Military Personnel
Air National Guard Has Taken Steps to Improve the Reliability of Personnel Strength Data, but More Needs to Be Done Gao ID: GAO-07-1138R July 31, 2007In September 2004, the Air National Guard (ANG) discovered inaccuracies in its personnel strength data for recruits with no prior service assigned to pay groups F (attending Initial Active Duty Training, or IADT) and P (awaiting IADT). Specifically, these data did not reflect an accurate accounting of the number of recruits in pay groups F and P. Those recruits attending IADT work full-time and are paid accordingly (pay group F), while recruits waiting to attend IADT receive pay on a part-time basis at the rate of four drills per month (pay group P). The pay for those attending IADT is much higher than for those waiting to attend IADT, so the effect of miscoding the pay groups on ANG's budget estimates can be considerable. In May 2007, we reported to Congress that although ANG has taken reasonable steps to correct the errors in its personnel strength data, some problems still exist with a key quality assurance tool (the Status Report Card process) and with the reliability of the alternate data being reported while the inaccuracies are addressed. The purpose of this correspondence is to inform Congress of the additional steps we believe that ANG needs to take to ensure the reliability of the personnel strength data being reported for the two pay groups.
ANG has taken reasonable steps to correct the errors in its personnel strength data for recruits with no prior service; however, there are additional steps ANG needs to take to ensure the reliability of the personnel strength data for the pay groups. In January 2006, ANG established its Status Report Card process to monitor the number of errors that occurred at the local unit level in updating the student status codes for training that affects the pay group (F or P). The Status Report Card includes data on the number of errors detected in each local unit's records for recruits in pay groups F and P, and assigns each unit a grade ranging from A through F, with A representing the least number of errors and F representing the greatest number of errors. ANG reported that the number of errors at the inception of the Status Report Card process was 1,431 and that as of February 2007 the number was 531. While these steps may have reduced errors in the data, ANG still cannot ensure the reliability of its personnel strength data because it has not followed federal internal control standards. ANG has not taken steps to ensure the reliability of the alternate personnel strength data being reported until the errors from the official data source (Reserve Component Common Personnel Data System) were corrected. ANG officials stated that they did not validate the alternate data being reported in the interim nor confirm that internal control procedures had been established to ensure the reliability of these data. The Branch Chief for Strength Management and Data Analysis stated that the focus was on implementing fixes to solve the problem, not on adequately documenting the Status Report Card process. This official said that the process lacks control activities, such as edit checks, because the available staff did not understand that they needed to establish these controls or how to do so. Until ANG documents how the Status Report Card process is intended to perform, its effectiveness as a monitoring tool is questionable. Likewise, unless ANG validates its alternate data, it cannot reasonably assure the users of the data that they are reliable. As a result, decision makers within the Department of Defense and Congress may not have accurate and complete information to make informed decisions.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-1138R, Military Personnel: Air National Guard Has Taken Steps to Improve the Reliability of Personnel Strength Data, but More Needs to Be Done
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1138R
entitled 'Military Personnel: Air National Guard Has Taken Steps to
Improve the Reliability of Personnel Strength Data, but More Needs to
be Done' which was released on August 1, 2007, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
August 1, 2007:
The Honorable Thomas F. Hall:
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs:
Subject: Military Personnel: Air National Guard Has Taken Steps to
Improve the Reliability of Personnel Strength Data, but More Needs to
Be Done:
Dear Secretary Hall:
In September 2004, the Air National Guard (ANG) discovered inaccuracies
in its personnel strength data for recruits with no prior service
assigned to pay groups F (attending Initial Active Duty Training, or
IADT) and P (awaiting IADT)[Footnote 1] Specifically, these data did
not reflect an accurate accounting of the number of recruits in pay
groups F and P. Those recruits attending IADT work full-time and are
paid accordingly (pay group F), while recruits waiting to attend IADT
receive pay on a part-time basis at the rate of four drills per month
(pay group P). The pay for those attending IADT is much higher
[Footnote 2] than for those waiting to attend IADT, so the effect of
miscoding the pay groups on ANG's budget estimates can be considerable.
In May 2007, we reported to Congress[Footnote 3] that although ANG has
taken reasonable steps to correct the errors in its personnel strength
data, some problems still exist with a key quality assurance tool (the
Status Report Card process) and with the reliability of the alternate
data being reported while the inaccuracies are addressed.
The purpose of this correspondence is to inform you of the additional
steps we believe that ANG needs to take to ensure the reliability of
the personnel strength data being reported for the two pay groups.
To prepare this correspondence, we drew upon the work from our May 2007
issue paper. As part of that examination, we gathered and analyzed
information provided by ANG's Manpower and Personnel Office on the
actions ANG has completed. We reviewed applicable guidance[Footnote 4]
to determine if it was adequate to ensure greater accuracy by the local
units in updating the student records for recruits with no prior
service to ensure that they were being correctly categorized into
either pay group F or P. We reviewed documentation for the three
systems change requests, including evidence that the systems change
requests had been implemented, to determine whether these changes would
automate processes currently being performed manually by the local
units that were resulting in the data reliability errors. We also
reviewed the statistical analysis software code used by ANG to produce
the Status Report Card to determine the effectiveness of this mechanism
in identifying errors and to assess the reliability of the Status
Report Cards being generated. We reviewed a spreadsheet that ANG had
prepared that showed the difference between the data being reported in
the Reserve Component Common Personnel Data System for the actual end
strength for pay groups F and P for fiscal year 2006 and what ANG
officials described as comparable data for fiscal year 2006 from
alternate sources (e.g., the Military Personnel Data System). Because
this correspondence focuses on steps taken by ANG, we did not interview
officials from the Air Education and Training Command, which owns and
manages the alternate data reported. In conducting this work, we held
discussions with cognizant officials from ANG and the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) to confirm the results
of our work and to obtain explanations for any discrepancies noted.
Agency officials concurred with our findings.
We relied on the work described above, which we performed to produce
our May 2007 issue paper, as we wrote this correspondence. This work
was performed from June 2007 through July 2007 under the statutory
authority of the Comptroller General to conduct evaluations on his own
initiative and in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
ANG Has Taken Steps to Correct Data Errors, but Additional Steps Are
Needed to Ensure Data Reliability:
ANG has taken reasonable steps to correct the errors in its personnel
strength data for recruits with no prior service; however, there are
additional steps ANG needs to take to ensure the reliability of the
personnel strength data for the pay groups. In January 2006, ANG
established its Status Report Card process to monitor the number of
errors that occurred at the local unit level in updating the student
status codes for training that affects the pay group (F or P). The
Status Report Card includes data on the number of errors detected in
each local unit's records for recruits in pay groups F and P, and
assigns each unit a grade ranging from A through F, with A representing
the least number of errors and F representing the greatest number of
errors. ANG officials stated that this process has had a positive
impact on the units' data accuracy, since the total number of errors
has declined. ANG reported that the number of errors at the inception
of the Status Report Card process was 1,431 and that as of February
2007 the number was 531.
While these steps may have reduced errors in the data, ANG still cannot
ensure the reliability of its personnel strength data because it has
not followed federal internal control standards. Federal internal
control standards state that documentation should exist and be readily
available for review by others to allow an independent
evaluation.[Footnote 5] Federal internal control standards also require
that data control activities, such as edit checks, verifications, and
reconciliations, be conducted and documented to ensure the reliability
of the data.[Footnote 6] However, ANG has not (1) documented the
process, so it cannot ensure that it is operating as intended; (2)
established controls to ensure that data fields in the statistical
analysis software code that require updates are being updated before
the Status Report Card is generated each month; or (3) ensured the
reliability of the alternate data used to generate the Status Report
Card. In addition, ANG has not taken steps to ensure the reliability of
the alternate personnel strength data being reported[Footnote 7] until
the errors from the official data source (Reserve Component Common
Personnel Data System) were corrected.[Footnote 8] ANG officials stated
that they did not validate the alternate data being reported in the
interim nor confirm that internal control procedures had been
established to ensure the reliability of these data.
The Branch Chief for Strength Management and Data Analysis stated that
the focus was on implementing fixes to solve the problem, not on
adequately documenting the Status Report Card process. This official
said that the process lacks control activities, such as edit checks,
because the available staff did not understand that they needed to
establish these controls or how to do so. The official explained that
ANG did not verify the alternate data because it is only an "end user,"
and the data are owned and managed by the Air Education and Training
Command. Nonetheless, these officials are using these alternate data to
determine the accuracy of the Reserve Component Common Personnel Data
System data for pay groups F and P. Moreover, the official said that
ANG did not have the means or the understanding to test the reliability
of the alternate data. This official also stated that the Status Report
Card process, suspended in March 2007, will resume after the Student
Flight Guide has been revised to reflect the impact of the systems
change requests and the process has been reviewed to ensure that it is
an acceptable means for measuring performance.
Until ANG documents how the Status Report Card process is intended to
perform, its effectiveness as a monitoring tool is questionable.
Likewise, unless ANG validates its alternate data, it cannot reasonably
assure the users of the data that they are reliable. As a result,
decision makers within the Department of Defense and Congress may not
have accurate and complete information to make informed decisions.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that ANG has reliable personnel strength data for these pay
groups, we recommend that you take steps to ensure that ANG (1)
documents the Status Report Card process, (2) establishes needed
controls to ensure that data fields are updated before the Status
Report Card is generated each month, and (3) in conjunction with the
owners of the data (e.g., Air Education and Training Command), verifies
the reliability of the data used to generate the Status Report Cards
and the alternate data being reported.
We will make copies of this correspondence available to others upon
request. In addition, the correspondence will be available at no charge
on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you have any
questions or wish to discuss this material further, please contact me
at (202) 512- 5559 or stewartd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this correspondence. GAO staff who made major contributions to
the correspondence are listed in enclosure I.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Derek B. Stewart:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
Enclosure:
Enclosure I:
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Derek B. Stewart (202) 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact above, Cynthia Jackson, Assistant Director;
Renee S. Brown; Grace A. Coleman; Julia C. Matta; J. Paul Newton;
Rebecca Shea; and Dale O. Wineholt made key contributions to this
correspondence.
Footnotes:
[1] IADT is given to recruits who have and have not served in the
military before. Recruits who have not previously served and have not
attended IADT are not considered fully qualified to carry out their
mission responsibilities and therefore are not deployable.
[2] An ANG official estimated that for fiscal year 2007, the pay for
each person in pay group F will amount to about $14,410 and the pay for
each person in pay group P will amount to about $3,600.
[3] Budget Justification Review of the Reliability of the Air National
Guard's Personnel Strength Data, May 22, 2007. The objective of budget
justification reviews is to provide pertinent and timely information to
Congress about the President's proposed budget for specific programs.
GAO's budget justification review guidance limits the distribution of
these reviews' results papers to congressional committees and staff.
[4] Air National Guard, Assignments Within the Air National Guard, Air
National Guard Instruction 36-2101, June 11, 2004; Air National Guard
Directorate of Personnel and Training, Guide for Student Flight Initial
Classification Actions and Training Status Codes, April 25, 2005; Air
Force Instruction 36-2101, Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and
Enlisted), March 7, 2006; and Air Force Instruction 36-2201 (Volume 3),
Air Force Training Program On The Job Training Administration, December
20, 2006.
[5] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/
AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[6] GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 and GAO, Assessing the Reliability of Computer-
Processed Data, GAO-02-15G (Washington, D.C.: September 2002).
[7] ANG reported alternate data in its Official Guard and Reserve
Manpower Strength and Statistics report for pay groups F and P for
fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
[8] The Reserve Component Common Personnel Data System is the official
data source for manpower planning, strength accounting, and budgeting
for reserve components.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-480:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
