Detailed Information on the
Army Land Forces Readiness Assessment

Program Code 10002056
Program Title Army Land Forces Readiness
Department Name Dept of Defense--Military
Agency/Bureau Name Department of Defense--Military
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2004
Assessment Rating Effective
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 100%
Strategic Planning 100%
Program Management 71%
Program Results/Accountability 92%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $61,063
FY2008 $40,077
FY2009 $15,538
*Note: funding shown for a program may be less than the actual program amount in one or more years because part of the program's funding was assessed and shown in other PART(s).

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Continue to train Army units to operate at a high level of readiness, sufficient to prepare them for overseas combat operations.

Action taken, but not completed Completion date will be ongoing.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Working to better connect funding decisions with Army training outputs and unit readiness.

Completed The Army developed Budget Performance Integration metrics for Programs; a detailed alignment of BPI performance measures to Army strategic initiatives, Joint Capabilities and the DoD Risk Management Framework; and a process to ascertain if strategic initiatives are appropriately resourced. (Reviewed on 20 June 2006)

Add an efficiency measure of budget against budget execution for OPTEMPO miles.


Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Annual Output

Measure: Tank mile metric

Explanation:Measures annual training performance and establishes the baseline metric (miles) units execute each year in order to maintain combat proficiency. FY 2003, FY 2004, and FY 2005 inlcude miles driven for operations in Iraq.

Year Target Actual
2002 931 944
2003 933 1069
2004 899 1512
2005 899 991
2006 615 666
2007 446 729
2008 582
2009 585
2010 545
Annual Output

Measure: Reserve Equivalent Tank Miles

Explanation:Measures annual training performance for reserve units and establishes the baseline metric (miles) units execute each year in order to maintain proficiency.

Year Target Actual
2002 200 194
2003 200 197
2004 200 200
2005 200 185
2006 153 161
2007 132 135
2008 142
2009 146
2010 131
Annual Output

Measure: Guard Tank Miles

Explanation:Measures annual training performance and establishes the baseline metric (miles) units execute each year in order to maintain combat proficiency. FY 2004 and FY 2005 include miles driven for operations in Iraq.

Year Target Actual
2002 184 123
2003 177 157
2004 166 164
2005 166 176
2006 221 139
2007 221 127
2008 129
2009 131
2010 135

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Integral to the Army's mission to deter agression and fight and win the nation's wars, the Army has two core competencies (1) train/equip soldiers and grow leaders; and (2) provide relevant and ready land-power to Combatant Commanders. Operational training in ground combat is critical to meeting the first competency.

Evidence: The Army's FY 2004 Posture Statement clearly states the Army's competencies and training goals.

YES 20%

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Army units must be ready to deploy and execute combat missions in support of national security objectives. Recent conflicts have demonstrated the need for relevant and ready ground combat capability. Realistic training ensures that Army soldiers and units maintain readiness required provide this capability.

Evidence: The most recent Defense Planning Guidance specifics that all military units must be ready to perform their missions. Title 10 of the U.S. Code requires the Army to man, train, and equip units ready to execute combat missions.

YES 20%

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Training Army soldiers to be ready to execute ground combat missions in support of national security objectives is an inherently federal function. No other federal or non-federal program duplicates this function.

Evidence: As defined by Title 10 of the U.S. Code and directed by DOD Directive 5100.1 Sect. 6.6, the Department of the Army has the unique responsibility to organize, train and equip ground forces for prompt and sustained combat operations on land.

YES 20%

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The Operational training program is designed free of major flaws limiting effectiveness or efficiency. Army made significant improvements in creating its operational training strategies. The Army continues to implement management controls.

Evidence: In July 2002, the Army reported to Congress that its strategy and execution of the operational training program had been significantly reformed. New controls that were put in place have been effective. The Army has more effectively executed its operational training mission in FY 02, FY 03 and is on track for FY04.

YES 20%

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The Army uses a Training Resource Model (TRM) to allocate and distribute the right amount of funds for operational training needed for specific units, based on many inputs such as force structure and training requirements.

Evidence: The Army uses a Battalion Level Training Model (BLTM) to calculate the number of vehicle miles to be driven that are required to train units adequately. The TRM takes data from BLTM and other sources to derive funding resource requirements. These inputs are used to build the budget request. Once funds are appropriated, the Army issues guidance to its subordinate commands detailing how much funding the commands have available to meet the operational training goals.

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 100%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Army has established an operational training strategy that defines the number of miles that Army tanks will drive in training exercises each year. This operating tempo (OPTEMPO) tank mile metric measures annual training performance and establishes the baseline for units to execute each year to maintain combat proficiency.

Evidence: As stated in the Army's 2004 Posture Statement and directed in Combined Arms Training Strategies (CATS), the OPTEMPO metric represents the training activity required to conduct and support ground operations training, maintenance of unit equipment and sustainment of routine day-to-day operations. The BLTM calculates the number of miles that units will require. The Active Army Component metric is 899 tank miles. The Army National Guard metric is 166 tank miles. The Army Reseve metric is 199 tank mile equivalents. These metrics are averages for each of these component services. Units within each component may require more or less miles.

YES 12%

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Operational training has realistic and quantifiable five year targets for its OPTEMPO metric.

Evidence: As part of the Army's annual development of its program and budget plan, the Army defines its requirement for the OPTEMPO metric in the CATS. In the Army 's semi-annual Program Objectives Memorandum (POM) submission to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Army defines the resources required to meet the metric.

YES 12%

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Optempo training tank miles is the annual performance metric. The metric provides an analytical tool into whether Army units are receiving enough training to maintain their qualification and proficiency. Execution of the tank mile metric is reported monthly/quarterly/annually and measured against programmed tank miles. The Army's Vice Chief of Staff and its Operations Chief receive regular reports on tank mile execution.

Evidence: The Army's CATS define the tank mile metrics and goals to be used over a five year period. These annual goals are shown in the Army's budget justification materials sent to Congress after the President's Budget is submitted.

YES 12%

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The target is directed in the CATS. The Army proposes its funding allocation in the POM. OSD and OMB use these proposals to determine OPTEMPO tank mile funding requirements for the President's Budget.

Evidence: Same as above.

YES 12%

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Due to its unique governmental nature, "partners" in achieving the tank mile metric are Army's own subordinate major commands (MACOMs). Each MACOM submits an annual execution plan for both miles and funding at the beginning of the fiscal year. Performance is measured against that plan. Funding for meeting the plans goals is issued to the MACOMs at the start of the fiscal year.

Evidence: The Army publishes the OPTEMPO management instructions annually, to inform MACOMs, what their requirements are. MACOMs must report to the Army each month on progress to accomplishing the targets. In addition, at the beginning of the fiscal year the Army issues a "funding letter" to the MACOMs allocating funds to them to accomplish the tank mile goal.

YES 12%

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Due to the importance of the Army's operational training program, it receives periodic reviews from internal and external organizations. These organizations have reviewed aspects of the Army's operational training program on at least an annual basis.

Evidence: GAO conducts periodic audits. Recent examples include - Defense Budget: Need to Better Inform Congress on Army Division Training (2001); Defense Inventory: Army Needs a Plan to Overcome Critical Spare Parts Shortages (2003); Army Audit Agency: Controls over Operating Tempo Funds (2002); and a RAND Corporation review (2003).

YES 12%

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Funding requests identify direct and indirect costs for supporting operational training. The direct costs are closely tied to the execution of tank mile goals. Indirect funding encompasses a broader set of activities enabling the accomplishment of the tank mile goal.

Evidence: The FY 05 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Overview congressional budget justification book and the O&M Army congressional budget justification book show both indirect and direct costs. Both also explains what level of performance is expected based on the budget submitted. The TRM model outputs noted above are most closely tied to the direct costs of the this program. The Army has more detailed reports tailored to identifying other direct and indirect costs

YES 12%

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Beginning FY01, Army has implemented a series of changes and controls designed to reform the process of reporting and executing OPTEMPO funds and other resources.

Evidence: In July 2002, the Army reported to Congress that it reformed its planning and reporting of tank miles to address earlier GAO recommendations. These reforms have been in place since FY 01 and have been validated by RAND and the Army Audit Agency.

YES 12%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 100%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Army conducts monthly reviews of OPTEMPO execution. The Monthly Army Performance Review (MAPR) requires MACOMs to report monthly execution and the report is reviewed by the Army's Vice Chief of Staff and Operations Chief. Information is gathered centrally by the Army Staff and validated by the MACOMs.

Evidence: MACOMs must report why they are under or over performing based on the annual execution plan. The Army makes resource adjustment decisions throughout the year based on MACOM execution of the program. At the mid-year point, OSD makes major resource decisions to protect and fully fund all readiness related programs, especially the tank mile goal.

YES 14%

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: MACOMs and subordinate Army units are held accountable for executing the approved combined arms training strategies goals. In addition, these organizations are also held accountable for properly using funding and other resources allocated to achieving these goals.

Evidence: DOD Directive 7045.14 specifies that the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) will involve centralized planning and oversight but decentralized execution. The Army uses the MAPR to hold MACOMs and subordinate units responsible for meeting OPTEMPO tank mile goals.

YES 14%

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Fully executing operational training funds are the top priority of the Army. Since FY 2001, the Army has met or exceeded its tank mile goal. Exceeding the goal has been driven in part by combat operations in the global war on terrorism.

Evidence: Congressional budget justification materials submitted by the Army with the President's Budget contain previous years' execution data. The Army's most recent OPTEMPO execution report shows that units are executing tank miles and using resources in FY 2004 at or above expected levels. Obligation of funds are reported monthly by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service 1002 Reports.

YES 14%

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The MAPR allows the Army to measure the program's efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, DOD's mid-year funding execution review allows OSD to focus on DOD-wide efficiency and effectiveness. Results of this review reallocates resources throughout DOD to achieve operational and management goals.

Evidence: See 3.1 above. In addition, DOD's mid-year execution review for FY 2004 identified areas where non-OPTEMPO programs could provide the OPTEMPO program resources to meet more effective OPTEMPO goals.

YES 14%

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The U.S. Marine Corps has a similar operational training program. There is no evidence of systematic collaboration between the Army and Marine Corps programs.

Evidence: None available.

NO 0%

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: DOD's financial management weaknesses have been well documented. Army suffers from some of the same problems other parts of DOD does.

Evidence: Like the rest of DOD, the Army does not have a clean financial audit opinion yet. DOD is working towards a clean opinion for FY 07.

NO 0%

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: As noted previously, the Army has taken significant steps to correct its management deficiencies. Since FY 01, the Army has reformed its tank mile metric, funding allocation system, and tracking process.

Evidence: The Army reported in July 2002 to Congress that it had instituted management controls to fully fund OPTEMPO tank miles. The Army also described its standardized system for tracking and reporting tank miles.

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 71%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Army has successfully executed its OPTEMPO tank miles and effectively used its funding since FY 01.

Evidence: The Army's most recent FY 04 reports show more than adequate progress in continuing the successful trends from FY 02 and FY 03.

YES 25%

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Same as 3.2 above.

Evidence: Same as 3.2 above.

YES 25%

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Overall, better planning and management are producing better metrics and results. Funds are being better managed and more effectively utilized for this program.

Evidence: The metric for average OPTEMPO tank miles required has been refined and the number of tank miles required was reduced for FY 04. Army Audit Agency has validated policies put into place to better manage funding.

YES 25%

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The performance of this program can only be compared to the Marine Corps ground OPTEMPO program. The Marines mission of amphibious warfare differs significantly from the Army's mission and is primarily geared to support maritime operations. The Army provides long-term sustained ground combat power to the nation's command authorities. A direct comparison can not be made.

Evidence: O&M Congressional Budget Justification Overview Book for the FY 05 President's Budget shows the two programs in the Land Forces portion. Comparisons between the Marine Corps and Army OPTEMPO programs cannot be made.

NA 0%

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: There are no systematic evaluations by organizations independent from DOD. However, DOD routinely certifies Army assessments of how well their training, equipment, and personnel can meet the requirements of real-world military missions. This assessment of Army readiness is reported to Congress in classified form on a quarterly basis. Ongoing combat operations and these reports show that Army units are ready to meet their real-world combat missions.

Evidence: See 4.3 above. In addition, the most recent quarterly readiness report to Congress and ongoing combat operations show that Army units are ready to meet their real-world military missions.

Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 92%

Last updated: 09062008.2004SPR