrate that  there is a process to ensure leaders are held accountable for this  implementation.

The Coast Guard did not apply the two key practices of tracking  implementation progress or collecting data to measure progress of the  effort, and partially applied the other key practice of measuring employee  satisfaction with the modernization effort. We have previously found that  organizational transformations must be carefully and closely managed in  order to monitor progress towards achieving intended goals, since fully  implementing major transformations can span several years. This is  particularly important for the modernization effort which the Coast Guard  reported in 2018 had fundamentally altered how it conducts business  across the organization, for every mission and at every level. Managing  and monitoring organizational reforms includes applying key practices  such as tracking and measuring progress and developing mechanisms to  seek and monitor employee satisfaction with changes resulting from  reforms.

Track implementation progress. The Coast Guard did not apply this  key practice because it did not track its progress in implementing the  modernization effort on an ongoing basis. Officials told us that during the  early stages of modernization, the Coast Guard developed  implementation plans and engaged in a significant planning effort to  finalize the organizational realignment. These plans provided a method to  track the Coast Guard’s progress as they implemented each phase of  modernization; however, as the effort matured, the Coast Guard  determined that the effort did not require the same amount of planning as  initial implementation. In 2009, during the early stages of modernization,  the Coast Guard reported that it had efforts planned or underway to  monitor the implementation progress of the modernization effort, including  developing implementation plans, goals, and performance metrics. As  the modernization effort matured and the Deputy Commandant for  Mission Support and Deputy Commandant for Operations were created,  Coast Guard officials determined that they did not need the same amount  of planning, and the Coast Guard stopped updating its implementation  plans.

Additionally, for the reorganization of the reserve component, the Coast  Guard has minimally applied practices under the Managing and  monitoring category. In particular, the Coast Guard did not track  implementation progress of the reorganization. For example, the Coast  Guard established the new reserve component without finalized plans or  milestones and metrics against which it could track implementation  progress.

Collect data to measure progress. The Coast Guard did not apply this  key practice because it did not collect data to measure the extent to which  the modernization effort achieved its goals. In 2009, the Coast Guard  reported that it had plans underway to identify existing metrics and gather  data that would enable evaluation of the performance and effectiveness  of its modernized processes and facilitate continued improvements. This  was to include indicators that could be applied across the modernization  efforts’ multiple goals and priorities such as quality, timeliness, cost, and  outcomes. At the time, the Coast Guard reported that this would take  approximately 6 months to 1 year to complete. However, according to  officials from the Office of Resource, Organizational Analysis, and  Workforce Management, its plans were discontinued due to the  disestablishment of the oversight office and changing leadership  priorities. Further, they stated that the Coast Guard no longer felt the  need to monitor the effort since it determined the initial goals had been  achieved with the establishment of the new headquarters organizations.

In 2018, the Coast Guard reported to Congress that changes to mission  support systems and business processes were significant changes and  demonstrated the success of the modernization effort by developing a  more effective and efficient organization. However, while officials from  multiple offices told us that these changes resulted in better data and  greater efficiency, the Coast Guard could not identify metrics or a data  collection system that could demonstrate that the Coast Guard’s  implementation of the modernization effort had improved effectiveness or  efficiency. Moreover, in our review of the Coast Guard’s organizational  change process, we found no metrics, time frames, or milestones to track  whether, and to what extent, its organizational changes were achieving  the goals of the effort. Similarly, for the reorganization of the reserve  component, the Coast Guard did not collect data to measure progress.  For example, the Coast Guard established no milestones or metrics  against which to measure the reserve components’ progress in achieving  its intended goal of improved mission performance.

Measure employee satisfaction. The Coast Guard partially applied this  key practice because it sought employee feedback during the early  stages of the modernization effort, but did not continue to measure  employee satisfaction with the effort. During the initial implementation of  modernization, the Coast Guard used a combination of informal and  formal mechanisms to seek employee satisfaction. For example,  according to a 2009 National Academy of Public Administration report,  the Commandant reached out to personnel through informal means, such  as social media, to communicate and obtain real time feedback from staff  affected by the organizational changes. Formally, the Coast Guard  obtained anecdotal information through surveys of staff through the  Organizational Assessment Survey and the Office of Personnel  Management’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey; however, these  methods do not include specific questions related to the impact of  organizational change efforts. Specifically for modernization, beyond  efforts during the early stages of modernization, there has been no  sustained Coast Guard-wide effort to monitor the impact of the change on  employees.

According to a senior Coast Guard official from the Office of Resource,  Organizational Analysis, and Workforce Management, the Coast Guard is  not required to conduct such assessments as changes are implemented.  Specifically, the document governing the Coast Guard’s organizational  change process does not specify measuring employee satisfaction as  part of the organizational change request process. Additionally, though  the Coast Guard currently has formal mechanisms in place that would  enable it to seek employee satisfaction, our review of recent surveys  found that these instruments do not include questions specific to the  impact of organizational change efforts; nor do they capture employee  perspective in a timely manner.

We found that the Coast Guard partially applied the key practice of  assessing effects of modernization on its workforce by engaging in some  activities that assess its impact on its current and future workforce and  planning to determine whether needed resources and capacity were in  place. We have previously reported that people are at the heart of any  serious reform effort because people define the organization’s culture,  drive its performance, and embody its knowledge base. This is echoed in  the Coast Guard’s large-scale enterprise-wide change management  guidance, which stresses the need for a formal, structured approach to  manage the people side of change to increase likelihood of success.

One of the goals of the modernization effort was to create a Coast Guard- wide human resources strategy to better support mission execution. The  Commandant reiterated this commitment in September 2018 testimony to  Congress by stating that the Coast Guard’s strategic plan would  incorporate its 2016 Human Capital Strategy, a 10-year plan to ensure  that the Coast Guard develops the workforce necessary to meet mission  demands. In addition, the Coast Guard has taken steps to build a Force  Planning Construct model to inform leadership on the forces and  capabilities needed to execute its steady state and contingency  operations. In its April 2018 Manpower Requirements Plan to Congress,  the Coast Guard stated that it envisioned using the model to assess  future workforce needs. According to developers of the model, the  foundation of the tool was the completion of manpower requirements  determinations for all 158 Coast Guard unit types. However, the Coast  Guard has completed such determinations for a small fraction of its  workforce, as we discuss later in this report.

Finally, for the reorganization of the reserve component, we found that  the Coast Guard had minimally applied the key practice under Strategic  workforce planning. In particular, officials from the new reserve  component told us that even though the reserve force is not covered by  existing workforce planning tools, the Coast Guard continued to proceed  with reorganizing the reserve force structure.

For each of the key reform practices that were not fully implemented, we  found that the Coast Guard’s organizational change request process and  associated guidance documents did not require such practices to be  followed, nor did they require tracking implementation of changes,  collecting data to measure progress, or assessing employee satisfaction.  By not fully implementing each of these key practices, the Coast Guard  may miss opportunities to demonstrate that its investment in the  modernization effort meets its ultimate goals to enhance efficiency and  effectiveness and to improve the overall performance of the Coast Guard.  Systematically tracking progress of organizational change efforts and  measuring their effects, including employee satisfaction, would better  position the Coast Guard to identify challenges, if any, to meeting the  goals of the organizational change in a timely manner.  Further, the  Coast Guard noted that metrics used to show the effect on its efficiency,  mission effectiveness, and operations may be used to measure and  influence future modernization efforts.

Coast Guard Has Assessed a Small Portion of its Workforce Needs and Does Not Have the Information Needed to Achieve its Manpower Assessment Goal

The Coast Guard’s manpower requirements determination process is its  preferred method for determining workforce needs because it identifies  the workforce needed to conduct required mission activities; however,  since it began implementing the process in 2003, the Coast Guard has  completed it for only 6 percent of its workforce. Further, for those  positions with which the Coast Guard has used the manpower  requirements determination process, it has not consistently done so in  accordance with Coast Guard guidance. For example, while required by  Coast Guard guidance, the Coast Guard has not tracked the number of  MRAs and manpower requirements determinations completed. In its April  2018 Manpower Requirements Plan to Congress, the Coast Guard set a  goal for using the manpower requirements determination process to  identify staffing needs for all positions in all units, but does not have  information on the resources it would need to do so.

Coast Guard Has Assessed Workforce Requirements for a Small Portion of its Workforce

The Coast Guard has completed workforce assessments for a small  portion of its 58,000 personnel across its 158 unit types. From calendar  years 2014 through 2019, the Coast Guard used its three analytical  tools—manpower requirements determinations, the Sector Staffing  Model, and the Activity-Based Staffing Model—to complete workforce  assessments for approximately 21 percent of its 58,000 position  workforce. According to Coast Guard guidance, manpower requirements  determinations are to be updated every 5 years. However, the Coast  Guard completed the manpower requirements determination process, its  primary workforce analysis tool, for only about 2 percent of positions  during this 5-year span. In 2019, the Coast Guard used the Sector  Staffing Model to assess workforce requirements for about 9 percent of  positions. Finally, in 2019 the Coast Guard used the Activity-Based  Staffing Model for boat stations to assess workforce requirements for  about 9 percent of positions, according to officials.

Coast Guard Has Generally Not Implemented the Manpower Requirements Determination Process

According to its 2016 Human Capital Strategy, the manpower  requirements determination process is the Coast Guard’s primary tool for  defining the human capital its units require to meet mission needs. To this  end, the Coast Guard’s goal is to use this process to establish manpower  requirements for all positions in all units. Coast Guard guidance for  implementing the manpower requirements determination process  includes three key steps as noted in the service’s 2015 Staffing Logic and  Manpower Requirements Manual.

MRA. The manpower requirements determination process begins with  programs or Coast Guard leadership, such as the Commandant or  Vice Commandant, requesting an MRA, which is a comprehensive  review of workforce needs as determined from a wide range of  factors. These factors include regulations, training, and competencies  needed to effectively perform each mission. The MRA assesses the  information necessary to adjust personnel, resources, mission, or risk,  depending on availability of resources. Officials from the manpower  requirements determination program, contractors, or in some cases,  other Coast Guard programs, may conduct MRAs.

After Action Report. MRA requesters are to submit an after action  report within 6 months after the MRA is completed. The after action  report is to outline actions to be taken based on an MRA. These  actions could include adding resources, adjusting requirements, or  assuming additional risk.

Manpower Requirements Determination. The process is to  conclude with a manpower requirements determination. The  determination identifies the number and type of positions a unit type  requires to meet mission-based capability requirements. In developing  the determination, stakeholders are to review MRA results and  develop the determination, while documenting any changes from the  initial MRA. These stakeholders typically include representatives from  the program assessed in the MRA and experts from around the Coast  Guard in areas such as personnel assignments, workforce  forecasting, training availability and capacity, and resource oversight,  among others. The manpower requirements determination program  then submits the determination to be signed by the Assistant  Commandant for Human Resources. This signed memorandum,  known as the determination, formalizes the final manpower  requirement. Figure 5 summarizes the Coast Guard’s manpower  requirements determination process, according to Coast Guard  guidance.

We found that the Coast Guard has not ensured that all three key steps of  the manpower requirements determination process are completed since it  began implementing it in 2003. Since 2003, the Coast Guard conducted  MRAs for 28 percent of its workforce. However, the Coast Guard  completed manpower requirements determinations for only 6 percent of  its workforce. Moreover, we found that this trend continued with MRAs  that the Coast Guard completed within the past 5 years. For example,  according to our analysis of Coast Guard documentation, from calendar  years 2014 through 2019, the Coast Guard conducted MRAs for 13  percent of its workforce, but completed determinations for 2 percent.  Further, Coast Guard officials reported they did not have documentation  of having conducted after action reports for any MRAs.

Figure 6 shows the share of the Coast Guard’s workforce that is  supported by the manpower requirements determination process. The top  row shows the share of workforce supported by this process since its  inception in 2003. The bottom row shows the workforce supported by up  to date MRAs and determinations—completed between 2014 and 2019— according to guidance.

The Coast Guard’s 2018 Manpower Requirements Plan to Congress  states that the Coast Guard’s goal is to have updated manpower  requirements determinations for all authorized positions in all units.  When it reaches that goal, the manpower requirements determination  process will allow the Coast Guard to know which units are the most  understaffed, and to make service-wide decisions based on where the  most urgent needs are. Only when determinations have been completed  for its entire workforce can Coast Guard leadership allocate personnel in  the most effective and efficient manner. Notably, Coast Guard documents  emphasize the importance of an enterprise-wide approach to track and  manage resources because it enables leadership to compare needs and  make informed trade-offs across programs.

In 2019, officials in the manpower requirements determination program  told us that MRAs were to be updated every 5 years. Officials stated that  this is a best practice that aligns with the Department of Homeland  Security’s workforce strategy. Pacific Area Command officials we spoke  with also told us that they view the guidance as requiring that MRAs  should not be older than 5 years. Additionally, the Coast Guard’s 2015  Staffing Logic and Manpower Requirements Manual states that the  Manpower Requirements Determination Program Division Chief is  responsible for ensuring that each unit type has undergone an MRA  within the past 5 years. Nevertheless, in November 2019, Coast Guard  officials in the manpower requirements determination program told us that  they view it as a goal to update MRAs every 5 years, not a requirement.

We found that the Coast Guard does not have current guidance  explaining the process steps for Coast Guard officials to follow to  systematically execute the manpower requirements determination  process. Coast Guard officials told us they were using a combination of  two documents to guide its manpower requirements determination  process, and neither document was both current and comprehensive in  terms of detailing the steps to follow. For example, the 2015 Staffing  Logic and Manpower Requirements Manual contains individual process  step requirements, but has been rescinded. In contrast, the 2018 Manpower Requirements Manual provides current policy, but does not  include guidance on process steps that program officials are to follow. In  its 2018 manual, the Coast Guard rescinded the 2015 manual without  replacing or affirming its process steps. Officials stated that analysts in  the manpower requirements determination program use the rescinded  2015 guidance in executing the process because they have no other  guidance to follow.

Officials in the manpower requirements determination program provided  several reasons for why the program has not consistently ensured that all  steps are completed. First, officials told us that completing a  determination for each MRA had not always been a priority for the Coast  Guard. Officials said that in some cases manpower requirements  determinations were not completed due to disagreement among  stakeholders about how to apply the results of the MRA. Officials said, for  example, that while an MRA may find that a program is significantly  understaffed, some stakeholders may argue against including the full  scale of the shortfall in the determination due to limited resources and  competing needs. Second, officials stated that some determinations were  not completed because some programs requesting MRAs were not  interested in obtaining the final determination upon receiving the MRA.  Specifically, they explained that sometimes the program that requested to  initiate the manpower requirements determination process is most  interested in the staffing data contained in the MRA, rather than the final  determination, which formalizes the trade-offs and results proposed in the  MRA.

Officials in the manpower requirements determination program told us  that both the 2015 and 2018 manpower requirements determination  guidance did not identify circumstances when a manpower requirements  determination was not required to be completed for an MRA. Further,  program officials told us that they were not aware that the process  guidance they reported using required after-action reports. Coast Guard  officials also stated that having the process guidance in a rescinded  document had made their ability to implement and oversee the process a  challenge due to the possibility of officials applying the guidance  inconsistently. They further said they recognized the manpower  requirements determination process was not clear and needed to be  revised, and that doing so may help ensure officials consistently  implement the process. In June 2019, officials said they planned to issue  updated guidance, but had not established a timeframe for doing so. By  issuing updated guidance for conducting manpower requirements  determinations that outlines required process steps, and any  circumstances in which the process steps do not need to be performed,  the Coast Guard can better ensure that those responsible for  implementing the process do so consistently.

Coast Guard Has Not Tracked the Extent of Manpower Requirements Analyses and Determinations Completed

In addition to requiring MRAs to be conducted every 5 years, the  rescinded 2015 Coast Guard guidance, which officials reported using to  execute the manpower requirements determination process, states that  the manpower requirements determination program is to maintain and  update a master list of MRAs conducted to enable the program to track  and organize its workload. However, the Coast Guard has not tracked  the extent to which it has assessed Coast Guard unit types through the  manpower requirements determination process, as required in the 2015  process guidance, which officials report is still in use. For example, in  March 2019 Coast Guard officials stated that they did not maintain a list  of MRAs or manpower requirements determinations completed since the  program began in 2003, and they were not aware that maintaining a list  was a requirement. Officials prepared a list to respond to our request, and  in April 2019, provided us with a list of MRAs and determinations the  Coast Guard had completed since 2003. However, we found that the list  was not accurate. The Coast Guard’s list underrepresented the number of  MRAs completed by almost half. Specifically, it showed the Coast Guard  had completed MRAs for 34 unit types since 2003, whereas our review of  Coast Guard documents found that the Coast Guard had completed  MRAs for 63 unit types during this span.

We also found that the Coast Guard had not accurately reported to  Congress about its progress in assessing workforce requirements. While  the list the Coast Guard compiled for us underrepresented the number of  MRAs completed, the information it provided to Congress in its April 2018  report overrepresented the extent to which it has assessed its workforce  needs. Specifically, in April 2018 the Coast Guard reported to Congress  that it had recently analyzed workforce needs for 54 percent of its  workforce using the manpower requirements determination process and  its activity models. However, more than half of the MRAs it had completed  had not been updated in the past 5 years, as Coast Guard guidance  requires. We found that less than half of the Coast Guard’s reported  figure—21 percent of its workforce—is supported by a workforce analysis  that has been updated in the last 5 years.

The Coast Guard’s manpower requirements plan does not have time  frames or milestones outlining how it plans to reach its manpower  requirements determination goal of completing MRAs and determinations  for its entire workforce. Coast Guard officials stated that their April 2018  Manpower Requirements Plan to Congress lays out their goal with  respect to conducting manpower requirements determinations. However,  this plan does not include time frames or milestones for completing  determinations for all unit types, nor does it signal that the Coast Guard  will track MRAs and determinations it has completed. Coast Guard  officials stated that they were using a multi-year program to prioritize  manpower studies and complete them as resources allowed. When asked  for further information about this plan, officials stated that there was no  specific document outlining the plan; rather, the intent of the 2018  Manpower Requirements Plan was to indicate their manpower analysis  goal involves a multi-year journey. By updating its manpower  requirements plan to include time frames and milestones for completing  MRAs and determinations for all positions in all units, the Coast Guard  can track progress toward its goal and make necessary adjustments in its  planning, as needed.

The Coast Guard has reported on the importance of tracking and  completing manpower requirements determinations to justify its resource  allocation decisions. For example, its 2018 Manpower Requirements  Manual states that methods to determine workforce requirements have  historically varied from program to program. This variability prevented the  Coast Guard from compiling reliable workforce data and comparing  workforce needs across the Coast Guard. According to the 2018 manual,  manpower requirements determinations enable key decision-makers to  effectively manage workforce needs because they provide the data  needed to objectively predict future manpower requirements and compare  staffing needs across the entire workforce. By tracking and documenting  the extent to which it has completed MRAs and determinations for its  workforce, the Coast Guard will be better positioned to know which unit  types have a defensible basis for the number and type of personnel  needed to meet mission demands and to prioritize which MRAs to  conduct.

Coast Guard Does Not Have Information on the Resources Needed to Reach its Manpower Assessment Goal

The Coast Guard has not determined the resources—both staff and  funding—it needs to meet its goal for its manpower requirements  determination program to complete determinations for all units. Program  officials told us that they have used the manpower requirements  determination process for a limited share of its workforce because of  resource limitations.

Coast Guard documents show that it has been almost 10 years since the  Coast Guard last performed an MRA for the manpower requirements  determination program to determine its own workforce needs. The 2010  analysis found that the program would require at least 30 full-time equivalent positions to accomplish the Coast Guard’s goal of completing  about 25 MRAs each year, which would enable it to assess the Coast  Guard’s 158 unit types roughly every 5 years. As of January 2020, the  program had six analysts dedicated to conducting manpower analyses  and, according to officials, may only be able to produce one MRA each  year.

Program officials estimated that the cost of conducting an MRA may vary  widely, from $170,000 to more than $5 million for more complex unit  types. Nevertheless, program officials told us they generally did not track  information on the costs of conducting MRAs. According to officials, the  manpower requirements determination program cannot track all such  costs because cost data is spread across different program offices. For  example, officials stated that for contracted MRAs, contracting fees are  easier to identify, but the manpower requirements determination program  does not have access to other major costs, such as travel by officials  conducting the analysis. While the manpower requirements determination  program oversees the MRA process, and is tasked with ensuring  manpower requirements determinations are completed for every unit in  the Coast Guard, officials said that generally the program that is the  subject of the MRA provides funding for the study, and only that program  maintains access to travel costs associated with the MRA. They said the  manpower requirements determination program does not request cost  information from the programs requesting MRAs. Additionally, the  manpower requirements determination program does not collect cost  information from programs that conduct their own MRAs.

The Coast Guard has increasingly used contractors to complete MRAs.  While the Coast Guard has not tracked the costs of conducting MRAs,  Coast Guard analysis has shown that having MRAs completed by  contractors is more costly than completing them in-house. Program  officials said they have increasingly used contractors because of staffing  limitations. For example, from calendar years 2010 through 2019,  contractors completed nearly half of the Coast Guard’s 54 MRAs. Figure  7 shows the MRAs and manpower requirements determinations  completed by the Coast Guard and contractors from 2003 through 2019.

Coast Guard guidance states that in a resource constrained environment,  leaders need to make risk-based decisions to prioritize tasks and  optimally allocate resources to execute its missions. In addition, our  work in the area of strategic human capital management has shown that  reassessing resource requirements helps organizations to achieve their  missions and match resources to their needs. Developing information  on the resources needed for staffing and funding the manpower  requirements determination program to achieve its manpower goal would  better position the Coast Guard to make informed trade-off decisions and  allocate its limited resources to those units most in need of manpower  requirements determinations.

The Coast Guard’s roles and responsibilities have grown over the past  two decades following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Among other things,  increased national security roles, first response duties during natural  disasters, and compliance duties for ensuring the safety of increased  commercial maritime activity have underscored the importance of the  Coast Guard’s multiple missions. Organizational changes it made through  the modernization effort were intended to realign operations and support  functions. To that end, the creation of headquarters organizations  achieved modernization’s initial goals. However, the Coast Guard  continues to change as a result of modernization, and it has placed less  effort on ensuring achievement of the longer-term goals of creating a  more efficient and effective organization. Establishing a process for  tracking and measuring the effectiveness of the organizational changes  brought on by modernization, including measuring employee satisfaction,  would better position Coast Guard to understand whether its goals have  been achieved.

The Coast Guard reported to Congress in April 2018 that it faced  challenges in meeting its daily mission demands because it was operating  below the workforce necessary to meet its mission demands. However,  the service does not have a complete picture of the workforce necessary  to meet its mission demands or whether its existing mix of personnel is  efficiently and effectively allocated across units. The Coast Guard  considers its manpower requirements determination process instrumental  in determining the workforce needed to perform its duties, and the  foundation of models the Coast Guard uses to determine workforce size  in times of contingency or heightened security. Updated guidance for its  staff tasked with conducting such assessments would enable the Coast  Guard to better ensure that the process is fully implemented.

Further, as of January 2020, the Coast Guard had updated analyses for a  small fraction of its workforce, and had not updated its Manpower  Requirements Plan with time frames and milestones for achieving its goal  of assessing its entire workforce. Additionally, it does not have  information on the extent to which analyses have been completed over  the years or the resources it needs to complete assessments for its entire  workforce. By tracking and updating the completion of MRAs and  determinations, updating its plan to complete manpower requirements  determinations, and obtaining information on the resources needed to  implement such a plan, the Coast Guard will better ensure that it has the  right number of people with the right set of skills to meet its mission  demands. In this way, the Coast Guard will be better positioned to inform  Congress of its workforce and associated resource needs.

We are making the following six recommendations to the Coast Guard:  The Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish a systematic  mechanism to track implementation and measure the Coast Guard’s  progress in achieving organizational change goals. (Recommendation 1)

The Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish a mechanism to  periodically seek and monitor employee satisfaction with organizational  change efforts. (Recommendation 2)

The Commandant of the Coast Guard should update its Manpower  Requirements Manual with guidance for how to execute its manpower  requirements determination process, and take steps to ensure the  process is implemented. (Recommendation 3)

The Commandant of the Coast Guard should track and document the  extent to which it has completed manpower requirements analyses and  determinations for each unit type. (Recommendation 4)

The Commandant of the Coast Guard should update its April 2018  Manpower Requirements Plan to include time frames and milestones for  completing manpower requirements analyses and determinations for all  positions and units. (Recommendation 5)

The Commandant of the Coast Guard should determine the resources its  manpower requirements determination program needs, both staff and  funding, to achieve its goal of completing manpower requirements  determinations for all positions and units. (Recommendation 6)

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS  provided comments, reproduced in appendix V. DHS concurred with our  six recommendations and described actions planned to address them.  DHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the  report, as appropriate.

With regard to our first recommendation, DHS stated that the Coast  Guard’s Office of Resources, Organizational Analysis, and Workforce  Management will update the Coast Guard Organizational Manual to  establish policy requiring that requests to change organizational structure  include a plan, and establish a mechanism to track implementation and  measure progress in achieving organizational change goals. The Coast  Guard estimated completing the effort by December 31, 2020.

With regard to our second recommendation, DHS stated that Coast  Guard leadership agrees that mechanisms to periodically seek and  monitor employee satisfaction with organizational change efforts are  valuable. DHS stated that the Coast Guard already conducts periodic  surveys and each of these instruments provide opportunities for the  workforce to provide feedback, including on organizational issues, and  that it seems preferable for survey owners to add questions to existing  surveys, as opposed to implementing new survey instruments. DHS  requested GAO consider the recommendation as implemented because  such feedback mechanisms were already in place, and therefore  establishing new mechanisms was unnecessary. As we note in our  report, it is important that the Coast Guard identify challenges, if any, to  meeting the goals of organizational change in a timely manner. We found  the Coast Guard’s current surveys do not capture employee perspectives  as organizational changes are implemented. In determining whether to  close this recommendation, we will review Coast Guard documentation  demonstrating that the Coast Guard has modified its existing surveys with  added questions that monitor employee satisfaction with organizational  changes, and that it has plans for implementing the surveys in a timely  manner.

With regard to our third recommendation, DHS stated that the Coast  Guard’s Office of Human Resources Strategy and Capability is  developing a Tactics, Techniques and Procedures document to provide  guidance for executing the manpower requirements determination  process. The document will provide additional guidance on the overall  MRD process, including explicit directions for the collection and analysis  of manpower data, and will establish Coast Guard enterprise standards  for key factors and allowances used when conducting manpower  analysis. The Coast Guard estimated completing the effort by September  30, 2020.

With regard to our fourth recommendation, DHS stated that in December  2019 the Coast Guard’s Office of Human Resources Strategy and  Capability initiated the process to document and track manpower  requirements in the Coast Guard’s system of record. The Coast Guard  estimated completing the effort by December 31, 2020.

With regard to our fifth recommendation, DHS stated that the Coast  Guard’s Assistant Commandant for Human Resources Directorate would  update its Manpower Requirements Plan during the next periodic report  submitted to Congress, due in fiscal year 2022. The Coast Guard  estimated completing the effort by March 31, 2022.

With regard to our sixth recommendation, DHS stated that the Coast  Guard’s Office of Human Resources Strategy and Capability will review  its September 2010 MRA, revalidate the inputs, and update the findings  of the MRA to reflect the current needs of the manpower requirements  determination program. The Coast Guard estimated completing the effort  by September 30, 2020.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  requesters, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and  other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on  the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or AndersonN@gao.gov. GAO staff who made key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology

This appendix provides additional information on our objectives, scope  and methodology. This report examines (1) how the Coast Guard  modernized its organization and the extent to which it has applied key  reform practices to its organizational change efforts and (2) the extent to  which the Coast Guard has assessed its workforce needs.

To address our first objective we analyzed Coast Guard documents  related to the modernization effort. The documents included policies and  guidance regarding how the effort was to be implemented, as well as  descriptions of the status of these efforts. To evaluate the extent to which  the Coast Guard applied key reform practices and considerations for  evaluating organizational change efforts we assessed Coast Guard  policies and procedures related to Coast Guard operations against the  key practices we outlined in our June 2018 report on government  reorganization. We collected and analyzed documentation related to  Coast Guard’s actions taken to implement organizational change efforts  such as the modernization effort and the integration of the Coast Guard’s  reserve component into the headquarters governance structure. We  assessed these reports, data and documents against selected criteria for  key practices and considerations for agency reorganization identified in  our June 2018 report.

We selected relevant key practices by examining each of the potential  four categories and 12 subcategories identified in our June 2018 report to  determine the extent to which the practices under each applied to the  Coast Guard’s modernization and reserve component integration efforts.  The four categories are Goals and outcomes,” “Process for developing  reforms,” “Implementing the reforms,” and “Strategically managing the  federal workforce.”

We deemed two subcategories under the category of “Implementing the  reform”, “Leadership focus and attention” and” Managing and monitoring”  and one subcategory “Strategic workforce planning” under the “Strategic  planning for the federal workforce” category as relevant criteria for  assessing the Coast Guard’s modernization efforts. We deemed the  remaining nine subcategories not relevant to the Coast Guard’s  modernization efforts since modernization was implemented in 2006 and  retrospective analysis of these criteria would not result in the agency  being able to make changes. For the three subcategories included in our  assessment, we determined seven key practices from these  subcategories that were most relevant to the Coast Guard’s  modernization efforts and applied those practices to our assessment. We  reviewed Coast Guard documentation and then made qualitative  determinations about the extent to which the Coast Guard’s  implementation of its modernization efforts addressed these criteria. A  second analyst independently reviewed and validated each  determination. We evaluated the Coast Guard’s actions against key  reform practices to determine if they were generally, partially, or not at all  applied.

Generally applied. Agency documentation demonstrated that Coast  Guard officials substantially applied applicable key practices.

Partially applied. Agency documentation demonstrated that Coast  Guard officials applied some key practices but not to a significant  degree.

Not at all applied. Agency documentation did not demonstrate that  Coast Guard officials applied key practices.

We deemed the following seven subcategories under the four categories  as relevant criteria for assessing the Coast Guard’s reserve component  Integration efforts: “Establishing goals and outcomes,” “Involving  employees and key stakeholders,” “Using data and evidence,”  “Addressing high risk and Longstanding management challenges,”  “Leadership focus and attention,” “Managing and monitoring,” and  “Strategic workforce planning.” We determined that the remaining three  subcategories were not relevant to the Coast Guard’s reserve component  integration efforts because we deemed the key practice more applicable  to a government-wide effort or determined that it was too early to consider  as the reserve integration effort was in its initial implementation stage. For  the seven subcategories included in our assessment, we determined 19  key practices from these subcategories were most relevant to the Coast  Guard’s reserve component integration efforts and applied those  practices to our assessment.

We reviewed Coast Guard documentation and made qualitative  determinations about the extent to which the Coast Guard’s reserve  component Integration actions addressed these criteria. A second analyst  independently reviewed and validated each determination. We assessed  the Coast Guard’s actions using the modernization effort scale: (1)  Generally applied; (2) Partially applied; (3) Not applied; and (4) Minimally  applied.

Minimally applied. Agency documentation demonstrated that Coast  Guard officials applied a limited number of key practices with  significant gaps associated with each key practice.

Our determinations are preliminary observations of the effort because  Coast Guard’s reserve component organizational effort was in its nascent  stages during our review. This presented several challenges in  determining the point at which Coast Guard actions justify a rating of  generally applied and partially applied. We applied the following decision  rules to resolve these discrepancies:  If one practice of the subcategory was rated partially applied, then we  concluded that the subcategory as a whole partially applied.

If one practice of the subcategory was rated generally applied, but  one or more other key practices as either partially applied or not at all  applied, then we concluded that the subcategory as a whole partially  applied.

If one practice of the subcategory was rated partially applied, but one  or more other key practices rated either minimally applied or not at all  applied, then we concluded that the subcategory as a whole minimally  applied.

We interviewed cognizant officials at Coast Guard headquarters, and field  units, including the Atlantic and Pacific Area commands, and two Coast  Guard districts and two Coast Guard sectors collocated with them. We  interviewed officials from the two area commands because of their role in  implementing organizational changes, and the districts and sectors for  their perspectives on the Coast Guard workforce assessment process.  Headquarters and field officials interviewed were responsible for the  overall management of their organization in addition to officials  responsible for facilitating the implementation of organizational change  efforts. We reviewed prior GAO reports on organizational realignment,  Coast Guard organizational changes, and high-risk issues in the federal  government. In addition, we reviewed other reports evaluating long- standing agency management challenges. Finally, we reviewed  documents and information on these organizational change efforts and  compared them against Coast Guard guidance on organizational  changes.

To address our second objective, we analyzed Coast Guard documents  related to management tools the Coast Guard has developed to  determine its workforce requirements and identify personnel needs.  Documentation included guidance and analysis related to developing  workforce staffing needs, and strategies that set out the Coast Guard’s  stated human capital principles. As with the first objective, we interviewed  cognizant officials at Coast Guard headquarters, its Atlantic and Pacific  area commands, and the two Coast Guard districts and two sectors  collocated with them. Headquarters officials we interviewed were  responsible for the development of manpower requirements and  overseeing implementation of workforce assessments for Coast Guard  units. We also reviewed prior GAO reports on workforce planning and  Coast Guard personnel issues. Finally, we reviewed documents and  information on these efforts to assess workforce requirements, and  compared them against Coast Guard guidance on organizational changes  for conducting the manpower requirements determination process, and  our prior work related to strategic human capital management.

To assess the extent to which the Coast Guard has supported its  workforce with manpower requirements analyses and determinations, we  analyzed all manpower requirements analysis (MRA) and determination  documents the Coast Guard completed from 2003, when it began  implementing the manpower requirements determination process,  through calendar year 2019, the last full year of data available at the time  of our review. Specifically, we requested the entire collection of MRA and  determination documents from the Coast Guard. We then requested the  number of positions that make up each unit type with a completed MRA.  We assessed the reliability of the Coast Guard’s data through electronic  testing, reviewing documentation, and interviewing Coast Guard  headquarters and field unit officials regarding how these data were  collected and used. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for determining the number of positions within each type of Coast  Guard unit. With this information, for every MRA and determination  completed, we calculated the number of positions in the Coast Guard’s  workforce supported by available data.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2018 to February  2020 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.

Appendix II: Overview of the Coast Guard’s Modernization Effort Case for Change, Intended Goals, and Examples of Key Actions Taken, Calendar Years 2006 - 2015

In 2006, the Commandant of the Coast Guard issued 10 Commandant  Intent Action Orders intended to address elements of the Coast Guard’s  command and control structure, mission support systems, and business  processes that were identified as detracting from mission execution.

Table 2 provides an overview of the issues that drove the Coast Guard’s  modernization effort, the intended goals for the effort as outlined in the  2006 Commandant Intent Action Orders, and examples of key actions the  Coast Guard has taken to address the goals.

Appendix III: Extent to Which the Coast Guard’s Reorganization of its Reserve Component Applied Key Reform Practices

The Coast Guard’s reserve component is its only workforce dedicated to  respond to contingency operations such as natural and manmade  disasters. The Coast Guard found that demand for reserve forces to  augment its active duty workforce had grown as the service was called to  respond to more contingencies. In 2006, under its organizational  modernization effort, the Coast Guard issued a goal to optimize the use of  the reserve component by ensuring the reserve workforce had the  necessary training and support. The Coast Guard shifted governance of  the reserve component under the Deputy Commandant for Mission  Support; however under this structure, the Coast Guard did not take into  account the difference between the reserves workforce being considered  a program as opposed to a distinct component of the United States  military. As such, in 2018, the Coast Guard chartered a project team to  evaluate the state of the reserve component’s governance and develop  alternate options to better integrate the reserves into the Deputy  Commandant for Operations.

In 2019, the Coast Guard integrated its reserve component into its Deputy  Commandant for Operations governance structure. Officials told us that  the goals for the new reserve component organization are to provide  headquarters decision-makers enhanced visibility of operational  readiness, competencies assigned and attained, and to use predictive  modeling to look 2 or 3 years ahead to anticipate readiness posture and  administrative readiness. They noted that achieving these goals relies on  better data collection and developing metrics that can capture Coast  Guard-wide information. Officials told us that, as of June 2019, the new  organization was at initial operational capacity using existing staff.

Table 3 provides our assessment of the extent to which the Coast  Guard’s actions to reorganize its reserve component governance  structure had applied key reform practices and examples of actions and  deficiencies.

Appendix IV: Coast Guard Manpower Requirements Determination Process Completed from Calendar Years 2014 - 2019

From calendar years 2014 through 2019, the Coast Guard implemented  the manpower requirements determination process for 30 of its 158 unit  types. The Coast Guard completed manpower requirements analyses for  30 unit types. Of these 30 manpower requirements analyses, the Coast  Guard completed required manpower requirements determinations— establishing a manpower requirement—for only four of these 30 unit  types.

Table 4 shows the most recent manpower requirements analyses, and  corresponding determinations, completed from calendar years 2014  through 2019.

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements

In addition to the above contacts, Jason Berman (Assistant Director),  Jennifer Kamara (Analyst-in Charge), Ben Atwater, Susan Czachor,  Elizabeth Dretsch, Eric Hauswirth, Tracey King, Daniel Kuhn, and Kevin  Reeves made key contributions to this report.

The Coast Guard provides maritime safety, security, and environmental protection. Since 9/11, its roles and responsibilities have grown to include national security and disaster response. The Coast Guard recently told Congress that it doesn’t have enough people to meet its mission demands.

However, we found the service doesn’t have a complete picture of the workforce needed for meeting its mission demands. For example, it only has current workforce assessments for 4% of its unit types. We made 6 recommendations, including that the Coast Guard update its workforce assessment plan with timeframes and milestones for completion.