These full-time  positions—which DOD calls full-time support—in general are more  expensive than part-time personnel because they are paid as full-time  employees and receive greater compensation and benefits such as  retirement, health-care, and education. Funded Positions at Reserve-Component Headquarters Have Grown Overall since 2009

Between fiscal year 2009 and 2013, the total number of positions funded  for the 75 reserve-component headquarters we identified grew from about  30,200 to about 31,900—an increase of nearly 6 percent, as shown in  figure 4. The number of funded positions also increased at the Army  Reserve’s headquarters, which grew by about 15 percent, but decreased  at the Air Force Reserve’s headquarters by about 4 percent over the  same period. In addition, DOD has not included data  on the National Guard Bureau in its required Defense Manpower  Requirements Report to Congress. By creating a system whereby an external  organization is not independently assessing the National Guard Bureau’s  personnel requirements the bureau has removed an independent check  that could help ensure that the bureau is staffed with the appropriate  number of personnel needed to execute its assigned missions and  workload.  .  Our analysis of DOD’s reserve-component headquarters found that  DOD’s list of its Major DOD Headquarters Activities did not include the  National Guard Bureau, even though the bureau meets the headquarters  criteria specified in DOD’s instruction and is now commanded by a 4-star  General who sits on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This list is the basis for reporting  required personnel data to Congress, and because the bureau was not  included in DOD’s list, its personnel data were not reported to Congress. DOD Lacks Assurance That the National Guard’s State Joint Force Headquarters Are Sized to Be Efficient

The National Guard has not fully reassessed the personnel requirements  of the 54 state Joint Force headquarters or their predecessor  organizations—which collectively contain nearly 21,900 funded  positions—since the 1980s despite changes in their organization and  assigned missions. Our prior work has shown that cost savings may be  achieved by consolidating and centralizing overlapping functions and  eliminating unnecessary overlap and duplication. In the absence of a process that provides a holistic assessment of the  state Joint Force Headquarters, National Guard officials noted that they  have begun two efforts that are intended to assess personnel  requirements at the state Joint Force headquarters: (1) a National Guard  Bureau study evaluating personnel requirements for the Joint staff  element at these headquarters and (2) an Army National Guard  Directorate evaluation of functions—some of which include both Army  National Guard and Air National Guard personnel—within these  headquarters. The Army and Air Force Have Not Consistently Implemented Processes for Reassessing Personnel Requirements of Reserve- Component Headquarters

The Army and Air Force have not consistently implemented processes for  ensuring their reserve-component headquarters have the minimum  number of personnel, thereby hindering their ability to determine whether  these headquarters have been sized to be efficient. In contrast, several of the headquarters that  showed significant growth were among those that have not been  reassessed including the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve and Air  National Guard Readiness Center. Following this reassessment, the Air Force Reserve shrank  the three numbered Air Force headquarters by more than one-third, and  Headquarters, Air Force Reserve, by more than 10 percent. Finally, for those headquarters overseen by the Army and Air Force— specifically 13 Army Reserve headquarters, 5 Air Force Reserve  headquarters, the Army National Guard Directorate, and the Air National  Guard Readiness Center—DOD has processes in place that if  consistently implemented could help ensure that these headquarters are  sized and structured appropriately. To minimize the potential for gaps or overlaps at the National Guard’s  state Joint Force headquarters, we recommend that the Secretary of  Defense direct the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to: develop a process for the Army National Guard and Air National  Guard to collaborate when determining personnel requirements for  joint functions at these headquarters and assess and validate all personnel requirements at the state Joint  Force headquarters to include the Army staff element and Air staff  element. To ensure that Air Force Reserve headquarters and the Air National  Guard Readiness Center are properly sized to meet their assigned  missions, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Secretary of the Air Force to modify the Air Force’s guidance to require  that these headquarters have their personnel requirements reassessed  on a recurring basis, and establish and implement a schedule for  reassessing personnel requirements for its reserve-component  headquarters. DOD concurred with three of our  recommendations and partially concurred with the remaining three  recommendations. To evaluate the extent to which DOD established and implemented  processes to efficiently size its reserve-component headquarters and  provide information for congressional oversight we took the following  steps:  1. Manage resources across units.
Why GAO Did This Study

DOD has sought to reduce costs by assessing headquarters and overhead functions. Both the Army and Air Force have two reserve components--a National Guard and Reserve--that have at least 75 headquarters located throughout the United States, its territories, and overseas that manage subordinate units or perform overhead functions. These headquarters have a mix of full-time and part-time personnel. GAO was asked to review issues related to reserve-component headquarters. This report (1) discusses trends in funded positions at reservecomponent headquarters and (2) evaluates the extent to which DOD has established and implemented processes to efficiently size its reservecomponent headquarters. To do so, GAO reviewed statutes and DOD guidance, analyzed personnel data and headquarters assessments, and interviewed DOD and state officials.

What GAO Found

Between fiscal years 2009 and 2013, the total number of funded positions--both full-time support and part-time--at the Department of Defense's (DOD) 75 Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve (Reserves) component headquarters grew from about 30,200 to 31,900 positions (about 6 percent overall). Some organizations grew more markedly, among them the National Guard Bureau (17 percent); Army National Guard Directorate (44 percent); Air National Guard Readiness Center (21 percent); and the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve (45 percent). DOD officials attribute growth to the conversion of contractor workload into civilian positions and increased missions assigned at certain headquarters. Over the same period, staff levels at the National Guard's 54 state Joint Force headquarters remained flat and the Air Force Reserve shrank by 4 percent.
DOD has processes in place that are intended to ensure that the number of funded positions at its reserve-component headquarters are set at the minimum level needed to accomplish their mission, but it has not consistently followed those processes at 68 of the 75 headquarters that GAO reviewed. As a result, DOD is unable to determine whether National Guard and Reserve headquarters are sized to be efficient. The National Guard has begun evaluating some personnel requirements, but its efforts do not fully address the management issues GAO identified:
The National Guard Bureau, which may continue to grow to accommodate its Chief's placement on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is determining its own requirements without external validation. This is inconsistent with Joint Staff, Army, and Air Force processes, which generally involve an external review. In addition, Congress's ability to oversee the bureau's size is limited because DOD's annual report on its Major DOD Headquarters Activities does not include data on the bureau and its more than 600 staff.
The National Guard has not fully assessed its 54 state headquarters--which contain nearly 21,900 funded positions--since the 1980s. GAO's prior work shows that agencies can reduce costs by consolidating and centralizing functions and eliminating unneeded duplication. The National Guard Bureau, Army National Guard Directorate, and Air National Guard Readiness Center each assess a portion of the state headquarters, but there is no process to assess the headquarters' personnel requirements in their entirety and ongoing efforts do not provide a holistic review.
The Army and Air Force have not fully reassessed 13 of the 20 reserve component headquarters for which they are responsible. The Army has a reassessment backlog, and the Air Force does not require periodic reassessments and reassesses its headquarters on an ad hoc basis. Some headquarters with significant growth are among those that have not been reassessed, including the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve and the Air National Guard Readiness Center. In contrast, 5 of the 7 reassessed organizations subsequently reduced their staff levels such as the Air Force Reserve's three numbered air forces, which have shrunk by more than a third since 2009. The Army and Air Force agree their headquarters should be reassessed, but they have not scheduled reassessments across their reserve components.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD externally validate the National Guard Bureaus personnel requirements and include the bureau in its annual report to Congress; reassess requirements for the 54 state Joint Force headquarters; and develop schedules for reassessing headquarters overseen by the Army and Air Force. DOD concurred with recommendations to report data to Congress and establish schedules for reassessing headquarters and partially concurred with recommendations to externally validate the bureaus personnel requirements and assess requirements for the state Joint Force headquarters. GAO continues to believe these recommendations are valid as discussed in the report.