National Security: DOD Should Reevaluate Requirements for the Selective Service System
Published: 2012-06-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 no-cost 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.
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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Under the Military Selective Service Act, the Selective Service System is  an independent agency within the executive branch of the federal  government. 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.
We conducted this review in response to the mandate in section 597 of  the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 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.
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  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. 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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- time Reserve Force OfficersVirginia; 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.   in its national headquarters in Arlington,  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.
section_title: DOD Has Not Evaluated the Necessity of the Selective Service System Since 1994
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: The Selective Service System’s Current Manpower Requirements Are Based on a 1994 DOD Evaluation
paragraphs: 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 memorandum 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  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. 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 Asia- Pacific region.
In prior work, we have emphasized the importance of agencies taking  actions to ensure that their missions are current and that their  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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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.
Once a man reaches his 26th birthday, his name is dropped from the Selective Service  System’s list of possible draftees.
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  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.
section_title: Restructuring or Disestablishing the Selective Service System Requires Consideration of Fiscal and National Security Implications
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Options for Disestablishing or Restructuring the Selective Service System Differ in Cost, Savings, and Personnel Requirements
paragraphs: 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.
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  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 full- time 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. 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, 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,  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  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.
section_title: Transferring Selective Service System’s Functions to Another Agency Could Affect the Independence and Fairness of a Draft and May Not Be Cost-Efficient
paragraphs: 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  with the Social Security Administration and the American Association of  Motor Vehicles to supply names of 18- through 25-year-olds 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.
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  and equitable.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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Selective Service System
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellB@gao.gov.
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.