In early 2010, DHS defined its mission and strategy for responding to homeland security threats. The result of this effort was the completion of the QHSR report––a strategic framework to guide the activities of participants in homeland security toward a common goal. One of the key themes of the QHSR report is the importance of sharing homeland security responsibilities across a variety of actors including federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental, and private sector entities. Emphasizing this shared responsibility, the QHSR report notes that in some areas—such as border security or immigration management—DHS possesses unique capabilities and responsibilities that are not likely to be found elsewhere. However, in other areas, such as critical infrastructure protection or emergency management, DHS mainly provides leadership and stewardship because the capabilities for these areas are often found at the state and local levels. In December 1941, CAP was established out of the desire of civil airmen of the country to be mobilized with their equipment in the common defense of the Nation. Under the jurisdiction of the Army’s Air Forces, CAP pilots were active during World War II, performing border patrol, search and rescue, and emergency transport, among other missions. In 1946, CAP was established as a federally chartered organization. In 1948, shortly after the Air Force was established, CAP was designated as the civilian auxiliary of the Air Force, and later, in October 2000, CAP was designated as the volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when CAP provides services to any department or agency in any branch of the federal government.cadet programs, and emergency services. CAP has three missions: aerospace education, As a nonprofit organization, CAP has a unique relationship with the Air Force, which may use CAP’s services to fulfill its noncombat programs and missions. The Secretary of the Air Force governs the conduct of CAP when it is operating as the auxiliary of the Air Force and prescribes regulations governing the conduct of CAP. CAP is embedded in the Air Force’s command structure under the Air Education and Training Command. provides technical advice to ensure flying safety, ensures that CAP’s federal funds are used appropriately, and provides building space, among other things. CAP also has its own administrative structure governed by a volunteer national commander, national vice-commander, and an 11 member Board of Governors. A paid chief operating officer manages CAP’s headquarters at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama. The Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command provides basic military training, initial and advanced technical training, flight training, and professional military and degree- granting professional education. However, the chief operating officer has no command authority over the volunteers and assets spread throughout the United States. CAP is divided into eight geographic regions consisting of 52 state wings (the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia). Each state wing is divided into smaller squadrons, of which there are approximately 1,500 nationwide. CAP has more than 61,000 members divided between cadet (26,725) and adult (34,693) members. According to CAP officials, of the adult members, there are approximately 3,000 active mission pilots.Nonpilot adult members contribute to the organization in various ways, serving as crew members, administering wing operations, and managing cadet programs, among other things. CAP has 550 single-engine aircraft, 42 gliders, and 960 vehicles. Figure 1 depicts a CAP aircraft. The majority of CAP’s operating budget comes from funds included in the Department of Defense’s appropriation and designated by Congress for CAP. CAP is included in the Air Force’s internal budgeting process and submits each year a financial plan to the Air Force for consideration. CAP’s financial plan is reviewed and adjusted by both the Air Education and Training Command and Air Force headquarters. According to an Air Force official involved with CAP’s budget submission, the Air Force attempts to ensure that CAP receives at least the same amount of funding it had the previous year. However, CAP is competing against other Air Force priorities in the normal Air Force budget development process. Still, according to the Air Force official, CAP often receives additional funding from Congress above the Air Force’s request. For example, in fiscal year 2011, Congress provided an additional $4.2 million of funding above the Air Force’s request. See table 1 for CAP’s appropriations since fiscal year 2007. The funds in table 1 are used to reimburse CAP for some Air Force- assigned missions, cover the costs associated with maintenance, and fund aircraft and other procurement, including vehicles. For example, these funds cover mission costs associated with some Air Force- assigned missions, such as air intercept exercises and counterdrug activities. CAP also receives mission reimbursement from other federal, state, and local agencies. For example, in fiscal year 2011, FEMA reimbursed CAP approximately $155,000 for a variety of disaster-related missions. In addition, CAP receives funding from other sources throughout the course of the year, including state appropriations, membership dues, and member contributions. In fiscal year 2011, CAP received approximately $3.2 million in appropriations from 37 states. State funding is sometimes earmarked for a specific state activity, such as disaster response. CAP also received in fiscal year 2011 $3,076,925 in membership dues. CAP can conduct missions either as an auxiliary of the Air Force or in its corporate status. Approximately 75 percent of CAP’s missions are conducted in Air Force auxiliary status. While all missions in support of federal agencies must be conducted in its Air Force auxiliary status, CAP may conduct missions in its corporate status on behalf of state and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations. CAP pilots are not afforded federal protections when they fly in corporate status. All requests for CAP operational missions––with the exception of corporate missions and those for Alaska and Hawaii––are coordinated through CAP’s National Operations Center and approved by 1st Air Force. Agencies requesting CAP support contact the CAP National Operations Center with a formal request for support. The National Operations Center works with the requesting agency and the CAP wing to develop an operations plan, budget, and funding documents for the mission. These are then forwarded to 1st Air Force, which conducts legal, funding, operations, and risk management reviews to ensure that the mission meets CAP requirements. Once these reviews are complete, the Air Force can approve the mission and CAP can task its wings with the assignment. CAP corporate missions undergo a similar review process— wherein legal, funding, and risk reviews are conducted—but are not routed through the Air Force for approval. Our review of fiscal year 2011 CAP flight hour data and discussions with officials from 10 CAP wings show that CAP has performed missions that fit within three of the five QHSR homeland security mission areas: (1) preventing terrorism and enhancing security, (2) securing and managing borders, and (3) disaster response. CAP missions related to these areas have accounted for 9 percent of CAP’s flying hours; however, CAP has devoted the majority of its flying hours (approximately 63 percent) to training for these and other missions and cadet and Reserve Officer Training Corps flying orientations. The remaining 28 percent of CAP’s missions consisted chiefly of assistance to law enforcement for domestic drug interdiction activities, such as marijuana crop identification, and maintenance-related flights. CAP flight hour data for fiscal year 2011 show that CAP participated in a variety of homeland security activities, but that a majority of the organization’s Air Force-assigned flying time was devoted to training and flying orientation for cadets and Reserve Officer Training Corps members. Specifically, CAP devoted about 63 percent (46,132 hours) of its total Air Force-assigned mission flying hours to training and flying orientations.Of the remaining 37 percent of Air Force-assigned flight hours, 9 percent (6,575 hours) were dedicated to homeland security-related missions. For example, CAP reported 2,583 Air Force-assigned hours devoted to air defense, which includes CAP’s participation in the Department of Defense’s low-flying aircraft readiness exercises and exercises for training military pilots to intercept low-flying aircraft. These missions relate to the homeland security mission area of preventing terrorism and enhancing security. CAP also devoted 2,314 Air Force-assigned flight hours to defense support to civilian authorities/disaster relief, corresponding to the homeland security mission area of ensuring resilience to disasters. Figure 2 provides a breakdown of CAP fiscal year 2011 flight hours by mission. CAP headquarters and officials from all 10 CAP wings we spoke with generally concurred that the fiscal year 2011 flight hours are reflective of their activities in recent years—that is, training and cadet activities have accounted for the majority of their missions. CAP intends for its training and pilot certification missions to prepare its pilots and other volunteers to perform homeland security-related missions. In addition, CAP wing officials told us that they have modified training schedules to accommodate the demand for real-world missions when they have occurred—including those related to homeland security—and will continue to do so in the future. Officials from all 10 CAP wings we spoke with said their wings had performed missions related to at least one of the three QHSR mission areas covered by CAP for a variety of federal, state, and local customers. For example, 9 of the 10 wings had contributed to preventing terrorism and enhancing security by participating in military readiness exercises where CAP aircraft acted as mock targets for airborne interceptors or ground-based radar. In most cases CAP aircraft acted as slow-moving, potentially hostile targets that were identified, tracked, and escorted by active-duty, reserve or state Air National Guard radar or airborne fighters. Figure 3 shows examples of these and other homeland security missions conducted by the 10 CAP wings during fiscal years 2007 through 2012.