Full-Time Support Personnel Programs in the Army and Air Force Reserve Components

Testimony was given concerning GAO views on: (1) whether the planned growth in the full-time support programs in the Army and Air Force National Guard and Reserve is justified; and (2) whether proposed conversions of civilian technical positions in the Army Reserve to full-time, active-duty positions would be cost effective. GAO examined the methodologies used by the Army in two evaluations to determine the full-time support program's effect on readiness, and it found weaknesses in the evaluations which were sufficiently serious to limit the usefulness of the information. In addition, GAO found that the evaluation results were not consistently supported by other Army measures. It is still feasible for the Army to conduct an evaluation with results that would enable Congress to better judge the merits of the Army's future budget requests for the program and GAO has suggested an evaluation methodology which would provide valid and reliable data. GAO believes that the Air Force should limit the size of its planned increases until valid data are received from the Army on program effectiveness or until the Air Force can provide definitive evidence on the cost-effectiveness of its programs. GAO also analyzed a contractor report on the projected costs of technician conversions and concluded that the study was a reasonable guide. However, the guidelines would be of greater value if three technical weaknesses were corrected: (1) tax revenue losses and other additional indirect costs should be included; (2) a more accurate estimate of military retired pay should be computed; and (3) the number of technical positions which would be converted at each GS grade level should be determined. Neither the Air Guard nor the Reserve addressed the comparative readiness benefits of the use of technicians versus active-duty Guard and Reserve personnel. Instead, each component stated that its planned mix was necessary to maintain a high level of combat readiness. GAO believes that these two components should be required to further justify their proposed mix, specifically addressing the relative cost and readiness benefits of technicians and active-duty Guard and Reserve personnel.