- Home
- Agencies
- Department of Agriculture
- Department of Housing and Urban Development
- General Services Administration
- Department of Commerce
- Department of the Interior
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Department of Defense
- Department of Justice
- National Science Foundation
- Department of Education
- Department of Labor
- Office of Personnel Management
- Department of Energy
- Department of State
- Small Business Administration
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Department of Transportation
- Social Security Administration
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of the Treasury
- U.S. Agency for International Development
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Veterans Affairs
- Goals
- Initiatives
- Programs
Primary tabs
Key to Changes
This text is Revised text
This word has been added to the text
This text is Last Published text
This word has been removed from the text
Modifed styling with no visual changes
Ashton B. CarterSecretary of Defense
Department of Defense (DOD)
Mission
Overview
The Department of Defense (DoD) is one of the nation’s largest employers, with approximately 1.4 million Active Component, 836,000 Selected Reserve and 245,000 Individual Ready Reserve forces; and 735,000 appropriated and 126,000 non-appropriated civilian employees. Our military service members and civilians operate in every time zone and in every climate, and more than 450,000 of our employees serve overseas. As one of the nation’s largest health-care providers, the DoD cares for almost 9.5 million beneficiaries. DoD executes a multibillion dollar global supply chain, manages a five million item inventory, and operates with a $500 billion dollar budget. The DoD’s real property infrastructure includes over 561,975 facilities (buildings and structures) located on 4,800 sites worldwide. These sites represent nearly 25 million acres; sized from the training ranges of nearly 3 million acres, such as Nellis Air Force Base, to single weather towers or navigational aids isolated on sites of less than one one-hundredth (0.01) of an acre. To protect the security of the United States, the Department operates approximately 5,285 aircraft and 293 ships.
The Department engages in Warfighting, Humanitarian Aid, Peacekeeping, Disaster Relief and Homeland Security, while simultaneously performing functions necessary to effectively and efficiently support our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines and their families.
The Department has five overarching Strategic Goals, as reflected in the DoD's 2015-2018 Agency Strategic Plan:
1. Defeat our Adversaries, Deter War, and Defend the Nation.
2. Sustain a Ready Force to Meet Mission Needs.
3. Strengthen and Enhance the Health and Effectiveness of the Total Workforce.
4. Achieve Dominant Capabilities through Innovation and Technical Excellence.
5. Reform and Reshape the Defense Institution.
Expand All
Strategic Goals & Objectives
Agencies establish a variety of organizational goals to drive progress toward key outcomes for the American people. Long-term strategic goals articulate clear statements of what the agency wants to achieve to advance its mission and address relevant national problems, needs, challenges and opportunities. Strategic objectives define the outcome or management impact the agency is trying to achieve, and also include the agency's role. Each strategic objective is tracked through a suite of performance goals, indicators and other evidence.
The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, is the senior military authority in the nation ultimately responsible for the protection of the U.S. from all enemies, foreign and domestic. We report to our Commander-in-Chief and execute the directions of the administration elected to serve the nation. The U.S. Congress is our Board of Directors as part of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances. We further have responsibility to our armed forces who risk their well-being for the nation. The American people are our citizen stockholders we exist to protect. In developing the DoD Agency Strategic Plan, periodic consultations have included
solicitation and consideration of views and suggestions with our interested stakeholders.
Strategic Goal:
Defeat our Adversaries, Deter War, and Defend the Nation
Statement: No Data Available
Strategic Objectives
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Statement:
Remain vigilant regarding national vulnerabilities to known and emergent military threats posed by internal and external agents, and in concert with other federal departments and agencies, be prepared to execute Defense missions to disrupt, dismantle and defeat military threats
Description:No Data Available
Strategic Goal:
Sustain a Ready Force to Meet Mission Needs
Statement: No Data Available
Strategic Objectives
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Strategic Goal:
Strengthen and Enhance the Health and Effectiveness of the Total Workforce
Statement: No Data Available
Strategic Objectives
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Strategic Goal:
Achieve Dominant Capabilities through Innovation and Technical Excellence
Statement: No Data Available
Strategic Objectives
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Strategic Goal:
Reform and Reshape the Defense Institution
Statement: No Data Available
Strategic Objectives
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Statement:No Data Available
Description:No Data Available
Expand All
FY16-17 Agency Priority Goals
An Agency Priority Goal is a near-term result or achievement that agency leadership wants to accomplish within approximately 24 months that relies predominantly on agency implementation as opposed to budget or legislative accomplishments. Click below to see this agency's FY16-17 Priority Goals.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
Our Nation should provide the best support possible to those who keep our country free and strong as they transition to civilian life, especially during this time of planned structural Department of Defense (DoD) reorganizations.
By September 30, 2017, DoD will improve the career readiness of Service members transitioning to civilian life by: 1) ensuring at least 85% of eligible active duty Service members and 85% of eligible reserve component Service members complete the following required transition activities prior to separation from active duty: pre-separation counseling, a Department of Labor employment workshop, and Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits briefings; 2) verifying that at least 85% of eligible active duty Service members and 85% of eligible reserve component Service members meet established Career Readiness Standards or received a warm handover to appropriate partner agencies prior to separation from active duty; 3) accelerating the transition of recovering Service Members into Veteran status by reducing the disability evaluation processing time; and 4) supporting the seamless transition of recovering Service Members by sharing active recovery plans with the VA.
Description:
Problem / Opportunity:
DoD and other critical federal partners are working to ensure that all eligible Service members participate in an effective program of pre-separation planning and education through evidence-based learning. This support is delivered through a new curriculum, Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success) within the DoD Transition Assistance Program (TAP).
There are no current Government Accountability Office (GAO) or Inspector General (IG) audits related to Performance Measures 1 and 2. On June 24, 2015, the DoD IG requested that TVPO provide follow-up on comments made in GAO Report-14-144, Transitioning Veterans: Improved Oversight Needed to Enhance Implementation of Transition Assistance Program (GAO Code 131231). In response to this IG request, the following response was provided: The Interagency TAP Evaluation Strategy was created and subsequently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in May 2014. A written plan describing this strategy was completed in April 2015.
There are no current Government Accountability Office (GAO) or IG audits related to Performance Measure 3 (IDES) or Performance Measure 4 (WII Active Recovery Plans).
Relationship to Strategic Goal and Objective:
This performance goal supports the Department's mission through the following strategies:
1. DoD Agency Strategic Plan (ASP), Goal #3: Strengthen and Enhance the Health and Effectiveness of the Total Workforce; Strategic Objective 3.1 Service members separating from Active Duty are prepared for the transition to civilian life.
2. Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Strategic Goal 4: Preserve and Enhance the All-Volunteer Force; Strategic Goal 5: Provide an Agile, Efficient, Comprehensive Enterprise that Responds to the Warfighter and Maintains Public Confidence Strategic Objective 4.1: Provide top-quality physical and psychological care to wounded warriors while reducing growth in overall healthcare costs; Objective 5.6: Provide more effective and efficient Force Readiness Operations Support.
Key Barriers and Challenges:
Securing Transition Assistance Program (TAP) resources for both the DoD and interagency partners to meet statutory and DoD policy requirements. Achieving full accountability of Service members meeting Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) and Congressional Research Service (CRS) compliance, given the variety of systems and data collection methods that must be integrated to verify completion of mandatory pre-separation activities and training. Mission requirements often take priority over transition activities; full integration across the military life cycle requires a cultural shift for both Service members and commanders.
DoD and Veteran’s Affairs (VA) are joint partners in the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES), and both Departments’ ability to meet IDES’ goals depends on the other’s performance. The IDES process still relies in part on the exchange of paper case files. To increase process efficiency and improve program oversight, DoD is developing a comprehensive electronic case management system that will be interoperable with VA systems.
Mitigation Efforts:
DoD continues to work to identify and resolve the remaining gaps in data collection and transmission of the VOW and CRS compliance rate data to ensure data accuracy and that the DD Forms 2958 are received for all eligible Service members separating from active duty. In June 2015, OSD P&R Business Council approved a streamlined enterprise data collection process that will mitigate some risks to data quality.
DoD is taking steps to accelerate the transition of Wounded, Ill, and Injured Service Members into Veteran status. The Department is incorporating feedback from Service members and quality assurance reviews of disability determination in addition to monitoring disability processing of timeliness to streamline the IDES process. DoD is also collaborating with VA to eliminate duplicate work, and share medical examination and disability ratings to produce faster, more consistent determinations. To this end, DoD established and IDES performance measure, consisting of the timeliness for specific phases, Service member satisfaction, accuracy and consistency of determinations, and compliance with administrative processing requirements. The DoD will actively monitor and track these elements to ensure the performance targets are met.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
As the single largest consumer of energy in the nation, DoD accounts for approximately one percent of national demand.
Executive order 13693 mandates a 2.5% annual reduction in facilities energy intensity as measured in British Thermal Units per gross square foot. Improving facility energy performance on DoD installations will lower energy costs, improve mission effectiveness, improve energy resilience, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Energy is a fundamental enabler of military capability. In the context of operational missions, understanding the implications of energy use in systems and weapons platforms allows DoD to improve combat effectiveness. Specifically, the Department can assess the energy supportability of systems and concepts through scenario-based analyses that include realistic threats and logistics constraints.
By September 30, 2025, DoD will improve its facility energy performance by reducing average building energy intensity by 25% from the 2015 baseline: 1) By September 30, 2017, the DoD will improve its facility energy performance by reducing average facility energy intensity by 5% from a 2015 baseline. 2) By September 30, 2018, the DoD will improve its facility energy performance by reducing average facility energy intensity by 7.5% from 2015 baseline.
By September 2018, DoD will institutionalize operational energy considerations in the force development process: 1) By September 30, 2016 DoD will ensure all acquisition programs that use operational energy and are designated as Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) Interest Items by the Joint Staff have an Energy Supportability Analysis (ESA)-informed Energy Key Performance Parameter (eKPP); 2) By September 30, 2017, DoD will include operational energy constraints and limitations analyses in all Title 10 war games; and 3) By September 30, 2018, ensure ESAs are used in all acquisition programs that use operational energy and were established in FY 2016 and later.
Description:
Problem / Opportunity:
As the single largest consumer of energy in the nation, accounting for around one percent of national demand, DoD spent approximately $4 billion in FY2014 to power its fixed installations and non-tactical vehicle fleet (installation energy). Operational energy accounts for a substantial portion of DoDs overall consumption – warranting efforts for data accuracy and accountability.
Relationship to Strategic Goal and Objective:
As DoD strives to better support 21st century needs by reforming and reshaping the institution to gain efficiencies and effectiveness, efforts to reduce the nation’s predominant energy consumption and consequential expenditures must remain a Defense priority.
Operational energy is the energy required for training, moving, and sustaining military forces and weapons platforms for military operations. This includes energy used by tactical power systems and generators, as well as by weapons platforms themselves. The DoD considers operational energy to be the energy used in military operations, in direct support of military operations, and in training that supports unit readiness for military operations, to include the energy used at non-enduring locations (contingency bases).
Improving the energy supportability of DoD systems and weapons platforms directly supports the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review statement that “Energy improvements enhance range, endurance, and agility, particularly in the future security environment where logistics may be constrained.” Facility energy improvements support DoD’s Strategic Goal to Reform and Reshape the Defense Institution and Strategic Objective to Achieve efficiencies and effectiveness to redirect resources to direct support of combat, combat support, and combat service support elements of the DoD. Operational energy efforts directly support DoD’s Strategic Goal to Defeat our Adversaries, Deter War, and Defend the Nation.
Key Barriers and Challenges:
Improving facility energy performance depends upon capital investments in energy efficiency programs. Major reductions in the facility energy budget as a result of sequestration during FY 2013 and FY 2014 will make it very difficult for the Department to meet mandated facility energy goals.
To improve decision making related to operational energy, DoD needs reliable and detailed data on energy consumption. Current methods for measuring operational energy consumption typically do not include information on end use, limiting DoD’s ability to inform planning, programming, and operational decisions.
Successfully institutionalizing energy supportability analyses in DoD force development is dependent on widespread adoption and understanding of the value of Energy Supportability Analyses (ESAs) as well as the consistent application of realistic threats and limited logistics capacity in our force development planning. Improved capabilities (e.g., increased range, improved force protection, etc.) are often inseparable from increased energy demand. Addressing that increased energy demand through adaptations in the Department’s use of energy often come at the expense of significant funding gaps, as modifications, upgrades, or other design changes are expensive to implement.
Mitigation Efforts:
The DoD will continue to pursue opportunities to use third-party financing through performance based energy savings contracts. DoD has a commitment to execute nearly $2.1 billion in third-party financed performance-based contracts (Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) and Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESC)) by the end of CY2016, in response to the President’s December. 2, 2011 commitment. To date, DoD has awarded $1.05 billion in performance based energy contracts.
Additionally, improved estimate efforts on end use consumption of operational energy will better inform DoD with a credible baseline.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
Deliver better value to the taxpayer and warfighter by improving the way DoD does business while achieving dominant capabilities through technical excellence and innovation.
By September 30, 2017, DoD will improve its acquisition process by ensuring: 1) the median growth in cycle time for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) will not increase by more than 15 percent from the Milestone B baseline; 2) the biennial rate of quantity adjusted unit procurement cost growth for MDAPs will not exceed 6 percent; 3) the annual number of MDAP breaches--significant or critical cost overruns for reasons other than approved changes in quantity--will be zero; 4) the percent of acquisition positions filled with personnel meeting Levels II and III certification requirements will increase from the previous fiscal year; and 5) the percent of contract obligations that are competitively awarded will increase from 56.9 percent in FY 2013 to 57 percent in FY 2017.
Description:
Problem / Opportunity:
The DoD Better Buying Power initiatives begun in 2010, now in their third iteration, directed the acquisition professionals in DoD to not only deliver better value to the taxpayer and warfighter by improving the way DoD does business, but to achieve dominant capabilities through technical excellence and innovation.
Next to supporting the armed forces at war, this is the highest priority for DoD’s acquisition professionals. There is a continuing responsibility to procure the critical goods and services the U.S. armed forces need in the years ahead without having ever-increasing budgets to pay for them. It has taken years for excessive costs and unproductive overhead to creep into DoD’s business practices. The Better Buying Power Initiatives roadmap for addressing these problems includes targeting affordability, controlling cost growth, controlling cycle times, and promoting real competition.
Relationship to Strategic Goal and Objective:
This Priority Goal contributes to DoD achieving the Strategic Goal to Achieve Dominant Capabilities through Innovation and Technical Excellence and the Strategic Objective to improve acquisition process from requirement definition to execution phase and through lifecycle enhancement, to acquire and sustain military-unique and commercial items by including over 80 Major Defense Acquisition Programs and policies that enable over $250 billion in annual obligations by the Department of Defense. The scope alone covers a significant portion of DoD’s business.
Congressional Input (Relevant Highlights):
These initiatives support statutory compliance and give the taxpayer the greatest return for their money. The initiatives also provide accurate and timely decision-making information.
Key Barriers and Challenges:
Budget uncertainty is the greatest risk that can impact reaching our performance goals and measures. Stability and the ability to plan with reasonable budget projections are paramount. All of the improvements in performance of the acquisition system can easily be undone with the inefficiencies and vagaries of budgetary uncertainty and volatility. Yet, there is a continuing responsibility to procure the critical goods and services the U.S. armed forces need in the years ahead without having ever-increasing budgets to pay for them. The key internal challenge for DoD is to put each program on a sound footing from the beginning. The Acquisition workforce must understand and employ a variety of Better Buying Power tools to ensure solid programmatics at program inception and throughout execution. Through 2016, Quarterly Business Senior Integration Group (B-SIG) meetings continued with senior leader focus and attention on competition achievement to increase visibility and accountability. At these meetings, the Service Acquisition Executives attributed difficulties with achieving Service goals for competition rates to high value sole source foreign military sales and “Bridge” contracts that impacted competition achievement. Additionally, contracts for major non-competitive shipbuilding and aviation programs driven by historical strategic decisions made years ago continue to influence competition opportunities for the long term. These factors contributed significantly to the Department’s FY 2016 competition rate of 52.8 (last year’s report said 55.1) percent.
Mitigation Efforts:
DoD can guard against cost growth by ensuring a match between requirements and resources when the program baseline is established at program initiation or Milestone B. In other words, acquisition programs begin with mature technologies, adequate funding and personnel resources, and sufficient time to finish product development.
Also, requirements must be achievable given those resource constraints and must be agreed upon and remain largely intact throughout the product development phase. DoD must guard against so-called “requirements creep.” Furthermore, disciplined and constant oversight is needed. The Services and program managers (PMs) also need to overcome any shortcomings in staff capabilities to perform the kind of portfolio analyses and systems engineering tradeoff analyses that would strengthen DoD’s ability to understand and control future costs from a program’s inception.
Regarding competition, it is the single most powerful tool for reducing costs, and the most common reason for DoD noncompetitive awards is that one contractor is the only responsible source for the procurement. This occurs because the program has moved past the stage in the lifecycle where competition is economically viable. The Department continues to take steps to increase competition for major systems by introducing competition during the sustainment phase of a product's life cycle through the use of open systems and open architectures.
USD(AT&L) is undertaking additional analysis of FY 2014-2015 competition rates. For FY 2016, the Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP), with Component input, will examine differing circumstances and projected competitive opportunities to enable more meaningful and achievable goals.
To prevent cost breaches and cycle time growth for newer MDAP programs, DoD has strengthened the front end of the acquisition process through new policy and procedural guidance. Release of the request for proposal for the Engineering and Management Development (EMD) Phase is the critical decision point in a program. The program will either successfully lead to a fielded capability or encounter problems based on the soundness of the capability requirements, the affordability of the program, and the feasibility of the program execution plan put into motion at that point. To increase emphasis on the importance of this decision, the USD(AT&L) has issued policy guidance establishing a new decision point, the Pre-EMD review, designed to ensure a comprehensive and effective discussion of program business arrangements and readiness to proceed to EMD before EMD source selection and Milestone B.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
Improve overall force readiness and the safety of all Service members by inculcating a culture where Service members are motivated to intervene against inappropriate behavior. This culture will be inculcated by creating an environment where victims feel supported reporting the crime of sexual assault, which will result in a decrease in the number of military members impacted by sexual violence and misconduct.
By 2018, working with the Military Services and nationally-recognized organizations, shape the health and readiness of the force through the following key indicators:
- Prevention: Of four percent of survey respondents who indicated they saw a potential incident of sexual assault developing, 87 percent indicated on a survey that they intervened. The percentage of bystander interventions in sexual assault will increase over 2014 survey results from 87 percent to 95 percent.
- Response:
- Increase the overall estimated report rate of restricted (confidential) and unrestricted sexual assault allegations across the DoD from 25 percent to 35 percent.
- Increase the proportion of men reporting sexual assault allegations across DoD from 10 percent to 20 percent.
Continue to tie this APG into other DoD efforts to prevent sexual assault and respond to victims.
Description:
1) Problem / Opportunity:
Sexual assault is a significant challenge facing the United States military and the nation. It is a detriment to the welfare of men and women in uniform and is antithetic to core military values of trust, dignity, and respect. Although the military has made great strides in sexual assault prevention and response in recent years, sexual assault remains a problem in the Department. According to the 2014 RAND Military Workplace Survey, about four percent of military women and one percent of military men experience a sexual assault in a given year. Based on these prevalence rates, an estimated 18,900 Service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2014, down from the 26,000 Service member victims estimated in 2012. However, less than a quarter of them report the allegation to a military authority. The Department’s approach promotes a military climate that empowers all to do their part to prevent sexual assault, and encourages Service members to report the allegations. Increased reporting signals growing trust of command and confidence in the response system. Increased reporting also serves as the primary means by which the Department can provide restorative care and hold offenders appropriately accountable through the military justice system, which in turn contributes to improved force readiness.
As outlined in the 2014 Report to the President of the United States on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response in the Military Active Bystander, “Intervention” is a, “philosophy and strategy for prevention of various types of violence, including bullying, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence. The approach is based on evidence that people make decisions and continue behaviors based on the cultural conditioning and norms through subtle reactions from others and the resultant expectations of social interaction.” Bystander intervention is unique in that it:
- Discourages victim blaming
- Offers the chance to change social norms
- Shifts responsibility to all Service members
Measuring interventions and reporting rates annually provides an indication of positive cultural change that can be sampled on a re-occurring basis. The Department employs multiple data collection efforts at varying timeframes. The Workplace and Gender Relations surveys for Active Duty and Reserve Component personnel are fielded every two years on off-years from each other. Other surveys and focus groups also occur inside and outside of that timeframe.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit related to Performance Measure #3:
GAO-15-284, Military Personnel – Actions Needed to Address Sexual Assaults of Male Service Members.
Issue(s):
- DoD needs to improve its ability to prevent and respond to sexual assaults of male Service members. DoD has not used all of the available data on male victims, such as analyses that show significantly fewer male Service members than females reporting sexual assault, to inform program decision making.
- DOD has not generally portrayed male sexual assault in its sexual assault prevention training material.
Recommendations:
- Develop a plan for data-driven decision-making to prioritize program efforts.
- Revise sexual assault prevention and response training to more comprehensively and directly address the incidence of sexual assault allegations by male service members and how certain behavior and activities – like hazing–can lead to a sexual assault.
DoD Actions: The Department has taken steps this past year to build a foundation of data sources to shape policy and programs and to advance the appropriate prevention and response systems that meet the needs of both men and women. DoD’s research and data collection efforts have broadened our understanding of the differences in how both men and women experience the crime of sexual assault in the military. Since 2006, our biennial Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of the force has provided invaluable data on the extent of sexual assault in the military. As part of the 2014 Military Workplace Study, DoD enlisted the support of the RAND Corporation to take a closer look at gender differences in sexual assault patterns. As a result of that study, it appears that the experience of an assault may be interpreted differently. While viewed as an assault by some, other victims might see an act as a form of “hazing.” These differences in how a victim interprets the crime often fall along gender lines. Some men may not even consider the act to be something sexual, but rather abusive and humiliating. In addition, results reveal that men are more likely to report experiencing sexual assault in their place of duty; whereas women are more likely to report experiencing sexual assault outside of the workplace. The Department is incorporating key findings about gender differences into the advocate certification program and training for Service Members, as well as enhancing the male-focused information and resources on the DoD Safe Helpline. Our prevention focus leverages commanders to regularly assess their environments and take corrective action, as appropriate, with sexual assault and hazing being specific targets for intervention. Additionally, these findings motivated the Secretary of Defense to direct that the Department fully evaluate its gender-focused treatment capabilities and provider training to ensure they address the specific needs of women and men.
2) Relationship to Strategic Goal and Objective:
This performance goal supports the Department's mission through the following strategies:
- DoD Agency Strategic Plan (ASP), Goal #2: Strengthen and Enhance the Health and Effectiveness of the Total Workforce; Strategic Objective 2.2: Support and retain the DOD workforce by fostering and encouraging workforce initiatives to ensure employees are trained, engaged and retained.
- Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 2014, Strategic Goal: Maintain the strength of the all-volunteer force and implement new reforms.
- DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Strategy, Strategic Objective 1: Deliver consistent and effective prevention methods and programs, Strategic Objective 4: Deliver consistent and effective victim support, response, and reporting options.
3) Congressional Inputs:
The Department works closely with Congress to improve its programs and policies and to eliminate sexual assault from the military. National Defense Authorization Acts for fiscal years 2012 through 2016 include over 75 sections of law and contain more than 100 requirements related to sexual assault in the military, many of which were built on or in parallel with existing Secretary of Defense initiatives. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 alone provided the most sweeping changes to military law since 1968. Additionally, the Congressionally mandated Response System to Adult Sexual Crimes Panel provided over 130 recommendations to the department to improve sexual assault prevention and response in the military. In December 2015, the Department submitted the first comprehensive military justice reform package in more than 30 years to Congress, which includes 37 statutory additions and substantive amendments to 68 current provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Combined, these provisions seek to improve the military justice system’s capability to appropriately and effectively handle sexual assault and sexual harassment cases.
4) Key Barriers and Challenges:
Although the military faces some of the same challenges with preventing and responding to sexual assault as civilian society, there are some unique barriers and challenges:
- Individuals within the DoD come from a wide variety of backgrounds and their past experiences shape their attitudes and behavior, which may be inconsistent with serving in the military. This, coupled with the significant turnover of personnel each year, is a challenge to maintaining force readiness and eliminating sexual assault from the military.
- There is a perceived stigma associated with reporting sexual assault allegations in an environment that idealizes confidence, decisiveness, and strength. Thus, military members are particularly impacted by this stigma, as many are concerned about being mislabeled as weak or experiencing inappropriate scrutiny of their sexual orientation. This is of particular concern with men. The military is roughly 85% male and we estimate that more men experience sexual assault each year than women. However, men report the crime at a much lower rate. Approximately 10% of men estimated to have experienced a sexual assault make a restricted (confidential) or unrestricted report, and approximately 40% of women estimated to have experienced a sexual assault make a restricted or unrestricted report to DoD. We must overcome the stigma and myths that suggest that only weak people are victims of crime.
- Research indicates many civilian and military sexual assault victims fear being blamed for the crime. Victim blaming is often predicated on the false belief that a victim’s behavior somehow caused the offender to perpetrate the crime. We must overcome the stigma surrounding victim blaming within the military environment.
- Maintaining confidentiality in the military environment is difficult, even with the protections afforded certain communications in both policy and law.
- Fear of negative career impact is also a factor in many victims’ decisions not to report a sexual assault allegation.
5) Mitigation Efforts:
DoD has an existing leadership structure, empowered by law to promote good order and discipline. In seeking ways to eliminate sexual assault, the Department is leveraging its existing culture of honor, dignity, and respect to drive organizational changes that empower every Service Member to take action against disrespectful and dangerous behaviors.
The Department will continue to deliberately solicit victim feedback and engage subject matter experts to inform SAPR policies and programs.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 mandates that the Department of Defense (DoD) have audit ready financial statements by 2017.
The DoD’s financial statement will be audit ready by September 30, 2017.
Description:
Problem / Opportunity:
Valuing and accurately reporting over $2.2 trillion in assets, reporting over $2.4 trillion liabilities, and preparing full financial statements for audit. Audit readiness priorities expand from budgetary data reported on the Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) to all financial transactions reported on the Balance Sheet, Statement of Net Cost, and statement of Change in Net Position.
Relationship to Strategic Goal and Objective:
Achieving audit readiness supports the DoD Strategic Goal to Reform and Reshape the Defense Institution, and the Strategic Objective to improve financial processes, controls, and information via audit readiness.
Congressional Highlights:
As addressed in the NDAA (starting with 2010), directed requirements related to:
- The development of a plan that includes interim objectives and a schedule of milestones for each military department and for the defense agencies, supporting audit readiness goals, to include improvements and business systems modernization efforts necessary for the DoD to consistently prepare timely, reliable, and complete financial management information.
- Developing a plan that should include corrective actions for any identified weaknesses or deficiencies to include identifying near- and long-term measures for resolving any such weaknesses or deficiencies; assign responsibilities within the DoD to implement such measures; specify implementation steps for such measures; and provide timeframes for implementation of such measures.
- The Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan describing specific actions to be taken and the costs associated with ensuring that the financial statements of the DoD are validated as ready for audit not later than September 30, 2017. Upon the conclusion of FY 2018, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that a full audit is performed on the financial statements of the DoD for such FY. The Secretary shall submit to Congress the results of that audit not later than March 31, 2019.
Laws, Regulations, and Policies:
- Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA)
- OMB Circular No. A-123, Management's Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control
- National Defense Authorization Act
- Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
- Government Management Reform Act of 1994
- DoD Financial Management Regulation
- Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) Handbook of Accounting Standards and other pronouncements
Key Barriers and Challenges:
The size, diverse functional scope of business operations and frequently non-standard, decentralized execution of support operations makes this an extremely challenging endeavor.
Valuation of Assets: Valuation of General Property, Plant, and Equipment and of Inventory and Related Property is critical. Many of the Department’s assets were acquired decades ago and before there was a requirement to produce financial statements. As a result, the acquisition (cost) documents required for supporting valuation and audit are often no longer available. The Department must use alternative valuation methods.
Fund Balance with Treasury: Due to the size of the Department’s budget and the enormous amount of funds expended and collected, the number of accounting transactions that must be reconciled between the Department’s accounts and Treasury is very large and complex, compounded by nonstandard data, weak system controls, and edits at the end of the process instead at the beginning.
Universe of Transactions: Providing complete universes of transactions is especially challenging for the Components because of the numerous accounting systems used to initiate and record transactions as well as hundreds of feeder systems where most transactions originate. Components must verify that open obligations for all active and expired appropriations (beginning balances) are supported before starting SBR and full financial statement audits.
IT Systems: The Department has nearly 500 individual IT systems relevant to audit. Meeting the needs of the auditors requires too many manual workarounds and stretches limited resources even more thinly. These systems are costly to maintain and result in substantial IT control issues. To efficiently audit the Department, auditors must be able to rely on the IT environment. The more systems DoD uses, the more difficult the task becomes.
Environmental Liabilities: The Department has not been able to provide assurance that clean-up costs for all of its ongoing, closed, and disposal operations are identified, consistently estimated, and appropriately reported. Additionally, the Department is not able to consistently report environmental liability disclosures and supporting documentation is not properly maintained and readily available for all environmental sites.
Mitigation Efforts:
A strategy has been implemented that includes close engagement with standards setters and audit community such as the DoD Office of the IG, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), and independent public accounting firms to define cost efficient solutions for audit “show stoppers.” In addition, the Department has collaborated with Independent Public Accountants and the FASAB to issue policies governing Existence, Completeness, and Rights. Further, the Department has established working groups to address critical capabilities needed for audit and is in the process of developing detailed implementation plans. The Department will continue to assess risks against these critical capabilities and adjust corrective actions accordingly.
Critical Capabilities Include:
• Critical systems internal controls that impact financial statements
• Fund Balance with Treasury Reconciliation
• Complete Universe of Accounting Transactions
• Property Existence, Completeness, Rights and Valuation
• Environmental Liabilities
• Unsupported Journal Vouchers
The OUSD(C) is partnering with the DoD CIO, DCMO, and DFAS to establish a comprehensive Department-wide solution for risks related to the identified critical capabilities to ensure the Department’s financial statements are complete, accurate, and fully supported by financial transactions.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
Increase funding for high priority core missions by reducing the cost of overhead and management structures and redirect those savings to core missions
Description:
Problem / Opportunity: Given constraints on the DoD budget, and projected reductions in military end-strength, the Department will review whether resources are appropriately allocated to Major DoD Headquarters Activities (MHA). This presents an opportunity to reallocate resources from overhead activities to line to preserve mission capabilities.
Relationship to Strategic Goal and Objective: Improve overall performance, strengthen business operations, and achieve efficiencies, effectiveness, and cost savings within MHA that can be transferred to higher priority needs.
Congressional Input (Relevant Highlights):
1. Section 346, "Reductions in the amounts available for DoD headquarters, administrative, and support activities" - National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016.
2. Section 905, "Periodic review of DoD management headquarters" - Carl Levin and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon NDAA for FY 2015.
3. Section 8038, Requirement for certification of personnel or financial requirements to establish a field operating agency (e.g., Defense Agency or DoD Field Activity) - Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015.
4. Section 8012, Prohibition on managing civilian personnel based on any end-strength limits - Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015.
5. Section 904, "Streamlining of Department of Defense management headquarters" - NDAA for FY 2014.
6. Section 906, "Modification of reference to Major DoD Meadquarters Activities (MHA) instruction" - NDAA for FY 2014.
7. Section 955, "Savings to be achieved in civilian personnel workforce and service contractor workforce of the Department of Defense" - NDAA for FY 2013.
8. Section 931, "General Policy for Total Force Management" - NDAA for FY 2012.
9. Section 932, "Revisions to DoD Civilian Personnel Management Constraints" - NDAA for FY 2012.
10. Section 944, "Report on organizational structures of the geographic combatant command headquarters" - Ike Skelton NDAA for FY 2011.
11. Section 1109, "Adjustments to limitations on personnel and requirement for annual manpower reporting" - NDAA for FY 2010.
12. Section 1111, "Exceptions and adjustments to limitations on personnel and reports on such exceptions and adjustments" - Duncan Hunter NDAA for FY 2009.
13. Section 901, "Repeal of limitation on Major DoD Headquarters Activities personnel and related report" - NDAA for FY 2008.
Internal Partners: DoD Component Heads (in coordination with Office of the DCMO (ODCMO), will lead rebaselining of MHA within their component and ensure appropriate ongoing assessment and management of MHA).
External Partners: Office of Management and Budget (will ensure ongoing tracking and assessment of MHA), and Congressional Defense Committee Members (will provide oversight and propose statutory changes to MHA).
Key Barriers and Challenges: Two key challenges include the ability to:
1. Maintain and ensure a consistent understanding, accounting, and tracking of MHA, and
2. Consistently manage MHA to an optimum level of efficiency, effectiveness, and economy.
Expand All
FY14-15 Agency Priority Goals
An Agency Priority Goal is a near-term result or achievement that agency leadership wants to accomplish within approximately 24 months that relies predominantly on agency implementation as opposed to budget or legislative accomplishments. Click below to see this agency's FY14-15 Priority Goals.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
With America's involvement in Afghanistan winding down, there is a large influx of returning Service members and veterans transitioning to civilian life. To better support all Service members, DoD transformed its Wounded Warrior Agency Priority Goal from Fiscal Years 2012-2013 to an Agency Priority Goal (APG) focused on Transition to Veterans. Transition to Veterans is a top DoD priority, and the Department wants to ensure our men and women in uniform are fully equipped for life after their military Service.
To that end, the Department has identified four programmatic goals that best reflect transition to veterans. These goals include: By September 30, 2015 DoD will improve the career readiness of Service Members’ transitioning to Veteran status by: 1) ensuring at least 85% of eligible Service Members complete required transition activities prior to separation: pre-separation counseling, a Department of Labor (DoL) employment workshop, and Veterans Affairs’ benefits briefings; 2) verifying that at least 85% of separating service members meet newly established Career Readiness Standards prior to separation; 3) accelerating the transition of recovering Service Members into Veteran status by reducing disability evaluation processing time; and 4) supporting the seamless transition of recovering Service Members by sharing active recovery plans with the VA.
Description:
Our Nation should provide the best support possible to those who keep our country free and strong as they transition to civilian life, especially during this time of planned structural reorganizations within the Department of Defense (DoD). To this end, the DoD is partnering with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department of Labor, the Small Business Administration and the Department of Education, to ensure that all Service members participate in an effective program of pre-separation planning and education through evidence-based learning. This support is delivered through a new curriculum, Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success), within the Department’s Transition Assistance Program (TAP).
The Department is also taking steps to accelerate the transition of Wounded, Ill, and Injured Service Members into Veteran status by reducing disability evaluation processing time The Department is incorporating feedback from Service members and quality assurance reviews of disability determinations in addition to monitoring disability processing timeliness to better streamline the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) process. DoD is also collaborating with VA to eliminate duplicate work, and share medical examination and disability ratings to produce faster, more consistent determinations. To this end, the Department established an overall performance measure consisting of timeliness for specific phases within the IDES, Service member satisfaction with the IDES, and quality objectives measuring the accuracy and consistency of IDES disability determinations. The Department will actively monitor and track performance against these measures to ensure DoD performance goals are met.
Key barriers and challenges:
- Securing TAP resources for both the DoD and interagency partners to meet statutory and DoD policy requirements.
- Consolidating multiple Federal and private-sector websites into a single portal that offers resume building, military to civilian skills translation, and connections between Service members and employers.
- Achieving full accountability for delivery of Transition GPS, given the variety of systems and data collection methods that must be integrated to verify completion of mandatory pre-separation activities and training.
- Mission requirements often take priority over transition activities; full integration across the military lifecycle requires a cultural shift for both Service Members and Commanders.
- DoD and VA are joint partners in the IDES, and both Departments' ability to meet IDES’ goals depends on the other's performance.
- The IDES process still relies on paper case files; an electronic case management system is under development.
- Delays in the proposed rating and benefits decision process increase IDES process cycle time.
Relationship to agency strategic goals and objectives
This goal supports the Department’s mission through Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 2010 Goal #4: Preserve and Enhance the All-Volunteer Force. There are also four supporting performance measures:
- Require Service Members to attend pre-separation workshops and counseling sessions prior to separation:
- Separation VOW Compliance (Active Duty) (5.6.1-2T5)
- Create a Career Readiness Standard for Service Members prior to separation:
- Separation Career Readiness Standards (Active Duty) (5.6.2-2T5)
- Accelerate the transition of Wounded, Ill and Injured Service Members into Veteran status by reducing the disability evaluation processing time:
- Percent of Wounded, Ill, or Injured Service Members who meet DoD IDES core process cycle time and satisfaction goals (4.1.3-2M)
- Increase the use of Recovery Care Coordinators and ensure recovering Service Members have active recovery plans:
- Percentage of recovering Service Members enrolled in Wounded Warrior Programs with Active Recovery Plans that are shared with the VA to aid in successful transition (4.1.4-2M)
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
As the single largest consumer of energy in the nation, DoD accounts for approximately one percent of national demand.
Executive Order 13693 mandates a 2.5% annual reduction in facilities’ energy intensity as measured in British Thermal Units per gross square foot. Improving DoD facility energy performance on installations will lower energy costs, improve mission effectiveness, improve energy security, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Energy is a fundamental enabler of military capability. In the context of operational missions, understanding the implications of energy use in systems and weapons platforms enables DoD to improve combat effectiveness. Specifically, the Department can assess the energy supportability of systems and concepts through scenario-based analyses that include realistic threats and logistics constraints.
By September 30, 2025, DoD will improve its facility energy performance by reducing average building energy intensity by 25% from the 2015 baseline: 1) By September 30, 2017, DoD will improve its facility energy performance by reducing average facility energy intensity by 5% from a 2015 baseline.
By September 2018, DoD will institutionalize operational energy considerations in the force development process: 1) By September 30, 2016 DoD will ensure all acquisition programs that use operational energy and designated as Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) Interest Items by the Joint Staff have an Energy Supportability Analysis(ESA)-informed Energy Key Performance Parameter (eKPP); 2) By September 30, 2017, DoD will include operational energy constraints and limitations analyses in all Title 10 war games; and 3) By September 30, 2018, DoD will ensure ESAs are used in all acquisition programs that use operational energy and were established in FY16 and later.
Description:
Improving facility energy performance at Department of Defense (DoD) installations will reduce reliance on fossil fuels, lower energy costs, improve mission effectiveness, and improve energy security. Efficiencies will be achieved by reducing the demand for traditional energy while increasing the supply of renewable energy. Legislation mandates a 3 percent annual reduction in facilities energy intensity as measured in British Thermal Units per gross square foot (BTU/GSF). Additionally, the Department has a requirement to increase production or procurement of renewable energy equal to 25 percent of its electrical energy usage by fiscal year (FY) 2025.
Reliable and detailed data on energy consumption are essential to improving decision making within the Department. Recently, the Department has improved the measurement of operational energy consumption and is improving the use of this information in the requirements, acquisition, and resourcing processes throughout the Department.
The DoD is the single largest consumer of energy in the nation, accounting for approximately one percent of national demand. For FY2014, the Department has budgeted approximately $20 billion on energy, with 80 percent going to support military operations (“operational energy”) and the remaining 20 percent to power its fixed installations (“facility energy”).
Operational Energy
Operational Energy is the use of energy to train, move, and sustain military forces and weapons platforms for military operations. Overseen by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment (ASD (EI&E), “operational energy” powers generators at our contingency bases as well as aircraft, ships, and tactical vehicles in operational and training activities around the globe.
Petroleum is currently the fuel of choice for military operations because of its high energy density, fungibility, and global availability. As a result, a steady and reliable supply of petroleum is essential to every military capability and mission. However, the Department’s ability to reliably deliver petroleum to deployed forces is challenged by a variety of geographic, geopolitical, and military challenges.
The Department’s first ever Operational Energy Strategy was released in 2011. This strategy outlines three principal ways to achieve energy security for the Department: reducing the demand for energy, expanding and securing the supply of energy, and building energy security into the future force.
Facility Energy
The second broad use of energy is to support the more than 500 fixed installations we operate in the United States and overseas. Overseen by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment, “facility energy” consists largely of traditional energy sources used to heat, cool, and provide electrical power to these buildings. It also includes the fuel used by the 200,000 non-tactical vehicles housed at our installations. The DoD has pursued a facility energy investment strategy designed to reduce the energy costs and improve the energy security of our bases.
Despite falling short of the FY 2014 intensity reduction goal of 27 percent, the DoD reduced its energy intensity by 17.6 percent from the FY 2003 baseline and improved by 0.4% from FY 2013. While DoD continues to invest in cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation measures to improve goal progress, there will be challenges in future reductions. These challenges will include: (1) budget sequestration and delayed appropriations, which lead to a reduction in energy efficiency and conservation projects, (2) uncontrollable variables such as weather and temperature variability (i.e., heating and cooling degree days ), increasing facility energy use, and (3) a greater reliance on conducting missions at fixed installations and enduring locations (e.g., training, unmanned aircraft, intelligence, surveillance or reconnaissance missions) , leading to an increased reliance on energy from fixed installations and enduring locations. However, DoD saw significant gains in renewable energy performance in FY2014. DoD increased the amount of renewable energy it produced or procured from 11.8% in FY2013 to 12.3% in FY2014.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
By September 30, 2015, DoD will improve its acquisition process by ensuring that the median cycle time for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) will not increase by more than 2.0% from the previous year; the average rate of acquisition cost growth for MDAPs will not exceed 3%from the previous year; the annual number of MDAP breaches - significant or critical cost overruns for reasons other than approved changes in quantity - will be zero; and DoD will increase the amount of contract obligations that are competitively awarded from 58 percent in FY2014 to 59 percent in FY2015.
Description:
In the Better Buying Power (BBP) initiative announced in September 2010, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) directed the acquisition professionals in DoD to deliver better value to the taxpayer and warfighter by improving the way DoD does business. Next to supporting the Armed Forces at war, he stated that this was the President’s and Secretary of Defense’s highest priority for DoD’s acquisition professionals. USD(AT&L) pointed out their continuing responsibility to procure the critical goods and services U.S. Armed Forces need in the years ahead without having ever-increasing budgets to pay for them. It has taken years for excessive costs and unproductive overhead to creep into DoD’s business practices. The roadmap for addressing these problems includes targeting affordability, controlling cost growth, and promoting real competition. The USD(AT&L) re-emphasized the management philosophy of continued improvement when he introduced Better Buying Power 2.0 in November 2012. This announcement encompassed 36 initiatives organized into seven focus areas, and included a new focus area that reflected the importance of the total acquisition workforce. The basic goal of BBP; however, remains unchanged: deliver better value to the taxpayer and Warfighter by improving the way the Department does business.
The key challenge for DoD is to put its acquisition programs on sound footing from their beginning. DoD can guard against cost growth by ensuring a match between requirements and resources when the APB is established at program initiation or Milestone B. In other words, acquisition programs begin with mature technologies, adequate funding and personnel resources, and sufficient time to finish product development. Also, requirements must be achievable given those resource constraints and must be agreed upon and remain largely intact throughout the product development phase. DoD must guard against so-called “requirements creep.” Furthermore, disciplined and constant oversight is needed. The Services and program managers (PMs) also need to overcome any shortcomings in staff capabilities to perform the kind of portfolio analyses and systems engineering tradeoff analyses that would strengthen DoD’s ability to understand and control future costs from a program’s inception. Regarding competition, the most common reason for DoD noncompetitive awards is that one contractor is the only responsible source for the procurement. The challenge for DoD is to support and strengthen the supplier base to give the Government more supply options. The second most common reason is “authorized by statute.” For example, awards under the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) business development program.
Agency Priority Goal:
Statement:
Achieve audit readiness for all DoD financial statements by September 30, 2017.
Description:
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 mandates that the Department of Defense (DoD) have audit ready financial statements by 2017. Audit ready means the Department has strengthened its internal controls and improved its financial practices, processes, and systems so there is reasonable confidence the information can withstand an audit by an independent auditor.
DoD’s four principle financial statements include:
Statement of Budgetary Resources - Provides information about how budgetary resources were made available as well as their status at the end of the period. It is the only financial statement exclusively derived from the Department’s budgetary general ledger.
Balance Sheet - Reflects the Department’s financial position as of the statement date. The assets are the amount of future economic benefits owned or managed by the Department. The liabilities are amounts owed by the Department. The net position is the difference between the assets and liabilities.
Statement of Net Cost - Separately reports the components of the net cost of the Department’s operations for the period. Net cost is equal to the gross cost incurred by the Department less any exchange revenue earned from its activities, further adjusted for net gains and losses.
Statement of Changes in Net Position - Presents the total cumulative results of operations since inception and unexpended appropriations at the end of the fiscal year. The statement focuses on how the net cost of operations is financed. The resulting financial position represents the difference between assets and liabilities as shown on the consolidated balance sheet. This statement is supported by achieving an audit ready Balance Sheet and Statement of Net Cost.
APG challenges include:
- Valuation of Assets: Valuation of General Property, Plant, and Equipment and of Inventory and Related Property is critical. Many of the Department’s assets were acquired decades ago and before there was a requirement to produce financial statements. As a result, the acquisition (cost) documents required for supporting valuation and audit are often no longer available. For these assets, the Department must use alternative valuation methods.
- Fund Balance with Treasury: Due to the size of the Department’s budget and the enormous amount of funds expended and collected, the number of accounting transactions that must be reconciled between the Department’s accounts and Treasury is very large and the task complex.
- Statement of Budgetary Resources:
- Universe of Transactions- Providing complete universes of transactions is especially challenging for the Components because of the numerous accounting systems used to initiate and record transactions as well as hundreds of feeder systems where most transactions originate.
- Beginning Balances-Components must verify that open obligations for all active and expired appropriations are supported before beginning Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) audits, and many hundreds of open and expired appropriations must be reviewed.
