	Background

DOD’s readiness assessment and reporting system was designed to assess  and report on military readiness at three levels—(1) the unit level; (2) the  joint force level; and (3) the aggregate, or strategic, level. We have issued several reports containing recommendations for  improving readiness reporting. Although some information was added, we found that  some of the same quality issues remain—namely, that the reports do not  specifically describe readiness problems, their effects on readiness, or  remedial actions. The  law does not mandate specific explanations of these “readiness  indicators,” but we believe it is essential for Congress to understand the  significance of the information in these reports for use in its oversight role. Because DOD is not  reporting on all the requirements added over the past several years, the  Congress is not receiving all the information mandated by law. For example, DOD took the following actions in response  to legislative requirements:    DOD is now reporting on the readiness of prepositioned equipment and is  listing individual units that have reported low readiness as required by the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. DOD Is Not Reporting on All Items Required

DOD is reporting on some, though not all, of the items Congress required  be added to the quarterly readiness reports. The 1994 report included a list of 26 readiness  indicators that DOD commanders said were important for a more  comprehensive assessment of readiness. DOD had not developed implementing  regulations as of January 2003. Lack of Implementation Plan Could Hinder Development of New Readiness Reporting System

DOD issued a directive in June 2002 to establish a new readiness reporting  system. Officials in the OUSD  P&R readiness office responsible for developing the new system said that  they plan to use the new system to comply with the requirements in the  National Defense Authorization Acts and to address many of the  recommendations contained in a congressionally directed independent  study. Since the directive for creating a new readiness reporting system  established broad policy with no specifics and since DOD has not  developed an implementation plan, the extent to which the new system  will address the current system’s shortcomings will remain unknown until  the new system is fully capable in 2007. As a result, the information available to Congress is not  as effective as it could be as an oversight tool. To be able to assess progress in developing the new readiness system, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the OUSD P&R to develop  an implementation plan that identifies    performance goals that are objective, quantifiable, and measurable;  the cost and personnel resources needed to achieve the goals, including an  identification of the new system’s development and implementation costs  in the President’s Budget beginning in fiscal year 2005 and Future Years  Defense Plan;    performance indicators to measure outcomes;    an evaluation plan to compare program results with established goals; and    milestones to guide development to the planned 2007 full capability date. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To assess the progress the Department of Defense (DOD) has made in  resolving issues raised in our prior report concerning both the unit level  readiness reporting system and the lack of specificity in DOD’s Quarterly  Readiness Reports to the Congress, we met with DOD officials and  reviewed regulations and quarterly reports. To determine the extent to which DOD has complied with legislative  reporting requirements enacted since our prior report, we compared a  complete listing of these requirements to DOD’s readiness reporting.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Defense's (DOD) readiness assessment system was designed to assess the ability of units and joint forces to fight and meet the demands of the national security strategy. In 1998, GAO concluded that the readiness reports provided to Congress were vague and ineffective as oversight tools. Since that time, Congress added reporting requirements to enhance its oversight of military readiness. Therefore, the Chairman asked GAO to examine (1) the progress DOD made in resolving issues raised in the 1998 GAO report on both the unit-level readiness reporting system and the lack of specificity in DOD's Quarterly Readiness Reports to the Congress, (2) the extent to which DOD has complied with legislative reporting requirements enacted since 1997, and (3) DOD's plans to improve readiness reporting.

What GAO Found

Since 1998, DOD has made some progress in improving readiness reporting--particularly at the unit level--but some issues remain. For example, DOD uses readiness measures that vary 10 percentage points or more to determine readiness ratings and often does not report the precise measurements outside DOD. DOD included more information in its Quarterly Readiness Reports to the Congress. But quality issues remain--in that the reports do not specifically describe readiness problems, their effects on readiness, or remedial actions to correct problems. Nor do the reports contain information about funding programmed to address specific remedial actions. Although current law does not specifically require this information, Congress could use it for its oversight role. DOD complied with most, though not all, of the legislative readiness reporting requirements enacted by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 1998-2002. For example, DOD (1) is now listing the individual units that have reported low readiness and reporting on the readiness of prepositioned equipment, as required by the fiscal year 1998 Act; (2) is reporting on 11 of 19 readiness indicators that commanders identified as important and that Congress required to be added to the quarterly reports in the fiscal year 1998 Act, but is not reporting on the other 8 readiness indicators; and (3) has not yet implemented a new comprehensive readiness reporting system as required in the fiscal year 1999 Act. As a result, Congress is not receiving all the information mandated by law. DOD issued a directive in June 2002 to establish a new comprehensive readiness reporting system that DOD officials said they plan to use to comply with the reporting requirements specified by Congress. The new system is intended to implement many of the recommendations included in a congressionally directed independent study for establishing such a system. However, the extent to which the new system will actually address the current system's shortcomings is unknown, because the new system is currently only a concept, and full capability is not scheduled until 2007. As of January 2003, DOD had not developed an implementation plan containing measurable performance goals, identification of resources, performance indicators, and an evaluation plan to assess progress in developing the new reporting system. Without such a plan, neither DOD nor the Congress will be able to fully assess whether the new system's development is on schedule and achieving desired results.