For  example, DOD was not reporting on borrowed manpower, personnel  morale, and training funding. DOD Addressed Most, but Not All, Required Elements in Its Recent Quarterly Readiness Reports to Congress

In its quarterly readiness reports that covered the period from April 2012  through March 2013, DOD addressed most of the 26 reporting elements  required by section 482 but partially addressed some elements and did  not address some other elements. Further, we found that information may exist in the  department on some of the reporting elements DOD did not address, but  that DOD has not analyzed alternative information that it could provide to  meet the required reporting elements. Specifically, as shown below, for the  three required reporting elements that DOD partially addressed, the  information was incomplete, with only some services providing  information on personnel stability, training operations tempo, and  deployed equipment:
Personnel stability: The Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy provided  information on retention rates, but the Army did not provide any  information on this element. Further, in instances when the services reported information on a  required element, they sometimes did so inconsistently, with varying  amounts and types of information. The services all reported information on training commitments and  deployments, but did not report the same amounts and types of  information. We found that the services have submitted different amounts and types of  information to meet reporting elements because the Office of the  Secretary of Defense has not provided guidance on the information to be  included in the quarterly reports. Training funding: DOD’s fiscal year 2014 budget request contained  various types of information on training funding. Borrowed manpower: We found that the Army now requires  commanders to report on the readiness impacts of borrowed military  manpower in internal monthly readiness reports. DOD Has Taken Steps to Add Information to Its Quarterly Readiness Reports to Congress

Over time, based on its own initiative and specific congressional requests  for information, DOD has added information to its reports. In that report, DOD added:
Narrative information detailing the impact of readiness deficiencies on  overall readiness. Discussions of how the military services’ fiscal year 2014 budgets  support their long-term readiness goals. Additional Contextual Information in the Quarterly Reports Would Be Useful

We found several areas where adding contextual information to the  quarterly readiness reports, such as benchmarks or goals, and clearer  linkages between reported information and readiness ratings, would  provide Congress with a more comprehensive and understandable report. Federal internal control standards state that decision makers need  complete and relevant information to manage risks. In some instances, the services report significant amounts of quantitative  data, but do not always include information on benchmarks or goals that  would enable the reader to distinguish between acceptable and  unacceptable levels in the data reported. For example, when responding  to the required reporting element on equipment that is not mission  capable:
The Marine Corps and Air Force report mission capable rates for all of  their equipment, but do not provide information on related goals, such  as the percentage of each item’s inventory that should be kept at  various mission capability levels. In other instances, the services have not fully explained the voluminous  data presented on the required reporting elements or set the context for  how it may or may not be connected to the information DOD provides in  the report on unit equipment, training, and personnel readiness ratings  and overall readiness. Conclusions

To oversee DOD’s efforts to maintain a trained and ready force, and  make decisions about related resource needs, congressional decision  makers need relevant, accurate, and timely readiness information on the  status of the military forces. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the information available to Congress in its quarterly  readiness reports, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct  the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness to take the following three actions:
Analyze alternative sources of information within DOD that it could  provide to meet required reporting elements that DOD has not  addressed in past reports; Issue guidance to the services on the type and amount of information  to be included in their submissions for the quarterly readiness report;  and  Incorporate contextual information in the quarterly readiness reports  such as clear linkages between reported information on the required  elements and readiness ratings, and benchmarks for assessing  provided data to enable the reader to distinguish between acceptable  and unacceptable levels in the data reported. DOD stated the iterative process that is  used to improve quarterly readiness reports to Congress will continue to  seek alternative sources of information that could provide a more holistic  picture of readiness across the force and that improvements in reporting  capabilities and adjustments to reported readiness information should be  available to provide all of the information required by section 482 of Title  10.
Why GAO Did This Study

Congress and DOD need relevant, accurate, and timely readiness information to make informed decisions about the use of military forces, and related resource needs. To that end, Congress requires DOD to submit a quarterly readiness report addressing various elements related to overall readiness, personnel, training, and equipment. A committee report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 mandated GAO report on the type of readiness information available to Congress and DOD decision makers and the reported readiness of U.S. forces. In May 2013, GAO provided a classified report on readiness trends of DOD forces. For this report, GAO evaluated (1) the extent to which DOD addressed required reporting elements in its quarterly readiness reports to Congress, and (2) what additional information, if any, could make the reports more useful. GAO analyzed various readiness reports and supporting documentation, and interviewed cognizant officials.

What GAO Found

In its quarterly readiness reports that covered the period from April 2012 through March 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) addressed most but not all required reporting elements. Section 482 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code requires DOD to report on 26 elements including readiness deficiencies, remedial actions, and data specific to the military services in the areas of personnel, training, and equipment. In analyzing DOD's reports, GAO found that DOD addressed 18 of the 26 elements, partially addressed 3 elements and did not report on 5 elements. For the elements partially addressed--personnel stability, training operations tempo, and deployed equipment--reporting was incomplete because some services reported information and others did not report. When all the services reported on an element, they at times did so inconsistently, with varying amounts and types of information. For example, the services all reported information on training commitments and deployments, but used different timeframes when providing information on planned training events in the future. The services reported differently because DOD has not provided guidance on the information to be reported. For the elements that DOD did not address, including borrowed manpower and training funding, GAO found that information may exist in the department but is not being reported to Congress. For example, the Army now requires commanders to report monthly on the readiness impacts of borrowed military manpower and DOD's budget requests include data on training funding. However, DOD has not taken steps to analyze whether this information could be used to meet the related reporting element. Without issuing guidance on the type and amount of information to be included by each service and analyzing alternative information it could provide to meet the required elements, DOD risks continuing to provide inconsistent and incomplete information to Congress.
DOD has taken steps to improve its quarterly readiness reports to Congress, but additional contextual information would provide decision makers a more complete picture of DOD's readiness. Over time, based on its own initiative and congressional requests, DOD has added information to its reports, such as on operational plan assessments. In its most recent report, DOD added narrative information detailing the impact of readiness deficiencies on overall readiness and a discussion of how the services' budgets support their long-term readiness goals. Federal internal control standards state that decision makers need complete and relevant information to manage risks, and GAO found several areas where DOD could provide Congress with more comprehensive and understandable information if it added some additional context to its reports. For example, in some instances, the services report significant amounts of quantitative data, but do not include information on benchmarks or goals that would enable the reader to determine whether the data indicate a problem or the extent of the problem. For example, the Marine Corps and Air Force report mission capable rates for their specific equipment items, but do not provide information on related goals, such as the percentage of the inventory that should be kept at various capability levels. In other instances, the services have not fully explained any connections between the voluminous data they report on the required elements and the information DOD provides in the report on unit and overall readiness ratings. Without providing additional contextual information, DOD's quarterly reports may not provide clear information necessary for congressional oversight and funding decisions.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD analyze alternative sources of information that could be used to meet the required reporting elements, issue guidance on the type and amount of information to be included by each service, and incorporate contextual information to improve the clarity and usefulness of reported information. DOD generally agreed with the recommendations.