GAO Report Reveals Gaps in Guard and Reserve Deployments

Insight on the News, Sept 16, 2003 by Jennifer G. Hickey

Byline: Jennifer G. Hickey, INSIGHT

President George W. Bush proclaimed his intention following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to exercise the partial-mobilization authority contained in the U.S. Code that allows him to call as many as 1 million reservists to active duty for as long as two years. Thankfully that limit has not been reached but, since January 2002, the number of reserve mobilizations has not dipped below 50,000. Commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and other terrorist havens ensure troop mobilization remains a matter of debate. Politicians (in and out of office) may be arguing for increased troop strength in Iraq, but others have focused their concern on the effectiveness of the first deployment.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has released a report highlighting gaps in the overall deployment of approximately 300,000 of the 1.2 million members of the Reserves and National Guard since September 2001. According to the August GAO report, mobilization was hindered because one-quarter of the Ready Reserve was not ready for mobilization and more than 700,000 reservists had not met training requirements.

Given the unique security demands following 9/11, the Department of Defense (DoD) did not follow its existing operations plan, says the GAO. For example, there were no previous requirements for stationing National Guard troops at civilian airports or flying combat patrols over several major cities; modifications were required for deployment to nontraditional missions such as tracking terrorists; and modifications were needed as a result of uncertainties concerning foreign basing and troop commitments.

Matters were complicated further by incompatibilities between the personnel-tracking systems of the Reserves and active components, as well as between the respective branches of the armed services. After Sept. 11, 2001, the Navy "had no automated means to track reservists from their home stations to their gaining commands. The entire mobilization process was based on paper, telephone calls, faxes and e-mail messages," noted the GAO.

DoD officials issued several guidance memos because many of the primary mobilization directives are greatly outdated. According to the GAO, the DoD's "Wartime Manpower Mobilization Planning Policies and Procedures" instruction last was updated in 1986 and the "Management of the Individual Ready Reserve and the Inactive National Guard" was last brushed up in 1997. The GAO further advised focusing on improving predictability and preparation time for reserve deployments.

Because existing plans were unable to identify mobilization requirements, a number of the Army's lower-priority units were given little notice of deployment. In the beginning of March 2003, 95 percent of Army units received less than 30 days advance notice and 8 percent received less than 72 hours notice. The DoD concurred or partially concurred with all of the GAO's recommendations.

IG Takes Closer Look At Student-Loan Vetting Process

Granting a loan to an ineligible noncitizen engaged in academic pursuits at the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising in Los Angeles may result in the loss of federal funds, but the loss could be far greater when eligibility vetting at schools such as Florida's Flight Safety Academy is not thorough. This is the concern raised by the Department of Education's (ED's) inspector general in an Aug. 22 letter to the assistant secretary of the office of postsecondary education (OPE) pertaining to federal Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) and Direct PLUS programs. The letter was a response to a June comment on program changes suggested in a May 2003 proposed management-information report.

Assistant Inspector General for Audit Services Helen Lew reports that the ED has provided guidance for documenting the citizenship status of students but has offered little in the case of PLUS loan borrowers. At one of two schools visited, "school officials failed to resolve citizenship-related comments for five of the 50 PLUS loan recipients in our sample." After contact was made with Immigration and Naturalization Service officials, they "confirmed that, fortunately, the five sample students and their parents" were eligible for the funds.

In a June 26 letter, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education Sally Stroup commented on the proposed recommendations regarding the eligibility standards of the PLUS program, noting that in all 50 cases reviewed only five were investigated further and were deemed eligible. "In light of the lack of findings, it is unclear to us if additional guidance or other measures such as imposing eligibility requirements are warranted," wrote Stroud, who later stated the "possibility" of loan disbursement to ineligible citizens did exist and the issue would be analyzed "in greater detail."

In the August follow-up letter, Lew noted the OPE disagreed with the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) suggestions for additional eligibility requirements for PLUS borrowers, but argued OIG does "not agree that the department has the option of forgoing verification based on the results of further analysis." Lew says a failure to do so appears to be contrary to requirements outlined in the Higher Education Act of 1965.