In a world overflowing with information of uncertain quality, it can be hard to distinguish fact from fiction. NGAUS relies on the research of independent, unbiased think-tanks, academic institutions and advisory boards to provide scholarly analysis and strategic research on policy issues affecting the National Guard. The following studies are important to improving policy and decisionmaking related to the National Guard in the Department of Defense and Congress.
Report: Reserve Component Use, Balance, Cost and Savings: A Response to Questions from the Secretary of Defense
Reserve Forces Policy Board, February 2014
A report, commissioned by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, to determine the best ways to use the reserve components in support of the Defense Strategic Guidance, the right balance or mix of active and reserve component forces, the cost to maintain a strong reserve, and how the DoD could achieve cost savings through use of the reserve components. The RFPB report concludes that using the reserve component as an operational force is cost-effective and promotes a healthy force structure mix.
Report: National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force Final Report
National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force, January 2014
Final report of the congressionally mandated commission. The comprehensive study of the structure of the U.S. Air Force makes recommendations on how the structure should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements for the U.S. Air Force. The Commission makes several recommendations to increase reliance on Air Force Reserve and National Guard capabilities.
Report: Unit Cost and Readiness for Active and Reserve Component of the Armed Forces
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)
A study, based two years of research conducted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, that details how reserve-component (RC) troops are cheaper to the taxpayers than their active-component (AC) counterparts, even when mobilized.
Study: Eliminating Major Gaps in DoD Data on the Fully-Burdened and Life-Cycle Cost of Military Personnel: Cost Elements Should be Mandated by Policy
Reserve Forces Policy Board, January 2013
A study by an independent advisory board to the Secretary of Defense on Active Component and Reserve Component life-cycle costs that concluded that a National Guard member costs about 1/3 of his Active Duty counterpart.
Study: Total Force Optimization
Harvard, Lt. Col. Luke Ahmann and Lt. Col Liesl Carter, 2012
A scholarly analysis that looks at the optimum balance of forces within the Total Air Force and asserts that expanding the more cost effective reserve components would allow for more capability and capacity with limited future funding.
Discussion Paper: An Indispensable Force: Investing in America’s National Guard and Reserves
Center for New American Security, John Nagl and Travis Sharp, 2010
Contends that allowing the Guard and Reserves to regress back to a Cold War-style strategic force meant only to be used as a last resort in the event of major war would be a tremendous mistake that would damage U.S. national security.
Brookings, Hamilton Project, Adm. Gary Roughead, U.S. Navy (Ret.) and Kori Schake, February 2013
Proposes reducing the active duty Army by 200,000 soldiers from the 490,000 planned in the FY2013 budget, and increasing the National Guard and Reserves by 100,000, including putting more of the responsibilities for ground combat into the combat-proven Reserve component, which they assert is both consistent with the new demands of the evolving international order and justified by the superb performance of National Guard and Reserve units in our recent wars.
Defense Review: Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC)
Examines whether compensation levels are sufficient to sustain recruitment and retention of the high caliber men and women in uniform who serve our nation, and proposes both positive changes - reducing from 30 to six the authorities for calling members of the Guard and Reserve to duty and allowing our members to receive their retired pay upon their 30th anniversary of service after having attained 20 qualifying years of service - and negative changes - cutting drill pay in half in order to equate a drill day with one day of “regular military compensation”.