The first public hearing of a new House Armed Services Committee panel charged with improving servicemember quality of life dove into a recent report on the awful living conditions inside military barracks – a threat to readiness, morale, and the overall health of the all-volunteer force (AVF).

“Mold in the barracks makes me feel expendable – like I don’t matter,” one servicemember told the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which compiled a report replete with pictures of sewage backed up in bathrooms, mold-covered rooms, and broken air conditioning units. Installation commanders felt sick over the conditions and cited impossible decisions with limited resources as their cause, the report states.

[TAKE ACTION: Contact Your Legislators and Urge Them to Improve the Quality of Life of Our Troops]

Conditions in the barracks did not surprise senior installation leaders from the Army, Navy, or Air Force, who testified Sept. 27 before the Servicemember Quality of Life (QOL) Panel. GAO found “chronic underfunding and neglect” led to the issues, as did the cultural problem that “part of the military is toughing it out,” said Elizabeth Field, a director on GAO’s Defense Capabilities and Management team.

“It hurts my heart when I hear other Navy and military parents say that they can’t recommend this job to my kids for these reasons - so we have to do better” said Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA), QoL panel member and a former Navy pilot.

Kiggans was far from the only member of the panel to express her concerns on this issue – one of several housing concerns on MOAA’s list of priorities for the 118th Congress.

“If I had any of these conditions in my barracks, I would have been fired,” stated Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) – chairman of the QoL panel, MOAA member, and a retired Air Force brigadier general.

How Did We Get Here?

The centralization of management for barracks and installation facilities began across the services more than two decades ago, with the goal of freeing unit commanders from the burdens of facility management and maintenance. Before that, company commander and first sergeant teams were responsible for the property accountability and maintenance of their barracks, and were graded on these in the command inspection program.

Centralization of installation facilities removed control and accountability from unit level leaders; issues with the barracks became the installation’s problem. The result: The Army saved $4.5 billion on its “installation management mission” in 2006 compared with 2003 costs, according to an official history of Army Installation Management Command – savings that likely resulted from deferred maintenance and deteriorating living conditions.

This is an all-too-familiar story, and is similar to other initiatives aimed at centralizing a large military enterprise in order to achieve cost savings, uniform standards, and improved management of limited resources.

[WATCH THE TESTIMONY: An Update on Unaccompanied Military Housing and the Military Housing Privatization Initiative]

No Quick Fix

The FY 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) required DoD to commit a minimum investment of 5% of Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) funds for the barracks through FY 2026. GAO was unable to confirm whether 5% of FRSM funds had been invested into barracks because of the way DoD aggregates installation funds.

When Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) asked why the services couldn’t “fence” off funding for the barracks, an Air Force witness said, “We need the flexibility.” 

Jacobs responded, “We all like flexibility, but clearly the barracks are not the priority.”

What’s Next?

GAO visited a pilot program for privatized barracks during the study but found privatization can be more costly by relying on the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), and more problematic with a force that frequently leaves for long periods of training and deployment. The QoL panel expressed concerns over family housing and the long-term financial viability of the Military Housing Privatized Initiative (MPHI). Leaders acknowledging BAH forecasts will require further MHPI investment and maintenance challenges.  

The House and Senate versions of the FY 2024 NDAA includes several MOAA-supported provisions that aim to establish standards and inspection plans, and to improve the overall quality of military barracks. And DoD has indicated that its next budget request will include a multiyear investment strategy seeking additional sustainment dollars for military barracks.

A Matter of Priority

GAO found that Installation leaders often do not even request the funding required for barracks maintenance, GAO found, as the request don’t fare well against other activities deemed “mission critical.” Changing what DoD categorizes as “mission critical” may require legislation.

The recent report shows the extent of a long, sad trend – according to a 2018 essay on military installations from The Heritage Foundation, DoD had 23% of its facilities in poor condition and a maintenance backlog of $116 billion.

[RELATED: TRICARE Fixes, Restored Benefits, and More: Read MOAA’s NDAA Priority List]

In his work published exactly five years ago, John Conger, former principal deputy under secretary of defense (Comptroller), wrote that if the installation situation continued “along its current trajectory, it would be dilapidated, understaffed, underfunded, and underutilized. Just like a car owner who chooses to save money by choosing not to change the oil, the nation will have to pay a much larger price down the line.”

Those costs are coming due. Ask your lawmakers to step up and provide the necessary funds and oversight to improve servicemembers’ quality of life.