U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–682 PDF 2014

S. Hrg. 113–412 

WASTE AND ABUSE IN NATIONAL GUARD 

SPONSORSHIP AND MARKETING CONTRACTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL AND 

CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 8, 2014 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL AND CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

MARGARET DAUM, Majority Staff Director 

RACHEL WEAVER, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 1 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2014 

Major General Judd H. Lyons, Acting Director, Army National Guard, National Guard Bureau ............................................................................................ 4 

Kathy A. Salas, Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting, National 

Guard Bureau ....................................................................................................... 6 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Lyons, Major General Judd H.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Salas, Kathy A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

APPENDIX 

Documents Senator McCaskill, submitted for the Record .................................... 19 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. Lyons .......................................................................................................... 84 

Ms. Salas ........................................................................................................... 186 

Mr. Lyons and Ms. Salas from Senator Johnson ........................................... 187 

(1) 

WASTE AND ABUSE IN NATIONAL GUARD 

SPONSORSHIP AND MARKETING CONTRACTS 

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2014 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL AND CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:05 p.m., in room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claire McCaskill, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators McCaskill and Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Good afternoon. Thank you for being here. 

Before I do anything else, I am going to turn off my phone because if I do not it will ring. 

This hearing will now come to order. 

Before I say anything else about the topic that is in front of us 

today, I want to state for the Record that I really like the National 

Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR), and I love the 

National Guard more than I like NASCAR. 

So this hearing is not about demonizing NASCAR or the National Guard. This hearing is simply about return on investment of 

Federal tax dollars, whether or not Federal money is being used 

wisely for the intended purpose and getting the result desired as 

a result of that investment. 

Every year, the Army National Guard (ARNG), like all military 

services, sets a recruiting goal before beginning to recruit thousands of new soldiers to meet its force requirements. The Army National Guard attempts to meet its goals, in part, by sponsoring professional sports teams. This year, the Guard will spend over $56 million on sports marketing like NASCAR and IndyCar. The Guard’s contract with 

NASCAR alone amounts to $32 million. The Army National Guard 

spends 37 percent of its marketing and advertising budgets on 

sports sponsorships. 

According to one National Guard recruiting official, however, not 

a single National Guard soldier was recruited from the NASCAR 

sponsorship program in 2012 and the program generated fewer 

than 8,000 leads in 2013. That may sound like a lot, but it is a far 

cry from the one million leads the National Guard has estimated 

that it needs in order to meet its recruiting goal. 
2 

One reason these sponsorships may not be generated leads is 

they may not be reaching the right demographic, which for the National Guard is primarily young adults between the ages of 18 and 

24. Only 10 percent of NASCAR’s viewers are between 18 and 24, 

and the average age of an IndyCar fan is between 35 and 54. 

I am a fan of NASCAR myself, but I do not think this is exactly 

the demographic that the National Guard is aiming for. 

Other sponsors for NASCAR include soda companies, fast food 

restaurants and gas stations, but the decision to wear the uniform 

is much more complicated than choosing a Coke or a Pepsi. 

Partly for these reasons, the Guard has recently begun to characterize its sponsorship of NASCAR and IndyCar teams as ‘‘branding’’ rather than recruiting. 

The National Guard has told the Subcommittee that it relies on 

its relationships with NASCAR and IndyCar to promote awareness 

and appreciation of the Guard brand, generally. 

However, widespread disagreement exists in the marketing industry over how to value the impressions, meaning the number of 

people who view an advertisement and the number of times they 

view it that are necessary to build and maintain a brand. In part, 

because of this difficulty in tracking the effectiveness and value of 

brand advertising, the private sector trend has been to move away 

from spending on simply brand awareness. 

The Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard, all 

of which used to sponsor NASCAR, have all decided to end these 

programs. 

The regular Army ended its sponsorship with NASCAR in 2012 

after concluding that the program had the highest cost per lead in 

the Army’s portfolio of sponsorships. The Army also cited the fact 

that only a small portion of the NASCAR audience fell within its 

target demographic. 

The Marine Corps made the same decision in 2006 when it determined that the cost per impression of sponsoring a NASCAR team 

was almost impossible to measure. 

The Navy ended its own sponsorship of NASCAR in 2008 because 

the program was too expensive compared to the marketing benefit 

it received. 

And the Coast Guard ended their relationship with NASCAR in 

2006 due to the cost of the sponsorship and only generating 350 

leads for their $9.6 million investment. 

As I stated in February, when examining the Guard’s recruiting 

assistance program, I understand that aggressive recruiting is the 

key to maintaining the strength of our military. 

The Congress has a responsibility to ensure that every taxpayer 

dollar spent produces measurable results. In this environment of 

dwindling recruiting budgets, I want to understand why the Army 

National Guard has maintained sports sponsorships that fail to 

reach target recruiting demographics and also provides less value 

per dollar than other forms of marketing. 

In preparation for this hearing, the Subcommittee received documents and information related to the National Guard’s marketing 

and sponsorship contracts and their effectiveness. 
3 

1Documents Senator McCaskill submitted for the Record appears in the Appendix on page 19. 

I ask unanimous consent that these documents be included in 

the public hearing record.1 Without objection, they will be added to 

the record. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Today, I want to explore the Army National 

Guard’s rationale for continuing its sponsorship of professional 

sports programs and discuss whether spending solely to promote 

‘‘brand awareness’’ is an effective use of taxpayer money. 

I also want to discuss how the Guard measures the effectiveness 

of its marketing relationships with NASCAR, IndyCar and other 

organizations. 

And, finally, I want to ask whether officials inside the Guard 

may have abused these relationships and the steps the Guard has 

taken to prevent any such abuses from occurring. 

I thank the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to their 

testimony. Senator Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I do not think I can add a whole lot to that. 

I think we are all aware of Senator Coburn’s 2013 Wastebook, in 

which this example of sponsoring NASCAR is No. 46 in the 

Wastebook. It says that not a single person has joined the Army 

National Guard as a result of the $136 million spent sponsoring 

race legend, Dale Earnhardt, Jr. over the last 5 years of recruiting 

new members. 

I am assuming that Senator Coburn has done a pretty good job, 

and that is a true statement. 

It goes on to say, with a shrinking defense budget, this is one 

case of spending that might be ready for the caution flag. 

I agree with that. 

And I am hoping at this hearing we are going to hear that this 

marketing technique is going to be ended. 

And I think what I am primarily going to try and get out of this 

hearing is what are we going to be doing to evaluate other dollars 

spent to recruit, which—obviously, we have to recruit, and we want 

to be supportive of those efforts, but we need to measure the effectiveness of whatever dollars we do spend. 

This is one that I think should really, like I say, get the caution 

flag. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

At this time, we will proceed with testimony from our witnesses. 

Let me introduce them. 

Major General Judd Lyons is the Acting Director of the Army 

National Guard. As Acting Director, he guides the formulation, development and implementation of all programs and policies affecting the Army National Guard, a force of over 355,000 soldiers 

across the country. Prior to assuming his position in January this 

year, he served as the Deputy Director of the Army National 

Guard. 

Kathy Salas is the Principal Assistance Responsible for Contracting for the National Guard Bureau (NGB). In this position, 
4 

Ms. Salas executes, oversees and manages all delegable contracting 

and grant assistance authority for the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau. Ms. Salas has been a contracting professional for 30 years 

and is a veteran of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Army Reserves. 

I would like to thank both of you for your service to our Nation; 

we appreciate that. 

It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear all witnesses, if 

you would stand. 

In whatever manner you are comfortable, do you swear that the 

testimony you will give before this Subcommittee will be the truth, 

the whole truth and nothing but the truth; so help you, God? 

General LYONS. I do. 

Ms. SALAS. I do. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Let the record reflect that both witnesses 

have answered in the affirmative. 

We are going to be using a timing system today. We are hopeful 

that your testimony will be no more than 5 minutes. But, if it goes 

over, that will not be a problem, so take all the time you need. 

And we will begin with you, Major General. 

TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL JUDD H. LYONS, ACTING DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 

General LYONS. Chairman McCaskill, Ranking Member Johnson, 

I appear before you today, representing more than 355,000 soldiers 

in the Army National Guard. I am here to provide information on 

the Army National Guard’s marketing programs, particularly 

sports-related sponsorships and marketing, including their history, 

purpose, costs and effectiveness. 

I arrived in July 2013 as the Army National Guard Deputy Director after having previously served as the Adjutant General for 

Nebraska. 

I have been the Acting Director since late January. In this time, 

it became apparent to me that management controls and oversight 

were not where they needed to be. Accordingly, I initiated actions 

to improve our acquisition processes, our organizational structure 

and accountability. These actions are applicable to sports sponsorships. 

I share the Subcommittee’s concerns. They are my concerns, and 

I pledge my support to ensuring the utmost fiscal stewardship of 

taxpayer monies. 

I know the Subcommittee is well aware of the recruiting the 

Army National Guard faced in the mid-2000’s as well as the extraordinary gains in accessions. This successful strength increase 

cannot be attributed to any single program. However, the implementation of the Army National Guard’s national marketing and 

branding coincides with our successes in strength stabilization, accession and retention of quality soldiers. 

The National Guard began sports sponsorships and marketing 

programs to increase awareness of the Guard as part of its overall 

recruiting strategy. The goal was to reach a large demographic of 

those likely to serve in the military. 

A key aspect of this population is an interest in sports. Sixtyseven percent are sports fans. NASCAR, in its base of 77 million 
5 

fans, is second only to the National Football League (NFL) in its 

broad reach of those likely to serve. 

However, sports sponsorship is just one component of our overall 

branding and marketing strategy. Its impact is not limited to what 

happens on the day of a race or at a particular track. 

Activities related to sports marketing take place before and after 

the races and hundreds of miles from sports locations. For example, 

awareness of the Army National Guard is amplified by social 

media, schools’ programs and public events involving demonstration cars. 

America’s youth who are interested in military service have 

many choices. Increasing awareness of the Army National Guard is 

important to us. 

At its peak, the Army National Guard had six sports sponsorships but currently has only two—NASCAR and IndyCar. Programs were terminated for a variety of reasons, including other 

budget priorities and feedback from the States. 

From fiscal year (FY) 2010 to fiscal year 2014, we reduced our 

marketing budget by 35 percent. Specifically, our professional 

sports sponsorships were reduced from $71 million to $44 million, 

which is a reduction of 38 percent. 

In 2014, the Army National Guard spent $32 million on 

NASCAR and $12 million on IndyCar sponsorships. 

Beyond national media exposure, the NASCAR and IndyCar Series efforts have other impacts. These programs are projected to 

lead to engagements with 35,000 high school students in our 

science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) program in 

2014. 

Demonstration cars from NASCAR and IndyCar, branded with 

the National Guard logo, travel to support recruiting events in local 

communities across the Nation. Recruiters want these demonstration cars at their events because they attract our target demographic. 

My staff is currently reviewing all of our marketing programs, 

including NASCAR and IndyCar, for effectiveness and efficiency. 

Our assessment will include impressions, media value and engagements, and the relationship between these professional sports programs and an individual’s awareness of the National Guard. 

I also continue to press for more specific data. In March, we initiated surveys at all 65 of our military entrance processing stations 

throughout the country to find out what influenced new recruits to 

join the Army National Guard. 

We need to continue to explore ways to measure relevancy of our 

programs. I will carefully consider programs to ensure that they 

generate the intended effect. As a fiscal steward of taxpayer money, 

I want to ensure that we are applying our resources where they 

will best achieve intended outcomes. 

Demographics change frequently; media options change constantly, and that is why we must review our marketing and sponsorship programs annually. As the new Acting Director, I will have 

the opportunity to do just that. 

As I mentioned earlier, our overall processes, organizational 

structure and accountability were not where they needed to be. Be-
6 

cause of this, I directed the creation of a new organizational entity 

to address these concerns. 

The Army National Guard Acquisition Program Management Office is designed to ensure that programs are appropriately validated and managed. This initiative ensures that a rigorous requirement determination process is performed separate and apart from 

the contracting process, consistent with law, regulation and policy. 

Additionally, the APMO will ensure proper management and 

oversight of contracting officer’s representative (COR) functions. I 

have mandated additional emphasis on training for contracting officer’s representatives in addition to fiscal law training and annual 

ethics training. 

In summary, I take very seriously my responsibilities as the Acting Director of the Army National Guard, and I am fully aware 

that the money that Congress authorizes the Guard belongs to the 

American taxpayers. That is why since I have been the Acting Director the due diligence I have applied includes reviewing and validating all requirements through a transparent and deliberate process. 

In closing, I want to reiterate that I fully understand and deeply 

respect the responsibility entrusted to this Subcommittee, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, General. Ms. Salas. 

TESTIMONY OF KATHY A. SALAS, PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACTING, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 

Ms. SALAS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Am I pronouncing your name right? 

Ms. SALAS. Salas, yes, Senator. 

Good afternoon, Chairman McCaskill and Ranking Member 

Johnson. I am pleased to be here today to discuss this important 

issue. 

My name is Kathy Salas, and I am the Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting for National Guard Bureau. My responsibility is to provide oversight and administration for all National 

Guard Bureau contracts, grants and cooperative agreements. 

I also entered my position in July 2013. My previous assignment 

was with the Army Contracting Command as the Director of Contracting for the Letterkenny Army Depot. I have also served with 

the former Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan (JCC–I/ 

A), the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the Defense Finance 

and Accounting Service (DFAS). 

I am here today to provide some insight into the National Guard 

Bureau acquisition and contracting programs. 

When I arrived in this position, I found an organization that was 

not structured, staffed or trained to provide optimal oversight of 

the contracting functions. As an example, from 2003 to 2011, the 

operational contracting workload increased in terms of contract obligations from $190 million per year to over $1 billion per year 

without a corresponding increase in staffing. This and other issues 

were identified by the Army Audit Agency in an audit of the contracting organization. 
7 

With this report and NGB senior leadership, we have been able 

to reshape the organization and chart a way ahead to ensure proper oversight. 

We have replaced leaders in senior contracting positions and 

have realigned the contracting command to ensure that contracting 

decisions are made independent of undue influence. 

We have implemented an annual training plan for the contracting workforce, and we continue to educate customers on ways 

to improve acquisition planning and on contracting processes. 

We have conducted a 100 percent review of contracting officer 

warrants to ensure that only qualified personnel with the proper 

training, education and experience are warranted. 

I hope today you will see that we acknowledge and share your 

concerns over reports of wasted abuse. I take my responsibilities as 

PARC seriously, and the National Guard Bureau is committed to 

the responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. I am confident 

that our improvements have postured the National Guard Bureau 

for better oversight and management of our contracting enterprise. 

And, in closing, I would like to thank the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member for the opportunity to be here today to discuss 

these important issues. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you very much. 

And I know there has been an effort on contracting. 

And there is no question that we exploded contracting throughout the military without the requisite surge we needed in acquisition personnel, and we paid a very high price for it as a country. 

Let me start with this; this is about contracting oversight, so I 

want to start with specific questions about the contracting. 

I understand that you have a large, full-scale advertising contract with a company called LM&O. This includes direct marketing, social media and sports sponsorships. Have I accurately 

characterized that? 

Ms. SALAS. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But the sports sponsorships are done with 

a subcontract through Docupak, who was the same contractor for 

the now infamous Recruiting Assistance Program (RAP). Is that 

correct? 

Ms. SALAS. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Can you explain why you cannot contract 

directly with NASCAR and why we need these middle men? 

Ms. SALAS. I am not aware that we are capable of contracting directly with NASCAR. 

Docupak—the contracts were awarded through a competitive 

process. And, although Docupak was also the subcontractor or the 

contractor for G-RAP, we have not found any improprieties necessarily for Docupak. 

So, again, the competitive process was used. And, as the subcontractor we do not have privity of contract with them, so we did not 

determine them to be the subcontractor. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But I am curious as to why. Whenever I 

look at contracting and I see layers, I always want to know why 

and why is that of value to us, the government that is contracting. 
8 

So why is there a value to have a contract that is supposed to 

include sports sponsorship? Where is the value in paying another 

layer of contractor under that? 

Is that something you need to take for the Record, or can someone explain to me how that came about—why we would have—because I guarantee you they are both making money off of it. 

Ms. SALAS. I do not disagree, Senator. 

I will have to take that for the Record. I am not sure what the 

process was before I got here, the decisions that were made, but 

I would take that for the Record. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Now let’s put on the Record how long you 

have been in your respective positions because I want to make sure 

it is very clear that some of the problems we are talking about 

were not your decisions. 

General LYONS. Yes, ma’am. I came to National Guard Bureau 

in late July 2013. I have been the Acting Director since January 

21, 2014. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. And you, Ms. Salas, how long have you 

been in your position? 

Ms. SALAS. I also took my position in July 2013, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So you all have been there for less than a 

year. 

General LYONS. Yes, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Let’s talk about effectiveness. 

You need to recruit, I believe, around 50,000 soldiers a year. Is 

that correct, General? 

General LYONS. Yes, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, in order to generate those recruits, you 

need to generate about a million leads to get to the 50,000 that will 

make it across the finish line. 

General LYONS. Senator, I do not know where the figure of a million leads comes from. I would need to come back to you on that 

to validate that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. I think we got it from you. 

General LYONS. OK. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But please feel free to check it and get back 

to us if that is an incorrect number. 

How many actual recruits or leads has the NASCAR program 

brought in? 

General LYONS. Senator, as the relatively new Acting Director, 

the sports sponsorships are a new issue for me as well. 

And tying sports sponsorships like NASCAR and IndyCar, which 

we view as branding programs that raise awareness of the National Guard in the communities, trying to tie that awareness directly down to an individual’s —affirmative decision—to join the 

National Guard is elusive, and I share your concern about that. 

That is why as I look ahead here I want to evaluate these programs, all of them, as we look ahead into fiscal year 2015, to come 

up with what are the measures of effectiveness and how can I 

apply them and the staff do an analysis that they are, in fact, 

achieving the intended effect, and I am committed to doing that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. In fact, I believe I am correct in saying that 

there has never been an analysis for alternatives in this regard 

since this sponsorship of NASCAR began. Is that correct? 
9 

General LYONS. Not to my knowledge, Senator, not during my 

tenure. 

I cannot speak for in the past whether any analysis of alternatives—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. We have asked, and we have not been able 

to locate any analysis that was ever done, comparing the relative 

benefits of this sponsorship versus other marketing. 

General LYONS. Yes, ma’am, I can take that for the record—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. That would be great. 

General LYONS [continuing]. And see if we can find that out. 

Senator MCCASKILL. What is the most effective program you 

have in generating leads and recruits? 

General LYONS. Senator, we have a variety of programs, as you 

alluded to in your statement. 

We spend approximately a third of our marketing and advertising budget in sports sponsorships and sports marketing. The 

other two-thirds are in lead-generating activities. So amongst 

those, we have national media; we have marketing support; we 

have advertising support and then State media. 

So, in terms of lead generation in those categories, the highest 

number comes from our national media efforts. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And how much do you spend on that annually—the one that generates the most leads? 

General LYONS. Senator, our national media campaign was about 40 and a half million dollars—$40,005,000. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And what was the total for sports sponsorships? 

General LYONS. Sports sponsorships is $44 million. The entire sports marketing is $56 million and some change. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Let me ask this; when does the decision—have you made a decision on this contract yet in your position, General? 

General LYONS. Senator, I—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Do you have this as a decision item since 

you have taken command? 

General LYONS. No, Senator. My first opportunity to do that is 

in the very near future. I have tasked the staff to do an analysis 

of all of our programs, including sports sponsorship programs, and 

bring that to me so that I can make a decision about the road 

ahead. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK, Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. General Lyons, in total, how much does the 

Guard spend on recruitment a year? 

General LYONS. Senator, our marketing budget for fiscal year 

2014 is $120 million and about $53,000—$123,053,000. 

Senator JOHNSON. That is marketing. 

What do you spend on recruitment? 

General LYONS. Senator, I would have to take that for the Record 

to get the entire figure for you, if that is all right. 

Senator JOHNSON. You said you were going to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. What are you looking for in terms of 

metrics for evaluation? 

General LYONS. That is an area of interest to me, Senator. With 

branding programs, a typical measure of effectiveness is in terms 
10 

of impressions and also the media value associated with those impressions. I am interested in other metrics that can be gleaned to 

assess the effectiveness of these programs, and that is what I have 

tasked the staff to look at. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I saw that, too—the impressions versus 

media value. Can you just explain that to me? What do you mean 

by impressions and media value? How is that—in other words, I am seeing here, $11 million—ac- tually, $11 billion impressions, $102 million worth of media value. 

Just explain that to me. 

General LYONS. Senator, that is what I am interested in. If a 

measure of effectiveness in sports marketing or sports sponsorship 

is impressions, how many impressions are gained? 

In other words, how many times is National Guard shown to the 

population—and then what the associated media value is? 

I am not—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Is media value what you spent? 

General LYONS. So media value would be calculated, as I understand it, on the cost of that same impression if it were purchased. 

That is my understanding. 

Senator JOHNSON. So you are spending $120 million on advertising, and then you are backing into the value of that by saying 

how many impressions that is and what the media value is. 

I mean, is the media value what you spend on it? 

[No response.] 

I am sorry if I sound a little confused here, but—— 

General LYONS. No, that is fine, Senator. 

And that is why as I came into the position I am interested in 

evaluating these programs. I would like to know what are good 

metrics to use to measure the effectiveness of sports sponsorship 

programs, and that is what I am focused in on. 

Senator JOHNSON. My suggestion would be start with the number of people you have recruited and have a good solid figure on 

how many dollars you spend on recruitment. So that is why I first 

started out with how much do you spend on recruitment a year. 

And then, have you taken a look at that over time so you have some level of history in terms of—let’s say in 2010 we spent $100 

million and recruited 50,000 people; it cost X number of dollars per 

recruit. 

I mean, do you have that? 

I mean, do you ever see any information like that? 

General LYONS. Senator, I will come back to you on that if I can, 

please. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ms. Salas, do you have any idea in terms of 

what metrics are being used? 

How do we measure the effectiveness of past recruitment programs versus today versus what we would anticipate effectiveness 

tomorrow? 

Ms. SALAS. Senator, that would not be my responsibility—to 

measure the effectiveness of a program that is managed by a requiring activity. So, no, I do not have that information. 

Senator JOHNSON. I am not quite sure where I should be going 

from here. 

General LYONS. So, Senator—— 
11 

Senator JOHNSON. To me, this is—yes, I am an accountant. I am 

a business guy. I actually understand marketing. 

To me, this is gobbledygook and what you need to be looking at 

is pretty basic in terms of measurement of effectiveness. 

So it starts with overall what you spend and how much it costs 

per recruit. And then you start drilling down on, well, we are 

spending X number of dollars in this area, X number in this, X 

number in that. And you start figuring out where the leads are. 

So I am just not seeing in any of the briefing material here in 

terms of anything I can take a look at to evaluate the effectiveness 

of this. 

General LYONS. Yes, sir, and I can provide to you the dollars that 

we spend in terms of lead generation activities, the number of 

leads associated with those activities. 

In sports sponsorship, in terms of trying to tie the awareness of 

the Guard through these branding programs directly to an individual’s decision to enlist is elusive. And I share your frustration with 

that, on how we get at that to assess the effectiveness of those two 

programs. So I am in agreement with you on that. 

Senator JOHNSON. Is there an active program to be able to elicit 

the effectiveness of that, though? 

I mean, is there actually an attempt to, OK, if we spend dollars 

here, what is going to be the measurement on that spending? 

Have you noticed—again, I am not holding you accountable because you are new here. But, have you ever seen any attempt to 

do that, or do we just kind of spend money and go, well, we are 

no quite sure what happens after we spend it? 

General LYONS. Senator, in terms of the program in the past, I 

am not aware of that. 

I have, in March, tried to institute some metric-gathering 

through our military entrance processing stations, so as recruits 

come into those activities to enlist, to try and garner data on what 

it is that influenced them to join the Guard. So that is one measure 

that I have taken. 

Senator JOHNSON. Describe those efforts to me in greater detail 

then. Are the recruiting stations developing a report, and then are 

they doing a survey? 

Is this done 100 percent? Is it done to 10 percent of the recruits 

coming in? Do they take a statistical sampling? 

General LYONS. Senator, I can provide you the details on what 

that looks like, but generally speaking, it is a questionnaire that 

the recruit answers about what influenced them to their decision 

to enlist and join. And NASCAR/IndyCar sports sponsorships are 

one of those choices. So that does help us get at that. 

So I will provide that to you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, first of all, that is a good idea. Is this 

really the first time the Guard has ever done that? 

General LYONS. Senator, to my knowledge, this is the—I cannot 

talk to what has been done in the past. 

Senator JOHNSON. Again, let me make a suggestion then. Find 

out whether they have done that in the past because there may be 

some good information for you to base future decisions on. 

General LYONS. Yes, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. I would hope they have done that. 
12 

I mean, again, that is Marketing 101. You spend some money. Do 

a survey. Find out what did prompt somebody either to buy your 

product or walk in your door. OK. 

Well, good. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. In looking at this, all of the active branches 

have rejected NASCAR over the last several years. Has there been 

any reach out to the analysis that the other branches have done 

in determining that this was not a good use of dollars? 

General LYONS. Not to my knowledge, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Is there any joint effort on advertising for 

the military? 

General LYONS. No, Senator. The Army National Guard does our 

own recruiting and advertising program for our enlistment for men 

and women to join us. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It seems like to me—do you know why all 

the other active military components decided to not recontract with 

NASCAR? 

General LYONS. I do not, Senator, other than what was relayed 

by the Subcommittee. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It is interesting to me because you guys do 

not have as much money as the Army has to market. You have 

very limited dollars compared to the Army. 

So it is interesting to me, and you know we like to preach joint 

in terms of cost savings and working together. 

It is interesting to me that another branch of the military with 

more money finds sponsoring NASCAR is not cost effective, but no 

one at the Guard would then look to see maybe we should look at 

their analysis. 

Are you aware as to whether or not that ever crossed anyone’s 

desk at the point in time—and when is this decision made, in what 

month? 

The decision to do the contract for the year—what is the decision 

date for that? 

General LYONS. I will be undergoing that analysis, receiving that 

analysis and reviewing all of these programs in the next probably 

month. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So is the contract from June to June? 

Is it from July to July? Is it a fiscal year? 

Does anybody know? 

General LYONS. Senator, it goes from a seasonal basis. So the 

end of the racing season, I believe, is in November. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So was the decision made for this season made last November? 

General LYONS. The decision for this current season would have 

been made approximately this time last year. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. 

General LYONS. Relatively speaking, ma’am. I was not here, 

but—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. I am trying to figure out when the 

Army pulled the plug after their analysis, which would have been 

full of great data for you to look at, because they obviously are 

looking at cost per lead and cost per impression. 

And whether or not you are saying it is branding or whether it 

is recruiting, the only reason you are doing branding, other than 
13 

the fact we want everyone to support the National Guard so employers are helpful to National Guard members—I mean, obviously, 

that is important, but the primary reason you want to brand it is 

so that we get 50,000 people who step across the line and say I am 

willing to serve. 

And it is just interesting to me that there would not be any 

cross-pollination, especially when you realize they have all dropped. 

All of the branches have dropped, citing costs and ineffectiveness, 

and yet, this analysis had not even been undertaken until you 

showed up. 

Let’s talk a little bit about recruiting women. Are you aware of 

any of the contracts that you all have that are geared toward recruiting women to the Guard? 

General LYONS. Senator, with regards to recruiting women to the 

Guard, on a personal basis, I can say I have done my part. I recruited my spouse, Amy, to join the Guard in 1994. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Now I hope that was not heavy lifting. 

General LYONS. No, it was not. 

We actually pride ourselves on being an inclusive organization 

and reflective of the communities where we serve, and so I am 

happy to report that the number of women serving in the Army 

National Guard has actually gone up 40 percent between 2000 and 

2014. 

In 2000, there were 40,000 women in the Army National Guard. 

In 2014, there is 56,000. So, a 40 percent increase. 

Within our accessions, in 2000, women represented 18.2 percent 

of our accession in that year. In 2014, that has gone up 40 percent 

to 22.2 percent. 

So we are very interested in offering opportunities to all members of society, and I think our growth in attracting women to our 

ranks—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is terrific, and I am glad to hear that. 

I am just curious, as you are developing—— 

The branch, the command, that actually does this is what, and 

who is the leader of that? Who actually does the G-RAP program 

and the marketing program? And I know it is a special bureau 

within the Guard. 

General LYONS. Senator, the marketing and advertising and the 

recruiting is, in the Army National Guard, in an organization 

called Guard Strength Service (GSS). 

Senator MCCASKILL. Guard Strength, OK. 

Within Guard Strength, are you aware of any of the marketing 

tools or any of the efforts that have been made in terms of national 

media where there has been an emphasis on trying to get at the 

women’s demographic because, clearly, it ain’t NASCAR or Indy? 

General LYONS. Senator, our marketing and advertising products 

that we use—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Although I should say 40 percent of 

NASCAR fans are women. That is a lot. 

General LYONS. That is true, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So I do not want to diss the women that 

love NASCAR because some of them are my family members. So 

I would be in big trouble if I let that statement stand. 

But, go ahead. I am sorry to interrupt you. 
14 

General LYONS. No, that is fine, Senator. 

What I was saying was that our marketing tools, print media or 

what we would know as public service announcements (PSA), 

which we call noncommercial sustaining agreement, our websites— 

we are—again, we want to be reflective of society where we serve. 

So you will see women in leadership roles, being reflected in duty 

positions or specialties that may not be their traditional specialties 

that someone may associate. 

So we do that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is great. 

General LYONS. I might also add that we—within the sports 

arena, we work with girls’ soccer, volleyball and basketball. 

And, again, in relation to your question about attracting women, 

we do find that in our direct mail campaigns that women do respond favorably to those efforts. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is great. 

I know that 40 percent of NASCAR fans are women and 28 percent of IndyCar fans are women, and so I am glad that you are 

working—and these are through high schools that you are doing 

the soccer and volleyball programs? 

General LYONS. Yes, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Great. Do the sponsorship programs include 

perks for senior Guard officers and officials? 

General LYONS. Senator, the sports sponsorship programs in the 

past were fairly broad in terms of the execution of the program and 

who could participate in the program. That is something that— 

when I became the Acting Director, I took an immediate step to 

curtail that so that the access to the events were primarily directed 

toward potential applicants. 

So, in the past, it was within the scope of the contract and the 

policy to allow senior leaders to participate, but as the Acting Director I have made a determination that a better use of that program is to target it toward potential applicants. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Have you ever been to one of the NASCAR 

or IndyCar races? 

General LYONS. I have never attended either. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Do you know what senior officers have gone 

and how often? 

General LYONS. I do not. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And is that information available? 

General LYONS. I will take that for the Record, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. What policies are there in place now to 

ensure these programs are not abused by officials who want the 

perks associated with the sponsorships? 

General LYONS. Senator, that has been a focus of mine—is improving our management controls and our accountability. So we 

have, as I said, issued guidance to the field that restricts the access 

to these programs to those applicants, and that went out in March, 

shortly after I became the Acting Director. 

Senator MCCASKILL. If you were going to rank professional 

sports sponsorships—let’s assume for purposes of this discussion 

that your budget for this area of recruitment and marketing was 

going to be cut by a third. Can you rank what you spend that 
15 

money on now as to what would fall off the table at this hearing 

today? 

General LYONS. Senator, I think my approach toward that is we 

need to have awareness of the National Guard. We need to create 

that awareness; we need to sustain that awareness of the National 

Guard, so that men and women who have a propensity to serve 

know that we are an option for them. 

So, if these programs were not available, my focus would be to 

determine what—some other vehicle that can create that awareness and sustain that awareness of the National Guard. 

So that would be my focus, and I would apply those dollars toward that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I guess what I am trying to get you to do 

is to look at the list that you spend money on. You have a list, I 

know, there in front of you somewhere. And I am asking you to do 

your spending priorities. 

What do you think that you spend money on now in this regard 

that is the most important, and what do you think is the least important of the money that you spend now and the activities that 

you spend it on? 

General LYONS. So I think, Senator, generally speaking, with 

about a third of the marketing and advertising budget going toward branding, awareness, those activities, and two-thirds, approximately, going toward lead generation, that is an area that I 

need to analyze specifically to your question. Is that the appropriate balance between those two activities? 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I guess this is getting back to Senator 

Johnson’s confusion. 

You have national advertising, and you have sports sponsorship. 

Now I guarantee you I could get ad people in this room that say 

national advertising is branding because you are—while you are 

tailoring where the ad is run for a demographic, obviously, you are 

getting a wide swath of people, many of whom are not within your 

demographic. 

So are you calling national advertising, branding, or are you calling it recruiting? 

General LYONS. I think it is ultimately—sports sponsorships, 

branding, lead generation, national campaigns—those are all part 

of our recruiting strategy. They are all components of that. 

What we characterize sports sponsorships and sports marketing 

as is branding and awareness-generating activities. The other twothirds, our national campaigns, are lead-generation activities. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I guess it is hard for a lay person to see how 

having your name associated with NASCAR is brand awareness 

and an ad on an action show, where young men and women are 

maybe watching it—how one is lead-generating and recruiting and 

one is just brand awareness. 

I mean, they are both intangibles in terms of people seeing something, getting an impression from it and deciding whether or not 

they want to act on it, no different than buying a product. And that 

is, of course, why Coca-Cola puts their name on NASCARs because 

they want people to buy Coca-Cola. And that is why other people 

that sell things put their names on NASCARs or IndyCars. 
16 

So I guess if you are saying that you have a third for branding 

and the rest is recruiting, I do not understand how national advertising gets in the recruiting pot and how NASCAR does not and 

how you can justify the fact that nobody is getting recruited from 

the NASCAR. 

I mean, the facts speak for themselves. The data are very clear. 

You are not getting recruits off NASCAR. 

And these are data that you gave us. The reason we know this 

is because you told us. 

So I guess I am curious why you are not willing to say that if 

you were forced to spend less that this is not something that you 

would immediately look at in terms of deciding this is not the best 

use of the money. 

General LYONS. Senator, I did not mean to convey that I am unwilling to say that. 

What I was trying to convey was I am trying to analyze these 

programs for exactly the reasons you are saying. Are they achieving the intended effect? Are they the best use of our taxpayer dollars? And is that the right thing to be doing? 

These are things that I am considering right now as the Acting 

Director, as a path forward. So I am in agreement with you on 

that, that I need to do that, and I am committed to doing that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Can you pinpoint the people who made the 

decision to do the NASCAR and Indy branding sponsorship in the 

first place? 

General LYONS. Senator, I mean, it goes back 10-plus years. So 

the ultimate decision, though, on these programs rests with the Director of the Army National Guard. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. And through recommendations from 

the Guard Strength Services? 

General LYONS. Yes, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So they would make a recommendation up, 

and then the Director would either acquiesce to that suggestion or 

decide not. 

General LYONS. I think that would be accurate. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And it would be up to the Director to ask 

the questions to determine whether or not this was a good use of 

money. 

General LYONS. That is absolutely my methodology, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. Or, require analytics to actually look 

at how effective the money will actually be. 

General LYONS. That is absolutely my methodology and my focus. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So this contract has been renewed if it 

began, I believe, since—2007 was the first year? 

General LYONS. I believe, Senator, it was either 2003 or 2005. I 

apologize. We will come back to you on that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. How many directors have there been of 

the Guard since that point in time? 

General LYONS. Senator, can I come back to you on that also? 

Senator MCCASKILL. Is it four or five? 

General LYONS. I would say probably four. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I was going to say four. I thought it was 

probably four. 
17 

And we will correct that exactly for the record, but I want the 

record to be clear that you have four predecessors who would have 

had the opportunity to ask for analytics, who would have had an 

opportunity to do the evaluation that the other branches have 

done, who would have had a decision point about whether or not 

to continue, and that all four of those decided that was not important, and they signed off on it. 

Is that an unfair characterization of what has occurred? 

General LYONS. I think they all would have had the opportunity 

to assess the program and make a decision. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Is there anything that you would like 

to add to the record that I have not asked you about today? 

General LYONS. Senator, again, as a relatively new Acting Director, these sports sponsorship programs are relatively new to me as 

well. I am keenly interested in trying to determine the most appropriate course of action for the road ahead. I want to see metrics. 

I want to see analytics. I want to be the most effective steward of 

taxpayer resources that I can be. 

I have taken aggressive measures to institute management controls in the organization, increase the level of training, in conjunction with Ms. Salas, of our contracting officers’ representatives and 

program managers, emphasize fiscal law—purpose, time and 

amount—continue to arm our people with the tools they need to be 

successful. 

That is where I am focused in taking us—and making the best 

possible decisions for the organization that continues to attract 

men and women to our formations. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And this will be the last question I ask, but 

I know you said that you have changed, or in the process of changing, policies about accessing perks associated with this program. 

Do you believe that one of the reasons there was not a hard look 

at this is because the leadership of the Guard enjoyed the perks 

associated with the program? 

General LYONS. Senator, I do not think I could comment on what 

previous leaders thought with respect to that. 

I know that the program, as it existed, had a broad range of parameters for who could participate in the program. It was part of 

the contract, part of the policy. 

I have chosen to restrict that so that it is focused, in my opinion, 

in a better direction, which is toward applicants and the public. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Have you reviewed the contract that would 

indicate to you that there was embedded in the contract terms the 

contractual language that would indicate that these perks were 

open to anybody in Guard leadership? 

[No response.] 

Well, you said that the reason this occurred in the past was because it was in the contract. 

Is there specifics in the contract that embrace the notion that the 

perks associated with the contract were appropriately or were envisioned, being, used by Guard leadership? 

General LYONS. Senator, I would have to take that for the record, 

to look backward at that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. What I would really like to see is, you have 

made this statement; it was the policy in the contract that allowed 
18 

that. I want to see the specifics of the contract that have led you 

to that conclusion. 

General LYONS. Senator, what I was trying to articulate was that 

in the execution of the program there was broad characterization 

of people that could participate in the program. From centers of influence to Army National Guard personnel to potential recruits, recruiting and retention personnel, obviously. 

So that is what I was trying to articulate. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. If there is anything that is in writing 

anywhere that would lay out the parameters of that, whether it is 

in the contract or written in any policy anywhere, that would be 

really important for our Committee to see. 

If this was just an amorphous policy that was floating out there, 

that is one thing. But if there is—that would be unusual in the 

military, for there to be something floating out there and it not be 

put in writing. 

Certainly, this Committee would be very interested in seeing 

whatever policy or contractual provisions that would have led 

someone to believe that the perks of this contract were widely 

available to Guard leadership. OK? 

I thank you both for being here very much. 

We will look forward to your completing the record based on the 

items we have talked about today. And the record will remain open 

for a few days in case there are other questions for the record, and 

we will be in contact with you about that. 

General LYONS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you again, both, for your service. 

[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(19) 

A P P E N D I X 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 

Æ