NATIONAL 

SECURITY 

DOD Should 

Reevaluate 

Requirements for the 

Selective Service 

System

Report to Congressional Committees

June 2012

GAO-12-623

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-623, a report to 

congressional committees 

June 2012 

NATIONAL SECURITY

DOD Should Reevaluate Requirements for the 

Selective Service System 

Why GAO Did This Study

The Selective Service System is an 

independent agency in the executive 

branch. Its responsibilities include 

maintaining a database that will enable 

it to provide manpower to DOD in a 

national emergency, managing a 

program for conscientious objectors to 

satisfy their obligations through a 

program of civilian service, and

ensuring the capability to register and 

induct medical personnel if directed to 

do so. Section 597 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81)

requires that GAO assess the military 

necessity of the Selective Service

System and examine alternatives to its 

current structure. Specifically, GAO (1) 

determined the extent to which DOD 

has evaluated the necessity of the 

Selective Service System to meeting 

DOD’s future manpower requirements

beyond the all-volunteer force and (2) 

reviewed the fiscal and national 

security considerations of various 

alternatives to the Selective Service

System. GAO reviewed legislation, 

analyzed relevant documents, verified 

cost data provided by the Selective 

Service System, and interviewed DOD, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

and Selective Service System officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD (1) 

evaluate its requirements for the 

Selective Service System in light of 

recent strategic guidance and (2) 

establish a process of periodically 

reevaluating these requirements. In 

written comments on a draft of this 

report, DOD agreed with the

recommendations. 

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) has not recently evaluated the necessity of 

the Selective Service System to meeting DOD’s future manpower requirements

for carrying out the defense strategy or reexamined time frames for inducting 

personnel in the event of a draft. DOD officials told GAO that the Selective 

Service System provides a low-cost insurance policy in case a draft is ever 

necessary. The Selective Service System maintains a structure that would help 

ensure the equity and credibility of a draft. For example, the Selective Service 

System manages the registration of males aged 18 through 25 and maintains nocost agreements with organizations that would offer alternative service to 

conscientious objectors. The Selective Service System also has unpaid 

volunteers who could be activated as soon as a draft is enacted to review claims 

for deferment. However, DOD has not used the draft since 1973, and because of 

its reliance and emphasis on the all-volunteer force, DOD has not reevaluated 

requirements for the Selective Service System since 1994, although significant 

changes to the national security environment have occurred since that time. 

Periodically reevaluating an agency’s requirements is critical to helping ensure 

that resources are appropriately matched to requirements that represent today’s 

environment. Selective Service System officials expressed concern that, as 

currently resourced, they cannot meet DOD’s requirements to deliver inductees 

without jeopardizing the fairness and equity of the draft. However, the lack of an 

updated requirement from DOD presents challenges to policymakers for 

determining whether the Selective Service System is properly resourced or 

necessary. 

Restructuring or disestablishing the Selective Service System would require 

consideration of various fiscal and national security implications. GAO reviewed 

data on costs and savings associated with maintaining the Selective Service 

System’s current operations, operating in a deep standby mode with active 

registration, and disestablishing the Selective Service System altogether. 

Estimated Costs and Savings of Current Operations and Alternatives 

Dollars in millions

Maintaining current 

operations

Deep standby 

with registration Disestablishment

Estimated first-year savings $0 $4.8 $17.9

Estimated recurring savings $0 $6.6 $24.4

Estimated budget after 

implementation $24.4 $17.8 $0

Source: Selective Service System. 

Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding. 

If Congress disestablishes the Selective Service System it would need to amend 

the Military Selective Service Act and potentially other laws involving the 

Selective Service System. There are also limitations that would need to be 

considered if Selective Service System functions were transferred to another 

agency. Selective Service System officials said that while other databases could 

be used for a registration database, these databases might not lead to a fair and 

equitable draft because they would not be as complete and would therefore put 

some portions of the population at a higher risk of being drafted than others. 

View GAO-12-623. For more information, 

contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or 

farrellb@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-623 National Security 

Letter 1 

Background 2

DOD Has Not Evaluated the Necessity of the Selective Service 

System Since 1994 4

Restructuring or Disestablishing the Selective Service System 

Requires Consideration of Fiscal and National Security 

Implications 9

Conclusions 15

Recommendations for Executive Action 16

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 16

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 19

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 21

Appendix III Comments from the Selective Service System 23

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 24

Table

Table 1: Estimated Costs and Savings of Current Operations and 

Alternatives to the Selective Service System 10

Contents

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-623 National Security 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

June 7, 2012

Congressional Committees

Under the Military Selective Service Act,1 the Selective Service System is 

an independent agency within the executive branch of the federal 

government.2

We conducted this review in response to the mandate in section 597 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,

Its responsibilities include maintaining a registration 

database that will enable it to provide untrained manpower to the 

Department of Defense (DOD) in the event of a national emergency, 

managing a program for conscientious objectors to satisfy their 

obligations through a program of alternative civilian service, and ensuring 

the capability to register and induct medical personnel if directed to do so.

3

For our first objective, to determine the extent to which DOD has 

evaluated the necessity of the Selective Service System to meeting 

DOD’s future manpower requirements in excess of the all-volunteer force, 

we analyzed documents and guidance on DOD’s manpower requirements 

for the Selective Service System and interviewed DOD and Selective 

Service System officials on the role and necessity of the Selective Service 

which 

requires us to assess the military necessity of the Selective Service 

System and examine various alternatives to its current structure. 

Specifically, we (1) determined the extent to which DOD has evaluated 

the necessity of the Selective Service System to meeting the 

department’s future manpower requirements in excess of the all-volunteer 

force and (2) reviewed the fiscal and national security considerations of 

various alternatives to the Selective Service System, including 

disestablishing the agency, reducing its current capacity, or having its 

functions performed or database maintained by another organization. Our 

review did not assess whether or not the Selective Service System should 

be restructured or disestablished, as this is ultimately a policy decision for 

Congress.

 

1

50 U.S.C. App. §§ 451—473.

2

50 U.S.C. App. § 460(a).

3

Pub. L. No. 112-81 (2011).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-623 National Security 

System to meeting DOD’s requirements. We also determined whether 

and how often DOD evaluates its requirements for the Selective Service 

System. For our second objective, to review the fiscal and national 

security considerations of various alternatives to the Selective Service 

System, we requested that officials from the Selective Service System 

identify the estimated costs, savings, and national security implications of 

disestablishing the Selective Service System or placing it in a deep 

standby mode.4

We conducted this performance audit from February to June 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further information on our 

scope, methodology, and data reliability assessment can be found in 

appendix I.

While we relied on data provided by Selective Service 

System officials, we examined their assumptions and verified their 

methodology in calculating the costs of termination and potential savings. 

We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purpose 

of providing an estimate of the costs of alternatives to the Selective 

Service System’s current structure. We interviewed DOD and Selective 

Service System officials to determine whether there are comparable 

databases or other agencies, including DOD, that could perform the 

Selective Service System’s functions. We also asked them to identify any 

factors and limitations that might affect the costs of another agency or 

database replacing the functions of the Selective Service System.

The Military Selective Service Act requires virtually all male U.S. citizens 

worldwide and all other males residing in the United States ages 18 

through 25 to register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of 

turning 18 years of age under procedures established by a presidential 

proclamation and other rules and regulations. The Selective Service 

System currently budgets for 130 full-time civilian positions and 175 part-

 

4

Section 597 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 defined deep 

standby mode as the Selective Service System retaining only personnel sufficient to 

conduct necessary functions, to include maintaining the registration database.

Background
 

Page 3 GAO-12-623 National Security 

time Reserve Force Officers5

The Military Selective Service Act does not currently authorize use of a 

draft for the induction of persons into the armed forces. Congress and the 

President would be required to enact a law authorizing a draft, were they 

to deem it necessary to supplement the existing force with additional 

military manpower. In the event of a draft, the Selective Service System 

would be tasked with conducting a lottery and sending induction notices 

to selected males to supply the personnel requested by the Secretary of 

Defense. A network of over 11,000 local, district, and national board 

volunteers, who are now managed by the Selective Service System, 

would be activated to review and process claims for exemption, 

deferment, or postponement of service. Selected males would be directed 

to report to Military Entrance Processing Stations, managed by DOD, to 

determine whether they are qualified for military service, and then sent to 

military training centers. In addition to drafting inductees, the Selective 

Service System would be responsible for providing options and managing 

the program for alternative civilian service to conscientious objectors and 

would also be required to induct health care specialists if necessary.

in its national headquarters in Arlington, 

Virginia; its Data Management Center, in Chicago, Illinois; and its three 

regional headquarters, located in Chicago, Illinois; Smyrna, Georgia; and 

Denver, Colorado. In 2011, the Selective Service System’s Data 

Management Center added 2.2 million records to its database and sent a 

series of letters to males reminding them of their obligation to register. 

According to Selective Service System officials, in calendar year 2010, 

their database contained approximately 16.4 million names, and the 

estimated registration compliance rate was 92 percent. The Selective 

Service System also carries out other peacetime activities such as 

conducting public registration awareness and outreach, responding to 

public inquiries about registration requirements, and providing training 

and support to volunteer local board members, state directors, and 

Reserve Force Officers.

 

5

Reserve Force Officers are maintained at a maximum number of 175, which includes 150 

funded by the Selective Service System and 25 on loan from the military services.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-623 National Security 

The Selective Service System’s time frames for mobilizing inductees are 

based on DOD’s recommendations developed in accordance with its 

manpower requirements as defined in 1994; therefore, the 

appropriateness of these time frames to helping DOD meet its current 

manpower needs in excess of the current all-volunteer force is unclear. 

Even though DOD has not used the draft since 1973, DOD officials told 

us that the Selective Service System provides a low-cost insurance policy 

in case a draft is ever necessary and a structure and organization that 

would help ensure the equity and credibility of a draft should one be 

authorized and implemented. The Selective Service System also offers 

capabilities that are hard to quantify in terms of dollars, including its 

structure of unpaid volunteers who could be activated as soon as a draft 

is implemented and its no-cost agreements with civilian organizations that 

have agreed to supply jobs to conscientious objectors. Selective Service 

System officials expressed concern that, as currently resourced, they 

cannot meet DOD’s requirements to deliver inductees without 

jeopardizing the fairness and equity of the draft. However, that 

requirement was based on the national security environment that existed 

in 1994. The lack of an updated requirement from DOD presents 

challenges to policymakers for determining whether the Selective Service 

System is properly resourced or necessary.

DOD developed its manpower requirements for the Selective Service 

System in 1994 and has not reexamined these requirements in the 

context of recent military operations and changes in the security 

environment and national security strategy. In a 1994 memorandum6

 

6

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management, Memorandum for Director of 

Selective Service System, “Updated Manpower Requirements” (Nov. 16, 1994). Other, 

more general guidance is provided in DOD Instruction 1100.19, Wartime Manpower 

Mobilization Planning Policies and Procedures (Feb. 20, 1986) and DOD 1100.19-H, 

Wartime Manpower Mobilization Planning Guidance (Mar. 1990).

to 

the Director of the Selective Service System, the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Force Management stated that DOD expected that its active 

and reserve forces would be sufficient for most conceivable scenarios 

involving two Major Regional Conflicts, citing two then-current documents, 

the 1993 Report on the Bottom-Up Review and the 1994 A National 

Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement. Because of this 

expectation, DOD recommended extending the time it would require the 

Selective Service System to provide the first inductees from 13 days to 

DOD Has Not 

Evaluated the 

Necessity of the 

Selective Service 

System Since 1994

The Selective Service 

System’s Current 

Manpower Requirements 

Are Based on a 1994 DOD 

Evaluation
 

Page 5 GAO-12-623 National Security 

193 days after mobilization (13 days plus 6 months) and to provide 

100,000 inductees from 30 days to 210 days after mobilization (30 days 

plus 6 months). The Selective Service System considers this requirement 

to be its most recent and official requirement from DOD. The 

memorandum also stated that DOD’s position was that an all-male draft 

remained valid and legal and that medical personnel continued to be the 

only skilled group that would be required in conceivable contingency 

scenarios. Specifically, the document states that DOD’s Health Care 

Personnel Delivery System calls for the rapid postmobilization registration 

of up to 3.5 million health care personnel in more than 60 specialties. 

DOD also stated in its memorandum that the time for the Selective 

Service System to conduct a mass registration of medical personnel 

could be extended by 6 months, from 13 days to 193 days, with induction 

orders to follow 3 weeks later.

DOD relies on its national defense strategy and the Quadrennial Defense 

Review to identify its priority mission areas and determine its overall force 

structure needs.7 The national defense strategy provides the foundation 

and strategic framework for the department’s Quadrennial Defense 

Review, which is performed every 4 years. During this review, DOD is 

required to define a national defense strategy and the force structure and 

other elements necessary to successfully execute the range of missions 

identified in that national defense strategy. Changes in the security 

environment require the department and the services to reassess their 

force structure requirements, including how many and what types of units 

are necessary to carry out the national defense strategy. For example, as 

DOD stated in its January 2012 strategic guidance, even when U.S. 

forces are committed to a large-scale operation in one region, they will 

need to be capable of denying the objectives of—or imposing 

unacceptable costs on—an opportunistic aggressor in a second region. 

Specifically, the United States will need to be prepared for an increasingly 

complex set of challenges in South Asia, the Middle East, and the AsiaPacific region.8

In prior work, we have emphasized the importance of agencies taking 

actions to ensure that their missions are current and that their 

 

7

Force structure represents the numbers, size, and composition of the units that comprise 

U.S. forces.

8

Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense (January 2012).
 

Page 6 GAO-12-623 National Security 

organizations are structured to meet those missions. We have also 

reported that many agencies find themselves encumbered with structures 

and processes rooted in the past and designed to meet the demands of 

earlier times.9 Further, we have stated that high-performing organizations 

stay alert to emerging mission demands and remain open to reevaluating 

their human capital practices to meet emerging agency needs.10

While DOD officials stated that the 1994 manpower requirement may still 

be valid, without an updated assessment of requirements for the 

Selective Service System, policymakers cannot be certain whether the 

resources to support the Selective Service System are necessary to meet 

DOD’s manpower needs, whether the Selective Service System is 

prepared to supply the skills most critical to DOD in the 21st century, or 

whether the Selective Service System is necessary at all. In a letter to 

GAO dated April 16, 2012, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Military 

Personnel Policy stated that determining the military necessity for the 

Selective Service System and its registration of young men is a complex 

issue that requires significant examination not possible during the period 

of GAO’s review.

Changes 

in the security environment and defense strategy represent junctures at

which DOD can systematically reevaluate service personnel levels to 

determine whether they are consistent with strategic objectives.

11 However, DOD does recognize that such an 

examination is prudent. The Deputy Assistant Secretary noted that, while 

the military necessity of the Selective Service System in the 21st century 

has yet to be determined, the department recognizes that there are 

benefits to the continuation of the Selective Service System.

 

9

GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996).

10GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002). 

11Section 597 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, dated 

December 2011, required GAO to provide a report containing the results of our study to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives no later 

than May 1, 2012. To satisfy this mandate, we provided a draft of this report to the 

Committees on that date.
 

Page 7 GAO-12-623 National Security 

According to official spokespersons for the Selective Service System, the 

agency is not currently resourced to meet DOD’s requirement for it to 

deliver the first inductees in 193 days and 100,000 inductees in 210 days, 

without jeopardizing the fairness and equity of the draft. However, DOD 

officials believe that the Selective Service System provides a low-cost 

insurance policy in case a draft is ever necessary. The Selective Service 

System also provides benefits that would help to ensure a draft was fair 

and equitable. Specifically, Selective Service System officials stated that 

since fiscal year 1997, the agency has undergone various cuts and 

attained efficiencies in an attempt to meet DOD’s manpower 

requirements. The Selective Service System officials said that due to 

reductions in the number of personnel available to set up area offices 

across the country, it now estimates it could not deliver the first inductees 

until 285 days after mobilization. In fiscal year 1997, the Selective Service 

System’s budget was $22.9 million (in then-year dollars), or $31.5 million 

in fiscal year 2013 dollars. Since then, the agency’s annual budget has 

declined steadily in constant dollars, and its requested budget for fiscal 

year 2013 was $24.4 million.12

According to the Selective Service System’s fiscal year 2011 Annual 

Report, maintaining acceptable registration compliance rates of at least 

90 percent is key to the agency’s ability to conduct a fair and equitable 

draft, should it be necessary. Maintaining a high compliance rate, 

Selective Service System officials believe, helps to ensure that the 

highest possible number of eligible men are targeted equally. Within its 

available budget, the Selective Service System is able to maintain 

registration compliance rates of 69 percent for 18-year-old males, 89 

percent for 19-year-old males, and 96 percent for 20- through 25-year-old 

males.13

 

12Constant dollars measure the value of purchased goods and services at price levels that 

are the same as the reference year. Constant dollars do not contain any adjustments for 

inflationary changes that have occurred or are forecast to occur outside the reference 

year.

The Selective Service System estimates that over the past few 

years, a larger portion of the registration process has become automated 

because many state drivers’ license programs now require registration 

with the Selective Service System as a prerequisite, and the Selective 

Service System offers internet and telephone registration options. 

However, Selective Service System’s data-entry staff also input over 

13Once a man reaches his 26th birthday, his name is dropped from the Selective Service 

System’s list of possible draftees.

Selective Service System 

Said It Is Not Resourced to 

Meet DOD’s Requirements 

but Provides a Structure 

That Could Be Used for a 

Fair and Equitable Draft
 

Page 8 GAO-12-623 National Security 

712,000 transactions each year, including manual registrations, registrant 

file updates, compliance additions and updates, post office returns, and 

miscellaneous forms. The Data Management Center also serves as the 

agency’s national call center, which the public contacts to verify 

registrations that are needed to be eligible for benefits and programs 

linked to this registration, such as student loans and government jobs. In 

addition, the Selective Service System undertakes general national 

outreach and public awareness initiatives to publicize the requirement for 

males to register. These efforts have included convention exhibits, public 

service announcements, high school publicity kits, focus group studies, 

and outreach meetings. The Selective Service System also conducts 

outreach visits to areas of low registration compliance.

In addition to registration, the Selective Service System structure helps to 

ensure that a draft would be fair and equitable. For example, it maintains 

a structure that could be activated as soon as a draft is implemented to 

conduct nationwide local review boards to determine draftees’ eligibility 

for deferments. The Selective Service System’s three regional offices are 

responsible for maintaining this board structure and making sure that 

personnel are trained to perform their assigned tasks. Each state and 

territory has a part-time state director who is compensated for an average 

of up to 12 duty days per year. In 2011, the Selective Service System 

also relied on 175 Reserve Force Officers from all branches of the military 

services. These part-time officers perform peacetime and preparedness 

tasks, such as training civilian board members, and function as field 

contacts for state and local agencies and the public. The largest 

component of the Selective Service System’s workforce is approximately 

11,000 uncompensated men and women. According to Selective Service

System officials, these men and women are selected to be 

representatives of the geographic area in which they reside and are 

trained to serve as volunteer local, district, and national appeal board 

members. If a draft were to occur, these trained volunteers would decide 

the classification status of men seeking exceptions or deferments based 

on conscientious objection, hardship to dependents, their status as 

ministers or ministerial students, or any other reason. Selective Service 

System officials believe that having local board members representative 

of the geographic areas in which they reside helps to ensure that these 

board members would make fair and equitable decisions.

If a draft occurred, the Selective Service System is also required to 

manage a 2-year program of alternative civilian service for conscientious 

objectors. The Selective Service System maintains no-cost agreements 

with civilian organizations that, in the event of a draft, have agreed to 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-623 National Security 

supply jobs to conscientious objectors who oppose any form of military 

service, even in a noncombat capacity. To be prepared to implement an 

alternative service program for registrants classified as conscientious 

objectors, the Selective Service System conducts outreach to various 

civilian employers, such as the Methuselah Foundation and the 

Mennonite Mission Network, to arrange memoranda of agreement for 

these organizations to be prepared to offer alternative service to up to 

30,000 conscientious objectors should a draft be necessary.

Restructuring or disestablishing the Selective Service System would 

require consideration of various fiscal and national security implications, 

some of which may be difficult to quantify. We reviewed estimated costs 

and savings for two alternatives to the current structure of the Selective 

Service System: (1) placing it in a deep standby mode where active 

registration is maintained and (2) disestablishing the agency. In addition 

to the potential costs and savings of these alternatives, other factors, with 

both tangible and intangible costs and benefits, may need to be 

considered if either alternative were pursued. We identified factors that 

may affect costs and various considerations and limitations that may 

affect whether another agency or database could perform the functions of 

the Selective Service System while maintaining the capability to perform a 

fair and equitable draft.

Officials from the Selective Service System provided details on the 

personnel and resources required for each of the alternatives we 

reviewed, as well as their estimated cost savings (see table 1). The 

Selective Service System estimates were based on the assumption that 

either alternative would be fully implemented in fiscal year 2013, and 

officials based their estimates on their fiscal year 2013 requested budget. 

Most of the estimated cost savings result from reductions in the numbers 

of civilian and Reserve Force Officer personnel for the two alternatives we 

examined.

Restructuring or 

Disestablishing the 

Selective Service 

System Requires 

Consideration of 

Fiscal and National 

Security Implications

Options for Disestablishing 

or Restructuring the 

Selective Service System 

Differ in Cost, Savings, and 

Personnel Requirements
 

Page 10 GAO-12-623 National Security 

Table 1: Estimated Costs and Savings of Current Operations and Alternatives to the 

Selective Service System 

Dollars in millions

Maintaining current 

operations

Deep standby 

with registration Disestablishment

Personnel required

Civilian (full-time, 

paid)

130 93 0 

Reserve Force 

Officers (part-time, 

paid)

150 0 0 

Reserve Force 

Officers (part-time, 

unpaid)

25 0 0 

State directors (parttime, paid)56 0 0 

Civilian board 

members (unpaid)

11,000 0 0 

Estimated first-year 

savings after termination 

costs are subtracted

$0 $4.8 $17.9

Estimated recurring 

annual savings

$0 $6.6 $24.4

Estimated budget after 

implementation

$24.4 $17.8 $0

Source: Selective Service System

Notes: Numbers may not add up due to rounding. 

The figures in this table are based on Selective Service System’s estimates of the number of 

personnel required and potential costs and savings for the agency to be put in a deep standby mode 

or disestablished. These estimates are based on the assumption that a decision to restructure or 

disestablish the Selective Service System would be made in the first quarter of the fiscal year and 

completed by the end of the fiscal year. The budgets identified in the table correspond with the 

estimated budgets after the scenario is implemented. 

The Selective Service System’s current budget authorizes 130 civilian full-time equivalent positions. 

Three of those authorized positions represent the funds necessary to pay the part-time salaries of the 

56 state directors. 

The potential savings identified in both the deep standby with registration and disestablishment 

scenarios assume approximately $2.6 million in savings associated with dismissing the part-time paid 

Reserve Force Officers. These savings may not be realized if these positions are absorbed by the 

Department of Defense. 

As shown in table 1, if the Selective Service System were placed in a 

deep standby mode and maintained its registration program and 

database, Selective Service System officials estimated that the first-year 

cost savings would be approximately $4.8 million, with subsequent annual 

savings of approximately $6.6 million. Selective Service System officials 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-623 National Security 

estimated that costs for closing the regional offices, severance pay, and 

other termination costs would be $1.8 million. The Selective Service 

System estimates it would require a budget of $17.8 million and 93 fulltime civilian personnel at the national headquarters and Data 

Management Center to continue inputting and processing registrations, 

maintain registration awareness and compliance, and facilitate plans to 

reconstitute the agency if needed. The estimates assume that the 

Selective Service System would reduce its civilian workforce by 37 

positions, would no longer employ Reserve Force Officers or state 

directors, and would reduce its physical infrastructure costs by closing its 

three regional offices.

According to Selective Service System officials, disestablishing the 

agency would produce first-year cost savings of approximately $17.9 

million and subsequent annual savings of $24.4 million. This scenario 

assumes that all full-time civilians, Reserve Force Officers, and state 

directors would be terminated or dismissed, and the agency 

headquarters, three regional headquarters, and data management center 

would be closed. Selective Service System officials estimated that costs 

for closing the agency and terminating employees and contracts would 

total approximately $6.5 million in the first year. In both of the alternatives 

presented in table 1, the 11,000 civilian volunteer board members would 

be dismissed, eliminating the volunteer board infrastructure currently in 

place to review claims for deferring or postponing military service.

Selective Service System officials also identified the estimated time and 

potential resources required to reestablish the agency to its current 

operations should either of these options be pursued.14 Selective Service 

System officials estimated that if the agency were in a deep standby 

mode or disestablished, it would cost approximately $6.6 and $28 

million,15

 

14The Selective Service System’s estimates for the time required to reconstitute the 

agency to the current status quo are based on its experiences transitioning from deep 

standby to full operations in 1980.

respectively, to restore the agency to its current operating 

capacity. Officials estimated that if the agency were put in a deep standby 

mode with registration, it would take approximately 18 months to rehire 

and train essential civilian and Reserve Force Officer personnel, 

15Selective Service System officials estimated that if the agency were disestablished, they 

would require their fiscal year 2013 estimated budget of $24.4 million plus an additional 

$3.6 million to build an information technology system for the registration database.
 

Page 12 GAO-12-623 National Security 

reestablish regional offices, and appoint state directors and civilian

volunteer board members. If the agency were disestablished, officials 

estimated it would take an additional 6 months—or a total of 

approximately 2 years—to perform mass registrations, reconstitute the 

Data Management Center and regional offices, build the necessary 

information technology infrastructure, and rehire and train personnel.

Selective Service System officials also provided estimates for the time 

and resources required to perform a draft from its current operations if the 

agency were in deep standby or disestablished. According to Selective 

Service System officials, they have no previous experience transitioning 

from disestablishment or a standby mode to draft operations. While their 

estimates are loosely based on the agency’s mobilization plans, officials 

noted that their plans have not recently been updated and do not reflect 

their current staffing or budget. To perform a draft from its current 

operating status, Selective Service System officials said that they would 

require approximately $465 million to hire the full-time civilian personnel 

necessary to populate the field structure by staffing area and alternative 

service offices and district and local boards. If either deep standby or 

disestablishment were pursued and a draft became necessary, Selective 

Service System officials said they would need funds in addition to the 

$465 million it would currently require to perform a draft. Selective Service 

System officials estimated that if the agency were in a standby mode or 

disestablished, they would require approximately 830 days and 920 days, 

respectively, to provide DOD with inductees.

In addition to the potential costs and savings for each option, officials 

from the Selective Service System and DOD identified other factors that 

would need to be considered if the agency were disestablished or placed 

in a deep standby mode. Officials reaffirmed several benefits that they 

stated had been previously identified in a 1994 National Security Council 

recommendation to maintain the Selective Service System and the 

registration program. For example, DOD and Selective Service System 

officials said that the presence of a registration system and the Selective 

Service System demonstrates a feeling of resolve on the part of the 

United States to potential adversaries. Officials also stated that, as fewer 

citizens have direct contact with military service, registering with the 

Selective Service System may be the only link some young men will have 

to military service and the all-volunteer force. Selective Service System

officials noted that the Selective Service System and registration 

requirement provide a hedge against unforeseen threats. Officials from 

DOD also cited some secondary recruiting benefits they receive from the 

Selective Service System. DOD relies on the Selective Service System to 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-623 National Security 

mail out recruiting pamphlets in conjunction with the registration materials 

the agency routinely sends to new registrants. DOD officials told us that 

using the Selective Service System to mail these materials costs 

approximately $370,000 a year, which is significantly less than the 

department would spend on postage to mail the recruiting materials 

separately and which results in approximately 60,000 recruiting leads a 

year. In addition, DOD officials said that DOD relies heavily on the 

Selective Service System’s database to help populate its recruiting and 

marketing database at no cost to the department.

Other costs and considerations may need to be evaluated as well. A 

number of federal and state programs require registration as a 

prerequisite, such as state drivers’ licenses and identification cards, 

federal student aid programs, U.S. citizenship, federally sponsored job 

training, and government employment. Selective Service System officials 

said there could be costs to remove language from forms and program 

materials stating that registering with the Selective Service System is a 

prerequisite to qualifying for these programs. Furthermore, Selective 

Service System officials said that agreements with civilian agencies to 

provide alternative civilian service for conscientious objectors would be 

terminated if registration were discontinued or the agency were 

disestablished, and reinstituting these agreements in the event of a draft 

would take time. Terminating the Selective Service System would also 

require amending the Military Selective Service Act and potentially other 

laws involving the Selective Service System.

Selective Service System and DOD officials identified factors that should 

be considered if the functions of the Selective Service System were to be 

performed by another federal or state agency or with another database. 

We were unable to identify specific costs associated with these options 

because, according to officials from DOD and the Selective Service 

System, there is no database that is comparable to or as complete as the 

Selective Service System’s database. However, officials did identify 

several factors and limitations that could affect the costs and feasibility of 

having the Selective Service System’s functions performed by another 

entity.

Officials from the Selective Service System identified several databases 

and agencies that currently help populate their registration database. For 

example, Selective Service System officials said they have agreements 

Transferring Selective 

Service System’s Functions 

to Another Agency Could 

Affect the Independence 

and Fairness of a Draft and 

May Not Be Cost-Efficient
 

Page 14 GAO-12-623 National Security 

with the Social Security Administration and the American Association of 

Motor Vehicles to supply names of 18- through 25-year-olds16

DOD and Selective Service System officials also expressed concern with 

having another federal agency perform the Selective Service System’s 

functions. Selective Service System officials said that any transfer of their 

responsibilities to DOD or another federal agency would raise 

independence concerns with respect to ensuring that a draft would be fair 

who have 

registered social security numbers or who apply for drivers’ licenses, at a 

cost of $14,200 and $42,177 a year, respectively. Selective Service 

System officials also said they rely on the U.S. Census Bureau to provide 

a breakdown of the total number of men aged 18 through 25 by state and 

county, which the Selective Service System uses to determine its overall 

registration compliance rate. Selective Service System officials agreed 

that other agencies’ databases, like those of the Social Security 

Administration and the American Association of Motor Vehicles, could be 

used or combined to populate a registration database but noted that a 

draft using these systems might not be fair and equitable because these 

databases would target certain portions of the pool of possible inductees 

but not others. For example, if a draft were performed using only names 

in the Social Security Administration’s database, immigrant men residing 

in the United States who do not have social security numbers would not 

have the same likelihood of being drafted as male U.S. citizens would. 

Selective Service System officials also stated that there could be costs 

associated with combining other databases to achieve the compliance 

rate of the Selective Service System’s database. The Selective Service 

System database represents 92 percent of the eligible population, and 

Selective Service System officials said they rely on a number of sources 

to maintain a high registration compliance rate and have established a 

process that gives everyone an equal chance of being selected. The 

Selective Service System therefore believes it can perform a fair and 

equitable draft of the population and said that other databases, unless 

similarly combined, could not replicate the completeness of the Selective 

Service System database.

 

16Though 18- through 25-year-olds are required to register, once a man reaches his 26th

birthday, his name is dropped from the Selective Service System’s list of possible 

draftees.
 

Page 15 GAO-12-623 National Security 

and equitable.17 For example, according to Selective Service System 

officials, the independence of the agency helps to ensure that 

conscientious objector and pacifist communities will comply with 

registration requirements because the public trusts that the registration 

and induction process is performed fairly. DOD officials said that a 

significant evaluation would need to be performed to determine the costs 

and feasibility of the department taking on the Selective Service System’s 

tasks and that they are unable to identify the potential costs for the 

department to assume the responsibilities of the Selective Service 

System. DOD officials were able to provide the approximate costs to 

maintain the department’s recruiting and marketing database, but they 

emphasized that this database would be inappropriate to use as a 

replacement for the Selective Service System’s database because the 

Joint Advertising Market Research and Studies office relies on third-party 

data to populate its database, which is used strictly for the purpose of 

performing recruiting and market research. Officials from DOD’s Joint 

Advertising Market Research and Studies office indicated that their office 

currently spends approximately $2.8 million a year to operate and 

maintain their database of recruiting and marketing names and that it 

would cost an additional $3 million to replace the names it receives from 

the Selective Service System free of charge, more than doubling DOD’s 

operating costs for this database. In addition, DOD and Selective Service 

System officials stated that they are uncertain whether any savings would 

be realized by transferring the Selective Service System’s function to 

DOD or any other federal agency. Officials said the same number of 

personnel and resources would likely be required, and according to 

Selective Service System officials, there could be additional costs 

involved in having another agency learn how to recreate the components 

of the Selective Service System.

While the Selective Service System states that it is not resourced to 

provide first inductees within 193 days of mobilization and 100,000 

inductees within 210 days, DOD has not reevaluated this requirement 

since 1994. Since that time, the security environment and the national 

security strategy have changed significantly. Without an updated 

assessment by DOD of its specific requirements for the Selective Service 

 

17In addition, Congress declared in the Military Selective Service Act that, as a matter of 

policy, “the Selective Service System should remain administratively independent of any 

other agency, including the Department of Defense.” 50 U.S.C. App. § 451(f).

Conclusions
 

Page 16 GAO-12-623 National Security 

System, it is unclear whether DOD would need 100,000 inductees in 210 

days or even whether draftees would play any role in a military 

mobilization. Further, while DOD officials believe that the Selective 

Service System provides a low-cost insurance policy and benefits DOD in 

other ways—some that are hard to quantify—determining the value of 

these benefits is ultimately a policy decision for Congress, as is the 

determination of the cost and benefit trade-offs of the various alternatives 

to reducing the agency or transferring its functions. A reevaluation of the 

department’s manpower needs for the Selective Service System in light of 

current national security plans would better position Congress to make an 

informed decision about the necessity of the Selective Service System or 

any other alternatives that might substitute for it.

To help ensure that DOD and Congress have visibility over the necessity 

of the Selective Service System to meeting DOD’s needs, we recommend 

that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness to take the following two actions:

(1) evaluate DOD’s requirements for the Selective Service System in 

light of recent strategic guidance and report the results of this 

evaluation to Congress and

(2) establish a process of periodically reevaluating DOD’s 

requirements for the Selective Service System in light of changing 

threats, operating environments, and strategic guidance.

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our 

recommendations and noted its plans for implementation. Specifically, 

DOD concurred with our first recommendation—to evaluate DOD’s 

requirements for the Selective Service System to reflect recent strategic 

guidance and report the results of its evaluation to Congress. The 

department stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Joint Staff and the 

services, will perform an analysis of DOD’s manpower requirements for 

the Selective Service System, with an anticipated completion date of 

December 1, 2012. DOD also concurred with our second 

recommendation—to establish a process to periodically reevaluate DOD’s 

requirements for the Selective Service System in light of changing 

threats, operating environments, and strategic guidance. The department 

stated that it will establish a process to review the mission and 

requirements for the Selective Service System during its reevaluation of 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 17 GAO-12-623 National Security 

its current requirements for the Selective Service System. DOD’s 

comments are reprinted in appendix II.

We also provided a draft of this report to the Selective Service System for 

comment. In its written comments, the Selective Service System noted its 

support of DOD’s views of the Selective Service System. Specifically, it 

cited the Secretary of Defense’s 2011 testimony in support of maintaining 

registration as a mechanism to ensure the department is prepared for an 

unexpected event. The Selective Service System’s comments are 

reprinted in appendix III. The Selective Service System also provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We also 

provided the Office of Management and Budget a draft, but we did not 

receive any comments.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness; and the Director of the Selective Service. 

We will also make copies available to other interested parties upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about this 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Major 

contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Brenda S. Farrell

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
 

Page 18 GAO-12-623 National Security 

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable John McCain

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 19 GAO-12-623 National Security 

To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

evaluated the necessity of the Selective Service System to meeting 

DOD’s future manpower requirements in excess of the all-volunteer force, 

we analyzed documentation and information obtained from interviews 

with relevant officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness, Office of Management and Budget, and 

Selective Service System. To determine DOD’s manpower requirements, 

we reviewed DOD guidance and documents, including guidance on 

wartime manpower mobilization procedures and mobilization 

requirements. We also analyzed Selective Service System annual reports 

and budget justification documents, as well as input provided by the 

Selective Service System to the Office of Management and Budget. We 

reviewed relevant legislation establishing the Selective Service System 

and registration requirements in title 50 of the United States Code. We 

obtained DOD and Selective Service System officials’ perspectives on the 

role of the Selective Service System, as well as the Selective Service’s 

ability to meet its current need for inductees as defined by DOD’s 

manpower mobilization requirements. To obtain criteria for how frequently 

agencies should reevaluate their missions, we consulted our body of work 

on this subject.1

To review the fiscal and national security considerations of various 

alternatives to the Selective Service System, we obtained cost estimates 

from Selective Service System officials for two scenarios involving 

reducing or eliminating the Selective Service System: (1) disestablishing 

the Selective Service System and (2) placing the agency in a standby 

mode while having it continue to register potential draftees. We 

interviewed Selective Service System officials to identify their 

assumptions and sources for calculating the costs to implement these two 

scenarios. To assess the reliability of their cost estimates, we gathered 

and analyzed the agency’s budget documents to verify their calculations 

and assumptions and provided updates to the estimates for the Selective 

Service System to review. To assess the reliability of computer-processed 

data used to estimate costs, we interviewed Selective Service System 

 

1

GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996); Model of Strategic Human 

Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002); and Military 

Personnel: DOD Needs to Conduct a Data-Driven Analysis of Active Military Personnel 

Levels Required to Implement the Defense Strategy, GAO-05-200 (Washington, D.C.:

Feb. 1, 2005).

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 20 GAO-12-623 National Security 

officials and obtained documentation from the Department of the Interior 

to confirm the data and internal controls used in the system. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

audit. We also interviewed DOD and Selective Service System officials to 

identify and describe federal or state agencies or comparable databases 

that could replace the Selective Service System’s registration database. 

We obtained DOD and Selective Service System officials’ perspectives 

about the considerations and potential limitations involved in using 

another agency or database, as well as factors that could affect the cost 

and feasibility of another agency or database being used to perform the 

functions of the Selective Service System. We also reviewed GAO’s 

previous reports on the Selective Service System.2

We conducted this performance audit from February to June 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

2

GAO, Selective Service: Cost and Implications of Two Alternatives to the Present 

System, GAO/NSIAD-97-225 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 1997); Gender Issues:

Changes Would Be Needed to Expand Selective Service Registration to Women, 

GAO/NSIAD-98-199 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 1998); and Weaknesses in the Selective 

Service System’s Emergency Registration Plan, FPCD-79-89 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 

1979).
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 21 GAO-12-623 National Security 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 22 GAO-12-623 National Security 
Appendix III: Comments from the Selective 

Service System 

Page 23 GAO-12-623 National Security 

Appendix III: Comments from the Selective 

Service System
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 24 GAO-12-623 National Security 

Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellB@gao.gov. 

In addition to the contact above, Margaret Best, Assistant Director, 

Melissa Blanco, Greg Marchand, Charles Perdue, Meghan Perez, Bev 

Schladt, and Erik Wilkins-McKee made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

(351699)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.