During the past several years, service chiefs and commanders in chief (CINC) have expressed concerns about the effect on current and future readiness of (1) the level of current military operations, (2) contingency operations, (3) the shifting of funds to support these operations, and (4) personnel turbulence. Related to these concerns is a question about the ability of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) readiness reporting system to provide a comprehensive assessment of overall readiness. DOD’s current system for reporting readiness to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) is the Status of Resources and Training System (SORTS). This system measures the extent to which individual service units possess the required resources and are trained to undertake their wartime missions. SORTS was established to provide the current status of specific elements considered essential to readiness assessments, that is, personnel and equipment on hand, equipment condition, and the training of operating forces. SORTS’ elements of measure, “C” ratings that range from C-1 (best) to C-4 (worst), are probably the most frequently cited indicator of readiness in the military. According to JCS and DOD officials, the definition and measures of readiness that are currently available in SORTS are no longer adequate in today’s national security environment. Specifically, SORTS does not (1) address all the factors that JCS considers critical, (2) provide a warning of impending decreases in readiness, and (3) provide data on joint readiness. In addition, SORTS includes subjective assessments of training proficiency. Figure 1 shows those elements reported under SORTS and all the elements that JCS believes would make up a more comprehensive assessment. Information reported under SORTS is a snapshot in time and does not predict impending changes. Units report readiness monthly or, for some units, upon a change of status. These reports provide commanders and JCS with status information only for that point in time. Commanders have stated that in today’s environment of force reductions and increasing commitments, there is a need for indicators that can predict readiness changes. Some elements of SORTS are not based on objective data. The C-rating for training, for example, is based on a commander’s subjective assessment of the number of additional training days the unit needs to reach a C-1 status. This assessment may be based on any number of factors, including completion of required or scheduled training or personal observation. In the past, we have found that Army training assessments have not been reliable. For example, in 1991 we reported that training readiness assessments of active Army units may have been overstated. We reported that the information provided to higher commands and JCS was of limited value because the assessments (1) were based on training conducted primarily at home stations rather than on results of more realistic exercises conducted at combat training centers and (2) may not have adequately considered the effect that the loss of key personnel had on proficiency. Likewise, in our reviews pertaining to the Persian Gulf War, we noted that readiness reports for Army support forces and National Guard combat forces were often inflated or unreliable. For example, in a September 1991 report, we noted that when three Army National Guard combat brigades were mobilized for Operation Desert Shield, their commanders were reporting readiness at the C-2 and C-3 levels, which meant that no more than 40 days of post-mobilization training would be needed for the brigades to be fully combat ready. However, on the basis of their independent assessment of the brigades’ proficiency, active Army officials responsible for the brigades’ post-mobilization training developed training plans calling for over three times the number of days that the readiness reports stated were needed. Finally, SORTS does not provide data with which commanders can adequately assess joint readiness. There is no clear definition of areas of joint readiness that incorporates all essential elements, such as individual service unit readiness, the deployability of forces, or en route and theater infrastructure support. The need for joint readiness information was demonstrated by the Persian Gulf War and reaffirmed by contingency operations in Somalia and Bosnia. Officials at four joint commands told us that SORTS, the primary source of readiness data, was inadequate for assessing joint readiness. Although the Joint Staff recently developed its first list of joint mission tasks, it has not developed the training conditions for conducting joint exercises and criteria for evaluating them. It may be several years before JCS completes these efforts. Recognizing the limitations of SORTS and the need for more reliable readiness information, DOD and the services have initiated actions to improve readiness assessments. In June 1994 the Defense Science Board Readiness Task Force, which is composed of retired general officers, issued its report to the Secretary of Defense on how to maintain readiness. The Task Force identified major shortcomings in assessing joint readiness and noted that while the services have increased their commitment to joint and combined training since Operation Desert Storm, such training requires greater emphasis. The Task Force recommended improvements in the measurement of joint readiness, stating that “real readiness must be measured by a unit’s ability to operate as part of a joint or combined task force.” More recently, DOD created the Senior Readiness Oversight Council to evaluate and implement the recommendations of the Readiness Task Force and to develop new ways to measure combat readiness. The Council, whose membership includes high-level military and civilian officials, is focusing on three main ways to improve readiness: (1) developing better analytical tools for determining the relationship of resources to readiness and predicting the potential impact of budget cuts on readiness, (2) developing analytical tools for measuring joint readiness, and (3) taking advantage of computer simulation to improve readiness, especially joint readiness. The Army implemented its Readiness Management System in June 1993. This system allows the Army to project for 2 years the status of elements reported under SORTS. The system integrates the reported SORTS data with other databases that contain future resource acquisition and distribution information. The Army can, for example, compare a unit’s reported equipment shortages with planned acquisition and distribution schedules, and the system can then forecast when those shortages will be alleviated and the unit’s readiness posture improved. In September 1993, the Air Force began to develop a computer model, called ULTRA, to forecast readiness. ULTRA is intended to measure four major elements: (1) the ability to deploy the right forces in a timely manner to achieve national objectives; (2) the ability to sustain operations; (3) the personnel end strength, quality, and training of people; and (4) the availability of facilities. If successful, the system will allow the Air Force to estimate the effect that various levels of funding have on readiness. The project is still under development, and the Air Force estimates it will be about 2 years before the system will provide credible, widely accepted forecasts. To supplement data currently reported in SORTS and facilitate readiness assessments at the unit level, the military commands in all four services independently monitor literally hundreds of additional indicators. These indicators are generally not reported to higher command levels. Military commanders and outside defense experts agreed that many of the indicators are not only critical to a comprehensive readiness assessment at the unit level but also have some degree of predictive value regarding readiness changes within the services. We compiled a list of over 650 indicators that 28 active and reserve service commands were monitoring in addition to SORTS. To further refine these indicators, we asked the commands to rate the indicators in three areas: (1) the importance of the indicator for assessing readiness, (2) the degree of value the indicator has as a predictor of readiness change, and (3) the quality of the information the indicator provides. Table 1 shows the readiness indicators that service officials told us were either critical or important to a more comprehensive assessment of readiness and that also have some predictive value. The indicators that are shaded are those rated highest by at least one-half of the commands visited. We asked the Defense Science Board Task Force on Readiness to examine the indicators presented in table 1. Task Force members agreed with the commands’ ratings and said that the indicators are an excellent beginning for developing a more comprehensive readiness measurement system. The Task Force suggested four additional indicators: (1) the use of simulators to improve individual and crew proficiency on weapon systems; (2) the quality of recruits enlisted by the services; (3) equipment readiness based on fully mission capable rates rather than on mission capable rates, which permit a weapon system to be reported as mission capable even though it cannot fully perform its mission; and (4) the extent to which readiness-related information in DOD is automated. In commenting on a draft of this report DOD pointed out that it is useful to know if a system having a multimission capability can perform parts of the mission, therefore, it believes that both fully mission capable and mission capable rates are useful indicators. Also, DOD said that the extent to which readiness-related information is automated is not an indicator of readiness but that it might be helpful in obtaining an understanding of automation requirements. We agree with DOD’s position on these two issues. As table 1 shows, some indicators are supported more by commanders of one service than by the others. For example, information on commitments and deployments (Training, item 15) and deployed equipment (Logistics, item 17) were assessed as critical by Marine Corps commanders because of the manner in which its forces and equipment are deployed. They were not listed as critical by any of the commands from the other services. By examining a group or series of indicators, one may gain a broader insight than is possible from a single indicator. To illustrate, changes in the extent of borrowed manpower (Personnel, item 7) may be related to proficiency on weapon systems (Training, item 12) or crew turnover (Personnel, item 8). Also, table 1 identifies indicators that because of restricted training time and opportunities are especially critical to the reserve components.