The Army maintains 10 active divisions—6 heavy and 4 light, each of which is assigned 10,000 to 15,000 personnel. Heavy divisions are armored or mechanized and equipped with tanks, fighting vehicles, and attack helicopters. Light forces are airborne, air assault, and infantry divisions tailored for operations on restricted terrain, such as mountains, jungles, or urban areas. We reviewed the following five divisions: 1st Armored Division—Also known as "Old Ironsides," is a heavy armored division with headquarters and three brigades in Germany and a fourth brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas. 1st Infantry Division—Also known as the "Big Red One," is a mechanized division with two brigades and headquarters in Germany and a third brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas. 4th Infantry Division—Also known as "Ivy," is a mechanized division with two brigades and its headquarters at Fort Hood, Texas, and a third brigade at Fort Carson, Colorado. 10th Infantry Division—Also known as the "Mountain" Division, is a light infantry division with headquarters and two brigades at Fort Drum, New York. 25th Infantry Division—Also known as "Tropic Lightning," is a light infantry division with headquarters and two brigades at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, and a third brigade at Fort Lewis, Washington. In addition to preparing to fight and win the nation’s wars, these divisions have deployed soldiers and units periodically to peacekeeping operations. For example, since 1995 units from the 1st Armored, 1st Infantry, and 10th Infantry divisions have deployed at various times to Bosnia as part of an international peacekeeping force. Since February 1998, these divisions have deployed 12 brigade-size units and supported numerous smaller deployments. (See table 1.) Nearly 83 percent of all the deployments—to include all the brigade-sized deployments—were to the Balkans, while the remaining deployments were to the Middle East and East Timor. (See fig. 1.) Two of these divisions have been involved in transformation activities. The 4th Infantry is the Army's experimental division for advanced war-fighting concepts, and part of a brigade of the 25th Infantry is designated to test transformation concepts. The manning initiative directed all Army units to be staffed at 100 percent of their authorized personnel by numbers, grades, and skills—and thereafter to maintain those staffing levels—so that they have the personnel needed for wartime missions. The initiative redressed staffing imbalances that had developed in part because staffing priority had been given to the contingency divisions. It included certain measures to ensure the maintenance of adequate readiness; for example, units are to have no fewer than 70 percent of authorized personnel. The Chief of Staff also emphasized retention and described recruitment as his number one task. Although the specific details are classified, each of the five divisions reported they can conduct most or all of their wartime missions. Throughout January to June 2001, these units reported their overall combat readiness and their readiness in personnel, training, and equipment to be at high levels. The division, brigade, and battalion commanders we interviewed considered the five divisions able to perform their wartime missions. Although the personnel levels for all five divisions are at or near 100 percent of the enlisted personnel that they are authorized, each has some shortages in grades and skills. In at least some cases, the redistribution of existing soldiers would fill these staffing shortages. Training also improved, which Army officials attributed to (1) the increase in the number of personnel, prompted by the manning initiative, and (2) the implementation of a new funding policy for fiscal year 2001 that restricted the use of training funds to pay for other expenses. However, the Army could not show specifically how the new funding policy improved training or unit readiness. In terms of the amount of equipment on hand and its serviceability, readiness was high during fiscal year 2001, although some items were in short supply and some equipment difficult to maintain. Shortages were attributed to outdated authorizations and the incomplete fielding of new equipment; according to the Army's readiness reports, equipment shortages generally did not degrade readiness. Equipment maintenance problems were primarily attributed to the shortage of personnel with specific repair skills and the difficulties associated with maintaining old equipment. As we reported in July 2001, the manning initiative was largely responsible for staffing the reviewed divisions at authorized enlisted levels and, as a result, improving personnel readiness. For the time period January through May 2001, each of the five divisions maintained overall numbers of enlisted personnel at nearly 100 percent of authorizations, compared with the 93 percent we reported in March 1998. (See fig. 2.) The divisions also increased, on average, the numbers of assigned personnel by grade to more than 95 percent (see fig. 3) and skills to greater than 100 percent (see fig. 4) by May 2001. According to Army officials, the increase in personnel has had a great impact not only on personnel readiness but on overall readiness as well. They believe that the increase in personnel overall, as well as in grade and skill, increased the number of personnel available to train and perform maintenance activities, thereby improving overall readiness. Though manning has improved significantly over the past 2 years, divisions still have shortages in certain combat support skills that Army commanders consider critical to their wartime mission. For example, at some time in those months, all five division commanders considered their staffing of specialty 96R—ground surveillance system operator—to be critically short. One commander listed it as critical in all 6 months, while another listed it for 5; the others did so in at least 2 of the 6 months. According to Army officials at the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, this particular specialty has poor retention for initial term soldiers; retention is better for mid-term and career soldiers. Table 2 shows how many division commanders in a particular month reported a shortage for the specified military occupational specialty. In addition to the shortages reported at the division level in table 2, brigade and battalion commanders told us they have experienced shortages such as aircraft electricians, aviation mechanics; and aircraft power train repairers. Even though brigade and battalion commanders reported some of these critical shortages on monthly reports, the shortages might not have been reported at the division level. Our analysis of fill rates for occupational skill specialties shows that one area that the Army needs to address is the imbalance of occupational specialty staffing levels among the five divisions. In some instances, one or more divisions have too few soldiers for a particular skill, while others have more soldiers than authorized. As shown in table 3, the Army fill rate for these selected specialties ranged from 74 to 101 percent, yet the rates for the five divisions ranged from zero to 133 percent. For example, for specialty 96H—imagery ground station operator—the Army fill rate was 74 percent, yet the 10th Infantry Division's fill rate was zero percent, compared with 119 percent for the 4th Infantry Division. The fill rates shown in table 3 are as of May 2001, but in our opinion are generally representative of the trend from December 1999 through May 2001. Our review indicates that, in at least some of these cases, the redistribution of existing soldiers would fill such staffing shortages. For example, for specialty 27E—land combat electronic missile system repairer—redistribution would fill three of the five divisions to 100 percent and the other two to 96 percent. As we reported earlier, Army officials think it unlikely that the service can ever fill divisions at 100 percent in the grades and skills required; they estimate that about 94 percent may be the best they can do. Changes in requirements can be prompted by a need for greater expertise in a skill, by the unforeseen alteration of a mission, or by upheavals in global politics. For instance, the end of the Cold War led the Army to reduce the number of Russian interpreters it needs, while increasing its requirements for Spanish interpreters. Also, personnel with highly technical skills may not be easy to recruit, so a time lag to fill these slots is often inevitable. Given the dynamics of rapidly evolving military technologies and the skills needed to employ those technologies, in concert with recent changes to the U.S. national security and military strategies, it is a challenging task for the Army to achieve its goal to man all of its active component divisions at 100 percent of its authorized enlisted personnel by the skills and grades needed. Army officials acknowledge there have been problems with recruiting and retaining personnel for these specialties, and several of them will be placed on the Army's top-25 recruiting list in fiscal year 2002.However, some of the specialties will remain difficult to staff because of (1) difficulties in recruiting personnel who can learn the skill; (2) lengthy advanced individual training courses; (3) small authorizations that, with the loss of a single soldier, can create drastic shortages in operating strength; and (4) incomplete equipment fielding and therefore the personnel are not yet needed. For example, the Army Recruiting Command added the specialty 98J—electronic intelligence interceptor/analyst, to its top-25 recruiting list at the priority-1 level for fiscal year 2002. However, the five divisions are authorized only five to nine positions, so the loss of a single soldier can create drastic shortages in operating strength. At the time of our review, two of the divisions still had empty slots for specialty 98J—electronic intelligence interceptor/analyst. According to division, brigade, and battalion commanders, shortages of personnel for combat or combat support occupational specialties can result in ineffective training that is not accomplished as intended by Army doctrine because troops learn "work arounds" rather than the skills that will be needed when they go to war and impaired ability to sustain critical combat equipment in a high-intensity conflict. On the basis of our examination of the Army's official readiness and training reports and discussions with division personnel, as of June 2001, the five divisions reported they met their training requirements.