American College of National Security Leaders Inc

What it reported doing in 2024

Research and Education accomplishments include the following. 1. The January-February 2024 edition of Military Review featured an article produced by the American College of National Security Leaders. You can access the article at https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/January-February-2024/Duty/. Intern scholars from the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics conducted the primary research, analysis, and writing. They included students from these areas of study Environmental and Sustainability Studies/ Peace and Conflict Studies, Political Science, Political Science and International Studies, and Business Administration and International Studies. 2. Fellows of the American College of National Security Leaders met with the National Security Council twice to discuss the American military manning crisis and the ACNSL concept of a presidential commission and series of state, regional, and a presidential conference to arrive at grassroots solutions. ACNSL also examined the work of the Commission on Military, National, and Public Service and provided their insights on the findings of the Commission. In May, Vice Admiral Kevin Green, US Navy, Retired; Major General Peter S. Cooke, US Army, Retired; Major General Margaret C. Wilmoth, US Army, Retired; and Major General Dennis Laich, US Army, Retired, represented the American College of National Security Leaders at the US Army War College's Civ-Mil Conference. They spoke about two ACNSL papers prepared for the ACNSL by CW4 Mike Roulier, US Army, Retired and Dianna Carson, Colonel, US Army, Retired: * Systemic Shortcomings of the All-Volunteer Force Model that Adversely Affect America's National Security * The Potential Long-Term Effects of Compromises to Recruit Quality and Senior Leader Decision-Making About National Defense, and 3. Hinckley Scholar Connor Brown, Writing and Rhetoric/ Political Science, carried out original research and analysis of military sub-Reddits, examining their commentary about recruiting and retention. His key findings were as follows and are consistent with the Department of Defense's JAMRS Futures Survey: The foremost concern revolves around the urgent need for better mental health assistance, reduction of stigmas, and the implementation of robust suicide prevention programs. Financial issues, including perceptions of being underpaid, managing finances, and recruiter transparency, emerge as significant stressors affecting military personnel. Burnout, exacerbated by staffing shortages and extended deployments, poses a considerable threat to the well-being and morale of service members. Marital and relationship stressors, stemming from frequent relocations and deployment separations, underscore the complex dynamics within military families. The pervasive issues of harassment and hazing culture within the military raise alarms about the erosion of trust and cohesion within units, necessitating ongoing reforms and cultural shifts. Reservists face unique challenges in maintaining civilian employment and job stability, highlighting the need for greater support mechanisms and legislative protections. Additionally, while some issues emerged with lower instances, they underscore the diversity of concerns within the military community, including difficulties in expressing a desire for early contract termination, challenges with recruitment due to MHS GENESIS disqualifications, and disparities in assignments, pay, and promotion equality within the Air Force.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 58.7%; rating input score 59
• Program expense ratio: 49.7%; rating input score 50

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

• Operating margin: -18.2%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.04; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 44.6%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: -28% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: -9% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings