United States General Accounting Office

GAO Briefing Report to the Chairman,

Subcommittee on Military Readiness,

Committee on National Security, House

of Representatives

April 1996 CIVILIAN

DOWNSIZING

Unit Readiness Not

Adversely Affected, but

Future Reductions a

Concern

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-271642 

April 22, 1996

The Honorable Herbert H. Bateman

Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Readiness

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As requested, we reviewed civilian downsizing across the Department of

Defense (DOD). Specifically, we determined (1) the extent of civilian

workforce reductions, (2) whether civilian downsizing has affected

readiness and functions at military installations, and (3) whether the

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the services had

comprehensive strategies for managing civilian downsizing. On April 1,

1996, we briefed your staff on the results of our review. This report

discusses the information presented at that briefing.

Background DOD is the largest federal agency. In fiscal year 1995, it employed a total

workforce of about 3.3 million personnel, about 26 percent of whom were

civilians. DOD’s 849,164 civilian workers represented about 42 percent of

executive branch civilian workers.

Civilians are an integral part of DOD’s support infrastructure, performing

work in the 4 military services; 16 defense agencies, such as the Defense

Finance and Accounting Service; 9 field activities, such as the Washington

Headquarters Service; 5 defense support activities, such as the Defense

Manpower Data Center; and other defense organizations, such as the

Inspector General, Joint Staff, and OSD. As of fiscal year 1995, about

83 percent of DOD civilians were in the four military services. These

civilians maintain and repair equipment and weapon systems; provide

research, medical, communications, and logistics support; and operate and

maintain military installations. The Marine Corps had the fewest civilians,

with just over 18,000, and the Army had the most, with almost 267,000

civilians.

Results in Brief DOD began streamlining its operations and downsizing its military and

civilian workforces, associated infrastructure, and overall budget in fiscal

year 1988. Between fiscal years 1987 and 1995, DOD reduced its civilian

workforce by approximately 25 percent, or about 284,000 personnel. DOD’s

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
B-271642 

active and reserve military components decreased by approximately

26 percent, or about 861,000 troops. By the time it finishes current

downsizing plans in fiscal year 2001, DOD will have reduced its civilian

workforce to about 728,300 personnel, almost 35 percent below the 1987

end strength and about 16 percent below the 1995 end strength.

Civilian downsizing has not adversely affected military readiness at the

installations we visited. A review of DOD’s unit readiness reporting system

did not disclose readiness problems resulting from civilian downsizing.

Further, unit commanders and officials told us that civilian reductions had

not affected their units’ availability to train, even when soldiers had been

tasked to perform civilian functions that were understaffed. The

commanders also said that civilian reductions had not disrupted

maintenance of mission-essential equipment. Air Force, Marine Corps, and

Navy officials said that civilian downsizing has had virtually no effect on

operational units. Army officials said that readiness had not been affected

because the Army’s staffing priorities were for functions critical to combat

capabilities. However, Army officials expressed concern that future

civilian reductions could adversely affect military readiness if the process

was not managed carefully.

Army installation officials raised concerns about the effects of civilian

downsizing on civilian functions and services. They told us that civilian

downsizing has affected functions on Army installations, such as public

works and repair and maintenance. Civilian downsizing has affected the

amount of time it takes to repair noncritical equipment. Air Force and

Army officials said that civilian downsizing has resulted in reductions to

recreational and family services. Officials at all installations told us they

were concerned about the effect of downsizing on civilian workforce

morale due to limited career and promotion opportunities, job insecurity,

and longer working hours.

OSD and the services have various initiatives underway to downsize the

civilian workforce and reduce infrastructure costs. OSD developed broad

plans for streamlining the civilian workforce in 1993 and 1994 that were

based on (1) contracting out or consolidating functions, (2) employing

better business practices, and (3) downsizing specific work groups. OSD’s

approach has been to rely on the services and DOD agencies to make

reduction decisions. The services have used a variety of approaches to

downsize civilians, such as reducing personnel while preserving functions,

consolidating or streamlining functions, and implementing Base

Realignment and Closure recommendations. However, the approaches to

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
B-271642 

achieve civilian reductions were not guided by comprehensive,

servicewide downsizing strategies. Service commands do not have a

long-term road map to guide civilian reduction decisions to meet future

mission requirements. The services are developing comprehensive

strategies to better determine future civilian workforce requirements. By

the time these strategies are in place, however, most of the civilian

reductions will have occurred.

Scope and

Methodology

We reviewed DOD and service instructions, procedures, and plans for

civilian downsizing and interviewed key officials from OSD and the four

military services on how civilian reductions were determined and

managed. Within each of the services, we visited major installations that

had downsized civilians and had combat units. Army installations we

visited housed units that are part of the Army’s early deployment forces.

These units included the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Fort

Campbell, Kentucky; the 10th Infantry Division (Light) at Fort Drum, New

York; the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas; and the 24th Infantry

Division (Mechanized) at Fort Stewart, Georgia. While at Fort Hood, we

also spoke with officials from the 4th Infantry Division.

In the Air Force, we visited Air Mobility Command installations at Scott

Air Force Base, Illinois, and Travis Air Force Base, California, because

each had experienced civilian reductions since 1990 that exceeded

reductions at other Air Force installations with combat units. We visited

Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, because it is the headquarters of the Air

Combat Command, the largest U.S. Air Force command.

For the Navy, we selected the two U.S. Atlantic Fleet bases with large

percentages of civilian reductions—the Oceana Naval Air Station and the

Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base, Norfolk, Virginia. We also spoke with

officials at the U.S. Atlantic Fleet Headquarters, Norfolk, Virginia. For the

Marine Corps, we visited the U.S. Marine Forces Atlantic and spoke with

officials from the 2nd Marine Division and the 2nd Force Service Support

Group at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing

located at Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina.

We reviewed the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Status of Resources and

Training System database to determine whether any readiness problems

were associated with civilian downsizing. On the basis of the database’s

indicators and other measures that, according to JCS, provide an indication

of readiness, we asked installation officials to comment on four readiness

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
B-271642 

indicators: civilian and military personnel strength, including the size and

scope of civilian reductions; use of military personnel assigned to civilian

functions and the effect on unit training; equipment availability and

workload backlogs; and workforce morale.

We did not obtain written agency comments on this report. However, we

provided a draft of this report to OSD and service officials and incorporated

their comments where appropriate. We conducted our work from August

1995 to April 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional

committees and Members of Congress and the Secretaries of Defense, the

Air Force, the Army, and the Navy. We will also make copies available to

others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please

contact me on (202) 512-5140. Major contributors to this report are listed

in appendix I.

Sincerely yours,

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations and

 Capabilities Issues

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Contents

Letter 1

Briefing Section I 

Extent of Civilian

Reductions

8

Civilian and Military Force Levels—Fiscal Years 1987-95 8

Briefing Section II 

Officials’ Views on the

Impact of Civilian

Downsizing

10

Officials’ Views on Effects of Civilian Downsizing on Unit

Readiness

10

Officials’ Comments on Effects of Civilian Downsizing on

Functions

12

Officials’ Views on Effects of Civilian Downsizing on Functions 14

Officials’ Views on Minimizing Potential Effects of Civilian

Downsizing

16

Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of

the Civilian

Drawdown

18

History of DOD Civilian Downsizing 18

Planned Civilian Reductions—Fiscal Years 1993 to 2001 26

Proportion of Planned Reductions Expected From BRAC 27

No Comprehensive Guidance to Manage Civilian Downsizing 28

Army 30

Air Force 32

Navy 33

Marine Corps 36

Initiatives to Downsize Specific Functions 37

Appendix Appendix I: Major Contributors to This Report 40

Abbreviations

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

DOD Department of Defense

JCS Joint Chief of Staff

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section I 

Extent of Civilian Reductions

GAO Civilian and Military Force Levels--

Fiscal Years 1987-95 

Numbers in thousands

Fiscal year

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

4,458 4,387 4,418 4,270 4,185

3,928

3,700

3,510

3,313

Civilian Active and reserve military

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section I 

Extent of Civilian Reductions

The Department of Defense (DOD) began streamlining operations and

downsizing its military force structure, associated infrastructure, and

overall budget beginning in fiscal year 1988. Between fiscal years 1987 and

1995, DOD reduced its total civilian workforce by approximately 25 percent,

or almost 284,000 civilians, and its military strength—including active and

reserve components—by 26 percent, or about 861,000 troops. Civilian

reductions since 1987 were achieved through separation incentive

programs, limited hiring, and attrition.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section II 

Officials’ Views on the Impact of Civilian

Downsizing

GAO Officials' Views on Effects of Civilian 

Downsizing on Unit Readiness 

Civilian downsizing has not adversely 

affected unit readiness at installations 

we visited

Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy 

officials said civilian downsizing was 

not an issue 

Army officials said civilian downsizing 

must be carefully managed to minimize 

effects on units 

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section II 

Officials’ Views on the Impact of Civilian

Downsizing

According to commanders and officials at military installations we visited,

civilian downsizing has not affected the readiness of combat units.

Furthermore, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy officials generally did not

view civilian downsizing as an area of concern. Officials at Army

installations, however, expressed concern that civilian downsizing must be

managed to minimize adverse effects on combat units.

At Navy installations we visited, officials told us that combat units were

generally unaffected by civilian downsizing. Transient or unassigned

military personnel were available in large numbers to perform civilian

functions. In addition, military downsizing and associated workload

reductions made some civilian functions obsolete, such as maintenance

for Navy combat aircraft squadrons that were downsized. Air Force

officials told us that they staffed functions critical to combat capability,

such as aircraft maintenance, and downsized noncritical functions, such as

general installation maintenance.

The effects on civilian downsizing at Army installations centered on the

Army directorate staff, which is largely composed of civilian workers

responsible for performing the day-to-day operations of the installation,

such as public works and repair and maintenance. When the Army began

downsizing its workforce about 8 years ago, civilian reductions were

generally distributed equally across commands and functions. Civilians

were downsized in various functions, but the mission and workload

remained. The reduced civilian workforce tried to provide the same level

of service, but functions began to experience workload delays. For

example, since civilian downsizing began, the average time to perform

vehicle maintenance at Fort Drum has doubled from 20 to 40 days.

Officials attributed the increase in repair time to civilian downsizing.

To minimize the effects of civilian downsizing, Army officials told us they

have begun to manage civilian reductions by reducing or eliminating

functions not critical to operational readiness, such as recreational

activities. Functions critical to supporting Army combat capabilities, such

as repair of weapon systems, received priority resourcing. Officials

emphasized that civilian downsizing must be carefully managed to

minimize adverse effects on units.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section II 

Officials’ Views on the Impact of Civilian

Downsizing

GAO Officials' Comments on Effects of 

Civilian Downsizing on Functions

Civilians were downsized in base 

operations, maintenance and supply 

functions, and recreational and family 

activities 

Civilian reductions in Army functions 

caused repair delays of noncritical items

Civilian reductions in Air Force and Army 

diminished recreational activities 

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section II 

Officials’ Views on the Impact of Civilian

Downsizing

Military installations have downsized civilian positions in various

functions and activities, such as base operations, maintenance and supply,

and recreational and family activities. To realize civilian personnel savings,

civilian functions have been reduced, contracted out, transferred,

consolidated, and eliminated. At Army installations, officials told us that

civilian reductions have caused delays in repairing noncritical items and

diminished recreational activities.

The logistics function, which provides installation maintenance and

supply, has significantly reduced its civilian workforce. At Army

installations we visited, the logistics function has been downsized between

18 and 31 percent since fiscal year 1990. To minimize the effect of civilian

downsizing on combat units, the Army logistics function prioritizes its

workload. Maintenance repair time for items critical to combat, such as

the M1A1 tank, artillery pieces, radar, and tactical vehicles, has not been

affected by civilian downsizing. Maintenance repair time for noncritical

items, such as generators, fork lifts, road graders, and snow plows has

been affected by civilian downsizing. The logistics function is also

responsible for handling excess supply, such as equipment no longer

required. Installation officials told us that millions of dollars of excess

inventory had not been processed because the function lacks the civilian

workers to manage the workload. The central issue facility at Fort Drum

takes longer to issue equipment for field training, such as helmets and

canteens, due to civilian downsizing.

At Air Force and Army installations, officials said that civilian downsizing

has affected family support and recreational community activities, such as

arts and crafts. Various Air Force and Army installations reduced the

operating hours of gymnasiums, libraries, and swimming pools. Since

1990, Fort Hood reduced the number of its installation libraries from six to

one. In response to recent civilian downsizing, Hunter Army Air Field, part

of Fort Stewart, closed its library and contracted with the local county to

provide library services.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section II 

Officials’ Views on the Impact of Civilian

Downsizing

GAO Officials' Views on Effects of Civilian 

Downsizing on Functions

Most officials said the use of military 

personnel to perform civilian duties 

was not a concern 

Army officials had concerns and 

therefore reduced the number of 

personnel detailed and length of 

assignments 

Air Force and Army officials expressed 

concerns about civilian workforce 

morale 

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section II 

Officials’ Views on the Impact of Civilian

Downsizing

At the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy installations we visited, military

personnel were tasked to perform civilian and military work in various

units and functions. None of the Air Force or the Navy officials we spoke

with, however, indicated any adverse effects resulting from the use of

military personnel to perform work in civilian functions on the installation.

Army officials, on the other hand, told us that tasking military personnel to

perform work outside their assigned unit presented a long-term potential

readiness problem because soldiers could not train as part of a unit.

Army officials told us they have worked to limit the use of military to

perform functions outside of assigned units by closely reviewing requests

for military assistance, limiting the length of time soldiers are tasked away

from their units, and limiting the number of soldiers tasked. Army

installations we visited assigned military personnel to various functions

usually for a few weeks but sometimes for up to 1 year. Military personnel

were assigned, for example, to recreation and maintenance centers as

clerks and warehouse supply workers. In 1994, Fort Hood assigned

approximately 800 to 900 soldiers, representing about 2 percent of troop

strength, to various installation functions. Fort Hood has reduced the

number of soldiers assigned outside taskings to less than 1 percent of

troop strength. Officials at Army installations told us they worked to keep

outside taskings to less than 1 percent of troop strength.

Air Force, Army, and Navy installation officials expressed concerns about

the effect of civilian downsizing on the morale of the civilian workforce.

Officials cited limited career and promotion opportunities, job insecurity,

and longer working hours as examples of factors adversely affecting

civilian workforce morale. According to Air Force installation officials,

current downsizing trends risk the loss of workers with the necessary

skills for the long term. Army combat unit officials said civilian downsizing

had not adversely affected soldier morale.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section II 

Officials’ Views on the Impact of Civilian

Downsizing

GAO Officials' Views on Minimizing Potential 

Effects of Civilian Downsizing 

To provide the flexibility to manage the 

workforce to meet the workload

Remove legislative constraints 

Streamline requirement to conduct 

studies of functions to contract out

Legislation authorizing DOD to manage 

its civilian workforce based on funding 

and workload, rather than workforce 

ceilings, should provide management 

flexibility 

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section II 

Officials’ Views on the Impact of Civilian

Downsizing

Installation officials told us their greatest concern was the need for more

flexibility to manage the civilian workforce to meet the workload. They

cited various provisions contained in DOD authorization legislation that

they thought limited the ability of installation managers to have the

necessary flexibility. Legislation established ceilings on the number of

staff that could be allocated to particular activities or locations. Other

provisions limited the amount of DOD work that could be contracted out

and prohibited selected workforce elements from falling below specific

levels.

Title 10 U.S.C. 2465 prohibits DOD from contracting the firefighting

function at military installations. Installation officials said that they would

like to contract out the firefighting function, but they are prohibited from

doing so. Furthermore, officials said that they were not allowed to

downsize medical personnel below a baseline established by section 718

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993

(P.L. 102-190). Officials also discussed the Office of Management and

Budget Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities, and 10 U.S.C.

2461, which requires cost comparison studies before contracting out

functions performed by 46 or more civilians. Officials at some Army

installations we visited said that if the requirement to conduct cost

comparison studies were streamlined, more functions could be contracted

out. Officials said the current study process can take up to 2 years to

complete.

Officials at installations we visited generally approved of the provision

contained in section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1996 (P.L. 104-106) that allows DOD to manage its civilian

workforce based on funding and not on workforce constraints, such as a

maximum number of employees. Fort Drum officials told us that this

change should allow them to manage more economically and hire more

workers to meet higher workloads, for example, if that would be less

costly than contracting the function.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

GAO History of DOD Civilian Downsizing

DOD's Bottom-Up Review (1993) found

Civilian workers were a significant cost 

driver

Civilian reductions were lagging behind 

force structure and funding reductions 

As a result, DOD programmed a 

19-percent reduction to its total civilian 

workforce between fiscal years 1993 and 

1999

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

In 1993, DOD conducted a comprehensive study, called the Bottom-Up

Review, of national defense strategy and resource requirements to meet

post-Cold War missions. As part of this effort, DOD found that civilian

personnel comprised a significant part of infrastructure costs. According

to the study, approximately 40 percent of infrastructure costs is tied to the

force structure, such as training, supply, and transportation. The other

60 percent is independent of force structure changes, such as funding for

military installations, family housing, military base operations, and depot

maintenance. The study also found that civilian workforce reductions

trailed military personnel reductions and that cost savings could be

achieved through privatization and consolidation of civilian functions.

In response to the study’s findings, DOD decided to downsize the civilian

workforce commensurate with military and overall funding reductions and

minimize infrastructure cost increases driven by the civilian component.

The Office of the Secretary for Defense (OSD) directed the services to

develop plans to downsize the civilian workforce and programmed an

additional 19-percent reduction to the total DOD civilian workforce

between fiscal years 1993 and 1999.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

GAO History of DOD Civilian Downsizing 

(continued) 

The National Performance Review 

(1993) recommended

Downsizing the federal civilian 

workforce by at least 12 percent by 

fiscal year 1999

Targeting civilian reductions in selected 

functional areas and among specific 

workforce groups 

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

In September 1993, the White House released its Report on the National

Performance Review, which recommended downsizing the federal civilian

workforce by at least 12 percent by the end of fiscal year 1999. The report

recommended that selected workforce components and occupational

groups be the primary focus for achieving federalwide civilian reductions.

Specifically, the report recommended concentrating civilian downsizing

among supervisors, headquarters staff, personnel specialists, budget

analysts, procurement specialists, accountants, and auditors. The report

also recommended that federal agencies double the current ratio of 

1 manager or supervisor for every 7 employees to a ratio of 1 to 14 by 1999.

The report directed that federal agencies consider reengineering, or

reinvention, of government through streamlining to achieve personnel and

fiscal savings. The downsizing recommendations excluded civilian

workers indirectly hired by the federal government; that is, foreign

nationals employed by the federal government through contractual

arrangements with overseas nations. Of DOD’s 1995 workforce, about

43,000 indirectly hired civilian workers, or 5 percent, were excluded from

civilian downsizing actions.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

GAO History of DOD Civilian Downsizing 

(continued)

DOD's downsizing plan (1993) was to 

Reduce the civilian workforce by 18 

percent between fiscal years 1993 and 

1999 

Target reductions in personnel, 

procurement, and finance functions 

and among supervisors and 

headquarters staff

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

In response to the recommendation from the National Performance

Review to reduce the size of the federal civilian workforce, DOD planned to

downsize its civilian workforce by 18 percent, or 165,200 civilians, by the

end of fiscal year 1999. DOD exceeded the National Performance Review

recommendation of a 12-percent reduction because DOD had already

programmed the civilian reductions.

OSD focused civilian reductions on selected work groups, as recommended

by the National Performance Review. OSD established separate downsizing

targets for civilians in the finance, personnel, and procurement functions

and among headquarters staff and supervisors. OSD established the targets

based on a fixed-percentage reduction to the number of civilians in each

work group as of fiscal year 1993. DOD limited downsizing in targeted work

groups to 4 percent per year to minimize the potential for adverse

personnel actions, such as reductions in force. For example, the Army’s

1996 target for civilians in its finance work group is 10,229, and the Air

Force’s 1996 target for the same group is 6,208. These targets represent a

4-percent reduction per year from each service’s fiscal year 1993 baseline

workforce of 11,119 and 6,748, respectively. To reduce DOD’s supervisory

ratio, OSD established targets for each service and DOD agency based on

doubling the service’s and agency’s fiscal year 1993 baseline ratio.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

GAO History of DOD Civilian Downsizing 

(continued) 

From 1994 to 1996, OSD revised and 

accelerated DOD's downsizing targets to 

Achieve a 26-percent reduction 

between fiscal years 1993 and 2001

Recognize decreased workloads and 

personnel savings expected from 

streamlining initiatives 

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

By January 1994, DOD reduced its civilian workforce below the projected

level for the fiscal year. Unanticipated personnel savings resulted from

decreased workloads and various streamlining initiatives, such as

consolidating the civilian personnel specialist function. As a result, OSD

revised its downsizing plan during fiscal year 1994. The revised plan

accelerated planned reductions to 22.4 percent between fiscal years 1993

and 1999. In 1995 and again in 1996, OSD revised planned civilian

reductions based on DOD’s budget review process. DOD’s 1996 plan is to

achieve a 26-percent reduction to the civilian workforce from fiscal years

1993 to 2001.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

GAO Planned Civilian Reductions--Fiscal 

Years 1993 to 2001 (in thousands)

Staffing level Reduction

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. The numbers shown indicate the staffing 

levels as of February 21, 1996.

Source: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.

FY 1993 FY 2001 Number Percent

Air Force

Army

Navy/Marine Corps

DOD agencies

Total

200

296

285

151

931

158

218

194

120

690

43

78

91

31

242

22

26

32

21

26

The current DOD plan is to reduce its civilian workforce by 26 percent, or

about 241,900 civilians, between fiscal years 1993 and 2001. As of fiscal

year 1995, OSD reported that the services and DOD agencies were ahead of

their downsizing targets by about 12,000 civilians.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

GAO Proportion of Planned Reductions 

Expected From BRAC (FY 1993-01)

Navy/Marine Corps Army Air Force

35% 14% 9%

Service officials told us that Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions

were expected to yield civilian reductions, which would be counted

toward achieving OSD downsizing targets. Of the 90,500 Navy and Marine

Corps civilian reductions targeted for fiscal years 1993 through 2001, the

Navy estimates that BRAC actions will yield about 31,790, or about

35 percent of planned civilian reductions. Similarly, the Army expects

14 percent and the Air Force expects 9 percent of planned civilian

reductions to result from BRAC actions.

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

GAO No Comprehensive Guidance to 

Manage Civilian Downsizing 

Services do not have comprehensive 

strategies to guide downsizing decisions; 

however, strategies are in development

Services have downsized civilians by 

contracting, consolidating, and 

streamlining functions

Civilian reductions have also been 

achieved through BRAC actions, military 

downsizing, and the budget process 

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

OSD and the services have various initiatives underway to downsize the

civilian workforce and achieve efficiencies. OSD developed broad plans for

streamlining the civilian workforce in 1993 and 1994 that were based on

(1) contracting out or consolidating functions, (2) employing better

business practices, and (3) downsizing specific work groups. The plans

identified several broad functional areas eligible for contracting, such as

base operations support and maintenance and repair. DOD has

consolidated some missions based on BRAC actions and expects to

consolidate some functions, such as headquarters management and

supervisory functions. Better business practices are tools DOD uses to

increase operating efficiencies, such as the reengineering efforts underway

in base management and operations. The plans also discussed OSD

initiatives to streamline certain work groups, such as personnel

specialists.

These initiatives, however, were not being guided by a comprehensive

management or downsizing strategy. OSD’s approach has been to rely on

the services and DOD agencies to make reduction decisions. The services

have used a variety of downsizing approaches, such as reducing civilians

evenly across all installation functions, consolidating installation

functions, and implementing BRAC recommendations. Most of these

approaches were undertaken by major commands and installations and

were not guided by comprehensive, servicewide downsizing strategies.

The services have downsized the civilian workforce by reducing personnel

while preserving functions. This resulted in delays in repairing noncritical

items at Army installations we visited. Other installations made

downsizing decisions based on workloads, which provided civilian work

years for redistribution to remaining functions and workloads.

Even though the services are developing comprehensive strategies to

determine civilian workforce requirements, civilian reductions continue

based on the independent decisions of command and installation officials.

As a result, service commands do not have a long-term road map to guide

downsizing decisions and shape the civilian workforce to meet future

mission requirements. The majority of civilian reductions will have likely

been made before such strategies are in place.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

GAO Army 

Army officials told us the Army does not 

have a consistent, servicewide system 

for relating personnel and workload

In 1991, the Army began testing a 

methodology to link workforce 

requirements to mission and workload

An Army official said the methodology 

was expected to help managers make 

downsizing decisions based on mission 

and workload requirements 

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

According to Army officials, the Army does not have a consistent,

servicewide system for relating personnel and workload. The Army is

reviewing whether to implement a new workforce requirements program

servicewide. This program, undergoing final study, is not a strategy to

manage downsizing, but it would allow decisionmakers to balance

downsizing with workloads and budget constraints. The program involves

a 12-step process to validate workforce requirements for support functions

based on factors such as mission, tasks, and resources. An Army official

stated that between 1991 and 1995, the Army used the program to study

the workloads and resources of 72 Army units and organizations with

nearly 64,000 positions—about 13 percent of the Army’s military and

civilian support workforce.

The Army Materiel Command is currently working to establish its

workforce requirements in response to an Army audit, which found the

Command determined workforce requirements based on available funding

and not on workload. Subsequently, on the basis of information provided

in the Army audit, the House Armed Services Committee became

concerned about the Army’s rationale for civilian downsizing. The

Committee directed the Secretary of the Army to develop a program for

determining staffing needs based on workload.

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

GAO Air Force 

In June 1994, the Secretary of the Air 

Force directed the development of a 

strategy to downsize civilians based on 

workload and programs to minimize 

potential adverse effects on readiness

The Air Force conducted a top-down 

review of civilian functions 

The review produced various streamlining 

proposals and some were implemented 

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

In June 1994, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the development of a

comprehensive implementation strategy to downsize the Air Force civilian

workforce. The strategy was to be based on a review of programs,

workload, structure and organization to ensure that civilian reductions did

not adversely affect readiness. Six working groups were established to

review civilian functional areas, such as installation support and

management headquarters, for downsizing potential. The working groups

developed various proposals to streamline civilian support functions. The

majority of the proposals were process improvements. By January 1996,

however, limited progress had been made on a downsizing strategy. Of the

roughly 54 proposals under review, an Air Force official estimated that

about 12 had potential for significant civilian personnel savings.

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

GAO Navy 

The Navy is refining its current 

methodology to better determine total 

workforce requirements, including civilian 

requirements

Navy officials said the methodology was 

expected to link workforce requirements 

to workload 

The Navy expects the methodology to be 

in use around 1999 

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

The Navy is refining its methodology to determine total workforce

requirements, to include the civilian workforce. Navy officials told us the

revised methodology was expected to better link and integrate workforce

requirements to workload. Although still in the concept stage, the Navy’s

methodology is based on workload requirements for conditions ranging

from peacetime to mobilization and is aimed at addressing the Navy’s total

workforce. The methodology is not a tool to downsize the civilian

workforce, but it is expected to help the Navy to establish its civilian

workforce requirements based on workload. The Navy expects this

methodology to be available around 1999 to better identify civilian

personnel requirements. To test an alternative methodology, the Navy

conducted initial studies in October 1995 at two naval air stations,

comparing missions, functions, tasks, and personnel allocation. The

studies identified functions for potential consolidation and elimination.

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

GAO Marine Corps

The Commandant's 1995 planning 

guidance required careful management 

of civilian reductions and directed a 

servicewide study to identify 

opportunities for streamlining, 

consolidating, and contracting out civilian 

functions 

Servicewide study is underway 

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

In 1995, the Marine Corps began a detailed study of current service

processes to implement the Commandant’s planning guidance. The

Commandant’s guidance directed that civilian reductions must be

carefully managed to minimize adverse effects on combat units. As part of

its study effort, the Marine Corps is evaluating the role of civilians in core

functions to identify opportunities to streamline, consolidate, and contract

out. Marine Corps officials told us that headquarters staff members were

also working on servicewide plans to downsize civilians in targeted work

groups. The study effort is expected to be completed in the summer of

1996, and results of the study are expected to identify areas in which the

Marine Corps can streamline, consolidate, and contract out civilian

functions.

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

GAO Initiatives to Downsize Specific 

Functions

OSD is managing DOD-wide 

streamlining of three functional areas

personnel

procurement

finance 

OSD targeted 31,000 civilian reductions 

in these areas 

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Briefing Section III 

DOD Management of the Civilian Drawdown

In 1994, OSD directed that the three offices with primary functional

responsibility for the civilian personnel, procurement, and finance work

groups manage efforts to streamline these functions DOD-wide. In response

to the Report of the National Performance Review, OSD has targeted almost

31,000 civilian workforce reductions in these three functional areas,

representing almost 15 percent of civilian reductions planned for fiscal

years 1993 through 1999. The following are DOD-wide streamlining efforts

that are either under review or beginning implementation. These efforts

are expected to improve processes and functions or provide personnel or

fiscal savings.

• The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy is

responsible for streamlining the civilian personnel specialist function.

DOD’s restructuring effort, which centers on the establishment of regional

personnel centers and modernization, is expected to be completed around

2001. Officials said they expected their reengineering efforts to achieve the

target reduction of about 6,000 civilians.

• The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology is

responsible for streamlining the procurement function. OSD officials said

that several ongoing reengineering and reform initiatives were expected to

achieve the target reduction of about 12,500 by 1999. However, service

officials told us that OSD does not have a DOD-wide strategy to downsize

civilians working in the procurement function.

• The Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, is responsible for

streamlining the finance function. OSD has various ongoing initiatives to

reform the finance function, but these initiatives are not expected to

reduce the number of personnel. However, personnel savings of about 

8,000 civilian positions is expected to come from consolidating various

finance functions. OSD is evaluating the potential to privatize up to 8,000

civilian positions in functions such as debt and claims management. An

OSD official told us his office expected to achieve the total target reduction

of almost 13,000 by 1999. A DOD-wide strategy to downsize civilians

working in the finance function, however, has not been developed.

The services are implementing some of the OSD streamlining initiatives

while pursuing their own streamlining efforts. Army commands, for

example, identified 175 initiatives to reduce costs and personnel,

streamline organizations, and improve productivity.

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Appendix I 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Sharon A. Cekala, Associate Director

William E. Beusse, Assistant Director

Christine D. Frye, Evaluator-in-Charge

Laura L. Talbott, Evaluator

Dallas Field Office Robert D. Malpass, Evaluator

Kansas City Field

Office

Gregory J. Symons, Evaluator

Norfolk Field Office Hugh Brady, Jr., Evaluator

Harry E. Taylor, Jr., Evaluator

San Francisco Field

Office

John M. Schaefer, Evaluator

Leo G. Acosta, Evaluator

(703107) Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-96-143BR Civilian Downsizing
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100