Civil Air Patrol: Proposed Agreements With the Air Force Are Intended to
Address Identified Problems (Letter Report, 06/05/2000,
GAO/NSIAD-00-136).
Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO provided information on the
Civil Air Patrol, focusing on the: (1) nature of the relationship
between the Air Force and the Patrol; (2) Air Force's oversight of the
Patrol; (3) Patrol's management and oversight of its own activities; and
(4) plans to resolve identified problems.
GAO noted that: (1) the Air Force includes the Patrol in its internal
budget process to determine what the Patrol needs and how much money
will be available to support the Patrol; (2) the Air Force also provides
technical advice to ensure flying safety; (3) the Patrol performs search
and rescue and other flying missions for the Air Force, and the Air
Force reimburses the Patrol for this service; (4) the Air Force oversees
the Patrol to ensure that federal funds provided are used appropriately;
(5) at times, the relationship involves conflict; (6) the Air Force and
the Patrol initially disagreed over plans to reorganize the Patrol's
board and could not even agree on a means for the Air Force to explain
its position to the Patrol's volunteers; (7) conflict in the financial
relationship includes the Patrol's practice of lobbying Congress for
more funding if the Patrol disagrees with the amount supported by the
Air Force; (8) nonetheless, the Air Force and the Patrol believe each
get benefits from the relationship and want to continue it; (9) the Air
Force monitors activities of the Patrol by reviewing its flight,
financial, and logistics operations; (10) most of the personnel who
monitor the Patrol's activities for the Air Force are Patrol employees
who are at the Patrol's operating locations and receive their annual
performance appraisals from the commanders whose operations they
monitor; (11) when problems are brought to the attention of the Air
Force, it has not always been able to enforce corrective action; (12)
Patrol commanders do not have much incentive to aggressively enforce the
regulations, and they have not exercised their authority sufficiently to
ensure that all units follow regulations intended to ensure flying
safety and accountability for assets; (13) as a result, the Patrol lacks
assurance that all assets have been used safely and appropriately; (14)
to improve accountability and oversight, the Air Force and the Patrol
have proposed legislation to establish a new governing board for the
Patrol; (15) the proposed legislation would also allow the Air Force to
use personal service contractors to monitor the Patrol's operations at
its various operating locations and to end reliance on Patrol employees
for monitoring; (16) the Air Force and the Patrol also plan to implement
a cooperative agreement to comply with the requirements of the Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, which requires the use of a formal
funding agreement; and (17) the agreement would also implement a
statement of work that provides new flying safety and asset
accountability requirements.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-00-136
TITLE: Civil Air Patrol: Proposed Agreements With the Air Force
Are Intended to Address Identified Problems
DATE: 06/05/2000
SUBJECT: Military appropriations
Defense audits
Financial management
Inventory control
Proposed legislation
Accountability
Interagency relations
Internal controls
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO/NSIAD-00-136
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology
26
Appendix II: Comments From the Department of the Air Force
29
Appendix III: Comments From the Civil Air Patrol
31
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
32
Table 1: Expected Civil Air Patrol and Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force
Employment by Location of Assignment 21
Figure 1: Civil Air Patrol and Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force
Organization and Relationship 7
Figure 2: Proposed Civil Air Patrol and Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force
Organization and Relationship 20
National Security and
International Affairs Division
B-285116
June 5, 2000
Congressional Requesters
The Civil Air Patrol is a congressionally chartered, private, nonprofit
corporation that uses about 61,000 dues-paying volunteers to perform its
missions. The missions are to provide (1) emergency services--including
counternarcotics, disaster relief, and search and rescue missions using
small aircraft; (2) aerospace education; and (3) cadet training. Congress
has designated the Civil Air Patrol the civilian auxiliary of the Air Force
and provided about $26.6 million in fiscal year 2000 for the Patrol in the
Air Force appropriation. The Air Force is responsible for providing advice
and assistance to the Patrol's management and overseeing its operations.
A series of Air Force and Department of Defense audits and inspections since
1998 have raised concerns about Civil Air Patrol's financial management and
inventory control practices as well as Air Force oversight of the Patrol.
Consequently, you asked us to review Air Force proposals to reorganize the
Patrol's management. In addition, section 934 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 20001 required us and the Department of
Defense Inspector General to independently review potential improvements to
Patrol management. During our review, we assessed (1) the nature of the
relationship between the Air Force and Civil Air Patrol, (2) the Air Force's
oversight of the Patrol, (3) the Patrol's management and oversight of its
own activities, and (4) plans to resolve identified problems.
The Air Force and Civil Air Patrol relationship is usually cooperative. The
Air Force includes the Patrol in its internal budget process to determine
what the Patrol needs and how much money will be available to support the
Patrol. The Air Force also provides technical advice to ensure flying
safety. For its part, the Civil Air Patrol performs search and rescue and
other flying missions for the Air Force, and the Air Force reimburses the
Patrol for this service. The Air Force oversees the Civil Air Patrol to
ensure that federal funds provided are used appropriately. At times, the
relationship involves conflict. The Air Force and Civil Air Patrol initially
disagreed over plans to reorganize the Patrol's board and could not even
agree on a means for the Air Force to explain its position to the Patrol's
volunteers. Conflict in the financial relationship includes the Civil Air
Patrol's practice of lobbying Congress for more funding if the Patrol
disagrees with the amount supported by the Air Force. Nonetheless, the Air
Force and Civil Air Patrol believe each get benefits from the relationship
and want to continue it.
The Air Force monitors activities of the Civil Air Patrol by reviewing its
flight, financial, and logistics operations. However, most of the personnel
who monitor the Patrol's activities for the Air Force are Civil Air Patrol
employees who are at the Patrol's operating locations and receive their
annual performance appraisals from the commanders whose operations they
monitor. This raises questions about the independence of the officers.
Moreover, even when problems are brought to the attention of the Air Force,
it has not always been able to enforce corrective action. Air Force
officials believe that they have limited authority over Civil Air Patrol
because it is a private corporation, although they can refuse to reimburse
the Patrol for certain missions and restrict the purchase of new equipment
or parts when the Patrol has not corrected problems. Nonetheless, Air Force
action to date has not been sufficient to resolve problems.
Civil Air Patrol commanders do not have much incentive to aggressively
enforce the regulations, and they have not exercised their authority
sufficiently to ensure that all units follow regulations intended to ensure
flying safety and accountability for assets. As a result, the Patrol lacks
assurance that all assets have been used safely and appropriately. Civil Air
Patrol leaders recognized the need to maintain adequate accountability over
assets but are concerned that if the accountability requirements became too
burdensome, some volunteers might quit, since most joined to participate in
aviation-related or youth development-related activities, not to do the
paperwork sometimes necessary to manage assets. The Civil Air Patrol needs a
sufficient number of aircraft and vehicles to perform its mission but has
not adequately determined how many aircraft and vehicles it needs. When the
Air Force tried to study aircraft requirements, it relied on sometimes
inaccurate data, raising questions about the study's conclusions. When the
Air Force tried to perform a similar study on vehicle requirements, the
Civil Air Patrol did not provide sufficient information for the Air Force to
complete the study. The Civil Air Patrol is planning to conduct another
vehicle requirements study and hopes to complete it by February 2001.
To improve accountability and oversight, the Air Force and Civil Air Patrol
have proposed legislation to establish a new governing board for the Patrol.
The proposed legislation would also allow the Air Force to use personal
service contractors to monitor the Patrol's operations at its various
operating locations and to end reliance on Civil Air Patrol employees for
monitoring. The Air Force and the Patrol also plan to implement a
cooperative agreement to comply with the requirements of the Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, which requires the use of a formal
funding agreement. The agreement would also implement a statement of work
that provides new flying safety and asset accountability requirements.
However, a consultant to Civil Air Patrol has estimated that it will need to
hire about 60 new employees at a cost of about $6.4 million per year to
implement some of the proposed changes, and the Air Force and the Patrol
have yet to agree on the expected implementation costs or who will pay. The
Air Force believes that the Civil Air Patrol can implement the agreement for
as little as $1.8 million.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Office of Civilian Defense
in the Office of Emergency Management in 1941 to encourage coordination and
cooperation between the federal and state or local governments and ensure
civilian participation in defense during World War II. The office formed the
Civil Air Patrol.
In 1943, the Civil Air Patrol was transferred to the War Department. The
Patrol's wartime missions included doing coastal patrols, searching for
enemy submarines, doing search and rescue missions, towing aerial gunnery
targets, and running courier flights. In 1946, Congress established the
Civil Air Patrol as a federally chartered corporation to (1) encourage and
aid American citizens in contributing their efforts, services, and resources
in developing aviation and maintaining air supremacy;
(2) encourage and develop contributions of private citizens to the public
welfare; (3) provide aviation education and training to Patrol members;
(4) encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities; and
(5) provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to
assist in responding to local and national emergencies. When the Air Force
was established in 1948, Congress designated the Civil Air Patrol as the
civilian auxiliary of the Air Force.
Today, the Civil Air Patrol has three primary missions.
� Flying missions include (1) search and rescue, (2) reconnaissance of
illegal narcotics production or distribution, and (3) assistance to federal
or state emergency management and disaster relief agencies using aircraft
and vehicles.
� The Civil Air Patrol's aerospace education program promotes basic
aerospace knowledge and provides instruction on advances in aerospace
technology by providing aviation-related materials to middle and high school
teachers to relay to their students. In 1999, the Patrol reported that it
distributed about 30,000 free aerospace education products to teachers,
sponsored the annual National Congress on Aviation and Space Education (a
program that trained about
800 teachers), and held 100 workshops in 36 states to develop the
educational skills of over 200 participating teachers.
� The Civil Air Patrol's cadet program provides instruction on leadership
skills, aerospace education, and physical training to people aged 20 and
younger. According to Patrol officials, the program also introduces cadets
to certain aspects of military life and gives some an opportunity to learn
how to fly.
To accomplish its assistance and oversight responsibilities, the Air Force
relies on the Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force, a unit of the Air Education
and Training Command, the Air Force command that operates the Air University
and recruits and trains new people in the Air Force. Figure 1 displays the
current−Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force and Civil Air Patrol structure
and relationship.
Source: Our analysis of Civil Air Patrol and Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force
documents.
According to the Air Force, until 1995, the Air Force ran the day-to-day
affairs of Civil Air Patrol through Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force by
mutual agreement between the two organizations. At the time, Civil Air
Patrol-U.S. Air Force had a full-time staff of about 250, comprised of
active duty servicemembers and federal civilian employees, and the part-time
services of about 450 reservists. In a 1995 reorganization, the Civil Air
Patrol-U.S. Air Force reduced its full-time staff from 250 to 73 and turned
over to the Civil Air Patrol the responsibility for its own day-to-day
management. The downsized Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force continued to have
a role in overseeing the Patrol; providing financial, material, technical,
and other assistance; and providing access to bases for certain cadet
activities.
A volunteer national commander and national vice-commander, who are assisted
by four other volunteer national officers, head the Civil Air Patrol. The
national commander appoints eight volunteer regional commanders, who lead
operations in eight Patrol-designated geographic regions. The regional
commanders appoint wing commanders--one in each state, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico.2 These officials, along with the active duty
colonel who commands Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force, make up a 67-member
national board that governs the Civil Air Patrol.
A paid executive director manages the Patrol's headquarters at Maxwell Air
Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama. However, the executive director has no
command authority over the more than 61,000 volunteers assigned to the 52
wings and over 1,600 units throughout the United States.3 The Civil Air
Patrol has a paid administrative staff of about 100 persons primarily
assigned to headquarters. The headquarters staff provides day-to-day
administrative services such as financial management, legal services,
planning, marketing and public relations, information management, and other
services. The Patrol also has 42 employees assigned to its bookstore in
Alabama and its parts depot in Texas. Finally, the Civil Air Patrol employs
the 89 liaison officers assigned to wings around the country who monitor and
assist the Patrol for the Air Force. The Patrol pays the liaison officers
their salaries, benefits, and operating expenses, using a portion of the Air
Force appropriation designated for the Patrol.
The Civil Air Patrol agreed to limit itself to 530 powered aircraft at the
suggestion of the Air Force. These aircraft are mostly Cessna (172 and
182 models) light aircraft. Similarly, the Civil Air Patrol also voluntarily
limited itself to 950 vehicles. These assets were purchased mostly with
federal funds. In addition, the Civil Air Patrol owns land, buildings,
computers, office equipment, and other items. Most of these assets are
corporate property and are assigned to wings and squadrons. Patrol
volunteers also own or lease another 4,700 aircraft that can be used on
missions when needed.
The majority of the Civil Air Patrol's operating revenue comes from funds
included in the Air Force's appropriation and designated by Congress for the
Patrol. In fiscal year 2000, this amounted to $26.6 million. Civil Air
Patrol also received appropriations of about $2.9 million from 36 states and
member dues totaling $2.1 million. The states usually designate their funds
for their local wing. Certain wings raise additional revenue through
fund-raising or receiving private donations. Also, the Civil Air Patrol has
about $20 million in investments in equities and other financial instruments
that have generated revenue. In addition, the Air Force has budgeted
$5.8 million in appropriated funds in fiscal year 2000 to cover the
operating costs of Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force.
Cooperative
The relationship between the Air Force and Civil Air Patrol is usually
cooperative but is sometimes marked by conflict. The Air Force cooperates
with Civil Air Patrol by permitting it to participate in the Air Force's
internal budget process and providing other assistance, including technical
advice to promote safe operations. This arrangement establishes a financial
and operational relationship between the Air Force and Civil Air Patrol. For
its part, Civil Air Patrol cooperates with the Air Force by conducting
search and rescue missions for the Air Force and is reimbursed for the
expenses associated with those missions. The Air Force conducts oversight of
the Patrol's activities to ensure that public funds are used properly. By
the same token, the Civil Air Patrol is a private, nonprofit corporation
that is generally independent from the Air Force. This situation sometimes
creates tension between the two organizations and has led to some public
disagreements. For example, the Air Force and the Patrol initially disagreed
over how to reorganize the Patrol's governing board. Nonetheless, each
recognizes benefits stemming from the relationship.
The Air Force routinely assists the Civil Air Patrol in many ways specified
in law (10 U.S.C. 9441), including (1) giving, lending, or selling to the
Patrol surplus Air Force equipment such as spare parts and vehicles;
(2) detailing Air Force personnel to the Civil Air Patrol; (3) permitting
the use of Air Force services and facilities; (4) providing funds for the
operational expenses of the Patrol's national headquarters; (5) authorizing
payment of expenses related to operational, testing, and training missions;
and (6) reimbursing the Patrol for the cost of major equipment purchases.
The law also allows the Air Force to reimburse Patrol members for expenses
incurred in carrying out Air Force missions during a war or national
emergency. In a 1980 amendment to the law, Congress designated the Civil Air
Patrol and its individual members as instrumentalities of the United States,
making the United States liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for
negligent acts or omissions of Civil Air Patrol or its members while they
are engaged in an Air Force-assigned mission. The Air Force pays for
liability insurance for Civil Air Patrol's non-Air Force missions. In
addition, under 5 U.S.C. 8141, Patrol members (except cadets under age 18)
are eligible for Federal Employees Compensation Act benefits if injured or
killed while serving on noncombat missions for the Air Force.
The Air Force also cooperates with the Civil Air Patrol by permitting it to
participate in the Air Force's annual internal budget process to determine
the amount of funds needed for Patrol activities. For fiscal year 2000,
Congress designated $26.6 million of the Air Force's appropriation for the
Civil Air Patrol. The funds are used to reimburse the Civil Air Patrol for
Air Force-assigned missions; headquarters operations; asset procurement; and
salaries, benefits, and operational expenses of the 89 liaison officers. For
accountability purposes, the liaison officers review the Civil Air Patrol's
flight, financial, and logistics operations and provide technical assistance
in those and other areas, including flying safety at the wing level and
below.
The Civil Air Patrol works with the Air Force on an ongoing basis by
performing search and rescue missions and searching for the production or
distribution of illegal narcotics. The Civil Air Patrol reported that it had
saved 275 lives during 1997-99 in about 30,000 hours of flying time. The
Civil Air Patrol also reported that law enforcement authorities interdicted
millions of dollars of illegal narcotics as a result of Patrol flights
totaling over 100,000 hours. The Civil Air Patrol also cooperates with the
Air Force by giving inspectors from the Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force
access to Patrol wing and squadron facilities and records and trying to
implement recommendations stemming from these inspections.
The Air Force and Civil Air Patrol have not always cooperated with each
other and sometimes engaged in public disputes. For example, in 1999, the
Air Force and the Patrol disagreed about plans to reorganize the Patrol's
governing board. The Air Force wanted to contact Patrol members by letter to
explain the Air Force's position on the matter and asked the Patrol for its
mailing list. The Civil Air Patrol refused to provide the mailing list and
offered to publish the Air Force's letter in the Civil Air Patrol national
newspaper, but the Air Force refused that offer. Later, in a letter to the
Air Force General Counsel, the Patrol accused the Air Force of stealing the
list. The Air Force denied the allegation and did not send letters to Patrol
members. At times, the Air Force or Civil Air Patrol have made their
disagreements public. For example, in May 1999, the Civil Air Patrol posted
items on its internet home page to respond to Air Force allegations directed
at the Patrol about financial irregularities, safety concerns, and other
issues.
There are also problems with the financial relationship. While the Air Force
includes the Civil Air Patrol in the Air Force's internal budget process,
the Patrol has not always agreed with the Air Force's funding levels or
restrictions. At such times, the Civil Air Patrol has contacted Congress
directly to seek more funding than the Air Force has supported. The Air
Force believes that this can end up forcing the Air Force and the Civil Air
Patrol to compete for resources and has strained the relationship at times.
The vehicle through which the Air Force funds the Patrol has also been
questioned. In a 1998 report,4 the Air Force Audit Agency concluded that the
Air Force had not complied with the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Act of 1977 (31 USC 6301-6308). That law requires federal agencies to use
contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements to acquire property or services
for the government or to transfer money, property, services, or anything of
value to recipients to accomplish a federal purpose. Initially, the Civil
Air Patrol resisted using a cooperative agreement suggested by the Air Force
but in January 2000 tentatively agreed to the arrangement. In February 2000,
the Civil Air Patrol National Board overwhelmingly approved the draft
cooperative agreement and statement of work. However, as of May 2000, the
Air Force and Civil Air Patrol had yet to sign the cooperative agreement and
an associated statement of work that specifies new safety and asset
accountability requirements.
Despite some problems in the relationship, both the Air Force and Civil Air
Patrol believe the relationship benefits both parties. The Air Force
believes it benefits from the relationship because the Patrol provides
highly trained and motivated new recruits and saves the Air Force from using
its resources on the war on drugs. The Civil Air Patrol also provides some
recruiting benefit because Patrol cadets have a lower attrition rate from
the Air Force Academy than those without Civil Air Patrol experience,
according to Academy data. Also, the Civil Air Patrol believes it gets some
recruiting benefit from the association with the Air Force because Patrol
officials believe some cadets are attracted to the organization by the
opportunity to participate in flying missions, wear an Air Force-style
uniform, and participate in military-style activities.
Through the Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force, the Air Force provides advice,
assistance, and oversight to the Civil Air Patrol but believes it has a
limited ability to effect change in the Patrol because it is an independent,
private corporation not controlled by the Air Force. While the Air Force can
use and has used certain sanctions when the Civil Air Patrol has not
complied with requirements, problems remain.
Internal control standards that we issued in accordance with the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (31 USC 3512) require that
organizations establish physical control procedures to provide reasonable
assurance that assets are not lost or used without authorization.5 The Air
Force conducts oversight to identify problems in Civil Air Patrol wings and
squadrons, recommending improvements when appropriate. For example, the
Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force inspects every wing once every 3 years, and
its regional officials inspect wings or squadrons in their regions routinely
and also make recommendations to correct identified shortcomings. Since
1997, the Air Force has found numerous inventory control problems during
inspections at wings and squadrons. The problems ranged from wings' or
squadrons' inability to locate all of the items for which they were
accountable to a lack of records needed to determine the inventory. For
example, one wing had inventory problems in 77 percent of the squadrons
inspected from September 1998 through February 2000. A Civil Air Patrol-U.S.
Air Force Regional Office found similar problems at wings it inspected in
1998 and 1999.
Other Air Force audits and reviews have also found problems with Civil Air
Patrol or Air Force oversight.
� In a 1998 review of Air Force oversight of Civil Air Patrol, the Air Force
Audit Agency found numerous problems, including ineffective management
controls by the Air Force over the Patrol's use of about
$23 million in appropriated funds and the failure to enter into a grant or
cooperative agreement.6 The Air Force and Civil Air Patrol plan to enter
into such an agreement to address the problems.
� In July 1999, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation seized records at Civil Air Patrol and Civil
Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force headquarters in Alabama and locations in Kentucky,
Texas, West Virginia, Florida, and Puerto Rico. According to officials in
the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, the seizures were in
response to the problems identified by Air Force studies, informants'
reports, and an allegation of double-billing for a flying mission. The
Office of Special Investigations indicated that it was pursuing a criminal
investigation in the matter of the alleged double-billing.
The Air Force believes it has limited authority to enforce the
implementation of recommendations it makes because the Civil Air Patrol is
an independent corporation. However, it does have some leverage in promoting
corrective actions. For example, the Air Force can deny wings federal funds
to purchase new equipment and spare parts or deny the transfer of surplus
parts from the Department of Defense. The Air Force has occasionally
exercised this authority when it finds inadequate controls over resources in
the wings. During our review, eight wings were denied such funds. The Air
Force may also withdraw approval for Air Force missions, denying
reimbursement to the wing for the missions. The Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air
Force has used its available authority sparingly because of the importance
of continued availability of aircraft for search and rescue missions. Air
Force officials told us that withdrawal of mission status could leave some
states without search and rescue coverage. Thus, problems have continued in
the areas of compliance with safety and asset management regulations by
Civil Air Patrol units.
The Civil Air Patrol National Commander leads the organization but relies on
the region and wing commanders to manage the day-to-day affairs of their
respective areas in performing assigned missions and managing assets.
However, some wings did not always follow Patrol policies and regulations
regarding flying safety and asset management. Furthermore, the Civil Air
Patrol has not determined how many aircraft and vehicles it needs to
accomplish its missions. This raises questions about whether it has too few
or too many aircraft or vehicles and whether they are located where needed
most.
Regulations
GAO-issued internal control standards require an organization's management
to establish an internal control system that provides reasonable assurance
that organizational components comply with applicable regulations. The Civil
Air Patrol has written various regulations and issued policy manuals that
provide guidance on safe and effective air operations and asset management
and accountability. For example, Patrol safety regulations require that
designated flight release officers authorize flying missions in writing.
Before authorizing the flight, these officers are supposed to ensure that
pilots have a current license and medical certificate and are qualified in
the aircraft they intend to operate, among other things. In some cases,
missions were not properly authorized. One wing we visited lacked assurance
that all flights were properly authorized because authorization documents on
file lacked the officers' signatures, raising questions about whether the
officers had authorized the flights. Based on our inquiry, the wing staff
contacted the flying squadrons, which had kept a second set of records that
ultimately documented proper authorization on most but not all of the
missions in question. Nonetheless, without contacting the squadrons first,
the wing's headquarters could not answer our questions about whether the
flights were properly authorized. Wing officials lacked assurance that about
170 flights had been appropriately authorized. In addition, flight release
officers sometimes authorized flights and then flew as passengers, in
violation of the regulations.
Such problems existed at other wings as well. To determine the extent to
which the wings follow Patrol safety, asset, and financial management
regulations, we asked each of the 52 wings to provide us with evidence of
compliance with selected regulations; 49 wings responded to our request. Our
analysis showed that in fiscal year 1999 many of the wings that responded
did not follow all regulations, as indicated by the following examples.
Fifty-five percent of the wings could not demonstrate that they did all the
annual no-notice inspections required by Civil Air Patrol regulation to
ensure compliance with safety regulations, and another 14 percent did not
provide sufficient records for analysis. Among other things, wing-level
inspectors are required to review the (1) flying unit's safety program;
flying records, including pilots' records; flight authorization procedures;
and condition and maintenance of Civil Air Patrol aircraft assigned to the
unit. The inspectors are also required to provide an overall evaluation of
the unit's compliance with Patrol flight safety and other operational
requirements. Two wing commanders told us that no-notice inspections are
difficult to conduct in an organization run by volunteers. Since the
regulations require inspectors to visit squadrons without notice, there is
little assurance that any of the squadron's volunteers will be present to
provide access to the necessary records when the inspectors arrive. When
no-notice inspections were done, inspectors found problems. For example,
numerous wings found noncompliance with aspects of the flight authorization
regulations. A key Civil Air Patrol official told us that the Patrol plans
to change the regulation to permit short-notice inspections in the future.
Twenty percent of the wings did not separately account for administrative
fees related to counternarcotics missions, as required by Civil Air Patrol
financial management regulations, and another 8 percent did not provide
sufficient records for analysis. The fees are an add-on to reimbursements
for flights related to counternarcotics missions. These fees must be
accounted for separately. Patrol regulations specify that the wings may use
these fees only for expenses directly attributable to the wing's
counternarcotics program.
Thirty-seven percent of the wings did not have annual budgets, as required
by Civil Air Patrol regulation, and another 12 percent did not provide
sufficient records for analysis. Civil Air Patrol regulations require each
wing to have an annual budget approved prior to the start of each fiscal
year and to monitor expenditures during the year.
Requirements
Each Civil Air Patrol wing needs a sufficient number of aircraft, vehicles,
and other assets to complete their assigned missions, but the Patrol has not
determined how many aircraft and vehicles are needed. In 1998, the Air Force
Audit Agency found that the Air Force had purchased aircraft and ground
vehicles without appropriately determining aircraft and vehicle
requirements. As a result, the Air Force studied Civil Air Patrol aircraft
requirements to try to determine whether the currently authorized powered
aircraft fleet size of 530 was the number needed for the Patrol's missions.
The study concluded the Civil Air Patrol may need 648 aircraft for its
missions. However, the Air Force did not verify the accuracy of the Patrol's
flying-hour data and sometimes relied on inaccurate data, raising questions
about the study's conclusions.
Moreover, Civil Air Patrol officials could not explain the basis for
assigning aircraft to the wings, and they used no systemic process to
periodically revalidate their basing decisions. However, in 1997, the Patrol
attempted to address aircraft use, which can be used to determine basing
requirements, and established an average of 200 hours per year per aircraft
as the target flying rate for Civil Air Patrol aircraft. In 1998, the wings
had widely varying aircraft use rates, raising questions about whether some
wings had more aircraft than they needed and some had too few. For example,
three wings reported that they flew an average of over 460 hours per
aircraft in 1998, whereas another three wings reported they flew about 160
hours or less. At the same time, the Civil Air Patrol wing with one of the
lowest usage rates had one of the highest rates of use of members' aircraft,
raising questions about the extent to which the wing tried to fully use
Civil Air Patrol aircraft, which cost less to fly than member-owned
aircraft. Another wing had a relatively high rate of use of member aircraft
in fiscal year 1998 and this wing's officials believe they could reduce
member aircraft usage if they had more Civil Air Patrol aircraft.
Civil Air Patrol recognizes the need to analyze the use and assignment of
its aircraft, and it developed a flying-hour database in 1998 to support
such analysis. However, the database, managed at Patrol headquarters, is not
always accurate.
� The database reported that one wing averaged about 75 hours of flying time
per aircraft in fiscal year 1998, well below the Patrol's target of
200 hours per aircraft. However, our review of wing data shows that the wing
used each aircraft on average over 200 hours that year. Moreover, four of
the other six wings that we visited also had data problems. The Civil Air
Patrol believes that the errors in the database have since been corrected.
� The database shows two aircraft in a wing in fiscal year 1999 that were
not in the wing's inventory. The database even shows hours flown by the wing
on one of the aircraft.
� Inaccurate data has hampered decision-making at times. According to a
Patrol official, the reported low use of aircraft in one wing during 1998
led to the transfer of one aircraft from the wing to another wing thought to
have a greater need. Civil Air Patrol information management officials at
headquarters acknowledged problems in the data and attributed it to staff
turnover and changes in the software used to maintain the database. Further,
they believe that the problem has been compounded by late submission of wing
flying reports and some wings' reluctance to enter data directly into the
computer, as is now required. These officials also told us they are trying
to improve the accuracy of the system. In addition, a key Patrol official
told us that the database is now being made available to the wings to permit
them to verify the accuracy of their aircraft use data.
In addition to questions about aircraft fleet size requirements and use,
Civil Air Patrol has also not determined how many vehicles it needs and
whether its 950 vehicles match requirements. The Air Force tried to study
Civil Air Patrol vehicle requirements in February 1999 but abandoned the
effort in August 1999 after some wings did not provide any data, despite
repeated requests by the Air Force and the Civil Air Patrol over an 8-month
period. Civil Air Patrol officials were unable to explain the reason for the
poor response to the data request. Officials at one wing told us they did
not send in any data because they believed that a response to the request
was not mandatory. However, without adequate data on the usage and location
of aircraft and vehicles, Patrol management cannot determine whether they
have too few or too many or whether they are located in the places where
most needed. The Civil Air Patrol has begun another study of vehicle
requirements and plans to complete it by February 2001.
Patrol leaders face a significant challenge in designing and operating an
accountability system and managing assets. They agree that proper
accountability is necessary but said that it is sometimes difficult to get
volunteers to do the necessary paperwork. Civil Air Patrol officials told us
that they try to achieve a balance--designing and implementing
accountability systems that provide reasonable assurance of appropriate
asset use but are not so burdensome that volunteers leave the Patrol.
Problems
In March 2000, the Air Force and the Civil Air Patrol submitted to Congress
a proposed revision of 10 U.S.C. 9441 to reorganize the Civil Air Patrol
governance. First, the proposed legislation would establish a new board of
governance for Civil Air Patrol, with some members appointed by the Air
Force, others by Civil Air Patrol, some jointly by the Air Force and the
Patrol from among private organizations interested in civil aviation and the
missions of the Patrol, and one each by the Speaker of the House and the
President of the Senate. The board would carry out the purposes of the Civil
Air Patrol as specified in its 1948 congressional charter. The Civil Air
Patrol intends to keep its National Board as currently constituted because
its members are corporate officers and the Patrol believes wing commanders
need to remain corporate officers to execute certain financial
responsibilities. The proposed legislation would also allow the Air Force to
use personal service contractors as liaison officers, thereby addressing
concerns about the independence of the liaison officers arising from their
current status as Civil Air Patrol employees. The Air Force would pay the
liaison officers with Air Force funds to oversee the Air Force
reimbursements for Patrol flights and continue to provide the other
oversight and assistance that they do now.
In addition to the proposed legislation, the Patrol has agreed to accept
funding under a cooperative agreement beginning October 1, 2000. The
agreement clarifies the relationship by specifying the Air Force's and the
Patrol's rights and responsibilities in a range of areas, including
management, asset accountability, audits, dispute resolution, financial and
performance reporting, and procurement standards. Moreover, a statement of
work, which specifies certain accountability and management requirements
under the cooperative agreement, addresses many of the issues that we
raised. For example, the statement of work (1) requires that the Civil Air
Patrol revalidate its aircraft and vehicle fleet every 2 years,
(2) allows the Air Force to withhold funds or take certain other actions if
the Patrol does not properly account for its resources, (3) requires the
Civil Air Patrol and the Air Force to establish and operate a joint
wing-level inspection program, and (4) requires the Patrol to operate an
inspection program below the wing level. Moreover, Department of Defense
grant regulations permit the Air Force to terminate the current award
temporarily, withhold payments, or take other remedial action if the Patrol
is in serious noncompliance with the cooperative agreement or statement of
work.
Implementing the cooperative agreement may be costly. A Civil Air Patrol
consultant concluded that to fulfill additional responsibilities, Patrol
headquarters would need to hire about 60 individuals at a cost of about
$6.4 million a year. Their responsibilities would include financial
management, planning, information technology management, procurement,
accounting, inspections, operations, professional development, and
administrative and operational support; about half would be at headquarters
and the other half at the wings. The Air Force and Civil Air Patrol had not
agreed on the actual implementation costs and who would pay for these
officials as of May 2000. The Air Force believes that implementation could
cost as little as $1.8 million annually and require fewer than 60 new
employees. Figure 2 displays the likely organization that would result from
adoption of the proposed legislation and implementation of the cooperative
agreement and statement of work by the Civil Air Patrol and the Air Force.
Source: Our analysis of Civil Air Patrol and Air Force documents.
As noted earlier, the number of persons employed by the Civil Air Patrol and
the Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force is expected to change if the
(1) proposed legislation is passed and implemented as currently written, (2)
cooperative agreement and statement of work are implemented as currently
written, and (3) consultant's recommendation to hire
60 additional Civil Air Patrol employees is implemented. Table 1 displays
Civil Air Patrol and Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force employment before and
after implementation of the proposed changes, by location of assignment.
Employment prior to Employment after
implementation of the implementation of the
changes changes
Personnel Civil Air Civil Air
Civil Air Patrol- Civil Air Patrol-
Patrol U.S. Air Patrol U.S. Air
Force Force
Headquarters 101 27 129 27
Bookstore/depot 42 0 42 0
Liaison officers 89 0 0 89
Regional offices 8 46 16 46
Wings 0a 0 25 0
Total 240 73b 212 162b
aSome wings have paid staff positions funded through state appropriations or
local wing funds.
bExcludes about 450 reservists who augment Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force
staff.
Source: Our analysis based on Civil Air Patrol and Air Force documents.
Despite recent disputes between the Air Force and Civil Air Patrol, both
organizations have indicated that they value their relationship and want to
continue it. Because the Air Force's and the Patrol's proposed legislation,
cooperative agreement, and statement of work, address many of the problems
that we and others have identified, we believe that specific recommendations
to address these problems are unnecessary at this time. The Civil Air
Patrol's independence from the Air Force, coupled with limits on the Air
Force's authority to promote corrective action in the Patrol, has created a
situation in which there are few serious penalties for noncompliance with
regulations. That will change if the cooperative agreement and statement of
work are approved as written because if the Civil Air Patrol is unable to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations and the terms of the
cooperative agreement and statement of work, it risks unilateral termination
of the agreement by the Air Force.
The Air Force concurred with our report's findings and conclusions. The Air
Force also believed that costs associated with implementation of the
cooperative agreement should not prevent the Air Force and the Patrol from
signing the agreement. The Air Force's comments are included in their
entirety in appendix II.
The Civil Air Patrol also concurred with our report. The Patrol felt that if
adequately funded, implementation of the cooperative agreement and statement
and proposed legislation would address identified problems. The Patrol's
comments are included in their entirety in appendix III.
To conduct our work, we interviewed officials and obtained key documents
from the Civil Air Patrol headquarters in Alabama. We also contacted all
52 Civil Air Patrol wings and requested certain data and performed more
extensive fieldwork at the Delaware, New York, Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, and
Arizona Wings and limited work at the Maryland Wing. We also interviewed
officials and obtained key documents from the Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force (Reserve Affairs); Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air
Force; and Patrol employees who monitor Civil Air Patrol wing activities for
the Air Force in the field. We discuss our scope and methodology in detail
in appendix I.
We conducted our work from August 1999 through April 2000 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees;
the Honorable William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense; the Honorable F.
Whitten Peters, Secretary of the Air Force; the Honorable Jacob J. Lew,
Director of the Office of Management and Budget; Brigadier General James C.
Bobick, Civil Air Patrol National Commander; and Colonel Robert L. Brooks,
Civil Air Patrol Executive Director. We will make copies available to other
interested parties on request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512-3610. Key contributors on this assignment are listed in
appendix IV.
Norman J. Rabkin
Director, National Security
Preparedness Issues
List of Congressional Requesters
The Honorable John W. Warner
Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate
The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Tom Harkin
United States Senate
The Honorable Floyd D. Spence
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives
The Honorable Jerry Lewis
Chairman
The Honorable John P. Murtha
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Objective, Scope, and Methodology
During our review, we assessed (1) the nature of the relationship between
the Air Force and Civil Air Patrol, (2) the Air Force's oversight of the
Patrol, (3) the Patrol's management and oversight of its own activities, and
(4) plans to resolve identified problems. To complete this work, we
interviewed the Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force Commander and the Commanders
and key staff of Civil Air Patrol's Middle East7 and Great Lakes Liaison
Regions. We also interviewed the Civil Air Patrol National Commander,
Executive Director, and the Wing Commanders and key staff from the Maryland,
Delaware, New York, Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, and Arizona Wings and the
Liaison Officers and Liaison Noncommissioned Officers assigned to these
wings. We selected the wings except the Maryland Wing based on certain
reported extremes in flight data, such as unusually high or low usage of
corporate or member aircraft.
To understand the nature of the relationship between the Air Force and the
Patrol, we reviewed laws defining the relationship; proposed legislation to
enhance the relationship; memorandums of understanding between the Air Force
and the Patrol; the Joint Report: Air Force-Civil Air Patrol Funding
Policies, Procedures, Relationship issued to Congress; the cooperative
agreement; the statement of work; Air Force guidance and manuals; briefing
slides; and other documents. We also reviewed the Department of Defense
Inspector General report issued in February 2000,8 correspondence, materials
supporting several draft Civil Air Patrol governing board reorganization
proposals, and other documents. In addition to the officials identified
previously, we interviewed an official from the Air Force Office of the
General Counsel and another from the Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force (Reserve Affairs); the Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air
Force Inspector General; and other Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force
officials, including the Comptroller, the Directors of Logistics, the
Aircraft Branch, the Vehicle Branch, the Director of Operations, and the
Staff Judge Advocate. We also obtained attrition data from the Air Force
Academy in Colorado.
To assess the Air Force's oversight of Civil Air Patrol, in addition to
interviewing the officials identified in the first paragraph of this
appendix, we reviewed Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force Inspector General
reports; a staff assistance visit report from the Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air
Force Great Lakes Liaison Region; Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force inspection
guidance; and other documents.
To assess Civil Air Patrol's management and oversight, we reviewed the
legislation incorporating the Patrol and defining its mission; Civil Air
Patrol's Constitution and Bylaws; manuals; guidance; organization charts;
the meeting minutes from every Civil Air Patrol National Board and National
Executive Committee meeting held from February 1996 to February 2000; Civil
Air Patrol's annual report to Congress for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and
1999; and other documents. In addition to the Patrol officials identified
previously, we also interviewed Civil Air Patrol's General Counsel; the
directors of Financial Management, Operations, Plans and Requirements, Cadet
Programs, Aerospace Education and Training, and Mission Support; and the
Great Lakes and Middle East Region Commanders. We also discussed management
and oversight with the Liaison Officers or Liaison Noncommissioned Officers
from the selected wings. In addition to the Air Force officials identified
above, we discussed Civil Air Patrol's management and oversight with the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Reserve Affairs).
We also reviewed regulations and guidance applicable to flight operations
and financial management and determined whether the wings followed the
requirements by requesting that each of the 52 wings provide us information
to assess compliance with Patrol regulations; 49 wings responded.
To assess asset management and related management activities, we reviewed
budgets, annual audit reports, financial reports, reimbursement requests,
training guides, recruiting materials, and other documents. To determine the
need for the number of aircraft and vehicles in the Patrol's inventory, we
reviewed the Air Force Logistics Management Agency's
April 1999 aircraft requirements study,9 flying hour reports, and the
attempted vehicle requirements and interviewed key Civil Air Patrol
officials to determine how basing decisions were made. To determine the
reliability of Civil Air Patrol's flying hour system, we reviewed wing
flight reports and underlying data and compared them to database reports.
To assess planned corrective actions, we reviewed the proposed legislation,
the draft cooperative agreement, the draft statement of work, memorandums,
and other documents. We also discussed general provisions of grant and
cooperative agreements with officials from the Office of Management and
Budget and reviewed Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-110, Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions of
Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations; Circular
A-133, Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit
Institutions; and Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit
Organizations. We also reviewed the Department of Defense grant and
cooperative agreement regulations.
We did not review safety, pilot qualifications, maintenance, billings and
reimbursements; and accident and incident reporting because the Department
of Defense Inspector General planned to review those issues concurrently
with our review. The Inspector General issued a report on its review in
February 2000 and plans to issue another report later in 2000.
Comments From the Department of the Air Force
Comments From the Civil Air Patrol
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
William E. Beusse (202) 512-3517
In addition to the contact name above, Brian J. Lepore,
Maewanda L. Michael-Jackson, Charles O. Burgess,
Katherine H. Woodward, and Ernie E. Jackson made key contributions to this
report.
(702019)
Table 1: Expected Civil Air Patrol and Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force
Employment by Location of Assignment 21
Figure 1: Civil Air Patrol and Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force
Organization and Relationship 7
Figure 2: Proposed Civil Air Patrol and Civil Air Patrol-U.S. Air Force
Organization and Relationship 20
1. P.L. 106-65, October 5, 1999.
2. A wing is the basic operational unit of the Civil Air Patrol.
3. Most wings are subdivided into squadrons. Most aircraft, vehicles, and
other assets are assigned to squadrons and the squadrons perform most of the
missions.
4. Installation Report of Audit: Air Force Oversight of FY 1996 Civil Air
Patrol Corporation Activities, CAP-USAF, Maxwell AFB AL (EB098013, May 13,
1998).
5. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government
(GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 ,
Nov. 1999).
6. We did not verify the results of the Air Force Audit Agency review.
7. The Middle East region includes the states of Delaware, Maryland, North
and South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
8. Department of Defense Inspector General Administration and Management of
the Civil Air Patrol (Report No. D-2000-075, Feb. 15, 2000).
9. Air Force Logistics Management Agency Civil Air Patrol (CAP) Aircraft
Requirement Study (AFLMA Final Report LM199900600, Apr. 1999).
*** End of document. ***