The Army is reviewing the locations of its National Guard Readiness Centers to ensure their use is maximized, officials said.
Air Force Gen. Joseph Lengyel, chief of the National Guard Bureau, mentioned the review in his written testimony to Congress during an April 26 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing.
He said some of the centers are in isolated rural areas, and the Army wants the locations to reflect changing U.S. demographics by perhaps moving some of them toward denser, more populated areas.
"It will also give us the ability to respond to emergencies in populated areas," Lengyel wrote.
The Army National Guard has more than 2,300 readiness centers — which used to be called armories — across the United States, including Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Col. Erik Gordon, chief of the Installations and Environment Directorate for the Army National Guard, said 47 percent of these centers are 50 years old or older.
In 2010, Congress directed the National Guard to create a report on the status of the centers, he said.
"We spent three years studying this," Gordon said. "We hired a firm to go out and visit every state and territory and Washington, D.C., to develop a plan that was centric to each one of those states and territories."
The firm looked at seven aspects:
- How well the centers adhered to guidelines required of facilities that receive federal funding.
- The condition of the space.
- The state of the supporting facilities.
- Each state's demographics.
- Available facilities for family readiness programs.
- Partnerships with the local community.
- Each center's investment strategy.
State officials transferred the Oklahoma Army National Guard's historical armory back to the city, which will be used for their streets and parks department.
Photo Credit: Sgt. 1st Class (Ret.) Kendall James/Army
The National Guard sent Congress the first report in 2012, a second one in 2013, and the final report in 2014.
One of the findings was that about 36 percent of the readiness centers are misaligned against population centers, Gordon said.
"Population centers are generally where jobs are," he said. "If the facilities aren't where the population is, you have a hard time recruiting a force to occupy that facility."
If facilities are moved closer to population centers, it also cuts down on the time a soldier spends driving to their monthly drill, he said.
The study also found about 70 percent of the readiness centers are considered "poor" or "failing" and functionally obsolete because they do not meet modern standards for location, training, sustainability, equipment storage, and maintenance and force protection.
"Maybe the bathrooms and locker rooms aren't up to standards," Gordon said.
For example, a facility that was built in the 1950s more likely catered to an all-male infantry unit, but now it may house a co-ed force.
There also might not be enough room to store equipment, he said, which means soldiers have to drive from one center to another to train with the equipment. If the Guard is able to create more space in some of the facilities, then soldiers can stay and train at one location.
What's next?
There are three options moving forward: retain and improve, consolidate, or divest, officials said.
In the first option, the adjutant general in each state or territory could decide to maintain the facility in its same location and update it, if needed, to modern standards.
The adjutant general could also choose to consolidate some of the centers into other locations or build new facilities.
The third option is to divest the "obsolete and misaligned facilities," Gordon said. If the state decides that's what it wants to do, it can sell the facility or give it back to the town.
When the federal government gives money to the state to build a facility, however, there's generally a 25-year interest of federal government in that facility, Gordon said. So if the state wants to sell the facility before the 25 years is up, the state must apply for a waiver or pay the government back a pro-rated share of that facility.
Even though one of the goals is to align the readiness centers closer to where the people live, Gordon said some centers need to stay in rural areas in case of emergencies such as wildfires, tornadoes or flooding.
"If you put all your eggs in one basket, you might not be able to support some of those rural areas," he said.
Looking at previous budgets, Gordon said most of the facilities that the Guard is funding are its readiness centers. However, it's difficult to plan when it's unclear how much money the Army will receive for this kind of expenditures.
"Through the budget process, if we get additional funding, we will use it to support [this] initiative," he said.
Charlsy Panzino covers the Guard and Reserve, training, technology, operations and features for Army Times and Air Force Times. Email her at cpanzino@militarytimes.com.
Charlsy is a Reporter and Engagement Manager for Military Times. Email her at cpanzino@militarytimes.com.
